The URL can be used to link to this page

BZA 06-15-99 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia June 15, 1999 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Minutes of the May 18, 1999 Meeting PUBLIC HEARING 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) Other MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on May 18, 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; Carol Cameron, Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sempeles called the meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1999 Action - Re-election of Chairman Sempeles as Chairman The nomination of Mr. Sempeles was made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Larrick. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously re-elect Manuel Sempeles, Jr. as Chairman of said Board for 1999. Action - Re-election of James Larrick, Jr. as Vice Chairman The nomination of James Larrick, Jr. was made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Sempeles. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board ofZoning Appeals does hereby unanimously re-elect James Larrick, Jr. as Vice Chairman of said Board for 1999. Catlett. Action - Re-election of Carol Cameron as Secretary The nomination of Carol Cameron was made by Mr. Larrick and seconded by Mrs. BE TT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 18,1999 Minutes Book Page 1044 -2 - hereby unanimously re-elect Carol Cameron as Secretary of said Board for 1999. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 1998 On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Larrick, the minutes for the December 15, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Variance #01-99 of Donald and Edith Culp for a 20 -foot rear yard setback variance, and a 15 -foot side yard setback variance for the placement of a manufactured home on their property. The property is located at 563 Woods Mill Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 55 -A -127B in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION - DENIED Mr. Christopher Mohn, Planner II, read the background information and presented photographs of the property for the Board's review. Staff's conclusion is that the new dwelling could be placed on the property in conformance with applicable setback standards but would likely require the removal of the existing residence prior to construction. Mr. Donald Culp and his wife Edith came to the podium and told the Board that they would like to place a new home on the lot, and that they felt that the hardship is in having to tear the existing house down before placing the new home. They argued that the slope of the land is too steep to place the home where the Planning staff suggested, due to the location of the drainfield. Mr. Culp said that they attempted to obtain a boundary line adjustment from his neighbor, Mr. Wilkins, but was unable to do so. Mr. Larrick asked why the house could not be moved in the additional 15 feet in order to comply with the 50 -foot setback. Mr. Culp answered that, again, it was because of the slope. He said that the pictures were misleading and did not show the actual steepness of the slope. Mr. Rinker asked if the front of the new house would be facing toward the existing house; Mr. Culp replied that it would, that it would be facing towards the corner. Mrs. Catlett asked ifthe existing house was sitting on top ofthe drainfield; Mr. Culp said that it was not but it was only 32 feet long. In-depth discussion followed regarding various alternatives for placing the new home, with the Culps contending that the hardship was in having to move their belongings to another location, tear the present house down, place the new home on the property, then retrieve their belongings and move them into the new home. Although staff acknowledged that this was not the best scenario for the Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 19, 1999 Minutes Book Page 1045 -3- Culps in terms of convenience, they repeated that it was not justification for granting a variance. Mr. Michael Ruddy, Zoning Administrator, showed the Culps on the drawing provided how the house could be re -situated and still be within applicable setback requirements. Mr. Hamilton commented that the grade was only 10% which he did not feel was that severe. No one else was present to speak for or against the variance request. DISCUSSION There was little discussion by the Board other than what had already been discussed during the public hearing, Mr. Larrick stated his opinion that according to the Code of Virginia, the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have much leeway in these cases. Mr. Rinker said that the setback lines