Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 07-20-99 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia July 20, 1999 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Minutes of the June 15, 1999 Meeting PUBLIC HEARING 2) Variance #04-99, for Panache Catering, submitted by Peter and Michelle Brogger, for a 24.5' front yard setback variance for an existing residence. The property is located 152 Lusitano Lane, and is identified with Property Identification Number 83 -A -19C in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 3) Other i C� MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Rent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on June 15, 1999. PRESENT: Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District; James Larrick, Jr.,Vice Chairman, Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Gilbank Hamilton, Shawnee District STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator; Christopher M. Mohn, Planner II; Kris C. Tierney, Planning and Development Director; Carol Cameron, Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 125 p.m. MINUTES OF MAY 18. 1999 On a motion made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the minutes for the May 18, 1999 meeting were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARIN Application #03-99, Appeal by Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. of the decision requiring the provision of curb and gutter and appropriate surface materials within the parking lot of an Industrial Park pursuant to Section 165-27E of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located on Shady Elm Road, adjacent to the Tri -County OIC, and is identified with Property Identification Number 63-A-60 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - DENIED Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator, read the background information and explained staff's position for the recommendation to affirm the decision made by this office. Bringing the Board's attention to a copy of the site plan for Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. which set up on a tripod at the front of the room, Mr. Ruddy pointed out various aspects of the area surrounding the site. Using photographs of surrounding properties, he pointed out that Dawson Investments, Valley Biomedical, Coral Graphics, Corrugated Container, Moxon Timbers and General Electric all have curb and gutter in place and appropriate paving. American Woodmark and Coca Cola, which are under Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 15,1999 Minutes Book Page 1047 development at this time, will also have curb and gutter and paving that meet the current standards. Mr. Ruddy stated that the Tri -County OIC building is the only exception and does not have curb and gutter or paving because at the time of development in 1987, the current standards were not in place. Since there are still more lots to be developed in this industrial park, staff feels that Valley Plastics, Inc. should develop their property in conformance with the surrounding properties and with the intent of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ruddy stated that the waiver of the master development plan requirement in no way exempted the applicant from the parking lot standard requirements. Staff asks the Board to reaffirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Robert Mitchell, attorney for the Board of Zoning Appeals, came forward and addressed the Board. He stated that after thoroughly reviewing the case, his opinion was that staff was correct in granting the master development waiver and in requiring the applicant to meet the current parking lot standards for development within an industrial park. Mr. Larrick asked Mr. Mitchell for clarification on the point of the master development plan waiver and definition of an industrial park, as opposed to an approved site plan being in place. Mr. Mitchell replied that either plan's requirements would apply in respect to the original development, and that the waiver was equivalent to a master development plan being approved for this site. Mr. Greg St. Ours, attorney for Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc., introduced himself. He also stated that Mr. Jim Lantz, President of Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc., and Mr. Stephen Gyurisin of G.W. Clifford & Associates, design engineers for the applicant, and Mr. Pete Lebel of Lantz Construction. Mr. St. Ours stated that he wanted to make three points up front: 1) wanted offer thanks and appreciation to the Planning Department staff, 2) wants to focus on the Zoning Ordinance and the question regarding definitions; 3) the site itself and how Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. wants to build an attractive and functional site. Mr. St. Ours stated that of the 22 points that Mr. Mohn listed in his letter to the applicant regarding site plan requirements, their concern was with only one and that was the one concerning curb and gutter. The applicant's entire argument rests on what is the definition of an industrial park. The applicant does not believe the site qualifies because Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. is