BZA 01-21-03 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
107 N. Dent Street
Winchester, Virginia
January 21, 2003
3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
1) Determination of a Quorum
2) Election of Officers for 2003
3) Minutes of November 19, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Appeal Application #01-03, submitted by P. James Riley, to appeal a violation of the
Zoning Ordinance, §165-50, Permitted Uses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District,
concerning "Country Boys Auto Sales." This property is located at 5058 Front Royal Pike
and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 94A-1-5-7 through 94A-1-5-18; 94A-
1-6-7 through 94A-1-6-18; and 94A -1-12A-12 and 94A -1-12A-13 in the Opequon
Magisterial District.
Staff: Ms. Ragsdale
5) Appeal Application #02-03, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to appeal three
violations of the Zoning Ordinance, § 165-147; § 165-27E(1) and § 165-27E (2), pertaining
to site plan requirements and surface and parking space demarcation requirements at Allied
Systems Corporation. This property is located at 1936 Millwood Pike and is identified with
Property Identification Numbers 64 -A -80F and 64-A-81 A in the Shawnee Magisterial
District.
Staff. Ms. Ragsdale
6) 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 19, 2002.
PRESENT: James Larrick, Jr., Chairman, Gainesboro District; Thomas Malcolm, (representing
Shawnee District); Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud
District Robert Perry, Stonewall District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon 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.
AUGUST 20, 2002 MINUTES
The minutes for the August 20, 2002 meeting were approved by unanimous vote after
a motion by Mr. Malcolm and a second by Perry.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance #17-02 of David L. Goode, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a 50 -foot buffer
distance variance for the 100 -foot residential buffer required against the Star Fort Estates
subdivision; and a 95 -foot buffer distance variance for the 100 -foot residential buffer required
against the rear lot lines of the residential parcels located along Lee Avenue. The property is
located at 155 Lee Avenue and is identified with Property Identification Number 54-A-34 in the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
ACTION - APPROVED WITH CONDITION
Mr. Davenport briefly reviewed the background information and stated that the staff
report is consistent with the last one [August 20, 2002] in that staff still believed there was insufficient
hardship demonstrated for a variance to be granted.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of November 19, 2002 Minutes Book Page 1 161
Members of the Board questioned if there had been any change whatsoever to the
applicant's application since being heard in August; staff replied that it was the same application and
that the applicant is proposing the same dwelling type (multi -family).
Mr. Rinker asked what the site plan requirements would be and whether curb and
gutter would be required.
Staff replied that all requirements for the RP Zoning District would have to be met
before the site plan could be approved, and that curb and gutter are required for the type of
development the applicant is proposing.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, of Greenway Engineering, was present once again to represent the
applicant, Mr. David L. Goode. Mr. Wyatt stated that the application was indeed the same as the last
time; however, at that time he had concentrated on the site plan aspect of the proposed use and the
suggested presentation to, and approval by, the Planning Commission. Mr. Wyatt stated that this time
he wished to present only the facts which pertained directly to the request for a variance and the
reduction of the buffer distance.
Mr. Wyatt continued by stating that the property was zoned RP (Residential
Performance) and that multi -family units were an allowed use in the RP District. He told the Board
that this plan was consistent with Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan in that the property was
located in an urbanized area ofthe community, and that his client believed that this was the highest and
best use for his property.
Mr. Wyatt provided three colored exhibits for the Board's review. One was of a similar
apartment complex constructed by David L. Goode located in Kernstown which depicted, basically,
the way the proposed complex would look; another was a letter from Mayor John Copeland of
Middletown which stated his support for Mr. Goode and of the proposed project; and several photos
of the existing commercial and residential uses on Lee Avenue. Mr. Wyatt requested that the exhibits
be entered into the record and are hereby entered.
A brief discussion ensued on various options for the proposed development such as
landscaping, number of buildings, whether applicant must maintain a 50' distance buffer, etc. Mr.
Wyatt answered each question and concluded by stating that the applicant was willing to have a site
plan reviewed by the Planning Commission before final approval, and that the applicant was willing
to post a bond with the County to ensure that all development would take place as planned and the
landscaping would be kept up.
Chairman Larrick asked for anyone else in favor of the proposal to come forward.
Mr. Al Graber spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating that he had known Mr. Goode
for many years and that he could vouch for the high quality standards to which Mr. Goode adhered.
Mr. Sam Waymouth was also present to speak to Mr. Goode's character, high standard
of construction, and compliance with all state and county code requirements. He concluded by saying
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of November 19, 2002
2
Minutes Book Page 1 162
that young people just starting out needed apartments [such as the ones Mr. Goode was proposing]
because they were not able to afford the homes which were going for, on average, $200,000 now.
