BZA 02-15-05 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 February 15, 2005.
PRESENT Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; Robert
Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Kevin Scott, Shawnee District; and, Dudley Rinker. Back
Creek District.
ABSENT: Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; Robert W. Wells, Member -At -Large
STAFF
PRESENT Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Bernard S. Suchicital, Zoning
Inspector; and, Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Catlett at 3:25 p.m.
JANUARY 18, 2005 MINUTES
9 .
On a motion by Mr. Rinker, the minutes for the January 18, 2005 meeting were
animously approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request 908 -04 of David Hicks, presented by Artz & Associates, for a 40 foot side yard
variance, on both sides. This property is located in the 2200 block of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), on
the west side. The subject property is identified with Property Identification Number 76A -1 -30 in the
Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION - VARIANCE APPROVED
Chairman Catlett stated that she will turn the meeting over to Vice Chairman Perry as
she needs to abstain from the two variance requests from David Hicks.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Cheran to present the staff report.
Mr. Cheran gave the background information. This application is for a variance for
property located in the 2200 block of Front Royal Pike in the Opequon Magisterial District. This property
is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the land use is vacant. The surrounding property is zoned RA and
RP (Residential Performance) and the land uses are vacant, residential and school. The applicant is
requesting a 40 foot side yard variance on both sides. This property was created in 1946 as noted by the
Wd and plats included in the agenda. Frederick County adopted a comprehensive zoning in 1967. The
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1269MinutesofFebruary15, 2005 Minute Book Page
Frederick County historical map shows this property was zoned A -2 in 1967. The property setback lines at
oadoption of the zoning ordinance were 3 feet from the front and 15 feet from the sides. Frederick
u ounty amended its Code in 1989 to change the A -1 and A -2 zoning districts to the current RA (Rural
Areas) zoning district. The current setbacks for a property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with
residential use are 60 feet front, 50 feet on the rear and sides.
Mr. Cheran further stated that the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2109(2) states that no
variance should be authorized by the Board unless it finds that (a) strict application of the Ordinance
would produce an undue hardship; (b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the
same zoning district and the same vicinity; and, (c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the character of the district will not be changed by the
granting of the variance. The applicant is seeking a variance of 40 feet on the sides of this property.
Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 60 feet from the front, 10
feet from the sides and 50 feet from the rear as noted in the plat submitted with the application. It appears
that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 152- 2309(2) and the request for a 40
foot variance from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district maybe justified. Should this variance be
granted, it will allow having the similar setbacks of the adjacent properties, with structures built prior to
the current zoning ordinance.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if the property owner has a set of house plans for this
particular lot.
As Mike Ariz of Ariz & Associates was not present, Mr. Eric Ertel approached the
dium on behalf of David Hicks. Mr. Ertel stated that he did not have the plans with him; Mr. Artz was
supposed to be in attendance and Mr. Ertel is not prepared to show the Board anything. However, Mr.
Ertel knows what the plan is; they are putting up a house that is basically 28 feet wide, two story, 900
square feet per floor. There would be two houses built as there are two lots in question.
Vice Chairman Perry questioned Mr. Ertel that if the planned house is only 28 feet wide,
they only need a 39 foot variance. Mr. Ertel stated they had not picked a plan, but that plan could fit on the
lot. so that is true.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone is present to speak in favor of this request and Mr.
Ertel stated that he is. No one else spoke in favor of the request. Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone is
present to speak against the variance. Mr. Phillip Summer approached the podium, stating that he is an
adjacent property owner. He stated that the applicant has already built two houses very similar to the ones
that were just described on adjacent lots that are much too close together. Mr. Summer's main concern is
that they're going to put two houses on one lot and there's nothing in the plans that show access in terms
of drive ways. Mr. Summer is assuming ifs off of Route 522 and there's no way to put a drive way in
there, and certainly not for two houses. Mr. Summer further stated that there was a dwelling on the
property that was demolished less than two months ago, and now it's still a property of asbestos and
insulation and the property owner and the builder have been adding to that pile. Mr. Summer and the co-
owner of the adjacent property object to the variance; they think it is way over - packed for the two
dwellings they're asking to be placed on this lot, especially in relationship to the surrounding properties.
r1
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1270
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Cheran if there could be two houses on the lot.
Mr. Cheran responded that Mr. Ertel spoke incorrectly; actually this is for one dwelling.
The following variance request that is to be heard today is the other lot in question. These are two lots
next to each other. Mr. Cheran stated for the record that there was a dwelling on this property and it
wouldn't meet the non - conforming use. There will not be two houses on this property, just one.
Mr. Summer slated he thinks that the existing lots, which are the same size on which
two houses were built, that the houses on the lots are too big for the size of the lots and the setbacks and
the request for the setbacks enhances that problem. Mr. Summer said they would appreciate it if the Board
does not grant the variance.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Cheran what is the requirement for access from Route
522. Mr. Cheran stated that currently the access for that property would be a drive way off of Route 522.
As shown on the map included in the agenda, the houses that are currently there do have access to Route
522 South. Those houses, some of them, were built prior to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Summer stated he believed that is not correct. He believes those houses, when
Route 522 was re- adjusted and reconfigured, were given access to what is now termed Calloway Court.
They all have drive ways coming off their properties onto there and they do not use Route 522 at all for
access. As a matter of fact, those drive ways that approach off of Route 522have been removed for the lots
that are adjacent here. Mr. Summer further stated that the two houses that are there are connected by a
0rvel, single car drive way, that runs out to Calloway Court,
Mr. Ertel once again approached the podium. He apologized and stated that he realizes
there are two different hearings for the two different lots. When it comes to access to this property, the
gentleman who builds the houses that are not question today, is a different applicant and a different
builder. Right now there is a paved drive way coming off of Route 522. It will be the intention to come
off that same drive way to feed into these lots. Mr. Ertel feels it is a confusing issue to bring the other two
houses that were built recently, as they are not part of this equation at all and they use a different access
road.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Ertel which lot has this access road that he's speaking
of. Mr. Ertel said it is the one that is the most southern lot, which is this variance request. Mr. Ertel further
stated that when it comes to the density of these lots, it looks like the gentleman who was arguing the point
of us getting the structure up here, is on a similar narrow lot that has a structure on it, too, so it goes with
the Flow of the rest of the structures that are there now.
