BZA 05-21-02 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 May 21, 2002.
PRESENT James Larrick, Jr., Chairman, Gainesboro District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District;
Thomas Malcolm, Red Bud District (also representing Shawnee District); Robert
Perry, Stonewall District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud
District; and Robert W. Wells, Member -At -Large
STAFF
PRESENT Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Carol Huff, BZA Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larrick at 3:25 p.m.
APRIL 16, 2002 MINUTES
The minutes for the April 16, 2002 meeting were approved by unanimous vote after
a motion by Mr. Perry and a second by Mr. Malcolm.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance #09 -02 of Stonewall Orchard Lots, Section 2 (Lot 27) submitted by Rick Lafollette for
a 40 -foot left and right side yard setback variances to create a buildable lot for the construction of a
single - family residence. The property is located on Stonewall Drive (Rt. 858) in the Stonewall
Orchard subdivision, Lot 27, and is identified with Property Identification Number 5313-2 -27 in the
Back Creek Magisterial District.
Variance #10 -02 of Stonewall Orchard Lots, Section 2 (Lot 28) submitted by Rick Lafollette for
a 40 -foot left and right side yard setback variances to create a buildable lot for the construction of a
single - family residence. The property is located on Stonewall Drive (Rt. 858) in the Stonewall
Orchard subdivision, Lot 28, and is identified with Property Identification Number 53B -2 -28 in the
Back Creek Magisterial District.
ACTION - TABLED TO THE JUNE 18, 2002 MEETING
s Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
of May 21, 2002 Minutes Book Page 1148
Mr. Davenport presented the background information on the application. Due to the
age of the subdivision (mid 1950's), the setbacks do not meet today's setback standards. Since two
of the criteria specified in the Code of Virginia are met, Mr. Davenport stated that granting this
variance as requested would be justified.
Mr. Rick Lafollette, applicant, told the Board members that he wants to build a home
on one lot and his uncle would be building on the other. Mr. Lafollette that he has a growing family
and they needed more space. He showed a diagram of the properties, and pointed out that he owns
one other lot but that it is not buildable because it is in a floodplain.
Several questions were asked by the Board pertaining to the size of the houses being
built and whether he needed the full amount of the variances being requested. Mr. Lafollette replied
that due to a flooding problem in that area, he was not able to have a basement; therefore, he needed
the full variance. He did not have the exact, final house plans with him; however, and was unable to
say for certain what the exact house measurements would be.
There were several adjoining property owners present who spoke against the variance
requests. Mr. Tim Butcher said that he had to comply with the setbacks when he built his garage and
felt that Mr. Lafollete should also. Mr. Butcher stated that there have been problems with wells going
dry in that area and that there was great concern among the neighbors over the prospect of two more
wells and two more septic systems being put in. He presented a petition with 11 signatures from
property owners who objected to Mr. Lafollette's variance requests.
Mr. Terry Woberton said that the two houses being proposed would take away from
the character of the neighborhood. He said that no other houses were that close together.
Additionally, Mr. Woberton is a fire fighter and believed that there would be a fire hazard due to the
inability of fire fighting equipment to safely access the structures.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Davenport suggested that one possibility may be to consider planting trees or some
other type of buffer between the proposed houses and the existing homes.
Further discussion ensued regarding the age of the subdivision, the fact that strict
application of the ordinance in this case produces an undue hardship approaching confiscation as a
potential "regulatory taking." Additionally, the Board felt that not knowing exactly what size house
was going to be built made it difficult to make a decision.
Mr. Davenport asked the Board if they would be comfortable going by the house plans
that would be reviewed and approved by Mr. John Trenary of the Building Inspections Department.
The Board agreed by consensus that this would be agreeable and asked Mr. Lafollette if he would be
agreeable to tabling the application requests until the house plans were available. Mr. Lafollette
replied that he was willing to wait until the .Tune meeting so the BZA could see the plans.
On a motion made by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Lafollette's
applications were table to the June 18, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting,.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 21, 2002 _ Minutes Book Page 1149
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, That Variance #09 -02 and #10 -02 of Rick
Lafollette for Lot 27 and Lot 28 in the Stonewall Orchard Subdivision are tabled to the June
18, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting by unanimous vote.
OTHER
Mr. Davenport told the Board members that there is a possibility of having Mr. Mike
Chandler, Extension Specialist at Virginia Tech, give a presentation on Board of Zoning Appeals
matters if there was enough interest. The BZA members could formulate questions or make
suggestions on a topic or topics that they would like Mr. Chandler to cover in his presentation.
The Board agreed that this would be a worthwhile venture and would give
consideration to possible topics for discussion at the June 18, 2002 meeting.
There being no further business at hand, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. by
unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 21, 2002 _ Minutes Book Page 1150
n'IN --
Jame Larrick, V., Chairman