a single use, not "two or more uses" as described in the Ordinance. Based on this point, and since there is no master development plan for this development and no roads [per se], they should not be required to meet the same standards. Mr. St. Ours continued by pointing out various aspects of the site plan displayed that the applicant intends to build an attractive and functional site that will be harmonious with the area. Although Tri -County OIC has no curb and gutter, other properties have a mix such as Moxon Timbers, General Electric, Valley Biomedical, etc. He mentioned a comparison with the Airport Business Center which also has mixed uses and pointed out that it was a very attractive site. Mr. St. Ours pointed out that the applicant has proffered to asphalt the property within three years of receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. He reminded the Board that the applicant is a small company and building this new building is a huge step [financially] for them. He said that building has already begun. Mr. Larrick asked about the understanding that a waiver of an approved master development plan is the same as having one. Mr. St. Ours disagreed with Mr. Mitchell's conclusion on that point. Mr. Larrick then asked if the applicant was taking advantage of staff's waiver of the master development requirement which was done with the intention of expediting the development process. Mr. St. Ours reiterated that it was not their intention to circumvent the Ordinance or read anything into the Ordinance. Also, Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. had nothing to do with Jasbo or the waiver of a master development plan; they came into the picture afterwards. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 15,1999 2 Minutes Book Page 1048 Chairman Sempeles asked if the proffer [future paving] could be achieved in less than three years; Mr. St. Ours replied that due to the applicant's cash flow situation, less than three years is probably unrealistic. Mr. Larrick questioned the Board's authority to accept proffers. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, design engineer with G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., discussed the site plan process. He said their firm has dealt with this issue before and cited Federal Express (Airport Business Center) as a prime example. He then showed slides of various properties and the parking lot treatments, curb and gutter or lack thereof (curb stops), etc. Discussion followed with questions from the Board such as whether future road widening is planned, right-of-ways, prime and seal requirement becoming a part of the Ordinance on February 14, 1990; more recent development requires paving with curb and gutter; how important is the proffered time requirement and how the bonding system works, etc. Mr. St. Ours told the Board that Eileen Baker of Tri -County OIC has no problem with Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. locating next door and using only prime and seal for the parking area. Mr. Mitchell spoke again in an effort to keep the discussion on track. He stated that the issue at hand is whether the Zoning Administrator made a correct decision and not whether or not the site is in an industrial park. As far as the Board accepting a proffer, that is not the issue either; however, Mr. Mitchell's opinion is that the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot accept proffers; this is a function of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gyurisin spoke again regarding many of the positive improvements that Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. has offered to make which are not even required. He said that ever since he has been working with these projects, the decision of whether a property is an industrial park is established when the master development plan is approved; not by a decision made by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. St. Ours spoke once again regarding definitions, insisting that this was the real question. He repeated their arguments as stated previously. Mr. Kris C. Tierney, Director of Planning and Development, gave the Board the background information on the Jasbo property and how it came about that there was no master development plan. The waiver was done at the request of G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. as a means to expedite development at the site. Mr. Tierney stated that he had the authority to do so and felt it was appropriate in this case; however, it does not excuse the requirement for paving and curb and gutter. He further stated that the applicant is not disputing that; they are disputing whether or not they are in an industrial park. Staff's position is that they clearly are. Mr. Tierney told the Board that the waiver was granted in an effort to work with the land owner and that the real issue at hand is money; the applicant does not want to spend the money on the required improvements but this is an argument that any small company could make. Mr. Tierney repeated his assertion that in waiving the master development requirement, he did not suddenly make this property to be anything other than an industrial