The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 04-17-01 Meeting AgendaU AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Tient Street Winchester, Virginia April 17, 2001 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Minutes of the March 20, 2001 Meeting PUBLIC HEARING 2) Variance #04-01 of Blake and Rebecca Watts for a 30 -foot rear yard setback variance to enable an addition to a single-family residence. This property is located at 605 Glendobbin Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 43-13-1-3 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. 3) Variance #05-01 of Stephen P. Scothorn for a 26 -foot front yard variance from road of right-of-way 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. 4) Other r� MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Hoard Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on March 20, 2001. PRESENT: James Larrick, Jr., Chairman, Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; and Robert Perry, Stonewall District ABSENT: Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Gilbank Hamilton, Shawnee District STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Carol Huff, Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larrick at 3:25 p.m. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20.2001 On a motion made by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mrs. Catlett, the minutes for the February 20, 2001 meeting were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Prior to hearing the first application, Chairman Larrick explained to those present that due to unforseen circumstances, two members of the Board were unable to be present. He explained that under these conditions, it would be understandable if the applicants wished to have their applications postponed and heard at the following meeting. After a brief discussion, both parties stated that they wished to proceed. Appeal #02-01 of Richard C. Shickle, Sr. to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Section 165-55, concerning the side setback of a principal structure. This property is located at 192 Green Spring Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 22-7-1-6 in the �Gainesboro Magisterial District. APPEAL DENIED - DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AFFIRMED Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 20, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1 103 Chairman Larrick briefly explained that the first application was an appeal of a decision which was made by the Zoning Administrator and that the Board's duty in this matter was to determine if the Zoning Administrator's decision was correct. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, spoke on behalf of Eric R. Lawrence, who was the Zoning Administrator at the time that the decision in question was made. Mr. Wyatt gave the back- ground information and explained that it was in regard to a side property line setback. He_ stated that three different scenarios are used to determine the setbacks for a property line, and that they are based on whether the adjoining property's use is agricultural, an orchard, residential or vacant. In this particular case, the plat drawn up by the surveyor showed the adjoining property as agricultural with a 100 -foot setback, and the builder asked for a reevaluation of this designation. The Zoning Ordinance does not give a definition of vacant or forest land; therefore, the Zoning Administrator made the determination that Mr. Shickle's property did not meet the qualifications of agricultural land as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Larrick asked about the Forest Management Plan that was mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Wyatt explained how Forest Management Plans work, and that staff did not find out that a such a plan existed for Mr. Shickle's property until after the zoning determination had been made. Forest Management Plans are not a matter of public record; this information is confidential and available only to the Treasurer's Office for taxation purposes. Unfortunately in this instance, by the time this information was brought to light, construction on the property had already begun. Chairman Larrick asked if a Forest Management Plan was like a contract or was mandatoryin any way. Mr. Wyatt explained that the plan is voluntary and involved recommendations only. In any case, the Planning Department is not involved in the process. Mr. Perry asked how it was determined when land use changes from one use designation to another. Mr. Wyatt referred to "C" under Section 165-145, Definitions and Word Usage as it defines Agriculture and Farming. Mr. Richard C. Shickle, appellant, came forward next and handed out copies of a prepared statement which he proceeded to read. Mrs. Catlett asked what types of activity Mr. Shickle has done to the land in regard to the forestry management