BZA 06-21-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERI4,K %.OUN'1' Y BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL
T he Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
.June 21, 2005
3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
1) Determination of a Quorum
2) Minutes of May 17, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
3) Variance Request #16-05 of Stephen & Deborah Slaughter, for a 35 foot side variance
on each side and a 25 foot front and rear variance, for construction of a new home. This
property is located off of St. Clair Road (677) on Lake Serene Drive, and is identified with
Property Identification Number 31 B-1-23 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
4) Appeal Application #15-05 of Oak Hill Grocery, submitted by Thomas J. Chasler,
Esquire, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to legal non -conforming land use in the RA (Rural Areas)
District. The subject property is located at 2708 Berryville Pike, and is identified with
Property Identification Number 55-A-169 in the Red Bud District.
5) Other
FILE 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 May 17, 2005.
PRESENT: Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; Robert
Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Kevin Scott, Shawnee District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud District;
and, Robert W. Wells, Member -At -Large.
ABSENT: Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District
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.
On a motion by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mr. Shenk, the minutes for the April 19, 2005
meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut-off date for the June meeting. Mr. Cheran responded
Lhat Friday, May 20th, is the cut-off date.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #10-05 of Harry and Ruth Newman for a five foot left side yard variance. This
property is located at 115 Maverick Court, and is identified with Property Identification Number 76B-
1-3-160 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The applicant is requesting a five foot left side yard variance, and the
reason for this variance is because the existing basement steps extend into the side setback. The Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance requires a setback survey report for primary structures that are five feet or less from a setback.
Section 165-23H requires two location surveys be taken. As noted in your agenda, two surveys were done on this
property and on the application, the original building permit called for a 35 foot front, 25 foot rear, ten right and
left sides. The Zoning Administrator asked for those surveys; one being dated May 1, 2003 where the setbacks
were noted at 59.2 feet for the front, 60.8 feet on the back, 25.2 feet for the right, and 11 feet on the left. The final
was done on November 11, 2003, showing 57.9 feet on the front, 69.7 feet on the back, 24.8 feet on the right, and
11.1 feet on the left. Included with the agenda is a house location survey that shows the encroachment on the left
side.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1305
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 applicant should have
constructed the dwelling within the proposed setbacks indicated on the recorded plat and building permit. Since
the applicant did not situate the dwelling within the proposed setbacks consistent with the information submitted,
the subject setback violation and subsequent variance application resulted. The applicant's failure to accurately
construct the dwelling in accordance with the information submitted does not constitute a hardship. Therefore,
denial of this variance would be justified as the applicant has not met the requirements set forth in Section 15.2-
2309(2) of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Cheran directed Board members to the screen showing the property location. Also, the applicant
submitted photos of the basement steps and they're included with the agenda.
Mr. Perry asked if the steps were clearly indicated on the original drawings that were approved for the
building permit. Mr. Cheran responded that would be correct - when they did the review of the permit through the
building department. Mr. Perry stated that the basement stairs were not an afterthought, is that correct, and Mr.
Cheran responded that is correct. Mr. Cheran further stated that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Newman, did not
build the house; however, the property owner is responsible for what goes on with the property. Mr. Perry asked if
it was the builder's obligation to situate the house, including the basement steps, within the boundaries of the
setbacks, and Mr. Cheran replied that is correct.
Ms. Mather asked who the builder was and Mr. Cheran responded that Eagle Place Industries was the
contractor and owner at the time the permit was issued. Ms. Mather asked if they got a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Cheran responded that once the final inspection is done to allow the dwelling to be occupied that it's just a
sign -off of the Building Official, not the Zoning Administrator.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Harry Newman approached the podium and
identified himself. Mr. Newman stated that they do not dispute the violation of the Code. The house itself is well
beyond and within the Code, but he understands that the steps are an integral part of the dwelling and are in
violation. Mr. Newman further stated that he thinks there is decidedly some false information provided to the
Board by the Planning Office regarding this variance request, and he thinks these false statements may reflect
badly on the request. In the original letter to the Newmans dated February 28, 2005, it stated he came to our
property to inspect "in response to a complaint regarding the location of a set of basement steps located in the
required side yard setback". Mr. Newman said this is false; there was never a complaint at all in this regard. The
Newman's neighbor, Gary Shipp, was visiting the County Planning Office the week prior to inquire about a side
yard setback for his property because he was considering a garage extension. Mr. Beniamino pulled the plat for
reference and noticed the steps to our basement were encroaching on the ten foot side yard setback. It would
appear that no one from the Planning Office looked at the plat before it was filed. Additionally, Mr. and Mrs.
Shipp have provided a letter stating that they have no problem with the approval of this variance, and they are
present today. Also in the staff report, it states in the staff's conclusions, that the applicant should have
constructed the dwelling within the proposed setbacks. Mr. Newman's issue with that is, as Mr. Cheran explained,
he's referring to Mr. Newman, the applicant, as building the house and this is a new construction. Mr. and Mrs.
Newman did not build the steps. Further, it would be an undue hardship on us to have the steps relocated. Mr.
Newman said that throughout the construction and multiple County inspections, this violation was never noted.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1306
The walls of the steps are an integral part of the concrete basement. Therefore, the basis of the denial does not
seem to make a great deal of sense even considering that they, as the applicant, did not construct the steps. The
,mise of a no hardship argument appears to Mr. Newman to be invalid. As for the hardship, as retired people on
_.xed income, paying $9,500 to have steps relocated would definitely be a hardship, especially considering the fact
they did not construct the steps in the first place and the County did in fact grant the occupancy permit. Mr.