park; it is an industrial park. No one else was present to speak for or against the variance request; therefore, the public hearing was closed. DISCUSSION Mr. Rinker asked what the importance of curb and guttering was. Mr. Ruddy replied that Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 15,1999 Minutes Book Page 1049 aesthetics and durability was certainly one reason but, more importantly, was the issue of stormwater management. Chairman Sempeles asked again about the future four-laning and any impending impacts, and whether denying this appeal would mean that existing sites had to upgrade. Chairman Sempeles asked if curb and gutter was for beautification purposes; Mr. Ruddy replied that this was the standard set by the Board of Supervisors for development in an industrial park and that it was staff's job to uphold their decisions. Mrs. Catlett asked if there were any other properties since 1990 that have not been required to provide curb and gutter. Mr. Larrick made points regarding the Planning Director's intention when he granted the waiver, and the definitions governing site plans and industrial parks. Mr. Rinker said that he was on the Board of Supervisors when the new standards were passed and gave some insight as to the Board's intent at that time. Although the public hearing portion was closed, Mr. Jim Lantz asked if he could speak. He told the Board that the issue was about money and that it would cost his company $85,000 for paving and curb and gutter. He stated that he did not set out to buy property in an industrial park. A motion was made by Mr. Larrick that the decision made by the office of the Planning Director and the Zoning Administrator was correct in this case and the appeal application should be denied; the motion was seconded by Mrs. Catlett. The motion passed by the following majority vote: AYES (to deny the appeal): Mr. Larrick, Mrs. Catlett, Mr, Hamilton NO (against the denial): Mr. Rinker and Chairman Sempeles BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby deny Application 903-99 of Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. to appeal the decision requiring the provision of curb and gutter and appropriate surface materials within the parking lot of an Industrial Park pursuant to Section 165-27E of the Zoning Ordinance. Variance Application #02-99 of King's Plumbing & Heating, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., for a 3.2 -foot front yard setback variance for a front porch. This property is located at 109 Orion Court, and is identified with Property Identification Number 55J-1-1-13 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED Mr. Chris Mohn read the background information and showed the Board photographs of the property and the house with the porch. Mr. Scott Marsh, of Marsh & Legge Surveyors, told the Board that contractors are humans and that mistakes will be made. Mr. Ruddy and Mr. Larrick reminded Mr. Marsh that the same type of mistake was made recently and that the Board issued a warning to the development community that they would not be used indiscriminately to correct their mistakes. Mr. John Trenary, Chief Building Inspector for Frederick County, explained that there Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 15,1999 1i Minutes Book Page 1050 was a third party inspector involved in this case, and that there are other issues that have not yet been resolved. Mr. Larrick asked for clarification on the "tickets" used by inspectors. Sherry Slonaker, who with her fiance has a contract on the house, told the Board that they put a lot of time and money into the house already and they were not concerned with how much money it might cost the builder to fix his mistake. She spoke in great detail on how much effort had gone into the planning process and asked the Board not to penalize them for something they had nothing to do with. Mr. Richard Simpson, Ms. Slonaker's fiance, also spoke and told the Board basically the same thing: don't punish us for the contractor's mistake; we did everything we were supposed to do. Mr. Joel Stowe, contractor and real estate agent, told the Board that the mistake was his fault and apologized for the inconvenience it had caused so many people. Mr. Chuck Maddox (of G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.), who was still present from the previous appeal, offered his opinion that as a professional planner, a front setback offered aesthetics and a feeling of space but on a cul-de-sac a different situation is presented. The difference is in the site distance which is not a special concern in this case. Mr. Larrick asked Mr. Stowe if this was the same case he was involved in previously; he then excused himself. On a motion made by Mr. Rinker to approve the variance and seconded by Mr. Hamilton, the variance was approved by the following majority vote: AYES: Mr. Rinker, Mr. Hamilton, Chairman Sempeles NAYS: Mrs. Catlett ABSTAINED: Mr. Larrick BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve Variance Application #02-99 of Ding's Plumbing & Heating, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., for a 3.2 -foot front yard setback variance for a front porch. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. by unanimous consent. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 15,1999 5 Respectfully submitted, Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman Carol I. Cameron, Secretary Minutes Book Page 1051 BZA REVIEW DATE: 07/20/99 VARIANCE #04-99 PETER AND MICHELLE BROGGER (Panache Catering) LOCATION: The property is located at 152 Lusitano Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 83 -A -19C PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, Land use - Residential and Cottage Occupation with Conditional Use Permit (#008-97) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas); Uses: Residential, Agricultural, and Vacant VARIANCE: 24.5 -foot front yard setback variance for an existing dwelling. REASON FOR VARIANCE: See attached letter of justification. STAFF COMMENTS: Within rural preservation subdivisions in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, the front yard setback from the right-of-way of an existing private access easement is 45 feet. The existing three-story dwelling was constructed in violation of this requirement as it is located 20.5 feet from the Lusitano Lane right-of-way, therefore, a 24.5 -foot front yard setback variance has been requested. The as -built plat submitted with the application, in conjunction with an inspection of the site, confirmed that the subject dwelling is located within the required front yard setback area. It is evident that the precise location of the Lusitano Lane right-of-way was misjudged during construction of the dwelling. Ironically, this encroachment occurred despite the unique design ofthe structure, which was specifically employed to accommodate the narrow dimensions of the parcel's buildable area. The dwelling is presently occupied by the applicants. Following their discovery of the subject encroachment, the applicants informed staff of the issue and requested assistance regarding possible means of resolving the violation. Staff advised the applicants that every effort should be made to correct the problem through cooperative arrangements with Peter and Michelle Brogger Variance #04-99 July 13, 1999 adjoining property owners prior to pursuit of a variance. Specifically, it was noted that the building restriction line could be adjusted through either the relocation or termination of the private access easement. The viability of such alternatives was ultimately dependant upon the willingness of adjoining property owners to permit the necessary modifications. Following several months of negotiation, the applicants reported to staff that the agreements required to relocate the easement could not be secured. Staff subsequently acknowledged that it was appropriate to seek a variance, as the sole remaining means of resolution involved either relocation or demolition of the dwelling. STAFF CONCLUSION: The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2)(a), states that no variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce an undue hardship approaching confiscation. In this case, it is arguable that a hardship approaching confiscation does not exist as the subject property is capable of accommodating the footprint of the existing residential dwelling in conformance with all applicable setback standards. Indeed, the hardship identified by the applicants was self-imposed, the result of an unfortunate error. However, it is equally evident that the applicants have diligently pursued resolution of this matter through methods other than the requested variance. Staff is confident that the applicants' efforts to secure agreements with adjoining property owners regarding relocation of the easement were made in good faith. Due to the failure of such efforts and without the requested variance, the applicants will be faced with the prospect of attaining compliance through either the relocation or demolition of the dwelling. O: Wgendas\BZA\COM MENTS\Brogger. V AR VARIANCE #04-99 PIN: 83 -A -19C Panache Catering (All zoning is RA) Produced by Frederick County Planning and Development, 08-21-99 1) Peter and Michelle Brogger 152 Lusitano Lane Middletown, VA 22645 540-869-2090 Frederick County Variance Board To Whom It May Concern: My husband and I are first time owners of anything. We were very excited about finally owning some property and building our home. We found what we thought was a beautiful location and also was in our price range. We worked very hard improving the property and then began to build our home. Unfortunately because we are new at this, we were naive when it came to dealing with sellers, lawyers and the difficulties that can arise in owning and building When we first looked at the property and met with the sellers we were given a plat and told that we would own to the other side of the abandoned country road referred to as Old Minebank Rd. It was explained to us that an easement would run through this area to allow the sellers to reach their home. (See exhibit 1) We were also told we would share in the maintenance of this road. We did not have any concerns about it and felt that it was fair. Later, after meeting with our lawyer and real estate agent we were told we did not own the road but only half of it. The