Mr. Scott asked for the size of these lots again. Mr. Ertel stated they are right at 9,000
feet; they're 50 feet wide.
Vice Chairman Perry stated that it is his personal opinion that we should not do any
more than what is necessary, and he would not be in favor of granting a 40 foot variance if he only needs
0 leet. Vice Chairman Perry does not want to set a precedent. Mr. Ertel stated that they do not have the
use plans. If they are granted what they are requesting, they will find a house that will confine to those
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1271
restrictions. The neighboring lot was granted a 10 foot side yard and that's all they're asking for. Mr.
0 ~tel assumes that this Board granted it so the precedent has already been set.
Mr. Rinker stated that each variance stands on its own, it's not precedent setting.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if there were any other questions from the Board and there
were none. Vice Chairman Perry asked for a motion.
Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve this variance request, seconded by Mr. Scott. The vote was
unanimous.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #09 -04 of David Hicks, presented by Artz & Associates, for a 40 foot side
yard variance, on both sides. This property is located in the 2200 block of Front Royal Pike
Route 522), on the west side. The subject property is identified with Property Identification
Number 76A -1 -30 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION - VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting a 40 foot side yard
variance on both sides of this property located in the 2200 block of Route 522 South on the western side in
the Opequon Magisterial District. This property is zoned RA (Rural Area) and the land use is vacant. The
acent properties are all rural areas, except for the property on the west, which is RP (Residential
erformance). The land use is residential, vacant and school respectively. Mr. Cheran further stated the
reason for the variance is that the lot predates the current Zoning Ordinance with regards to RA setbacks
and prevents new structures to be built. This property was created in 1946 as noted by the deed and plats
included in the agenda. Frederick County adopted a comprehensive zoning in 1967. The Frederick
County historical map shows this property was zoned A -2 in 1967. The property setback lines at the
adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet from the front and 15 feet from the sides. Frederick County
amended its Code in 1989 to change the A -1 and A -2 zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas)
zoning districts. The current setbacks for a property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with residential
use are 60 feet front, 50 feet on the rear and sides. The applicant is seeking a 40 foot variance on the sides
of this property. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks will be 60 feet from the front, 10
from the sides and 50 from the rear, as noted on the plat in the agenda. It appears that this variance meets
the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2309(2) and the request for a 40 foot variance from the
current setbacks of the RA zoning district maybe justified. Should this variance be granted, it will allow
having the similar setbacks of the adjacent properties, with structures built prior to the current zoning
ordinance.
Vice Chairman Perry stated this appears to be a mirror of the previous variance request
and Mr. Cheran responded that is correct. Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone is present to speak in
favor of the variance request. Mr. Eric Ertel approached the podium. He stated this is a mirror application
of the previous lot. Mr. Ertel felt it was all covered well during the last request.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone is present to speak against the request. Again,
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page
1272
Mr. Phillip Summer approached the podium. Mr. Summer reiterated his objection, stating there are
eady two houses crowded on two lots of the same size and the Board just authorized a variance for a
rd one and now you're looking at a fourth one. Mr. Summer stated that Mr. Ertel misspoke; Mr.
Summer's lot is one half acre. Mr. Summer stated that it might be more important that the Board go and
take a look, or have somebody go and take a look, as to what's going on there on these particular lots and
how it's all laid out. Mr. Summer objects to the application.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if any Board members had any questions and there was no
response. Vice Chairman Perry asked if there was any discussion, and there was no response. Mr. Shenk
made a motion to approve the variance request, Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Vice Chairman Perry turned the meeting back over to Chairman Catlett.
PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal Application 401 -05 of Colleen McDonough, to appeal the decision ofthe Zoning Administrator
in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to adjoining property setback requirements. The
subject property is located at 162 Hopewell Road in Welltown Heights Subdivision, and is identified with
Property Identification Number 32 -5 -5 in the Stonewall District.
ACTION — APPEAL DENIED
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran for the staff report.
Mr. Cheran stated this is an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator
pertaining to adjoining setback requirements for property located at 162 Hopewell Road in Welltown
Heights Subdivision in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The land is zoned RA (Rural Area) and its land
use is residential. The adjoining properties are zoned RA and the land use is orchard and residential
respectively. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the adjoining property setback requirements. The
property was created in 1966 as noted by the deed and plats included with the agenda. The deed has
recorded plats that set the building restriction lines for lot 32 -5 -5 as 10 feet from the sides and 50 feet from
the front. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165 -4, Administration and Interpretation of the zoning
ordinance by the Zoning Administrator regarding the recorded deed and plat for setbacks and issuance of a
building permit for lot 32 -5 -5 of the Welltown Heights Subdivision. Mr. Cheran stated that for the record,
the applicant is here and also the property owner of the subject property is here.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if the applicant is not the property owner, and Mr.
Cheran responded that is correct, the applicant is not the owner.
Mr. Rinker stated he is confused that there is not a copy of the letter that went to the
applicant as to the Zoning Administrator's decision. He asked if the side setbacks need to be addressed.
Mr. Cheran stated that when the permit was applied for, sent in with the application,40 deed and plat showing it was recorded were attached. Staff hand- delivered the Zoning Administrator's
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1273
decision. Mr. Cheran apologized for not providing the Board with a copy of this letter. The decision of the
mng Administrator was through the application process of a building permit; the applicant submitted
pies of the Wel ltown Heights Subdivision created in 1966, prior to the zoning ordinance. As a recorded
deed and with the plats, you will note it talks about the setback requirements of that property being 10 feet,
and that is what the Zoning Administrator went on and issued the building permit. Since then, the
applicant is appealing that decision with reference to today's zoning ordinance.
Mr. Rinker stated that they are looking at it opposite from what they normally do, and
Mr. Cheran stated that would be correct.
Chairman Catlett stated, to set the record straight, if someone comes in with aplat that
does have setbacks identified on the plat, those remain in effect if zoning is later changed. Mr. Cheran
said yes, if it's prior to the zoning ordinance, that's correct. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran that in
lieu of that plat, he has gone on the deed for this entire subdivision. Mr. Cheran said that's right, and if
You read the deed with the plats that accompany it, it identities the lots and that is what the Zoning
Administrator went on when the permits were issued. Mr. Cheran further stated that commonly, the
current Zoning Administrator requires that we do site surveys regardless on non - conforming properties.
