The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 01-16-01 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia January 16, 2001 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Election of Officers and Introduction of New Member 2) Minutes of the November 21, 2000 Meeting PUBLIC HEARING 3) Variance #15-00 of Stephen P. Scothorn (continued from 11-21-00 meeting) for a22 -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. 4) Variance #17-00 of Michael W. Gunter for a five-foot side yard and 21 -foot rear setback variance for a deck, and a 2.5 -foot rear setback variance for a shed. This property is located at 206 Alpine Meadow Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 65E-1-91 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. 5) Variance #18-00 of Ronald and Marie Wible for a 4.7 -foot side yard setback variance for an existing house. This property is located at 200 Camellia Court and is identified with Property Identification Number 75G -4-4A-77 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 6) Appeal #16-00 of R.R. Restaurant, submitted by Wharton, Aldhizer & Weaver, P.L.C. on behalf of Arogas, Inc., to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, concerning the denial of a site plan application for a restaurant in the M2 (Industrial General) Zoning District. This property is located approximately 500 feet south of Rest Church Road (Rt. 669) and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) located between Rt. 11 and I-81 and continuing south to Duncan Run, and is identified with Property Identification Number 33-A-91 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. 7) 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 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 setback variance for the construction of a single-family residence. This property is located at 4517 Back Mountain Road and is identified with Property Identification Number 58-1-11) in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 21, 2000 Minutes Book Page 1090 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 1t 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 if the 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. 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 of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 21, 2000 2 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. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 21, 2000 3 Respectfully submitted, James Larrick, Jr., Acting Chairman Carol I. Huff, Secretary Minutes Book Page 1092 November 28, 2000 Ruckman Engineering Mr. Richard Ruckman 20 - B Ricketts Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: SURVEY STANDARDS Dear Mr. Ruckman: FILE Coir BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540/665-5651 FAX= 540/665-6395 On November 21, 2000, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) considered a setback variance request for a new dwelling. The applicant sought this variance as a remedy to a zoning ordinance violation regarding building setbacks. It appears that the violation was the result of a third party inspector's failure to confirm survey setbacks prior to authorizing the pouring of the concrete foundation. Records indicate that Ruckman Engineering conducted the third party inspections for this project. The BZA has received three setback variance requests over the past 14 months for similar setback violations identified through the survey standard process. Each of these projects utilized Ruckman Engineering as the third party inspector; and each projectwould have avoided the zoning ordinance violation, and the ensuing request to the BZA, had the established survey standards process been followed. In the future, we hope that you are more cautious when acting as the third party inspector for construction projects. A primary responsibility of the BZA is to consider when County Zoning Ordinance requirements place an undue hardship on property owners. The failure of a third party inspector to satisfactorily conduct an inspection is not an example of an undue hardship, and will not be accepted as justification for setback variances on future variance requests. I trust you will be more thorough in the future so your clients are not positioned in need of a variance to remedy your oversight. Sincerely, 6�, r\, :�4q Mr. James R. Larrick, Jr. Acting Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals J RL/J FC/ch �c:...Qh.n..Tren ry.....�a.ic ing.itzsp ctiarls......................................................................................................................................... Frederick County, Virginia C� • BZA REVIEW DATE: 11/21/00 (Postponed); 12/17/00 (meeting cancelled); 01/16/01 VARIANCE #15-00 STEPHEN 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: 22 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a detached two -car garage REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant states that "there is only one practical place for garage; to place elsewhere would have to remove many 75 to 100 -year-old oak trees and many small dogwood trees. Lower front acreage floods in wet weather. Unfeasible to run another driveway through yard to put garage behind house. Many homes and some garages along Apple Pie Ridge and Hiatt Road (main State roads) in area are less than 60 feet from road and some as close as 20 feet. The right-of-way into my house is a gravel road only 10 to 12' wide (private drive)." STAFF COMMENTS: The minimum distance that an accessory structure can be built to a property line in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District is 15 feet. However, no accessory building can be closer than 60 feet from the front property line or any public right-of-way. Mr. Stephen Scothorn is applying for a variance to this requirement. Specifically, Mr. Scothom is seeking a 22 -foot front yard variance in order to construct a detached two -car garage. His reason for this request is that he would like to preserve an area of large oak trees located to the right of his house. Staff estimates that one or two of these trees will need to be removed in order to located the garage at least 60 feet from the front property line. If this variance is approved, the garage will be 38 feet from the front property line. All other setbacks would be in conformance with county requirements. 