other half was supposed to be owned by Haymaker LC but that it did not limit our access to it. We accepted this information at closing on the land but we were surprised that all of the sudden things had changed right before closing. We were given a new plat and unfortunately our lawyer and real estate agent did not see the changes and report them to us. (See exhibit 2) We began to build our home and after carefully measuring from what was told to us was our property line we put in our foundation and began to build. Months later the bank requested a wall check survey and we confidently accepted this and hired Anderson and Assoc. to do the wall check. (See exhibit 4) We were shocked to find out that we had been misled and that the property line was in fact 20 feet closer to our home. At this point there was no turning back. We contacted Mike Ruddy at the planning office to try and figure out how to resolve this. He suggested we do everything possible to try and buy a small section from Haymaker LC to allow as to move our building restriction line and not have to try and get a variance. We did contact Haymaker LC and they agreed to sell us a small section, which would have solved this problem. We paid a new lawyer (.loan Fine), to draw up the papers for this transaction at quite a large expense. We also had a new survey done to show Haymaker LC how tittle property we were asking for. This was another large expense. After the papers were ready to be signed the Haymaker LC changed their minds and would not sign. We also tried to negotiate with them for just moving the easement but they had decided at this point that they did not want to be involved in our problem. The Marlboro Land 'frust of course had no problems with this but they were not the people who we needed to sign. The Marlboro Land Trust again told to us that we did in fact own to the middle of the road and they produced some documents to show that the road was in fact divided between us and haymaker LC. (See exhibit 3) When we spoke again with the surveyor and our lawyer we were told perhaps there had been an error in the past from another surveyor or that perhaps the road had moved after so many years. We then requested a meeting with the Marlboro Land Trust. We were told they would meet with us to discuss this problem. But just moments before it was scheduled to begin, it was cancelled by them and they refused to discuss either moving the easement at our expense or terminating it completely as was a suggestion made by the planning and zoning commission. Peter and I walked the road and noticed that there were large virgin trees lining the road so we felt it couldn't have moved very much. I invite you to please come look and see if you agree. We have tried every means possible to try and correct this mistake but we have had no luck. We have spent a lot of money trying to resolve this in any way possible but to no avail. Our home is now built and we are living in it. We love our home and feel great about finally having something that is ours that we can take care of and love. But this problem with the building restriction line hangs over our heads and keeps us up at night worrying about our next step. We tried to avoid asking for a variance at all costs but it was not to be. So it is with deep regret that I must ask you to help US. We realize now that we were too ignorant of the variables of real estate to be smart about our purchase and building. We have to accept responsibility even though we were misled down so many paths. I know that we are asking for something that is difficult for the county but we are also hoping that you will have some mercy upon us and grant us this variance. We never intentionally tried to do anything wrong. We were absolute in efforts to meet all the county requirements and felt that we had, until we were surprised to find that we had been misled and so all these errors fall on our backs. I know that you will consider all the facts and I hope that we can find a way to keep our home. We are devastated at the possibilities and do not know which way to turn. Please Delp us keep our home. We have worked so hard on it and basically built it ourselves to save money and so we could make sure we had a beautiful well- built place to live. f don't know what other choices we have but to throw ourselves on your mercy and hope for the best. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration. Very Sincerely, b"I?\ t vg BK834PGQ529 , F'f 00 /4;6�t�f,6 LC) S, s ps 00 _ o, F cr) 50 4ry Noe Ln x FF' Cb Ln tn (n w o ti (P � � rJ�gatt'oe"k/ . 47, ifs52Q03,•� IZ34Z� �' �:.. l �'ra� lttQ 38 6 ,� 0 , �° �` PMARGARET E, SCC J t� ; SUItt; o+' N y ks, < J a U 7 ie FrOPOeeu ncr OC!lit eCr,O:ri^7 TO ::r� v All v o p o; an,� na4 oe maintained ;h� vi clr;r A7 p1 jil SvFar'tmenr Ot {r'a - pi'?a[1]n Ct" rrojPrlrt: C-0un[+• Tna l^prndeme'lr a dnp maiken;n_c 0 ;ajr; O'1✓aWdV _nall Le tf1e _f 1P I'o5q[n_1C1::1_ v 'he lug s which AY' Pr0';10e'� w;th aCr�cc via owner: ei it'IV2WaV. Sa.10 Or'1''w3V w]it nat be COn ltloran rnr' 1nC Ln 111S10n 1nlG ✓ —�" rnnp3r'v 5Vete�! until they meet the apPii[able r.he State -e-- �nn,ir'iuCtl0n STa.nCd''75 0' '1!r4inia uPPar'tmpnt of ira.nsportat�hyit 1'J _ e STanaard= -;•gyp cngt. 0' Dr';rigir7 5a;0 J^ivewd'; t0 a�CERtab;_ KT Gs - oe Oralne Gr' ;n°_ '• lr'atnl ua.r eptm?nt Ot Trdn'•ROt'4atlOn CjCAL� t "' WOO nCt Q - P F- too DATE: NOV. SCALE: It''= LOO' tiit, 1 1 0dr -� J,0 M. - - SO �a 0 10 y 1 / SMlz T ` tL CD �C9 M W 98 N h � w _7: ULL / z > o w Go cr. o �.