Ms. Sheila Cox, a resident of Mr. Goode's apartments in Middletown, Virginia, spoke
in favor of the proposed project. She told the Board that she was unable to find affordable housing
anywhere else with the types of amenities that Mr. Goode's development provided. She stated that
the maintenance was excellent and that problems were not `let go' as in so many other places. She
highly recommended that the Board approve the variance.
Mr. David L. Goode, applicant and property owner, came forward to say that he and
his wife have owned the property for about 14 or 15 years and that it has always been their intent to
construct apartments there. He told the Board that the landscaping he has planned for the project will
offer effective buffering between the complex and the adjoining properties. He also stated that after
the August 20`h public hearing, he felt the need to defend his integrity. He said that he has always
strived to build quality projects and has worked with Frederick County on a number of occasions,
citing the time he granted an easement to the Sanitation Authority when requested to do so. Mr.
Goode also told the Board that he had spoken with the residents on Lee Avenue and they had no
problem with the proposed apartments being built.
Chairman Larrick asked if anyone had questions for Mr. Goode before he went back
to his seat. Several questions followed regarding whether the ADA standards would be met; what
exactly would the bond cover and how much would it be; how long would it last; and would the bond
`go with the property' in the event it was ever sold.
Chairman Larrick called for public comment against the proposal and Mr. Zack Smith,
adjoining property owner, and Mr. Martin Gavis, owner of Marty's Used Cars, stated their concerns
regarding drainage and stormwater management, backfill problems on the lot over the years, and
additional traffic on Lee Avenue. These were the same concerns they had stated previously. Mr.
Smith repeated his assertion that there was not a true hardship present to allow the proposed
apartment complex to be built.
When asked by Mr. Wells whether they actually lived on the property, Mr. Smith
replied that he did not presently live there but may build a small house there someday. He stated that
he presently stores vehicles on his lot. Mr. Gavis told the Board that although he doesn't live there,
he works there from 7:00 a.m. to midnight. Mr. Gavis said that his understanding of the Zoning
Ordinance is that there has to be a proven hardship before a variance is granted and he does not see
one in this case. He also stated that he would argue with Mr. Goode's contention that neighbors on
Lee Avenue are in agreement with the plan; he said that the people he had talked to were against it but
were in too poor of health to be present at the meeting.
Mr. Mark Mason, a resident on Lee Avenue, stated that he wasn't actually speaking
against the project as a whole but would rather have a privacy fence instead of landscaping. He also
wanted to know what would happen to the creek and stated that he would like to see a culvert
installed with backfill over the culvert, rather than just diverting the flow.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of November 19, 2002
3
Minutes Book Page 1 163
Mrs. Mather asked if those issues were handled, would he have any other objections.
Mr. Mason said that he would not. Upon a question from Mr. Wells, Mr. Mason stated that he did
reside on Lee Avenue. No one else came forward to speak against the variance.
In response to the concerns that had been raised, Mr. Wyatt said that the site plan and
the required review process would address all of the problems. He stated that State Code would have
to be met, all sewer and water management issues would be reviewed by the Engineering Department,
VDOT would review traffic proposals, and that, finally, the Planning Staff would have to sign off on
it. In response to the question of hardship, Mr. Wyatt told the Board that a hardship did exist, in that
the shape of the lot is long and narrow and prevents development of the type being proposed with the
present setbacks.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed at 4:30 p.m.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Larrick told the Board that he was concerned about the fact that the
application was the same as the last time they heard this request, and they had turned it down.
Mr. Wells said that he voted in favor of it last time and still saw this project as being
a positive improvement and not a negative impact on the surrounding properties. He also felt that it
would be a `good thing' for the County, and that the property was zoned for the use being proposed.
Mrs. Mather asked if the housing type itself was what was causing the hardship, or was
it the shape of the lot. She also asked if the bond could cover stormwater issues. Staff stated that the
Engineering Department would have a full review of the stormwater issues, and that the bond could
be written to cover any concerns.
Mr. Rinker stated that although a site plan would cover the issues brought up, he still
felt that there was no actual hardship in this situation because other options were available that did not
require a variance.
Mr. Perry stated that he was familiar with Mr. Goode's work and agreed that he does
an outstanding job; however, he just could not see the hardship.
Mr. Malcolm asked for clarification on the allowed uses in the RP District. He wanted
to know if the applicant was required to choose a use that was less intense or did he have the right to
choose the type of use that he felt was the best for the property.
