BZA 04-19-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK f,--"OUIvT Y. BG A P D GE ZONING APPEALS
T .S
The Bi1.ard R o 9 m
Frederick County Administration Building
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
April 19, 2005
3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
1) Determination of a Quorum
2) Minutes of February 15, 2005 and March 15, 2005
CLOSED SESSION
3) Th-ere._will be a Closed Session in Accordance with the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
Amended, Section 2.2-3711, Subsection A, (1) and (7), to discuss legal issues.
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Appeal Application #07-05 of Fellowship -Bible -Church, submitted by Painter -Lewis,
P.L.C., to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-30-G, to permit a 25 foot high sign. This
property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Middle Road and Apple
Valley Road. The subject property is identified with Property Identification Number 63-A-
14 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
5) Variance Request 408-05 Wolfgang Winzer for an 18 foot side yard variance. This
property is located at 127 Lake Serene Drive (Route 677), and is identified with Property
Identification Number 31 B-1-3 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
6) Appeal Application #09-05 of Deborah Dutcher, submitted by Artz & Associates, to
appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-54 D (c), changes to the rural preservation tract. The
subject property is located at the intersection of Dover Lane and Chapel Road (Route 627),
and is identified with Property Identification Number 83-A-106 in the Opequon District.
7) Other
FILE COPY
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
leid in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester,
Jirginia, on February 15, 2005.
'RESENT: Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; Robert
'erry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Kevin Scott, Shawnee District; and, Dudley Rinker, Back
reek District.
kBSENT: Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; Robert W. Wells, Member -At -Large
STAFF
PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Bernard S. Suchicital, Zoning
Inspector; and, Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Catlett at 3:25 p.m.
JANUARY 18, 2005 MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Rinker, the minutes for the January 18, 2005 meeting were .
animously approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request 908-04 of David Hicks, presented by Artz & Associates, for a 40 foot side yard
variance, on both sides. This property is located in the 2200 block of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), on
the west side. The subject property is identified with Property Identification Number 76A-1-30 in the
Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION - VARIANCE APPROVED
Chairman Catlett stated that she will turn the meeting over to Vice Chairman Perry as
she needs to abstain from the two variance requests from David Hicks.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Cheran to present the staff report.
Mr. Cheran gave the background information. This application is for a variance for
property located in the 2200 block of Front Royal Pike in the Opequon Magisterial District. This property
is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the land use is vacant. The surrounding property is zoned RA and
RP (Residential Performance) and the land uses are vacant, residential and school. The applicant is
requesting a 40 foot side yard variance on both sides. This property was created in 1946 as noted by the
4eed and plats included in the agenda. Frederick County adopted a comprehensive zoning in 1967. The
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1269
Frederick County historical map shows this property was zoned A-2 in 1967. The property setback lines at
the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet from the front and 15 feet from the sides. Frederick
County amended its Code in 1989 to change the A-1 and A-2 zoning districts to the current RA (Rural
Areas) zoning district. The current setbacks for a property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with
residential use are 60 feet front, 50 feet on the rear and sides.
Mr. Cheran further stated that the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2) states that no
variance should be authorized by the Board unless it finds that (a) strict application of the Ordinance
would produce an undue hardship; (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. The applicant is seeking a variance of 40 feet on the sides of this property.
Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 60 feet from the front, 10
feet from the sides and 50 feet from the rear as noted in the plat submitted with the application. It appears
that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2) and the request for a 40
foot variance from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district maybe justified. Should this variance be
granted, it will allow having the similar setbacks of the adjacent properties, with structures built prior to
the current zoning ordinance.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if the property owner has a set of house plans for this
particular lot.
As Mike Artz of Artz & Associates was not present, Mr. Eric Ertel approached the
podium on behalf of David Hicks. Mr. Ertel stated that he did not have the plans with him; Mr. Artz, was
supposed to be in attendance and Mr. Ertel is not prepared to show the Board anything. However, Mr.
Ertel knows what the plan is; they are putting up a house that is basically 28 feet wide, two story, 900 _
square feet per floor. There would be two houses built as there are two lots in question.
Vice Chairman Perry questioned Mr. Ertel that if the planned house is only 28 feet wide,
they only need a 39 foot variance. Mr. Ertel stated they had not picked a plan, but that plan could fit on the
lot, so that is true.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone is present to speak in favor of this request and Mr.
Ertel stated that he is. No one else spoke in favor of the request. Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone is
present to speak against the variance. Mr. Phillip Summer approached the podium, stating that he is an
adj acent property owner. He stated that the applicant has already built two houses very similar to the ones
that were just described on adjacent lots that are much too close together. Mr. Summer's main concern is
that they're going to put two houses on one lot and there's nothing in the plans that show access in terms
of drive ways. Mr. Summer is assuming it's off of Route 522 and there's no way to put a drive way in
there, and certainly not for two houses. Mr. Summer further stated that there was a dwelling on the
property that was demolished less than two months ago, and now it's still a property of asbestos and
insulation and the property owner and the builder have been adding to that pile. Mr. Summer and the co-
owner of the adjacent property object to the variance; they think it is way over -packed for the two
dwellings they're asking to be placed on this lot, especially in relationship to the surrounding properties.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1270
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Cheran if there could be two houses on the lot.
Mr. Cheran responded that Mr. Ertel spoke incorrectly; actually this is for one dwelling.
The following variance request that is to be heard today is the other lot in question. These are two lots
next to each other. Mr. Cheran stated for the record that there was a dwelling on this property and it
wouldn't meet the non -conforming use. There will not be two houses on this property, just one.
Mr. Summer stated he thinks that the existing lots, which are the same size on which
two houses were built, that the houses on the lots are too big for the size of the lots and the setbacks and
the request for the setbacks enhances that problem. Mr. Summer said they would appreciate it if the Board
does not grant the variance.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Cheran what is the requirement for access from Route
522. Mr. Cheran stated that currently the access for that property would be a drive way off of Route 522.
As shown on the map included in the agenda, the houses that are currently there do have access to Route
522 South. Those houses, some of them, were built prior to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Summer stated he believed that is not correct. He believes those houses, when
Route 522 was re -adjusted and reconfigured, were given access to what is now termed Calloway Court.
They all have drive ways coming off their properties onto there and they do not use Route 522 at all for
access. As a matter of fact, those drive ways that approach off of Route 522have been removed for the lots
that are adjacent here. Mr. Summer further stated that the two houses that are there are connected by a
-ravel, single car drive way, that runs out to Calloway Court.
Mr. Ertel once again approached the podium. He apologized and stated that he realizes
there are two different hearings for the two different lots. When it comes to access to this property, the
gentleman who builds the houses that are not question today, is a different applicant and a different
builder. Right now there is a paved drive way coming off of Route 522. It will be the intention to come
off that same drive way to feed into these lots. Mr. Ertel feels it is a confusing issue to bring the other two
houses that were built recently, as they are not part of this equation at all and they use a different access
road.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Ertel which lot has this access road that he's speaking
of. Mr. Ertel said it is the one that is the most southern lot, which is this variance request. Mr. Ertel further
stated that when it comes to the density of these lots, it looks like the gentleman who was arguing the point
of us getting the structure up here, is on a similar narrow lot that has a structure on it, too, so it goes with
the flow of the rest of the structures that are there now.
Mr. Scott asked for the size of these lots again. Mr. Ertel stated they are right at 9,000
feet; they're 50 feet wide.
Vice Chairman Perry stated that it is his personal opinion that we should not do any
more than what is necessary, and he would not be in favor of granting a 40 foot variance if he only needs
39 feet. Vice Chairman Perry does not want to set a precedent. Mr. Ertel stated that they do not have the
ruse plans. If they are granted what they are requesting, they will find a house that will confine to those
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1271
restrictions. The neighboring lot was granted a 10 foot side yard and that's all they're asking for. Mr.
Ertel assumes that this Board granted it so the precedent has already been set.
Mr. Rinker stated that each variance stands on its own, it's not precedent setting.
r.i ke •t L 'Lhe tions, {-r--m tike Roam and there
Vice Chairman Perry ask ed -Ifthere were any o«��� ques«���� �..,��.
were none. Vice Chairman Perry asked for a motion.
Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve this variance request, seconded by Mr. Scott. The vote was
unanimous.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #09-04 of David Hicks, presented by Artz & Associates, for a 40 foot side
yard variance, on both sides. This property is located in the 2200 block of Front Royal Pike
(Route 522), on the west side. The subject property is identified with Property Identification
Number 76A-1-30 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION - VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a 40 foot side yard
variance on both sides of this property located in the 2200 block of Route 522 South on the western side in
the Opequon Magisterial District. This property is zoned RA (Rural Area) and the land use is vacant. The
adjacent properties are all rural areas, except for the property on the west, which is RP (Residential
Performance). The land use is residential, vacant and school respectively. Mr. Cheran further stated the
reason_ fox, the variance isthat the lot predates the current Zoning Ordinance with regards to RA setbacks
and prevents new structures to be built. This property was created in 1946 as noted by the deed and plats -
included in the agenda. Frederick County adopted a comprehensive zoning in 1967. The Frederick
County historical map shows this property was zoned A-2 in 1967. The property setback lines at the
adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet from the front and 15 feet from the sides. Frederick County
amended its Code in 1989 to change the A-1 and A-2 zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas)
zoning districts. The current setbacks for a property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with residential
use are 60 feet front, 50 feet on the rear and sides. The applicant is seeking a 40 foot variance on the sides
of this property. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks will be 60 feet from the front, 10
from the sides and 50 from the rear, as noted on the plat in the agenda. It appears that this variance meets
the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2) and the request for a 40 foot variance from the
current setbacks of the RA zoning district maybe justified. Should this variance be granted, it will allow
having the similar setbacks of the adjacent properties, with structures built prior to the current zoning
ordinance.
Vice Chairman Perry stated this appears to be a mirror of the previous variance request
and Mr. Cheran responded that is correct. Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone is present to speak in
favor of the variance request. Mr. Eric Ertel approached the podium. He stated this is a mirror application
of the previous lot. Mr. Ertel felt it was all covered well during the last request.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone is present to speak against the request. Again,
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page
1272
Mr. Phillip Summer approached the podium. Mr. Summer reiterated his objection, stating there are
already two houses crowded on two lots of the same size and the Board just authorized a variance for a
J one and now you're looking at a fourth one. Mr. Summer stated that Mr. Ertel misspoke; Mr.
Jummer's lot is one half acre. Mr. Summer stated that it might be more important that the Board go and
take a look, or have somebody go and take a look, as to what's going on there on these particular lots and
how it's all laid out. Mr. Summer objects to the application.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if any Board members had any questions and there was no
response. Vice Chairman Perry asked if there was any discussion, and there was no response. Mr. Shenk
made a motion to approve the variance request, Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Vice Chairman Perry turned the meeting back over to Chairman Catlett.
PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal Application 901-05 of Colleen McDonough, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator
in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to adjoining property setback requirements. The
subject property is located at 162 Hopewell Road in Welltown Heights Subdivision, and is identified with
Property Identification Number 32-5-5 in the Stonewall District.
ACTION — APPEAL DENIED
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran for the staff report.
Mr. Cheran stated this is an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator
pertaining to adjoining setback requirements for property located at 162 Hopewell Road in Welltown
Heights Subdivision in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The land is zoned RA (Rural Area) and its land
use is residential. The adjoining properties are zoned RA and the land use is orchard and residential
respectively. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the adjoining property setback requirements. The
property was created in 1966 as noted by the deed and plats included with the agenda. The deed has
recorded plats that set the building restriction lines for lot 32-5-5 as 10 feet from the sides and 50 feet from
the front. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-4, Administration and Interpretation of the zoning
ordinance by the Zoning Administrator regarding the recorded deed and plat for setbacks and issuance of a
building permit for lot 32-5-5 of the Welltown Heights Subdivision. Mr. Cheran stated that for the record,
the applicant is here and also the property owner of the subject property is here.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if the applicant is not the property owner, and Mr.
Cheran responded that is correct, the applicant is not the owner.
Mr. Rinker stated he is confused that there is not a copy of the letter that went to the
applicant as to the Zoning Administrator's decision. He asked if the side setbacks need to be addressed.
Mr. Cheran stated that when the permit was applied for, sent in with the application,
to deed and plat showing it was recorded were attached. Staff hand -delivered the Zoning Administrator's
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1273
decision. Mr. Cheran apologized for not providing the Board with a copy of this letter. The decision of the
Zoning Administrator was through the application process of a building permit; the applicant submitted
copies of the Welltown Heights Subdivision created in 1966, prior to the zoning ordinance. As a recorded
deed and with the plats, you will note it talks about the setback requirements of that property being 10 feet,
and that is what the Zoning Administrator went on and issued the building permit. Since then, the
applicant is appealing that decision with reference to today's zoning ordinance.
Mr. Rinker stated that they are looking at it opposite from what they normally do, and
Mr. Cheran stated that would be correct.
Chairman Catlett stated, to set the record straight, if someone comes in with a plat that
does have setbacks identified on the plat, those remain in effect if zoning is later changed. Mr. Cheran
said yes, if it's prior to the zoning ordinance, that's correct. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran that in
lieu of that plat, he has gone on the deed for this entire subdivision. Mr. Cheran said that's right, and if
you read the deed with the plats that accompany it, it identifies the lots and that is what the Zoning
Administrator went on when the permits were issued. Mr. Cheran further stated that commonly, the
current Zoning Administrator requires that we do site surveys regardless on non -conforming properties.
Mr. Rinker asked for further clarification. He said that the County is saying that the
setback is 10 feet from each side, and Mr. Cheran said that is correct. Mr. Rinker asked if the applicant is
saying that it shouldn't be 10 feet, but it should be today's zoning, which is 50 feet.