Newman feels they should not be made to pay for the mistakes of others, and it makes no sense to require that the
steps now be relocated. They have real concerns that attempting to seal the current entrance and move the steps to
another location would run a very high risk of a basement leak, and the risk of invading the structural integrity of
the basement wall at the new location for the steps. They understand the Board has specific criteria that an
application must meet before a variance can be granted. They feel they meet those criteria. If they are forced to
correct this violation and relocate the basement steps, it will in fact be an undue hardship. Clearly, they did not
cause the violation and requiring them to correct the issue now would be very costly. The approval of this
variance will not be a detriment to the adjacent property as reflected in the Shipp's letter and the character of the
district definitely will not be changed. They respectfully request the BZA grant this variance and allow them to
keep the basement steps in their current location.
Mr. Perry asked Mr. Newman if he'd had any conversations at all with Eagle Place Industries. Mr. Newman
responded that as soon as he got the letter he called them. Mr. Newman stated that Jim Gibson of Eagle Place was
quite concerned about this, but both of them were hoping that they could get a variance. Mr. Perry asked if Mr.
Gibson offered any kind of financial help and Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Gibson said they'd work something out
if they couldn't get a variance.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor of the variance and no one responded.
She then asked if anyone was present to speak against the variance and no one responded. The public hearing
)rtion of the meeting was closed. Chairman Catlett informed the applicant that one member of the Board is
absent today and Mr. Newman has the option of tabling the vote or proceeding. Mr. Newman stated that he
wished to proceed.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Mather asked Mr. Cheran what would happen to the homeowner if he did nothing. Mr. Cheran
responded that if the Board approves the variance, a letter is placed with the Building Department. If the variance
is denied, the Newmans have 30 days to appeal to the Circuit Court. Once the 30 days is up, on the 31" day, staff
will file criminal charges for setback violations.
Chairman Catlett stated that while the Board may sympathize with the cost of repair, she doesn't know if
that's considered a hardship under what this Board is given as parameters to work within. That the builder failed
to erect it within the required setbacks does not propose a hardship in the fact that a house could not have been
built on that property for residential use.
After discussion by Mr. Perry, Chairman Catlett, Ms. Mather and Mr. Scott with Mr. Cheran concerning the
dates of the survey reports, the fact that this violation is the builder's mistake, adherence to the Code of Virginia,
Section 15.2-2309(2), and boundary/set back lines in Canter Estates, Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve this
variance. Ms. Mather seconded the motion and it passed by majority vote.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1307
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #11-05 of John and Christina Dicks for an 18 foot front yard variance. This
property is located 581 Germany Road (Route 625). The subject property is identified with Property
Identification Number 73-A-89 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Suchicital gave the staff report. The applicants are requesting an 18 foot front yard variance in order to
replace an existing mobile home which is more than 30 years old, with a new one. The applicant is unable to
make a one-for-one replacement as required for a non -conforming use. 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. Should this variance be granted, the building setback for this property would be 42 feet in the
front and sides for this corner lot. The application of the current setback requirements of the RA zoning district
may produce an undue hardship due to the narrowness of the property. The granting of an 18 foot variance may be
justified.
Mr. Suchicital displayed pictures of the property and mobile home on the screen.
Mr. Perry asked if the new mobile home is going to go on the existing site as the old one, and Mr. Suchicital
responded yes.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to speak. Mr. John Dicks approached the podium and identified
himself. Mr. Dicks had made up and displayed a placard of pictures of the existing home and what the new
home looks like. Mr. Dicks stated that he can't do anything in his backyard because that's where the septic
system is. Mr. Dicks stated further that he's married and he's just trying to get something better than he has
now because it's 30 years old, it's falling apart, and it's not going to last much longer.
Mr. Jason Orndoff with Wampler Homes spoke in favor of the variance, explaining that the present mobile
home is too old to be replaced and that it's too far gone to repair.
Mr. Bob Lilly spoke in favor of the variance. He lives across the street from the Dicks family and believes
they are very nice. Also, they can't move the home back any further because the land just drops off.
Mrs. Joyce Dicks, mother of Mr. Dicks, spoke in favor of the variance.
Mr. Cheran pointed out that staff had received a fax from Joseph and Amanda Keaveney in favor of the
variance.
There was no one present to speak against the variance request. The public portion of the meeting was closed.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1308
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page
DISCUSSION
Mr. Scott made a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Perry seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal Application #12-05 of Donald Conrad, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in
the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-50, permitted uses in the RA
(Rural Areas) District. The subject property is located at 712 Dicks Hollow Road, and is identified
with Property Identification Number 41 -A -50A in the Gainesboro District.
ACTION — APPEAL DENIED
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The reason for the appeal is the applicant is appealing the decision of the
Zoning Administrator pertaining to permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district. The applicant was
cited for an illegal trucking operation. Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance prohibits the
operation of trucking in the RA district. Frederick County has traditionally and customarily allowed over -the -
road drivers to park one truck at their residence in the RA district. Trucking operations and parking of trucks are
allowed in the B3, M1 and M2 zoning districts. Furthermore, if the applicant feels that the Zoning Ordinance
needs to be changed to allow trucking in the RA district, it is not this Board that can accomplish any ordinance
changes but the Board of Supervisors. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in
the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-50, regarding truck operations in the
:A zoning district.
Mr. Cheran displayed an aerial photograph of the property on the screen.
Ms. Mather asked if the applicant personally has three trucks on the property and Mr. Cheran replied that is
correct.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Donald Conrad approached the podium and
identified himself. Mr. Conrad stated that it was just a fluke the day the person took the photo of three trucks.
The trucks are currently at their driver's location. Mr. Conrad stated he is asking permission for two trucks to be
parked on the property, one which is driven primarily and the other one that can be driven by his wife. He further
stated that they do not conduct any business whatsoever at the residence. They have had trucks parked in
industrial -type parks only to have them broken into. There is one truck in their driveway every day and he's
asking permission to park the second one there. Mr. Conrad stated that he has a rather large lot and one part of
the property is far away from anyone and he would be willing to improve that property just to have a vehicle sit
there.