Mr. Wells made the motion to grant both variance requests contingent upon all County
and State approvals on the site plan, and upon the establishment of a bond covering landscaping and
stormwater management issues. Mr. Davenport asked for clarification on whether the motion allowed
for the Planning staff's administrative approval on the site plan, as is normal procedure, rather than
sending it through the Planning Commission. Mr. Wells was confident that the normal review process
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of November 19. 2002 Minutes Book Page 1 164
4
was more than sufficient and did not request that the site plan be reviewed by the Planning
Commission; therefore, the motion was amended to state "to grant both variance requests contingent
upon all County, State and administrative approvals of the site plan, and upon the establishment of a
bond covering landscaping and stormwater management issues."
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Catlett and approved by the following majority vote:
AYES: Mr. Wells, Mr. Malcolm, Mrs. Catlett, Ms. Mather
NAYS: Mr. Rinker, Chairman Larrick, Mr. Perry
BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, That Variance #17-02 of David L. Goode for a 50 -foot
buffer distance variance for the 100 -foot residential buffer required against the Star Fort
Estates subdivision; and a 95 -foot buffer distance variance for the 100 -foot residential buffer
required against the rear lot lines of the residential parcels located along Lee Avenue, is hereby
approved by majority vote contingent upon all County, State and :administrative approvals of
the site plan, and upon the establishment of a bond covering landscaping and stormwater
management issues.
As there were no other items on the agenda, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. by unanimous
vote.
Frederick Co. Board ofZoning Appeals
Minutes of November 19, 2002
I
Respectfully submitted,
James Larrick, Jr., Chairman
Carol I. Huff, Secretary
Minutes Book Page 1165
APPEAL APPLICATION #01-03
JAMES P. RILEY (COUNTRY BOYS AUTO SALES)
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: January 10, 2003
Staff Contact: Rebecca Ragsdale
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Board of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be
useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
BZA HEARING DATE - JANUARY 13, 2003
LOCATION: This property is located at 5058 Front Royal Pike.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS:
PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Opequon
94A-1-5-7 through 94A-1-5-18; 94A-1-6-7 through 94A-1-6-18;
and 94A -1-12A-12 and 94A -1-12A-13
Zone: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Automobile sales, automobile grave yard, and
salvage rebuilding
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Zone: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Uses: Roller skating rink, farm, residential (MH), and
auto rebuilding
APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning
Ordinance concerning Zoning Ordinance violations of permitted uses allowed in the RA zoning
district.
REASON FOR APPEAL: The applicant contends that Country Boys Auto has been in operation
since 1968, prior to zoning ordinance adoption, and is a legal non -conforming use.
STAFF COMMENTS: In response to a complaint, the Planning Department staff
inspected the property at 5058 Front Royal Pike on October 16, 2002. Inspection of the site revealed
the presence of an automobile sales business, an automobile graveyard, a salvage rebuilder business
and a roof sign. It was noted that two structures associated with these businesses had been recently
Country Boys Auto Sales Appeal
Page 2
January 10, 2003
constructed without proper zoning approval (no site plan or building permit submittal). These
structures include an addition to the shop building on the property and a storage building located west,
across Summit Avenue. Please see the attached Exhibit "A" illustrating buildings and uses located on
the property. Research of County records indicated that Country Boys Auto was operating as an
illegal non -conforming business and also had constructed an illegal sign. Subsequently, a notice of
violation was sent to Mr. James Preston Riley on October 24, 2002, citing violations of Sections 165-
50 and Section 165-30(A)4. Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance lists uses that
are permitted in the RA Zoning District. Automobile sales, automobile graveyards, and salvage
rebuild businesses are not listed as permitted uses. Section 165-30(A)4 lists sign types that are
prohibited in all zoning districts; roof -mounted signs are an illegal sign type. Since the notice of
violation was received by the applicant, the illegal sign has been removed and the applicant is no
longer in violation of this section of the Zoning Ordinance.
In determining that the applicant was in violation of Section 165-50 of the Zoning Ordinance,
Planning Department staff researched County aerial photography dating from 1970 through 2001 and
other County records. Research of the 1970 photograph indicated that there was no automobile display
located on the referenced property, no automobile graveyard, and no shop building. As referenced in
#10 on the appeal application, the applicant states that "this business has operated under continuous
ownership since 1968" and the applicant contends that County Boys Auto should be classified as a
legally nonconforming business.
The first Zoning Ordinance was adopted in Frederick County in March 1967. The subject property was
zoned A2 (Agricultural General) from that date until the reclassification of the A2 Zoning District into
the current RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The A2 zoning district did not allow auto sales, auto
graveyards, or salvage builder businesses. Copies of the relevant zoning ordinances are included in the
agenda. Staff's research indicates that Country Boys Auto Sales specifies a start date of 1969 on their
business license application with the Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue's office. The
Department of Motor vehicles records indicate that the Country Boys Auto Sales business has been
licensed since 1983. The aerial photography research conducted by Planning Department staff
indicates that uses began on this property between 1970 and 1981 and have progressed to their present
state. Staff estimates that the automobile graveyard and storage building across Summit Avenue were
established between 1997 and 2001. No evidence has been provided to staff by the applicant which
would support that the three current land uses of automobile sales, automobile graveyard, and salvage
rebuild were established on the subject property prior to March 1967.