Chairman Catlett told the members to keep in mind that the applicant is not the owner
of the property who is the applicant for the building permit.
Chairman Catlett asked if the applicant is here._ Ms. McDonough approached the
podium and stated that she is the owner of the adjacent property. Ms. McDonough gave each member a
prepared presentation. Ms. McDonough stated that basically the purpose is to determine or verify the
following: that the Frederick County Zoning Administrator correctly determined the setback requirements
for the building of new homes on adjacent properties to her home in the rural area of Hopewell Road,
specifically lot 5; if the Zoning Commission actually has the authority to enforce deeds; where setback
requirements are not shown or illustrated on land plats, can the Zoning Administrator determine setbacks
based on language mentioned in a deed; to confirm that Welltown Heights is currently considered rural
area, even though it was parceled out or subdivided in 1967; to confirm setback requirements for RA areas
within subdivided parcels; to confirm that deeds are actually civil issues and not zoning issues; and, to
illustrate the adjacent properties which also have been approved at 10 foot setbacks, where the deed does
not have any mention of setbacks, for example lot B4. Ms. McDonough further stated that one of the
impacts of the approved 10 foot setbacks from the adjacent property line, with the house being so close to
the property line, is that the back two acres that she owns are currently land locked. The only way she can
get to that back two acres is to put a drive way on her property. Further impacts would be safety, potential
neighbor disputes, current and future financial impacts, future adjacent property development,
enviromnental impacts and no alternate drainfield location. Ms. McDonough asked the members to refer
to the photographs she provided them that illustrate the proximity of the new construction to the existing
property line. She stated that the photograph will show how close this new construction actually is to the
property line. Ms. McDonough referred the members to her diagram titled "New Driveway to exceed 320'
from road frontage". The diagram shows the new home and the approximate location of the drainfield. It
1
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1274
further shows where the future proposed drive way to get to the back two acres would be located. It needs
to be located there; there isn't another alternate drive way location because of an existing drainfield serving
house. To get back to her two acres, this is more than a 320 foot drive on an incline, so on a snowy
night coming off that back two acres within ten feet of that drive way will be the corner of his house. In
order to avoid any potential safety issues there, there's going to be a financial impact on her part to either
put fencing up, and other impacts like financial and neighborhood disputes.
Ms. McDonough has copies of all the deeds and they reference a 10 foot setback from the
sides, they don't mention the back or the front, and the plats do not show any setback requirements drawn
on them, so she's in doubt as to if the zoning was actually made correctly. Based on the fact that the
existing deeds for lots 5 and 8 do not show setback requirements on the original plat and the deed only
references two sides of the subj ect property, it's her concern that perhaps the Zoning Administrator has not
correctly enforced the zoning requirements for this area. It is also her understanding that at the time she
purchased her home, that this area was in an RA zone and that setback requirements would be 50 feet on
all three sides regardless of any grandfather clause or regardless of Welltown Heights subdivided parcels of
1966. Additionally, since lot B4 was also approved with a 10 foot setback where the deed nor the plat
indicates any setback requirements and since that lot which is currently under construction for a garage
should have actually met current RA setbacks of 50 feet, it raises doubt about the zoning approval for lot 5.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Mitchell, attorney for the BZA, which would have
precedence, a deed or a plat.
Mr. Mitchell said he hesitates to talk on something he hasn't been able to research. However,
seems to Mr. Mitchell that the interpretation is based on Section 165-152 of the Zoning Ordinance,
which talks about legally non -conforming lots of record. So the current setbacks for the particular zoning
district in question are to be applied for all lots unless the most recently legally approved and recorded plat
of the property clearly depicts all appropriate terminology and numeric information for different setbacks.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Mitchell if what he is saying is that the plat supercedes the
deed and Mr. Mitchell responded that it seems to him that would be the case.
Mr. Cheran stated that would be the case, but with the plat running with the deed, that was the
determination of the Zoning Administrator because it was platted in 1966.
Mr. Mitchell stated if that is the issue, his opinion would be that the plat would control.
Vice Chairman Perry asked what if there were no setbacks denoted on the plat. Mr. Cheran
stated, on the plat, no; but running with the deed, it does call out those lots.
Mr. Rinker asked, if the deed and the plat are recorded together, aren't they
coupled together as two documents making one?
Mr. Mitchell stated that sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.
Mr. Cheran answered Mr. Rinker that in this case, yes, they did run with it.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Pae 1275
Minutes of February 15, 2005 g
Mr. Mitchell stated that the County approves the plat, the County does not approve the
attached document, the deed.
Mr. Rinker said that the deed is taken from an approved plat.
Mr. Mitchell said that seems to be the issue here, as to whether or not the deed reflects what's
on the plat, or reflects more or different than what's on the plat.
Ms. McDonough said there's nothing on the plat.
Mr. Mitchell stated that's what the ordinance says, and the ordinance refers to the plat.
Chairman Catlett thanked Mr. Mitchell. Chairman Catlett stated that she feels it's important
that the Board recognizes that a number of issues were brought up by the applicant which this Board has
no control over, such as the land locked lot, the garage being built on B4, etc. The only thing that the
Board is here to do today is to determine whether the Zoning Administrator made the correct decision in
issuing the building permit for lot 5. She further stated that while the other issues may be important to the
applicant, they are not issues that are under the control of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Chairman Catlett asked if there is anyone else present who wanted to speak in favor of this
appeal and there was no response. Chairman Catlett then asked if anyone was present to speak against the
appeal.
Mr. Shifflett approached the podium and stated that he owns lot 5. He stated that Mr. Cheran
has pretty much laid out all the information. The deed does show a 10 foot setback on the sides and the
deed also does call for a 50 foot setback from the front. He submitted for and was issued a building permit
by Frederick County and at this point, the house is well along on this lot. He did this based on doing the
research and checking the covenants of the subdivision and the covenants do read as spoken, 10 feet on the
sides and 50 feet from the front. The house is more than 10 feet; it's between approximately 16 and 17
feet at the closest point.
Chairman Catlett asked if there is anyone else present to speak on this appeal and there was
no response. Chairman Catlett closed the public portion of the hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Rinker had some comments about Ms. McDonough's issues. He stated that RA covers a
large part of the County and this subdivision was put in before we had zoning requirements, so it's still in a
RA area even though it's more residential. As far as being here instead of Civil Court, this is the process
to get to Civil Court; the BZA is an intermediary before you get to that point. Concerning the drainfield, to
get the health permit they have to have a certain amount of reserve in that drainfield for expansion if
necessary. Concerning a future drive way, Mr. Rinker would hope that would be done on a right-of-way
on the other piece of property instead of the property we're talking about. And land locked lots are really
immaterial to this consideration.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page 1276
Minutes of February 15, 2005
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if he stated that the deed was recorded along with the plat
of the subdivision, and Mr. Cheran responded that is correct. She further asked in any other plat that is
orded today, if the deed is more restrictive, you would still go with the plat according to the RA
...,cbacks at this time. Mr. Cheran stated that is correct, and for the record, if it's today, because we do have
performance zoning, the Zoning Administrator would review all plats in the County that come through that
are applied for and if there's qny iCmf-C� thPV'rP Y?j?f.tPd and haVP fn hP re-C11hm1iti-d
Mr. Mitchell stated that in review, it seems that the ordinance refers to what's on the plat. He
thinks that would control, but he would point out, this is before you want an appeal of an administrative
decision. If in fact different setbacks apply, and those setbacks would make the property unusable or
unbuildable and constitute a hardship, the owner of the property would be eligible for a variance.
Mr. Shenk made a motion to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Rinker
seconded the motion and it passed by a majority vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Application 402-05 of High View One, L.L.C., to request variances of side yard setback
requirements for each of the following parcels: Identification Numbers 60A -211-A-2 through 26, 28
through 30, 33 through 38; 60A-lC-B-1 through 8, 10 through 16, 20 through 24, 27 through 35, 37
through 48; 60A -1D -B-1, 6 through 9, 13, 18 through 29; 60A -1E -B-1 through 25. Further, High View
One, L.L.C., requests a variance of the rear yard setback requirements for each of the following parcels:
Identification Numbers 60A -2B -A-2 through 26,28 through 30,33 through 38; 60AA C -B-1 through 8,10
*hrough 16, 20 through 24, 27 through 35, 37 through 48; 60A.. -1D -B-1, 6 through 9, 13, 18 through 29;
jA-1E-B-1 through 25. These properties are located 7.5 miles west of Winchester in Highview Manor
Subdivision, on the northwest side of Wardensville Grade (Route 608) and south of Glen Ridge Road, in
the Back Creek Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Mitchell to step forward and give the Board members a history
on this application.
Mr. Mitchell stated that because this involves a bit of an unusual case with some legal history,
it is appropriate to go over that and put it on the record. This is a case of the approval of a 1962
subdivision that involved 170 some lots. Of course, that was before a Zoning Ordinance had even been
adopted in Frederick County, the first ordinance being adopted in 1967. Therefore, there were no zoning
ordinance setbacks that existed in 1962. Little development occurred in this subdivision in the 40 plus
years since the plat has been recorded. A few of the lots were sold, a few houses have been built upon. By
virtue of Section 165-152 of the Zoning Ordinance, all of the lots are made lots which are legally non-
conforming lots of record; which means as legal lots they can be used and built upon in their configuration.
However, that same ordinance section says that those legally non -conforming lots, the current setbacks in
the ordinance apply. High View One, LLC, which is the applicant, purchased 100 plus lots in 2003 and
after doing that, it submitted to the County some proposed boundary line adjustment plats. The
Subdivision Administrator ruled at that time that the current side and rear setbacks applied to the lots and
ust be shown on the plats. With respect to the front, this is a situation similar to the one talked about in
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1277
the last case in that the plats which were recorded in 1962 showed the front setbacks. Therefore, they are
vested, but the front setbacks are established by the plat that was recorded in 1962. The 1962 plat did not
show side yard setbacks or rear setbacks. Mr. Mitchell further stated that the Subdivision Administrator
said that current setbacks would apply and they had to be shown on these boundary line adjustments plats.
High View One contended that it had vested rights by virtue of the 1962 approved subdivision which
would preclude the application of current setbacks. In effect, it was saying that there weren't any side or
rear setbacks that could be applied to this property and the lots in this subdivision. High View One filed
suit against the County on that vested rights issue, asking the Court to declare that High View One was
vested so as to preclude the application of the setbacks. While that case was pending, High View One
submitted to this Board of Zoning Appeals a blanket variance application which asked this Board to grant
blanket side and rear variances to all of the lots, asking for uniform 10 foot variances resulting in 10 foot
side setbacks and 25 foot rear setbacks. This Board denied that blanket variance application, finding there
was insufficient information submitted with respect to each individual lot for this Board to make a
determination as to each individual lot what variance was needed in order to alleviate a hardship. High
View One appealed that decision to the Circuit Court regarding the denial of that blanket variance
application. Upon hearing all the issues in the case, the Circuit Court ruled in the County's favor on both
issues. The Court found that on the vested rights issue, the High View One did not have vested rights so as
to preclude the application of current side and rear setbacks to the property. High View One has appealed
that ruling to the Supreme Court of Virginia and that case is now pending. On the appeal of the BZA
decision which denied the blanket variance application, the Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the BZA
and High View One has not appealed that decision. In the course of the proceedings in the Circuit Court
on those two issues, it was recognized that the application of current setbacks to the lots as platted in 1962
would render the lots unbuildable and that High View One could be eligible for variances to alleviate that
hardship. It was also recognized that this represented an unusual situation because of the large number of
lots which have been recognized as legal non -conforming lots by the County. In response to these
circumstances and discussions with the Circuit Court, the County told the Circuit Court that if High View _
One elected to apply again for variances, it could, as it had done before, submit a single application for all
the lots in the subdivision and since it was not practical to know the precise house plan that purchasers of
the lot would use for each lot, the applicant could file a variance application using a sample footprint for
each lot. The County further advised the Court that since the sample house footprint may not be in the
exact location that the ultimate purchaser would use, the ultimate house location could vary laterally just
so that any side yard variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in their total would not be
exceeded. High View One subsequently filed another variance application. The initial application which
they filed recently showed sample house footprints but did not show distances from the exterior walls of
the sample footprint to the exterior lot lines. It also asked for uniform variances throughout the
subdivision, not variances tailored to each specific lot. That application was not accepted for filing.
Subsequently, the applicant has revised its application to meet the applicable requirements as to what is
necessary and proper and required to be on the plat in order for this Board to be able to properly consider a
variance application. Given the house location as indicated by the sample house footprint, your analysis
for determining a variance is the same as in any other case. That is, the threshold question for you to
determine is whether or not the application of the current side and rear yard setbacks would render the lot
unbuildable or unusable, so as to constitute a hardship that meets the requirements of the ordinance in the
code. The side setbacks under the current ordinance for the RA district are 50 feet side and rear. These lots
being of the size they are, that would in effect render the lots to be unbuildable. If you make that initial
determination with respect to the lot, then your duty is to tailor a variance to alleviate the hardship, but
only enough to alleviate the hardship. Staff has put together for you and discussed this with you at your
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1278
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page
last meeting, exhibits Al through A4 in which they've gone through and for each lot have taken a sample
house footprint to determine the distances to the side and rear property lines, to indicate for you what
-iance would be necessary to alleviate the hardship given that sample footprint. Mr. Mitchell further
.ced that as sewage disposal systems have not been located on the property, it was impractical under the
circumstances to locate it on 100 plus lots prior to filing this application. Any variance that you would
grant with respect to these would be conditioned upon approval by the Virginia Department of Health of a
sewer system to serve each lot before the variances would apply. Mr. Mitchell feels it's important that the
Board and the public understand what the scope of what the BZA's authority is with respect to this matter.
What is before you is a variance application that involves only side and rear yard setback variances. If the
application meets the requirements of hardship, in other words that the application of the current setbacks
would render the lots unbuildable, then you must grant a variance to alleviate that hardship, and that is the
limit of your authority. The Board has no authority to say that this is too many houses in this area and
we're not going to approve it to keep you from building the houses. That's not within the scope of the
authority of this Board. You're only deciding what the rear and side setbacks would be in order to
alleviate the hardship if you find that hardship to exist. It should also be mentioned and noted that granting
these variances does not give ultimate approval for development of this property. There are still issues of
sewer systems to serve each individual lot that have to be approved; the building permit brings into play
the building code, land disturbance permits, drainage and things of that nature. Those are things that are
not before you. The sole thing before you is 1): does a hardship exist? And 2): what variances, if any,
should be granted in order to alleviate those hardships?
Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone has run an average to see what the minimum
distance between two sample houses on two lots would be. Mr. Mitchell stated it was stipulated that the
minimum setback would have to be at least 10 feet, so it would be 20 feet. And that's if the 10 feet butted
against each other.
Mr. Rinker asked if There is a minimum rear setback. Mr. Mitchell stated that he did
not think there is any variance requested that would reduce the rear setback to less than 50 feet, except
maybe one or two lots. The only reason the variance is needed to get it down to 50 feet is because of the
rule that says that if the adjoining property is agricultural, the setback is 100 feet.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if the bottom line of this variance request as it's presented
would be simply to simplify the variance request process per lot. Mr. Mitchell responded that he thinks so,
but the analysis that you're using on this is not any different than the analysis that you use on any other
application.
Chairman Catlett asked for comments from the staff. Mr. Cheran read into the
record the following: The reason for this variance request is due to the fact that the current side and rear
setbacks render these existing parcels unusable. The current side and rear setbacks are significantly larger
than the side and rear setbacks that were in effect at the time of the creation of these lots. The effect of the
setbacks of the current zoning ordinance as applied without this variance would interfere with any
reasonable uses of the property as a whole. The property is located 7.5 miles west of Winchester in the
High View Manor Subdivision on the northeast side of Wardensville Grade (Route 608), in the Back
Creek Magisterial District. The properties are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the land use is
vacant. The adjoining properties are zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the land use is vacant, agriculture and
,sidential respectively. The subdivision known as High View One was created in 1962, as noted by the
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1279
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page
recorded deed and plat in the agenda. The recorded deed and plats do not have side and rear setback lines
assigned to them. The current zoning ordinance for property in the RA zoning district abutting lots that are
residential use are 60 feet from the front, and 50 feet from the rear and sides. The ordinance requires a 100
foot setback from adjoining properties primarily used for agricultural purposes. The applicant is seeking a
variance of the current RA zoning requirements on the sides and rear of the properties on the four charts,
exhibits 1 A — 4A, shown in the agenda. It appears that this variance request meets the intent of the Code
of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 (2) due to the fact that it would be an undue hardship as a result of the
zoning ordinance requirements. Mr. Cheran stated that Mr. Thomas Lawson is representing the applicant
and the surveyor who set this up, Mr. Scott Marsh, are here to answer any questions.
Mr. Rinker stated that on the application, number 11— describe the variance sought —
the last
lines state that the side yard will not be less than 30 feet total and reduce the rear setback to 25 feet. Also,
number 8 on block B, is down to 10 and he thinks the rest of them are 25 to 50, so we are in essence doing
rear setbacks as well. Mr. Cheran explained that some of the setbacks are for lots that are a little different.
For example, on lot 2 they're requesting a variance of 13 feet and the resulting setback is 37 feet, the right
is 22 feet and the resulting would be 28 feet, the combined setbacks would be 35 feet. They're not
requesting any setbacks on some of the lots and some are going to be a little different.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if one or two of these lots or more become not eligible for
a building permit because of health permit reasons and the owners elected to make a boundary line
adjustment and take two lots side by side and make one lot out it, how would the variance then affect that
combined lot? Mr. Mitchell responded that the variances that you grant will only affect the lots in the
present configuration. --
Mr. Ty Lawson approached the podium. Mr. Lawson stated to follow up on a couple
of the questions, and Scott Marsh can explain it better than he can about the sides, it's a composite andper
the agreement that was reached in front of Judge Prosser it's a sliding setback on the sides. The total -.is
approximately 30, but in response to Mr. Perry's question, under any circumstance it could get no smaller
than 20 from the adjoining house if you had the two tens together. And in response to Mr. Rinker's
question, Mr. Lawson is not sure that Mr. Rinker was reading from number 11, and he will tell you there
are several submissions as they worked with the County and the last one showed that it would reduce rear
setbacks to 25 feet. Some of the earlier drafts did show a 30 and as Scott Marsh worked through it, there
are some lots you just couldn't fit them in, and they made the correction to make it no fewer than 25 for
those specific lots and the charts should so reflect.
Mr. Lawson stated that he greatly appreciates Mr. Mitchell's history of this. There are a total
of 176 lots, with a total of nine houses already within the subdivision, and High View One owns 116 of
those lots. When the subdivision was approved in 1962, there was a deed of dedication that was submitted
with restrictive covenants that did have side and rear and front setbacks, but it only had in the plat the front
setbacks. There is a request in front of you for variances for only 114 lots, there are two that even with
reduced variances, we cannot get a house site on them. Mr. Lawson submitted to the Secretary for the
record transcripts from the various proceedings in front of Judge Prosser. Mr. Marsh was lured to work
with Staff to work with a plat and is here to explain why some rear setbacks are what they are. The whole
idea is to create a building envelope. The reason they can't be exact and the reason why the Judge thought
it wise to allow them to file as they have, is simply because they don't know what the prospective
purchasers are going to want, where they're going to want these houses on the lots and the reason they
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals g 1280
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page
have representative squares of the dimensions of these homes, is you don't know where a bay is going to
be, where a bump -out room is going to be and so on; but they're committing that it will no greater than X.
Judge allowed them not to put the drainfields on the plats; obviously the amount of work and money
A would have gone into locating a drainfield only then to be told that you're not going to be granted a
variance, would be futile and very costly. Mr. Lawson stated that they agree with what Mr. Mr. Mitchell
said is what they're asking for is the variance to allow for a building envelope. Having said that,
everything from this point forward, assuming the variance is granted, would be subject to the building
permit process and everything that goes with it and certainly, the science of locating suitable drainfields
and that they be approved by the Health Department is recognized.
Mr. Scott Marsh approached the podium. Mr. Marsh stated that this is an interesting survey
problem only in the sense that we have to try to forecast for you in this application how they would put a
house on a lot. Their intent is to show the realistic house types that they can fit on a lot and define a space
and a setback and try to create minimums so that everyone is comfortable with those, but also something
that gives them the ability to do the design. It took quite a while to actually position what you see here.
The setbacks are controlled, particularly the rears, based on the use so if the adjacent land use is
agriculture, the setback is 100 feet. If the use of the adjacent land is residential, then the setback is 50 feet.
They tried in all cases to use the 50 foot margin and many of the lots, the use is residential, and that's why
on your chart, you'll see they're not asking for a rear setback. In the areas where the rear buts up to
agricultural land, that's where they're trying to get a variance to a 50 foot rear yard setback. The reason
item 11 addresses 25 foot rear is because he wanted to make it clear in the application that yes, there are a
few lots that 50 feet will not work. When these subdivisions were done in the 60's, they would do them in
sections and then they'd start re -numbering the lots over again as opposed to lot 1 through 116. It took a
lot of time to figure out how to put this chart together, how each lot fit and bow the setbacks work so there
; some lots that they're asking to reduce the setback to 25 feet whereas it would be 50 feet based on
today's ordinance. There are some lots that are not -buildable: lot 1 they're not asking for any variance at
all; and lot 37, they're not asking for a variance. Their intent is for the chart and the plat to be the
governing factor for this variance application. They derived the minimum of 30 feet combined side yard
setback from the current RA ordinance for two -acre lots. Even though these lots are smaller than two
acres, they felt like that is a distance they could live with, and when they start positioning the houses on
there, you'll see most of these will fit on a lot and the combination of the left and the right side is in excess
of 30. They've tried to be realistic about what they're asking for.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present to speak in favor of the variance request. No one
responded. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present to speak against the request.
Ms. Cybil Kraft approached the podium. Ms. Kraft stated that in 1962 these lots, about one
third of an acre each, were zoned recreational and back in 1990, they were changed to rural. The Board
previously made a decision that they were not going to give a variance on the total number of lots they
wanted to build on, that there were enough lots that they could combine to make a buildable lot. Route
608 is a narrow, curvy road and it will not uphold the extra traffic. Ms. Kraft feels that this property can be
built upon, but anything under two acres should not be allowed. They moved there 26 years ago and it's
been peaceful and quiet. Ms. Kraft feels that 116 lots are a lot for variance. Most of the lots there do not
perk and there is only one way in and out of the subdivision. Chairman Catlett stated that this Board is not
here to determine these issues. Ms. Kraft knows it's inevitable that the property will be built on and
veloped, but she thinks we should consider that this be done on a lot that is more than one third of an
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1281
acre.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present to speak against the request.
Mr. Louis Kenney approached the podium. Mr. Kenney stated that he is not for or against the
request, but he is against the blanket variance for all the lots.
Chairman Catlett asked if there is anyone else present to speak against the request.
Ms. Ethel Pasqual approached the podium. Her family has owned land there since the 60's.
Ms. Pasqual lives in Alexandria, but she went out to the site today. She's asking that we seek a
compromise because she has two lots, number 25 and 26, which are buildable lots. The ones adjacent to
her, number 24 and 27, are also buildable lots. Ms. Pasqual requests that they leave out the lots on either
side of her.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Mitchell, should they grant this variance would they be
within the spirit of the code concerning hardships on lots by doing it in a blanket situation as opposed to an
individual? Mr. Mitchell responded no, and he suggests that when the application came into you two years
ago, that was a blanket application because they were asking for across the board variances of 10 feet on
the side and 25 feet in the rear. This is not a blanket variance, although that's not a legal term, in the sense
the only thing different here is that it's all being presented to you at one time. You're looking at each lot
individually; it's not a blanket across the board.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present to speak against the request. Ms. Pasqual
asked what the setbacks are for her properly and Mr. Cheran responded that the only setbacks in question
today are the ones being discussed in the High View One variance request, Mr. Mitchell told her that if
and when she builds on her lots, she will probably need to apply for a -variance.
Mr. Rinker asked if the roads are state maintained. Mr. Cheran stated that he did not believe
these roads are not state maintained. Mr. Lawson stated that they are private parcels and are owned by
High View One.
Chairman Catlett stated that there have been a lot of points addressed and there is only so
much that's within the scope of the authority of this Board, which does not include the subdivision and the
size of the lots or perk permits. As Mr. Mitchell pointed out, the first question before us is to determine
whether or not a hardship exists for these lots which were approved in 1962 not being unbuildable if they
apply current zoning restrictions. If the Board decides this is the case, then the Board needs to decide
whether or not to approve these variance requests as have been detailed on exhibits Al through A4, for
each of these lots.
Mr. Rinker made the following motion in Appeal Application 02-05:
Whereas, the High View subdivision plat was approved in 1962; and
Whereas 165-152 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes legal non -conforming lot status on the
lots as platted on the 1962 subdivision plat; and
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals g
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1282
Whereas, pursuant to § 165-152 the front setbacks on the lots are vested by virtue of the front
hacks having been shown on the 1962 subdivision plat; and
Whereas, the subdivision has been the subject of litigation in the Circuit Court of Frederick
County between the County and the owner, in which case the Court has ruled that the subdivision does not
have vested rights as to preclude the application of current side and rear setback regulations under the
Zoning Ordinance; and
Whereas, the Board finds that the application of the current side setback regulations for the
2A zoning district to each of the platted lots in the subdivision would interfere with all reasonable beneficial
use of the lot and meets the criteria of a hardship under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the
Code of Virginia; and
Whereas, the Board finds that the application of the current rear setback regulations for the
RA zoning district to certain of the platted lots in the subdivision would interfere with all reasonable
beneficial use of such lots and meets the criteria of a hardship under the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance and the Code of Virginia as to such lots; and
Whereas, in the aforesaid litigation the County has advised the Court that in recognition of
the fact that the subdivision was approved in 1962 and that the applicant owns over one hundred lots in the
subdivision, the applicant may file a single variance application for all lots and may show on each lot a
footprint of a sample dwelling, and this application has been filed on that basis; and
Whereas, the Board having found that a hardship exists as to the application of current side
setback regulations for each of the platted lots in the subdivision and that a hardship exists as to the
application of current rear setback regulations for certain platted lots in the subdivision, the Board's duty is
to tailor variances so that variances are approved only to the extent necessary to alleviate the hardship with
respect to each lot.
Therefore, the Board hereby approves the side and rear setback variances for lots in
Block B, C, D and E of High View subdivision as set for on exhibits Al, A2, A3 and A4 respectively,
which exhibits are hereby made a part of this motion and shall be appended to the minutes of this meeting.
The variances hereby approved are expressly subject to the following conditions
and/or provisions:
1. The approval of the variances for each lot is conditioned upon the owner of the
lot obtaining, prior to the issuance of a building permit for a dwelling on the lot, Virginia Department of
Health approval of a sanitary sewer system to serve such lot.
2. The variances hereby approved for each lot shall apply only to the lot in the
configuration shown on the plat approved in 1962, and will not transfer to any subsequent consolidation,
boundary line adjustment, or other reconfiguration of the lot.
With respect to the side setback variances hereby granted for each lot, the
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1283
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page
locations of a dwelling on the lot may be varied from the sample dwelling footprint shown on the plats
submitted with the application, provided that the total of the side setbacks for each lot shall not be less than
the Combined Resulting Side Setback for each such lot as shown on exhibits Al, A2, A3, and A4, and
provided, further, that in no event shall a side setback on any lot be less than ten (10) feet.
Mr. Perry seconded the motion and the variance requests were approved unanimously
as requested.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut off date for the next meeting. Mr. Cheran
responded that Friday, February 18, 2005 is the cut off.
Mr. Cheran stated that the Legislative Session in Richmond is looking at variances
again. "Cochran" is still the law of the land right now until the Legislative Session gets through, there may
be some variations to that. It looks like the section of the code is going to stay the same for hardships, but
there may be some tweaking that could happen in terms of cosmetics on structures. As soon as Mr. Cheran
receives the revised section, there will probably be a session with Mr. Mitchell to talk about it.
Chairman Catlett stated that she received a letter regarding Virginia Certified Board of
Zoning Appeals Program, with training to be from March 31 s'to April 1St in Richmond. Chairman Catlett
stated if anyone is interested, she has the particular information. Mr. Cheran encouraged new members
especially to attend this program.
As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting
adjourned at 5:10 p.m. by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Theresa B. Catlett, Chairman
Bev Dellinger, Secretary
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1284
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
[eld in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester,
'irginia, on March 15, 2005.
'RESENT: Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; Robert
'erry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Kevin Scott, Shawnee District; and, Dudley Rinker, Back Creek
)istrict; and, Mr. Robert W. Wells, Member -At -Large.
kBSENT: Lennie Mather, Red Bud District.
iTAFF
PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Bernard S. Suchicital, Zoning
nspector; and, Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Catlett at 3:25 p.m.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut off for next month and Mr. Cheran responded that
Friday, March 18, 2005, is the cut off date.
PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal Application #03-05 of Roy R. Beatty and F-tricia G. Beatty, to appeal the decision of the Zoning
Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-54 D (c); changes to the rural
preservation tract. The subject property is located on Route 50 West, left onto Route 614, left onto Route 612 and
approximately one half mile on the left, and is identified with Property Identification Number 59-A-34 in the Back
Creek District.
ACTION — APPEAL DENIED
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The rural preservation subdivision known as Deer Ridge Estates was
approved by Frederick County on August 9, 2002. This subdivision was created under Section 165-54 of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Section 165-54 allows lot sizes of less than two acres, with the exception of
a 40% set aside for a rural preservation tract. The tract must stay intact and has only one building right. The
recorded plat for this rural preservation subdivision shows 46 acres being in the preservation tract. The plat was
recorded on August 12, 2002, with the statement that the tract cannot be subdivided. Staff is requesting to affirm
the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Section
165-541)(c), that the tract known as a rural preservation cannot be changed in any way with regards to the recorded
plat. Mr. Cheran directed the Board to the screen and he showed an aerial view of the rural preservation
subdivision. Mr. Cheran also pointed out that in their agendas, the Board would find a copy of the determination
letter to the applicant.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of March 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1285
Mr. Cheran further stated that the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is solid on rural preservation lots of
anything being added to it. Consequently, the Zoning Administrator and the ordinances have not allowed any land
actions to happen, other than the one building right that is allowed on a rural preservation lot. The ordinance does
state no changes, adding on to a recorded plat. Cases have come before the prior Zoning Administrator to add to
or take away from the rural preservation. The only way that could possibly ever happen is if the applicant, who is
the property owner, wanted to take it out within a ten year period that was co���parable `ItI.1-he _' _prehensive
Plan of Frederick County. The Comprehensive Plan does not count this area, which basically would be an urban
development area. In other words, if you had a rural preservation tract inside the Urban Development Area, you
would have to apply to the Board of Supervisors to take a tract out of the rural preservation tract to use for further
subdivision. Mr. Cheran pointed out that the BZA did hear a case and ruled on a boundary line adjustment which
was an appeal, #18-01. A boundary line adjustment is a lot less intrusive land use action. In this case, the Board
affirmed the decision of the Zoning Administrator and did not allow that boundary line adjustment. Staff is
requesting the BZA to affirm the Zoning Administrator's determination with regard to Section 164-54D(2) of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cheran stated Mr. Thomas Chasler is here as Mr. Beatty's
representative, as well as Mr. Beatty.
Mr. Perry asked if the 46 acres is an exact 40% of the total. Mr. Cheran stated that it's probably a little more
than 40%. Mr. Perry asked that when Mr. Cheran mentioned the boundary line adjustment, is it hypothetically
possible to make a boundary line adjustment to get it down to where it would be exactly 40%. Mr. Cheran stated
that's one avenue. Under this scenario, and what the applicant has asked, is just to affirm that we can't make that
change. This could be done under a different route; a different Board would look at that under the Subdivision
Ordinance, not the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if the action that was taken in 2002 when they created this tract, if there
is to be no further subdivision of that tract. Mr. Cheran responded this is correct.
Mr. Shenk asked if this is subdividing the property, or if they're asking to do a boundary line adjustment?
And with the boundary line adjustment you still have in excess above and beyond what is required at 40%? Mr.
Cheran stated that is correct, but we have customarily treated it that no land actions can happen on a rural
preservation tract. Mr. Shenk asked if it is stated exactly like that in the ordinance. Mr. Cheran said that is the
intent of the ordinance. What it says is that the rural preservation tract shall not be subdivided. Mr. Shenk said
we're not subdividing it. Mr. Cheran said it's not subdividing it, but it must remain as it's platted, it says that 40%
must remain. If you do a boundary line adjustment or land action, whether you're going above the 40% or not, it
says that what's platted will stay as the rural subdivision tract.
Mr. Rinker said, in the original subdivision, they were allowed X number of lots. Did they get the full
number of lots they were allotted or did they choose to have less than the number they could have had? Mr.
Cheran stated that according to the plat, that was the lot number that they got as is with the 40% set-aside.
Mr. Shenk asked if they were talking about a boundary line adjustment to add more acreage to lots 3 & 4.
Are there currently residences on those lots? Mr. Cheran responded yes, there are. Mr. Shenk stated that nothing
will change other than ownership of property. Mr. Cheran stated that would be better answered by the applicant.
Mr. Rinker asked if it was to create an additional lot. Again Mr. Cheran stated that the applicant can better
answer that.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page 1286
Minutes of March 15, 2005
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant or his representative to speak. Mr. Thomas Chasler and Mr. Roy
t3' approached the podium. Mr. Chasler stated that the subdivision plat that was recorded totaled 65+ acres
originally and the preservation tract was 48 acres. So at the time, there was 73%, almost 74%, of the entire tract as
a preservation tract. What is being proposed is that between five and seven acres be added each to lot 3 and lot 4
and that would create almost 52o The preservation tract would still be well in excess of the 40%. We have
requested a boundary line adjustment and specifically, we have requested that language be placed or. the plat that
this new lot 3 and the new lot 4 can no longer be subdivided. Mr. Chasler further stated that what you have is no
impact, there's not going to be an additional building lot, and there's not going to be an additional impact to the
County. You're going to have a preservation tract that is well in excess of the 40% requirement. When we look at
the ordinance, it states that small acre tracts can be permitted provided that "40% of the parent tract must remain in
tact as a continuous parcel", and that's exactly what we have here. When we talk about the intent, you have to
look at the ordinance and understand the way it's written is if somebody started off with a 40%, then as you go
down to C, it says "no future division of the portion of the parent tract will be permitted". If you start at 40% and
no future division is permitted, then you remain at 40%, exactly what the ordinance is telling you. Maybe it should
have read a minimum of 40%, and that's probably not 40%st way to define tlike this one was 74%eriThein that intentere are
of the
many tracts out there that have been recorded J
ordinance is to keep a preservation tract that's at least 40%. We're not asking for a subdivision, we're not asking
for a building lot. All we're asking is that a boundary line adjustment be approved restricting a subdivision of the
new lot 3 and the new lot 4, and still stay at 40%. In actuality, if seven acres is added to each tract, there would be
51.6%.
Mr. Wells asked why, if it's a non -issue, you want to add five to seven acres to lots 3 and 4. Mr. Chasler
`ated that the owner of lot 3 and the owner of lot 4 have requested to purchase additional land so they have a
.anger parcel than the two acres that they now have. Mr. Wells stated that the home owners decided they would
like to purchase extra land and Mr. Beatty would like to sell them the land is the reason we're looking for a
ed that a boundary line adjustment is what has been requested and
boundary line adjustment. Mr. Chasler respond
not a subdivision of the property.
Mr. Perry asked which lots are 3 and 4 and which parts of these boundaries will be adjusted. Mr. Chasler
responded it would be the back, the rear of the lots.
Mr. Shenk said currently there's a drainfield easement that is in the RP. Is that drainfield easement for lot 3
or lot 4? Mr. Chasler responded it's for lot 1. Mr. Shenk asked if that would be part of the property involved. Mr.
Chasler said it would be a part of the property and it would be in the deed that there was a drainfield easement for
the benefit of lot 1.
Mr. Beatty stated that both property owners approached him about buying the property. They cannot build
on it because he's already told them that because he doesn't want any more houses behind him. That's the same
reason they want it, they don't want any houses in back.
Mr. Wells said they can't build on it, but you can't build on it now. Mr. Beatty said they can never build on
it. Mr. Wells said, so nobody's going to build there, that's a no -point, they just want some land for their kids to
walk around on. But they can already walk around on it now. Mr. Beatty stated no, it's not theirs, and because of
liability against him.
Mr. Rinker asked Mr. Beatty how many acres be got total from the original tract. Mr. Beatty responded
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page 1287
Minutes of March 15, 2005
seven plus the reserve. Mr. Rinker stated actually he was entitled to 13 or 14 lots and you chose not to do that.
Mr. Beatty stated from the old plats, they had it divided into 22 or 23 lots, and he said no, that's not what I want.
He just wanted them across the front.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present to speak in favor of the applicant. No one responded.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is opposed who would like to speak.
Stephen Zebarth approached the podium. He owns property on both the west and north part of Mr. Beatty's
land. Mr. Zebarth stated he doesn't have a problem with Mr. Beatty adjusting that line. Mr. Zebarth asked if
you're not going to build any homes on there, why are they out to buy some more land. Mr. Zebarth stated that his
concern is there are perks all along that line in the rural preservation land. He understands the lots can be
extended, but why are there perks on that tract of land if there's not going to be any homes and it can't be further
subdivided. Mr. Zebarth asked Mr. Chasler and Mr. Beatty to respond to that.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Zebarth if he's saying that someone recently had been there to do perk tests and
Mr. Zebarth responded yes.
Chairman Catlett directed a comment to Mr. Cheran. She knows this Board's duty here today is to either
affirm your decision or reverse that decision, but regardless of what this Board does, there can be no further
building on any of this land in question. Is that correct? Mr. Cheran responded that is correct.
Chairman Catlett stated that while the perk tests may be of great concern to Mr. Zebarth, this Board doesn't
have any authority to say whether anything can be built or not be built. The only thing this Board can do is to say
whether the Zoning Administrator interpreted the Code correctly and either affirm his decision that the boundaries
cannot be further changed or that it can be to make larger lots. While they don't discount all the neighbors
concerns, .it's riot anything that this Board can do anything about.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is opposed who would like to speak. There was no response. The
public portion of the meeting was closed.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Wells asked Mr. Chasler or Mr. Beatty to respond for the record about the perk tests on the property.
Mr. Beatty responded that the perk holes were done prematurely. Once he found out they couldn't build on it, it
was really of no value to him. The neighbors saw the tractor digging the perk holes and they approached him and
asked him if be wanted to sell it.
Mr. Wells stated he's heard everyone say the lots cannot be built on. Is that part of the agreement? Not just
a house, but nothing can be built there? Mr. Cheran stated if the Board allows the boundary line adjustment, the
rural preservation tract would stay. Because that becomes part of lots 3 and 4, if the applicant wants to put it on
the deed, that's up to them. As far as Mr. Cheran is concerned, that's still lot 3 and 4. If next week someone
wanted to take the house down and move the house back off the road a little more into that extra acreage, they
would be able to do that because those two lots are not part of the rural preservation tract. That's what needs to be
understood. That's what could happen.
Mr. Rinker said, basically, you could build on that lot inside of the setbacks. Mr. Cheran said that is correct.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page 1288
Minutes of March 15, 2005
Chairman Catlett recognized Mr. Zebarth and allowed him to again address the Board. Mr. Zebarth stated
all he is hearing is we're not going to subdivide or we're not going to put homes on those two tracts that are
being extended. What about that other piece of lot that's still 51 %? That still gives 12 acres if you're going to go
to the 40% in rural preservation that you could feasibly come back here and argue, let's put six more two acre lots
in there and I've got five or six perks up and down this line and you've got access to it now. Mr. Zebarth said if
they would like to come up and say, once we have the preservation tract and it's 51 %, we're not going to subdivide
any of that, he would be excited. Mr. Zebarth stated he did not believe that would happen, because ultimately he
believes Mr. Beatty is trying to subdivide in behind the tract which is another 35 acres that Mr. Beatty owns.
Mr. Rinker made a motion to affirm the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Perry seconded the motion
and it passed by majority vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request 904-05 of Lester McDonald for a 10 foot front yard variance, 40 foot right side
yard variance, and 35 foot left side yard variance. This property is located approximately 1,000 feet from
Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) on Woodbine Road. The subject property is identified with Property
Identification Number 33A -A-23 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
ACTION - VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran presented the staff report. This properly was created in 1964 as noted by the deed
nd plats included in your agenda. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in 1967. The Frederick
.ounty historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1967. The
property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35' front and 15' sides. Frederick
County amended its Code in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts in the current RA (Rural_ Areas)
zoning district. The current setbacks for property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with residential
use are: 60' front, 50' rear and sides.
Mr. Cheran further stated that the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2), states that no variance
shall be authorized by the Board unless it finds that 1) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an
undue hardship; 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.
The applicant is seeking a variance of 35' on the left side and 40' on the right side of this property. Should
this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be: 15' left and 10' right side of the
property. It appears that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2), and
this request for a 35' and 40' variance from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified.
Should this variance be granted, it will allow this parcel to have the similar setbacks of the adjacent
properties.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if based on the width of the lot, if we applied this 60' and 50'
rear and sides, they wouldn't be able to build a house. Mr. Cheran stated that is correct. Mr. Cheran
further stated that prior to the zoning ordinance of 1967, most of the non -conforming, "grandfathered"
properties usually had a 50' right-of-way and this property did have that. We're mainly looking at the
sides right now.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page
Minutes of March 15, 2005 1289
Mr. Rinker asked what the side setbacks were at that time. Mr. Cheran responded they were 3 5'
on each side in 1967.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. McDonald to come forward. Mr. McDonald stated that he is the
property owner on Woodbine Road. The property has been passed down from family to family. Mr.
McDonald stated that he has quite a few people interested in the property and they want to build a house
that's uniform with the rest of the houses.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present to speak in favor of the variance and no one
responded. She then asked if anyone is present who is opposed and no one responded. Chairman Catlett
closed the public portion of the discussion.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Rinker stated that it appears a hardship does exist and he made a motion to approve this
variance. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #05_05 of Ann W Smith for a 35 foot side yard and rear yard variance. This property is
located off of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), right onto Fromans Road (Route 623), approximately one
half mile on the right. The subject property is identified with Property Identification Number 72-A-8 in the
Back Creek Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. This property was created in 1961 as noted by the deed and plat
included in your agenda. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in 1967. The Frederick County
historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1967. The setback lines
at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 3 5' front and 15' from the sides. Frederick County amended its
zoning ordinance in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts to the current RA zoning district. The current
property setbacks for property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with residential use are 60' front, 100'
rear and 50' sides.
Mr. Cheran further stated that the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2), states that no variance
shall be authorized by the Board unless it finds that 1) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an
undue hardship; 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.
The applicant is seeking a variance of 15' on the right and left side of the property and 65' for the rear of this
property. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 35' left and right
side and 35' in the rear of the property. It appears that this variance will meet the intent of the Code of
Virginia 15.2-2309(2) and this request for a variance from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may
be justified.
Mr. Cheran stated that Mr. Boyd Pitcock is here to represent the applicant and owner, Ann Smith.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page 1290
Minutes of March 15, 2005
Mr. Pitcock approached the podium and stated that Mrs. Smith is his aunt. Mr. Smith passed away
and Mrs. Smith lives in Fairfax, VA, and she's ready to retire here. Mr. Pitcock stated that the lot is very
tight; one third of it is lost over the bank. He met with the Health Department and got the system laid out in
the only spot it can go.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present to speak in favor of the variance request and no one
responded. She then asked if anyone is present who is opposed to the request.
Mr. Lew Costello approached the podium. He stated he is Secretary/Treasurer of Hunting, Inc., an
adjoining property owner. Mr. Costello stated he is not really against this, but he would like to point out that
he's not sure that the right neighbors were all notified. The zoning map is ambiguous and one adjoining
parcel is actually 72-A-6, just on the other side of Fromans Run and it's owned by the Turner Family LLC.
Mr. Costello tried to send them a copy of the notice so that they would know, but he doesn't know for sure if
they got it. Mr. Costello stated that is the only point that he wanted to make. As far as the variance itself,
Hunting, Inc., has no problem with that whatsoever.
The Board members discussed this at length. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Costello if his concern is that
possibly adequate notification had not been rendered and Mr. Costello responded yes. Mr. Cheran stated that
Staff s zoning map was not showing any other properties. Mr. Cheran stated that the property was posted
prior to this meeting and the meeting announcement is posted in the local newspaper. To Mr. Cheran's
knowledge, this is what Staffs tax maps are showing and what we've gotten from the tax assessor's office.
If the Board feels notification has not happened, it's within the Board's purview to table this until we re-
check and re -notify adjoiners. The application did make it into the newspapers and the Handley and
Bowman Libraries, and the sign was posted on the property.
Chairman Catlett stated that if the property is not owner occupied, they may not have seen the
newspaper or sign postings. Mr. Cheran stated that is correct and it could become an issue. Mr. Cheran
further stated that he is not doubting Mr. Costello because sometimes maps do not get caught up when there
are transactions. Through discussion with Mr. Cheran, the Board asked what could happen if an adjoiner
was not notified of this hearing. Mr. Cheran stated that the matter would be brought back and presented to
the Board, again after sending adjoiner letters and posting the advertisement. The Board must decide
whether to table the matter or vote on the matter today.
Through discussion with Mr. Costello, the Board determined that the Turner family lives locally and
that Mr. Jeff Turner, one of the land owners, lives in a house which is approximately 500 yards from the
Smith property.
Mr. Pitcock stated that he went to the Commissioner of Revenue's office and they listed every
adjoining property owner for him. Mr. Pitcock stated that Mrs. Smith is buying a house from Foremost and
that the price of her house goes up $10,000 May V. He said he has a problem with tabling this because he
followed the correct procedures and believes the information to be correct.
Mr. Rinker stated that the applicant checked the files and staff checked the files. Mr. Rinker has
known Mr. Costello for many years and he's not insinuating he would, but if he was a disgruntled neighbor,
he could come in and make that claim and it would have no basis. Mr. Rinker reiterated he is not insinuating
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page 1291
Minutes of March 15, 2005
that Mr. Costello is doing that, and he feels they should take the word that Staff has verified it versus
someone who comes in off the street, making an accusation.
Mr. Wells made a motion to table this motion until the April meeting and give Staff an opportunity to
contact Turner Family LLC. There was not a second to Mr. Wells' motion.
Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve the variance based upon the information in front of the Board.
Mr. Rinker seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #06-05 of Lawrence Plasters for 35 foot front yard, 25 foot rear yard and 10 foot left
and right side yard setback requirements due to shallowness of lot. This property is located off of
Wardensville Grade (Route 608), right onto Capon Springs Trail, right onto Aster Trail and third lot on the
right. The subject property is identified with Properly Identification Number 69A01-30-10 in the Back
Creek Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran stated this property is located in Duck Run on Wardensville Grade. He asked the Board
to look at the Building Permit in their agenda packet, showing Staff had changed the property location from
Shawneeland to Duck Run. In the Assessor's Office, this is notated as Shawneeland which is R5. When you
apply for a building permit like Mr. Plasters did, it comes up with the setbacks to be in Shawneeland.
Setbacks for Shawneeland are what the RP setbacks are, not what the RA setbacks are. Mr. Cheran asked
the Board to note the Stop Work Order in their agenda to stop work because the building permit was issued
with the incorrect setbacks. This was a computer glitz and probably the County's fault. It was not Mr.
Plaster's fault. We are trying to correct this through the Assessor's file because these lots are buildable lots.
The original plat says "Shawneeland" and that's how it's recorded in the Assessor's file.
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. This property was created in 1970 as noted by the deed and
plat included in your agenda. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in 1967. The Frederick
County historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-1 (Agricultural Limited) in 1967.
The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35' front and 15' sides.
Frederick County amended its Code in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts to the current RA
(Rural Areas) zoning district. The current setbacks for property in the RA zoning district abutting
lots with residential use are 60' front and 50' rear and sides.
Mr. Cheran further stated that the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2), states that no
variance shall be authorized by the Board unless it finds that 1) strict application of the Ordinance
would produce an undue hardship; 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. The applicant is seeking a variance of 25' front and rear and
40' left and right side setback. Should this variance be granted, the building setback would be 35'
front, 25' rear and 10' sides of the property. It appears that this variance meets the intent of the Code
of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2), and this request for a 25' front and rear, 40' left and right sides
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minute Book Page 1292
Minutes of March 15, 2005
variance from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified.
Mr. Wells asked if this variance would be reflected on other lots in the same situation and will
they be seeing other people come in with the same request. Mr. Cheran stated that's a possibility.
He said two things could happen. They could apply for a variance of all the lots or they could do
boundary line and lot consolidation to get a buildable lot to follow today's setback requirements. In
the R5 districts, mainly Mt. Falls Park and Shawneeland, the Zoning Administration by ordinance
can grant up to 25% of the setback in those two areas only. Mr. Cheran stated in the short term, you
may see as development starts, you may see a lot more of these coming in front of you. Mr. Cheran
said we're working with the Assessor to identify Duck Run so permits will not be issued to that area
incorrectly.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Plasters if he wished to come forward and speak and he declined.
Chainnan Catlett asked if anyone is present to speak in favor of the variance request and no one
responded. She then asked if anyone is present who opposes the request, and no one responded.
Mr. Stephen Zebarth expressed that he would like to speak and approached the podium. Mr.
Zebarth stated that he and Mr. Plasters are neighbors. Mr. Zebarth stated the reason that he's
speaking is that this is going to happen again.
Mr. Kevin Combs then approached the podium, stating that he owns three lots above Mr.
Plasters', and he has had to consolidate the lots in order to adhere to setback requirements. Mr.
Combs stated he didn't mind doing this because all his lots are on one corner, but it would be kind of
nice if he would have one of them that he could do something else with instead of having to lot
consolidate all of them together in order to get the correct setbacks. He further stated that everything
he's got has Shawneeland on it and he was under the assumption when he bought there, it was 35,
25, 25 and 10, and he thought he had three useable lots.
As there was no one else who wished to speak for or against the request, Chairman Catlett
closed the public portion of the meeting.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Rinker made a motion to approve this variance request for hardship reasons. Mr. Scott
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
OTHER
Chairman Catlett stated there is another issue and she asked Mr. Pert' to speak.
Mr. Perry stated that after further thought on the item in February, he felt that he may have
voted inappropriately. He would like to have a session with counsel to confirm some legal issues, and
then consider the appeal application again in April. Mr. Perry made a motion to reconsider the vote
taken on February 15, 2005 in the Appeal Application of Colleen McDonough — an appeal of the
Zoning Administrator's decision regarding setbacks. Mr. Perry stated further that he would like to
seek counsel advisement on the issue, and continue the reconsideration of Appeal Application #01 -05
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of March 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1293
until the next BZA agenda in April.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran to refresh the member's memories on the situation. Mr.
Cheran stated the appeal was of the Zoning Administrator's determination having to do with the non-
conforming lots in the Welltown Heights Subdivision, which is a RA subdivision, and what Mr. Perry
is asking is that the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator may have been wrong and the Board
may need to seek counsel.
Chairman Catlett asked if this was the case where her neighbor was building and Mr. Cheran
responded yes. Chairman Catlett stated the gentleman was building and Ms. McDonough filed the
application.
Mr. Rinker said Ms. McDonough asked for the determination.
Mr. Cheran stated that the Zoning Administrator issued a Building Permit based on the plat
that had a front setback, not the side or rear that ran with the deed. Mr. Cheran said that at that
meeting, Mr. Perry asked Mr. Mitchell about this and Mr. Mitchell stated that he thought if it wasn't
recorded on the plat, it didn't apply. Also, some of the Board members felt if it went with the deed, it
was all right. Mr. Perry is now asking that Mr. Mitchell review it again. Mr. Cheran stated this
would give staff an opportunity to set up a session with the BZA's counsel, Mr. Mitchell, and find out
if there were errors and to start over if there were.
Chairman Catlett asked if the Board reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision and Mr.
Cheran said no, the Board affirmed his decision. Chairman Catlett said that's right, that he was
within his right to build.
Mr. Rinker asked if the Board was actually going to reconsider the actual decision they made,
or that decision stands and we seek the information for future reference.
Mr. Perry stated that he wants some counsel from Mr. Mitchell — did we really do right.
because of the different information in the documents.
Mr. Rinker stated that he doesn't have a problem with the Board meeting with Mr. Mitchell
and discussing a situation like this, but Mr. Rinker doesn't want to go back and reopen that case and
reconsider that case. He feels like the Board made a decision and that decision stands. If the
applicant wants to appeal it to the Court, so be it.
Mr. Perry stated that he totally agrees with Mr. Rinker, but his only concern is did they make
a decision based on inaccurate information.
Chairman Catlett asked if the Board could reconsider it if they've already taken action.
Mr. Scott stated he believed it had to go to the Court, to the next level. Mr. Rinker stated it
would have to be appealed to the Circuit Court or start over again with a new application in order for
the Board to hear it again.
It was the consensus of the Board members that they meet with Mr. Mitchell for his
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of March 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1294
advisement; however, the members do not want to endorse Mr. Perry's motion.
Mr. Wells asked if, after the Board meets with Mr. Mitchell, will the McDonough appeal be
reconsidered. Mr. Rinker stated he thinks that Mr. Mitchell's advice is going to be for the lature.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Perry if he would have a problem withdrawing his motion as
stated, and Mr. Perry said that he would not. Mr. Perry withdrew his motion.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran to request a meeting with Mr. Mitchell and he said he
would.
Mr. Cheran stated he will talk with the applicant. Ms. McDonough's 30 days are up today;
however, she will receive an additional 60 days through the Board meeting with counsel, so she will
not lose her right to appeal.
As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 5:15
p.m. by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Theresa B. Catlett, Chairman
Bev Dellinger, Secretary
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of March 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1295
APPEAL APPLICATION #07-05
FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: April 6, 2005
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
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:
April 19, 2005 - Action Pending
LOCATION: Southeast corner of the intersection of Middle Road and Apple Valley Road
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 63-A-14
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Church
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas)
South: RA (Rural Areas)
East: RA (Rural Areas)
West: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Residential/Tree Farm
Use: Residential
Use: Residential
Use: Vacant
VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning
Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-30-G, to
permit a 25 foot high sign.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: The property is approximately 200 feet from the Route 37 bypass
right-of-way. The existing sign cannot be readily viewed from Route 37.
Appeal Request #07-05, Fellowship Bible Church
April 6, 2005
Page 2
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 165-30 G of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires all
signs that are not business signs to be ten (10) feet in height. Business signs are located in
commercial and industrial districts of Frederick County. Regulation of signage in the RA (Rural
Areas) Zoning District of Frederick County has traditionally and customary been regulated to prevent
the creation of typical commercial signage in the rural areas of Frederick County.
Most business signage located in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District is either non -conforming or
regulated by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Most CUP signage is of cottage occupation type, and
may not exceed four (4) square feet in size. Any other CUP signage is limited to a height of ten (10)
feet and twenty-five (25) square feet in size.
Furthermore, signage is intended to identify the use's location. Seeking visibility from a limited
access roadway (Route 37), when such land does not have access directly to the use, is not the intent
of signage in the RA Zoning District. A sign sought by the applicant is clearly not appropriate for the
RA Zoning District.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE APRIL 19, 2005 MEETING: Staff is requesting to affirm
the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the -administration of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 165-30 G, with regards to sign height.
�b
rJrb
a 2/brJr�,lb bs'by�i/
Js°��7 b Ojb
F94 0
Fg 4/0
1
f +Oy
!r
�P,
62 6 3
DEARING, EUGENE F JR & MARY W
9'90��
,�
yN
r�
Q
Q
Cy.)
it)
Co
LCA
`-,
O
O
U
U)
N
m
N
N
o
FD
LL
r Oki
',
F, Y7
owl
; p
i -.. ..' } °'.',gyp • ... 5 - ti+ ,FR., tF Vii,
r
or
14
a
' •"��V.` li ? �, t : 1.
i ....I - .y ~�4 / {} ex ice' s
74
PIR,
.aram�• -" ,nr'n rY .h.. q��• j�°t vF ? �
UaL
'i` 3 `'z: �fr ry'•'�f s.� r'a�y�;l� a � µ _ �'•fs h..,7,,�'� 'r 1
'w s ArMy..6�ar & .� }�-6�: .$' �x AaW� � � t�� � � _, t _ �' it� �N� �} �, •s c � � "` �t }� �. .
. ;r�.� 14"'�y. '�',�'.�. .. y�.°r"+� ..,..G� - ..'•1 ,_.,,srn..s w,�.,.wa - ,F,�G°l,
•�
`"" t �� COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
G1 FAX: 540/ 665-6395
738
CERTIFIED MAIL
January 28, 2005
John C. Lewis
Painter -Lewis, P.L.C.
116 South Stewart Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Zoning Determination for 3217 Middle Road; Fellowship Bible Church;
PIN 63-A-14; Shawnee Magisterial District
Dear Mr. Lewis,
This office received your letter dated January 26, 2005 in which you requested a zoning
determination regarding the maximum height and area of a business sign. Specifically, you've
requested if a church sign for Fellowship Bible Church is allowed to be 35 feet tall and have a
maximum area of 100 square feet.
Research of county records indicates that the property is zoned RA — Rural Areas. The RA
Zoning District allows for signs provided they meet both the height and display area standards.
Section 165-30(G) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that all signs other than
business signs shall be no more than 10 feet in height. Traditionally, signs in the Rural Areas
Zoning District are limited to a maximum area of 50 square feet.
You may have the right to appeal this zoning determination within thirty (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 thirty (30) days. Should you choose to appeal,
the appeal must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
in accordance with Article XXI, Section 165-155A(1) 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.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 . Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
John C. Lewis
RE: Zoning Determination - Sign Limits in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District
January 28, 2005
Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions that you may have at (540)
665-5651.
Sincerely,
Mark R_ Cheran
Zoning Administrator
MRC/dlw
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK,
MUST SE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT
1. The applicant is the owner other . (Check one)
2. APPLICANT:
NAME: ?141t,n-u_-AaL,:ww L5 . k:.
ADDRESS l i S'T
TELEPHONE: G`tC9 (PC, --Z- 5 _Y1 Z_
OCCUPANT: (if different)
NAME: VUIl,�qat e_ B tRU-4 Gla mac. cls -t4
ADDRESS: ,Q. Cook 21,577
VA 4
TELEPHONE:,*,+(9 (�& Z Z `Z Lt3
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers):
.6 L;� C,!�p q,__"c>t2. l.) F L t-4 Ty, (9 E:_ Inn- U Q 0 L�:-, Vz7yk-0 A—t-11�
4. The property has a road frontage of (& I feet and a depth of 4bp feet
and consists of acres (please be exact).
Page 5 of 9
5. The property is owned by as evidenced
by deed from recorded (previous owner) in deed book
no. on page of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for
Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed.
6. Magisterial District: 13 A1C
7. Property Identification No.: %3 4
8. The existing zoning of the property is: A
9. The existing use of the property is:G �y23r�
10. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North �Le5*grg t c eoc� P012- ►
East
South A,,
West A,
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.") _
G(AU-1
15
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 deve opment of property immediately ad acent thereto
31
Page 6 of 9
13. Additional comments, if any: 67)LXJ b.2v- LS W i
yk V?'" Vx C.�.TA '�Le
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 notified by mail
of this application:
9�1
U4GIc�°�.� �►-1 (-LVA I-CcaD 1�t"uv1 t
Address c2�,� c� t-> eA v c�
Property ID #
`�-(i✓til L SG�(�Apc�Z
Address 3-zko t��oo [SAD
�l f�tGlj'�12 ►� Z Z(� Z
Property ID # (D Z _ rl _ S
GU S"CSI.�►J (,1YLr.1►� NMUSLuwi
Address 53o vv1 ►25T 5-(.
i N I C- t-k6-FeS-Ce;VL 14
Property ID # b Z -A- 13
Address
Property ID. -
L uO . N1 l L 1-14LA L P'A ,D
Address -.315,5
Property ID # (D 3 - Ll - 1,5 (3
,( pLA-,) V, u rA W • KoX
Address (1?3 Z P P L -S V fL L L-a`i e:N�D
V r4 o'Z
PropertyID# (g-2>- /\c- L S C
[�NvkVc� . .?k'C A • �k
Address (032 PLG V ��-J i�
PropertyID #
Vcx,� LAS G[. 5040Q el
Address � Z &T->P1.F—VA�L4-4B%A
Property ID # (v3 - f4 - t (o
Page 7 of 9
15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing).
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.
/k'6C4.c" 1-&WIJTS l.3 i
Page 8 of 9
03/01/2005 10:12 154066^7712 FELLOWSHIP BIT" E CHU PAGE 02
03/0112005 97:41 54( '5733 PAINTERLEWIS PAGE 02!02
AGREEMENT
VARIANCE #
(NUMU? to br W;Pvd iw the Planning Dept)
I (we), the undersigned, do hmby respectfully snake application, and petition the Frederick
County Board of Zoning Appeals (13ZA) to gmt a variance to the terms of the Frederick
CaunV Zoning Ordinance as descfbed bereim I agree to comply with any conditions for the
variance required by the B7 -A.
I att hwize the members of the BZA, and Frederick County officials to go upon the property
for site inspection pwrposes.
T understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted MMt be placed at
the front property line at least seven (7) devs;!nor public hearing and maintained
so as to be visible from the road or right-of-way until the henrrrlg.
I hereby certify that all of the statements and orma7/n.
contained herein are, to the best
of my knowledge, true.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
DATE
other th applicants
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF �/ � � �% � AC'nON:
- DATE -
APPROVAL
SIGNED;
RZA CHAIRMAN
., DENLkL DATE:
Page 9 of 9
PROPERTY LINE 5�0�
/
FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA
SCALE: V -3W DRAWN BY: JCL
DATE 281905 JDB X8WM2 REMSED:
PAINTER -LENS. P.L.C.
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION DRAWING NO.:
EXHIBIT 2
TO 3Jdd
F
FELLOWSHIP
POLE CHURCH
Sunday Services
9:00 and 10:30 P.M,
nHD 3IHIS dIHSMD-n3d
251
ZTLLZ990b5T LO:ET SOOZ/5Z/ZO
VARIANCE APPLICATION #08-05
WOLFGANG WINZER
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: April 7, 2005
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
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:
April 19, 2005 - Action Pending
LOCATION: 127 Lake Serene Drive (Route 677)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBERN: 31B-1-3
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas)
South: RA (Rural Areas)
East: RA (Rural Areas)
West: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Common Land
Use: Lake
Use: Residential
Use: Residential
VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting an 18 foot left side yard variance.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: Insufficient space within existing structure and topography does not
allow a different approach.
Variance Request #08-05, Wolfgang Winzer
April 7, 2005
Page 2
STAFF COMMENTS: This property was created in 1972 as noted by the deed and plats included
in your agenda. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in1967. The Frederick County
historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-1 (Agricultural Limited) in 1972. The
property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35'front and 15'sides. Frederick
County amended its Code in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts to the current RA (Rural
Areas) zoning district. The current setbacks for property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with
residential use are: 60'front, 50'rear and 50' sides.
Staff would note that this property was subject to a lot consolidation between lots 2B & 3, in 1995.
This consolidation created this one acre lot. This consolidation would allow for an addition to be
added to this structure. This proposed new addition would meet the current RA setbacks. The current
house left side setback is at approximately 34' from the right property line.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE APRIL 19, 2005 MEETING: 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; 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.
The applicant is seeking a variance of 18 `on the left side of this property.- The existing structure on
this property has already been established with a 32' setback on the left side, and therefore is legally
nonconforming. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be:
32' left side of the property (see plat). It appears that this variance does not meet the intent of the
Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 (2), and this request for a variance from the current setbacks of
the RA zoning district may not justified. The applicant has more than fifty (50) feet on the right side
of this property.
mw
M I-
ED
ED
LO
O
00
O
Q
0
0
C,
LO
U -
LO
N
W
mw
LP
r `"
`�db
Of
z
o.
o
��j0
n
w
ti
mW
M W
CO
Cl)
W
m
mw
M I-
ED
ED
LO
O
00
O
Q
0
0
C,
LO
U -
LO
N
W
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
IN THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT
1. The applicant is the owner other . (Check one)
2. APPLICANT:
OCCUPANT: (if different)
NAME: k7LIC:�AlK NAME: _
ADDRESS `,27 ffl- ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:�t� S 2/77 TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers):
FCLe� �4�'�' Y..21145 % WA) `F�i 0NFO
4gE'n( /+ A / `-ow G tri i A.,7 -o I z,41IE .�reFi(1�
1 R/y i kffFl�PE Z Y e4dl A2,7 lcl'4S7 Wl ilevx y /w
L15F"' S�ZD
4. The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of _ �0 feet
and consists of %, ,�5� acres (please be exact).
Page 5 of 9
5. The property is owned by ��/ L��'/ /� f� �// ,�/Z/-:-7-/e as evidenced
by deed from Aja d IF'Rs f C ke4e— recorded (previous owner) in deed book
no. T'C7 on page -2 i3 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for
Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed.
6. Magisterial District: 4.4 — Aaunes L A rrm
7. Property Identification No.: -,5'917
8. The existing zoning of the property is: 4A
9. The existing use of the property is:
10. Adjoining Property:
North USE
-�� ZONING
3it3—1—Pi C7.S7ctCcrs --
East r,"', 1 -(e -ti �",(
South Lc-k,c 5o,en` Cid
West r e s t �l'��, -{� l
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.")
lo ne&�47-,e ®FF,'c spitc - ezz Ivor ami
12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of-
exceptional
f
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
Fi�! -O&t Iii" i �' e --
Page 6of All
13. Additional comments, if any: CF s104C�
tai l 6Wr-,c)CFE W e �'�pol �A
&N -1 -F -Al / FX. AkOi AUBVel,) dILi--C, i /V/'.
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 notified by mail
of this application:
NANW..
I ,4 i�F
Address /, L�� F 312,
A
Property ID # _5-8I q fo/
OWN/io zole
3 6�;5'E L. i !i'eC
Address � yZ 1_ 416� 3 5,.iU,�E 01 4
Property ID #
Address
Property 1D #
Address
Property ID #
Address Z193 414rF_ `� ,�' ,
Property ID #
s ,e),= uL' i M/.
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
- — - - ------------ ----__
Address
-PropertyED-#--------- ------ ----- — - _
Page 7 of 9
15.
Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing).
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.
40ur
C 4L
l t
9 f
I f�J
� r
L-AKr
%fib 16" IyAcF(- Y
�-O sc q
Page 8 of 9
z2 �/_ 401
AGREEMENT
VARIANCE # O Y — 65-
(Number to be assigned by the Planning Dept)
Ikvoe the iinAer§irrm-A sin lk ob v�«.o ,T1., .. . 1 _
\.. 1, ....uv� lbaavas, . uvl� y rt+J�IVL.L1411�' LL1ar1C application, an "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.
Ihereby, —+-R, +1—+ .,TT -P+,,- ,. f . .. —i i --r----- -�
of my I
SIGNA
DATE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
(if other than applicant)
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF% Q ®� ACTION:
- DATE -
APPROVAL SIGNED:
-BZA UH.,2 I AIV -- -
DENIAL DATE:
Page 9 of 9
t
Dake Serene Board Meeting
20 December 2004
The Board of Directors of the Lake Serene Homeowner's Association met at the home of
David Bowman. David Bowman, President, called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Present were David Bowman, Frank Armstrong, Linda Kulstad, James Olsen, Kim
Rhodes, and Wendy Jones. J.T. Anderson was absent.