Ms. Catlett asked Mr. Conrad if his wife has a license to drive these trucks also and he replied that she has
her learner's permit.
Mr. Scott asked Mr. Conrad how long he's lived and worked from the property. Mr. Conrad stated he has
ived there almost two years. He doesn't feel he conducts any business there; it's just a parking spot. He's been
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1309
in business for six years.
Mr. Wells asked Mr. Conrad how many trucks he currently owns and Mr. Conrad replied four trucks.
Mr. Scott asked how many acres is Mr. Conrad's property and he responded it's almost five and one half
acres.
There was no one else present to speak in favor of the appeal. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone was present
to speak against the appeal.
Ms. Joanne Hawkins approached the podium and identified herself. Ms. Hawkins stated that she lives on the
left side of Mr. Conrad. Ms. Hawkins addressed Mr. Conrad's statement about the asphalt driveway. He came to
her. Ms. Hawkins driveway was washing out from heavy rains and Mr. Conrad had extra asphalt that he used to
fix the driveway. Then he started using her driveway to bring his trucks up and make a u -turn to come into his
parking. There have been as many as four trucks there at one time, and in the past week as many as three. Ms.
Hawkins stated that Mr. Conrad is killing her. She has lived at this residence for 30 years and it's been quiet and
she's had no trouble with anybody but him. Ms. Hawkins stated she needs a heart transplant, she has congestive
heart failure, asthina, COPD, COAD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. When Mr. Conrad started his business,
Ms. Hawkins asked him if he would put his trucks on the other side of his house and he said no, he's using this
driveway. He starts his trucks any time in the morning from 4:45 and lets them run till 6:00, sometimes longer.
Mr. Conrad lives on the west side and she lives on the east side. The winds are constantly blowing her way. Her
bedroom window is 44 feet from his trucks and it fills her bedroom with diesel fuel. She can't take diesel fuel.
As well as the noise from the trucks, he has his drivers out there talking over the noise of the diesel trucks. She
has said something about it to Mr. Conrad, and he doesn't care. Ms. Hawkins called DEPORT in Richmond and
Mr. Conrad does not have a license to operate from his home.
Mr. Henry Boyce spoke against the appeal. He is the brother of Ms. Hawkins. The trucks fill Ms. Hawkins
house with diesel fuel fumes. Mr. Conrad could move his trucks eight feet and it would improve the situation.
Chairman Catlett closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Mather asked Mr. Cheran if there is anything in the ordinance that says where a truck can or cannot be
parked. Mr. Cheran stated no, as long as the vehicle is on the subject's property, he can park it wherever he wants
to because we don't have any regulations on that.
Mr. Scott asked if it was one truck per residence or one truck per resident. Mr. Cheran replied that the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not define that. The County looked at regulating over -the -road drivers
in the rural areas about seven years ago and it died in committee. It was decided then as an interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance, which is interpreted by the Zoning Administrator, that one vehicle per residence would be
allowed. The Zoning Ordinance does allow trucking operations in the B3, M1 and M2 zoning districts — they are
a by -right use there. Mr. Conrad may not be operating from this site but he is indeed operating a trucking
operation, so there can't be more than one truck on this site.
Mr. Perry stated that in the agenda there is a letter from the applicant, on his letterhead indicating 712 Dicks
Hollow Road as his address. Could it be construed that someone that had their address on their letterhead would
indicate that's their place of business? Mr. Cheran replied that's how he would see it.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1310
Mr. Perry also asked, depending on whether the Board upholds or denies the appeal, who on a day-to-day
basis is going to police this piece of property? Mr. Cheran stated that he's sure the neighbor is going to be calling
is office every day when there's more than one truck there. Mr. Cheran further stated that there is a letter in the
agenda from Mr. Hawkins opposing this appeal. Mr. Cheran stated that we would have to go out and verify it.
Mr. Perry asked what would be the next consequence if he has more than one truck there and Mr. Cheran said he
would be cited and then we would take criminal actions against him.
Mr. Wells asked if Mr. Cheran is talking about overnight parking. Mr. Cheran stated this is done on a
complaint basis and we'd have to follow up. Mr. Cheran wouldn't send someone out there just because someone
stopped for 15 minutes and left. Mr. Cheran further stated that the other issue would be is this business a
permitted use, in parking and operation, and it is not a permitted use there.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone who drives a truck, whether they own it or not, is allowed to take it home
and park it at their residence and Mr. Cheran replied yes. Chairman Catlett asked if Mrs. Conrad drove a truck
for someone else and brought it home at night, would that be allowed. Mr. Cheran stated we would interpret that
as a violation.
Ms. Mather stated she is not interested in shutting down a small business but on the other hand, just by the
way the houses sit, it doesn't look like it's a good idea to have trucks that close to somebody else's house.
Mrs. Cynthia Conrad approached the podium. She said when they met with the Zoning Administrator, they
offered to improve part of their lot in order to park the truck away from the neighbor. They are just asking for
permission to park another truck on their property if the need arises.
Chairman Catlett stated they are here to either uphold or not the decision of the Zoning Administrator and it
is not within the authority of this Board to make exceptions to the zoning. That would have to be done by the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Perry made a motion to affirm the Zoning Administrator's decision. Ms. Mather seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #13-05 of All Imports & More, LLC for a front variance of six inches and a left side
variance of six inches. This property is located in Canter Estates, Section 3, Phase I, Lot 228,
Clydesdale Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number 765-1-3-228 in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The staff report states that the variance requested is one foot, six inches
and that is incorrect. The variance is for six inches front and left sides, to correct violations of the building
setbacks. The applicant had purchased the property to finish construction to the existing dwelling. The
dwelling was in violation of the setback requirements when the applicant purchased it. Repairs and
corrections were required by the Building Department and these repairs were completed, which resulted in
the setback violation.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17; 2005 Minute Book Page 1311
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. Granting of this variance may be
appropriate. There is no substantial detriment to any of the adjoining properties or character of this zoning
district.