plan and Mr. Shickle stated that he had done nothing with the property in question because he is waiting for the smaller trees to grow. He said the plan was developed in 1996. Further discussion followed on whether any work had been done with the unsightly areas, how long Mr. Shickle had owned the property, whether any work had been done in the time he had owned the property and, specifically, why was he opposed to the residential construction. Chairman Larrick asked if anyone else was present to speak and Mr. Jeff Webber, realtor and representative for the builder, came forward. He told the Board that from their perspective, Mr. Hicks followed procedure exactly as he had been instructed to do. He went to the County, asked the questions, was issued a legitimate building permit, and proceeded to break ground. Mr. Webber said that he understood Mr. Shickle's point exactly; however, from a standpoint of equatability, Mr. Hicks would have lost a considerable amount of investment, including the contract and the buyers, and under the circumstances advised him to continue with the construction. The Board asked if a stop -work order had ever been issued and Mr. Lawrence replied that he had written Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 20, 2001 1A Minutes Book Page 1 104 a letter to the County's Building Official, Mr. John Trenary, revoking his zoning determination and requesting a stop -work order. However, upon Mr. Trenary's meeting with Mr. Jay Cook of the Commonwealth's Attorney's office, Mr. Trenary was informed that until the Board ofZoning Appeals reversed Mr. Lawrence's decision, the County was not in a position to place a stop -work order on a legitimate building permit. Mr. Dave Hicks, the builder, came to the podium and told the Board that using a 100 v._ , foot setback would have created extremely difficult building conditions due to the topography; that is why he asked the Zoning Administrator for a reevaluation of the setbacks. Even using the 50 -foot setback, they have had to bring in countless loads of dirt to fill the low-lying area. Mr. Hicks stated that similar circumstances had occurred two years where he had been issued a building permit using 50 -foot setbacks for property adjoining woods. He brought the permit with him and offered to show it to the Board. He brought this up for the purpose of precedence. Mr. Robert Solenberger, owner of Fruithill Orchard, came forward to state that he was not opposed to this particular house being built but wanted to voice his opinion that setbacks should be definitive, not subject to interpretation. He further stated that adjoining property owners should be notified when waivers of this nature are about to occur. Louise Shickle, the applicant's wife, stated that she wanted to address the question regarding the `messy undergrowth.' She explained that the woods are in a waiting period and when trees are larger, there normally is not a lot of undergrowth. Additionally, a 100 -foot setback would prevent the new neighbors from having to view their unattractive woods. DISCUSSION There was no further discussion by the Board; therefore, Chairman Larrick asked if there was a motion. Mrs. Catlett moved to deny Appeal #02-01 of Richard C. Shickle, Sr. and to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Perry seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously deny Appeal #02-01 of Richard C. Shickle, Sr. and does hereby affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Section 165-55, concerning the side setback of a principal structure. Variance #03-01 of Kitty Hockman-Nicholas for a 50 -foot rear yard variance to establish a buildable lot. This property is located approximately 1,350 feet north of Shady Elm Road (Route 651) and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 74 -A -67B and 74 -A -67C in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 20, 2001 3 Minutes Book Page 1 105 Mr. Lawrence gave the background information and stated that staff is in support of the variance. Upon questioning from the Board, Mr. Lawrence informed them that the platted lots were quite old and the variance was necessary to create a buildable lot to meet today's building standards. Additionally, the two lots would be consolidated so the variance would only apply to a single lot. Chairman Larrick called for public comment and Mrs. Hockman-Nicholas came.. .3_ forward. She explained that the property had been deeded to her sister and herself to build upon at a future date; however, at that time there were no setback requirements and requested that the Board grant their request. No one spoke against the application. DISCUSSION There was no further discussion by the Board; therefore, Chairman Larrick asked if there was a motion. Upon amotion made by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mrs. Catlett, Variance #03-01 was unanimously approved. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously approve Variance #03-01 of Kitty Ilockman-Nicholas for a 50 -foot rear yard variance to establish a buildable lot. OTHER BUSINESS As there was no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James Larrick, Jr., Chairman Carol I. Huff, Secretary Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 20, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1106 4 • C: BZA REVIEW DATE: 04/17/01 VARIANCE #04-01 BLAKE AND REBECCA WATTS LOCATION: This property is located at 605 Glendobbin Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 43-13-1-3 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential and Orchard VARIANCE: Request for a 30 -foot rear yard variance for an addition to a single-family residence REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant states, "A planned home addition would not comply with a zoning ordinance requiring a 200 -foot setback from the property line of an orchard. It would extend to a point 176 feet from the line." STAFF COMMENTS: The subject property is formally known as Lot 3, Section 1 of Glendobbin Hills and contains approximately five acres in area. The subject property is adjoined by an orchard to the north (rear) and by residences to the other adjoining sides. Within the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, the minimum rear yard setback is determined by the adjoining use. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance specifies a 200 -foot setback when the adjoining use is an orchard. The applicant has prepared architectural and building plans for an addition to the main residence indicating that the proposed addition will extend to within 176 feet from the adjoining orchard property. The applicant is requesting a 30 -foot rear yard variance to accommodate the proposed addition. The property is not affected by any extraordinary conditions or features that would preclude conformance with all applicable setback standards. The adjoining orchard contains an area of natural Blake and Rebecca Watts Page 2 April 6, 2001 growth woods on rocky terrain along the property line and lies between the planted fruit trees and the applicant's property as indicated by the sketch provided. The width of the relatively narrow wooded area ranges from approximately 20 feet to several hundred feet at its widest points. This wooded area did not justify a change in the determination of the adjoining use because the wooded area is not wide enough to be considered an agricultural (forested) use with a 100 -foot setback. The vegetation pattern led the applicant to believe that a lesser setback would be applicable and the plans were drawn to reflect that observation and interpretation of adjoining use. According to the enclosed letter from the adjoining orchard owner, the area is not suitable for planting fruit trees and has indicated that no fruit trees will ever be planted there in the foreseeable future. STAFF CONCLUSION: The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-23 09(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 otherproperties 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 submitted variance does not meet the requirements set forth by the Code of Virginia. The hardship endured by the applicant arises from an oversight of the related ordinance. The inability to create an addition to an existing home does not constitute an undue hardship. However, it should be noted that the adjoining property owners have no objections with the applicant's request for the variance and the proposed addition will remain over 200 feet from any planted fruit trees. C \Carol Share\WaUs_VAR. wpd 1 I I I I i 11 I III I �I I VAR#04-01 Location Map For: Watts, Blake & .Rebecca PIN: 43-13-1-3 Office of Mapping and GIS, 04/01, Agray Page I of s APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA AUNT NZ TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INR — PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: U40 H NAME: ADDRESS 6mGlemdo�b1tj R& ADDRESS: VA LLL 3 TELEPHONE: 5f0-665-Q77Z TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): k-iG4'ge c it vti-imej 410.0 `y4 Sdicol. Go f.7 ryi%S x,�t4 -bib- g4t Ot . X73 (C(efid-- . o %- ) . Cv Y /.a mrle-J End car hold e- is 0';1 , 605 6"c(obAn pd. 4. The property has a road frontage of - 3/0 feet and a depth of 3t6. &L feet and consists of "i-; 17'?7 acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by _, h' l avief k4eC�� C 10S as evidenced by deed from R,4 pt? 8. ThW Rvel A • Oi-na(erff recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 77q on page 0:4 Z 7 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. RECEIVED Page 2 of 5 6. Magisterial District: MAR 2 3 2001 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: '",3 /3 1 .3DEPT, OF PLAN NfNGIDEVELOPMENT S. The existing zoning of the.property is: 6?S1 � F� 9. The existing use of the property is: re5lhwt g I 10. Adjoining Property: ZONING North C�1�G�1a j'd �� .Cu ltar4l RA East mSr' EOrpt t A South I'�'lrG�eN7�aI I�Sr �" ��t RA West resp esf*-V RA 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.") A 3 0' r"yard Vc?n�0dce_ --or aKgtt,AGhE4 Aen,e- aWd,'t'c n . 