originally established with this lot (as Al -zoned property) should be "grandfathered." Mr. Ruddy replied that setbacks are only vested when shown on a legally recorded plat; however, in this case, there is no plat. Mr. Culp asked what the purpose of the Board of Zoning Appeals was if they were required to go by the "letter of the law." Mr. Larrick and Mr. Rinker replied that the court system sets up rules the Board has to go by and that any decision by the Board could be appealed to the Circuit Court, if the applicant so desired. Mr. Larrick moved for a denial of the variance request on the basis that there is not adequate justification in this situation for a variance to be granted. Mrs. Catlett seconded the motion; which passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning .Appeals does hereby deny Variance �O 1-99 of Donald and Edith Culp for a 20 -foot rear yard setback variance, and a 15 -foot side yard setback variance for the placement of a manufactured home on their property. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Manuel G. Sempeles, Chairman Carol I. Cameron, Secretary Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 18, 1999 Minutes Book Page 1046 i • C� BZA REVIEW DATE: 6/15/99 APPLICATION #03-99 - APPEAL VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS, INC. LOCATION: The property is located on Shady Elm Road, adjacent to Tri -County OIC. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-60 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned - Ml (Light Industrial); Land use - Under development ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned - M1; Land use - Vacant and Industrial Zoned - RA; Land use - Vacant APPEAL: Appeal of the determination made by the office of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Section 165-27E, concerning the requirement for curb and gutter and appropriate surface materials within the parking lot of an Industrial Park. REASON FOR APPEAL: See attached list from applicant stating his basis for appeal STAFF COMMENTS: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved a request from JASBO, Inc. to create a five -lot industrial subdivision on March 10, 1999. A copy of the approved subdivision plat is included with this information. Prior to the industrial development and subdivision of this property, a Master Development Plan [hereafter referred to as an MDP] is required to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The Director of Planning and Development has the ability to waive the requirement for an MDP. In the case of JASBO, Inc., the Director chose to do so, based on an evaluation of the guidelines established in Section 165-123 of the Zoning Ordinance, in order to expedite the development process. Valley Industrial Plastics has recently submitted a Site Development Plan to Frederick County for review and approval. This site plan is currently under review which leads us to the present appeal regarding the provision of appropriate parking lot standards. It is our strong belief that the language Valley Plastics, Inc. Appeal Page 2 June 9, 1999 W.A. intent of the ordnance requires the provision of a parking area paved with either 'concrete, bituminous concrete, or other compatible material, and the provision of curb and gutter in industrial parks such as the JASBO, Inc. development. The goal of the MDP waiver described above was to expedite the development process. In no way was the MDP waiver intended to allow the circumvention of the clear requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as they pertain to parking lot standards in Industrial Parks. The waiver of the Master Development Plan eliminated the need to prepare a plan for review by the County. However, it did not eliminate the need to develop the property in a manner consistent with the requirements of a Master Planned Industrial Park, in particular, the provision of appropriate parking lot standards. In evaluating the waiver guidelines for developments in the MI zoning district, the Director appropriately determined that the proposed industrial development contained no new streets, does not further extend existing or proposed streets, and does not significantly change the layout of existing or proposed streets, nor does it propose a regional stormwater management system. Based upon the recently adopted South Frederick Land Use Plan, future development is not planned to the rear of this development that would make this development an integral portion of future development activities in the area. More importantly, the Director was under the impression that this development would proceed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses in that area