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. Stephen Scothorn Variance #15-00 Page 2 November 9, 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. After an inspection of the property, and a thorough review of the Zoning Ordinance, it is the planning staff's opinion that approval of this variance would be inappropriate. The three reasons the planning staff recommends denial are as follows: There appears to be no undue hardship directed toward Mr. Scothom if we require the minimum setback distance for the garage. Mr. Scothorn 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. 3. There may be substantial detriment to adjacent property owners if Songbird Lane ever expands eastward. O:\Agendas\BZA\Staff Report\Stcphm Scothomlwpd )0, Agray a Page 1 Of s APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA r. 1. The applicant is the owner 2. APPLICANT: other . (Check one) OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: p NAME: ADDRESS 3a3 S ,A1%6rR-4) 1 A-1 TELEPHONE: S1/GG 7 - ! 10 '7 ADDRESS:_ TELEPHONE: 3, The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): G 0 Xrl/,{r r ,l,•j•� ; o h ^r 4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of 333:31 feet and consists of 5.4 acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by r 0� = Al as evidenced by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book no . i •% I on page 2 7!'? of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. page 3 d 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 ,� �� + l� ti Address s .3 5 0-AI6 /12,27 n Property ID# 3; - NAW z - NAME i � PV Property ID# Z�dat�� Property M# 3,2 - / 2- t /!/o� olvs f'-VAWWOA/ NAME J) p 41/I ; Property ID# 2 ~ IF-- 3 — y NAME .SGt4K � bac 1 �f s n.. 32-rr-5-5 Addressl w Address Address 15 ' L NAME �bt "a s C_ 'over Addresfc, P:C G Ae 1�: Ncs►Ltr , 1%r. 22 6 O 3 Property ID# 32-- 1 6-1-1 NAE_!v ,�� :6n £,/ j Address 30 0 5 0,✓ Z V --E- .. k4c-hes-sx- i VL X2. fa a 3 Property IDA 3.'Z — 11- _ 7 NAN E Address Property ID# NAME � Address Property ID# � � = ' e "' ,� ,t+.� aft' '� ,r.�r "'`:�•$� - 3,e�a�. { s• P ' • Y tnK 471 am. 3�9 a r � • 3 � A � O ed ti 1 hereby eartify i lit I that the land in is i this Plat a portion of the land s , ` 4 Q A Phelps bytdeaad date4 4 8 August 5. 1975, and I w recorded in the Frederick County Court Clerk's Office 1 • in Deed Book 447 at Page 4914 • 1 •� Braes Cdons, p MOOD s O PHELPS L�O.Ts j. r •1. .•� �� SrOWW VA LL /fjjy(��G }��V YtllCHf� fRC'Df::•�x CDlJPfTY• S."7. 1 to def of T ' 1 i rlt �J1L ihs anuunww. of wmL r w..: pK.'. m, an tH, ip fKO.A. � N L :� 1"�oG�uooD d A -D �! i 4 � cc 6 i I - 4 % n T / ? ,3 tai c 1 �J �� BZA REVIEW DATE: 01/16/01 VARIANCE #17-00 MICHAEL W. GUNTER LOCATION: This property is located at 206 Alpine Meadow Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 65E-1-91 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District; Land Use: Residential and Vacant VARIANCE: Five-foot side yard setback variance for a deck; 21 -foot rear yard setback variance for a deck; and a 2.5' rear yard setback variance for a shed REASON FOR VARIANCE: The applicant states that they were misinformed by the builder of the proper measurement, and that if the additional deck is three feet from the existing deck, it would not look good for resale purposes. STAFF COMMENTS: Variance #17-00 is a request for three setback variances for two existing structures in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. Two of the variance requests pertain to an existing attached deck: a five-foot side and a 21 -foot rear setback variance. This deck is attached to the rear of the house, and surrounds an above -ground swimming pool. The third request is for a 2.5 -foot rear setback variance for a detached storage shed. The decision of this variance request will either legalize the existing location of the deck and storage shed or support the Zoning Ordinance and potentially lead to the removal or modification of these structures. Both the deck and the storage shed are existing structures, and are in violation of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The minimum RP District setbacks for an attached deck are 10 feet from the side, and 25 from the rear property lines. The attached deck is currently only five feet from the side boundary line and four feet from the rear boundary line. The storage shed is a detached structure and is, therefore, required to be set back five feet from the side and rear boundary lines. The storage shed is currently just 2.5 feet from the rear boundary line.The applicant's property is located on Alpine Meadow Road, in the Apple Ridge subdivision in the Stonewall Magisterial District. All of the adjoining properties are single-family residences. The deck and shed are located in the rear ofthe Michael W. Gunter Variance Page 2 January 9, 2001 applicant's property, and adjoin five neighboring properties. Only a small portion of the deck is visible to adjoining properties. The circumstances leading up to this variance request begun on July 12, 2000, when the applicants applied for, and were issued, a building permit for an above -ground pool. Unfortunately, no building permit was issued for the deck at that time, even though it was constructed immediately after the pool was installed. Staff became aware of this situation when a citizen complaint was filed in regard to the deck. Shortly thereafter, staff opened a violation case against the property, and also informed the Inspections Department of the problem. The owners were notified of the side setback violation of the deck on August 3, 2000. The owners were not notified of the other two violations until September 12, 2000, because it was not until later that staff discovered that the deck was attached and that a storage shed existed. The fence obstructed staff's view during the first inspection. In the second inspection, staff was welcomed into the backyard. The applicants claim that the builder of the deck provided them with false information. They commented to staff that the builder informed them the deck was included in the building permit for the pool. In addition, the applicants said that the builder told them that the deck was considered a detached structure because it was at a lower elevation than the main floor of the house. However, the county considers the deck to be attached to the house and, therefore, must adhere to the primary structure setbacks. Staff considers a structure as attached if it is within three feet of another structure. The deck is clearly connected to the rear door of the house. 