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 p %a �rM� !.� hOr�t2 �o�G�i f(y�^'1 l�dct%( hof Crrrit Ply ��tlt q ZotrJir� � rv1Gi�lCe I u�s7� q ADO f �-f �a , 114e o-{ $Orcl7aro(. t �o�tlP(-ex of 71 a �o� fi /7� i. 7 r 7�t� /%�� _ r 13. Additional comments, if any Aeetse SQeg1t ckeW s4o'e-t 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 �c� %y� �+� ��q e� e. %. v� �� I,c�l Address_ �c 6te4 do d t,i -" -1. Property ID# 't 3 / 3 1 --Z i 14-4 ZZvl"OJ NAME Ri sol, Zla-txes R'lbe.,-f ez,gGl(eeir 9, Property ID# �-3 /S 1 Address .5f5 C:4eo 6t o UI "' A4 AIIi ClIeSt& i VI4 ZZ -Ed 3 NAME .She?de gldiatd Address /Z1 Ouaki-, - 1-0 . Property ID# q3 1 l VA 7Z-603 NAME Frt&�- /-/,`/% arc�akv( In c- Address .C). 90,r ?36'f Property]]D# V-2- NAME -2 NAMEkt4rAVf, ��✓Gii�Qit �'j,l. Address —7ol-' iflenclo��j1-447 ��► . Property ID# y-3 17 .3 �- � 04 .27-603 NAMEj!f I e Address—PO. ai( `0 f � vru Ye✓t 7i c,.r WV 2 Seri Propertym# lf�3 /f / NAME Cif, _t //fI(c', lit �'e f y PropertyM# �J A 17E NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address l z4t /la /fr,� . 7e- i'letgl h'l Z-,-1 q j,, Address Address Address Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # 0__O I 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 Cr ,,I-10z�� DATE 3 - +t - o SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF APPROVAL //"Ie- DATE -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION_ BZA CHAIRMAN y_Y � WATTS VARIANCE PACKAGE 13. Additional comments We feel that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1) While not in strict compliance with the zoning ordinance requiring a 200 -foot setback from orchard property, our planned house addition does comply with the spirit of the regulation. From the property line directly behind our house, the closest apple trees are located at least 400 feet back from that line. In fact, it would be very unlikely that apple trees would ever be planted much closer to the property line than that, due to the presence of a broad rocky ledge, as well as a mature wooded area (see enclosed letter from Diane Kearns of Fruit Hill Orchard). The 200 -foot setback rule assumes possible use up to the property line, and implies that a 200 -foot distance is safe. If that is the case, then the purpose of the statute is complied with. To strictly enforce the restriction would be undue hardship. 2) When we bought our house in 1992, it was with full intentions of eventually adding a sun porch to the back of the home. The covenants of our subdivision specified only that we couldn't build closer than 60 feet from the rear property line. Back then, no orchard trees were present directly behind the home, so that we were operating under a less stringent 100 -foot (agricultural) setback. There was clearly room for expansion at that time. We originally conceived of plans for a larger house addition, similar to those finally drawn up by our architects, at least 5 years ago, at which time there were still no apple trees directly behind the property. It has taken several years for us to acquire the funds needed to start the addition, and the setback requirement has changed in the meantime. The orchards present currently were just planted about two years ago. 3) Unfortunately, during the planning stages for our addition, we were unfamiliar with the ordinance requiring a 200 -foot setback from the property line of an orchard, as were our architects and builder. We all assumed that with so much land (5 acres) we would be able to add on to the house without any problems. Our plans are now finished, and we hoped to start building this spring. To redraw the plans from scratch would negate 15 months of work by our architects and would result in considerable additional expense and hardship to us, as well as a costly delay to our builder. Also, as you can see from the attached drawing, the only direction left to us to add on to our house is in the back, since we have a garage on one end of the house and a part of the addition already planned for the other end. Even if we decided to redraw our plans, we would probably be unable to satisfy the 200 -foot setback rule since there is just 216 feet between the current structure and the rear property line. 4) It seems inequitable that we would be unable to proceed with a house addition that would lie more than 400 feet from fruit trees, while just east of our home on Glendobbin Road and Payne Road there are several homes surrounded by orchards, ..nth trees m S`Jme eases growing .x�ith-in 2fi feet of the homes. Presumably these g. b houses were built prior to the 200 -foot ordinance, but if the purpose of the