STAFF CONCLUSION FOR JANUARY 21, 2002 MEETING:
Staff is requesting affirmation of the Zoning Administrator's determination that the subject property is
in violation of Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
O: Wgendw\BZA\Staff Report\APPEALS\Backup of Country Boys Auto Sales.wbk
i
y '
t
-
lift
�
% d t
5
.01
Ps
tow
522
+� �' t, ti "�? y ,: ;� r ;•y` �'ix..'�i { �_: r : '€'� �a '�-sem': "�' -�",� �-.
� � "f."s �, . •_, x ? ! l£ � ���� z a.,,,V ,sem .
�. - t ��._,` r at. s �•- .`�^ 4 tk +a+T �+ `r. .°fid
Af 0
Al
Lia /0
Z•i �
WIA
i-. • 1` i _f. = °1 • .�, o IIS
- --�
N co co M
06
a. MQ�N
p I e N w
0 m LA t0 T Li
m AO
T T T z N CO
¢¢� QpZQQQ a
Q V o
"J•
.._,..�.�.._.,.ee^,.^Mr....e.y+�+rw.y.=+w..........,,�„�,;R',�agsF:rc.�,d.•w!�+.,�,rA, •
i , KONING� ORDINANCE
rLiwa.;., , _..+.:Lu+n�..+iia..c:,F,r�.:.w�wsvw,.:�i'y;GySn.,No..�..-.r•r�i.+1
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA _
Effective March 13, 1967
..Ll �.IVlV V. Js�L1l.�.41111, L111�1L �: 4, 1J1p 61 LLL A-1
2-5. YARD REGULATIONS
7 C ,
�-�-•. Side. The niiclinurn side ya-rd fo_ r eac.i
main structure shall be
fifteen (15) feet and the total width of the two (2) required side yards
shall be thirty-five (35) feet or more.
2-5-2. Rear. Each m/aln structure shall have a rear yard of fifty (50) feet
or more.
z-6.
2-6-1.
SPECIAL PROVIS .ONS FOR CORNER LOTS
Of the two sides of the corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the
shortest of the two sides fronting on streets.
The minimum side yard on the side facing the side street shall be
thirty-five (35) feet or more for both main and accessory building.
ARTICLE 3. AGRICULTURAL, GENERAL, DISTRICT A-2
Statement of Intent
Generally, this district covers the portion of the county into which urban -type
development could logically expand as the need occurs. As a general rule it
surrounds residential sections. Domestic water and sewerage facilities, police
and fire protection, and other services necessary to accommodate urban -type
development already exist in the district or can be economically extended
as urbanization takes place. This zone is established for the specific purpose
of (1) providing for the orderly expansion of urban development into territory
surrounding incorporated areas within or adjacent to the county, (2) confining
such development to such locations as can feasibly be supplied urban -type
facilities, and (3) discouraging the random scattering of residential, commercial,
and industrial uses into the area.
3-1. USE REGULATIONS
In Agricultural District A-2, structures to be erected or land to be
used, shall be for one or more of the following uses:
3-1-1. Single -family dwellings.
3-1-2 . Agriculture.
3-1-3. Dairying and forestry.
3-1-4. General farming. -
3-1-5. Schools.
- 4 -
i.a La. l.wti J♦ 1''i�al'�.4L�l�.i'nl, L.1 C.iG 1. u.L, ..J�Ci i.l ll. 1, li-ar
l .I
3-1-6. Parks and playgrounds.
l
3-1-7.
Churches.
3-1-8.
Professional offices (within occupant's dwelling).
3-1-9.
Gift stops.
3-1-10.
Antique shops.
3-1-11.
General stores as defined.
3-1-12.
Beauty shops.
3-1-13.
Barber shops.
3-1-14.
Motels with a conditional use permit.
3-1-15.
Sawmills.
3 - l'-16.
Planing mills.
3-1-17.
Airports, with a conditional use permit. •
3-1-18 '
Hog farms, with a conditional use permit.
3-1-19.
Small boat docks (with repair).
3-1-20.
Preserves and conservation areas.
3-1-21.
Lodges.
3-1-22.
Hunting clubs.
3-1-23.
Yacht clubs.
3-1-24.
Cemeteries.
3-1-25.
Home occupations, as defined, conducted by the occupant.
3-1-26.
Mobile home park in accordance with a conditional use permit and
provisions contained herein.
3-1-27.