ofFrederick Cou= as stated in Section 165-123B(4) of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, that it would not affect the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. An evaluation of surrounding properties indicates that existing facilities such as General Electric, Dawson Investments, Valley Biomedical, Moxon Timbers, Inc., Corrugated Container Corporation, and Coral Graphics all contain paved parking areas and curb and gutter. In addition, developing facilities such as Coca Cola and American Woodmark will contain paved parking areas and provide curb and gutter. The only exception appears to be the Tri -County OIC which is directly adjacent to the Valley Industrial Plastics site. This property does not contain a parking area that is paved to current standards nor is it surrounded by curb and gutter. However, this facility was developed in conjunction with site plan #024-87, at which time only minimal parking lot standards were in effect. A map identifying the surrounding properties has been included for your review. In light of the fact that the JASBO, Inc., industrial park contains four additional 10 -acre lots that are available for industrial development. It is highly appropriate to develop the Valley Industrial Plastics property in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and the clear intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and to ensure the continued development of the remaining properties in a consistent manner. Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. Appeal Page 3 June 9, 1999 STAFF CONCLUSION FOR JUNE 15, 1999 MEETING: Affirmation of the determination made by the office of the Zoning Administrator in the application of parking lot design standards consistent with a master planned industrial park development and the surrounding industrial developments; specifically, the provision of a parking area paved with either concrete, bituminous concrete, or other compatible material, and the provision of curb and gutter. He O:\Agendas\BZA\COMMENTS\VaUcyPlastics.APP O IRS O ZOO O 1qO 2� L t Inch 200 ft. O O I O 1 ,CMF I P E. CO. ' CMF P.E. CO. - 4020'lp'• E 18.21' /RF •PDND PROPOSED 50' LOT 1 INGRESS -EGRESS -I 8.7760 ACRES EASEMENT N 40 41 42" W 1009.35' rrc� N G,1:.-1 104 IRS IRS I N 444022" W-1 LOT 2 198.73' 8.8243 ACRES 1.6836 ACRES TO BE DEDICATED TC THE COMMONWEALTH OF 14RGINIA FOR FUTURE ROAD KgQW69.,_ -- N 44 402— 2W 1195.47' REMAINS OF OLD SHED b �" —OHW-- � OHW �`� �OHW`-- L 0 T J TSHED ,8. 8062 ACRES -- N 444022" W 1186.38� LOT 4 8.8174 ACRES -- N 44 4027.21' -- Delta 085147' L 0 T 5 Tan 63.59 8.7653 ACRES Rad 820.50 Arc 126.92 Chord S 405344" W „„ - .... 126 Rn N 4019157" W 1183.05' _ --'----_ ---71.R GRA VEL IRS ----___-- _ ROAD --- 7R6 V SOLD/ERS REST LANEcRAz ROAD-- 3o R/iz PLAT SHOWING SUBDI14SION OF THE PROPERTY OF JASBO, INC. C DEED BOOK 917 PAGE 1294 BACK CREEK MAG157ERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: JANUARY 29, 1999 SCALE.' 1-200' JOB / 198-835 SHEET 3 OF 3 i C C31 v Z IRS F TH OF (I No. 0019 r0 NORTH LOUDOUN �h. MARSH & L E G G E WIN CHESTER, VIRGINIAS22601 Land Surveyors, P. L C. PHONE 540 667-0468 FAX �540� 667-0469 BZA Appeal: Valley Industrial Plastics . T - Ar \ \ CacaCdla American Waadmatk t General Electric Tri -County CIC Ir" 1 Valley Industrial Plastics ' Valleyl3iamadioat �� y �- � / jDawson Investmorta iii f, JASBO, Inc. Coral Graphics / Corrugated Container Cor S Frederick County Planning and Development I 0.5 0 0.5 Miles Winchester, VA 46 George R. Aldhizer, Jr. Donald E. Showalter Glenn M. Hodge M. Bruce Wallinger William E. Shmidheiser, III Douglas L. Guynn John W. Flora Gregory T. St. Ours Charles F. Hilton Daniel L. Fitch Jeffrey G. Lenhart Mark D. Obenshain Thomas E. Ullrich WHARTON ALDHIZER & WEAVER PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH MASON STREET P. O. Box 20028 IIARRISONBURG, VIRGINIA 22801-7528 TELEPHONE HARRISONBURG (540) 434-0316 STAUNTON (540) 885-0199 FAX (540) 434-5502 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (540) 438-5334 WRITER'S E-MAIL: GSTOURS@WAWLAw.com May 21, 1999 By Telefacsimile and Hand -Delivery (via Stephen Gyurisin) Michael Ruddy, Zoning Administrator Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Carol Cameron, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeal County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Re: Notice of Appeal Valley Industrial Plastics, Inc. Site Development Plan #14-99 Dear Mr. Ruddy and Ms. Cameron: George W. Barlow, III Carolyn Madden Perry Marshall H. Ross G. Chris Brown Phillip C. Stone, Jr. Cathleen P. Welsh G. Rodney Young, II Mark W. Botkin Kevin M. Rose Stephan W. Milo Sheila R. Keesee Jennifer E. Shirkey