ordinance is to protect a homeowner's health, then our house addition would certainly be located a much safer distance from any orchard spraying than are these homes. LI d Cf FROIT HIL -L, �C-1 o 0 d ' RK WATT S flzofef- Lar 3 -T/-Cc, 1 GLrAlAo59iAi 141411 LoT 5 PLAaxEb ytytl /TroAI Ulsr/A;6 yomC L v T, �p PRC -:,64117 tJ6 sour) PutNNO �kDD r7`r old S'►a � ` t 1 r t � i 1� � 4 ;t ��YE'��U/T h/LL N/F �- 0� AC/''FScyARp/M OvoO - DE SFC c 5�4=052" <OPIcO) OON 3) z LOT 3 I- 58.04, 44.997 ACRES IRF CO co- TWO STORY N o = BRICK & FRAME J IRF DWELLING 11605 0o / / N74565? W 0)n LO 6l S ss1;¢, n r LOT IRF LOT � 1 t FLOOD NOTE. ZONE: C COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 PANEL: 0105 B DA TE. 07-17-78 NOTES: 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. 2 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 43 -IJ -1-3- J. 3-13-1-33. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT 4. IRF - IRON ROD FOUND 5. BOUNDARY INFORMAAON SHOWN HEREON TAKEN FROM PLAT OF SURVEY DATED JUNE 11, 1992 MADE BY THOMAS A. SHOCKEY, LS, N O J 3t.64 RIW c Rte. 673 _ 5D , VA• S�GI�, E3BIN ROA PLAT SNOWING GRAPHIC SCALE 200 100 0 200 I INCH = 200 FEET LOCATION OF EXISTING DWELLING ON LOT 3 N SECTION 1 — GLENDOBSIN HILLS G,4/NESBORO MAGISTERML DISTRICT fR2EDE'ICK COUNTY, WRGINIA DA 7F 22 MARCH 2001 I SC4LE.• 1'=200' I SHEET 1 OF 1 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.0 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET — WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 — FAX (540) 667-0469 EMAIL mlls®shentel.ne Tx of Douglas C. Legge No. 001197 SND suxv��° DRAWN BY: HH DWG NAME: ID26JJ 663 Glendobbin Road Winchester, VA 22603 March 11, 2001 To the Board of Zoning Appeals, Frederick County, VA: Our property adjoins that of Blake and Rebecca Watts, 605 Glendobbin Road. Please record that we have no objection to the variance necessary to build the planned addition to their house. Thank you, Ronald and Diane Salmon 595 Glenbobbin Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 March 17, 2001 Zoning Appeal Board of Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Sirs: We do not object to Dr.'s Blake and Becky Watts adding an addition to their now existing home at 605 Glendobbin Road, Winchester, Virginia 22603. Sincerely yours, Mrs. Colleen B. Russell J. Robert Russell 220 Glendobbin Lane Winchester, Virginia 22603 March 14, 2001 To the Board of Zoning Appeals: This is to advise you that we are aware of Blake and Rebecca Watts' plans to build an addition to their home at 605 Glendobbin Road. As residents of the adjoining property, we have no objections to this construction and support their appeal to the Board. Please contact us if you have any questions. ter. Sincerely, Patricia F. Kuchyt Ms. Diane Kearns Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, Va. 22604 March 21, 2001 Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Dear Sirs: This letter is a follow up of a visit to the home of Blake and Rebecca Watt at 605 Glendobbin Road which adjoins Fruit Hill's property to the south. Currently Fruit Hill has the property behind their home set in apple orchard but there remains between the orchard and the property line a strip of rocky woodland.. This strip is more than 40 tt wide directly behind their proposed addition but narrows to the west. Due to this strip and the lay of the land Fruit Hill does not foresee ever planting apple orchard any closer than it already is. Using Mr. watts' rough sketch showing the proposed addition 176 ft from the property line and the at least 40 ft rough strip, 1 feel this project is in accordance with the desired 200 ft set back requirements. Thank you very much for considerLing Fruit Hill's comments. We feel the 200 ft set back is of great benefit to all and therefore any variances from this need to known and addressed by all interested parties. i can be reached at (540) 667-3390 or the above address with any questions or comments. Sincerely, cbnll_aLC S Diane Kearns Treasurer Fruit M11 Orchard, Inc. BZA REVIEW DATE: 04/17/01 VARIANCE #05-0I STEPHEN P. SCOTHORN LOCATION: This property is located at 333 Songbird Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 32-12-8 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land use - Residential VARIANCE: Request for a 26 -foot front yard variance for a detached garage. REASON FOR VARIANCE: See #'s 12 & 13 of the application. STAFF COMMENTS: The minimum distance that an accessory structure can be built away from a side or rear property line is 15 feet in the (RA) Rural Areas Zoning District. From a front property line, no structure can be closer than 60 feet. The applicant is applying for a deviation from the minimum front setback requirement. More specifically, the applicant is seeking a 26 -foot front yard variance for a detached garage, or in other words, an accessory structure. As proposed, the garage would