�. t'tav>;�! teas E r-fro��sT�Es mCt;�KIGK LOUIL ► l 7 Q .1 �-f. X027 T2 F, 0.3 SCOTT SURVEYS STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 DATE: -J v uY 2s, 1�� 7 SCALE.- [ ptnb -rQu-q^ — — — / Reserve Area / Draln Feld / l Eascanery 1 3Cl: w Z o 355 yj 56, Ty LEON E. TREUTLE o.20 o� "�/'L _ S 1, LEON E.TREUTLE. A DULY CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LAND STANDS /N THE NAME OF PETER J. AND MICHELLE BROG R. FOUND AMONGST THE LAND RECORW F RICK OUNTY• VIRGINIA —L . 8 NOTES: I. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHONN HEREON MAY EXIST. 2. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. AEANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 7722 MIDDLETOWN, VIRGINIA 22645 Phone :(540) 869-2501 Fox :(540) 869-2625 N7F E.Y. MARY ROSE AND BEVERLY T. ROBINSON Tax Map 83-A-19 Residential RA F+ h y� / LOT 1 ��� / 2.1273 Acres�� , _ / A \ 0- / r / / Rt• 627 Gnpa1 Rd / o,:D Co "i m ti / / Qts � �r`w• p 5zo q.79, 08• RA Grv. Ent. J 8RL • Bulldtng Restrldlon Une IRF IRF • Iron Rod Found IRF 58/J !6'W • )-rap" Line 90BO, Lot Une wltA 5anW Avner WALL CHECK SURVEY OF THE LANDS OF PETER J. & MICHELLE BROGGER D.B. 886 Pg.671 8/3l/98 Opequon Moglsterlal D15trict of Frederick County.Vlrg/nla Tox Map No. 83 -A -19-C 100 50 0 /00 200 SCALE IN FEET (/'- 59) �1, 0 /34.7' 1 9 P 4J 5 �1 //OPS Q` 5 k 4� �t Q� A o•t t S 33 / 7' wNX R �-- —~- -- D 7 OAS --ABANDONS _ OLD DAILY BOQK '364 rAcE 3i0 300'?00'/00' O j .TOO'. •d'00' Lh SCAL E /N FEET N � b & 10 R OA p,_ JYO: 627 8.8 eo ti 1� 3", 4 � e JJOHNH. Durdr��, J�.•. to - -s- O CLOTCN 6, // WLLIAM H. MCCOY, III j 00 N,y6'49't, 9 59.46 ACRES / 0 /34.7' 1 9 P 4J 5 �1 //OPS Q` 5 k 4� �t Q� A o•t t S 33 / 7' wNX R �-- —~- -- D 7 OAS --ABANDONS _ OLD DAILY 1. 75 t io 6. e' i 0 1 PEE � q DRAIP,) F-ICLO i l � I N M � � 3p WIC -Li- 4- ol 1 / ZsT•�� r� v T f�i'f f)4.7..c.� ('USM✓, r, o `, J Page I of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ( E' "°°' IN THE JUN 16 1999 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA MIIST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INR - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: NAME .7&�S i+j i Cl4e UA&r ADDRESSLuSt-iapiD LgLig. 1A�ti dct ta.� VA M451 TELEPHONE: J5wd 1405 -'ZO4a OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): FvrOm MddW+own on 1.+•i i h -e n Sa h : `rdrh Wcsf 040 est r�Go down L s 4o -no L a-m,,L -+4 t Gt r i �.e, wcwa ar► ct {� n u.�-e. a n _tea Ind 4. The property has a vead frentaue feet and a depth of feet and consists of .7.1,273 acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by'! ;-kms and 1til chfit'- -8r'0gWX - as evidenced by deed from KAdtej baro La d Tri+ _ recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. on page 0(0-1 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. Page 2 of 5 JUN 199 6. Magisterial District: `a& Crexk- DEPT, OFPL4NNI G T 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 83-A— % Q [„ 8. The existing zoning of the property is: RA 9. The existing use of the property is:1'eSjden4rdI Horne. &Srn1t,55 10. Adjoining Property: USE Z9NING North ri r East (V ase South rAsi Paha-t RA West A U r icr,Ul,tuP-t. _jQA 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two car garage.") r r back, 4h e. 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of property, or exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of property, or I the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto 13. Additional comments, if any page 3 of 5 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the variance is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notifd by mail of this application: O z���- NAME EVIL ' braloui_ Trus+ Address 19a Chace l Lar, e.. , ; df d I �. u W! ,.2ob►Son) E" %^ltgy`(/ %zQ Se} %r`G(jf�riS 1%(+� , ( (t Property ID# — — i / ccc NAME W- Address_' l l Or'diard A" . , W I'4d t 5 % Property ID# — A — � '% VA o?a4© l r NAME ' Address a.. Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address NAME Address Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property IN Address Address NAME Address. Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property IN Address Address Page 4 of 5 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. GLn ct Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application, and petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to grant a variance to the terms of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions for the variance required by the BZA I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the property for site inspection purposes. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the BZA public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road or right-of-way until the hearing. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT y DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION: BZA_ CHAIRMAN