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 variances should be denied. The basis for staff's recommendation is as follows: 1) No undue hardship exists. The applicants are responsible for the nonconforming structures, because they did not report the construction of the deck to the Inspections Department. The applicant's claim that the builder provided them with false information is a separate issue from this request, and should not be considered an undue hardship. 2) The adjoining property owners are required to uphold the same setback standards that the applicants have neglected. Ignorance of setback requirements does not constitute a hardship. O.' Ugendasl BZAIStaff ReportlMichae! Gunter_ VAR—pd 65� OS APPLE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC 65E 1 C HOULIHAN BALLARD 5E 1 88 65E 1 8 CREEK RAKER 65E 1 87 65E 1 90 TEI KE HACK w �, ` 65F 1 1 22 Y 65E 1 86 k `` MOSKOWITZ MORTILLAM 5F 11 21 5E 1 92 GUNTER, MICHAEL W. & MARY H. SP NO 65E 1 91 5F 11 20 U �a`harac 0 cS� VAR # 17-00 Location Map For: Gunter, Michael W. PIN: 65E-1-91 Office of Mapping and GIS, 12100, Agray Mn;u of 7raleric I. y1mcnewer VA SE601 MCI 096 E21:7 xasx? GOO1320 - Foci) 70077N DAM: EQN201", 3SPEC70 TIMEz OWNER NAME/ADDRES3 877F ADDRESS MN7RAC70R %ATIADRESS M70. MICIAN Q. & NARY H, Contractor Not Defina'-� 206 AMNE MEAD01 R: 306 Alone NO= Road Mole Rage. Lot 9. 00000 �Au� MMEETZRI VA SE602 1q) 'ME; 540-72041%, PHONE: 000 000 000."1 - -- - -------- - — DESCR:?7!CN T CONSTRUCTON JUTION 7AX NAP %0.: 65E i --------------------------- q, SETTON: BLOCK; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOTI 91 BLDG NO.; SET-BACK61 HEALTH PENIT No.- DISTRICT, STONEWALL 73ON74 100' BACK; 5' FLOCUPLAM SUB-DIVIS:00 APPLE RMSE R:047: 40' LEM 5' AREA: Senseny ZONE; Rural Areas C172 7RTSQ RIG47-7-WAY; GREEN CARO; S/Z CUP to.. 617E PLAQ .7 7 Mornme Slor? Drive into Mole Ridge mawe the 2nd rient. on Alaine Meaoow roaar follow to culdesac will be white mouse MA bAck shutters on the rwht Pape 205 8-2 D= RE of W55 I Above Ground Swimmina Pool BROUP: L'Le Sro,"Q R11 Ea C�:-wimmwo --Ioi CC' TYPE: New 81 1EET4 ---- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18MA71; M2000'." Buildinq Permit RENEWAL DATE4 B,og. Size 1030 Basement Crawlspace const, Truss Roof Conv. Roof 710or jaii 000" cyv Ewtarior iA coverve Nzerior W Cover i nqt 4 stor >1 4 38orocaTz 4 Bathrox-i 7stalt Rns OCCUD LOM Nech. Lien Me ABOVE 6R0jND SWIMM7%3 Me ROO.'- Note Now V2 -ES TO !WSPECTR: Planning informed us that they are outting uP a deck around this 3ool, hey do not have a oermit for the deck just the pool. Please :et them :now they need to get a aermit. comolaint - insoenion ReBu.%-, 10 MENCTOR: D& RESCHEDULE--.— DATE: C 0 M M E N T 8 Jf -------- ----- ---------- :1SPEC70R E13NA75RE: Y Page 1 of s APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE DECEIVED IN THE NOV 2 9 2000 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA ucr 1.0I MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INR - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: NAME: OCCUPANT: (if different) I 'IMI ADDRESS �� ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers) : v _ 4. The property has a road frontage of iep feet and a depth of feet and consists of 194 acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by�� as evidenced by deed from v�s�:N�; �� tt,�.`s recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. '„; ,;, on page 14q 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:f'pfyi'1- 9. The existing use of the property is:G'��P�1(� 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North D Otfe aj East QN I V South SIGH West ((PSf��c_J7L 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.") ' i �- -� ,(� irb I 1 .Vio�n r i, --ro r d, J. rjC r ems' .10-ttk Ct - O' r 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 13. Additional comments, if any 76.41v 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 ��` (�fzi �Yt c �- � [ I �. Address - � . M e-cA ec j Property IN NAME JC(N I Ccrlb k ►14- {2 c,-kOA Address ?09 AI � 6-ir V f-c-dcw tZA - Property ID# NAME�'��_��'r c Address Property ID# NAME Address W4 C4.4 n Vcn P cl 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# Address Pagc 4 of 5 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. 10 (' ccad Cwt- dc, -SOLO —�, Page 5 of 5 at AGREEMENT VARIANCE # / 7— 0 0 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 k I -�-yQ SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE i i 12'7 O_0 (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF APPROVAL -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION: BZA CHAHMIAN pit I Is LOT - i rKJ "'29A' f i scel FT. D.13. 716 P. 614 3: t cWtV Or 4rac4v*v - 40. irc* r 14F as If: w. o 4 71 iro Ywo 370w( FAAME PWELI.ING W /BASEMENT A S105 rlC7 o4Z A 04ZVW RCKbI ao ff/4," MAL HOUSE LOCATIO SURVEY LX 91 APPLE RIME SUDDIVISION! wo^tx WITWI. !`ISE icK ccusTy. VRWOA CALK i :r, * rA%4. Z:. A I K bRia totis w ANO 0.11my4vc. CO.: INC ls04 UNER LANE 5 EZA REVIEW DATE: 01/16/01 VARIANCE #18-00 RONALD AND MARIE WIBLE LOCATION: The property is located at 200 Camellia Court. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75G -4-4A-77 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Land use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District; Uses: Residential VARIANCE: The applicant is requesting a four -foot, nine -inch side yard setback variance for an existing house. This would enable a boundary line adjustment between two parcels. REASON FOR VARIANCE: The variance is being sought due to a "waiver" which was granted at the time of closing and was written into the deed. The applicants seek the variance in order to obtain a building permit to build a deck. STAFF COMMENTS: This request has been submitted in order to bring an existing dwelling, constructed in 1988, into conformance with the rear setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Within the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, the minimum rear yard setback for a principal structure is 25 feet. The existing single family dwelling was constructed 20 feet, 3 inches from the rear property line; therefore, the applicant is requesting a four -foot, nine -inch rear yard variance to accommodate the existing house. The house was constructed prior to the County's adoption of Structural Location Survey requirements; therefore, the current process of instituting a building location survey was not required and the house was constructed without the benefit of such a survey. Ronald and Marie Wible Variance #18-00 Page 2 January 3, 2001 While the house was constructed over 10 years ago, it was not until recently that staff was made aware of the setback violation. The applicant had submitted design plans to acquire a building permit to enclose an existing deck, and construct a new deck on the property. When the required documentation was submitted to the county, staff noted that the existing house did not comply with the zoning ordinance setback. After researching the building setback discrepancy, it was determined that a violation did indeed exist, and that a variance must be gained prior to the construction of additional improvements on the property. 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 believes that this request may be reasonable since the house was built more than 10 years ago under approved building permits. O:Wgendas\BZA\Staff'Report\Ron Wible.wpd OWN Page 1 of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA 1. The applicant is the owner �_ other (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME : Rord d P a� ie, \A i bl e. NAME: ADDRESS jCQ�t Mel I C(Dj_tr+ ADDRESS: C40, VA TELEPHONE: - %t- ,$ TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 4. The property has a road frontage of l5q.I feet and a depth of A. X33' Mo. (� feet and consists of 0,35 acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Rorylj N. May e) U �'Ie' as evidenced by deed from ;�x �1e recorded '(previots owner) in deed book no. giLI on page 1(,-51 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. Page 2 of 5 Magisterial District: 5 (tjQnee., 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: ;15 G�?,o0o `` fit cory7o The existing zoning of the property is: /2 P 9. The existing use of the property is: /lsrct� N,flc.� ( x,10. Adjoining Property: LL c�`� USE ZONING North RP East ��s✓'t!i South West P -:,e6 <ie,a -,�?- e RIO 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.") -( q « re -our ren -MIS S D ro pe --J-q -Mc t tom."aas hu -j' / k- over 4&a� �' se haLk Jell - CCZ.-) add 716 Out- ex[�,�� dente 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 '-' T�;� V`L2i1c+11 � I S my tL�iht bfc a -Se- GSC' CcUl t f0 q e� ct. v L,ic�,,I�tyrm%t `io add ori -�O GYcr deck. 13. Additional comments, if any , !_tie rcv e *Id QJL d. csina 4� M� dee-d. 4C 0-11 `0�7 page 3 d 5 �' Co - X 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 PtLtirnpricl i kc&6t{ 1Y)ur)ch Address --,20q- %S*phers Ce V/i 2.26,56 Propertym# 2 5 C7 Q 0 04 4 ?3 0 0 26 0 NAMEaneLJ cies' Address /44.- P l %veri Grte� PropertyM# ni S 6 C)001�0 SO O`7 S CS NAME I?)'Oc-hae l : Elkw /Yrueaer Address ICO Bell /-,h- veO Property ID# '� Jc oCp i 007 a NAME ibn t' Vt cn, &JA—t ffi Address 62fl l T PropertyM# 1667 000 44/q00-7/0 NAME Char/es i T* -4 y ` l2 Address o20 3 sl h s 5,�/ , VA a �� Property ID# % J 000 CC) 7J Q NAME��`' t is �J ►- � 1 ko�l )j)Corgi Address /C_�3 Property ID# '7 J(;� CDU 4L1YQ0QggO NAME Property ID# "7Sv 4-4 4 Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address Address Address Address Page 4 of 5 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. � f �X � Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # 19-00 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 O 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 !-Aatf�& wa'gb DATE /)-/3-00 SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF DATE -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION: BZA CHA MAN s6l- V L 43.90' R 25.00' WATER TER LOT 77 c� m 15,486 SO. FT. m �' c4 C� op REBAR = 35• BRL FOUND REBAR SET P DRAINAGE EASEMENT LL 69. J8' -- --�_ R 375.00 REBAR SET BELL HAVEN CIRCLE 50' R -O -W THIS IS TO CE77IFY THAT ON JUNE 28 1996 l MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES SHOWN HEREON, AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASE- MENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON 7H£ GROUND 077ER THAN 7HOSE SHOWN HEREON. HOUSE LOCA 7JON SURVEY ON LOT 77 SECTION IV --A LAKEWOOD MANOR DEED BOOK 649 PAGE 711 SHAWNEE DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DA TE- JUN£ 28 1996 SCALE 1"-25' NOTES: - 1. TAX ASSESSMENT MAP NO. 75G -4-4A-77 2. CURRENT INSTRUMENT IN CHAIN OF 7771E IS DEED BOOK 702 PAGE 585 J. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT 7HE BENEFIT OF A 777LE REPORT AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES CN 7HE PROPERTY SURVEYED. JOB / 96-42 OWER.- NETH PURCHASER- WIBLE FLOOD NOTE. ZONE. C COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 PANEL: 0200 B DATE- 07-17-78 0 m to Lo0 I �t d c I _z U' s F Gn fW U] W a x I Lo 03 X 0 w P4 I J I�• CH SES E. WALLS, J 4 S ' WaX CERTIFICATE NO. 1 45 r CIVICS- E. WALLS. 