Mr. Rinker asked for further clarification. He said that the County is saying that the
setback is 10 feet from each side, and Mr. Cheran said that is correct. Mr. Rinker asked if the applicant is
saying that it shouldn't be 10 feet, but it should be today's zoning, which is 50 feet.
Chairman Catlett told the members to keep in mind that the applicant is not the owner
the property who is the applicant for the building permit.
Chairman Catlett asked if the applicant is here. Ms. McDonough approached the
podium and stated that she is the owner of the adjacent property. Ms. McDonough gave each member a
prepared presentation. Ms. McDonough stated that basically the purpose is to determine or verify the
following: that the Frederick County Zoning Administrator correctly determined the setback requirements
for the building of new homes on adjacent properties to her home in the rural area of Hopewell Road,
specifically lot 5; if the Zoning Commission actually has the authority to enforce deeds; where setback
requirements are not shown or illustrated on land plats, can the Zoning Administrator determine setbacks
based on language mentioned in a deed; to confirm that Welhown Heights is currently considered rural
area, even though it was parceled out or subdivided in 1967; to confirm setback requirements for RA areas
within subdivided parcels; to confirm that deeds are actually civil issues and not zoning issues; and, to
illustrate the adjacent properties which also have been approved at 10 foot setbacks, where the deed does
not have any mention of setbacks, for example lot B4. Ms. McDonough further stated that one of the
impacts of the approved 10 foot setbacks from the adjacent property line, with the house being so close to
the property line, is that the back two acres that she owns are currently land locked. The only way she can
get to that back two acres is to put a driveway on her property. Further impacts would be safety, potential
neighbor disputes, current and future 'financial impacts, future adjacent property development,
environmental impacts and no alternate drainfield location. Ms. McDonough asked the members to refer
to the photographs she provided them that illustrate the proximity of the new construction to the existing
property line. She stated that the photograph will show how close this new construction actually is to the
ppert line. Ms. McDonough referred the members to her diagram titled "New Driveway to exceed 320'Om road frontage". The diagram shows the new home and the approximate location of the drainfield. It
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1274
further shows where the future proposed drive way to get to the back two acres would be located. It needs
be located there; there isn't another alternate driveway location because of an existing drainfield serving
r house. To get back to her two acres, this is more than a 320 foot drive on an incline, so on a snowy
night coming off that back two acres within ten feet of that drive way will be the corner of his house. In
order to avoid any potential safety issues there, there's going to be a financial impact on her part to either
put fencing up, and other impacts like financial and neighborhood disputes.
Ms. McDonough has copies of all the deeds and they reference a 10 foot setback from the
sides, they don't mention the back or the front, and the plats do not show any setback requirements drawn
on them, so she's in doubt as to if the zoning was actually made correctly. Based on the fact that the
existing deeds for lots 5 and 8 do not show setback requirements on the original plat and the deed only
references two sides ofthe subject property, it's her concern that perhaps the Zoning Administrator has not
correctly enforced the zoning requirements for this area. It is also her understanding that at the time she
purchased her home, that this area was in an RA zone and that setback requirements would be 50 feet on
all three sides regardless of any grandfather clause or regardless of Welltown Heights subdivided parcels of
1966. Additionally, since lot B4 was also approved with a 10 foot setback where the deed nor the plat
indicates any setback requirements and since that lot which is currently under construction for a garage
should have actually met current RA setbacks of 50 feet, it raises doubt about the zoning approval for lot 5.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Mitchell, attorney for the BZA, which would have
precedence, a deed or a plat.
Mr. Mitchell said he hesitates to talk on something he hasn't been able to research. However,
seems to Mr. Mitchell that the interpretation is based on Section 165 -152 of the Zoning Ordinance,
which talks about legally non- conforming lots of record. So the current setbacks for the particular zoning
district in question are to be applied for all lots unless the most recently legally approved and recorded plat
of the property clearly depicts all appropriate terminology and numeric information for different setbacks.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Mitchell if what he is saying is that the plat supercedes the
deed and Mr. Mitchell responded that it seems to him that would be the case.
Mr. Cheran stated that world be the case, but with the plat running with the deed, that was the
determination of the Zoning Administrator because it was platted in 1966.
Mr. Mitchell stated if that is the issue, his opinion would be that the plat would control.
Vice Chairman Perry asked what if there were no setbacks denoted on the plat. Mr. Cheran
stated, on the plat, no; but running with the deed, it does call out those lots.
Mr. Rinker asked, if the deed and the plat are recorded together, aren't they
coupled together as two documents making one?
Mr. Mitchell stated that sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.
0 Mr. Cheran answered Mr. Rinker that in this case, yes, they did run with it.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1275MinutesofFebruary15, 2005 Minute Book Page
Mr. Mitchell stated that the County approves the plat, the County does not approve the
ached document, the deed.
Mr. Rinker said that the deed is taken from an approved plat.
Mr. Mitchell said that seems to be the issue here, as to whether or not the deed reflects what's
on the plat, or reflects more or different than what's on the plat.
Ms. McDonough said there's nothing on the plat.
Mr. Mitchell stated that's what the ordinance says, and the ordinance refers to the plat.
Chairman Catlett thanked Mr. Mitchell. Chairman Catlett stated that she feels it's important
that the Board recognizes that a number of issues were brought up by the applicant which this Board has
no control over, such as the land locked lot, the garage being built on B4, etc. The only thing that the
Board is here to do today is to determine whether the Zoning Administrator made the correct decision in
issuing the building permit for lot 5. She further stated that while the other issues may be important to the
applicant, they are not issues that are under the control of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Chairman Catlett asked if there is anyone else present who wanted to speak in favor of this
appeal and there was no response. Chairman Catlett then asked if anyone was present to speak against the
appeal.
