Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 08-15-00 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia August 15, 2000 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Minutes of the July 18, 2000 Meeting PUBLIC HEARING 2) Variance #11-00 of Denny L. Place for a request for an 8 -foot variance to the extension into setback provision [Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-23.F.(3)] to extend the width of an existing front porch. This property is located at 111 Princeton Drive and is identified with Property Identification Number 64A-2-16 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 3) 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 July 18, 2000. PRESENT: James Larrick, Jr., Acting Chairman, Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; Gilbank Hamilton, Shawnee District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator; Amy M. Lohr, Planner II; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; Howard R. Long, III, Planner I; Carol Huff, Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Larrick at 3:30 p.m. It was noted for the record that a letter of resignation (due to health reasons) was received from Manuel Sempeles, Jr., Chairman, Stonewall District, effective July 12, 2000. Until such time as the Board of Supervisors can nominate a successor and the Circuit Court has appointed another Board of Zoning Appeals member from the Stonewall District, Mr. Larrick will serve as Acting Chairman. MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2000 On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Hamilton, the minutes for the June 20, 2000 meeting were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING (tabled at the June 20, 2000 meeting) Appeal Application #03-00 by Terry DeHaven of Triple T Trucking. This is an 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 operation of a commercial trucking company. This property is located at 180 Quiet Meadow Lane and is identified with Property Identification Number 30 -A -122A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION — AFFIRMATION OF THE DECISION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of July 18, 2000 Minutes Book Page 1076 Representatives for both sides of the appeal agreed that even though there were still only four members of the Board present, they were prepared to proceed. Mr. Ruddy gave a summary of the case which had been tabled at the June 20, 2000 meeting. He directed the Board's attention to the list of the permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District as they stand today, and a copy of the permitted uses since the Zoning Ordinance first went into effect. He again stated that the use was not permitted in the RA Zoning District; however, it is allowed in the M1 (Light Industrial) and M2 (Heavy Industrial), and also in the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning District. Acting Chairman Larrick asked about the origin of the definition of a "Commercial Trucking Business," versus "home occupation" or "cottage occupation." Mr. Ruddy explained the differences in the SIC Code, Section 47, and the definitions in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Rinker asked about the number of employees specified in a conditional use permit in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District and discussion followed on whether a commercial trucking business could be allowed with a CUP. Mr. Nate Adams, legal representative for the appellant, was present to speak in favor of the appeal. He passed out hand -drawn maps which depicted the property and the adjoining properties. He stated that there was no loading or unloading of trucks and passed out pictures of the site. Additionally, he informed the Board that there was no maintenance of the trucks on site; in fact, they were basically just stored there. Mr. Adams presented two letters from adjoining property owners, one from Ms. Susan French, the other from Mr. James Adams, stating that they had no objection to the DeHavens' trucking business. Additionally, Mr. Adams presented a petition containing over 150 signatures from people living in the area, most of whom live within 15 miles of Gainesboro, stating that they have no objection to the trucking business or the parking of the trucks on the property. Discussion followed on how many years the DeHavens have been in business, how many trucks they have, how far they travel and where they do business, and how many employees are involved. Mr. Ben Butler, who represents Mr. Douglas Cooper (adjoining property owner who made the complaint) told the Board that his client was opposed to the trucking operation because he has observed many trips being made by the trucks bringing in loads of dirt and garbage to the property. Also, the ICC controls businesses of this type because it is "big-time." Mr. Cooper stated that he has lived on his property for the past 28 years and the activity he described has taken place just within the last few years. Mr. Butler added that although the DeHavens have demonstrated strong support from the surrounding community, the fact remains that the trucking operation was a violation of the Frederick County Code and should not be allowed to remain. DISCUSSION Mr. Ruddy reiterated what the SIC Code described for a commercial trucking business. There was discussion among the Board members on whether a Conditional Use Permit would be a viable alternative for the DeHavens to pursue, or they could move their business to a zoning district that allowed the use. Based on the fact that an operation of this type and size in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District needs to be governed by the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and not popularity, Mrs. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of July 18, 2000 Minutes Book Page 1077 2 Catlett moved to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Section 165-27E, concerning the operation of a commercial trucking company. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously agree to affirm the determination made by the office of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Section 165-27E, concerning the operation of a commercial trucking company. PUBLIC HEARING Variance #05-00 of Alice Stendeback requesting a 3.92 -acre variance to the minimum lot size requirement in a rural area. This would enable a boundary line adjustment between two parcels. This property is located at 2230 Welltown Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 32-A-77 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION — APPROVED Mr. Ruddy read the background information and showed a black and white photograph of the property. The house which is located on the property is a legally nonconforming structure by today's standards. Ms. Alice Stendeback, applicant, explained her reasons for requesting the variance and for seeking a boundary line adjustment with adjoining property owner, Mr. Terry Lee. Mr. Rinker asked if the boundary line adjustment would allow her to add on to her home without seeking an additional variance from the Board; staff replied that it would. Mr. Manuel Benitez, another adjoining property owner, stated that he had granted a right-of-way to Ms. Stendeback and wanted to make sure that if this variance was approved, it would not further impact his property and that the right-of-way would be eliminated. Mr. Terry Lee spoke in favor ofthe variance and the boundary line adjustment. He said that the property would not be used for anything other than pasture land for his livestock. No one else spoke in favor or against the request. DISCUSSION Mr. Larrick spoke to Mr. Terry Lee about the need for a lot consolidation once the boundary line adjustment has been completed. Mr. Lee assured the Board that he understood the procedure. There was no further discussion by the Board. Mr. Rinker moved to approve the variance request based on the following conditions: 1. That a boundary line adjustment with Mr. Terry Lee's property is executed; and Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of July 18, 2000 Minutes Book Page 1078 2. The existing right-of-way through Mr. Benitez's property be vacated. Mr. Hamilton made a second to the motion which approved by the following majority vote: AYES: Mr. Hamilton; Mr. Rinker; and Mr. Larrick NAYS: Mrs. Catlett BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve Variance #05-00 of Alice Stendeback requesting a 3.92 -acre variance to the minimum lot size requirement in a rural area. PUBLIC HEARING Variance #08-00 of Tibow, L.L.C. requesting a five-foot front yard and five-foot back yard setback variance to construct a single-family residence. This property is located at Westside Station, Section 2 (Lot 13), and is identified with Property Identification Number 53E-1-2-13 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — DENIED Variance #09-00 of Tibow, L.L.C. requesting a five-foot front yard and five-foot back yard setback variance to construct a single-family residence. This property is located at Westside Station, Section 2 (Lot 14), and is identified with Property Identification Number 53E-1-2-14 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — BACK YARD SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVED; FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE DENIED Variance 910-00 of Tibow, L.L.C. requesting a five-foot front yard and five-foot back yard setback variance to construct a single-family residence. This property is located at Westside Station, Section 2 (Lot 15), and is identified with Property Identification Number 53E-1-2-15 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — APPROVED The Board deliberated briefly on whether all three lots of the subject subdivision (13, 14, and 15) should be discussed together or taken individually. The decision was made to discuss the lots as a whole but to take separate action on each one. Amy Lohr, Planner II, reviewed the background information and added a letter from an adjoining property owner which opposed the application. Mrs. Catlett asked about the lot sizes being considered at the time of the initial subdivision. Staff replied that subdivision design standards were not in place back in the 1980's. Mr. B. J. Tisinger, representing TIBOW, L.L.C., showed the location of the lots on his plan and told the Board that TIBOW, L.L.C. wants to build houses that conform with the covenants of the subdivision (i.e. square footage requirements), and are comparable to the surrounding existing homes. Mr. Tisinger told the Board what type of homes they planned to put on the lots, with Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of July 18, 2000 4 Minutes Book Page 1079 the hope of including garages as this is something buyers are looking for. He stated that it appears that when these lots were first created, the ones in the City of Winchester were larger than the ones that fall over into the County. He told the Board that a boundary line adjustment had already been done on lot 15. Mr. James Bayliss, who is looking to purchase Lot 12, spoke against the request. He stated that the type of homes that would be squeezed onto these small lots would affect the property value and the aesthetics of the cul-de-sac. There was no one else present to speak for or against the variance. DISCUSSION There was discussion on whether the developer was the current owner (no), the developer's ensuing bankruptcy in the late 1980's and whether it were possible to build a quality home on such a lot. There was also discussion on what order covenants and creation of plats follow. The following action was taken on each variance request: Lot 13: Mr. Rinker made a motion to deny the variance; Mr. Hamilton made the second. The motion passed for denial with all ayes from the Board. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously deny Variance #08-00 of Tibow, L.L.C. requesting a five-foot front yard and five- foot back yard setback variance to construct a single-family residence on Lot 13. Lot 14: Mr. Rinker moved to deny the front yard setback variance and to approve the back yard setback variance; Mrs. Catlett made the second. The motion passed by unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously deny the five-foot front yard variance request of Variance #08-00 of Tibow, L.L.C., and unanimously approve the request for a five-foot back yard setback variance to construct a single-family residence on Lot 14. Lot 15: Mr. Rinker moved to approve both the front and rear yard setback variance requests which was seconded by Mr. Hamilton and passed by unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously approve Variance #10-00 of Tibow, L.L.C. requesting a five-foot front yard and five-foot back yard setback variance to construct a single-family residence on Lot 15. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of July 18, 2000 5 Minutes Book Page 1080 Before the Board adjourned, Mr. Larrick noted for the record the contribution which Mr. 1Vlanuel Sempeles has made to the County over the years. Mr. Rinker moved that a Resolution of Appreciation be signed by all members of the Board, to be presented at a future meeting to which Mr. Sempeies will be invited. The motion passed by unanimous consent. ADJOURNMENT There was no further business at hand; therefore, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m. with all members voting AYE. Respectfully submitted, James Larrick, Jr., Acting Chairman Carol I. Huff, Secretary Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of July 18, 2000 6 Minutes Book Page 1081 r� .� • • BZA REVIEW DATE: 08/15/00 VARIANCE #11-00 DENNY L. PLACE LOCATION: This property is located at 111 Princeton Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64A-2-16 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use: Residential VARIANCE: Request for an 8 -foot variance to the extension into setback provision [Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-23.F.(3)] to extend the width of an existing front porch to 30 feet. REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant states that the current porch is 12 feet wide and can be extended to 22 feet but this would place the porch end in front of bay window. He would like the porch to end up closer to driveway, past bay window and terminating next to chimney. STAFF COMMENTS: The zoning ordinance permits porches, balconies, stoops, and other related features to extend into setback areas. Specifically, such features which comprise less than one-third (1/3) of the length of the wall of the primary structure may extend three feet into a required setback yard. At present, the 12 -foot long porch on the applicant's home extends into the front setback as allowed by the zoning ordinance. Because the length of the primary structure is 66 feet, the applicant is permitted to extend the length of the porch to as much as 22 feet. The applicant is requesting an eight -foot variance to the 22 -foot length maximum, thereby creating a 30 -foot long porch. The proposed extension to the porch would not encroach any further into the front setback. Denny L. Place Variance Page 2 August 8, 2000 STAFF CONCLUSION: The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2) states that no variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds that a) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an undue hardship approaching confiscation; b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, and; c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance does not satisfy the aforementioned criteria. To strictly apply the setback requirements in this case would not produce a hardship approaching confiscation of the property. Furthermore, the inability to build an addition onto the front porch does not eliminate either the functional use of the residence or the reasonable use of the property. OA\Agenda \BZA\Staff Report\DennyPI=e. VAR.wpd Page 1 of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA .E I DEPT, OF P!j;�lwl'lujDEVELOP?vlEiNT MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INR - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: n OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME : /J EA/ ,t1 3/ L . PL ,4 G 6: NAME: ADDRESS jr / 2 !,U .4/ liq ADDRESS: t o 1,y cjLFc �R (%f� 2 L rao z TELEPHONE 6,&Z- !,�-q SZz TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): � > > i E S fro L r Z),i y _7� /V Al i 0.41 �<J t!� ifi/ ,fid Cc '; F Env 4. The property has a road frontage of / O D feet and a depth of /.e6 feet and consists of ot acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by ,, )Ataz_ -7- P- az�- as z� as evidenced by deed from ) P )4441 ecnrded (previous owner) in deed book no. on page f the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. Page 2 of 5 6. Magisterial District: ,21 P" 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 02. cc on 161) 8. The existing zoning of the property is: 6 P 9. The existing use of the property is: 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North East South West 16 t, N It 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.") t /f�. y�� /'� �cr�jn. i- ,may-���� c� 1✓� tc` rv�/c-u,r cpLo� -� e p�� /��/y.��n� ,�, -'� _c wt..t �� �� � �L Gam. L T ✓ U it- - " j / h. I %% i Gni Vv �'j/L�L t !'i l� "���7�j�/ �, (i'L 9 z L 7. 1 `. �,,.,y2 . 12. List specific reason (s)"why the' variance is being sought znc-� 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 1 Ct L+ 11 r�i i lz. J3 I n A n JL: h l� _i L� f i_. n te V 13. Additional comments, if any Page a of s 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 7' _, ,���.. L e ,� J EA,, � � S Address I -y c 7 ) � Property ID# % Z/ t9 Z l 5S NAME C & ; Address //3 13d i -O&-- 7v.0 /_Q Property ID# L/ 19 �2- /Z NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address Address Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # J ` 00 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 DATE 117-0 106 SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF DATE -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION: ' BZA CHAIRMAN Pante ,;'on Drvc- 1l 7' 17 Property Line Dstances, 17'4 Proposed Addition to Porch UP 5' 12' Current porch ,L0T /YO. 15 find Correct 1�Gi ".f u. rd U. Goode fied Serve dor 26, 1963 IYO. 17 FFI NC.E TO P1 .D,(�1 YIE The above lot located a short distance East of Winchester and situate in ShaHnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Vir g-inia is bounded as folloxs: Eezinrir_g at (1) an iron peg; in the North lire of Princeton Drive, said point beinv- 310 ft. Oast of a curve treat connects Princeton Drive with Yale Drive; thence with the North line of Princeton Dr1lT8 i� 63 de 07 min.. �i � 00.0 fes. to (2) an iron. pe. a co:r�er to Lot `10. l�; �i 20 dem. 53 rein. E 1$U.O ft. to (3) an iron deg thence Hith Low IIo. l5 1 r land of Lames thence a corner to Lot `io. 15 in the South .,h ine cl other ,aiti� La�;as S 63 dad, 07 min.E 100.0 ft. to (4) an iron ae� a corn=ar . to Lot. M �7; thar.ce xith Lot No. 17 S 20 deg. 53 min. W1$0,0 ft. point _ruin- containing 000 s:i ft morn or lass. to the p c� bei; � .� 1$, t 1Ci13 '� U. Goode Ca -r triol .surveyor Juni 20 1963 Y " VIRGINIA FR>=GER'CK COUNTY, SCT. =, W,:tjnn was produced to me on the &-:4,y � "