The URL can be used to link to this page

BZA 12-20-05 Meeting AgendaP& FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONMG APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Dent Street Winchester, Virginia December 20, 2005 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER I ) Determination of a Quorum 2) Minutes of November 15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING 3) Variance Request #25-05 of Donald Haley, for a 10' side yard variance on both sides. This property is located at 1008 Back Mountain Road (Route 614), and is identified with Property Identification Number 39-A-82 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 4) Appeal Application #26-05 of Holiday Signs, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165- 30A(1), animated or flashing signs. The subject property is located at 1400 Tasker Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-1051) in the Opequon Magisterial District. 5) Variance Request #27-05 of Frederick County Sanitation Authority, for a 20' front yard variance and a 15' side yard variance. This property is located on Route 522, east on Parkins Mills Road, approximately 1/4 mile on the right, and is identified with Property Identification Number 87 -A -94A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 6) Other FILL COPY MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on November 15, 2005. PRESENT: Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Robert Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Kevin Scott, Shawnee District. ABSENT: Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; and, Robert W. Wells, Member -At -Large. STAFF PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; J. D. Kirby, Zoning Inspector; and, Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Catlett at 3:25 p.m. On a motion by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mr. Scott, the minutes for the September 20, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut-off date for the next meeting. Mr. Cheran replied that r�iday, November 18, 2005, is the cut-off date and currently, we have two applications pending for December. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request 423-05 of Jay Mergler, formerly Rodney Butler, for a 20 foot front yard variance and a 10 foot rear yard variance for the construction of a single family home. This property is located on High Street (Route 63 5), 0.1 mile on the right, and is identified with Property Identification Number 91 A03-164- 15 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED Mr. Cheran stated that Rodney Butler originally applied for this variance, which was scheduled for the September meeting. The Board tabled the request because the applicant was not present. Mr. Butler withdrew his request, but the property owner, Jay Mergler, who is present, would like to go forward with the variance request. Mr. Cheran further stated that this item has been properly advertised and has met the legal requirements for a hearing. Mr. Kirby gave the staff report. The property owner is requesting a variance. This 1.72 acre property was part of the New Middletown Subdivision created in 1890. In 1967 Frederick County adopted zoning. The r=-torical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) and building restriction lines at Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1342 the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35' front and 15' on the sides. In 1987 this property was subject to a lot consolidation of 23 lots with building restriction lines of 35' front and 15' on the sides. Frederick County amended its Code in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas), making the building restriction lines for the property 60' front for all four sides. 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 20' front yard variance and a 10' rear yard variance. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 40' in the front, 50' in the rear and would remain 60' on the sides. It appears that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2). This request from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. Mr. Kirby directed the Board members to the screen, showing them photos of the property. Mr. Perry asked if the depth of the lot is 125' and Mr. Kirby stated that is correct. Mr. Perry stated that the current ordinances call for 60' front and 60' rear. If the Board gives a 20' front yard variance, that adds 40' to the 5' and if we give 50' rear, that adds 50' to it. The way Mr. Perry sees it, with the variances that are asked for, there is a window of opportunity to build a house that's 95' deep. Mr. Kirby stated no sir, that what Mr. Mergler is asking for is a 40' front BRL; he's only asking for a 20' allowance on that 60', and 10' in the rear which would be 50' BRL. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Kirby the size of the proposed house and Mr. Kirby responded that he does not know the square footage, but the property owner could answer that. Chairman Catlett asked if there were any more questions of staff at this time and there were none. Mr. Jay Mergler identified himself as the owner/applicant. Mr. Mergler stated that only allows 35' for the lot; there's 600' from left to right. Mr. Perry asked what depth house Mr. Mergler is going to build. Mr. Mergler stated it could only be 35', and he's going to do a30'. Mr. Mergler isn't planning on building at this time; he just wants the variances in case he wants to build. He owns the fannhouse across the street that he's fixing up. Mr. Perry stated that he's opposed to giving more variance than is necessary. Mr. Rinker asked if there's a perk site on the property already. Mr. Mergler stated yes; it's perked for a two bedroom. Mr. Rinker asked about the house that's in the right-of-way and Mr. Mergler stated it's just a 10'X15' shed that he's going to knock down. Chairman Catlett asked if that's something that would be handled administratively or if they would need to make a motion, it would be a contingency of the motion. Mr. Cheran stated that currently it would be handled administratively because it's in the front setback. If and when Mr. Mergler would bring this in for a building permit, the shed would not be allowed to be there. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else in favor of the request would like to speak and no one responded. She asked if anyone is opposed who would like to speak and no one responded. Chairman Catlett closed the public portion of the hearing. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1343 Discussion Chairman Catlett stated it looks apparent that the property cannot be built on as is. Mr. Perry stated that he would be in favor of granting variances that would allow him to build a 30' 6" deep house on that lot, however you want to divide up the front and back. Chairman Catlett asked if that is a motion and Mr. Perry stated he could make it a motion. Mr. Rinker asked if they could make a motion that would give him 30' 6" and then work out whether it's front or back, or do they have to say it's so many feet in the front and so many feet in the back. Mr. Cheran stated the shortest front under today's zoning ordinance is what they consider a front. That "pipestem" alley way is incorporated through the boundary line adjustment that he did to get everything to that one acre. We would consider that the front because it's the smallest in measurement. Where the old shed is would be the rear. If you want to put it in your motion, as with any variance, you could assign the setbacks. Mr. Perry asked if the setback is taken from the alley way and Mr. Cheran stated from the center of the alley way back. Mr. Perry stated from there to the shed is 125' depth, so he has to have 60' on both sides as it's presently written, and he wants to build a' 0' house. Mr. Rinker stated that he needs a total of 25' variance. Mr. Perry said give him 25'6", to be divided evenly by the front and rear. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Mergler how he felt about that. He said he could build in the middle of the lot and if they gave him 35', he'd have 45' on each side. Mr. Perry asked if Mr. Mergler is satisfied to put it in the middle he lot and Mr. Mergler said sure, it's a flat lot. Mr. Perry proposed giving Mr. Mergler 30' 6" of space to build a330' house. Mr. Mergler said that's pretty tight when you don't even have a drainfield set up yet. Mr. Mergler asked if they were going to give it to him where he can move it around the lot wherever he wants. Mr. Perry stated they're not worried about the sides, as long as he stays 60' off the sides. Mr. Rinker stated where they're coming from is they don't like to give more variance than what you actually need, so if you want a 30' house, and you need the 25' total variance, that's what we'd like to give you. Mr. Perry made a final motion for a variance of 10' in the front and 15' 6" in the rear, for a total of 25' 6", keeping the side variances at 60'. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #24-05 of Samuel and Ruth Spicer, for an 11.2' front yard variance. This property is located on the northern side of Wardensville Grade (Route 600), near the intersection of Burr Stone Lane and Wardensville Grade, and is identified with Property Identification Number 70 -A -2E in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1344 Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The applicant is seeking an 11.2' front yard variance due to the building restriction lines (BRL) on this 1.43 acre property. The BRL's for this property are front and rear 60' and sides 50'. These BRL's are consistent with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and are vested. The applicant proposes to build a single family dwelling with a walk-in basement that will be too close to the staked out drainfield site. This does not meet the criteria of a hardship under the Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2309(2). The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for different ho sinbo types in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District which include mobile homes, modular homes and single family dwellings without basements. Any one of these housing types may be used without a variance. 