1, i' DATE SIGNM, r' L �• IH/5 SUR LE /5-lyOyj VXL/Dk yLf. 5/6NED. DAIFD AND STAZD 4ATF7'b79'£A/6US5FD SE44 -- - - - - - -';,__ ` Novi CORD 653 \ IC . 60 REBAR FOUND IgAN ORMER 5 jg2�15n 1p6 �� REBARo L FOUND' 1 25' BRL j f- � ♦- 28.7" �� \ 26.3 w 57EPS j V I O = p N REBAR FOUND -- OW PLANTER CA TV /SER P.K. NAIL SET ASPHAL T TELEPHONE DRI WWA Y RISER h - ---------- -- 42.3• 26.3' ' 3 L 43.90' R 25.00' WATER TER LOT 77 c� m 15,486 SO. FT. m �' c4 C� op REBAR = 35• BRL FOUND REBAR SET P DRAINAGE EASEMENT LL 69. J8' -- --�_ R 375.00 REBAR SET BELL HAVEN CIRCLE 50' R -O -W THIS IS TO CE77IFY THAT ON JUNE 28 1996 l MADE AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES SHOWN HEREON, AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASE- MENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS VISIBLE ON 7H£ GROUND 077ER THAN 7HOSE SHOWN HEREON. HOUSE LOCA 7JON SURVEY ON LOT 77 SECTION IV --A LAKEWOOD MANOR DEED BOOK 649 PAGE 711 SHAWNEE DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DA TE- JUN£ 28 1996 SCALE 1"-25' NOTES: - 1. TAX ASSESSMENT MAP NO. 75G -4-4A-77 2. CURRENT INSTRUMENT IN CHAIN OF 7771E IS DEED BOOK 702 PAGE 585 J. THIS PLAT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT 7HE BENEFIT OF A 777LE REPORT AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES CN 7HE PROPERTY SURVEYED. JOB / 96-42 OWER.- NETH PURCHASER- WIBLE FLOOD NOTE. ZONE. C COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 PANEL: 0200 B DATE- 07-17-78 0 m to Lo0 I �t d c I _z U' s F Gn fW U] W a x I Lo 03 X 0 w P4 I J I�• CH SES E. WALLS, J 4 S ' WaX CERTIFICATE NO. 1 45 r CIVICS- E. WALLS. 1, i' DATE SIGNM, r' L �• IH/5 SUR LE /5-lyOyj VXL/Dk yLf. 5/6NED. DAIFD AND STAZD 4ATF7'b79'£A/6US5FD SE44 y M Ln �o N N A U w m 4-7 d a d a+ 0 U M r-1 w v m U 0 0 N a w w E d s. 'PHIS DEED and WAIVER OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, made and dated this 8th day of July, 1996, by and between CALEB SQUIBB NETH amd ELEANOR LOUISE NETH, husband and wife, parties of the first part, hereinafter called rhe Grantors; RONALD MICHAEL WIBLE and MARIE H. WIBLE, husband and wife, parties of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantees; and SHIHO, INC., a Virginia corporation, party of the third part. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey, with General Warranty and English covenants of title unto the Grantees, in fee simple, jointly, as tenants by the entirety, with common law right of survivorship, it being intended that the part of the one dying should then belong to the other, his or her heirs or assigns, the following described real estate, together with all rights, rights of way, improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging: All that certain parcel of land, lying and being situate in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, and more particularly described and designar,ed as LOT 77 of LAKEWOOD MANOR, SECTION IV -A, on that certain plat of survev drawn by P. Duane Brown, C.L.S., dated February 6, 1987, attached to the Deed of Dedication of said subdivision dated June 1, 1987, of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 649, at Page 697, et seq., and further described by plat of survey by Charles F. Walls, Jr., L.S. dated June 28, 1996; and being the same property conveyed to Caleb Squibb Neth and Eleanor Louise Neth, husband and wife. by Deed elated January 3, 1989 from Walter J. Miller, Jr., et us, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Deed Book 702, at Page 585. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the references therein contained for a more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of wav and restrictions of record, affecting the subject property. The party of the third part joins in this deed at the request of the parries of the first part and pursuant to Article VI, Item 10, of the Deed of Dedication, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 649, at Page 697, and hereby agrees to waive the 25' building restriction line along the side adjacent to Lot 76, Lakewood Manor, Section IV -A. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: �.J�� • 1�(%ISEAL� ;rrEB SQUIBB ' 'Ill �_ISEALI ELEANOR LOUISE METH SHIHO, INC. BY: ISEALI �! DA [Q DAY, frresident y: Mj OF VIRGINIA �j,�ZI4r bF : WINCHESTER, to -wit: Y :r''Acknowledged before me this P day of July, 1996 by CALEB SQUIBB Rd TH and ELEANOR LOUISE NETH. My commission expires: . V NOTARY PUBLI STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit: Acknowledged before me this O `-flay of July, 1996 by David B. 1'j6l,liday, whois President of Shiho, Inc., a Virginia corporation, on :.fi�alf of the corporation. My commission expires: NOTA 'UBLIC x; _,;e •x i; aha, trn r Acv - # id z.r.,i„yt•ysa.ts.-�. q.� .. J • • BZA REVIEW DATE: 1/16/01 APPLICATION #16-00 APPEAL OF DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR R.R. RESTAURANT LOCATION: The property is located approximately 500 feet south of Rest Church Road (Rt. 669) and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) located between Rt. l l and I-81 and continuing south to Duncan Run. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 33-A-91 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: M2 (Industrial General) District Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential; Commercial APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, concerning the denial of a site plan application for a restaurant in the M2 (Industrial General) Zoning District. REASON FOR APPEAL: See attached letter to Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director, from G. Chris Brown, Wharton Aldhizer & Weaver, dated November 21, 2000. STAFF COMMENTS: Site History: On April 9, 1999, the applicant filed Rezoning Application #10-99 to request a rezoning of the subject parcel from M2 (Industrial General) District to B3 (Industrial Transition) District for the purpose of establishing a Retail Motor Convenience Center. This application was tabled by the Board of Supervisors on May 26, 1999. On March 8, 2000, the applicant requested a continuance of this tabling to determine ifthe Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would issue a permit to allow R.R. Restaurant (Arogas, Inc.) Appeal Page 2 January 9, 2001 this site to be served by a package treatment plant system for sewage disposal. DEQ ultimately permitted the issuance for this system; however, the applicant has not advised the county of a desire to proceed with this rezoning petition for final disposition by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. Proposed Site Development Plan: On October 13, 2000, a site development plan was submitted to the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development for R.R. Restaurant. This site development plan indicated that the applicant desired to develop the subject property to establish a restaurant with accessory retail, as well as accessory fuel service and accessory bulk oil sales. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance utilizes the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC) to depict the land uses that are permitted with the county's business and industrial zoning districts. The proposed site development plan identifies the primary use of this parcel as a restaurant. This would be considered a permitted by -right use in the M2 (Industrial General) District under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 58 - Eating and Drinking Places, provided it was a stand-alone business. However, the office of the Zoning Administrator determined that the primary use of the proposed site development plan falls under SIC 554 - Gasoline Service Stations, which is not a permitted use in the M2 (Industrial General) District. The definition for Gasoline Service Station under SIC 554 is as follows; "Gasoline service stations primarily engaged in selling gasoline and lubricating oils. These establishments frequently sell other merchandise, such as tires, batteries, and other automobile parts, or perform minor repair work. Gasoline stations combined with other activities, such as grocery stores, convenience stores, or carwashes, are classified according to the primary activity. " The land uses which are included within SIC 554 include automobile service stations; filling stations; gasoline and oil; marine service stations; service stations, gasoline; and truck stops. The determination by the office of the Zoning Administrator that the primary use of the proposed site development plan falls within SIC 554 in lieu of SIC 58 is based on the following conclusions: • A total of 25,950 square feet of structural area is indicated on the proposed site development plan, of which 17,450 square feet (67%) is for land uses which are within SIC 554, while less than 8,500 square feet (33%) is for a land use which is within SIC 58. • Approximately 194,500 square feet (82%) of the impervious portion of the developed site is dedicated to the structural areas, parking, and maneuvering for the land uses which are within SIC 554, while approximately 43,000 square feet (18%) of the impervious portion of the developed site is dedicated to the structural area, parking, and maneuvering for the land use R.R. Restaurant (Arogas, Inc.) Appeal Page 3 January 9, 2001 which is within SIC 58. Furthermore, the floor area within the 8,500 -square -foot structure is not delineated to account for the restaurant square footage and the accessory retail square footage. • The proposed site development plan calls for the provision of 28 fueling positions and the installation of underground storage tanks which will provide a capacity of 124,000 gallons of diesel fuel storage and 40,000 gallons of oil storage on-site. STAFF CONCLUSION FOR JANUARY 16, 2001 MEETING: Affirmation of the actions made by the office of the Zoning Administrator in dismissing the applicant's site development plan based on the determination that the primary use of the property is for land uses not permitted in the M2 (Industrial General) District. File: O:Wgendm\BZA\StaffReport\RRRe taurantAPP.wpd t Church FUNKHOUSER 33A A 11 33 A 91 3 81 t RAINR W GROUP, TH 33A A 34 e a LARRICb 33A A 33 L-* 4 •+9"i �A;f' SMALLWOO A 3 1185 ii%itsy KITTS R,alx IeStalirar�' A A 30 q L�iiklAV$H..�Aq�$J�'{.�, b`lk„ . > CURRY CARTER " n A 28 ADAMS 3A A 27A I ;tq ELLIS -4 -•= 33A A 27 81 g /- R POPE Roos i5 33A A 26 SEMPELES i4 APPEAL #16 - 00 33A A 25 geoLOW A 15A wo b. Arogas, Inc. PAUGH 11 33A A 24 (R.R. Restaurant) MCDONALD 33A A 23 33 91 -A - TAYLOR 33A A 22 HARDEN 33A A 21 JOHNSON FITZWATER JOHNSON 33 A 93 33A A 20 33 A 92 COOKE SHILLINGBURG 33 A 94 33A A 19 Frederick County Department of Planning and Development November 21, 2000 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AIOP, Deputy Director t • ` '' County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street ��,_ I Winchester, VA 22601-5000 -r T. OF �LQ.,;G/ 5,L;-:, NT Dear Mr. Wyatt: This firm represents Arogas, Inc. in connection with the R. R. Restaurant Site Development Plan submitted to your office on October 13, 2000. Attached is an application to appeal the decision set forth in your letter of October 25, 2000, which referred to your earlier letter of October 19, 2000, in which you determined that the site plan submitted by Arogas could not be approved due to a discrepancy between the proposed use of the property and the property's current zoning designation of M-2, Industrial General District. Your letter dated October 19, 2000 set forth your determination that the proposed site development plan provides for a use which falls under SIC 554 - Gasoline Service Stations. Gasoline service stations are not permitted primary uses in M-2 districts. The definition for a Gasoline Service Station within SIC 554 provides, in part, as follows: "Gasoline stations combined with other activities, such as grocery stores, convenience stores, or carwashes, are classified according to the primary activity." We believe that the primary activity shown on the site development plan for the Arogas property is for a restaurant, which is a use permitted by right in M-2 Districts under SIC 58. We also believe that the procedure by which you calculated the percentages of structural floor area used for SIC 554 uses, as opposed to SIC 58 uses, was improper in that it counted the Retail Petroleum Canopies shown on the site development plan as structural floor area. We believe this is inconsistent with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and your office's past practices. Again, we believe that the primary use shown on the proposed site development plan is a restaurant, which falls under SIC 58 - Eating and Drinking Places, with accessory uses related thereto or otherwise permitted, including those under SIC 554 - Gasoline Service Stations. WHARTON ALDHIZER & WEAW RDLC George R. Aldhizer, Jr. Phillip C. Stone, Jr. Donald E. Showalter ATTORNEYS AT LAW Cathleen P. Welsh Glenn M. Hodge G. Rodney Young, 11 M. Bruce Wallinger 100 SOUTH MASON STREET Mark W. Botkin William E. Shmidheiser, III HARRISONBURG, VIRGINIA 228014022 Kevin M. Rose Douglas L. Guynn MAILING ADDRESS: Stephan W. Milo John W. Flora Lynn K. Suter Gregory T. St. Ours P. O. Box 20028 Jennifer E. Shirkey Charles F. Hilton HARRISONBURG, VIRGINIA 22801-7528 Walter P. Sowers, II Daniel L. Fitch TELEPHONE LeAnn M. Buntrock Jeffrey G. Lenhart HARRISONBURG (540) 434-0316 Lisa Anne Hawkins Mark D. Obenshain STAUNTON (540) 885-0199 Cathy Jackson Leitner Thomas E. Ullrich FAx (540) 434-5502 Brian K. Brake Carolyn Madden Perry Dana R. Cormier Marshall H. Ross WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (540) 438-5350 Lisa N. Spellman G. Chris Brown WRITER'S E-MAIL:CBROWN@WAWLAW.COM November 21, 2000 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AIOP, Deputy Director t • ` '' County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street ��,_ I Winchester, VA 22601-5000 -r T. OF �LQ.,;G/ 5,L;-:, NT Dear Mr. Wyatt: This firm represents Arogas, Inc. in connection with the R. R. Restaurant Site Development Plan submitted to your office on October 13, 2000. Attached is an application to appeal the decision set forth in your letter of October 25, 2000, which referred to your earlier letter of October 19, 2000, in which you determined that the site plan submitted by Arogas could not be approved due to a discrepancy between the proposed use of the property and the property's current zoning designation of M-2, Industrial General District. Your letter dated October 19, 2000 set forth your determination that the proposed site development plan provides for a use which falls under SIC 554 - Gasoline Service Stations. Gasoline service stations are not permitted primary uses in M-2 districts. The definition for a Gasoline Service Station within SIC 554 provides, in part, as follows: "Gasoline stations combined with other activities, such as grocery stores, convenience stores, or carwashes, are classified according to the primary activity." We believe that the primary activity shown on the site development plan for the Arogas property is for a restaurant, which is a use permitted by right in M-2 Districts under SIC 58. We also believe that the procedure by which you calculated the percentages of structural floor area used for SIC 554 uses, as opposed to SIC 58 uses, was improper in that it counted the Retail Petroleum Canopies shown on the site development plan as structural floor area. We believe this is inconsistent with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and your office's past practices. Again, we believe that the primary use shown on the proposed site development plan is a restaurant, which falls under SIC 58 - Eating and Drinking Places, with accessory uses related thereto or otherwise permitted, including those under SIC 554 - Gasoline Service Stations. November 21, 2000 Page 2 I am enclosing with this letter and application for appeal, a check in the amount of $250, a check in the amount of $50, and another copy of the site development plan. As you know, Arogas, Inc. is a contract purchaser of the property in question, however I have enclosed a variance request signed by one of the record owners of the property. Please let me know if there is a deadline by which we must submit additional information for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, G. Chris Brown Enclosures cc: Pat Manning GCBnksi KSL0569 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA "�t� "' -3+. mac`V .�! ,� vt ^9- 5+�.� y t,d4 Z �j "-.�= rte• A �MTCEUVl'JS�{ �'.a— 'zz ` .r- "rH�+�wi ��''_�'�3`'.$�'i�,«az+ ...' vyw'� s".'=,��c�4�„. ,d K�"u'-, xs ,mss•-wn...,:�-'+c` .�" �.�.� �. �`-�- � .�� ,�- P� AP-Phcation A 7 M it mi �bm�i'ttal Date'o the meeting of ti.." hx. gn� g. - { MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other. x . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME:AROGAS , Inc. ADDRESS P.O. Box 580 St. Peters, MO 63376 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: (636) 947-0255 TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 500 ft +/- south of intersection of Va. Sec. Rt. 689, Woodbine Road and U.S. Route 11, Martinsburg Pike, located between U.S. Route 11 and Interstate 81 and continuing south to Black's Run. 4. Magisterial District: Stonewall 5. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: Tax parcels 33-A-91, 33A -A -k2-- and- -3-3A-A—t3 6. The existing zoning of the property is: M-2, Industrial General District 7. The existing use of the property is: vacant, _residential 8. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Commercial RA East Residential RA South Residential RA West Commercial and Industrial B3, M1 9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.) Determination of the Frederick County Zoning Administrator, dated October 25, 2000, that the .site plan submitted for the subject property Proposes a use not permitted in M2 districts. See attachment A. 10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision. (This may be provided on separate sheet.) See attachment B. Sp S Qt AP er nrQ-ViousP re &-eACe ' fY1M 1. 