Walter P. Sowers, II This is a notice of appeal pursuant to Frederick County Code § 165-144(A) from a decision of the Director of Planning and De vele. mert. In short, the Director has decided to require .more than the prime -and -seal noted on the site plan for some portion of the surface of the parking lot and to also require curb and gutter in certain areas of the parking lot as well. The Director first articulated these requirements in comment 20 of the letter, dated April 29, 1999, from Christopher Mohn, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development to Stephen Gyurisin, G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the engineer for Valley Industrial Plastics, which states: Although the double prime and seal treatment constitutes an adequate surface for the portion of the site devoted to truck loading/unloading, the remainder of the parking area must be paved with either concrete, bituminous concrete, or other comparable material. Furthermore, please provide the required curb and gutter along the driveway and parking area(s) on the subject site. The use of concrete wheel stops as a temporary barrier between the Phase 1 parking lot and the future May 21, 1999 Page 2 Phase 2 parking area is not adequate to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Please provide curb and gutter along the boundaries separating these areas and identify the interim condition of the Phase 2 parking area on the site plan.' The Director and Valley Industrial Plastics have attempted to resolve this matter through negotiation earlier this week, but they reached an impasse yesterday afternoon. In order to expedite a decision without waiting for the Director's written requirement and decision (the deadline to note an appeal to appear at the hearing on June 15 is today), they agreed that this appeal may go forward. History and Nature of the Dispute The site is one of five 10 acre lots in a tract located in a zoning district designated M 1 Light Industrial District. When the original developer sought approval to subdivide the tract into five lots, it fell within the scope of Frederick County Code § 165-1222 which requires a Master Development Plan (MDP). The Director, however, waived the MDP requirement under Frederick County Code §165-123(B).3 Valley Industrial Plastics purchased the site from the developer thereafter. ' Mr. Mohn enclosed a copy of the site plan with the April 29 letter marked in red and green indicating areas to be paved with more than prime -and -seal and areas to have curb and gutter. A preliminary MDP and a final MDP shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approval prior to any subdivision or development of property in any of the following zoning districts:. . . M 1 Light Industrial District .... Frederick County Code §165-122(A). M1, EM and M2 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirement of a MDP in the M1 Light Industrial Zoning District ... if the proposed subdivision or development: (1) Includes no new streets, roads or rights-of-way, does not further extend any existing or dedicated street, road or rights-of-way and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated street, road or rights-of-way; (2) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one (1) lot and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems designed to serve more than one (1) lot; (3) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for May 21, 1999 Page 3 In support of comment 20, the Director cited Frederick County Code §165-27(E).' This section specifies, among other things, the surface materials for parking lots and curb and gutter in certain zoning districts (M1 Light Industrial District is not one of these districts) and in areas such as industrial parks. The site, however, does not meet the definition of an industrial park: INDUSTRIAL PARK — A development within the B3 Industrial Transition, M1 Light Industrial or M2 Industrial General Zoning District, containing two or more uses within a single approved master development plan or site plan. Frederick County Code § 165-140. On the one hand, there is no master development plan because it was waived. On the other hand, the site plan provides for only a single use, that is to say by one future development or subdivision; (4) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses; and (5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter. Frederick County Code §165-123(B). Parking lots. Parking spaces ... required for any use in the business or industrial zoning district or required for any institutional, commercial or industrial use in any zoning district shall meet the following requirements: (1) Surface materials. In ... industrial parks, parking lots shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete or similar materials. Such surface materials shall provide a durable, dust- and gravel - free, hard surface. The Zoning Administrator may determine that other hard -surface materials are appropriate for effective stormwater management and efficient maintenance. In other cases, parking lots shall be paved with a minimum of double prime -and - seal treatment or an equivalent surface ... (3) Curbs and gutters. Concrete or rolled asphalt curbing and gutters shall be installed around the perimeter of all parking lots in ... industrial parks. The curbing shall be a minimum of six (6) inches in height. All parking lots shall be included within an approved stormwater management plan. The Zoning Administrator may allow the use of concrete bumpers instead of curbing where such means are necessary to implement the stormwater management plan .... Frederick County Code § 165-27(E) May 21, 1999 Page 4 business or operation, Valley Industrial Plastics, not two or more as set forth in the definition.' The site plan otherwise complies with Frederick County Code § 165-27(E) in that it includes a parking lot with prime -and -seal treatment and an approved stormwater management plan.6 The Director also cited Frederick County Code § 165-123(B)(4) which permits him to waive the MDP if the proposed development is planned or developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land uses.' The properties adjacent to or near the site however, include a variety of parking lot surface treatments and use or non-use of curb and gutter. Proffer Notwithstanding its belief, grounded as it is in the Frederick County Code, that requiring more than prime -and -seal and requiring curb and gutter for some portions of the parking lot is in error, Valley Industrial Plastics proffers as a condition of this appeal that it will pave the portion of the parking lot noted in comment 20 within three years of issuance of a certificate of occupancy and will post a bond with surety for such paving upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Relief Requested For the reasons set forth above, Valley Industrial Plastics respectfully requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals reverse the Director's requirement as memorialized in comment 20. Very truly yours, Ll Gregory urs GTS:nc nmc6740 cc: Kris C. Tierney, Director of Planning and Development Stephen M. Gyurisin, G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. USE - Any purpose for which a lot or structure may be designed, arranged, intended, maintained or occupied or any activity, occupation, business or operation carried on a parcel of land. Frederick County Code § 165-140. See footnote 3, supra ("In other cases, parking lots shall be paved with a minimum of double prime -and -seal treatment or an equivalent surface.... All parking lots shall be included within an approved stormwater management plan."). See footnote 2, supra, Frederick County Code §165-123(B)(4). May 21, 1999 Page 5 Note to Mr. Tierney: As we discussed yesterday, Valley Industrial Plastics submitted a revised site plan yesterday which is intended to account for all comments in the April 29 letter except comment 20. The purpose of this revised submission is to keep construction short of the relevant portion of the parking lot and the curb and gutter on track by requesting approval of the revised site plan except, and expressly reserving, comment 20 and your requirement thereof. By copy of this letter to you, Valley Industrial Plastics acknowledges that submission of the revised site plan is subject to your reservation of comment 20 pending completion of the appeal process, and you may incorporate this note by reference as though it were a notation on the revised site plan itself. BZA REVIEW DATE: 06/15/99 VARIANCE #02-99 KING'S PLUMBING & HEATING LOCATION: The property is located at 109 Orion Court. MAGISTEMAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55J-1-1-13 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance); Uses: Residential and Vacant VARIANCE: 3.2 -foot front yard setback variance for an existing front porch. REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant states that the lot fronts on a cul-de-sac, and the front property line is an arc. The main structure does not encroach. A front porch was added and a portion encroaches into the arc curve of the setback line. STAFF COMMENTS: Within the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, the front yard setback is 35' from the road right-of-way. The existing porch was constructed in violation of this setback requirement as it is located