Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 09-25-01 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on September 25, 2001. PRESENT James Larrick, Jr., Chairman, Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Thomas Malcolm, Shawnee District and Robert Perry, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Mark R. Cheran, Planner I; Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Carol Huff, Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larrick at 3:25 p.m. MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2001 On a motion made by Mrs. Catlett and seconded by Mr. Perry, the minutes for the August 21, 2001 meeting were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Application #18 -01, Appeal of the Decision by the Zoning Administrator, submitted by Marsh Legge Land Surveyors, in regard to the denial of a boundary line adjustment in the Quail Meadows subdivision. The property is located at the northeast intersection of Ruebuck Road Rt. 670) and Rest Church Road (Rt. 669), adjacent to the Virginia/West Virginia State Line and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 23 -8 -12 and 23 -8 -13 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION - AFFIRMED DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Mr. Patrick Davenport, Zoning Administrator, presented the background information on the appeal. He explained the history of the platting of the Quail Meadows subdivision, and the Frederick County Ordinance governing Rural Preservation Subdivisions. He concluded by stating that Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of September 25, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1121 not being able to create larger lots for marketing purposes or the inability to reduce the size of the preservation area once the lots have already been legally recorded does not constitute an undue hardship. All rural area preservation subdivisions must follow the same regulations and granting this appeal may cause adjoining property owners to lose the assurance that the preservation area will be permanently preserved. They may also suffer reduced property values as a result. Chairman Larrick noted for the record that Mr. Perry would not be participating in the discussion on this appeal as there may be a conflict of interest. Mr. Larrick asked for any comments or questions from the Board. Seeing that there were none at this time, Chairman Larrick asked for anyone in favor of the appeal to come to the podium. Mr. Scott Marsh, of Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, PLC, applicants for the appeal, stated that he wanted to make it very clear why they were appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision and exactly what they were trying to do. He called the Board's attention to the "Current" and "Proposed" plats that were provided. He discussed the 40% preservation rule and stated that all lots have either been sold or are presently being built on. He explained that what they wanted to do would reduce the size of the preservation lot but would still be in excess of the 40% rule. Mr. Marsh emphasized several times that he wanted to make it clear that they did not want to set a precedent and did not want to re- subdivide any more lots. Chairman Larrick questioned the fact that the "Proposed" plat appeared to show more lots being proposed. There was some confusion as to what the "Proposed" plat was trying to show. Mr. Marsh informed the Board that the "Proposed" plat they had in their agendas was incorrect and showed them the drawing that showed the proposed boundary line adjustment and change of lot size. Mr. Malcolm asked why the subdivision was originally platted and recorded the way it was; Mr. Marsh replied that there was a client who wanted it that way (with the 75 -acre preservation tract) but that the contract fell through. Mr. Malcolm also asked about the adjoiner notification requirement for Rural Preservation Subdivision. Staff replied that Rural Preservation Subdivisions were handled administratively and did not require public hearings or public meetings. There was further discussion on how much of the original 119 acres would result in 40% for rural preservation; it was determined to be about 47.7 acres. The Chairman asked for anyone else in favor of the appeal and the following persons came forward: Mr. Perrin Duvall, property owner and client of Marsh & Legge, P.C., explained that he was seeking the boundary line adjustment in order to keep Lot 12 for his residence. That property contains the original farmhouse, barn and land that had been farmed for many years. Board members asked about what was allowed on a preservation lot. Staff explained that the intent of the ordinance is to allow the preservation lot to be one residential lot. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director for Frederick County, spoke against further subdivision of a recorded Rural Preservation lot based on several points, including the following: 1) Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of September 25, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1122 2 the intent of the rural preservation lot is to not further divide the parent tract; 2) under the Subdivision Ordinance the County allows traditional five -acre lots, family division lots, agricultural lots, rural preservation lots and boundary line adjustments. No matter what you call them, they all follow under the definition of land division which establishes not only new lots but boundary line adj ustments of any existing lot. 3) such action may set a precedent; 4) such action may affect property owners who haven't built yet. Mr. Wyatt reminded the Board that this hearing was not a normal variance application hearing where they would be looking at hardships and things of that nature but simply to determine if Mr. Davenport made the correct decision involving a legally recorded rural preservation lot. In rebuttal, Mr. Marsh pointed out that all of the adjoiners affected by this proposal had been notified of this public hearing. Secondly, he felt that a precedent would only be set if the 40% rule had been minimized further. In addition, he knows ofprior boundary line adjustments being made in this county to rural preservation lots. Mr. Marsh concluded that they felt they were meeting the intent of the ordinance by keeping the 40% rule and were not creating a non - conforming situation. Mr. Malcolm asked for clarification on whether boundary line adjustments had been made on rural preservation lots in the past. Mr. Wyatt's responded that he was not personally aware of any since he or Mr. Davenport had been with the County; however, he would not dispute Mr. Marsh's contention that boundary line adjustments may have been done on rural preservation lots in the past. There were no other public comments. DISCUSSION Mrs. Catlett asked for clarification on the decision the Board was being asked to make in this case. The Chairman confirmed that the Board was not deciding whether or not the boundary line adjustments could be made but, simply, whether or not the Zoning Administrator acted properly when making his determination. Chairman Larrick stated that he believed property owners have the right to believe that the Rural Preservation Lot will remain the way it was when they purchased their property. With no further discussion, Mr. Malcolm moved to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the denial of a boundary line adjustment in the Quail Meadows subdivision. BE IT RESOLVED, that Application #18 -01, Appeal of the Decision by the Zoning Administrator, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, was denied. The Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby affirm, by majority vote, the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the denial of a boundary line adjustment in the Quail Meadows subdivision. (Mr. Perry abstained from the vote.) Application #17 -01, Appeal of the Decision by the Zoning Administrator, submitted by Capon Valley Bank in regard to the denial of a time and temperature clock in a bank sign. The Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of September 25, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1123 3 property is located at 6701 Northwestern Pike and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 28 -A -14B and 28 -A -14D in the Back Creek Magisterial District. TABLED TO THE NOVEMBER 20, 2001 MEETING Mr. Davenport, Zoning Administrator, presented the background information on the appeal by the Capon Valley Bank. He explained that the appeal arose from a violation complaint against the bank for an illegal sign. A sign permit had not been obtained for the sign; additionally, the sign alternately displayed the time and temperature, a component that is not allowed in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Clinton Ritter, attorney for the applicant, spoke on behalf of Capon Valley Bank. He asked that the Board of Zoning Appeals allow them to amend their application because the August 15, 2001 letter that Mr. Davenport referred to was received after their application had been filed. They wanted to add that they do not believe the sign is animated or flashing, as the first and second letters from the Zoning Administrator indicated. A question regarding the wording of the adjoiner letter and the legal advertisement was brought up; the word "flashing "was not used, neither was the word "animated." Therefore, the Board concluded that there was no legal problem with accepting the amendment to the application. Mr. Ritter stated that although the application did not address any hardship issues, the bank spent $8,000 dollars on the sign and they considered that a hardship if they could not use it. In addition, they did not believe that the sign is flashing or animated; it is alternating. He further stated that not allowing the time and temperature portion of the sign would just result in the customers of the bank at Gore not having that convenience; however, they felt that they were providing a service that the community appreciated. Mr. Ritter added that staff should reexamine the way they write violation letters. Staff should think of abetter way of discreetly informing business owners ofpossible violations instead of Sending such a strongly- worded letter threatening criminal complaints and jail time. The Board asked if the F & MBank had a time and temperature display when their sign was there; Mr. Clinton replied that they did not. Several residents of Gore were present to speak on behalf of the bank. They felt that it was a nice gesture by the bank to provide this service and would like to see it be allowed to stay. The only complaint was from Mr. Al Hayes who stated although he liked seeing the time and temperature but he would like to see the brightness of the sign be a little less intense at night. Mr. Greg West stated that the residents of Gore were very happy to see the bank locate in their community, and he felt that since the City of Winchester allowed this type of sign, he did not see anything wrong with it being allowed in the County. Mr. Allen Brill, President and CEO of Capon Valley Bank, introduced himself to the Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of September 25, 2001 4 Minutes Book Page 1 124 Board and apologized for putting the sign up without obtaining the proper permit. He told the Board that they wanted to be a good business in the community and did not want to do anything against the code. This type of sign was allowed right over the border in Hardy County and they never considered that it might not be allowed in Frederick County. He reiterated that they did not feel that the sign was flashing" but was "alternating." Mr. Rinker asked for clarification on whether the sign was scrolling or not, and what color the lettering was. The Board asked what the difference was between flashing and alternating. There is no hard and fast rule in the code; it is a matter of interpretation by staff. Mr. Ritter remarked that he had asked the County Attorney for an interpretation on that point but had not received an answer in writing; however, he said that he had been given an opinion verbally. At this point, Mr. Davenport requested that the verbal opinion not be considered as it was nothing more than `hearsay.' DISCUSSION Chairman Larrick reminded the Board once again that they were not considering a variance and that the only thing they could vote on was whether ornot the Zoning Administrator made the correct interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance when denying the use of the time and temperature component of the Capon Valley Bank's sign. Further discussion ensued as to what constituted a flashing or animated sign. As the applicant was not able to show the video of the sign as they had planned, Mr. Perry moved that the application be tabled until the November 20, 2001 meeting to give the applicant ample time to have the sign repaired. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that application #17 -01, submitted by Capon Valley Bank, Appeal of the Decision by the Zoning Administrator in regard to the denial of a time and temperature clock in a bank sign, was tabled to the November 20, 2001 meeting by unanimous vote. There being no further business at hand, the meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of September 25, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1 125 L, X',f James Larrick, Jr., airman