0 Mr. Shifflett approached the podium and stated that he owns lot 5. He stated that Mr. Cheran
has pretty much laid out all the information. The deed does show a 10 foot setback on the sides and the
deed also does call for a 50 foot setback from the front. He submitted for and was issued a building permit
by Frederick County and at this point, the house is well along on this lot. I-[e did this based on doing the
research and checking the covenants of the subdivision and the covenants do read as spoken, 10 feet on the
sides and 50 feet from the front. The house is more than 10 feet; it's between approximately 16 and 17
feet at the closest point.
Chairman Catlett asked if there is anyone else present to speak on this appeal and there was
no response. Chairman Catlett closed the public portion of the hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Rinker had some comments about Ms. McDonough's issues. He stated that ItA covers a
large part of the County and this subdivision was put in before we had zoning requirements, so it's still in a
RA area even though it's more residential. As far as being here instead of Civil Court, this is the process
to get to Civil Court; the BZA is an intermediary before you get to that point. Concerning the drainfield, to
get the health permit they have to have a certain amount of reserve in that drainfield for expansion if
necessary. Concerning a future drive way, Mr. Rinker would hope that would he done on a right -of -way
on the other piece of property instead of the property we're talking about. And land locked lots are really
material to this consideration.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1276
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if he stated that the deed was recorded along with the plat
ahe subdivision, and Mr. Cheran responded that is correct. She further asked in any other plat that is
recorded today, if the deed is more restrictive, you would still go with the plat according to the RA
setbacks at this time. Mr. Cheran stated that is correct, and for the record, if it's today, because we do have
performance zoning, the Zoning Administrator would review all plats in the County that come through that
are applied for and if there's any issues, they're rejected and have to be re- submitted.
Mr. Mitchell stated that in review, it seems that the ordinance refers to what's on the plat. He
thinks that would control, but he would point out, this is before you want an appeal of an administrative
decision. If in fact different setbacks apply, and those setbacks would make the property unusable or
unbuildable and constitute a hardship, the owner of the property would be eligible for a variance.
Mr. Shenk made a motion to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Rinker
seconded the motion and it passed by a majority vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Application 402 -05 of High View One, L.L.C., to request variances of side yard setback
requirements for each of the following parcels: Identification Numbers 60A- 213-A -2 through 26, 28
through 30, 33 through 38; 60A- 1C -B -1 through 8, 10 through 16, 20 through 24, 27 through 35, 37
through 48; 60A -1 D -B -1, 6 through 9, 13, 18 through 29; 60A -1 E -B -1 through 25. Further, High View
One, L.L.C., requests a variance of the rear yard setback requirements for each of the following parcels:
46 entification Numbers 60A- 2B -A -2 through 26, 28 through 30, 33through 38; 60A -1 C -B -1 through 8,10
ough 16, 20 through 24, 27 through 35, 37 through 48; 60A -1 D -B -1, 6 through 9, 13, 18 through 29;
60A -1 E -B -1 through 25. These properties are located 7.5 miles west of Winchester in Highview Manor
Subdivision, on the northwest side of Wardensville Grade (Route 608) and south of Glen Ridge Road, in
the Back Creek Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Mitchell to step forward and give the Board members a history
on this application.
Mr. Mitchell stated that because this involves a bit of an unusual case with some legal history,
it is appropriate to go over that and put it on the record. This is a case of the approval of a 1962
subdivision that involved 170 some lots. Of course, that was before a Zoning Ordinance had even been
adopted in Frederick County, the first ordinance being adopted in 1967. Therefore, there were no zoning
ordinance setbacks that existed in 1962. Little development occurred in this subdivision in the 40 plus
years since the plat has been recorded. A few of the lots were sold, a few houses have been built upon. By
virtue of Section 165 -152 of the Zoning Ordinance, all of the lots are made lots which are legally non-
conforming lots of record; which means as legal lots they can be used and built upon in their configuration.
However, that same ordinance section says that those legally non - conforming lots, the current setbacks in
the ordinance apply. High View One, LLC, which is the applicant, purchased 100 plus lots in 2003 and
after doing that, it submitted to the County some proposed boundary line adjustment plats. The
bdivision Administrator ruled at that time that the current side and rear setbacks applied to the lots anddustbeshownontheplats. With respect to the front, this is a situation similar to the one talked about in
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1277
the last case in that the plats which were recorded in 1962 showed the front setbacks. Therefore, they are
116sted, but the front setbacks are established by the plat that was recorded in 1962. The 1962 plat did not
ow side yard setbacks or rear setbacks. Mr. Mitchell further stated that the Subdivision Administrator
said that current setbacks would apply and they had to be shown on these boundary line adjustments plats.
High View One contended that it had vested rights by virtue of the 1962 approved subdivision which
would preclude the application of current setbacks. In effect, it was saying that there weren't any side or
rear setbacks that could be applied to this property and the lots in this subdivision. High View One tiled
suit against the County on that vested rights issue, asking the Court to declare that High View One was
vested so as to preclude the application of the setbacks. While that case was pending, High View One
submitted to this Board of Zoning Appeals a blanket variance application which asked this Board to grant
blanket side and rear variances to all of the lots, asking for uniform 10 foot variances resulting in 10 foot
side setbacks and 25 foot rear setbacks. This Board denied that blanket variance application, finding there
was insufficient information submitted with respect to each individual lot for this Board to make a
determination as to each individual lot what variance was needed in order to alleviate a hardship. High
View One appealed that decision to the Circuit Court regarding the denial of that blanket variance
application. Upon hearing all the issues in the case, the Circuit Court ruled in the County's favor on both
issues. The Court found that on the vested rights issue, the High View One did not have vested rights so as
to preclude the application of current side and rear setbacks to the property. High View One has appealed
that ruling to the Supreme Court of Virginia and that case is now pending. On the appeal of the BZA
decision which denied the blanket variance application, the Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the BZA
and High View One has not appealed that decision. In the course of the proceedings in the Circuit Cocoa
on those two issues, it was recognized that the application of current setbacks to the lots as platted in 1962
would render the lots unbuildable and that High View One could be eligible for variances to alleviate that
0. rdship. It was also recognized that this represented an unusual situation because of the large number oflotswhichhavebeenrecognizedaslegalnon - conforming lots by the County. In response to these
circumstances and discussions with the Circuit Court, the County told the Circuit Court that if High View
One elected to apply again for variances, it could, as it had done before, submit a single application for all
the lots in the subdivision and since it was not practical to know the precise house plan that purchasers of
the lot would use for each lot, the applicant could file a variance application using a sample footprint for
each lot. The County further advised the Court that since the sample house footprint may not be in the
exact location that the ultimate purchaser would use, the ultimate house location could vary laterally just
so that any side yard variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in their total would not be
exceeded. High View One subsequently filed another variance application. The initial application which
they filed recently showed sample house footprints but did not show distances from the exterior walls of
the sample footprint to the exterior lot lines. It also asked for uniform variances throughout the
subdivision, not variances tailored to each specific lot. That application was not accepted for filing.
Subsequently, the applicant has revised its application to meet the applicable requirements as to what is
necessary and proper and required to be on the plat in order for this Board to be able to properly consider a
variance application. Given the house location as indicated by the sample house footprint, your analysis
for determining a variance is the same as in any other case. That is, the threshold question for you to
determine is whether or not the application of the current side and rear yard setbacks would render the lot
unbuildable or unusable, so as to constitute a hardship that meets the requirements of the ordinance in the
code. The side setbacks under the current ordinance for the RA district are 50 feet side and rear. These lots
being of the size they are, that would in effect render the lots to be unbuildable. If you make that initial
termination with respect to the lot, then your duty is to tailor a variance to alleviate the hardship, but
y enough to alleviate the hardship. Staff has put together for you and discussed this with you at your
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1278MinutesofFebruary15, 2005 Minute Book Page
last meeting, exhibits A 1 through A4 in which they've gone through and for each lot have taken a sample
ouse footprint to determine the distances to the side and rear property lines, to indicate for you what
ariance would be necessary to alleviate the hardship given that sample footprint. Mr. Mitchell further
stated that as sewage disposal systems have not been located on the property, it was impractical under the
circumstances to locate it on 100 plus lots prior to filing this application. Any variance that you would
grant with respect to these would be conditioned upon approval by the Virginia Department of Health of a
sewer system to serve each lot before the variances would apply. Mr. Mitchell feels it's important that the
Board and the public understand what the scope of what the BZA's authority is with respect to this matter.
What is before you is a variance application that involves only side and rear yard setback variances. If the
application meets the requirements of hardship, in other words that the application of the current setbacks
would render the lots unbuildable, then you must grant a variance to alleviate that hardship, and that is the
limit of your authority. The Board has no authority to say that this is too many houses in this area and
we're not going to approve it to keep you from building the houses. That's not within the scope of the
authority of this Board. You're only deciding what the rear and side setbacks would be in order to
alleviate the hardship if you find that hardship to exist. It should also be mentioned and noted that granting
these variances does not give ultimate approval for development of this property. There are still issues of
sewer systems to serve each individual lot that have to be approved; the building permit brings into play
the building code, land disturbance permits, drainage and things of that nature. Those are things that are
not before you. The sole thing before you is 1): does a hardship exist? And 2): what variances, if any,
should be granted in order to alleviate those hardships?
Vice Chairman Perry asked if anyone has run an average to see what the minimum
distance between two sample houses on two lots would be. Mr. Mitchell stated it was stipulated that the
nimum setback would have to be at least 10 feet, so it would be 20 feet. And that's if the 10 feet butted
against each other.
Mr. Rinker asked if there is a minimum rear setback. Mr. Mitchell stated that he did
not think there is any variance requested that would reduce the rear setback to less than 50 feet, except
maybe one or two lots. The only reason the variance is needed to get it down to 50 feet is because of the
rule that says that if the adjoining property is agricultural, the setback is 100 feet.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if the bottom line of this variance request as it's presented
would be simply to simplify the variance request process per lot. Mr. Mitchell responded that he thinks so,
but the analysis that you're using on this is not any different than the analysis that you use on any other
application.
Chairman Catlett asked for comments from the staff. Mr. Cheran read into the
record the following: The reason for this variance request is due to the fact that the current side and rear
setbacks render these existing parcels unusable. The current side and rear setbacks are significantly larger
than the side and rear setbacks that were in effect at the time of the creation of these lots. The effect of the
setbacks of the current zoning ordinance as applied without this variance would interfere with any
reasonable uses of the property as a whole. The property is located 7.5 miles west of Winchester in the
High View Manor Subdivision on the northeast side of Wardensville Grade (Route 608), in the Back
Creek Magisterial District. The properties are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the land use is
cant. The adjoining properties are zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the land use is vacant, agriculture and
dential respectively. The subdivision known as High View One was created in 1962, as noted by the
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1279MinutesofFebruary15, 2005 Minute Book Page
recorded deed and plat in the agenda. The recorded deed and plats do not have side and rear setback lines
ssigned to them. The current zoning ordinance for property in the RA zoning district abutting lots that ares
sidential use are 60 feet from the front, and 50 feet from the rear and sides. The ordinance requires a 100
foot setback from adjoining properties primarily used for agricultural purposes. The applicant is seeking a
variance of the current RA zoning requirements on the sides and rear of the properties on the four charts,
exhibits 1 A— 4A, shown in the agenda. It appears that this variance request meets the intent of the Code
of Virginia, Section 15.2 -2309 (2) due to the fact that it would be an undue hardship as a result of the
zoning ordinance requirements. Mr. Cheran stated that Mr. Thomas Lawson is representing the applicant
and the surveyor who set this up, Mr. Scott Marsh, are here to answer any questions.
Mr. Rinker stated that on the application, number I I — describe the variance sought —
the last lines state that the side yard will not be less than 30 feet total and reduce the rear setback to 25 feet.
Also. number 8 on block B, is down to 10 and he thinks the rest of them are 25 to 50, so we are in essence
doing rear setbacks as well. Mr. Cheran explained that some of the setbacks are for lots that are a little
different. For example, on lot 2 they're requesting a variance of 13 feet and the resulting setback is 37
feet, the right is 22 feet and the resulting would be 28 feet, the combined setbacks would be 35 feet.
They're not requesting any setbacks on some of the lots and some are going to be a little different.
Vice Chairman Perry asked if one or two of these lots or more become not eligible for
a building permit because of health permit reasons and the owners elected to make a boundary line
adjustment and take two lots side by side and make one lot out it, how would the variance then affect that
combined lot? Mr. Mitchell responded that the variances that you grant will only affect the lots in the
present configuration.
Mr. Ty Lawson approached the podium. Mr. Lawson stated to follow up on a couple
o the questions, and Scott Marsh can explain it better than he can about the sides, it's a composite and per
the agreement that was reached in front of Judge Prosser it's a sliding setback on the sides. The total is
approximately 30, but in response to Mr. Perry's question, under any circumstance it could get no smaller
than 20 from the adjoining house if you had the two tens together. And in response to Mr. Rinker's
question, Mr. Lawson is not sure that Mr. Rinker was reading from number 11, and he will tell you there
are several submissions as they worked with the County and the last one showed that it would reduce rear
setbacks to 25 feet. Some of the earlier drafts did show a 30 and as Scott Marsh worked through it, there
are some lots you just couldn't fit them in, and they made the correction to make it no fewer than 25 for
those specific lots and the charts should so reflect.
Mr. Lawson stated that he greatly appreciates Mr. Mitchell's history of this. There are a total
of 176 lots, with a total of nine houses already within the subdivision, and High View One owns 116 of
those lots. When the subdivision was approved in 1962, there was a deed of dedication that was submitted
with restrictive covenants that did have side and rear and front setbacks, but it only had in the plat the front
setbacks. There is a request in front of you for variances for only 114 tots, there are two that even with
reduced variances, we cannot get a house site on them. Mr. Lawson submitted to the Secretary for the
record transcripts from the various proceedings in front of Judge Prosser. Mr. Match was hired to work
with Staff to work with a plat and is here to explain why some rear setbacks are what they are. The whole
idea is to create a building envelope. The reason they can't be exact and the reason why the Judge thought
it wise to allow them to file as they have, is simply because they don't know what the prospective
chasers are going to want, where they're going to want these houses on the lots and the reason they
e representative squares of the dimensions of these homes, is you don't know where a bay is going to
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1280
have representative squares of the dimensions of these homes, is you don't know where a bay is going to
e, where a bump -out room is going to be and so on; but they're committing that it will no greater than X.
Whe Judge allowed them not to put the drainfields on the plats; obviously the amount of work and money
that would have gone into locating a drainfield only then to be told that you're not going to be granted a
variance, would be futile and very costly. Mr. Lawson stated that they agree with what Mr. Mr. Mitchell
said is what they're asking for is the variance to allow for a building envelope. Having said that,
everything from this point forward, assuming the variance is granted, would be subject to the building
permit process and everything that goes with it and certainly, the science of locating suitable drainfields
and that they be approved by the Health Department is recognized.
Mr. Scott Marsh approached the podium. Mr. Marsh stated that this is an interesting survey
problem only in the sense that we have to try to forecast for you in this application how they would put a
house on a lot. Their intent is to show the realistic house types that they can fit on a lot and define a space
and a setback and try to create minimums so that everyone is comfortable with those, but also something
that gives them the ability to do the design. It took quite a while to actually position what you see here.
The setbacks are controlled, particularly the rears, based on the use so if the adjacent land use is
agriculture, the setback is 100 feet. If the use of the adjacent land is residential, then the setback is 50 feet.
They tried in all cases to use the 50 foot margin and many of the lots, the use is residential, and that's why
on your chart, you'll see they're not asking for a rear setback. In the areas where the rear buts up to
agricultural land, that's where they're trying to get a variance to a 50 foot rear yard setback. The reason
item 11 addresses 25 foot rear is because he wanted to make it clear in the application that yes, there are a
few lots that 50 feet will not work. When these subdivisions were done in the 60's, they would do them in
sections and then they'd start re- numbering the lots over again as opposed to lot 1 through 116. It took a
0 of time to figure out how to put this chart together, how each lot fit and how the setbacks work so there
are some lots that they're asking to reduce the setback to 25 feet whereas it would be 50 feet based on
today's ordinance. There are some lots that are not buildable: lot I they're not asking for any variance at
all; and lot 37, they're not asking for a variance. Their intent is for the chart and the plat to be the
governing factor for this variance application. They derived the minimum of 30 feet combined side yard
setback from the current RA ordinance for two -acre lots. Even though these lots are smaller than two
acres, they felt like that is a distance they could live with, and when they start positioning the houses on
there, you'll see most of these will fit on a tot and the combination of the left and the right side is in excess
of 30. They've tried to be realistic about what they're asking for.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present to speak in favor of the variance request. No one
responded. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present to speak against the request.
Ms. Cybil Kraft approached the podium. Ms. Kraft stated that in 1962 these lots, about one
third of an acre each, were zoned recreational and back in 1990, they were changed to rural. The Board
previously made a decision that they were not going to give a variance on the total number of lots they
wanted to build on, that there were enough lots that they could combine to make a buildable lot. Route
608 is a narrow, curvy road and it will not uphold the extra traffic. Ms. Kraft feels that this property can be
built upon, but anything under two acres should not be allowed. They moved there 26 years ago and it's
been peaceful and quiet. Ms. Kraft feels that 116 lots are a lot for variance. Most of the lots there do not
perk and there is only one way in and out of the subdivision. Chairman Catlett stated that this Board is not
Oe to determine these issues. Ms. Kraft knows it's inevitable that the property will be built on and
eloped, but she thinks we should consider that this be done on a lot that is more than one third of an
Frederick Co. Board of "Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1281
acre.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present to speak against the request.
Mr. Louis Kenney approached the podium. Mr. Kenney stated that he is not for or against the
request, but he is against the blanket variance for all the lots.
Chairman Catlett asked if there is anyone else present to speak against the request.
Ms. Ethel Pasqual approached the podium. Her family has owned land there since the 60's.
Ms. Pasqual lives in Alexandria, but she went out to the site today. She's asking that we seek a
compromise because she has two lots, number 25 and 26, which are buildable lots. The ones adjacent to
her, number 24 and 27, are also buildable lots. Ms. Pasqual requests that they leave out the lots on either
side of her.
Vice Chairman Perry asked Mr. Mitchell, should they grant this variance would they be
within the spirit of the code concerning hardships on lots by doing it in a blanket situation as opposed to an
individual? Mr. Mitchell responded no, and he suggests that when the application came into you two years
ago, that was a blanket application because they were asking for across the board variances of 10 feet on
the side and 25 feet in the rear. This is not a blanket variance, although that's not a legal term, in the sense
the only thing different here is that it's all being presented to you at one time. You're looking at each lot
individually; it's not a blanket across the board.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present to speak against the request. Ms. Pasqual
asked what the setbacks are for her property and Mr. Cheran responded that the only setbacks in question
today are the ones being discussed in the High View One variance request. Mr. Mitchell told her that if
and when she builds on her lots, she will probably need to apply for a variance.
Mr. Rinker asked if the roads are state maintained. Mr. Cheran stated that he did not believe
these roads are not state maintained. Mr. Lawson stated that they are private parcels and are owned by
High View One.
Chairman Catlett stated that there have been a lot of points addressed and there is only so
much that's within the scope of the authority of this Board, which does not include the subdivision and the
size of the lots or perk permits. As Mr. Mitchell pointed out, the first question before us is to determine
whether or not a hardship exists for these lots which were approved in 1962 not being unbuildable if they
apply current zoning restrictions. If the Board decides this is the case, then the Board needs to decide
whether or not to approve these variance requests as have been detailed on exhibits Al through A4, for
each of these lots.
Mr. Rinker made the following motion in Appeal Application 02 -05:
Whereas, the High View subdivision plat was approved in 1962; and
Whereas 165 -152 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes legal non - conforming lot status on the
as platted on the 1962 subdivision plat; and
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1282MinutesofFebruagv15, 2005 Minute Book Pagee
Whereas, pursuant to § 165 -152 the front setbacks on the lots are vested by virtue of the front
tbacks having been shown on the 1962 subdivision plat; and
Whereas, the subdivision has been the subject of litigation in the Circuit Court of Frederick
County between the County and the owner, in which case the Court has ruled that the subdivision does not
have vested rights as to preclude the application of current side and rear setback regulations under the
Zoning Ordinance; and
Whereas, the Board finds that the application of the current side setback regulations for the
RA zoning district to each of the platted lots in the subdivision would interfere with all reasonable
beneficial use of the lot and meets the criteria of a hardship under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
and the Code of Virginia; and
Whereas, the Board finds that the application of the current rear setback regulations for the
RA zoning district to certain of the platted lots in the subdivision would interfere with all reasonable
beneficial use of such lots and meets the criteria of a hardship under the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance and the Code of Virginia as to such lots; and
Whereas, in the aforesaid litigation the County has advised the Court that in recognition of
the fact that the subdivision was approved in 1962 and that the applicant owns over one hundred lots in the
subdivision, the applicant may file a single variance application for all lots and may show on each lot a
footprint of a sample dwelling, and this application has been filed on that basis; and
Whereas, the Board having found that a hardship exists as to the application of current side
setback regulations for each of the platted lots in the subdivision and that a hardship exists as to the
application of current rear setback regulations for certain platted lots in the subdivision, the Board's duty is
to tailor variances so that variances are approved only to the extent necessary to alleviate the hardship with
respect to each lot.
Therefore, the Board hereby approves the side and rear setback variances for lots in
Block B. C, D and F of High View subdivision as set for on exhibits Al, A2, A3 and A4 respectively,
which exhibits are hereby made a part ofthis motion and shall be appended to the minutes ofthis meeting.
The variances hereby approved are expressly subject to the following conditions
and/or provisions:
1. The approval of the variances for each lot is conditioned upon the owner of the
lot obtaining, prior to the issuance of a building permit for a dwelling on the lot, Virginia Department of
Health approval of a sanitary sewer system to serve such lot.
2. The variances hereby approved for each lot shall apply only to the lot in the
configuration shown on the plat approved in 1962, and will not transfer to any subsequent consolidation,
boundary line adjustment, or other reconfiguration of the lot.
3. With respect to the side setback variances hereby granted for each lot, the
Oations of a dwelling on the lot may be varied from the sample dwelling footprint shown on the plats
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1283
locations of a dwelling on the lot may be varied from the sample dwelling footprint shown on the plats
bmitted with the application, provided that the total of the side setbacks for each lot shall not be less than
e Combined Resulting Side Setback for each such lot as shown on exhibits Al. A2, A3, and A4, and
provided, further, that in no event shall a side setback on any lot be less than ten (10) feet.
Mr. Perry seconded the motion and the variance requests were approved unanimously
as requested.
OTHER
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut off date for the next meeting. Mr. Cheran
responded that Friday, February 18, 2005 is the cut off.
Mr. Cheran stated that the Legislative Session in Richmond is looking at variances
again. "Cochran' is still the law of the land right now until the Legislative Session gets through, there may
be some variations to that. It looks like the section of the code is going to stay the same for hardships, but
there may be sonic tweaking that could happen in terms of cosmetics on structures. As soon as Mr. Cheran
receives the revised section, there will probably be a session with Mr. Mitchell to talk about it.
Chairman Catlett stated that she received a letter regarding Virginia Certified Board of
Zoning Appeals Program, with training to be from March 31 "to April 1"in Richmond. Chairman Catlett
0 .ted if anyone is interested, she has the particular information. Mr. Cheran encouraged new members
especially to attend this program.
As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting
adjourned at 5:10 p.m. by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Theresa B. Catlett, lChairinan
d V
Bev Dellinger, Secretary
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of February 15, 2005 Minute Book Page 1284
HIGH VIEW MANOR
TM 60A -2B -A
BLOCK B
LOT NO.LEFTSIDE LEFTSIDE RIGHTSIDE RIGHTSIDE COMBIN D REAR REAR
VARIANCE
REQUESTED
RESULTING
SETBACK
VARIANCE
REQUESTED
RESULTING
SETBACK
RESULTING SIDE
SETBACKS
VARIANCE
REQUESTED
RESULTING
SETBACK
2 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
3 15'35'34'16'49'n/a
4 35'15'11'39'46'n/a
5 10'40'20'30'30'n/a
6 10'40'20'30'30'n/a
7 10'40'20'30'30'n/a
8 30'20'10'40'40'40'10'
9 17'33'25'25'42'25'25'
10 12'38'22'28'34'n/a
11 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
12 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
13 23'27'14'36'37'n/a
14 20'30'10'40'30'n/a
15 30'20'11'39'61'25'25'
16 10'40'20'30'30'n/a
17 10'40'20'30'30'n/a
18 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
19 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
20 10'40'12'38'22'50'50'
21 23'27'12'38'35'50'50'
22 12'38'23'27'35'50'50'
23 13'37'22'28'35'50'50'
24 13'37'22'28'35'50'50'
25 13'37'22'28'35'50'50'
26 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
28 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
29 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
30 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
33 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
34 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
35 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
36 32'18'11'39'43'n/a
38 20'30'10'40'30'n/a
EXHIBIT "Al"
11
HIGH VIEW MANOR
TM 6OA -1 C -B
BLOCK C
LOT NO.LEFTSIDE LEFTSIDE RIGHTSIDE COMBINED REAR REAR
VARIANCE RESULTING RESULTING RESULTING SIDE VARIANCE RESULTING
REQUESTED SETBACK SETBACK SETBACKS REQUESTED SETBACKM22'1 24'26'37'37'25'25'
2 13'37'28'35'n/a
3 13'37'28'35'n/a
4 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
5 22'28'13'37'35'n/a
6 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
7 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
8 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
10 12'38'23'27'35'50'50'
11 12'38'23'27'35'50'50'
12 13'37'22'28'35'50'50'
13 12'38'23'27'35'50'50'
14 13'37'22'28'35'50'50'
15 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
16 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
20 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
21 13'37'28'35'n/a
22 13'37'28'35'n/a
23 12'38'E22'27'35'n/a
24 13'37'28'35'n/a
27 12'38'28'34'n/a
28 17'33'24'26'41'n/a
29 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
30 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
31 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
32 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
33 16'34'30'20'46'50'50'
34 12'38'24'26'36'50'50'
35 20'30'12'38'32'50'50'
37 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
38 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
40 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
41 20'30'10'40'30'50'50'
42 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
43 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
44 10'40'21'29'31'50'S0'
45 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
46 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
47 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
48 10'40'20'30'30'50'1 50'
EXHIBIT "A2"
HIGH VIEW MANOR
TM 6OA -1 D -B
BLOCK D
LOT NO.LEFTSIDE LEFTSIDE RIGHTSIDE RIGHTSIDE COMBINED REAR REAR
VARIANCE RESULTING VARIANCE RESULTING RESULTING SIDE VARIANCE RESULTING
REQUESTED SETBACK REQUESTED SETBACK SETBACKS REQUESTED SETBACK
1 20'30'39'21'59'n/a
6 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
7 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
8 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
9 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
13 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
18 22'28'13'37'35'n/a
19 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
20 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
21 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
22 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
23 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
24 23'27'12'38'35'n/a
25 10'40'21'29'31'n/a
26 11'39'21'29'32'n/a
27 22'28'12'38'34'n/a
28 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
29 30'20'10'49'40'n/a
EXHIBIT "A3"
HIGH VIEW MANOR
TM 60A -1E -B
BLOCK E
LOT NO.LEFTSIDE LEFTSIDE RIGHTSIDE RIGHTSIDE COMBINED REAR REAR
VARIANCE
REQUESTED
RESULTING
SETBACK
VARIANCE
REQUESTED
RESULTING
SETBACK
RESULTING SIDE
SETBACKS
VARIANCE
REQUESTED
RESULTING
SETBACK
1 50'n/a 20'30'30'n/a
2 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
3 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
4 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
5 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
6 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
7 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
8 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
9 22'28'13'37'35'n/a
10 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
11 20'30'40'10'60'n/a
12 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
13 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
14 13'37'22'28'35'n/a
15 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
16 23'27'12'38'35'n/a
17 12'38'23'27'35'n/a
18 19'31'21'29'40'n/a
19 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
20 10'40'20'30'30'50'50'
21 20'20'10'40'30'50'50'
22 12'38'22'28'34'50'50'
23 13'1 37'22'28'35'50'50'
24 12'38'23'27'35'50'50'
25 32'18'20'30'52'50'50'
EXHIBIT "A4"
n °e "o kd
R R
0
e °4 C'Y pf
4
3 • a k
n• ' ._ a as $
4a Z
8 t r Ate tr B
r•r S ° 5 a
a e _ r
F t ., o sa
1 2
F i. •
E ^
a
4 ° f C 5C
n a
a `
k 1 k • a b a
y -k 1 \ • '4
t '
5 a
n s
4
a
n ' S
s
eII 5
Y
F
Y n a 5
e
B _
8
e RY • R
F0
9 !5 5SA
MARSH & LEGGE 560 NORM I0u0UUN STREET WINCHES VIRGINIA 22901
Land Surveyors, P.LC.PHONE: (5A0) 067 -0466 FAX (560)004 -0409
EMAIL afflee6men5and legge. cam
e ;
I
FF
o f d w+ ^ 10r
O
9
ed a ' 8d 1
ye e
w.
a' opt, 6 e 4y / = sa S a
a a t •b ° e y A -,,, 1 a
y
f f 8 £
t
v
f
e9 r y a o O g
y ^ e
h • e
n
f <
t e Po
a
a °
e r a 8a g
99 a
Poe t a
x
MARSH & T PGGE 560 NOnH WUOOUN ST= WINCHESTER VIRGINIA 22501
Land Surveyors, P.LC. PHONE (540) 667 -0468 FAX (540) 667 -0469
EMAIL °vmr6mamhanm.5¢4.° °m
gIg
p ®fya
SAgR3Sp47
J
x
S '
Y ° o
F
a
r' k w
B° s!
k %
c a;
w
a {.
Bd` 9 s
a
a
9
O c a.
8
t
e .
9 • BB' B e
i
o
P ° BB 1
o
S
a
r Y
a °
ek
a d'
a i
t a
sa
6
a
MARSH & LEGGE 580 NORTH WUOOUN STREET WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22801
2nd Surveyors, P.LC.PHONES (540) 887 -0468 FAX (540) 887 -0486
EMAIL olfice®menh— di .... .em •.n°