Public utility generating, booster or relay stations, transformer
substations, transmission lines and towers, pipes, meters and other
facilities for the provision and maintenance of public utilities,
including railroads and facilities, and water and sewerage installations.
O'IC
♦sa vl �.w.. J. lauw .. 1-.aL lnl Lw .., L{l,..A4.A LLQ, 1.�4DLr1L.L it—L
I
1 '
3-1-28.. Off-bt-reet parking as required by this ordinance.
3-1-29. Accessory uses as defined, however, garages or other accessory
structures, such as carports, porches and stoops attached to the
main building shall be considered part of the main building. No
accessory building may be- close+ than one (I foot to any property
line.
3-1-30. Business signs.
3-1-31. Church bulletin boards and identification signs, and c :urch and
civic location signs.
3-1-32. Directional signs.
3-1-33. Home occupation signs.
REGULATIONS
The minimum lot area for permitted uses shall be twenty thousand
(20, 000) square feet or more.
3-3. SETBACK REGULATIONS
Structures shall be thirty-five (35) feet or more from any street right
of way. Signs advertising sale or rent of premises may be erected
up to the property line. This shall be known as the "setback line. "
3-4. FRONTAGE REGULATIONS
The minimum frontage for permitted uses shall be one hundred (100)
feet at the "setback line. "
3-5. YARD REGULATIONS
3-5-1. Side. The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be fifteen
(15 feet and the total width of the two (2) required side yards shall be
thirty y=1ive (35) feet or more.
3-5-2. Rear. Each main structure shall have a rear yard with a depth of thirty-
five (35) feet .or more.
3-6. HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Buildings may be erected up to thirty-five (35) feet in height except
that:
_ '7
-6-
District A-2
.J
3-6-1. A public or semipublic building such as a school, church, library, or
general 'hospital may be erected to a height of sixty (60) feet from
grade provided that required front, side and rear yards shall be
increased one (1) foot for each foot in height over thirty-five (35) feet.
3-6-2. Church spires, belfries, cupolas, rnonuments, water towers,
chimneys, flues, flag poles, television antennae and radio aerials are
exempt. Parapet walls may be up to four (4) feet above the height
of the building on which the walls rest.
3-6-3.. No accessory building which is within twenty (20) feet of any party
lot line shall be more than one (1) story high. All accessory buildings
shall be less than the main building in height. Agricultural accessory
buildings are exempt from this regulation.
3-7. SPECIE L PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS
3-7-1. Of the two sides of a corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the
shortest of the two sides fronting on streets.
3-7-2. The minimum side yard on the side facing the side street shall be
thirty-five (35) feet or more for both main and accessory building.
3-7-3. For subdivisions platted after the enactment of this ordinance, each
corner lot shall have a minimum width at the setback line of one
hundred twenty-five (125) feet or more.
ARTICLE 4. RESIDENTIAL, LIMITED, DISTRICT R-1
Statement of Intent
This district is composed of certain quiet, low-density residential areas plus
certain open areas where similar residential development appears likely to
occur. The regulations for this district are designed to stabilize and protect
the essential characteristics of the district, to promote and encourage a suitable
environment for family life where there are children, and to prohibit all
activities of a commercial nature. To these ends, development is limited to
relatively low concentration and permitted uses are limited basically to single
unit dwellings providing homes for the residents plus certain additional uses,
1 such as schools, parks, churches, and certain public facilities that serve the
residents of the district. No home occupations (including room renting) are
permitted.
4-1. USE REGULATIONS
In Residential District R-1, structures to be erected or land to be used,
shall be for one or more of the following uses:
i
- 7 -
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
IN THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
-OFFICE USE ONLY -
Appeal Application# '' Submittal Deadline
Submittal Date - %. For the meeting of
Fee Paid F' yes initials:
u ■
MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT
1. The applicant is the owner X other . (Check one)
2. APPLICANT:
NAME: P. James Riley
OCCUPANT: (if different)
NAME:
ADDRESS 2674 Front Royal Pk_ADDRESS:
Winchester VA 22602
TELEPHONE: 540-869-1485 TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers):
5058 Front Royal Pike
White Post, Virginia 22663
(Country Boys Auto Sales - State Route 522)
4. Magisterial District: Opequon
5. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 94A-1-5-7 through 94A-1-5-18
94A-1-6-7 through 94A-1-6-18
94A -1-12A-12 and 94A -1-12A-13
■
J
AGREEMENT
APPEAL #
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
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 properly 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 A
SIGNATURE OF O
(if other than applicant)
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
- DATE-
LWjAPPEAL OVERRULED
L j APPEAL SUSTAINED
Rc 1/97
SIGNED:
HN N -M
ACTION:
DATE 11),Z2102
DATE
BZA CHAIRMAN
6. The existing zoning of the property is: Rd (Rural Areas)
7. The existing use of the property is: Automobile sales and rebuild
8. Adjoining Property:
USE Z NIN
North Roller skating rink RA
East Farm RA
South Residential RA
West Residential (trailers) RA
and auto rebuilding
9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.)
October 24,, 2002 letter from Rebecca A. Ragsdale, Planner 1,
requiring removal of the business from the property.
Written decision is attached.
10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision.
(This may be provided on separate sheet.)
This business has operated continuously under the same
ownership since 1968. Such use commenced before any
relevant zoning ordinances became effective, and its use
should be grandfathered.
11. Additional comments, if any:
The business pays approximately $880.00 per year to Frederick
County in BPOL taxes, $6,000 per year in real estate taxes,
and approximately $20,000 per year in DMV fees. It employs
four persons full time, and is a valuable asset to Frederick
County. Moreover, the business usage is consistent with the
surrounding area. A requirement to shut -down the business
would be an injustice and would damage the County and its
residents.
12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning
property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the sides,
rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.)
These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list complete 14 -digit �ropem
identification number.)
NAME
Geneva Riley
Address 134
Summit Ave.,
White
Post VA 226
Property ID # 94A -1-12A-7
John Conard
Address 142
Summit Ave.
White
Post VA 226
Property ID # 94A -1-12A-9
Bernard Neff
Address 152
Summit Ave.,
White
Post VA 226
Property ID # 94A -1-12A-10 & 11
Roy Armentrout
Address 5048
Front Royal
Pike,
White Post
Property ID #2
94A-1-5-5
2
William Trenary, III
Address 1795
Ashby Station Rd., Front Royal
Property ID # N/A - Located in Warren Count,
P. James Riley
Address 2674
Front Royal
Pike,
Winchester
Property ID #
ZZE
Suzanne Thomas
Address 146
Summit Ave.,
White
Post VA 226
Property ID # 94A-1-11-1
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
3
3
A
63
V2
63(
A
02
IW29/2062 09:13_ 5a09693649
October 24,
02
I
Mr. James Pr+ton
Riley
5$Fron4 Ra
'sl Pike
"rbc+ ;Y
x.72663
RE: Cotte;
Znnic
Prupe
94A-1
Dear h1r.ydle
tAr t3ctol�;r-1 �
Your Ptd' 2=rtY;
business, `Cot
and auto sales
CoU4TRY EOYS num J1 PAGE ey
COUNry Cr tT 1.E- RICK
nqmhr�t of nfiruft
Y Bwyx Auto Sntw, 5058 Front Royce' Pike
Distt'ict: RA (RurvU Areas)
ly Idendfim0eim Nt aabm (PIN)- "A-1-5-7 throe 944.-Y-5--184
iF-7 througb 94A -1 -6 -18,94A -1-12A-12 and 14A-1-i7,A-13
200 l va sited the above-r�raiced proi3ramspa .to •a catap
My. ins
pei¢n of_t Site revule *3e presectc of an automobile gr
arty Boys Auto Sales." Research of i *urtty records"indicates that the e
«aline®s were not established with proper zoning approval.
'_Japme€t
4'W"5_5651
'I SW6654343
d4
v.wdand a
lu aocorckoce i ^ Sf-tkm 165-50 ofthe Fsaden ck County Zoning Otdinsnce, oto sales, ile
graveyards, an mlvage dealers!r-ebuilders are not permtha-d ma the RA zo=M district_ the
presence of thi r businesses on yota property constitutes a violadton of the zoning This
office will alleF (30) thirty days _fr m receipt ofthis letter to resolve the viobatious- olUtion of
these vW18tioz may be, accomplished by completely =ruovirtg the busine .finm pwpa*�
?hese busincm s would only rse allowed with proffer zoning Auto ealcs s"a penacutbed JAdj* D2
(Dusin.ai;s )p14 JD3 On.sthal Transition) zoning districts. Alit6zao8ile gra ends and
Wvap d= ate; ppauitted uses xu the M12 (Indusuial. Getend) zoning Ct. In the
event proper is achieved, a site plat► would be required for the property prior to ; blishment
of any bosun vities on the property. As patt of the site PLM process, site lmpro rs such
as paving of d=as and lsadscaping would be required.