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 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 subject lot has a fairly narrow width and when applied in conjunction with the two front setbacks, the lot is not able to be improved to the owner's desire. Strict application of the zoning ordinance in this case does not produce an undue hardship because the property contains an area that may be expanded into without a variance. Therefore, the inability to construct a single family dwelling with a walk-in basement does not constitute an undue hardship under the criteria specified in 15.2-2309(2), Code of Virginia; denial of this variance may be justified. Mr. Cheran directed the Board to the screen, showing photos of the property. Mr. Perry asked what the Health Department requirement is for the house to be away from the drainfield and Mr. Cheran responded he did not know. Someone who stated he is representing Mr. Spicer said if there's a basement, it's 20' and 10' without a basement. Mr. Andrew Page stated that he is here to represent Mr. Spicer because Mr. Spicer can't stand up for very long. Mr. Page stated that the drawing where it says the proposed dwelling at 26'X55', that 26' is the width of the house but the 55' is really with a 15' garage on it and there will be no basement under that section. So that would not interfere with Mr. Spicer being too close to the drainfield. Mr. Page further stated that one reason they're having problems, if you'll notice where the property line runs as it comes around that curve on Burr Stone Lane, all the road is really on Mr. Spicer's property so that's where they had to measure from the road back. They thought it was the center of the road but it's really across the road from where they had to measure, and that's the reason he doesn't have enough room from the road. Chairman Catlett asked if the drainfield has been identified and Mr. Page responded yes. She asked if this is the only spot that it can go in and Mr. Page stated yes because it's at the top of the hill and they said that they could not move it because the drainfield's there, the soil was not the best soil. Chairman Catlett asked if a perc permit had been issued for that site and Mr. Page responded yes. Mr. Perry asked about the road being in the wrong place. Mr. Page stated that the road was put in over 35 to 40 years ago and it just so happened that the road comes down inside of his 1.243 acre property line. It's a private road but it still has a 30' right-of-way. Mr. Perry asked who the road belongs to and Mr. Page stated it belongs to the people who live back in there; it's not state maintained. Mr. Perry asked if Mr. Spicer's property line is outside of the road and Mr. Page stated that is correct. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1345 Mr. Rinker asked if the request for a walk-in basement was for health reasons and Mr. Page responded more or less. The reason Mr. Spicer wants a basement is because he has to have somewhere to put his utilities, his her and dryer, because he can only put a house in there that's 26'X40'. He has a motorized wheelchair and he needs a garage to get in and out of his vehicle when he pulls in. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Cheran if the road is in the wrong place. Mr. Cheran responded that the plat they're seeing is just for house location and according to that, he couldn't answer if the road is in the wrong place. Mr. Perry asked if the Code says 60' from the property line. Does it say anywhere that you don't use the property line, that you use the edge of the road? Mr. Cheran stated that it doesn't; we always go from the center of the road, but there are others using this road as a private right-of-way. Mr. Perry said if the road was moved and Mr. Cheran said yes, you could probably get it in there. Mr. Perry said he thinks if the road is on Mr. Spicer's property, obviously it's in the wrong place, as the survey sheet indicates. Mr. Perry stated the next step would be to get the road moved. Chairman Catlett asked how do you do that; it could affect the setback on the other side. That's beyond the BZA's authority. Mr. Cheran stated this is a' 0' private right-of-way and today you can't have a' 0' private right- of-way. To actually move the road, you need a bigger right-of-way and you're not going to be able to do that. Mr. Page stated that Mr. Spicer would be satisfied if he could get the 11.2' variance and just leave the road where it's at. Chairman Catlett stated it appears if they don't grant the variance, Mr. Spicer would only have the ability to build a home of about 700-800 sq. ft. Mr. Cheran stated that may be, but he would like to point out that you can brave alternative septic systems; you don't necessarily need a conventional drainfield. There is a cost, but that sn't meet the hardship of what the Code of Virginia states. But these other steps need to be taken before a variance could be granted. Mr. Rinker asked if the Spicers are planning on living there the rest of their lives and Mr. Page stated yes. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else in favor of the request who would like to speak and no one responded. She asked if anyone opposed to the request would like to speak and no one responded. Chairman Catlett closed the public hearing portion. Discussion Mr. Rinker stated that in the past, there have been times they've granted requests of variances because of health reasons. Mr. Rinker feels that if this house is going to make Mr. Spicer's life easier, and he's going to live there the rest of his life, that helps solves a bigger hardship than 11' into the easement. Mr. Rinker made a motion to approve the variance as requested. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1346 PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #25-05 of Donald Haley, for a 10' front yard and a 10' rear yard variance. This property is located at 1008 Back Mountain Road (Route 614), and is identified with Property Identification Number 39-A-82 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE POSTPONED TO DECEMBER MEETING BY STAFF OTHER Vice Chairman Perry asked if there is any other business to come before the Board. Mr. Cheran stated that there are still two court cases they're involved in. They should be concluded soon. Chairman Catlett asked which two court cases and Mr. Cheran responded he's still dealing with the horses up in the R5 and the Beatty appeal. As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Theresa B. Catlett, Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1347 VARIANCE APPLICATION 925-05 DONALD HALEY Stalsport rur tuiie Board ofi Z uning Appeals Prepared: December 2, 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 FEARING DATE: December 20, 2005 - Action Pending LOCATION: 1008 Back Mountain Road (Route 614) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 39-A-82 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) VARIANCE REQUESTED: Use: Agricultural Use: Residential Use: Agricultural Use: Agricultural A 40' side yard variance on both sides REASON FOR VARIANCE: Narrowness Variance Request #25-05, Donald Haley December 2, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. The Frederick County 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' for the fronts and 15' for the side yards. Frederick County amended its Ordinance in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District making the current setbacks for the property 60'front, 60'rear and 50' to the Southern side and 100' to the Northern side, in which the adjoining property is used agriculturally. Frederick County zoning requires a 100' setback for any dwelling, adjoining a lot which provides an agricultural land use. The proposal for a 40' variance on the North boundary would be a drastic decrease from the required setback. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE DECEMBER 20, 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 40' on both sides of the property (North and South). Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be: 60' in the front, 60' in the back, and would change to 10' on the sides. It appears that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 (2). This request from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. m • LL d m E _ d� ayy----�� of oo i ct �a o 0 M , ^ ` M L J ^ i� a M O (D N ' m 00 Lo g P ( 1 V o L o a CCS I Q 0 M �aa o M o � c E u m^' tiP a y c a Q _ � ♦0��00 C \_ _ o - v' ''GOO m • LL d m E _ d� ayy----�� of oo i ct \\ 0 _ � M R b � co f _O 14 "a ' 2Zft co LO N -a Q 4 YM# .- IL CU r 'p_ - •�• � � 0 E = x Q O M IOC 4 �Q P Y, :tea ISN r _h R b � co O _O 14 "a ' C6 co LO N -a Q CU r 'p_ - •�• � � 0 E = x Q O M c C 0 _h R b � "a 3 � rc rc rc rc ♦o��oo r 'p_ - •�• � � 0 E = x .- m m m x m m E c C 0 LL i a o A�9� y 00111Ol0 OCT 19 2010.5 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: L,2 C-' Q -Y: NAME: Ls"I e -p m i4b j C-- ADDRESS_ Vcg- ff)Lvf-M-,d.4aJ ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 5 '3177- A74j TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): L9Q, L2 in. Ips �D .,,- 4. 4. The property has a road frontage of __LO6, feet and a depth of L jj� feet and consists of , Ij--I acres (please be exact). Page 5 of 9 5. The property is owned by L, ". C -,P- to _ & l,2- as evidenced by deed from -t A,)jA-e, S P,� W5. mr (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: /!�'.,,,� 0j2 � � 7. Property Identification No.: 3 9 - iA - q 8. The existing zoning of the property is: 9. The existing use of the property is: /�,e7 S•.J� 10. Adjoining Property: ZONING /2-¢ 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A IT rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.') 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: V4exceptional 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 Page 6 of 9 USE North a4 p , , East a e South West _;- ZONING /2-¢ 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A IT rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.') 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: V4exceptional 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 Page 6 of 9 13. Additional comments, if any: 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: NAME Z-0F,+N L' (_C, C.% 5 72 77q I V ct� S i-.. c eH -yam l C y S Address 10 4(l t(&-60 Y Property ID # Q1, , 4 _ � Address V s� 0 Property ID # ; 9 7 Address Properly ID # 3 4 -7 Address - (P Property ID # 3a 4 - Address i-�' T _il 7 y Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Page 7 of 9 -/1 -Zb 15. Provide a sketch ofthe 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 r%brfr n �—I..q —:+ L z. �!_ i �... mut,..., ,V1LU uus application. tc'3I L::= 16 T Go Page 8 of 9 2OF3 77 tooLLI J Q U ZME� AGREEMENT VARIANCE # _ 05, (Number to be assigned by the planning perm) I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application, and 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 hear and maintained so as to be visible from the road or right-of-way until the hearing. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE /tl / 7— C',� - SIGNATURE OF OWNER�� DATE (if other than applica* --- -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF j ACTION: -DA - APPROVAL DENIAL SIGNED: DATE: Page 9 of 9 RZA CHAIRMAN APPEAL APPLICATION #26-05 w4�GK cO�� HOLIDAY SIGNS ° Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals ®� Prepared: December 1, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark P. 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. -t may also Ise useful to others interested in this zoning matter. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IIEARING DATE: December 20, 2005 - Pending LOCATION: The property is located at 1400 Tasker Road MAGISTEPUAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 75 -A -105D PROPERTY ZONING & USE: 'Zone: Land Use ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: Zone RP (Residential Performance) East: Zone RP (Residential Performance) South: Zone: RP (Residential Performance) West: Zone: B2 (General Business) B2 (General Business) District Business Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Business APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-30A (1), animated or flashing signs. REASON FOR APPEAL: Applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator as to the use of LED (Light Emitting Diode) and EMD (Electronic Message Display) signage in Frederick County. Appeal Application #26-05, Holiday Signs December 1, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with regards to LED (Light Emitting Diode) and EMD (Electronic Message Display) signs. Section 165-30 A (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not allow animated or flashing signs within Frederick County. Section 165- 156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance defines animated and flashing signs (See attachments). Section 165-4 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Administrator to make interpretations and applications of the zoning ordinance. Frederick County, in keeping with the intent and definition of animated and flashing signs, historically has not allowed this type of signage. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE December 20, 2005 MEETING: Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-30A (1) and Section 165-156, Sign, H & I, that LED and EMD signage is not permitted in Frederick County. c U 1 I A� ��O gsruedS, LL LL .-. o O toC Q C. o I C: Ln I N C0 ( 4t >+ ' U Q RT Q O Lo Q LO 0 LO W -Lf) � N - o O o - in E _ E U U ,C o _ o - o 12 - O - - Ill W x � Q � E � U 2. ❑ - op- m{a �a9eJ i cq X , AFI r •r. . r +r �a9eJ i cq X , s OW �a9eJ i § 165-29 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-30 (2) In such cases, the Zoning Administrator may require a "traffic access plan which describes existing traffic, conditions and design on the streets abutting the site and the methods proposed to ensure that the intent of this section has been met. C. Internal circulation. A complete system of internal traffic circulation shall be provided to serve all uses in any shopping center, industrial park or any development included in a single master development plan, site plan or subdivision plat approved by Frederick County. In such developments, internal access shall be provided in a fashion so that all uses can be mutually accessed without entering onto arterial or primary highways. In such cases, a pattern of internal circulation shall be designed to ensure that conflicts are avoided between moving vehicles, parking areas, pedestrian areas, loading areas and the various uses provided. D. Pedestrian access. Safe pedestrian walkways shall be provided to all uses on land included in a master plan or site plan approved by Frederick County. Sidewalks shall be provided in conformance with adopted corridor or walkway plans or approved master development plans. The Planning Commission may require additional sidewalks or walkways on master plans or site plans to promote a general system of pedestrian access in residential neighborhoods or business corridors. E. Fire lanes. Fire lanes shall be required as set forth in Chapter 90, Fire Prevention. [Added 12-9-19921 § 165-30. Signs. Signs shall be allowed or prohibited according to the following requirements in order to promote safety, to protect property values, to create an atmosphere conducive to orderly economic growth and to meet the intentions of this chapter: A. Signs prohibited in all districts. The following types of signs shall be prohibited in all zoning districts: (1) Animated or flashing signs. (2) Signs painted directly onto the exterior of buildings. 16546 12-15-99 § 165-30 ZONING § 165-30 the separation between the two signs was reduced from the required 50 feet. G. Height. No sign shall exceed the maximum height requirement for the zoning district in which they are located. All signs other than business signs shall be no more than 10 feet in height. No freestanding business entrance sign shall exceed five feet in height. H. Size. The following restrictions shall apply to the size of signs: (1) No business sign or directional sign shall exceed 100 square feet in area. Standardized, franchised signs may exceed 100 square feet in area but shall not exceed 150 square feet in area. In the B1 Neighborhood Business District, no business or directional sign shall exceed 50 square feet in area. (2) Cottage occupation signs shall not exceed four square feet in area. (3) Wall -mounted business signs in the B2 Business General, the B3 Industrial Transition, M1 Light Industrial, the M2 Industrial General or the MS Medical Support Districts shall be permitted to encompass 20% of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached, provided that the total area of the wall -mounted business sign does not exceed 200 square feet. [Amended 9-12-20011 (4) No freestanding building entrance sign shall exceed four square feet in area. I. Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained in a state of good repair. Signs that are damaged, structurally unsound or poorly maintained shall be repaired or removed within 30 days. (1) If an off -premises sign advertises a business or activity that is no longer being operated or conducted or if a directional sign refers to a location where the advertised activities no longer exist, that sign shall be considered to be abandoned and shall be removed by the owner within 30 days. (2) If the message portion of a sign is removed, the supporting structural components shall be removed or the message portion replaced within 30 days. J. Sign permits. [Amended 6-9-19931 16549 6-10-2003 September 30, 2005 Ms. Tracey Diehl Holiday Signs 11930 Old Stage Road Chester, VA 23836 Department of Planning and RE: Zoning Determination; B2 (General Business) Zoning District Property Identification Number (PIN): 75 -A -105D Dear Ms. Diehl: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 This letter is in response to your correspondence dated September 8, 2005, to the Zoning Administrator requesting a zoning determination on the above -referenced property. In the correspondence, you indicated that this property is in the general business district. Per your request, Frederick County Zoning requires that all signs on this property must adhere to the approved site plan and additional requirements set forth in this letter, via Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed free standing business sign (24' x 15'8", 237 sq.ft.) fails to meet requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed signage would be prohibited by Section 165-30A(1) and 165-30H(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (see attached). Section 165-30A(1) states that animated or flashing signs shall be prohibited in all zoning districts and Section 165-30H(1) prohibits franchised business signs exceeding 150 sq.ft. 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 Nnrth Kent Street; finite 202 • Winchester; Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Ms. Tracey Diehl Re: Zoning Determination; B2 Zoning District September 30, 20005 Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions you may have at (540) 665- 5651. Sincerely, ark R. Cheran Zoning Administrator MRC/KTH/dlw Attachment .I L FAM t v�h d ""°+.ins; , . „ _ �-s`'• "1.. tK _.. r 4 3, t � Y Y w yk. n aREMCI, s �.�� 1� � �� i 3�✓ a�W,y t�w�✓P° �'E 3 � � . i s'L�'?� r�� -�' f e - . � �N 9 w :� 44 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1 _ The applicant is the owner other Z. (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) t45e �� NAME: A�/Iebfys S� "i -S NAME: /COA/ ADDRESS // 9,3,3 C�2 V4 X13,F.3(_ TELEPHONE: ADDRESS: Pile 61k qi' C)✓le. tlAfc- /L ('cov> TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): /yam %-/�K �2��! e S-kp TE CU/CAvtIL of kV",10t_ /J41yt— s2 C s.2) 4. Magisterial District: �%�� % vow 5. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 7J A / Or 6. The existing zoning of the property is: /3 - Z- 7. The existing use of the property is R. Adjoining Property: USE S7vrz C_ ZONING North /2 S'ed e.— 6 � /� P East Rww/Ce--h.r-L_ /Z P South Pifc'4't- RIO West /,3 u sl ,rv-vx-- 13 ` L 9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.) �In,OC�t li�ti C/L-1C %.J!j 4-v h E Lc ino rzi/G C_ C'i _I? -,j D, / fS _t 1__CeeS % i4" � r 4ecA /CSS -30 0 ) 0 - 10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision. (This may be provided on separate sheet.) 11. Additional comments, if any: 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, 'including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list complete 14 -digit property identification number.) NAME C.xf— Y A 030 VWM Address f t� 1 U Property ID # Address Property ID # -- 7 I Address ess Property ID #--76 ijkA- LI Lf' A C% t Address Property ID # -16-7) PC I A Z7,f ly I. -s -o �Al Address Property IT) # Address Property ID # 7Ei fj ��AYZ/t� Address 11 Isi-C. Property M # 10 0. X - Address IVen.c7`ti'l 22 f, Property ID # Address Property M # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # C.xf— Y A 030 VWM 1 OMI the MdOOP4 do hereby m I-'APPP-* WA) tD avauWe d -a a&m�vs da=bed here4t I area to cam* A* Oro, Sipe i*aCdca pWpWCS_ am I }s yr =* dud -H af,*a stdzmtra, knowledge, hue. SIMUTURE OF "PLIC&N3, SIGNAWKE OF el f—C, i; W- I h V- —ax ) IRZA PEMLIC BE-t.YWG OF /' L-MU] FO"mn the ftivirl COMW Rm-d of Zr,,Img I — of to comfy zmimv 6*01M as Dm9'imdb3rthOBZA- -Famiefick c4uw affici* in so "i 65 property rrf to IW bm afray ZZ '4— BLATZ, MTN i% 1Z Vzs APMI, OVEM11" APPEAL RMAMED ACTION - I JKZA- CFAWMAN nAtrt- T 01%_.JFORD 21! 51481 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Vi Phone 540-665-5651 Virginia 22601 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) J/ e^ V//. LL (Phone) 7o y Sr6 7 y r- 2-& p.2 (Address) A O So 3,— 353 -4 N G aJl�' US� the owners) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property') conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the Countyof Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. IS- 3`7 `/ on Page 0 and is described as Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: P'4c?ce- / 40 "-)J- A /o do hereby make, constitute and appoint: %1e cd•�cd /t b o CrS.0 _3so3 (Name) r� �r ,F i Ji ^ Con/ (Phone) yy3- 0 (Address) To act as my true and lawful attorney -in fact for and is my (our) name, place and stead v full I (we) would have if acting personally to file plamning applications form power authority Y (our) above descnbeci property, including: G Rezoning (Including proffers) G Conditional Use Permits G Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) G Subdivision G Site Plan MY atborrmey-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In wi*,ness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand anseal this d c _.p day of � � � _ t,� 2005 , Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of To -wit: Lary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personall appeared acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this:�Y' day before me and has tP , V 200. My Commission Expires: Notary Public)! 24'-0" OVERALL 5'-6" T-6" 15'-8" UPPER MOLDING 10'-8" EMC 9'-7" UPPER SIGN UPPER SIGN INTERNALLY ILLUM �- UL LISTED/LABELED WHITE LEXAN FACE LED ELECTRONIC �-- MESSAGE CENTER 51GN ZONING RECAP CV5 FREE51ANPING 51GN: PROP05EP 51GN AREA UPPER 516N @ 52.70 EMC 51GN @ 37.33 TOTAL 90.035F LARGE D.F. ILLUMINATED PYLON w/ E.M.C. MALE 1/4" = P-0" toanoa: Store #: 07557 Project #: P34093 "1E: 07557 P34093 mmsED.. 11/09/04 08/02/05 09/27/05 Fy1+ NEC STate Route 3 &Radio Road (SR 1042) onrE 0,8-05-04 Daae emnurst ad. icons Elk GweVlkg7e 1111-- 60007 Kilmarnock Virginia 22482 ems: PMF OGLi -pn w.wPon Gin 3K4 LSF LL0%PAGX Ln L W NOT TO SCALE "Al MM -27 I f LounoR: Store #: 07557 Project #: P34093 Pue 07557 P34093 REVISED: 11/09/04 08/02/05 09/27/05'_^ ` C�,� i y� k L ,£ �,� ( 7418 E/r hi t Rd. Elk Glove Vlll.e icon/ R,Im 60007 NEC State Route 3 &Radio Road (SR 7042) DnrE: 08 05-04 Kilmarnock, Virginia 22482 _ muwR: PWS s a.�.=• Attachment in support of CVS Sign Application Frederick County Board of Zoning appeals Covering Application items #9-#Ii1 and related issues a. iteauest Applicant is seeking permission to install a 3'-6" x 10'-8" LED "Electronic Message Center" (EMC) Sign on a new proposed Freestanding sign at the corner of Warrior Drive and Tasker Road. Applicant is seeking both a Code interpretation and, in the alternative, a Variance for this section of the sign. This LED unit falls within the broad category of exterior signs using modern and/or computer -controlled technology to display messages; often times referred to as EMCs (Electronic Message Center). The relevant Frederick County Zoning Code Section is Section 165-30 A (1). b. lnteraretation Applicant requests approval to install the LED EMC Sign as it is permitted by right under the Frederick County Code. The requested LED EMC unit does not fall within the wording and language contained in Section 165-30 A (1) for the following reasons: 1. The wording "animated or flashing" was not intended to apply to EMCs, as this wording was inserted in Sign Codes across the United States in an earlier era when large Neon spectacular signs were common, and flashing arrows and moving parts and animations were a part of these signs. This type of wording continues to be listed in current Zoning Codes as a vestige of an earlier time. 2. The term "animate" is an undefined term in this Code and has no legally enforceable standard attached. 3. The term "flash" is an undefined term in this Code and has no legally enforceable standard attached. 4. LED signs have not been demonstrated to impair the vision of passing motorists, cause traffic accidents, or create driving complications (see below and attached documents); 5. The LED EMC illumination will be steady in nature; - sign will not flash - sign will not "animate" - Illumination will not change in brilliance, color or intensity 6. The LED EMC message will change periodically; certain LED clusters will activate, and others will switch off; this change is prompt and seamless; there will be no flashing or movement involved. 7. The national association of Municipal Code Officials, the International Code Council, recognizes EMCs and permits their use by right in the International Zoning Code (2003) Chapter 10. c. Variance In the alternative, Applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 165-30 A (1), and any etlyer Variances that maybe. requiredto gain approval for this sign. Pursuant to the current standard for a Dimensional Variance in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Applicant is seeking an adjustment from the Prohibition provisions of the Frederick County Code to permit the EMC sign. As a part of its facility Identification, CVS often displays the local Time and Temperature information on its Freestanding Signs, as a public service, as well as other local public service announcements, in addition to its regular business-related information. CVS cannot display this information using an alternate technology; it must use modern technology. A Hardship is created if Code Section 165-30 A (1) is interpreted and applied to the CVS EMC unit. For instance, a Manual "readerboard" showing Time and Temperature would prevent the Applicant from displaying its message accurately and/or practically; it would create a comical scenario, with a CVS employee standing by the Freestanding Sign, changing the manual letters whenever the Time changed or the Temperature fluctuated. Page 2 The only way to display Time and Temperature information and certain time -specific messages is to use modern computer -controlled technology. Frederick County apparently prohibits this technology. 1. Basis for the Prohibition The basis for the apparent LED EMC prohibition is unclear from the written Frederick County Code itself. Possible reasons for the "ban" are (a) Traffic Safety and (b) Aesthetics. 2. EMCs and Traffic Safety There is no scientific evidence or objective research that shows that EMCs have a negative impact on traffic safety (traffic safety being used as a general term to describe a variety of driving -related processes). The Applicant is not aware of any scientific research studies or empirical evidence that demonstrates that EMCs create or contribute to the occurrence of traffic accidents, unsafe traffic conditions or driver behavior, or have a negative impact on traffic safety. If the County has any objective research that shows that EMCs cause accidents, the Applicant would like the opportunity to review this information. Enclosed are four (4) research publications that have a bearing on this Application: a. Traffic Safety Study: In Part II of this study, when an EMC was installed at a major intersection in Pennsylvania, the accident rate at the intersection declined; b. EMC Research Review: no current studies say that EMCs are unsafe or cause accidents c. EDMA: EMC manufacturers have suggestions on EMC usage d. Information Load: Information on On Premises signs does not cause Drivers to have accidents In regard to the common usage of EMC signs, please note the following: - Many Jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia allow EMC signs; - All State DOTs in the United States use EMCs on their highways for announcements and alerts; - the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has recommendations for EMCs, and does not advocate their prohibition; - EMC manufacturers themselves have suggested standards for EMCs that Frederick County could implement; - No research indicates that EMCs have traffic safety issues; 3. EMCs and Aesthetics It is likely that a complete prohibition of a form of lawful Commercial Speech and specific technology cannot be supported on the basis of subjective taste or opinion in regard to sign appearance. This ban on a technology, if permitted, based solely on aesthetics, could potentially put an entire manufacturing industry out of business, based on personal aesthetic tastes. If Frederick County can maintain a prohibition, then all jurisdictions can implement such a prohibition, in addition to converting existing EMCs in other jurisdictions into non -conforming signs, and placing a manufacturing industry in peril. d. EMCs and f=irst Amendment Every time a local municipality controls or restricts On Premises signs, it has implications under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. On Premises signs are a form of Commercial Speech. The US Supreme Court has indicated that Commercial Speech has protection under the First Amendment, and although this protection is not as broad as personal or private speech, it has expanded protection nonetheless. The Frederick County Code Section in question is an example of a "content neutral" Time, Place, and Manner regulation of On Premises Commercial Speech. The Applicant will suggest that this regulation fails the test set forth by the US Supreme Court when examining content -neutral regulations of Commercial Speech (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v Public Sere. Commission, 447 US 557 (1980) and related cases). The reasons for this suggestion are: 1. The CVS EMC display constitutes an exercise of "lawful' speech; there is no suggestion otherwise; 2. Although Frederick County has a substantial governmental interest in regulating commercial speech (i.e. Page 3 On Premises signs in general), it cannot assert a substantial governmental interest in regulating EMCs as it has been demonstrated that this technology has no traffic safety implications. 3. The regulation may advance the asserted governmental interest, if one is found; 4. However, the regulation is far more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest; Frederick County has instituted a complete ban of EMCs technology and the information that uses this technology. Restrictions on EMC signs, but not an outright ban, could address whatever local concerns may exist but also permit the display of the lawful Commercial Speech. REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY SIGNS Overview We are all very fortunate to live in a society that places a premium value on freedoms, and limits governmental intrusion upon those freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of those essential freedoms, and one that is embodied within the Constitution that molds the rule of law governing this great nation. Many reputable organizations, like the U.S. Small Business Administration and the International Sign Association caution against sign regulations that interfere with the freedom of exercising commercial speech. The following information has been assembled by a coalition of manufacturers of electronic message display signs. We recognize the uncertainty surrounding the legality of certain sign regulations. We also respect the desire by communities to regulate signs, including electronic message display signs, and the need for responsible sign codes. Without engaging in debate over the legality of regulations affecting electronic message displays, the following materials are intended to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the current state of the technology, and to promote regulations that reflect the broad variations in the use of electronic message displays. The History of Changeable Message Signs In the day when signs were primarily painted, changing messages on a sign merely required painting over the existing message. More recently, signs with removable lettering made it possible to manually change the lettering on a sign to display a new message. Electrical changeable message signs followed the invention of the light bulb, and included light bulbs arranged in a pattern where, by lighting some light bulbs and not the others, letters and numerals could be spelled out. With the advent of solid-state circuitry in the early 1970s, electronic changeable message signs became possible. The first of these products were time and temperature displays and simple text message displays using incandescent lamps. These lamps were very inefficient. They used a great deal of power and had short life expectancies. During the energy crunch of the 1980s, it became necessary to find ways to reduce the power consumption of these displays. This need initially spawned a reflective technology. This technology typically consisted of a light -reflective material applied to a mechanical device, sometimes referred to as "flip disk" displays. Electrical impulses were applied to a grid of disks with reflective material on one side of the disk, and a contrasting finish on the other side. The electrical impulses would position each disk within the grid to either reveal or conceal the reflective portion of the device as required, to produce an image or spell out a message. These technologies were energy efficient, but due to the mechanical nature of the product, failures were an issue. Shortly after the introduction of the reflective products, new incandescent lamps emerged. The new "wedge base" Xenon gas-filled lamps featured many positive qualities. Compared to the larger incandescent lamps that had been used for several years, the wedge base lamps were very bright, required less power to operate and had much longer lifetimes. These smaller lamps allowed electronic display manufacturers to build displays that featured tighter resolutions, allowing users to create more ornate graphic images. Next in the evolution of the changeable message sign was the LED. LED (light emitting diode) technology had been used for changeable message displays since the mid 1970s. Originally, LEDs were available in three colors: red, green and amber, but were typically used for indoor systems because the light intensity was insufficient for outdoor applications and the durability of the diodes suffered in the changing temperatures and weather conditions. As technology improved, manufacturers were able to produce displays that had the intensity and long life required for outdoor use, but were limited in the viewing angle from which they could be effectively seen. Recently, breakthroughs in this field have made available high intensity LEDs in red, green, blue and amber. These LEDs have made it possible to produce displays bright enough for outdoor use with viewing angles that are equal to, or better than, other technologies currently available. They are energy-efficient, can be programmed and operated remotely, and require little maintenance. In addition, the computer software has evolved such that a broad range of visual effects can be used to display messages and images. The spacing of the LEDs can be manipulated to achieve near -television resolution. Earlier "flip disk" and incandescent technologies have become nearly obsolete as a result. Types of Changeable Message Signs Changeable message signs can be placed into two basic categories: manually - changed and electronically -changed. The most common form of manually - changed sign involves a background surface with horizontal channels. Letters and numerals are printed on individual plastic cards that are manually fitted into the channels on the sign face. A broad range of letter styles and colors are available. The manually -changed sign is relatively inexpensive and is somewhat versatile. Some discoloration has been experienced in the background surface materials 2 with exposure to weather and the sun. Changing the message on such a sign is accomplished by having an employee or technician remove the existing plastic letter cards and replacing them with cards displaying the new message. Occasionally, such signs have been the subjects of vandals who steal the letters or, as a prank, re -arrange them to spell out undesirable messages. Over time, as letters are replaced with lettering styles that deviate in color or type style from the original set, such signs have had a tendency to take on a mix -and -match appearance. Electronic changeable message signs are generally of two types: light emitting and light reflective. Current light emitting display technologies include LED and incandescent lamp. Light reflective displays typically consist of either a reflective material affixed to a mechanical device (like a "flip disk") or a substance commonly referred to as electronic ink. Many of the above mentioned technologies have the capabilities to display monochromatic (single color) or multiple color images. Monochrome changeable message signs are typically used to display text messages. Multiple color displays are more common in applications where color logos or video is displayed. Operational Capabilities of Electronic Signs Electronic signs have evolved to the point of being capable of a broad range of operational capabilities. They are controlled via electronic communication. Text and graphic information is created on a computer using a software program. This software is typically a proprietary component that is supplied by the displa manufacturer. These software programs determine the capabilities of the displaysy. The software is then loaded onto a computer that operates the sign. The computer may be installed within the sign itself, operated remotely from a nearby building, or even more remotely by a computer located miles away and connected to the sign with a telephone line modem or other remote communication technology. Since most of the software programs are proprietary, one can assume that each software program is slightly different. However, the capabilities that the programs offer are all very similar. Changeable message sign manufacturers provide software that allows the end user to be as creative or as reserved as they like. The sign can be used to display static messages only, static messages changed by a computer-generated transition from one message to the next, moving text, animated graphics and, in some applications, television -quality video. Text messages or graphic images can simply appear and disappear from the display or they can be displayed using creative entry and exit effects and transitions. 3 Example: Oftentimes a display operator will choose to have a text message scroll onto the display and then "wipe -off" as if the frame has been turned like the page of a book. If a display has the capabilities to display graphics, logos or even video, it is common for the display operator to add motion to these images. Example: A display operator at a school may wish to create an animation where their school's mascot charges across a football field and runs over the competing school's mascot. Video -capable displays can operate much like a television. These displays can show live video, recorded video, graphics, logos, animations and text. All display capabilities are securely in the hands of the display operators. They are ultimately responsible for what type of, and how, information is displayed on their changeable message sign. Traffic Safety Considerations Electronic message displays (EMDs) are capable of a broad variation of operations, from fully -static to fully -animated. In exterior sign use, they are often placed where they are visible to oncoming traffic. Concerns are often raised as communities change their sign codes to expressly permit such signage about the traffic safety implications for signage with moving messages. These concerns are largely unfounded. EMDs have been in operation for many years. As is typical with many technological advances, the regulatory environment has been slow to respond to advances in the technology itself. In 1978, after many years of the use of electronic signs, Congress first passed legislation dealing with the use of illuminated variable message signs along the interstate and federal aid primary highway system. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act permitted electronic message display signs, subject to state law, provided each message remained fixed on the display surface but"which may be changed at reasonable intervals by electronic process or remote control," and did not include "any flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights." 23 U.S.C. § 131. In 1980, and in response to safety concerns over EMDs along highways, the Federal Highway Administration published a report titled "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable - 0 Message Signs." This report was an exhaustive analysis of the safety implications of EMDs used along highways. The report highlights the inconclusive nature of safety studies that had occurred to that time, some concluding that roadside signs posed a traffic distraction, and others concluding that roadside signs do not cause traffic accidents. In view of the inavi+Mh►e se of the technology in signage, the report made some sensible observations about traffic safety considerations for such signs: 1. Longitudinal location. The report recommended that spacing standards be adopted to avoid overloading the driver's information processing capability. Unlike the standard for sign regulations in 1980, most communities today have spacing standards already integrated into their sign codes. 2. Lateral location. Often referred to as "setback," the report initially recommended the common sense requirement that such signs be placed where the risk of colliding into the sign is eliminated. This was a legitimate concern, as such signs were being contemplated for use by highway departments themselves in the right-of-way. Private use of roadside signs is generally limited to locations outside the right-of-way, so this should not be a significant concern. The next issue addressed by the report was visibility. The report advocated the minimum setback feasible, stating that "standards for lateral location should reduce the time that drivers' attention is diverted from road and traffic conditions. Generally this suggests that signs should be located and angled so as to reduce the need for a driver to turn his head to read them as he approaches and passes them." This can best be handled by permitting such signs to be located at the property line, with no setback, and angled for view by oncoming traffic. 3. Operations: Duration of message on-time. The report states that the duration of the message on-time should be related to the length of the message, or in the case of messages displayed sequentially, the message element. For instance, based on state highway agency experience, "comprehension of a message displayed on a panel of three lines having a maximum of 20 characters per line is best when the on-time is 15 seconds. In contrast, the customary practice of signing which merely displays time and temperature is to have shorter on -times of 3 to 4 seconds." Since this 1980 report, state highway agencies have adopted, for use on their own signs, informal standards of considerably shorter "on" time duration, with no apparent adverse effects on traffic safety. Federal legislation affecting billboard use of electronic signs 5 requires only that messages be changed at "reasonable intervals."' Moreover, the U.S. Small Business Administration, in a report on its website reviewing safety information compiled since the 1980 report, has concluded that there is no adverse safety impact from the use of EMD signs. See http://www.sba.govZstarting/signage/safeiegai.'nT'Ml'. The most recent study was performed in 2003 by Tantala Consulting Engineers, available through the U.S. Sign Council at http://www ussc org/pubiications.htm1, also concluding based on field studies that EMD signs do not adversely affect traffic safety. Many small businesses using one -line EMD displays are only capable of displaying a few characters at one time on the display, changing frequently, which takes virtually no time for a driver to absorb in short glances. These signs have likewise not proven to be a safety concern, despite many years of use. 4. Operations: Total information cycle. EMD signs can be used to display stand-alone messages, or messages that are broken into segments displayed sequentially to form a complete message. As to the sequential messages, the report recommended a minimum on-time for each message "calculated such that a motorist traveling the affected road at the 85" percentile speed would be able to read not more than one complete nor two partial messages in the time required to approach and pass the sign." 5. Operations: Duration of message change interval and off -time. The report defines the message change interval as the portion of the complete information cycle commencing when message "one" falls below the threshold of legibility and ending when message "two" in a sequence first reaches the threshold of legibility. This is relevant when operations such as "fade off -fade on'are used, when the first message dissolves into the second message, or when the two messages move horizontally (traveling) or vertically (scrolling) to replace the first message with the second. Off -time, on the other hand, is a message change operation that involves the straightforward turning off of the first message, with a period of blank screen, before the second message is instantly turned on. ' The appropriate interval of message change may be affected by a variety of factors, and one standard does not fit all situations. Imagine, for instance, a bridge that serves two roadways, one with a speed limit of 30 mph and the other a highway with a speed limit of 60 mph. In a situation where the bridge is socked in by fog, an electronic sign on the approach to the bridge may be used to convey the message, "Fog ahead ... on bridge... reduce speed...to 15 mph." The driver on each roadway needs to see all the segments to the full message. The rate of changing each segment of the message needs to be different for each roadway. If the change rate were based only on the 60 mph speed, the sign on the slower roadway may appear too active. If the change rate were based only on the 30 mph speed, the result could be fatal to drivers on the highway. no The report takes an extremely conservative approach as to message change interval, advising against the use of operations other than nearly instantaneous message changes. If such operations are permitted, the report suggests "that the figure commonly used as a measure of average glance duration, 0.3 second, be used here as a maximum permissible message change time limit." The report further advocates minimizing off -time between messages, where static message changes are used, stating that [a]s this interval of off -time is lengthened, the difficulty of maintaining the continuity of attention and comprehension is increased." The conservative nature of the authors' position is reflected both in the report, and in over twenty years of practice since the report was issued. The report cites studies indicating that, in some situations, the use of electronic operations had a beneficial effect on traffic safety, by creating a more visually -stimulating environment along an otherwise mind -numbing segment of highway, helping to re -focus and sharpen the driver's attention to his or her surroundings. In over twenty years of experience, with numerous electronic signs nationwide utilizing the various operational capabilities for message change, there has been no significant degradation to highway safety reported. Many electronic signs used by highway departments now use a mode of transition between messages or message segments, such as traveling or scrolling. Drivers are apparently capable of attaching primacy to the visual information most critical to the driving task, with sign messages taking a secondary role. The report further expresses its limited focus upon interstate and federal aid primary highways. Noting the stimulating visual environment created by full - animation signage in places like Times Square, Las Vegas and Toronto's Eaton Centre, the authors of the report agreed that such signs added vitality and dimension to the urban core, but discouraged the use of animation alongside the highway. The report did not deal with the use of such signs, or their operational characteristics, on roadways between the extremes of the interstate highway and the urban core. In addition, animation has now been used on highway -oriented signs in many locations for years, with no reported adverse effect of traffic safety. In sum, the report acknowledged the appropriateness of full -animation electronic signs within the urban core, but recommended that full -animation not be used along interstate and primary highways. It took a conservative position on operations of such signs along highways, advocating static message change sequences only, with no more than 0.3 seconds of message change interval or "off -time" between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Such signs 7 change interval or "off -time" between messages. The message changes on sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. Messages should be permitted to change at reasonable intervals." Such signs should have adequate spacing between signs, but be set back from the right- of-way as little as feasible. Since 1980, no new information has become available supporting a traffic safety concern about EMDs. They have been installed in highway locations, along city streets and in urban core settings, using all forms of operations: static, sequential messaging and full animation. Despite such widespread use, se to and the presence of environmental established at blg hedaorganizations bet\,,ieenrEMDs and displays, no credible studies have a degradation in traffic safety. An article in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing in Spring, 1997, arrived at the same conclusion. Professor correlation, concluded rTarcloded that "thva ere pear lnappears this lack of data to support such to be no reason to believe that changeable message signs represent a safety hazard." From a safety standpoint, and based on the studies and practical experience that has been accumulated since the widespread use of EMDs, some conclusions can be reached: • In an urban core setting, where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable, full -animation EMDs have been shown to be viable without degrading traffic safety. • In an urban setting, such as along arterial streets, EMDs have been used with static messages changed by use of transitions such as traveling, scrolling, fading and dissolving, without any apparent impact on traffic safety. Quite likely, this can be attributed to the primacy of the navigation task, and the secondary nature of roadside signage. • Along interstate and other limited access highways, the only significant traffic safety analysis recommends the use of static messages only, and the federal government permits message changes at "reasonable intervals." Many highway departments change messages on their own signs every 1-2 seconds. The report further recommends that sequential messages be timed to ensure that the entire sequence of messages be displayed in the initial legibility to beyond the sign. In time it takes a car to travel from practice, and in the 20+ years since publication of this report, the operational characteristics of such signs have been expanded to include fading, dissolving, scrolling and traveling, without any apparent adverse effect on traffic safety. Regulation of Electronic Signs The history of the regulation of electronic signs has been largely marked by polar extremes in regulation. A number of zoning and sign codes have treated such signs as any other sign, with no special regulations. Others have attempted to prohibit their use in the entirety, largely out of concerns for traffic safety, and in some cases in the stated interest of aesthetics. For the reasons stated above, the traffic safety concerns have been largely unfounded. In decades of use and intense scrutiny, no definitive relationship between electronic signs and traffic accidents has been established. In fact, some studies have suggested that animated electronic signs may help keep the driver whose mind has begun to wander re -focused on the visual environment in and around the roadway. No studies support the notion that an electronic sign with a static display has a visual impact, from either a traffic safety or aesthetic impact, different from that of any other illuminated sign. Despite this, the fear of negative impact from potentially distracting signs has in the past motivated some communities to attempt to prohibit electronic signs altogether. Two common approaches have been to prohibit sign "animation" and the "intermittent illumination" of electronic signs. Both approaches have had their limitations. Electronic signs that are computer -controlled often have the capability to be displayed with a multitude of operational characteristics, many of which fall within the typical definition of "animation." However, static display techniques are quite commonplace with electronic signs, and the cost of using electronics in relatively typical sign applications has become more affordable. The programming of an electronic sign to utilize static displays only is simple and straightforward, yet probably overkill in the legal and practical sense. Nonetheless, out of fear that the programming may be changed to animation after a sign is permitted and operational, some local regulators have attempted to take the position that LED and other electronic signs are prohibited altogether. This position is unsound. There is no legal basis to deny a static -display electronic sign, as it is legally indistinguishable from any other illuminated sign. We don't prohibit car usage merely because the cars are designed so that they can exceed the speed limit; we issue a ticket to the driver if they do exceed the speed limit. Likewise, if a sign owner actually violates the zoning or sign code, the remedy is to cite them for the violation, not to presume that they will do so and refuse to issue G permits at the outset. Moreover, most communities permit changing messages on signs displaying time and temperature, with no restrictions on timing. To apply a different standard to signs displaying commercial or noncommercial messages would be to regulate on the basis of the content of the sign, in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. C -ons it u io- The code technique of prohibiting "intermittent illumination has its own limitations as it relates to electronic signs. The term "intermittent" suggests that the sign is illuminated at some times, and not illuminated at others. This is no basis to distinguish between an electronic sign and any other illuminated sign. Virtually all illuminated signs go through a cycle of illumination and non -illumination, as the sign is turned off during the day when illumination is not needed, or during the evening after business hours. If this were the standard, most sign owners would be guilty of a code violation on a daily basis. Other terminology may be used in sign codes, but the fact is that a regulation must be tailored to the evil it is designed to prevent. Community attitudes toward viewing digital images have changed nationwide, with personal computer use and exposure to electronic signs becoming widespread. People are simply accustomed to the exposure to such displays, more so than in years past. In some communities, there remains a concern about the potential that such signs may appear distracting, from a safety or aesthetic standpoint. Yet, static displays do not have this character, and even EMDs with moving text have not proven to have any negative impact. The real focus should be on the operations used for the change in message, and frame effects that accompany the message display. Many of these transition operations and frame effects are quite subtle, or otherwise acceptable from a community standpoint. It is now possible to define these operations, in the code itself, with sufficient specificity to be able to enforce the differences between what is acceptable and what is not. The critical regulatory factors in the display of electronic changeable message signs are: 1) Duration of message display, 2) Message transition, and 3) Frame effects. With the exception of those locations where full animation is acceptable, the safety studies indicate that messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Government users of signs have utilized 1-2 seconds on their own signs as a reasonable interval for message changes, and other communities permit very short display times or continuous scrolling on business signs without adverse effect. As a policy matter, some communities have elected to adopt longer duration periods, although to do so limits the potential benefits of using an electronic sign, particularly where messages are broken down into segments displayed sequentially on the sign. The message transitions and frame effects are probably the greater focus, from a sign code standpoint. It is during the message transition or frame effect that the eye is most likely drawn to the sign. What is acceptable is a matter of community 10 attitude. Flashing is a frame effect that is prohibited in many communities, but other more subtle transitions can be accepted. It is relatively easy to define four basic levels of operational modes for message transitions that can be incorporated into a sign code: Level 1 Static Display Only (messages changed with no transition) Level 2 Static Display with "Fade" or "Dissolve" transitions, or similar subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images Level Static Display with "Travel" or "Scrolling" transitions, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text or animated images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once Level 4 Full Animation, Flashing and Video There are, in fact, other operations recognized within the industry. However, in practice they can be equated in visual impact with "fade," "dissolve," "travel" or "scrolling," based on their visual effect, or otherwise be considered full animation. Different transition operations may be acceptable in different locations. For example, communities like Las Vegas accept full animation as a community standard, whereas others accept full animation only in urban core locations where a sense of visual vitality and excitement is desirable. Some communities may desire not to have an area with such visual stimuli, and elect to prohibit animation everywhere. However, in such a community, fade or scrolling may be acceptable forms of message transitions for static displays. In the most conservative communities, static displays with no observable transition between messages may be the only acceptable course. The next decision point for a community seeking to regulate electronic signs is procedural. Some signs may be acceptable always, while the community may determine that others are acceptable only in certain given circumstances. Alternatives to be considered for a sign code are as follows: • Permit electronic signs "as a matter of right" • Permit electronic signs with certain transitions "as a matter of right" 0 Permit electronic signs, subject to a review procedure Permit electronic signs, with certain transitions, subject to a review procedure A hybrid of the above For instance, one community may find it acceptable to permit electronic signs, with full animation, as a matter of right. Other than a straightforward sign permit, no other review is required. In another community, the sign code structure may permit: 1) Static displays with no transitions as a matter of right, 2) static displays using fade or dissolve transitions as a matter of right in certain commercial zoning districts, 3) static displays using travel and scrolling transitions and animations in certain commercial districts, subject to approval of a special use permit, where the approving board can consider compatibility with surrounding land uses and attach conditions on the rate of message changes, and e4t o Ilapprovalteof/ adeo speciallays use in the downtown commercial district y, I permit. The level of procedure involved should be tailored to the acceptance level of the community, and the resources available should public review be desired. In the following section, we have provided model code language that can be used, for reference, to incorporate into a community tsign c e. Th display model language suggests code scenarios based on each of he transitions. It also provides alternative language, for some scenarios, to either incorporate a special review procedure or not. Of course, the model language must be tailored to a particular community's sign code. Variation may be necessary, where, for instance, the special review procedure would be by the local planning commission, city council or design review board. With ease, the model code language can be modified to meet local conditions. © 2004 Electronic Display Manufacturers Association 12 Model Sign Code Provisions for Electronic Signs Level 1 -Static Display (Message Changed with no Transition) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, and shall not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement or appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. c. Message Change Sequence. [Alternative 1: The change of messages must be accomplished immediately.] [Alternative 2: A minimum of 0.3 seconds of time with no message displayed shall be provided between each message displayed on the sign.] 13 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 2 -Static Display (Fade/Dissolve Transitions) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall contain static messages only, changed only through dissolve or fade transitions, or with the use of other subtle transitions and frame effects that do not have the appearance of moving text or images, but which may otherwise not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating or varying of light intensity. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 14 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 3 -Static Display (Travel/Scroll Transitions and Animations) Definitions ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. DISSOLVE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity or pattern, where the first message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneously with the gradual appearance and legibility of the second message. FADE — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display accomplished by varying the light intensity, where the first message gradually reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the point of legibility. FRAME — a complete, static display screen on an Electronic Message Display. FRAME EFFECT — a visual effect on an Electronic Message Display applied to a single frame to attract the attention of viewers. SCROLL — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move vertically across the display surface. TRANSITION — a visual effect used on an Electronic Message Display to change from one message to another. TRAVEL — a mode of message transition on an Electronic Message Display where the message appears to move horizontally across the display surface. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a use permit] [in the zoning districts] subject to the following requirements: a. Operational Limitations. Such displays shall be limited to static displays, messages that appear or disappear from the display through dissolve, fade, travel or scroll modes, or similar transitions and frame effects that have text, animated graphics or images that appear to move or change in size, or be revealed sequentially rather than all at once. b. Minimum Display Time. Each message on the sign must be displayed for a minimum of (insert reasonable interval) seconds. 15 Model Electronic Sign Code Provisions Level 4-Video/Animation rinfi n itinns ELECTRONIC RONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY — A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means, including animated graphics and video. Electronic Message Displays may be permitted [with the approval of a districts] use permit] [in the zoning 16 VARIANCE APPLICATION 92? -05 FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: November 30, 2005 Staff Contact: John D. Kirby, Zoning Inspector 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: December 20, 2005 - Action Pending LOCATION: Route 522, east on Parkins Mills Road, approximately'/4 mile on the right MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 76 -A -94A PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant and Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural Use: Agricultural Use: Residential Use: Agricultural VARIANCE REQUESTED: 40' front yard variance and 35' side yard variance REASON FOR VARIANCE: Size and shape of the property for the required additional wastewater treatment facilities, to complete the 5.0 MGD expansion and ENR upgrade project. Proposed setbacks are less than or equal to existing. Variance Request #27-05, Frederick County Sanitation Authority November 30, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: This 6.7326 acre property was purchased by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority in March of 1988. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows the 59 acre parent tract was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1967. The building restriction 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, making the setbacks for the property 60'front, 100'rear and 50' sides. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR Tl[-iE DECEMBER 20, 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 40' front yard variance, and 35' side yard variance. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be: 20' front yard; 15' right side yard; and 15'left side yard. It appears that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 (2). This request from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. l "Q \:- c '� /%gym �� \ � \ � \ �\ \�• ~ �\ \� � ` a a LO O�_ Q IN Q N ' ' O L CU C \Q / �i o CO y , jr 40 LO do CV i CU E � - o sQ N N 1 v in m o E J (7 E F' 1! I pyk 76NSZRATIOH a -- m � a m mI# APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA -OFFICE USE ONLY - Variance Application o. 7-66 Submittal Date: Fee Paid: es) initials: Sign Deposit Te Submittal Deadline: For the meeting of MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner x other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) 3 4. NAME: Frederick County Sanitation NAME: ut ori y ADDRESSP•0. Rx 1877 Winchester, Va. 22604-1877 TELEPHONE: 540-868-1061 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): U.S..Route 522. East on Parkins Mills Road, entran_ approximately 1/4 mile on right. (Existing WWTF Site and adjacent FCSA-owned property) The property has a road frontage of _ 669 feet and a depth of 5004, feet and consists of 6.73 acres (please be exact). 0 11 Frederick County 5. The property is owned by Sanitation Authority as evidenced by deed from RG Burcham recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 683 on page 426 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: Shawnee 7. Property Identification No.: 76 A 94A 8. The existing zoning of the property is: RP 9. The existing use of the property is: WWTF 10. Adjoining Property: USE North Agricultural East Residential South Agricultural West Agricultural ZONING RA RA, RA RA RA 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.") A 20' frontward variance for Primary Clarifiers and Distribution Box and last Building Expansion, A 15' siteyard variance for Secondary Clarifiers, RAS/WRS Pump Station and Blower/Utility Buildi 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 development of property immediately adjacent thereto Size and shape of property for the required additional wastewater treatment facilities to complete the 5.0 -MGD Expansion and ENR upgrade Project. Proposed setbacks are less than or equal to existing. 7 13. Additional comments, if any: Refer to attached site plan and rendering. Upgrade required to meet VA Nutrient Removal Regulations. Expansion required for projected growth within the County's Parkins Mills Service area. 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: NAMF Frederick Sanitation County AuthorityProperty Address 107N. Kent St., Winchester, Va. 22601 ID # 76 A 95 Shannon J. Stasiowski Address 108 Sussex Circle, Stepberg Cty, Va. 2265 Property ID #76 A 94 Fort Hill Farm Address 1669 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, Va. 2260 Property ID #76 A 96 B Eugene F. Grove Address 340 W. Parkins Mills Rd., Winchester, Va. Property ID #76 A 97 Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # 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. Refer to attached site plan, rendering, and County Tax Map printouts. 9 '