approximately 31.8' from the right-of-way of Orion Court. Therefore, a 3.2' front yard setback variance has been requested. Following inspection of the subject property, staff was unable to identify any unique or extraordinary condition that would preclude the residential development of the site in full conformance with all applicable setback standards. Indeed, as noted by the applicant, the main portion of the dwelling has been successfully constructed on the property without encroachment into the required setback areas. Furthermore, review of the house location survey submitted with this application suggests that ample space exists within the buildable area of the property for the location of the dwelling, as well as both the front porch and rear deck. It is, therefore, evident that the subject encroachment was created exclusively through the error of the builder as the curvature of the front property and setback lines was not accommodated when the front porch was installed. King's Plumbing Page 2 June 7, 1999 It is important to note that the builder in this case contracted with a third party inspector to expedite review of the footers and foundation of the dwelling on the subject property. Such a contractual relationship is permitted by law assuming the inspector follows strict guidelines established by the Frederick County Building Official. Specifically, the third party inspector must evaluate the work of the builder using data generated through the Building and Inspections Department, which is based upon the submitted building permit application and printed on spreadsheets referred to as "tickets." Included in the ticket information are the setbacks applicable to the proposed structure(s). The third party inspector must provide their professional seal and signature on these tickets as confirmation that all requirements and specifications have been met by the builder. According to John Trenary, Frederick County Building Official, the tickets accompanying the building permit application for this property were never retrieved for review by the third party inspector and consequently never returned for final approval with the requisite signature and seal. As the third party inspector functions as an agent of the builder, the responsibility for such negligence and the resulting encroachment is not limited only to the inspector, but is arguably shared by all parties involved in the development of the property. The addition of a front porch to the subject dwelling constitutes an architectural embellishment that is clearly not integral to the reasonable use of the property. It is, therefore, impossible to suggest that the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in this case would result in a hardship approaching confiscation. Indeed, through miscalculation and negligence, the builder and their agent created a self-imposed hardship that may be easily resolved without a variance to the setback requirements of the RP Zoning District. In addition to the solution of complete removal of the porch from the dwelling, the Zoning Ordinance provides the builder with an effective alternative in this case. Specifically, a porch may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the front setback area assuming the length of the porch is limited to less than one-third of the length of the front wall of the dwelling. Thus, through modification of the dimensions of the existing structure, the builder may be permitted to provide a functional porch that also legally encroaches the required front setback area without the requested variance. STAFF CONCLUSION: In this case, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance has not been proven to prohibit the use of the subject property. The hardship identified by the applicant was self-imposed and may be corrected through a variety of options permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. It is the opinion of staff that preventable errors made during the development process through the negligence of either the builder or their agent(s) are not sufficient justification for a variance to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Staff believes that granting the requested variance would be inappropriate as a demonstrable hardship that would significantly restrict the use of the property does not exist. ii a'/ J, i�l'i I-Ong's Ti,i7��i9n71"",i.L 1.jc,,��i.�,i„„Qa v� f 1A-i�Lt=tdon: Achard Kina X2+9078 Old Va�F ev lke~ :iimbur z VA 22-6:5-1 REE: Br�ar=vood .states, Lot 13 esit X2203-`9'0 �.-�i'�i,'� G'Sz47 a, -,d S for Enai i:=��:vt-LL and Ce'n a, o Occv. u-cy Dear MI -r. s ii -As -l- xGn s De” er -� 7 ar tIil dt Jcna S. ro ar„ Building O fidal 703/655-5550` Fax: 703/573-6532 na-"M-,?vtv'� i OC.".urancy can _- iswva_,U: piamrmman"dJ` 7 7 _ r"'' a ral�iai.?r Sir?3rt'.'-- tri a�-d -,v- -,I ri,e—c,••t s�f7, r Ivim -• .t] " � i/�IYG' s V L J� -� s .^ r� 11, 1.4 U, SBC 7 ja 9 b H¢, ?. Eazi e 4•.Ii is 1YLL3 :/e 13n L��'.�?.l�ly 51�nj.�. obi-v��-�L:li+�� J1 1�•1.1::.iS�J. bJ�1 i1 Li.L %•Y :all. dialt1r.se mt slab m- �'RiG'�� y1.G: i~i�. 3'+��.i .'. .�ipo'arL .il !, l"� `+'ems P." �..." ' Y jnno pjev, , and _ , ajl indiuide tai-- IaiiOimation reg7uired within tine Frederick Coim-ry Thild Party r - ev ie �viiC;T. I',am m Se- OR E (MCII.Osed) and, Sem, m 113.2 (1) USBC Double barn board es a&ont deck has SJ not 1c..cated vier suppo S ifl'�..BO Question � {3i1t the �r�roi�ei S3 vPOTt ?r� iSt e'�t2iidin int 'Jiidk veneer. `'�e en -gists are only ti�e iiaale L. Please 3 i z de � ') la / e Lii :a Si aI e7rail3aie this ar.--a foi7�Tii;ter Si: ;J ai3rx fa Section 113.2 (Y) .USBVal Members and Fast-mers Prior to ConceaLmaZut. - a -. eta J?i�yii ,edz� S aa a." windaovvs anu W1?m J-ih.=iiL Lz. Uuprotcct---d himb r shai r�Ot be ex-Prused �n tLese a7 --as. CAB -ND 703.1 9 N. Loudoun Street �^.<g,1. -' 2 61 King Letter P. -age, b A icimTecti%n cf the c :=nem' or, ApaJ 2.0_ 1990 c n5=-, ed hat the -,.I`airtRe haS ucen e,--,-,,end-,d to the back of the lot and appears to be k o 31ia-m— Please resuvie itei"s 41 and #% In order to obtal"u a tee.: rraay Cert& -cute of Cccap ancy. 'lease be aware the albove is subject. to appeal under Ser -don 121 of the USBU. I you have any questions please ,fie me a call at (540) 665-5656. Sincerely, Akbn S. Tranary, P� Building Code 0 � JST/jao cv: Ed Strawsyn- der, P-daRc'Viorks DeparY-men ale - T li E71BPECTION POLICY PAGE MO 4, Documentation of Inspections - Reports and Forms A_ All third party inspections shall be documented in writing and presented to the Building Code Official within frie (5) calendar days after performing the inspection(s)- B. Inspections shall be documented on a standardized progress form which shall include the following- -name of permit holder job location permit number —date of request --date of inspection —inspector's signature —type of inspection —time in and out of site —weather and temperature property setbacks —corrections, if any Third party inspectors shall leave an approval sticker' or correction order on the site consistent with approved procedures. . 7— C. - C. Notices of violation, stop work orders, etc. shall be issued by the Building Code Official only. Third party inspectors may submit such reports to the Building Code Official for review action. All inspections shall be submitted and presented to the Building Code Official, or a designated agent, for review and acceptance. All third party inspections shall be considered final upon acceptance of the required reports by the Building Code Official if performed by an approved third party agency or inspector according to the intent of the Uniform Statewide Building Code. qee April 26, 1999 Mr. John Trenary Frederick County Building Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Foundation Inspections Single -Family Dwelling Briarwood Estates - Lot #13 Frederick County Building Permit #2283-98 Dear Mr. Trenary, This letter is to confirm that Ruckman Engineering did perform foundation inspections at the above referenced dwelling. The foundation inspections included the following: footings, concrete wall forms, draintile, basement slab, and garage slab. All of the foundation inspections were found to be in accordance with the approved construction drawings and the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. I hope the information provided meets your needs at this time. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Richard A. Ruckman, P.E. J Compete items 1 and/or 2 %^ additional serricas. I also ','/iSh t0 rocelve the a a cami7ete items 2. following services (!or an a Print your name .. r, the reverse of this form so that we can return iihis e:dra fee): card io ou. } a Allach < ' the mailpiece, or on the hack if space does not 1. Addressee's Address z, NMte °Retum Recaj;..-;;quested"on the mailpicro below the artic2 number. ?. ❑ Restricted Delivery ;W ., n The Return Receipt will show to who + a Bred and the date P m the article ry s deliv - I dalivered. C Insultpcs:muc-ter to fee- e v _ '• Article 8. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number r; 73 '1, ' tt '•-, ' f ?--j 4b. Service Type t I L Registered ❑ Certifiied' Y = f ❑Express ?Rail ❑ insured �,,% -- `i. l J l� Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ coo a i ✓, 1 ,i 1 l l' 7. Date of Delivery 5, Received By: (Print Name) e's Address ?03niy if roque tae y paid) 6. Signattue: (,4ddresss or, agent) Erand T PS Form 3911, December 1994 102595-98-B-0229 []f�F};Ct�3 t ten Ii�r in+ z, 'rte I a�I int 1ul� \:�.I 73 S ' tt , I — I 'rl Page 1 of s APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA 1. The applicant is the owner other x (Check one) K , 2. APPLICANT: fir' K �` OCCUPANT: (if different) MARSH & LEGGE LAND •J' NAME: SURVEYORS. P.L.C. NAME: N/A ADDRESS 560 North Loudoun St. ADDRESS: Winchester. VA 22601 TELEPHONE: 540/667-0468 TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): Cul-de-sac of Orion Court at Briarwood Subdivision, lying on the east side of Greenwood Road north of Greenwood Fire Hall. The subject dwellinq is No. 109 Orion Court, Winchester, VA, 22602. 4. The property has a road frontage of 79.5 feet and a depth Of 136.5 feet and consists of 0.37 acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by S H T H n, T n_ as evidenced by )A"*AKgR nppd of Dedication recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 906 on page nn of the deed.";'y ` . books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed.E MAY DEPT.OF PI.ANNINGIDEVELOPMEKi Page 2 of 5 6. Magisterial District: Stonewall 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 55J-1-1-13 8. The existing zoning of the.property is: RP 9. The existing use of the property is: Residential 10. adjoining Property: USE North Residential RP East Residential RP South Residential RP West Residential RP 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.51 rear yard variance for an attached two car garage.") A 3.2' front yard variance for a front porch extendinq the len4th of the house. 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 the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto The lot fronts on a cul-de-sac and the front property line is an Arc. The main structure does not encroach. A front porch was added and a portion encroaches into the Arc curve of the setback line. 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: NAME Marlon A. and Cynthia D. Coffey Address 107 Orion Court Winchester, VA 22602 Property IID# 55 j - i -] -12 NAME SHIHO, Inc. Address Post Office Box 3276 Winchester, VA 226U4 Property II)# 55J-1-1-14 NAME James C and Rosemary Sites Address 104 Orion Court Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 55J-1-1-15 NAME SHIHO, Inc. Property ID# 55J-1-1-16 NAME Bettie E. Winslow Property ED# 55-A-184 NAME Property 1D# NAME Property ID# NAME Property IIs# NAME Property 1D# NAME Property 1D# Address Post Office Box 3276 Winchester, VA 22604 Address 711 G�raPnwnnd Road Winchester, VA 22602 Address Address Address Address Address Rine 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. MARSH & LEGGE LAND/SURVEYORS, P.L.C. SIGNATURE O APPLICANT By.�". !! ,:� DATE May 3, 1999 S of W. Marsh, L.S. SIGNATURE OF ®NVNEIZ DATE -� (if other than applicant) BZA PUBL,IC ]HEARING OF -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - APPROVAL, SIGNED: DENIAL. DATE: ACTION: BZA. CHAULMAN IRs GOR06 P� E o N �75�9'F ELECTRIC ROg 9 TRANSFORMER X15 113oil EX" SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT n 10 6 1 R� / TRS 7ELEPHONL� m L D T 13 "� RISER BOX N 16,012 SO FT r C) C) 0 0 1 41.5' C� o D o v /RSILA G rn cry m -M o 0 AIM m � ' 0 0 —•p�71 N % IRF 1 It-v�Aa � `.- OS,/L TELEPHONE h �\ Fry9 y i RISER BOX Lij 1 / FLOOD RL NOTE.• ZONE: C 60 0 COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 PANEL: 0115 B <> DA 7F- 07-17-78 CUR VE TABLE No. RADIUS ARC TAN ICHORD1 BEARING DEL TA Cl 155.00' 140.81 ' 21.39 39.88 S 62 5931 " E 4230'40" C2 300.00' J8.70'1 19.38' I J8. 68'1 S 875636" E 0773;30" NOTES• "' I 1. NO 777LE REPORT FURNISHED. 2. PROPERTY IDEN 77RCA 77ON NO. 55F-1-1-13. J. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MA Y EXIST. 4. IRF — IRON ROD FOUND IRS — IRON ROD SET BRL — BUILDING RES7RIC7701V LINE 5. DEED OF DED/CA77ON RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 906 AT PAGE 130. 6. THIS LOT IS SUBJECT TO A 20' SLOPE & DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG ORION CT AND A 10' U77LITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES ID 0282 i �i _ill L / HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMA770N SHOWN ON THIS PLA T IS BASED ON AN AC7UAL FIELD SURREY MADE UNDER MY SUPERI9SION ON APRIL 14, 1999 AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR VIS/BLE EASEMENTS UNLESS SHOWN. HOUSE LOCA TION SUR I/EY ON LOT 13 BRIARWOOD ES TA TES DEED BOOK 906 PAGE 139 STONEWALL MAG157ER/AL DIS77VICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE:" APRIL 19, 1999 SCALE- 1'=25' OF IIIA tp- Douglas C. Legi No. 001197 /. ND SURVE�y� MARSH & LEGGE 560 UDOUN STREET TER. WINCHESRTH VIRGINIA Land Surveyor, P.L. C. PH FAX 540) 667-0469