be 34 feet from the closest point of the front property line, or the edge of the cul-de-sac. The garage would be 54 feet from the edge of the hard surface. The property in question is located near the end of Songbird Lane which is off of Apple Pie Ridge Road. The size of the lot is approximately five acres, typical in both size and shape when compared to other lots in the area. Dimensionally, the lot is 333 feet deep and 672 feet long. The use of the surrounding properties is residential. On February 20, 2001, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denied the applicant a 41 -foot front yard variance for the same proposed garage. The applicant is now requesting that the BZA consider his request for a lesser variance. When the applicant was denied in February, he was attempting to construct the garage away from the large stand of oak trees in the rear of his property. For this new Stephen P. Scothorn Variance #05-01 Page 2 April 6, 2001 request for a variance, the applicant is proposing to remove one of the oak trees and two of the dogwood trees to allow a greater distance from the proposed garage to the front property line. 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's opinion on this matter remains consistent with our comments in the previous variance request made by the applicant in February. It does not appear that this variance meets the above requirements for approval. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request. for the following reasons: There appears to be no undue hardship directed toward Mr. Scothom if we require the minimum setback distance for the garage. Mr. Scothom has the ability to build the garage back at least 60 feet from the front property line if he so desires. Furthermore, the inability to build the garage does not preclude a reasonable use to the property. 2. All other neighboring property owners, who share the same right-of-way, are required to meet today's setback standards if they wish to construct a building or structure. C:\Caro1Share\Scothorn2 VAR.wpd 67 39 600 Windy Pine La F 67 32 12 8 GEMMA BYERS 66 CARVER 32 185 5 32 185 4 32 15 1 1 739 .v sco, lRN, STRPH. EN P ' CAMPBELL GGEg R 14p 32 12 10 672 3 12 6 4 Si, t 1 :: 672 Songbird La TUMBLIN ACKLEY RUCKMAN 32 12 9 32 12 5 32 12 7 VAR ##05-01 Stephen Scothorn PIN: �-,j 32-12-8 Office of Mapping and GIS,10130100, Agray RECEIVE D Page 1 of s APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE MAR 2 12001 IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT 1. The applicant is the owner 2. APPLICANT: V" other . (Check one) OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: 5t L i 1tC��f NAME: ADDRESS ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: f %'�o % TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): it n/ -; !' : 11 / :� I' ,�! �%I �•�T, C �3? > �% !� �1 �it' S�' t/-� /' /;,� i� 4. The property has a road frontage of �,t'� feet and a depth of 333; feet and consists of5:c acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by A $too-i'ILIC' 42 1) as evidenced by deed from �v,,A/6 %/1/%y3' recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. on page -.3 74 of 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- 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 8. The existing zoning of the.property is:, 9. The existing use of the property is: 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North East__7711 L South 4.�r L• L West _y7 )4 L / 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.") Prd - .� Cul �eS� C c�i' /►off eke s� 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 ) PIA,5 71d4l' h-VIZA,6- /k /,V /- nST_ .L W,J V7 = D 1! �� Tt 7✓!L'�lf %.� ;. =l✓ T/�� / �i1 t �1y: !/'v.s �.� iyr yet '? 'r 1 .�f?'?G C�✓l t{ ; �Z sr ;, lc� �s i��75 1 r 13. Additional comments, if any 7-o c/�/l/ G1/ny, //Vi� ,t1/1 I L/T�"✓' 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 9P' +� i? ?r= Address .] Property ID# NAME iV.;RV i7r/^/ir- t 1,V Address Property ID# 6 c 3 Address o Sc.�r�= ��✓%= Property ID# i l - s,✓� 3; ::?- , y'a 1.7 > r>' ✓NAME//, -//,J z A-5- c S" ' � � �h,�/ ,� ' ;.�r� f� Address A .;? Property ID# 7' /.� - ! - 4/ > 7-4-�2 , G/'q '� 4-0 ,-NAME SJ?»�%a'f't G/�l� of /f/� S" Address % S ��,:� .fi.� �•9�f�z Property ID# -v e a r cl? i ��¢ -?.-760 .3 NAME Address /--��✓ aJ✓ Property ID# 7,,&W -NAME 14— e --'I ,T-,,, Address Property ID# _U - / -, - 4 NAME Address. Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address. Address 1 'V"I 1 '? eO'3 lz- o x WL' LL f GULTLL O 1 0 � � M,4 PA6. 1 / 1 '✓Lei li 1 Page 5 or 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 atleast 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 r " ��,n.:,,,, DATE 3 —Z l'" 01 SIGNATURE OF OWNER ✓,� > `DATE (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF APPROVAL -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - SIGNED: DENLA,L DA'L'E: ACTION: BZA CHAIRMAN