Loading...
BZA 04-20-04 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 April 20, 2004. PRESENT James Larrick, Jr., Chairman, Gainesboro District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; Robert Perry, Stonewall District; Theresa Catlett, Vice Chairman, OpequonDistrict; Kevin Scott, Shawnee District; and, Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large. STAFF PRESENT Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; David Beniamino, Planner I; and, Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larrick at 3:25 p.m. Chairman Larrick welcomed Mr. Scott to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Scott is replacing Mr. Malcolm, who retired from the Board. JANUARY 20.2004 MINUTES On a motion by Mr. Perry and seconded by Vice Chairman Catlett, the minutes for the January 20, 2004 minutes were approved as presented. Chairman Larrick asked the cut -off date for the next meeting and Mr. Davenport responded that April 23 a is the cut -off. Mr. Davenpot further stated that as of today, there are no matters on the docket. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application #01 -04 of Robert D. Brown for a 35 -foot variance of the east side yard to enable an addition to the existing dwelling. This property is located at 678 Lake Serene Drive. The subject property is identified with Property Identification Number 31B -1 -18 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION -VARIANCE DENIED Mr. Davenport gave the background information. The property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is surrounded by Rural Areas properties that are residential in use. The subject property in the subdivision was approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 1969 and recorded in the same month, same year, and is part of a subdivision named Lake Serene. The plats are on Exhibit "A" in the agenda. Most of the lots are about one acre in area. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to his dwelling that is shown on Exhibit "B" in the agenda. The addition is proposed to Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals j Minutes of April 20, 2004 Minute Book Page 1234 Page 2 extend to a point approximately 21.4' from the eastern side property line. However, the setbacks for this zoning district are 60' for the front and 50' for the sides and rear. In the section of the Zoning Ordinance on legally non - conforming lots of record, the issue at hand is the current setbacks for the particular zoning district in question are applied to all lots unless the most recent legally approved and recorded plat of the property clearly depicts all appropriate terminology and numeric information for different setbacks. Since the setbacks for this property were not illustrated on the plat in accordance with this section of the Zoning Ordinance, the minimum setbacks revert to our current standards. Mr. Davenport further stated that there is another section of the Zoning Ordinance that permits an expansion of a legally non - conforming use or structure, which is basically what this dwelling is. Mr. Davenport has taken Exhibit "B" of what the applicant submitted and sketched on it what the applicant is able to do under the expansion of legally non - conforming structures; there is a little bit of room for expansion. However, the applicant brought it to Mr. Davenport's attention after the agenda had been mailed that there is a drainfield in some of the area that could be expanded into, which is shown on Exhibit "C ". The subject lot does have a fairly narrow width and when applied in conjunction with these setbacks, the lot is notable to be improved to the owner's desire. However, the strict application of this zoning ordinance does not produce an undue hardship because this property does contain some area that may be expanded into without a variance. Also, the subject property has already been developed into its intended use - a single family dwelling. The inability to construct an addition, in Staffs opinion, does not constitute an undue hardship. Therefore, the denial of this variance may be justified. Chairman Larrick asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of the variance. Mr. Bob Brown approached the podium and identified himself as the owner of the subject property. Mr. Brown handed out a drawing to the Board members, showing the existing facility in orange; the expandable area in pink; the existing infrastructure, which is a septic field, septic tank and well, also in orange; the County setback lines in blue; and the proposed addition in yellow. The existing dwelling is a 700 square foot, three -room fishing cabin unsuitable for accommodating more than one person comfortably and is non - conforming to the other residences in the area. The intent of Mr. Brown's request is to provide a more suitable living facility and to bring it up to the standards of the other residences, all of which are family homes of 2,000 to 4,000 square feet. The lot narrows from 140 foot frontage on one end to 55 feet on the other. When applying the current County setback requirements, the lot is unable to be improved. Setback requirements have changed during the years since this property and subdivision were approved in 1969. The current setback requirements were established in 1993, with a limited area grandfathered for expansion. Mr. Brown further stated that the problem is that the expandable area is unusable due to the existing infrastructure. The largest area in front of the existing facility contains a septic drainfield, which is irreplaceable for this property. The limited expandable area to the rear contains an existing well. This creates an undue hardship not shared generally by other properties in the same area. In order to attempt to use the expandable area, it appears the existing facility and all of the infrastructure would be lost by starting completely over. The inability to replace the septic drainfield eliminates this as an option and creates an undue hardship. The inability to improve his home and enjoy the economic benefits thereby created also is an undue hardship. The approval of this variance request will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties; they support this request as evidenced by the supporting letters included with the application. The character of the area will not be changed by granting this request as it will upgrade this facility to the character Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 20, 2004 Minute Book Page 1235 Page 3 of the rest of the area. This request also meets the restrictive covenants and setback requirements of the Lake Serene Subdivision for a 15 foot side yard, 25 foot front and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Brown stated that he believes he meets the criteria required for approval of an exception and that an approval of this application is justified. Mr. Brown thanked the Board members for the opportunity to present his request. Chairman Larrick asked Mr. Brown what is his response to the Department's position that because there is already an existing dwelling, there is really no argument for undue hardship. Mr. Brown responded that the dwelling, as he pointed out, is a 700 foot, three room cabin. It is non- conforming to the area that it's in, has very limited use and Mr. Brown doesn't call it a family dwelling as it's been referred to - it won't accommodate a family. Chairman Larrick asked Mr. Brown how many bedrooms it has and Mr. Brown answered two - one very small one - a bathroom and a general room. Chairman Larrick stated to Mr. Brown that the Board is in a predicament in that normally an undue hardship is very rigidly defined by Virginia to mean that you are incapable of building almost anything on the property, and that's what the Department's position is. Mr. Brown already has something there and he's asking to expand it. Mr. Brown stated that he understood that but he pointed out that this is his home and he would love to make it a home. Mr. Brown further stated that it's pretty hard when you apply these particular setbacks to this size property. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Brown if he was able to get the drainfield sized for the addition and Mr. Brown responded yes. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Brown if his architect had looked at the possibility of doing some sort of a floor plan expansion within the confines of the pink lines on Mr. Brown's drawing. Mr. Brown said that the architect had indicated that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to come up with something that makes good sense. Ms. Mather asked Mr. Brown how much this would increase the square footage and Mr. Brown answered the total would be about 2,400 square feet. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Davenport how did the proposed garage come into the request for variance. Mr. Davenport stated that the way the garage is positioned, Mr. Brown would not need a variance, and it's okay the way it is. Vice Chairman Catlett asked what the triangular area in blue on Mr. Brown's drawing was. Mr. Brown responded that it represents the County setback lines of a 50 foot side yard. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals j Minutes of April 20, 2004 Minute Book Page 1236 Page -4 The Board members discussed alternatives and options with Mr. Brown. However, Mr. Brown indicated that the variance request he has submitted is the only feasible and practical solution. Chairman Larrick asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of the variance. Mr. Donald Vaschon approached the podium and identified himself. Mr. Vaschon stated that Mr. Brown's property is probably one of the least developed or owner friendly properties on the lake. From a personal point of view, living across from Mr. Brown, Mr. Vaschon would love to see the property improved into a more typical dwelling, and make everyone's property be worth more. Mr. Vaschon further stated that this would be a positive impact for their subdivision. Chairman Larrick asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the variance, and no one responded. lie then asked if there was anyone present to speak against the variance, and no one responded. Chairman Larrick closed the public portion of the meeting. Chairman Larrick asked if there is any way that a subdivision like Lake Serene, or one of the older subdivisions, can go to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and get an exclusive for their subdivision, given the fact that their dimensions are more Stephens City sized. Mr. Davenport responded that the best wayto remedy the situation would be to have certain standards for all these non - conforming lots as a whole. Since the subdivision is already created, there's really not an avenue for the Board of Supervisors to revisit this subdivision, but certainly performance standards to allow something like this to occur in the Zoning Ordinances is possible. Mr. Perry stated that because of strict interpretation, the Board has no choice but to deny the request. Mr. Perry made a motion to deny the variance request and Mr. Wells seconded the motion. The motion passed by majority vote. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request 402 -04 of Valley Building Systems, Inc., for a 7.1 -foot front yard variance along Clydesdale Drive) for an attached stairs, stoop and porch. This property is located in Canter Estates, Section 3, Phase 1, Lot 248, at the intersection of Clydesdale Drive and Lariat Court. The subject property is identified with Property Identification Number 76B -1 -3 -248 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION -VARIANCE APPROVED Mr. Davenport presented the Staff summary. The zoning for this property is RP (Residential Performance) and the surrounding properties are likewise zoned RP. The plats that established this lot were approved on November 12, 2002, and Valley Building Systems received zoning approval, Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals I Minutes of April 20, 2004 Minute Book Page 1237 Page 5 Building Permit 4946 -03 dated May 6, 2003 and illustrated as Exhibit "A ", for a single family home. As part of the permit process, the applicant provided the proposed setbacks for the dwelling to be constructed. Lot 248 is a corner lot and requires two front setbacks. The applicant indicated that these proposed setbacks were 56 feet from the front off of Lariat Court and 38.86 feet from the other front off of Clydesdale Drive. Exhibit "B" is a copy of the foundation plan that apparently depicts some piers and beams specs for a proposed porch. Exhibit "C" is the first setback report submitted by Greenway Engineering, which is to verify the footing foundation location. This setback did not appear to reflect the existence of this porch feature, and a portion of the porch constructed into the front setback is the reason why they are here for the variance. The applicant should have accurately indicated the proposed setbacks on this building permit and should have also constructed the building according to those setbacks. Since the applicant did not situate the dwelling within those proposed setbacks, we obviously have a front setback violation. The applicant constructed the dwelling in a location not consistent with the information submitted on the building permit and the applicant's failure to provide accurate setback information at the time the building permit was sought, does not constitute an undue hardship and denial of this variance may be appropriate. Chairman Larrick asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of the requested variance. Mr. Mark Smith approached the podium and identified himself as owner of Greenway Engineering. Mr. Smith asked that it be put on the record that Valley Building Systems did not get them into this situation. It was clear to Mr. Smith as he researched the records that Valley provided Greenway with the appropriate information. Greenway Engineering has been inexistence since 1971 and Mr. Smith purchased it approximately eight years ago. Mr. Smith had the Survey Department go back through the records, and Greenway has done over 1,200 setback reports and this is the first mistake that Greenway obviously couldn't remedy. Mr. Smith went to the location and took pictures, which are included in the Agenda. The house is on a corner lot and it's on a curve in the road. The variance sounds like it's a lot - 7.1 feet - but in most porch scenarios, you do;get an encroachment of three feet into the front yard setback, but there's a rule about the one third length of the house. In this particular case, the porch was over that by a few feet. When Greenway gets a set of architectural plans, they pull the foundation plan out and the surveyor comps the foundation and places it on the lot. When they get that, they do the proposed setback report. At that point, the contractor digs the footers and Greenway goes back out and verifies the footers. In this scenario, the porch is shown as piers on the foundation plan, so when they were computing these things from the foundation plan, they didn't check for the piers and didn't really look at the picture on the front of the plan that actually shows in reality the way it gets built. When Greenway went out to check the footers, they picked up the footers and everything checked. The way the Code reads, the railing and steps that come out have to be measured to the farthest most step, which makes it seem like more of a variance than it is. Mr. Smith further stated that this is the first time they have ever been here in a situation where Greenway has failed to pick up something from information that was given to them. Mr. Smith doesn't plan on being back in front of the Board and requests the Board members to approve this request. Mr. Rinker asked Mr. Smith when they were looking at those plans and the piers were sitting out on their own, what did that mean to them when they looked at the plans. Mr. Smith Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals ' Minutes of April 20, 2004 Minute Book Page 1238 Page 6 responded that would interpret that there should have been some porch structure. Mr. Perry asked how the problem came to Mr. Smith's attention. Mr. Smith replied that when they brought in the final house location survey, which is right before the closing, he was told they had a problem. Mr. Perry stated that this situation has come before the Board before and he does not understand how it gets to this point where the Board is being asked to approve a variance that should have already been taken care of. Mr. Davenport directed the members to the copy of the building permit in the Agenda. The typed numbers were reported by the permit applicant. Mr. Davenport handwrote the minimum numbers and signed the permit. Mr. Smith said he called John Trenary concerning this problem, so it wouldn't happen again. It seems like a step in the process could be added when the frame comes up out ofthe ground - there should be a check and balance system. Vice Chairman Catlett stated that it appears to her from the plans that the house plan was flipped. Mr. Smith stated yes, they did flip the house, but it was computed that way and only shown in the grading plans that way. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Smith how this mistake differed from the mistake made and brought before the BZA at their July 16, 2002 meeting and recorded in the August 20, 2002 minutes. Mr. Smith responded that it differs because that wasn't a Greenway mistake, that was a builder taking stake -out and flipping the house in the field without recalling for stake -out. Mr. Perry asked if Mr. Smith did not have ultimate responsibility and Mr. Smith responded no, not for that. Mr. Perry asked what is the possible fix for this situation. Mr. Smith answered the possible fix would be to take the roof back, take the gables off, take the porch off completely and basically have a front facade. The covered porch area would have to be cut straight and you'd have to come up with some architectural design to make it look halfway decent. You could leave probably four feet of the block area and move the steps back. Mr. Perry asked if the cost of that has been explored. Mr. Smith responded the cost has not been explored in detail, but he estimates it would be between the $20,000 to $30,000 range, and you'd have a house that would be different. Chairman Larrick asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor of the request, and no one responded. He asked if anyone was present to speak against the request, and again no one responded. Chairman Larrick closed the public portion of the hearing. DISCUSSION Chairman Larrick asked Mr. Davenport what the reason was for putting the notes of our August, 2003 meeting in this agenda. Mr. Davenport answered it was just in case the members asked if we had done something like this before. Chairman Larrick stated that as reported in the Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 20, 2004 Minute Book Page 1239 i Page 7 minutes, the Board did approve the request but the applicant was told to never do this again. Mr. Davenport said he was just trying to help refresh the Board's memory about what happened last time. The members discussed other variance requests that had been before them and the outcome of those requests. Chairman Larrick stated that people who have done a lot of work and done it well, if they make one mistake on one part of one application, this is the reason they're called variances. They're not the norm. The Board was very clear on the record last time to the builder not to come back again and the Board could take a similar approach in this case. Mr. Wells made a motion to grant this variance with a warning to Mr. Smith not to appear before the Board with a request like this again. Chairman Larrick stated that this warning is not a binding stipulation, but Mr. Wells stated that it does become a part of our record. Mr. Wells further stated that he would like to see Mr. Davenport and his group see if there is a way that we can start doing a better job ourselves to prevent something like this from happening. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. CLOSED SESSION Chairman Larrick stated that the next portion of the meeting is a Closed Session, in accordance with applicable State Codes, so the public has to leave at this point. Mr. Perry made a motion that the Board go into Closed Session, the motion was seconded and the vote unanimous. Mr. Rinker made a motion that the Board come out of Closed Session, stating that there was nothing discussed in the Closed Session that the Board was not authorized to discuss. Mr. Scott seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows: Mr. Rinker, aye; Mr. Scott, aye; Mr. Perry, aye, Ms Catlett, aye; Ms. Mather, aye; Mr. Wells, aye; and, Chairman Larrick, aye. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Larrick asked if there was any new business. As there were no other items to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Q /'\ t IM James arrick, Jr., Chal'rman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 20, 2004 Minute Book Page 1240 I _