Mr. Cheran displayed photographs of the dwelling on the screen. He explained that a permit was
pulled for this property by a contractor that went bankrupt, a site survey wasn't done and the walls weren't
properly put in. The Zoning Administrator at that time did not sign off on the building permit to make this
correction. The applicant tried to fix the house and now cannot get a C.O. to get into the house. This is a
unique situation because the original permit pulled by a different contractor, other than the applicant, started
the ball rolling on this one.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to come forward. Ms. Rita Wilson approached the podium and
identified herself. Ms. Wilson stated that they did try to do a boundary line adjustinent with a neighbor. He
was in agreement with it, but he was hoping this could be solved with a variance.
There was no one else present to speak for the variance and no one present to speak against the
variance. Chairman Catlett closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
DISCUSISON
Ms. Mather stated that she needs to abstain from the vote.
Mr. Wells made a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed by a
majority vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #14-05 of Paul Huber, for a 39 foot right yard variance and a 39 foot left
yard variance. This property is located on the eastern side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522)
approximately 0.1 miles south of the intersection of Front Royal Pike and Vine Lane (Route
850), and is identified with Property Identification Number 64D-4-5 in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Suchicital gave the staff report. This property was created in 1959, prior to Frederick County
adopting performance zoning. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in 1967; the historical zoning
map shows the property was A2 (Agricultural General) in 1967. The property setback lines at the adoption
of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet front and 15 feet sides. Frederick County amended its Code in 1989 to
change the rural zoning district to the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning district. The current setbacks for the
property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with residential use are 60 feet front and 50 feet rear and
sides.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1312
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. Should this variance be granted,
the building setbacks for this tnrnrn,Prty wniild hp. T5 fPPt frnnt 1 1 fPPt cirlPe nnrl 5(1 feet rear. The ar hcatlon
—.Fill
of the current setback requirements of the RA zoning district may produce an undue hardship due to the
narrowness of the property. The granting of the 39 foot variance maybe justified.
Mr. Suchicital displayed photographs of the property on the screen.
Mr. Perry asked if the dwelling.would be consistent with other homes in the area, if the variance is
approved. Mr. Cheran responded it is to a point.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Paul Huber of Classic Contractors, Inc.,
approached the podium and identified himself. Mr. Huber has a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Fox to build a
home on this property. After signing the contract, they realized that the way it was zoned, it's got a 50 foot
setback on each side and the lot is 90 feet wide.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Huber the square footage of the house and Mr. Huber replied 2,000
square feet.
Mr. Wells stated that he has seen the property that Mr. Huber is talking about and the 2,000 square
foot house, he believes, would fit in that residential neighborhood and not be obtrusive to any of the other
houses.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present to speak in favor of this variance request. Mrs.
Elwood Fox approached the podium, owner with her husband, of the lot. These lots were purchased in 1967
as an investment. The Foxes house is built on another lot close to the lot in question and all the houses are
built on the same sized lot.
There was no one else present to speak in favor of the request. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is
present to speak against the variance.
Mr. William Braithwaite approached the podium and identified himself as an adjoining owner. Mr.
Braithwaite stated that on the variance he did not have any objections, but he does have an unanswered
question. Mr. Braithwaite stated that this subdivision has a natural drain and he was wondering how they
were going to work that around. If the water backs up, it will be detrimental to his house.
Mr. Cheran responded when the building permit would come through, the Public Works Department
would probably take a look at that issue to determine if the property owner would have to do any changing of
drainage.
Mr. Wells told Mr. Braithwaite that he thinks what he'll find is that drainage problems, those types of
situations whenever you have a vacant lot, you'll see that a lot in many subdivisions. Prior to a house being
constructed there, that has to be addressed and approved by the County so that no other neighbor is imposed
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1313
upon by drainage problems.
There was no one present to speak against the variance request. Chairman Catlett closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. Perry seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
OTHER
Mr. Cheran commented on the Writ of Certiorari copies that staff had distributed to the Board
members. This document concerns Deborah R. Dorman Dutcher, Michael M. Artz and Artz and
Associates, P.L.C. vs. Board of Zoning Appeals, et. al.
As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 5:15
p.m. by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Theresa B. Catlett, Chairman
Bev Dellinger, Secretary
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1314
VARIANCE APPLICATION #16-05
STEPHEN & DEBORAH SLAUGHTER
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: June 10, 2005
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Board
of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to
others interested in this zoning matter.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE:
June 21, 2005 - Action Pending
LOCATION: Lake Serene Drive
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBERN: 31B-1-23
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas)
South: RA (Rural Areas)
East: RA (Rural Areas)
West: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Lake Front
Use: Road
Use: Residential
Use: Vacant
VARIANCE REQUESTED: 35 foot side variance on each side and 25 foot front and rear
variance for construction of a new home. (Resulting in a 15' side yard setback and 25' rear
setback, and 35' front setback)
REASON FOR VARIANCE: Lot is exceptionally narrow and will need variance to construct
normal sized home.