U. kspeefio , of the property, t'also rutted the presenee.of a roof-mcn.}rtted sign "Country
.oy-s." it vrith Spttion IW -3.0(A)4 of the Fmdcrick County Zoning ce, t4of
Signs we " ited in all zoning diauict$_ TlimvIb e, the sign as noted on the rmoof the shop
building is a on of the zonk g ordinance. This offca will allow (30) thirty days receipt of
this letter for olut7i o n of the violatimx. Resolution of tWs violation can be achieved removing
the 6gn-
187 North 37,eat Sumet - Vnrc tsr4 Vlr'Vlna 2 I-54 1
1
TO 39vd oinv Sh03 Adih4nm 6PH6920PS 95:TT 600Z/6T/TT
4 10/28/2E382 09:13 5488693649
Page 2
Mr. James PISWA Riley
Re. country° oys Auto Seles
October 24, 2
CUJNTW BOYS AUTO
You may ha-% ; the rlght to anse4 this notice of viol4wn withflirty rty (30) days oit
o
[ever in aceor o=e with Section 15.2 -2311 - the Code of Wicginiy This decision sb
u lable if it is neat appealed withint%±rty (30) days. Sbculd you choom to app
must lie filed rith the Zoning A.drninistrutor and the Board of Zoning AFPWa (RzA)
with Article � Section 165_ l SSA(1), of the l+red=ick. Cour * ming 0rdinw=,
rex
requitine s emission of an applwa bon form, a written stat ememt setting forth tb� c
• '4ad, the late of d�,s cm, the grounds for the upped bow the llant is an ag
any other infc =ion you may Rent to subznif, and a $250.00 filing fee. Once tha app;
ccsp
is at�d, i' wW be sch®duled four public hearing and decision before the BZA.
l+aslure to cm
being filed i
.have at (540)
Sincerely,
4L4 Y
Rebecca A,
Plamlor I
it
PAGE 82
dft of this
be final and
b the appeal
acemdance
is provision
,Won being
ieved patty,
application
with the Frederick County ZonwZ Or&nwxe will result m a ==a romplamt
you_ PIC do not hesitate to conEs>rt me rcgarding any que sww , gat you may
5651, 1{
2
Z13 3DVd oinv SADA AdINAOS 6b966980PS 9S : T T Z09Z / c T / T T
APPEAL APPLICATION #02-03 OF ALLIED SYSTEMS CORP.
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: January 10, 2003
Staff Contact: Rebecca Ragsdale
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Board of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be
useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE - JANUARY 13, 2003
LOCATION: This property is located at 1936 Millwood Pike.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64 -A -80F and 64 -A -81A
PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Zoned: M 1 (Light Industrial) District
Land Use: Industrial
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Zoned: M1, MH1 (Mobile Home Community) District and
RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Vacant and Residential
APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning
Ordinance concerning Zoning Ordinance violations of site plan and parking lot requirements.
REASON FOR APPEAL: The applicant has submitted a site development plan for review and
intends to complete the required site work by Spring of 2003. Please see attached letter dated
November 26, 2002, from Claus Bader, P.E., Director of Engineering at Bowman Consulting Group,
Ltd.
Appeal #02-03 by Allied Systems Corp.
Page 2
January 10, 2003
STAFF COMMENTS:
On October 16, 2002, the Department of Planning Development received a complaint regarding
alleged tractor trailer parking violations on the referenced property. Inspection of the site revealed
employee and tractor trailer parking that was not in accordance with the approved site plan for the
property. It was also noted that the vehicles and trailers were parked on unimproved areas of the
property, not in accordance with the parking requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
(Please see attached photographs, Exhibits "A" and `B"). A notice of violation was sent to Allied
Systems on October 30, 2002 citing violations of Sections 165-147, 165-27E(1), and 165-27E(2).
Section 165-147 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires that all improvements and
construction on a site shall be in conformance with the approved site plan and the requirements of the
Frederick County Code. Section 165-27E(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that all
parking areas in the M1 Zoning District must be paved. Section 165-27E(2) states that all parking
areas in the M 1 Zoning District must have space demarcation.
As referenced in the applicant's attached letter dated November 26, 2002, two site plans were
submitted to the Department of Planning and Development on November 26, 2002. One site plan is
for an employee parking lot and one is for construction ofwarehouses. The warehouses are intended to
provide storage for Allied Systems. They are currently using the tractor trailers parked on the property
as storage. To date, the site plans have not been approved. The site plans have been reviewed by staff
but revisions have not yet been submitted. To date, no other review agencies have provided
recommendations for approval of either site plan. The applicant also states in the letter dated
November 26, 2002, that he was aware of the referenced Zoning Ordinance requirements and
acknowledges that the property is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. In November 2001, building
permits were issued for townhouses to be temporarily constructed on the property. Planning staff
advised the applicant of the site plan requirements at that time.
STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE JANUARY 21, 2002 MEETING:
Staff is requesting affirmation of the Zoning Administrator's determination that the subject property is
currently in violation and remains in violation of Sections 165-147, 165-27E(1), and 165-27E(2) until
all the required site work is complete.
File: O:\AGENDAS\BZA\STAFF REPORT\APPEALS\ALLIED SYSTEMS CORPDOC
November 26, 2002
Mr. Patrick Davenport, Zoning Administrator
Board of Zoning Appeals
County of Frederick
Department of Planning and Zoning
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RF: Allied Systems
PIN: 64 -A -80F and 64 -A -81A
VIA Hand Delivery
Dear Mr. Davenport:
On behalf of our client, the owners of Allied Systems Corporation (Annandale
Millworks), I am hereby appealing the notice of Zoning Violation issued on October 30,
2002 in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia.
Specifically, we are appealing three violations. The Violations of Sections 165-27E (1),
(2) and 165-47. These deal with the disposition of parking, loading spaces and
conformance with the approved site plan. This appeal is justified as we have been in the
process of developing site plans for the property. These plans propose the construction of
a parking lot for the existing building, construction of a new state road to serve the
property and construction of a 48,000 square foot warehouse to store the materials
currently being stored in trailers. This warehouse plan also provides for a screened
finished goods storage area.
All three of these plans (copies included) have been submitted to the various review
agencies and we are awaiting comments. We have submitted plans to the Planning
Department in advance of review all of the agency comments in an effort to speed up the
approval process.
Our client is committed to construction of these projects in the Spring 2003, immediately
following plan approval.
Based on the above, we believe that granting the appeal to these Zoning Violations is
justified as the owner was already working on plans to resolve the violations prior to
receiving the notice.
Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd.
124 East Cork Street . Winchester,VA 22601
Phone: 540.722.2343 . Fax: 540.722.5080 . www.bowmanconsulting.com
Patrick Davenport, Zoning Administrator
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Page 2 of 2
November 26, 2002
Please feel free to call upon your review of the submitted materials should you have any
questions or };quire additional information.
S
Claus Bader, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Attachments
cc: Robert Frogale, Allied Systems
Tom Chasler, Attorney at Law
RECEND
NOV 2 7 2002
FREDERICK COUNTY
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
i
i
I �
/ W
W
� m
/ a- r _
a
IL
a
O �J
(D o
g
r!, > W ,(
_ Q N Q
00
-� (J N
co w
2 CD Q Q J Z
.y�ID U❑a Q WY
g.. _
��•'= EL CO
w�K
` J = p
1 ! JCO VOV Q�
Z_
3; o
� o
U) OD
2 Q < �J
0
o 9�6
.1090
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
IN THE
COUNTY OF FRFnFRir_6C7 VIRGINIA
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: t-Lfc is 13 r:: 4r-�tAME: A ! F � -
a
ADDRESS 1 �G- � 1 Cce < -�,r
TELEPHONE:174�--7P-;�, `g= 4-3
ADDRESS: =1
TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers):
SOUTH SIDE Com= 42C%A-rC SC? >' 'J'�O F��
4. Magis01F 77.
terial Magisterial District:ti�=' C
5. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 64 _P —�SJf- 44 - '�
6. The existing zoning of the property is:
7. The existing use of the property is: I 'V-1 '-, d'-Tf,,- I Ili L-
8. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North
East
South
West
9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.)
10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision.
(This may be provided on separate sheet.)
SC -E (-) 7,pi-,Crrt-C L&7TH -P-
11. Additional comments, if any:
CCW C C;t i--) fi) / 7-772C � Ft C77-/ FYI
12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning
property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the
sides, rear, and in front of (across street fro►n) the subject property. "Use additional pages if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application_ (Please list complete 14 -digit
property identification number.)
NAME
Address LJLA
Property ID # fy) , (COT)
Address 40 ;t }
Property ID #
,\�ovryxco,,
Address 3
Property ID # T M (
CSG �v�eg,�4-s, �.c.-c_
Address 3L4C) Cn; IvlR 4
n
Property ID # -ray-1 �� u�,k 1co '3
Address lam► Z l Yin; ilwooc.� "P: K -e.
., n
Property ID #7C> -y (Y1a�QL4 C"
,M . -' ,�-
Address rn',kw0cc� ?. �'
Property ID # -'m Co cJ
-e. 't ) . J -S1- .
Address
Property ID LA a -A , S-7
-V: S
Address .n
Property ID # TM C_A 1�
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
AGREEMENT
APPEAL # 0 0�_
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 APPLICANT DATE GI a 5 oa
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE��—
(if other than applicant)
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION:
- DATE -
APPEAL OVERRULED
APPEAL SUSTAINED SIGNED:
BZA CHAIRMAN
DATE:
Rc K_\WPICMMAPFUCA"PE.4L
R"_ "7
RECEIVED
NOV 2 7 2002
FHEDERICK COUNTY
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT