Loading...
BZA 12-20-05 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on, December 20, 2005. PRESENT Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Robert Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; Kevin Scott, Shawnee District; and, Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District. ABSENT: Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large. STAFF PRESENT Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; J. D. Kirby, Zoning Inspector; Kevin Henry, Planning Technician; 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. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Scott, the minutes for the November 15, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. 0 Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut -off date for the next meeting. Mr. Cheran replied that Friday, December 22, 2005, is the cut -off date. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request 425 -05 of Donald Haley, fora 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 Mr. Henry gave the staff report. 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 front and rear 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 due to the adjoining agricultural lot. 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 Witch variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the character of the district will Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2005 Minute Book Page 1348 not be changed by the granting of the variance. 0 The applicant is requesting a variance for 40' to the southern side yard setback and 90' for the northern side yard setback. 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. Mr. Henry directed the Board to the screen, where he showed them photos of the property. Mr. Henry stated that the applicant is not here today. Mr. Rinker asked if there is a trailer currently on the lot and Mr. Henry answered yes. Mr. Rinker stated that it looks like there's a house on the lot beside of it, and it's notched out around that house. Mr. Rinker asked if that is right and Mr. Henry responded yes, there's another house right on the property line, about 5' from the property line. Mr. Cheran stated that a boundary line adjustment was done in 1999. The house was set and the property line ran right through the middle of it and that was an easy fix which was done internally. Mr. Rinker asked if the building site is where the trailer is presently located. Mr. Henry said he believes the applicant is looking to propose it closer to Hayfield Road, further away from the house. Mr. Cheran stated they're assuming that's where the applicant wants to put the house, but he's not present to swer any questions. Mr. Rinker asked if the variance is for a 10' setback on the sides, are they going to put up an 80' house. Mr. Henry responded that he did not know. Mr. Perry stated that he'd like to see the applicant present to answer some questions. Chairman Catlett stated that they can proceed with this or if there's a motion, they do not have to act on it without the applicant being present. Chairman Catlett stated that this is the second time they have looked at this application. Mr. Perry made a motion that the application be postponed, Mr. Rinker seconded and the vote was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARING 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- 105D in the Opequon Magisterial District. ACTION — APPEAL APPROVED Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2005 Minute Book Page 1349 Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the ministration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with regards to LED (Light Emitting Diode) and EMD Electronic Message Display) signs. Section 165- 30A(l) 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. 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 is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165- OA(l) and Section 165 -156, Sign, H & 1, that LED and EMD signage is not permitted in Frederick County. Mr. Cheran directed the Board to the screen, showing the property as well as pictures of the CVS sign located in Winchester. Mr. Cheran stated that apparently Winchester does allow this type of sign. Staff visited this site on December 6` and the sign changed every two minutes. Mr. Cheran further stated that Mr. Steve Petler, representing Holiday Signs, is present to answer any questions. Mr. Rinker asked about the sign for the sports complex that's up along 1 -81. Mr. Cheran stated that's an illegal sign. The permit for that sign was issued erroneously, it was staffs fault, but it is an illegal sign. Staff has t received a complaint and no action has been taken. Mr. Perry asked if this sign is on the site plan for the building permit. Mr. Cheran stated no, the sign package was submitted by CVS on Holiday Signs for what they commonly have through permits. Staff sent a determination letter which brought us here today. Mr. Perry asked if the sign has been erected and Mr. Cheran stated no, they're holding the permit. Mr. Cheran stated that Frederick County allows franchise signs of a certain height. This is what CVS generally uses around the country, but as far as Frederick County is concerned, we treat this as an animated and flashing sign. Chairman Catlett asked if it's only the portion that changes that's in question and Mr. Cheran stated that is correct. Mr. Steve Petler, of Harrison & Johnston, approached the podium and identified himself. Mr. Petler is representing Holiday Signs, who is the subcontractor with ]con Signs who is the contractor for the CVS signage. Mr. Robert Moran, President of Holiday Signs, is also present today. Mr. Petler stated that the issue before them is the fact that this sign is being denied erection per se. Section 165- 30A(1) notes that animated or flashing signs are prohibited in Frederick County. The sign that has been submitted to the County for erection at the CVS is not an animated or flashing sign. It is LED, EMD and that stands for light emitting diode and electronic message board. Mr. Petler stated if that sign was erected and a message was put on there and was left up there and never changed, that would clearly not be in violation of the code. The issue here has to do with this perception that a change in the message in the LED display creates animation or flashing and that's all that's prohibited under the code. What the ffect of the decision right now by staff is, that sign can't even be erected no matter how often the message anges. The sign is not prohibited from being erected, per se, it's prohibited from changing its message. This is Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2005 Minute Book Page 1350 the CVS franchise sign. 0 Mr. Petler directed the Board members to literature he provided them - Chapter 10 of the International Zoning Code, which pertains to sign regulations. This is a code which is used to supplement and what localities refer to in their zoning ordinances. Mr. Petler stated that when he read the Frederick County Code, he didn't see any definition of what animated or flashing is. The International Zoning Code would be a place to turn to after that to see what the industry defines as animated or flashing. In the International Zoning Code, there is a definition for an animated sign. An animated sign is one that employs actual motion or the illusion of motion. It also addresses what flashing is. Flashing is a sign where the illumination is characterized by a repetitive cycle in which the period of illumination is either the same or less than the period of non - illumination. The sign which Mr. Cheran showed you pictures of and the sign submitted for application changes on a period that's set by the user. In the City of Winchester, two minutes is what the City decided to allow as a period of time to change because in that period of time, it's clearly not flashing. To make another distinction, there is no animation in this sign. When a cluster of the LED diodes illuminates, another cluster goes out — it doesn't create the illusion of movement. All this sign does is change the message, remotely, during a certain period of time. Another key aspect of the definition from the International Zoning Code is the fact that they actually define what cycle of change on the sign constitutes flashing, and it's a period that's less than four seconds. If it exceeds four seconds before it changes, it is not a flashing sign. What we're requesting is you allow the sign to be erected with the electronic message board as part of the franchise sign. We're also requesting that the duration of the message be referred back to Staff to come up with a time period that would be acceptable. In the interim, the DRRS is scheduled to meet in January to address revisions to the sign ordinance. CVS is willing to participate in that exercise to clearly define what an acceptable_ rate would be so it could be spelled out in the ordinance. 0 Mr. Bob Moran, President of Holiday Signs, approached the podium. As a practical matter, CVS and commercial clients in general do not want Flashing signs. A more reasonable interval for change is six to ten seconds and that's what the CVS standard is. With a two minute interval, it's actually a distractive thing to a driver because people in general are trained to look for the next message. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if he feels that flashing or animated is not completely defined in the County's ordinance, how does this sign regulation from the International Zoning Code play into it. Does the County rely on or recognize this code. Mr. Cheran stated no, but if the code were to be changed, they would probably use that and what other localities use. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present to speak in favor of this appeal and no one responded. She asked if anyone is present to speak against the appeal and again, no one responded. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Discussion Chairman Catlett asked if it is possible that the sign can be erected without that portion of the sign being operational at this time, and then if the zoning ordinance changes in the future it could become operable. Mr. Moran responded yes, that's possible, but he asked that the message board be allowed to display a message. 0 Mr. Shenk asked Mr. Moran if he had run into this situation anywhere else in Virginia. Mr. Moran stated no, Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2005 Minute Book Page 1351 not where the sign is banned. Ms. Mather asked Mr. Cheran if the lighted portion of the sign only changed once every 12 or 24 hours, would that make a difference. Mr. Cheran responded no, it would not. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if, in his opinion, if it changes, it's considered in violation and Mr. Cheran responded yes. Mr. Rinker asked if the message stayed the same seven days a week, 365 days a year, would that be allowed and Mr. Cheran responded no. Mr. Cheran stated it also becomes an enforcement issue. The best way for this to happen is to get a text amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Petler pointed out that if this were a manual reader board, there's no prohibition about how often the message could be changed. Just because it's being done electronically is the reason this is being denied, apparently. Ms. Mather asked if they could vote on this in two parts to allow the sign to be erected but not allow the LED portion until the ordinance is changed. Mr. Cheran stated that he would be hesitant to issue a sign permit without the LED portion and once the permit has been issued, it gives them the right to do it. The Board Members discussed among themselves and with Mr. Cheran the possibility of allowing the sign to be erected without the LED board, and also with the LED board and the board only changing every two minutes. Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve the appeal and allow the sign permit and limit the repetition of the LED oard to two minutes. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 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 I n the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED Mr. Kirby gave the staff report. 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. 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 0hared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and, c) that the authorization f such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the character of the district will Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2005 Minute Book Page 1352 not be changed by the granting of the variance. 0 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 15x2- 2309(2). This request from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. Mr. Kirby directed the Board to the screen. showing them pictures ofthe property. The applicant is present. Mr. Wellington .tones, Engineer- Director of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, approached the podium and identified himself. Mr. Bill Minor, the Project Manager, is also present to answer any questions. Chairman Catlett asked how close the building closest to the eastern boundary would be to the adjacent house. Mr. Jones stated the house is owned by the Sanitation Authority, and it's probably 200'. The Sanitation Authority purchased that property a little over a year ago because they know at some time they're going to need it. Mr. Perry asked if the house is presently occupied and Mr. Jones stated yes, it's rented. Mr. Scott asked how large the service area is at this time and Mr. Jones responded the service area for this facility is basically from Hogue Run down to Stephens City, Route 277. Mr. Jones stated they're expanding the plant from 2.000,000 gallons a day to 5,000,000 gallons a day. Mr. Perry asked if they were to incorporate the two tracts of land into one, hypothetically, they wouldn't need We variance. Mr. Jones stated yes, that's probably the case; however, they don't know what regulations are going to come out that will effect this plant in the future so that's one of the reasons they want that extra land, to use for whatever additional processes that they have to meet. Mr. Cheran stated for the record that West Parkins Mill Road is going to be rc- aligned; that is on our road plan. If we wait on that for the Sanitation Authority, i f we kick the road to move a little more north to straighten it out, we wouldn't be here for the variance but obviously, as Mr. Jones has pointed out, he can't wait. Once that road gets aligned, he'll have the variance for what he needs but the BZA probably will not be seeing this anymore because he'd have enough land. Chairman Catlett stated that she initially had concerns about the residential property. but since she's leaned that it's owned by the County, her concerns aren't major. Mr. Cheran stated that even though the Sanitation Authority does own it, it doesn't relieve them from having proper buffers as the site plan comes through. Chairman Catlett asked ifthere is anyone else in favor of the variance who would to speak and there was no response. She asked if anyone opposed would like to speak and no one responded. Chairman Catlett closed the public hearing portion of the meeting Discussion Mr. Rinker stated that he was on the Board of Supervisors and sat on the Sanitation Authority Board when hat property was purchased and the plant was built. He doesn't know if that's a conflict of interest now to vote on but he will abstain from voting and further discussion at this point. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2005 Minute Book Page 1353 WMr. Perry made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed nimously. OTHER Chairman Catlett asked if there is any other business to come before the Board. Mr. Cheran stated that in the Board's agenda packet is an updated version of the Bylaws and they should be adopted at the first meeting in January 2006. Mr. Cheran asked the members to look this over before next month and if they have any changes, please let him know. As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Theresa B. Catlet . Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secreta& Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of December 20, 2005 Minute Book Page 1354