Variance Request #16-05, Stephen & Deborah Slaughter
June 10, 2005
Page 2
STAFF COMMENTS: Research of Frederick County records note this property was created in
1972. Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows
this property was zoned A-1 (Agricultural Limited) in 1972. The property setback lines at the
adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35'front and 15'sides. Frederick County amended its Code in
1989 to change the rural zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning district. The current
setbacks for property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with residential use are: 60'front, 50'rear
and 50' sides.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE JUNE 21, 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 35'on side yards, 25' front and rear on this property. Should
this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be: 35' front; l 5'sides, and 25'
rear. 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-
s6d�
N
U)
7�
m U)
,PC-
Pt �y
aw
m
.e
e
0
x
>NbSNsyN
vo
N8�Z8[S N�ly�
8[g nb�s
Ir
[ 8[s NyWeN88
bb[y1N.(o�Wabr�
[t [ 8[ENbWoN88
31B 1 20
BERGMAN, JAY M & CYNTHIA A
z
g1 IR- `NG
v0se
m
O
m
aw
m
*k
LU
co
x
N
N
L
L
CO
O
m
o
N
*k
M
+�
N
N
�
0
N '
Cl
o
N olf
C m
Li
(DoZSM
L
U
C
�
(u
L—
(C5
Q
o
N
a
MAY 2 0 2005
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
IN THE f
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, V-IRG17 TIA
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)
NAME: Stephen R. Slaughter NAME:
Deborah J. Slaughter
ADDRESS 312 Handley Blvd ADDRESS:
Winchester, VA 22601
TELEPHONE: 540-667-6827 TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers):
From Winchester, take Route 522 North. Turn right on Cedar
Grove Rd. (654). Go approximately 2 miles. Turn left on St.
Clair Rd (677). Turn left on Lake Serene Drive. Turn right
immediately. ,cross dam. Top of hill, 1st lot on left past
1st house. See activity.
4. The property has a road frontage of 12 7 +/ - feet and a depth of 4 5 0 +/--feet
and consists of 1.3 acres (please be exact).
Page 5 of 9
5. The ro rtyisownedby Stephen R. & Deborah J. Slaughteas evidenced
by dee,FSoi i Kathleen &Helen Anderson recorded (previous owner) in deed book
no. 416 on page -68 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for
Frederick Co,..n*y. Piewse attach a copy of the recorded. deed.
6. Magisterial District: G a i n e s b o r o
7. Property Identification No.: 31B-1-23
8. The existing zoning of the property is: Ceiw
9. The existing use of the property is:
10. Adjoining Property:
USE
North Lake Front
East Jones Residence
South Road
ZONING
,A,
West Vacant Lot. Next lot-
Bergmans residence
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.")
35 ft. side variance on each side and 25 ft front and rear
variance for construction of neva home.
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
Lot is exceptionally narrow. Will -weed variance to
construct normal sized home. jS C� C� .SLA3d4,_S t 1-�
,("72
U
vV J/
Page 6 of 9
13. Additional comments, if any: My wife and I have owned the lot for
21 years. We have paid real estate taxes and Association
dues for this time period. We now plan to build our dream
home and ome part of the existing Lake Serene community.
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:
h/\u 101
Jones, Wellington & Susan
Address 299
Lake Serene Drive Winchester VA
Property ID # 31B-1-24 2Z t'-�
Bergman, Jay & Cindy
Address 251
Lake Serene
Drive, Winchester, VA 22603
Property ID # 31B-1-21
Address2 E ��7` 6i
�
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Page 7 of 9
15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing).
Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements
to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please
include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application.
Page 8 of 9
AGREEMENT
VARIANCE # /6 -65 -
(Number
6-65'(Number to be assigned by the Planning Dept)
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 hearing 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 infonnation contained herein are, to the best
of my knowledge, true.
SIGNA
DATE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER h-4 DATE
(if other than applicant)
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF �� ACTION:
-- DATE -
APPROVAL SIGNED:
BZA CHAIRMAN
DENIAL DATE:
Page 9 of 9
%
U)
>
r -
En
SLAUGHTER RESIDENCE
M2
A -hi .......
HOUSE ON LAKE SERENE
Design
c
19 West Cork Street. �j
Wi,,h,,t,,, Virginia 22601 F� (540) 722-7248
Z >FFM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
z'
c
4-
%
U)
>
r -
En
SLAUGHTER RESIDENCE
M2
A -hi .......
HOUSE ON LAKE SERENE
Design
c
19 West Cork Street. �j
Wi,,h,,t,,, Virginia 22601 F� (540) 722-7248
Z >FFM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
�
n
Y
�
�
S
�
C
M
�
Z
4lo�c _` cod
APPEAL APPLICATION #15-05
w �a OAK HILL GROCERY, INC.
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
w Prepared: June 9, 2005
a Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Board of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be
useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE:
June 21, 2005 - Pending
LOCATION: The property is located at 2708 Berryville Pike
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud
PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 55-A-169
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zone: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Miscellaneous Retail (Country Store)
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Zone: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
Zone: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
Zone: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
Zone: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to legal non -conforming land use in the RA (Rural Areas)
District.
REASON FOR APPEAL: Applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator
pertaining to non -conforming land uses in the RA District. The applicant contends that the store has
not exceeded the ordinance requirement allowing a non -conforming use to expand fifty (50%)
percent of the original store square footage.
Appeal Application #15-05, Oak Hill Grocery, Inc.
June 9, 2005
Page 2
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator
regarding expansion of this non -conforming use to add individual viewing booths associated with
adult-oriented videos. This property currently operates miscellaneous retail sales, adult-oriented
videos, and novelties. The RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District generally does not allow these types of
businesses; research of County records indicates that the current business functions existed prior to
the adoption of the applicable zoning regulations that would have prohibited this current use.
Therefore, this business constitutes a legal non -conforming land use. The adult-oriented videos and
novelties function of the existing store is not permitted to expand beyond its current floor area. Any
expansion from the current floor area devoted to adult-oriented videos, novelties, and or adding
viewing booths, will not be allowed.
