Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 11-21-00 Meeting MinutesMEETING 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 November 21, 2000. PRESENT: James Larrick, Jr., Acting Chairman, Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District ABSENT: Gilbank Hamilton, Shawnee District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner I; Carol Huff, Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Larrick at 3:25 p.m. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2000 On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mrs. Catlett, the minutes for the October 17, 2000 meeting were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Prior to hearing the first application request, Acting Chairman Larrick explained to the applicants that since Mr. Hamilton was absent and another member had not yet been appointed by the Circuit Court from the Stonewall District, that left them with only three members ofthe Board and their chances may be better with a full Board. He advised them that they had the option of postponing the public hearing until the next meeting. There was no guarantee, however, that there would be a full Board at the December meeting. After some discussion among themselves, Mr. David Nutter and his father decided to go ahead with the public hearing. Variance #14 -00 of David A. and Dawn Nutter for a 4.86 -foot side yard setbackvariance for the construction of a single- family residence. This property is located at 4517 Back Mountain Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 58 -1 -1D in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 21, 2000 Minutes Book Page 109( Mr. Jeremy Camp, Planner I, presented the staff report. He explained that the County had approved the building permit with a setback of 55 feet on both the right and left sides. However, during the third party inspection an error occurred which resulted in the foundation of the house being constructed in a slightly different location. The discrepancy was discovered by a County inspector, at which time a stop -work order was issued. Mr. David A. Nutter, the applicant, was present and explained his reasons for applying for a variance. He said that he went by the original survey which he assumed was correct since it had been accepted by the bank and no red flags had been raised during the closing process. He stated that he had Mr. David Diehl do the footers and that Mr. Diehl had his own inspector do the inspection. Mr. Richard Ruckman was the third party inspector. Mr. Nutter pointed out that one of his neighbors [she was not identified] was present and had no problem with the Nutter's home being closer to the property line than the setbacks actually allow. He expressed that he felt it was a hardship financially because he had already spent $16,000 and had lost valuable good- weather building time. Mrs. Catlett asked staff ifthe entire procedure had been explained to the applicant. Mr. Lawrence explained that there is a form that is supposed to be filled out by the surveyor and inspectors involved. There should be a survey provided before the footers are poured. It was unclear in this case which event occurred first. Discussion took place as to if and when survey standards played into this case; Mr. Lawrence said that the placing of the pins was part of the survey standards. More discussion followed on the timing of each transaction, and why the County was having continued problems with a third party inspector system. Mr. Jim Turbin, the applicant's father, was present to speak on behalf of Mr. Nutter. He explained the problems with the placement of the sewer, septic and well systems. There was no one present to speak against the variance. DISCUSSION Questions were posed as to whether third party inspectors had to be certified or have a license. After further deliberation on the matter, the Board members concurred that as this type of problem had come before them more than once in the past and that it was the same third party inspector each time, a letter needed to be sent to Mr. Richard Ruckman to make him aware that the Board of Zoning Appeals could not continue to approve variances based on mistakes'that he had made. [See attached letter.] There was no further discussion among the board members. Mr. Rinker moved that the variance be approved based on undue hardship to the applicant, with the proviso that a letter from the Board be sent to Mr. Ruckman informing him of the Board's position. Mrs. Catlett seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. I BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby approve by unanimous vote Variance #14 -00 of David A. and Dawn Nutter for a 4.86 - foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a single- family residence. Frederick Co. Board or Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 21, 2000 Minutes Book Page 1091 Variance 15 -00 of Stephen P. Scothorn for a 22 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a detached two -car garage. This property is located at 333 Songbird Lane and is identified with Property Identification Number 32 -12 -8 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. POSTPONED UNTIL DECEMBER 19, 2000 Mr. Stephen Scothorn, applicant, stated that he would prefer to have his application heard at a future meeting when, perhaps, a full Board would be present. The Board agreed to his request by unanimous consent. ADJOURNMENT There were no additional items on the agenda, therefore, the meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James L ick, Jr., Acting Chairman Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 21, 2000 Minutes Book Page 1092