Approval of Minutes
Upon a motion, duly seconded, the board unanimously dispensed with the reading of the
minutes of the October 23, 2004 meeting and approved the minutes as provided to the
members.
NEW BUSINESS
Construction and Improvement Requests
Kvsela. Lot 26
The board considered a request for a dog kennel constructed of chain link fence with a
wooden roof structure supported on posts. The kennel is to be constructed on a concrete
slab that had been approved for parking at the October 23, 2004 board meeting. Members
were provided a letter from Dr. Eric Redmond objecting to the kennel. It was noted the
kennel had been constructed, except for the roof, within the past fortnight; even though
the President had informed Mr. Kysela the board had not considered his request. A
discussion was held concerning the covenants prohibiting fencing. Concern was also
expressed that the structure may be within fifteen feet of the side lot line, which is also
prohibited. A motion was made to deny the construction of the kennel and authorize the
officers of the Association to consult with our attorney before replying to Mr. Kysela.
The motion was duly seconded and unanimously approved.
Winer. Lot 3
The board reviewed plans for an addition to the house. The proposed addition maintained
the current architectural appearance of the house and conformed to the covenants with
respect to exterior materials. A motion wasp resented to approve the plans as conforming
to the covenants. The motion was duly seconded and unanimously approved.
Slaughter. Lot 2'
The board reviewed a plat and easement for a drain field on the opposite side of the road
from Lot 23. A motion was made to approve the easement and authorize the President to
sign on behalf of the Association. The motion was duly seconded and unanimously
approved.
Breidinger Lots 33 & 34
The Board considered a request by Phyllis Bredinger to construct a 12'x16' shed, bridge
and gazebo at various locations on Lots 33 & 34. It was noted the shed had been built and
was in conformance with the covenants. The bridge and gazebo is planned to be built in
H
0
rq
N
N
_iY •._ Lir _.''a.:
� W -v L:• 1:C: J.�. .
E1t967PG0273
THIS DEED, made and dated this 1W day of June, 2000, by and
between ALAN E. CHRA.LE and IRIS R. CHEALE, husband and wife, herein
called the Grantors, and WOLFGA1NG F. WINZER, herein called the Grantee.
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 hereby grant and convey, with General Warranty
and English covenants of title unto the Grantee, in fee simple, all the following
described real property without any improvements thereon_
All that certain land in Gainesboro District, Frederick County,
Virginia, being the eastern portion of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 on
the plat of Lake Serene, duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of .Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book
356 at page 147, the eastern portion of Lot 2 being specifically
designated as Lot 2B on that- certain resubdivison of Lot 2 as
shown on plat of Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S., dated July 18, 1972,
recorded in said clerk's office in Deed Book 394 at page 345;
and further described by Lot Consolidation, Lot 2B and Lot 3,
Lake Serene, record in said clerk's office in Deed Book 843 at
page 862. This is the same property conveyed to the Grantors
herein by deed from Ellen Terry Alger and Jean E. Ford dated
August 3, 1995, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 843 at page
866.
Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the
attachments 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 way and
restrictions of record affecting the subject property.
• • -% ,N L r • ..
r. , ... `:y _ ��,-_•-'�--tom -
1:.J.3:
B1(967[IG 0274
WITNESS the following signatureand seals:
..%.p/.a� /� �r.�.J his ��o-zn� - %� • � c �EA2}
an E. Cheale
by Judith Andeerr�son, his Attomey-In-Fact
'46 �t rC�c.r�AL)
Iris R. Cheale
by Judith Anderson, her Attorney -In -Fact
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit:
Acknowledged before me this day of 2000 by
Judith Anderson, Attorney -In -Fact for Alan E. Chealed I�RCheale.
1�111111111UPd01 %�i/�'
e
NOT UBLIC =O Seib �'O
�' 31 o2vd 2--- Ftp
My commission expires•
UB�
VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT.
oris instrument of writing was produced to me on
�
:end with certificate of acrnowledgemcnt thereto annexed
was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Scc• 58.1-802 of
45-5-Oo
3,and 58�.1-801 have been paid, if assessable
4ew �1e�'%i'" , Clerk
tY '
LOT CONSOLIDATION.• BK g L; 3 PG 0 8 6 2
LOT 2B 8 LOT 3
LAKE SERENE
GAINESBORO DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY
VIRGINIA
26 APRIL /99,5
`n 7-7. Monnlel
LOCATON RV 9
', oI
Iu;
715
77 ao
CEDAR GROPE
� O
! Q !
5URYEYOR'3 CERTIFICATE;
THE LAND SHOWN HEREON IS THE LAND CONVEYED TO ELLEN TERRY ALGER AND JEAN E. FORD BY DEED
DATED II MARCH 1975 IN DEED BOOK 441, PAGE 177.
OR7fER'S CERTFME.
TIOS DIVISION, AS IT APPEARS ON TM PLAT, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND Rt ACCORrAW,!E WlyH ThT DEFR-
SIGNED QNKR, PROPRIFTOR OR TRIJ3TEE. 7. / 1 , SS OF THE Vh£1
CITY/CmmwOF
STATEOF \1r21,-AlllJ
AClNOWI EDIM) 6EFD8E fIE THS
/�� DAroF T�c� .Ir
NOTARY IMIM =` L%.f"�F� — MT 3 0 ! vn 9i
COIRbR33�1.171S / 7
W�"iccF}ESTEFI FREDERICK COU141
TIEALTH DEPARTMEtIT FREDERICK COUTI7Y
PI-AHPIM DEPARTMENT
A!. R.
CHAPTER 144, A ICLE I'V, SECTION 144-14-
�gt,LT$ O
r d c. ALLEN 55W
)L 8LLtn EBERT f PROMZIONAL LAW SW IVEYOR
ICErrsp ft 35 W BOSC�4NU ST.
1498 PMEM VA ZW-4740
;t4Z&,avRrcl 703 667 3233
`a1
6>KSb3PGO8
4A 6�1
I
w
r
,o
10
1 O r
Ln
o—IRON PIN (FOUND)
D— IRON PIN (SET)
� I
� 1
D
Q
to —_
N M �
W
0 o pt�E ,p 5 - p st
N
N W
Z Q
J
N39'36'37'E
35.31'
D
S 62. 44' 06" E - 160.03'
LAKE
EBERT
JA a—.sf
(LICENSE) No.
1498
��D eURYE'�
y
1.
IW!
1>
1,
,
'
252
ACRES
,
P.I.N. 31-1-3
,
t �
I
,
N ,
I
w
r
,o
10
1 O r
Ln
o—IRON PIN (FOUND)
D— IRON PIN (SET)
� I
� 1
D
Q
to —_
N M �
W
0 o pt�E ,p 5 - p st
N
N W
Z Q
J
N39'36'37'E
35.31'
D
S 62. 44' 06" E - 160.03'
LAKE
EBERT
JA a—.sf
(LICENSE) No.
1498
��D eURYE'�
USIt3PC0864
The accompanying Plat represents a Boundary and Consolidation Survey
of LOT 3 and LOT 2B, LAKE SERENE (a matter of record in Deed Book
356, Page 147 and Deed Book 394, Page 345), conveyed to Ellen Terry
Alger and Jean E. Ford by Deed dated 11 March 1975 in Deed Book 441,
Page 177. The said improved Land, designated as No. 127, fronts the
Southern Boundary Line of Lake Serene Drive, a 40 ft. private access
easement, and lies in Gainesboro District, Frederick County, Virginia:
Beginning at an iron pin (set) in the Southern Line of Lake Serene
Drive, a corner to Lot 4; thence with the said Line, S 85° 47' 32" W -
146.17 ft. to an iron pin (found), a corner to Lot 2A; thence with the
Southeastern Line of the said Land, S 28° 43' 19" W - 318.21 ft. -to an iron
pin (found) in the Northeastern Line of the Lake; thence with the three
following Lines of the said Land, S 62° 44' 06" E - 160.03 ft. to an iron pin
(set); thence N 39° 26' 37" E - 35.31 ft.; thence N 25° 57' 47" E - 111.49 ft.
to an iron pin (set), a corner to Lot the said Lot 4; thence with the Western
Line of the said Land, N 19° 51' 37" E - 250.56 ft. to the beginning.
Containing: 1.252 Acres -
Surveyed: 26 April 1995
4 ALLEN '4B _
(LICENSE) No.
1498
BH843PG0865
VInGINLt FREDERICK ODUNTY, SCT.
Thl I umont o wrlttng w a yea
Sy d ^� on thA
and w1 y o1. 1 at ,
waa a rnitbd Wt�r�c °`'k^owledl1rnOnt thwato annexed `
. Tax Imposed by Sac. 56.1.002 0l
and 68.t•801 have been psld if asaeasable.
i
Clerk
See attached plat - Lot Consolidation
Lot 2B & Lot 3
Lake Serene
Gainesboro District
....
Frederick County
Virgi is
L
6 A ril 1995
Ner
,
Elle Te ry A
9�C CF
Zt�
a
''•,,��n6' ;
"SWtlYiiv TO AND
SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this 24th day of May, 1995,
to certify which witness my hand and sea of office.
/
Notary Publ'c in and for State of Texas
Gthe
y
My commission Expires: ! /(, /q,7
VInGINLt FREDERICK ODUNTY, SCT.
Thl I umont o wrlttng w a yea
Sy d ^� on thA
and w1 y o1. 1 at ,
waa a rnitbd Wt�r�c °`'k^owledl1rnOnt thwato annexed `
. Tax Imposed by Sac. 56.1.002 0l
and 68.t•801 have been psld if asaeasable.
i
Clerk
APPEAL APPLICATION #09-05
C- DEBORAH DUTCHER
Aw Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: April 3, 2005
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
1738
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:
April 19, 2005 - Pending
LOCATION: The property is located at the intersection of Dover Lane and Chapel Road (Route
627).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 83-A-106
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zone: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Residential/Agricultural
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Zone:
North: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use:
Residential
Zone:
West: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use:
Residential/Agricultural
Zone:
South: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use:
Agricultural
Zone:
East: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use:
Agricultural
APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-54 D (c).
REASON FOR APPEAL: Applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the
administration of the zoning ordinance pertaining to changes to the rural preservation tract.
Appeal Application #09-05, Deborah Dutcher
April 3, 2005
Page 2
CT A FF C nMMF.NTS- The applicant applied for a rural preservation subdivision option under
Section 165-54 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This section allows for lot sizes no less
than two (2) acres, with the exception of 40% as a rural preservation tract. This proposed subdivision
would have a total of twelve (12) two (2) acre lots located on a 58 acre recorded rural preservation
tract, part of the rural preservation subdivision known as the Wanda Rosenfeld Proescher Estate.
(Exhibit #1)
This rural preservation subdivision was created under Chapter 21, Article 4, Section 4-6-4 of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted Februaryl4, 1990. This section allows lot sizes of no
less than two (2) acres, with the exception of 40% as a rural preservation tract. This preservation
tract must be dedicated and recorded in the Frederick County Court House and must stay intact, with
one building right. The recorded plat for this rural preservation subdivision shows 58 acres being the
preservation tract. This plat was recorded June 16, 1992, with lot 4 being identified as the rural
preservation tract of this rural preservation subdivision, approved by Frederick County on June 3,
1992. (Exhibit 42)
Chapter 21, Article 4, Section 4-64.1 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, under which the
Wanda Rosenfeld. Proesher Estate subdivision division was created, states the rural preservation tract
must be identified. The tract created under this section must stay intact, and cannot be changed
though any land use applications. (Exhibit. #3) Section 1.65-_54 D (c) of the. Frederick Zoning
-Ordinance doNl..allow the rural pr si i ion tract to be changed though any land use applications.
Any changes oftne rural preservation- tract must be in accordance with Section 165-54 (3). (Exhibit -
44)
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE APRIL 19, 2005 MEETING: Staff is requesting to affirm
the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance, Section (s)165-54 D (c) that the tract known as the rural preservation cannot be changed
in any way with regards to the recorded plat of record.
N
February 2, 2005
Mr. Michael M. Artz
Artz & Associates
19 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Rural Preservation Subdivision -Fox Lea
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Dear Mike:
I have had an opportunity to review the sketch plan forFox not be approved as submitLea Rural Preservation ted. This received
Thistract of land is
office on January 21, 2005. This proposed subdivision
recorded as a rural preservation tract, which was recorded in 1992, prior to Frederick County requiring sketch
plans (see attachment). I am returning the copies of the osubmitted sketch
35 plan and will request the Frederick
County Finance Department to refund your fee in the ar�runt of
If you have questions call me at (540) 665-5651.
Sincerely,
ark R. Cheran
Zoning Administrator
MRC/bad
Attachment
Virginia 22601-5000
1,1 i Not th sre„t ctreet, Spite 202 • Winchester,
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
March 18, 2005
Michael M. Artz, L.S
Artz and Associates, P.L.0
16 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Zoning Determination for proposed Fox Lea Rural Preservation Subdivision
Property Identification Number (PIN): 83-A-106
Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas)
Dear Mr. Artz:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated March 18, 2005, to the Zoning Administrator
requesting a zoning determination on the above -referenced property. In the correspondence, you
indicated you wanted to create a rural preservation subdivision on the identified property. This
identified property is part of a rural subdivision which was approved on June 3, 1992, and recorded
on June 16, 1992. The recorded plat identifies the rural preservation tract. In accordance with
Section 16.5-54 D (c) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the preservation tract will stay
intact as recorded. Therefore, the proposed Fox Lea Rural Preservation Subdivision will not be
allowed.
You may have the right to appeal this zoning determination within thirty (3 0) 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 thirty (30) days. Should you choose to appeal, the appeal
must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in accordance
with Article XXI, Section 165-155A(1) 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 infonnation you may want to submit and a $300.00 filing fee. Once the appeal application is
accepted, it will be scheduled for public hearing and decision before the BZA.
Contact me regarding any questions you may have at (540) 665-5651.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Cheran
Zoning Administrator
MRC/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
21-4-6
created, for legitimate agricultural purposes as defined by this ordinance,
provided the parcels created qualify for land use assessment.
4-6-4 RURAL PRESERVATION LOTS - Within the Rural Areas (RA) Zone, lots
as small as two (2) acres shall be permitted on tracts over twenty (20) acres
in size, subject to the provisions of Article 4-4-1 and the following:
4-6-4.1 rbedesignated
(40) Percent of Parcel to Remain Undivided - Forty (40) percent of the
t tract must remain intact as a contiguous parcel. This acreage must
prior to the division of the fourth (4th) lot. Nofuture division
portion of the parent tract will be permitted.
4-6-4.1.2 Exception to Single Forty (40) Percent Parcel - In cases where excessive
topography or other natural features of a site create a situation where a
higher quality subdivision design, resulting in less physical and or visual
disruption could be achieved by allowing two (2), residual parcels to be
created, the Planning Commission may permit the forty (40) percent to be
made up of two (2) parcels.-
4-6-4.2
arcels:
4-6-4.2 Board Waiver of Division Restriction - Ten (10) years from the date of the
creation of any forty (40) percent parcel and following a public hearing, the
Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of 4-6-4.1
through the process of rezoning provided that the rezoning is consistent with
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty (40)
percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the
time of its creation or is included within the UDA as a result of a future
expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that'point and shall
not be subject to the ten (10) year restriction on rezoning.
4-7 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the
Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District.
4-7-1 PERIMETER SETBACKS - Periphery setbacks for all lots shall be as
follows:
4-7-1.1 Principal Uses - The minimum setback for any principal use or structure,
constructed or initiated after the date of adoption of this section, and located
on a lot which adjoins the undivided portion of the parent tract or a parcel
not created from the parent tract, shall be one hundred (100) feet from the
lot line adjoining said parcel(s). Where a lot abuts a parcel used for
agricultural purposes, the minimum setback shall be one hundred (100) feet.
The minimum setback from any active orchard shall be two hundred (200)
D-- 17_11-Q1
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
IN THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
1. The applicant is the owner other `V .(Check one)
2. APPLICANT:OCCUPANT: (if different)
t7i f k G
NAME: 4r2 - i Z � NAME:
ADDRESS 16 E4 --:7T �► cc-Ao-�i�i ADDRESS: —
Lo e •,���� I G� �l Z�� I
TELEPHONE: �`� G 7''� TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers):
INr6PSeGfta11 0 V-� c2vv 02 L,�+i"jE 4- C)44,4��-1, AV>
—7
4. Magisterial District: Q I 6' Q J 0 `J
5. Property Identification No.: 8.->5 - A 1
6. The existing zoning of the property is:
ZA
7. The existing use of the property is: �`� �� 7E Pr L //) ['rZ- t c- %J u TJ iz4 L-
8. Adjoining Property:
USE
North
V6'::v'V" r"kL'
East
Aa a t G,� Zr° a -pp—
South
A6'rz iGot-TQr A, --
West
(2�La t�E^►T,,�i����T�2��
ZONING
9-A-
9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.)
--- - 10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating yQu*r _reason(s) _for disagreeing with the decision.
(This may be provided on separate sheet.) -
�F��; %v a.s
;7&r, k-ld ► 7 I & Z�-- 54 V(0(<,) Ip t> /,,J 165 - -5 g G--3
11. Additional comments, if any:
Slid 4D/6 br
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 Property
Identification Number.)
NAME
r -
W -A
Address I b z5f
iz��,��- LA'`i c , M i '? O&e-ThL J-Af iffy
Property ID #
- i 3 p
r 1
Address
► i
PropertyID#
Address S[3) y7gm'e�(- t-AgV �,�,Q''z�re,ust,; VA- 2Z&
Property ID # ;�-
A�i� 9 KA�THR-1ti :aNt'0
1 A V-
Address 1at1
G.iEp(fgL (ZJ, �U+wvLe-TDLd,,J JA 22��rj
Property ID #
A-- l 66 r?
Addre55 7��Ju� rCcrsh �1� /yl.dcllr=•a VA 22`
Property ID # - A- ioL67
e- i,r3 . �,� �d,Gif �a
Address 15-3, J3619 L( c%
PropertyID #
Address�eed.�!{cls�e;� Y�!) 2Z
PropertyID# Rte- Ar'tD3, l-4
Address IOD
Pix -71., 64 �r V4 JS -7
Property ID #
A - 1 �
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
r -
W -A
I1HR-18 ck3r3` 12; i� FF:019: s RSKAHRTES 540-657-91813 70:41FE 43 P: 2'3
AG"ENMNT L
APSIP-AL4 D / —O`�
1(-,vc), tbeunder3ign4 do hareby mspectfielly petition the Frederick Co=ty Board of Zoning
Appeals. (3Z_A) to overrule the administrativ-_ interpretation of the County Zoning Ordinance m
d¢aLribed harnin. 1 agree to comply with any conditions required by the 13ZA.
1 an'.borize the mmnbars of the BZA ted Frederick County officials to go upon the property
fdr site inspection purposes.
1 hcrcby certify that all of the statcmcWs and ia(orwation contained heroin an, to the best of
trey knowtodge, true.
S' GN,4TLtRR OF APPLICANT r ATB
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
of other than applicant)
-OFFICii USE ONLY-
117-APTUBLiC EiW ING OF Ll // q �S� ACTION:
-
DATE -
APPEAL OVERRULED
AFFEAL SUSTAMI) SIGNM
BZA. CHAIRMAN
DATE:
qk � w.,a ta. �,gx��tna.kee.. rawwmat
�'• 18-ii�Fl�`:1':45 FRpM' s Ft��S��CIH I Wb �•Nb-br r-�i �c � �•�.•. .'
Spedid LhWted Powei of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virenla
predtvick Plannbl; Web Site:
Departmeat of Ptaowing & Developmtot, Ceuaty of PYederlek, Ylt'ati"
107 Nortb Kent Street, Wmelutter, tiirPtnla 12"'
PLene 540 -665 -SM Facsimile 510-565-095
Know Ali Met) By These hwent: Thal i (wc)
�Address)_�'la5 �t�e-l��iisks %�d� I�roo�..rs T�L.t�iit�f MD 'Z.a�iS
the o-xncr(g) of all t.`tose knots or parcels otiand ("Propeaty") conveyed ter rix (us), by deed Twordtd in the
iCICiit's Office of the Circuit Court of ibc County of l"tederkk- Virginia, by
d+' 3 an PtYe 1 -7 -1 -7 -41 -2 -and is dmiin'asbed
bsisinustentNa. �
parcel: Lot: Block Section: Subdivision: TMad
ids hcrrby make. oons'tirrit anlld�Lappoint
Ntmc) I tlfir t tVy , f} (Z i (Phone)
(address) lto �htsr Pier�►,pte� �r. W ncri�i-7e2--- �i�_ 'ZZLoI_
To act as my true and Id-wfki awn -Y -1 -fact for and in r-iy (our) t—w Pte, w*d stead with Y1�1t pow ar
ixnd authority I (7c) would have if acting personally to file planning apph:ations for my (our) abcva
4c4Cr3bcd Propetrty, int:ladtng:
t7 Rezoning (indwrilttg proMI-S)
[] Conditional Uee Perpslts
)d Master development 1%9 (Preliminary and Final{
BalydivisioA
D site Pito
My xttomty-in-Cart Rhalj hsve The authority to ai7'tx pmffsr.d ooitditiona and to mals arnmdmeata to
prcviu i Iy approved proffered Conditeon9 ez Capt as follows.:
This authorization shall expire one year from tie day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
ire wit 1w." 11yetcr f„ l (we) have iteroso 4:t my (Oka) hand- an y reel thin ` day oi' �� t __ _, 26U_'l .
gna (
si trr� st � � -- - -- ---
State of. Virginia, CityiCounty of
Public in and far the jwisdiction
e£nressrd, certify that the per s) who signed to the foregoing iruttnuritnsl pex'sonally appeared to , re MI
and haclrnaw leea bcforo ma in the jurisdiction tfx+regetid this day of }t_ 2tN?
My Cotntnisgion Expirar_
Votary ['Lblic uwrsr"+dum:wrw..ye .
DIVISION QF
THE LAND OF
WAh'DA R0,5ENF
PROESCNER ESTATE
ppE000N DIsTRICT
VIRGINIA
22 h4AY 1992
PALE ! OF D
BG79PG0` 3_64
C VWWAtAo"
V�►LL "q,5��
�,�t�rn5 P4cre5
TAX AAP
83 A 1064 t J,
ZONED R A
qVlpff UtTGLr wM T►E F11£[ Cp"'7FJwT MD M ACCPRDA+M wtn fMf O[s/lU 0/ TFE
KwvEvo" TATE POA -nom OF n+[ Ld o CM"Eren
nt7 m To cvr t TnAT THE LIJjo W i►!3 StJla AUS IS a2 Cr T� RfCK 51-1 G
MPOA p PROCXMM By DEED oATED le p �T 19e8 IN DEFD tft70K ASO, PPaE BOA (SEE A 50 WILL @OGu
W& ♦gat tea►.
_ V
F
1498
CHAPTER 2 ARTMF 4• SEC4-5-4
L. ALLEN EBERT
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURI /EYQ)?
, XSCAV S2"-4740
703 667 3233
pa ro-M L-oV
Bx 7 7 9 P
G ho 4
L Og 7-
10 'ZI
� e
76*
,3s
`00
CD
J
L
RURAL
PRESEA
L.OT.
9 TOM
rr
9
r'ACC4OFD
rAcretra
BK775Pc0360
.may irp Plat represents a 8and&r! Rum" of the remaining
Portico o! the Land conveyed to Warr3a posanfeld proascawr by Deed dated 16
A t 1982 in Dem bods 5% . �w (� � t ..., WI I 1 tiooic 92, p.� 385) .
7tw waid Land frosts thO 9�eutl�eafflt&rn Docru ar Lis"a of vs_ Route 759 and
the Cents Line of Va. Route 62'71 and lies i.n opequas fistriet, rraderir
comnty, Vlrgisifa:
Degircdrq at an ixdn pin (ford) in the Sou ho tv,n Lin& of Va.
trout* 759, a own or to the Z=asns Land th w ce with the said Una, 8 �
38' 43" W - 1.346.98 ft. to a po -nt J'"the denlerr Line :-f VOL. Posers 627;
tlanaft W1th the nix f*IIwing said tbnt*r Ltrw, with Uw Are Lire 599.25
ft. (C and 9 of 10' 32" E - 575.35 ft., Radius 608.729 ft.); Lbw 27'
of 34" W - 91.17 ft.7 tlwk-.cr, with the Arc Line 291.48 1-t- (Mord 8 10"
20' 56" V 287.19 ft. , t;+riiw 500.703 ft. ); thcrw-= a O(;" 19' 41" E -
369.32 ft.; thele with tj�& Arc Line 221.57 ft. (CQwrd 39' 24' 52" K -
209.46 tt., wdiva 191.849 ft.); thQ.on E 72` 30' 03" E - 341.10 ft. to a
corner to the chenstorse Corporation LAnd; t1Dx'e with tla three followirri
L+. MW of the said lwd, R 47" 16' 36" E: - 18.07 ft- to B" ira4 pin
(ioLod), and c"3ntjxAdnq, N 47- 16' 36" t - 1,032.04 ft. 1t1 ALL to an iron- -
(furl): t:l e A d3" 47'.227 X - g".00 ft. to an icm pin (fonsnd);_
tines N 47' 10' 03" E -'1,62a.92 ft. to can iron Din (Pamd), s corner to
the UDAW fid; with the --CU .hw=texss Lure ai 1he said LAM, 0 57-
09' 26" W - 1,212.00 ft. to an iron pin (found), a comer to the said
ftwoonsLewd; tbance with tbo two foflowIM Linen of the :"id Hund, 8 53`
03, 15~ W - 152.40 f t . to as iron pin (tound) ; dunce 14 56' 56' 43" N -
470.00 ft, to the bogLMJ V-
pcptaining:
Ldfr 1: 2.57A Asan
[Aur 2: 3.637 Acral
Lour 3: 14.505 hoes
L )T 4: x; fl4 jlCI-U
amu,: 79.567 Acral .
6z¢,�vred- 22 )oy 1992
JhCINIA: FREDI~R1C!(i-
_ Thi* instruR+ar+l of v.�iting wa Or ,C'
cc
4�O c i fACr Q to ma on this ,yY�
10�nG vet rtiAwte
d eck.,cwl,•mr+nt tfweto annexed vAI
bdmilltd to recd-
/
I
pr -v
7 7 9
JANE 5 A. j5AjD It
D 2�t4fIB C)9 66
4F
'40
75.
91
rA
1\Poeon
0 4w
L.0
&
mv
-TO
4 �f5
LOT 3
14.505
AC8.E,S
Ct A I
&
to
If
t_.XEBERT
(LICENSE) No -
1498
,.�),D ,Ilxv�'Y�
gxT79PGO 3""
r
�I
ppP i YN 5�g11���
B E+1 E f� 6 S,P�NG � �LpT��pSW-QED b
GES �'B Zy�y"�yj6 p-r� l7� �,. �A �S pJ�:L�.►Et7 pp _
d
ogr
r o
I
uwj4
L'o y
IL
A&6�
I
I.
�1
LOT 3►'
14.508
ACR.Es
y� r�
�
N
� y
n
ref �
ol
LOT 4
58.847
ACRES
RURAL
PRESERVA770N
LOT
74% O
TOTAL TRACT
m
CXN 1 �,r -