This proposed expansion is beyond what the ordinance allows of fifty (50%) percent (165-151 (c)).
Staff research has concluded that the original structure was used as a store (2"d level) and a residence
(lst level). The 2nd level is approximately 1,000 sq. ft. in area. Therefore, the fifty (50%) percent,
that is allowed by Section 165-151 would limit the storage on the lower level to 500 sq. ft as
presently used.
The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance has allowed country general stores in the RA Zoning
District since the adopted zoning in 1967. The ordinance clearly defines country stores to sell
groceries and a variety of retail goods. This definition does not include adult video viewing booths
for private viewing. The 1967 and current definition of country store are included in your
agenda.(Exhibit #1 & #2) Adult-oriented businesses are allowed in the B-2 (General Business)
Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Should the owner want to expand this use on
the property, a request to rezone the property to the B-2 (General Business) Zoning District with a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be appropriate.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MAY 17, 2005 MEETING: Staff is requesting to affirm the
decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance regarding legal non -conforming land use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, that
this expansion to add private video booths for adult-oriented videos is not allowed in the RA Zoning
District.
§ 165-150 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-151
§ 165-150. Reestablishing discontinued legally nonconforming use
Any use that was legally nonconforming under the provisions of this article
and that was discontinued due to abandonment may be reestablished by
obtaining a conditional use permit. Such conditional use permit shall be granted
only for a use that is of equal or lesser nonconformity than the original use in
relation to intensity, type of use, dimensional requirements or other
requirements. Such requests to reestablish an abandoned use shall be
considered following the procedures for conditional use permits in this chapter.
§ 165-151. Expansion and modifications.
A. Legally nonconforming uses, structures, and signs listed below may
not expand. These uses and structures may be modified if the result
decreases the degree of nonconformity.
(1) Landfills.
(2) Junkyards_
(3) Trash heaps.
(4) Automobile graveyards.
(5) Signs.
B. Legally nonconforming uses listed below may expand or modify one
time if the expansion or modification does not increase the degree of
nonconformity and does not expand beyond 3,500 square feet or
50%, whichever is less. Measurements shall be based on gross floor
area for structures and total land area for uses.
(1) Parking lots.
(2) Driveways.
(3) Loading areas.
(4) Outdoor storage and processing areas.
(5) Outdoor display areas.
C. All legally nonconforming uses and structures not specified in
§165-151A or §165-151B may expand or modify one time if the
expansion or modification does not increase the degree of
nonconformity, and does not result in an overall expansion of more
than 2,000 square feet or 50%. Measurements shall be based on
16682 9-20-2002
§ 165-151 ZONING § 165-153
gross floor area for structures and total land area for uses. Legally
nonconfnrminn racir P.ntiaf -tri icti ires may expand beyond 2,000
square feet or 50% if the expansion or modification does not increase
the degree of nonconformity. The Zoning Administrator may allow the
expansion of legally nonconforming structures and the construction of
new structures with the same setback of the existing legally
nonconforming structure, provided that all other conditions of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are met.
D. Whenever a nonconforming use is changed to another use, it shall
only be changed to a use that is of equal or less nonconformity in
terms of the type or intensity of the use.
E. A legally nonconforming use or structure that is located within the
floodplain districts may be expanded one time, provided that they
meet the conditions set forth in this article as well as Article XV,
§ 165-116, of this chapter.
§ 165-152. Legally nonconforming lots of record.
Any lot of record at the time of the adoption of this chapter, which is less in
area or frontage than the requirements of this chapter, may be used for uses
allowed by this chapter when yard and setback requirements are met. The
current setbacks for the particular Zoning District in question are to be applied
for all lots, unless the most recent legally approved and recorded plat of the
property clearly depicts all appropriate terminology and numeric information for
different setbacks.
§ 165-153. Restoration or replacement.
If a legally nonconforming use or structure is destroyed or damaged in any
manner, it may be repaired or restored, provided any such repair or restoration
is completed within 12 months from the date the legally nonconforming use or
structure was destroyed or damaged. The Planning Commission may approve
a waiver to allow an extension up to 18 months from the date the legally
nonconforming use or structure was destroyed or damaged if requested by the
owner. All legally nonconforming signs that are destroyed or damaged in any
manner may be repaired or restored only if all work is completed within six
months from the date the legally nonconforming sign was destroyed or
damaged.
16683 9-20-2002
Article 16. Definitions
EXHIBIT 1
area of one hundred (100) square
Leet or more Lying witnin one tnousand (1, 000) feet of a State highway,
a residence, a dairy barn asteoor od scrapimaterial is dumped orwhere
depositec
trash, garbage or other w
,L-„+ be;,,a covered by a sanitary fill.
16-25. FAMILY: One or more persons occupying a premises and living in
oup
a single dwelling unit, aslslodging house, ttinourist home orguished froan unrelated rhotel.
occupying a boarding house,
16-26. FRONTAGE: The minimum width of a lot measured frm shallside
lot line to the other along a straight line on which no point
farther away from the street upon which the lot fronts than the build-
ing setback line as defined and required herein,
PRIVATE: Accessory building designed or used for the
16-27. GARAGE,
storage of not more than three (3) automobiles owned and used by
the occupants of the building to which it
sprivate garageOn a lot
may be
occupied by a multiple -unit dwelling, (1-1/Z) times
designed and used for the storage of one and one-half
as many automobiles as there are dwelling units.
16-34
16-3.'
16-3
16-_
PUBLIC: A building or portion thereof, other than a
16 -28. GARAGE, equipping,
private garage, designed or used for servicing, repairing,
renting, selling, or storing motor -driven vehicles.
GENERAL STORE, COUNTRY: A single store, the ground floor
16-29. 000) square feet or less and which
area of which is four thousand (4,
offers for sale primarily, of t of the led foods and drinks, ks, tobaccoeprdoducts,
milk, cheese, canned and bottled
and magazines, and general hardware articles. Gaso-
candy, papers
line may also be offered for sale, but only as a secondary activity o
a country general store.
golf course, publicly or privately owned,
on
16-30. GOLF COURSE: Any g
which the game of golf is played, including accessory uses and buil -
ins customary thereto, but excluding golf driving ranges as defined
g
herein.
players
1, GOLF DRIVING RANGE: A limited alis frea on w
rom a cech ntral driving do not
16-31. golf b
walk, but onto which they drive g
16-32. GOVERNING BODY: The governing body of Frederick County,
Virginia.
GUEST ROOM: A room which is intended, arranged or designed to
16-33. b one or more guests paying
be occupied, or which is occupied, Y provision
direct or indirect compensation itorieseareoex cuded.in which no p
is made for cooking.
- 40 -
16 -
16
li
EXHIBIT 2
§ 165-156 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-156
CONICAL SURFACE — A surface extending horizontally 20 feet for
every one foot vertically from the periphery of the horizontal surface.
CONTIGUOUS — Next to, abutting, or touching and having a
boundary, or portion thereof, that is coterminous. [Added 9-12-2001]
CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE OR SITE —A structure or site within an
HA District, at least 50 years of age, which possesses historical,
architectural or cultural significance and has not been physically altered
enough to substantially detract from its historical integrity. In addition,
structures or sites at least 50 years of age which might not possess
significant merit when considered alone may be considered
contributing if they have significance relative to their patterns of
development and/or their relationships with landmarks, buildings,
structures or sites determined to be of historical, cultural and/or
architectural significance.
CONVALESCENT AND NURSING HOMES — An extended- or
intermediate -care facility licensed or approved to provide full-time
convalescent or chronic care to individuals who, by reason of
advanced age, chronic illness or infirmity, are unable to care for
themselves.
COTTAGE OCCUPATION — An occupation or profession customarily
carried on in a dwelling unit or an accessory building, which:
A. Actually is carried on wholly within the principal residential
building or an accessory building or structure;
B. Is carried on by no more than one person other than members of
the family residing on the premises; and
C. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit
for residential purposes.
COUNTRY GENERAL STORE — A retail business allowed where
specified in the rural zoning districts which sells groceries along with a
variety of other retail goods.
DAIRY — A commercial establishment for the manufacture and sale of
dairy products.
DAY-CARE FACILITY — A facility in which more than five children, not
including children who are related by blood, marriage or adoption to
16692 10-25-2001 is
i v
? ti
i
¢,
W
l Q u�
U �
O
LU
Q Q
.._��..�. m t
J S31 b/�pSS y =
99, gp%y
gs g�)g
� � o
LO a o
O i ^
U
�lppSNb/ Lf7 O Cfl
b09/
Co = i `� Li
LO
i Q L
O LO
N
O
W
O
m J
`r otf
l�J J
Q z W
Lo
LLi
� z
U
Q 3
N b
W
~ b
W
Q $ rc
Q W
C �
L
N �
W
J �
� m U
C7
to Q
co
CO
�W S31bI�pSSb
_ i� �tiLl 3JOR13�78 \\ _ �y
r.
L
a
C)
o�
LL
L
Q
O
'-'
LO
N
0
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
CERTIFIED MAIL
April 19, 2005
Thomas J. Chasler
203 E. Boscawen Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Zoning Determination 2708 Berryville Pike (Oak Hill Grocery)
Property Identification Number (s) (PIA): 55-A-169
Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas)
Dear Mr. Chasler:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated April 5, 2005 to the Zoning Administrator
requesting a zoning determination on the above -referenced property. In the correspondence, you
indicated the owner would like to expand this non -conforming use to add individual viewing booths
associated with the adult-oriented videos. This property currently operates miscellaneous retail sales,
adult-oriented videos, and novelties. The RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District generally does not allow
these types of businesses; however, research of County records indicates that the current business
functions existed prior to the adoption of the applicable zoning regulations that would have
prohibited this current use.
Therefore, the continued operation of this business constitutes a legal non -conforming land use. The
adult-oriented videos and novelties function of the existing store is not permitted to expand beyond
its current floor area. Any expansion from the current floor area devoted to adult-oriented videos,
novelties, and or adding viewing booths will not be allowed. Any change of this use may result in a
zoning violation being issued.
You may have the right to appeal this zoning determination within thirty (30) days of the date of this
letter in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. This decision shall be final and
unappealable if it is not appealed within thirty (30) days. Should you choose to appeal, the appeal
must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in accordance
with Article XXI, Section 165-155A(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This provision
requires the submission of an application form, written statement setting forth the decision being
appealed, date of decision, the grounds for the appeal, how the appellant is an aggrieved party, any
other information you may want to submit and a $250.00 filing fee. Once the appeal application is
accepted, it will be scheduled for public hearing and decision before the BZA.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Thomas J. Chasler
Re: Zoning Determination 2708 Berryville Pike
April 19, 2005
Contact me regarding any questions you may have at (540) 665-5651.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Cheran
Zoning Administrator
MRC/dlw
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 X other . (Check one)
and president of Corporation which manages the business.
2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different)
Myron L. Ace
NAME: Lorie M. Ace
ADDRESS 197 NE 3rd Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
NAME: Oak Hill Grocery, Inc.
ADDRESS: 2708 Berryville Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
TELEPHONE: (541) 322-0240 TELEPHONE: (540) 678-0156
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers):
Route 7 East — 2708 Berryville Pike, on right hand side
4. Magisterial District:
Red Bud
5. Property Identification No.: 55-A-169
6. The existing zoning of the property is:
RA
7. The existing use of the property is:
Grocery and Video - Upstairs
Downstairs - Part uslness art res-i-dea ial
8. Adjoining Property:
USE
North Raw land
East Residence
South Raw land
West Rental Residence
RA
RA
RA
9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.)
See attached letter and attached letter of April 19, 2005.
10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision.
(This may be provided on separate sheet.)
See attached letter.
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 Property
Identification Number.)
NAME
David Bragg
Address P.O.
Box 174, Clearbrook, VA 22624
Property ID # 55-A-170
Brian Scott Williamson
Address 2718 Berryville Pike, Winchester, VA 2260
Property ID # 55 -A -168A
Phyllis B. Holtkamp, et al
Address 8225
Cambourne Ct Gaithersburg, MD 20877
PropertyID # 55-A-174
Willi A & Maria H. Balling
Address 111 Burnt Factory Rd., Stephenson, VA 2265
PropertyID # 55-A-147
Blue Ridge Associates
Address 2430-3 Berryville Pk., Winchester, VA 2260
PropertyID # 55 -A -174E
George. G. Bradfield
John G. Bradfield
Philip Bradfield
Address 8225
Cambourne Court, Gaithersburg MD 2087
Property ID # 55-A-174
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
AGREEMENT
APPEAL # /5-- 05—
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) to overrule the administrative interpretation of the County Zoning Ordinance as
described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions 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 hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of
my knowledge, true.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT % `'" - DATE
ACE
SIGNATURE OF OWNER' 41MY
E M. ACE DATE
(if other than applicant)
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF C0 ACTION:
- DATE -
APPEAL OVERRULED
APPEAL SUSTAINED SIGNED:
BZA CHAIRMAN
DATE:
He 0 \Lmd Use Applications\Application FomiMPPEAL
Revised- 01/14/03
4�GK 'CO
005 U Special Limited Power of Attorney
t County of Frederick, Virginia
` Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us
+'c N
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) Myron L. Ace and Lorie M. Ace
(Phone) (541) 322-0240
(Address) 197 NE 3rd Street, Bend, Oregon 97701
the owner(s) 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 County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. ��� r on Page �b ,and is described asOr
Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name)
J/� S�£
(Phone) PC G 6 Z. — f L 0-3
(Addrecs) rte( n " 1 / , lLt I h t, (,i,t i.", ") S / ; 6 ) JAW ps-7-W1 (
To act as my true and lawflul attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power
and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above
described Property, including:
Rezoning (including proffers)
CZ
Conditional Use Permits
Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
Subdivision
Site Plan
My attorney-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 witness thereof, I (w ae set my (our) hand and seal this /s `qday of f�.7n y , 200 ,
Signature(s
ON L. ACE ORIE M. ACE
State of ia, City/County of ��� S u , To
I �`� L�,✓ -�� o a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me
and'has acla�owledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this IS—nay of1,4�, 200J�
OFFiCIAL
Public NOTX I69L'iCZ GON
COMMiSStON NO. 581050
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES .TUNE 20.200E
Expires:
i
A Limited POA.wpd
2005
Telephone: (540) 662-1203
Facsimile: (540) 665-9615
May 18, 2005
LAW OFFICE
THOMAS J. CHASLER
203 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
Frederick County Board of Zoning and Appeals
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Gentlemen:
E-MAIL:
tchasler@email.com
This is an appal of the Decision of Zoning Administrator dated April 19, 2005, in
reference to the above.
Oak Hill Grocery is in a rural agricultural area. The current business includes groceries,
miscellaneous retail sales and adult oriented videos and novelties. By letter of April 4,
2003, the above uses were recognized as a legal nonconforming use.
The building consists of an upstairs and downstairs. The entire upstairs and a portion of
the downstairs have been used for business purposes. Two Affidavits in blank form are
attached and Affidavit 1 is to be executed by the prior owner who is out of state.
Affidavit 2 will be executed. When received, they will be filed with the Planning
Department.
The store has requested permission to expand the downstairs from two (2) rooms to the
entire lower level. I have attached a schematic drawing of the store which indicates in
hatch marks F-om the prior owner which parts were used primarily for business. The
expanded portion would have the same intensity of nonconformity of use as the rest of the
nonconforming use.
On the lower level, 424 square feet had primarily been used for business in the past and
the expansion requested is 675 square feet which is the balance less 60 square feet for the
bathroom.
Section 165-151(c) of the Frederick County Code pen -nits a nonconforming use not
described in either 165-151(A) or 165-151(B) to expand one time provided that the
degree of nonconformity is not increased nor that the expansion results in more than fifty
percent (50%) of the current square footage but not to exceed 2,000 square feet. The
square footage requested is far less than fifty percent (50%) and the degree of
nonconformity is the same.
On this basis, the applicant appeals the decision of the Zoning Administrator and his
failure to permit the expansion.
Sincerely,
hom J. Chasler
TJC:wls
AFFIDAVIT
I, Kay Trent, the prior owner of Oak Hill Grocery, Inc. used two of the rooms
downstairs for business purposes related to the store. In my downstairs office, I had my
computer/stored videos and did my record keeping. In the room east of this room which
was made into a kitchen area I stored videos and materials. I have marked with cross
hatches the areas used for the business.
Date:
KAY T&NT
STATE OF
City/Eetrr7ty of
Subscribed ar�d sworn to before me this day of , 2005, by KAY TRENT.
My Commission expires:jej
Notary Public
W
O
J
o
D
n
q
~
ti
�
=
li
y
O
m
ti
m
m
m
ti
:�> 1 04 HILL GFOCFry
OAKH/LL GR 0 CER Y UPPER L E VEL PLAN I DAFE- 05/11/05 1 DRAWNSYRKG