11. Additional comments, if any: I October 25, 2000 Triad Engineering, Inc. Attn: Mr. Dennie Dunlap 971 Acorn Drive P.O. Box 1448 Harrisonburg, VA 22801 ATTACHMENT A COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 RE: R. R. Restaurant Site Development Plan Submittal Rejection Dear Mr. Dunlap: CERTIFIED MAIL, On October 19, 2000, our department provided you with a letter advising you of the decision not to accept your site development plan for the referenced project. The information in this letter delineated the factors which were considered when rendering the decision to reject the project as submitted. Furthermore, our department returned the attachments that were submitted by your firm including a site plan application; a site plan application fee in the amount of $1,650.00; and two copies of a site development plan for the referenced project. As acting Zoning Administrator, I am providing you with written notification of your right to appeal this decision. You may have the right to appeal this notice of site development plan submittal rejection within 30 days of the date of this letter in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. This decision shall be final and unappealable if it is not appealed within 30 days. Should you choose to appeal, the appeal must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in accordance with Article XX, Section 165-144A(l) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This provision requires the submission of an application form, written statement setting forth the decision being appealed, date of decision, the grounds for the appeal, how the appellant is an aggrieved party, any other information you may want to submit, and a $250.00 filing fee. Once the appeal application is accepted, it will be scheduled for public hearing and decision before the BZA. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt, AI ,` P Deputy Director/Acting Zoning Administrator cc: Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., Stonewall District Supervisor Mr. T. Pat Manning, President, Arogas Inc. U:\Evan\Common\Plan Reviews\R R Restawant Site Development Plan Rejection Appeals Process Letter.wpd 107 forth Rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Fuel/Aerogas Adjoining Property owners Address Tap No. axM Name _ 4273 Martinsburg Pike l C. DeHaven Manuel Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-A-92 John E. & Patricia R_ Bowers RR 1 Box 2501 $erryville, VA 22611 50 W. 990 S 33-9-1 CFJ Properties Brigham City, UT 84302 50 W. 990 S 33-9-2 CFJ Properties Brigham City, UT 84302 50 W. 990 S 33-9-3 CFJ Properties Brigham City, UT 84302 50 W_ 990 S 33-9-4 CFJ Properties Brigham City, UT 84302 50 W. 990 S 33-9-5 CFJ Properties Brigham City, UT 84302 P.O_ Box 53 33A -A-11 Corporation Exxon Corp Houston, TX 77001 4273 Martinsburg Pike 33A -A-12 Manuel C. DeHaven Clearbrook, VA 22624 4275 Martinsburg Pike 33A -A-13 Mrs. Grace Roomers Clearbrook, VA 22624 Miss Grace Roomers P.O. Box 103 33A -A-14 Elwood R. Ruble Clearbrook, VA 22624 & Dorotry Orndorff 4553 Martinsburg Pike 33A -A-15 W. D. Clearbrook. VA 22624 4535 VlartinsburQ Pike ,;,�-.�-15A Norman &Nellie Osbourn Clearbrook_ VA 22624 33A -A-19 Betty M_ Shillingburg 33A -A-20 Benjamin D_ Fitzwater, Jr. 33A -A-21 John and Elland Harden 33A -A-22 Gilbert B. Taylor 33A -A-23 Lewis F. McDonald, Jr. 33A -A-24 Allen J_ & Linda L. Paugh George and Carol Sempeles 33A -A-25 33A -A-26 Leslie Osborne Pope 33A -A-27 Charles Lemen Ellis 33A -A -27A Emily J. Adams 33A -A-28 Catherine May Carter 33A -A-29 Thelma M_ Curry Robin A. Light 33A -A-30 Fred Milton & Rebecca Kitts 33A -A-31 Donald Yantis Smallwood 33A -A-33 Delmar & Cynthia Larrick 160 Woodbine Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 166 Woodbine Road Clearbrook VA 22624 174 Woodbine Road Clearbrook; VA 22624 184 Woodbine Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 1069 Carpers Road Winchester, VA 22603 208 Woodbine Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 331 Woodbine Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 136 Jordan Dr. Winchester, VA 22602 4568 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 4578 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 4586 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 4592 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 4600 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 RR 1 Box 752 Bunker Hill, WV 25413 4622 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook. VA 22624 AGREEMENT APPEAL # I C — 00 I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to overrule the administrative interpretationof the County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions 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 hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLIC DATE a q Da Wka6 &Z'r & Lvmver PL-c— SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY - DATE BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION: - DATE - APPEAL OVERRULED APPEAL SUSTAINED SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DATE: Filc r,%WP1CMMAPPUCArAPPEAL Rev. 1/97 12/19/00 15:45 To:Pat Manning From:G. Chris Brown 540-434-5502 Page 212 AGREEMENT APPEAL # .16-00_ Q I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to overrule the administrative interpretation of the County Zoning Ordinance as dcscribcd herein- I agree to comply with any conditions required by the BZA. I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the property for site bnspection purposes. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SICNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNI<R (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING DF -OFFICE USI- ONLY- - DATE - APPEAL OVERRULED APPEAL SUSTAWED FIe: K�51P5C'Od�JJHJGT�APYE.41 DATE ACTION: SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DATE: r_„ r _ao c a �..ry.. AGREEMENT VARIANCE # — 0 D I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfially 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 SIGNATURE OF OWNER _DATE ' 4) 4� (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - ACTION: APPROVAL SIGNED• BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: