The URL can be used to link to this page

BZA 05-17-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia May 17, 2005 3:25 p.m. 1) Determination of a Quorum 2) Minutes of April 19, 2005 CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING 3) Variance Request #10-05 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 7613 -1 -3 -160 -in the Shawnee- Magisterial District. 4) Variance .Request #11-05 of John and Christina Dicks for an. 18 foot front yard variance. This property is located 581 Gerrna: Road (Route 625) is subject properly is identified with Property Identification Number 73=A-89 in the Opequon Magisterial District. 5) 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. 6) Variance Request 913-05 of All Imports & More, LLC, for a front variance of six inches and a left side variance of six inches. This property is located at 331 Clydesdale Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number 7613-1-3-228 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 7) 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. 8) Other 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 April 19, 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; and, Lennie Mather, Red Bud District. ABSENT: Mr. 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. On a motion by Mr. Perry, the minutes for the February 15, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. On a motion by Mr. Rinker, with an addition to the minutes concerning Appeal 403-05 of Roy R. .Seatty, prefacing Mr. Rinker's motion that when a rural subdivision is submitted with a preservation set-. r. aside, it is understood that it is for perpetuity, the minutes for the March 15, 2005 meeting were then unanimously approved as presented. In accordance with the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 2.2-3711, Subsection A, Mr. Rinker made a motion that the Board go into Closed Session, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Shenk. The vote was unanimous. CLOSED SESSION Mr. Rinker made a motion that the Board come out of Closed Session, stating in accordance with the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 2.2-3711, Subsection A, there was nothing discussed in the Closed Session that the Board was not authorized to discuss. Mr. Shenk seconded the motion. The roll call vote was as follows: Mr. Rinker, aye; Mr. Scott, aye; Ms. Mather, aye; Mr. Shenk, aye; Mr. Perry, aye; and, Chairman Catlett, aye. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal Application #07-05 of Fellowship Bible Church, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-30-G, to permit a 25 foot high sign. This property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Middle Road and Apple Valley Road. The subject property is identified with Property Identification Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1296 Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page Number 6_3-A-14 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION — APPEAL DENIED Mr. Cheran stated for the record that the staff report incorrectly lists this as a variance request and it is an appeal request. Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. This is an appeal of the determination of the Zoning Administrator with regards to sign height in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Section 165-30 G of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires all signs that are not business signs to be no higher than ten feet in height. Traditionally, signs in the RA zoning district have been no more than 50 feet in area and most signs in the RA zoning district are through a Conditional Use Permit and that sign requirement is no larger than four feet in area. Also for the Conditional Use Permit, because it's a legislative action, conditions are put on for sign requirements. The regulation of signs in the RA zoning district is to avoid the typical commercial signage. Furthermore, signage is intended to identify a user's location. Seeking visibility from a limited access road, Route 37, when such land does not have access directly to the use is not the intent of signage in the zoning ordinance. The sign sought by the applicant is clearly not appropriate for the RA zoning district. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration ofthe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-30 G with regards to sign height. Mr. Cheran displayed the current monument -style church sign on the screen, as well as several other church signs, in the RA zoning district. The applicant is represented by John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, who is available to answer questions. Mr. Lewis approached tho'podium and identified himself. Mr. Lewis stated that the existing sign has been there for 1 to 20 years and needs'repair, and the church has thed-to come up with a new, modern sign. 'flhey are - trying to clarify exactly what they're allowed to do and the Zoning Administrator has made a finding that they cannot exceeu` en feet iri Ifeight:° `i,t" . i ew s-wouid% ke eiarification on what they can -do and why they cari'.t.ty a sign there that meets the part of the ordinance that addresses business signs, which allows you to erect a sign that is the same height as the maximum building height of 35 feet, with 100 square feet of area. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran to respond to Mr. Lewis. Mr. Cheran read a copy of the Ordinance..."Any signs other than business signs should be no more than ten feet in height." Mr. Cheran stated we do not treat a church, synagogue or any religious organization as a business. It's not taxed as a business so, therefore, we don't consider it a business sign. In B2 and B3 zoning districts, you're allowed to have a sign 35 feet in height and up to 100 square feet in area. The Comprehensive Plan, in keeping with our rural areas, looks at keeping the typical commercial signs limited. No one came forward to speak for or against this appeal. Mr. Cheran stated that he had received an email this date in opposition to this appeal from Dee and Bill Bauserman. DISCUSSION There was no discussion among the Board members. Mr. Shenk made a motion to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page 1297 PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #08-05 Wolfgang Winzer for an 18 foot side yard variance. This property is located at 127 Lake Serene Drive (Route 677), and is identified with Property Identification Number 31B-1-3 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION - VARIANCE APPROVED Mr. Suchicital presented the staff report. This property was created in 1972 as noted by the deed and plats included in your agenda. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in 1967. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-1 (Agricultural Limited) in 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 sides. Mr. Suchicital stated further that this property was subject to a lot consolidation between lots 2B and 3 in 1995. The consolidation created this one acre lot and would allow for an addition to be added to this structure. The proposed new addition would meet the current RA setbacks. Mr. Suchicital stated that the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2), states that no variance shall be authorized by the Board unless it finds that 1) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an undue hardship; b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to ,djacent property, and that the character of the district odili not be changes by tie granting of flue vatr�ice. he applicant is seeking a variance of 18 feet on the left side of his property. The existing structure on this property has already been established with a 32 foot si , c. on the left side , , rcfG_c, is legally nor, Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be: 32 feet left side of the property. It appears that this variance does not meet the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2), and this request for a variance from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may not be justified. The applicant has more than 50 feet on the right side of his property. Mr. Suchicital stated that an email was received from Wellington Jones, Secretary of the Homeowners Association, that he is in favor of this variance request. Mr. Suchicital displayed an aerial photo of the property on the screen. Mr. Rinker asked if the variance is granted, will the applicant be any more non -conforming than he is now and Mr. Suchicital stated no, he will not. Mr. Winzer approached the podium and identified himself. He stated the reason for placing the addition where they have is because it does not change the character of the property, and the addition will even be further from the setback than the existing building. The front corner is at approximately 32 feet, whereas the corner of the extension will be at approximately 34 feet. Mr. Winzer further stated he needs more space for a business office. His architect told him this is the most economical and efficient way to build the addition. Mr. Cheran stated that the Building Department doesn't keep building permits from that far back and that's why the Board members don't have a copy of the original building permit. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page 1298 Mr. Donald Vaschon, who lives in Lake Serene, spoke in favor of Mr. Winzer's request. Ms. Linda Kulstad, Mr. Winzer's immediate neighbor, spoke in favor of the request. No one was present to speak against the variance request. DISCUSSION Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Winzer to comment on the topography on the other side of the house. Mr. Winzer stated they would have to cut a lot of trees on that side of the property and they would have to change the entire interior of the house. Also, the house would look much bigger, as a visual effect, than it is now and change the character of the house. Mr. Rinker made a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Perry seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal Application #09-05 of Deborah Dutcher, submitted by Artz & Associates, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-54 D (c), changes to the rural preservation tract. The subject property is located at the intersection of Dover Lane and Chapel Road (Route 627), and is identified with Property Identification Number 83-A-106 in the Opequon District. - ACTION — APPEAL DENIED Mr. Cheran gave the staff -report. This -is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination in regard to the rural preservation of a rural preservation subdivision. This subdivision was approved by Frederick County on June 3, 1992, under Chapter 21, Article IV, Section 4-6-4 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted February 14, 1990. Mr. Cheran stated that he made a copy of that ordinance and placed it in the agenda. The zoning ordinance allowed the creation of two acre lots with a 40% set-aside. This rural preservation must stay in tact and cannot be changed. Any land use action on this tract must be done in accordance with Section 165-4, Subtitle 3 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cheran further stated that this section of the zoning ordinance is beyond the scope of this Board and must be referred to the Board of Supervisors for action. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator with regard to Section 165-54D, Subtitle C, that the tract known as a rural preservation tract cannot be changed in any way with regards to the recorded plat, which is included in the agenda. Ms. Mather asked why they want to change it. Mr. Cheran responded that the applicant can better answer that, but he pointed out there's a letter stating they want do a subdivision on a rural preservation tract, included in the agenda, where Mr. Cheran stated the subdivision cannot be approved. Mr. Mike Artz approached the podium as representative for Deborah Dutcher. Mr. Artz stated that basically he thinks this whole situation is a case of intent and interpretation. Mr. Artz gave the Board members some hand-outs. At the time the subdivision was recorded, there were four lots created. Two of Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page 1299 the lots were less than four acres, a 14 acre lot and a 58.847 acre tract that was designated on that plat as being the rural preservation lot. It also specifically stated on there that it was 74% of the total tract. Today, they are here to request for a further subdivision of lot #4 under Chapter 165-54 D. Mr. Artz read from one of the hand-outs. Forty percent of the parent tract must remain in tact as a contiguous parcel. This acreage, —what acreage? — 40%, must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. No future division of this portion, - what portion? — 40%, of the parent tract will be permitted. Mr. Artz contends that the intent of this Code is to set aside 40%, not necessarily a higher percentage, but a minimum of 40%. Furthermore, in the past this particular portion of the Code has been interpreted by previous planning staff in the way he believes the Code should be interpreted. Mr. Artz handed out more information to the Board members. This is a plat of a rural preservation subdivision that he prepared for a client called Walnut Springs Preliminary Sketch Plat. He mentioned that they will see a 50% number and that's 50% because as part of a subdivision waiver they made to the Planning Commission to extend the length of a cul-de-sac, they proffered a 50% set aside instead of a 40% set aside. You can see that the 50% was 67.252 acres. Under note #9, parent tract, parcel #161, cannot be further subdivided without the approval of a revised preliminary sketch plan. In no case shall this lot be reduced below 67.252 acres. Michael Ruddy, who was the Zoning Administrator in 2000, requested Mr. Artz to place that note on the plat. Mr. Artz further noted that there have also been two other cases here that may have a precedent for this particular situation and he believes that they are apples, as well as this is an apple; however, he believes that perhaps a wrong determination was made in that case due to the way he feels the Code should be interpreted. He believes that the intent of this section of the Code was to only preserve the minimum 40%, not necessarily a larger tract of land. He believes the intent was to allow a future subdivision of that parcel, but not to reduce it below 40%. Mr. Artz further stated that if you read this section of the Code with that thought in mind, it makes sense. If the intent of the Planning Commission, the CPPS, the Board of Supervisors and planning staff in 1989 and 1990 was to preserve the rural preservation. tract as A was created; regardless 'ui its size, the wording of this section of the "ode would have c=v; r completely different. It would have allowed for you to interpret it in that manner. Furthermore, Mr. Artz asked f6i 1,1r. -Va ay.a .i"Liiler, who was the Zoning Administrator at the time this w,c- .. fined, to come ;4"', voice his opinion. Mr. Perry asked what is the difference between the second hand-out that Mr. Artz gave them showing a rural preservation tract platted at 67.252 acres and the one at 58 acres that can't be reduced. Why can Mr. Artz not reduce the one at Walnut Springs but can contend that the intent is to be able to reduce the one on this tract. Mr. Artz stated in 1999 on behalf of the applicant for Walnut Springs, he went to the Planning Commission to request a waiver for the length of a cul-de-sac. As part of that request, they proffered a 50% rural preservation tract as opposed to the minimum 40%. Mr. Perry asked if they elected to do that and Mr. Artz responded yes. Mr. Perry asked did not the people set 58.847 acres for the rural preservation lot elect to do that. Mr. Artz responded yes they did, but they did not realize that the Code was going to be interpreted in this manner. Mr. Perry stated they exceeded the requirement of 40%, but that's what they elected to do. Mr. Artz stated that's correct; however, keep in mind that if they knew they were going to be held to the size of that tract, they would have subdivided the entire property. Mr. Perry stated there has to be a reason the applicant kept 74% of the total tract as a preservation tract. Mr. Artz stated there are several reasons: the applicant still lived on the rural preservation lot and she didn't want other parcels out in front of her property; her husband at the time is now deceased and she has since remarried and moved away and she'd now like to dispose of the property. Plus there's also financial considerations that would have come into play at the time. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page 1300 Mr. Rinker stated they have focused on the last sentence of 4-6-4 about no future division. The line above that refers to the rural subdivision that the acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. When you submitted that, you had the fourth lot so you designated your preservation area. Also, Mr. Artz.referred to the Board's action back in 1989 and 1990 approving this. It was their understanding that it is up to 40% or more for the preservation tract. Mr. Rinker knows this because he was sitting on the Board at tlie time. Chairman Catlett stated she feels it's important to respond to a comment made by Mr. Artz. While this Board always tries to be consistent in making decisions and making the decision the members think is best serving for the County and for the residents, no action taken by this Board is intended to set a precedent for a future action. Mr. Artz apologized to the Board. Mr. Wayne Miller spoke in favor of this appeal. He was the Zoning Administrator from 1989 to 1997. Mr. Miller stated that he would have allowed the further division of this land, not to infringe upon the 40%. Mr. Dave Holliday, contract holder of this property, spoke in favor of the appeal. He believes if the words minimum 40% were in the code, they would not be here today. Mr. Holliday gave the Board members a hand-out. Mr. Holliday spoke about approximately 180 acres which he owns and intends to develop around The Cove. His point is he's going to come into staff with seven tracts drawn on 40 acres and he's going to show the 30 acres next to Camp Rock Enon and 100 acres across the road, and he's going to show on his plat 82% remaining. The Board's finding today whether that means minimum 40 is going to affect weather he does soil tests and platting to come to his 40%, the wav they're trying to interpret this thing, then you all, no offense intended, are creating sprawl, not him. He does not want to touch- the i 40 acres. So he will have 82% on his plat, as Ms. Dutcher has 74% on her plat, but the intent says 40. If he 66nie_ s in with 82 and they say sorry, that's your parent tract, then he's gu;i;to come in with as 100 acres broken up. The Board's finding today will tell you what this piece does and possibly many, many more - down the road. Mr. Rinker responded to Mr. Holliday that it's his right, you can do 80% into rural preservation, but rural preservation is in perpetuity. Mr. Holliday said if he does 80% in rural preservation, then you're saying I lose my right to ever come back. Mr. Holliday is saying if the rule today is it's in perpetuity and it's not 40% minimum, then he's going to develop the whole tract. Mr. Rinker told Mr. Holliday that's his right. Mr. Holliday told the Board members they're creating sprawl, not him. Mr. Rinker responded to Mr. Holliday that he has the right to do what he wants to do with that tract. Chairman Catlett stated that it is not within the authority of this Board to set those zoning restrictions. The only thing being asked of the Board today is their interpretation of Mr. Cheran's ruling and that's the only thing they can act upon today. Mr. Artz again approached the podium to answer Mr. Perry's earlier question correctly. Mr. Perry had asked Mr. Artz about the 67.252 acres. On that plat, you'll see where it says rural preservation lot 23, designated as 81.317 acres. That was why note #9 was placed on this plat, to put on notice to anybody who ever had a need to look at this plat to know that they cannot further subdivide that tract below the 67.252 acres. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page 1301 Mr. Perry stated he did not understand the relationship of putting a percentage number on a plat, how that affects the ability or inability to have future division of that particular plat. Mr. Artz responded that section of the Code says 40% must be designated as the tract that cannot be further subdivided. Mr. Perry asked when Mr. Artz did this plat and created this 81.317, why did he not go someplace on this plat and designate the 40% that could not be further subdivided. Mr. Artz said because staff's interpretation at the time was that they could further subdivide the rural preservation lot, 423, as long as they did not take it below the 67.252 acres. Mr. Gary Lofton, who lives in close proximity to the land in question, spoke against the appeal. Mr. Lofton stated he believes Mr. Artz, Mr. Miller and Mr. Holliday have touched upon it, and that is the word intent. Mr. Lofton's residential lot is part of the original subdivision that Mr. Dorman and his wife created in 1992. Mr. Dorman told Mr. Lofton that he envisioned a small neighborhood and to leave the 58 acres for he and his wife; he knew he could have further subdivided the property. Before Mr. Lofton purchased his lot, it was his understanding that Mr. Dorman set aside that property because he wanted it to be one contiguous lot. Mr. Dorman has passed away and his wife has remarried. Quite possibly this is a matter of financial interest. He can understand that; however, what he can't understand is that now they can come back and change the rules of the game. Mr. Lofton asked the Board to uphold Mr. Cheran's ruling and not allow this to happen. Mr. Paul Kisak spoke against the appeal. Mr. Kisak and his wife live 35 feet from the property line of the rural preset : atN He stated that k -xUald leas Mr. and Mrs. Dorman very well and Mr.- .- _-_yam, Dorman emphasized to them that it is a rural preservation lot in perpetuity and never to be touched. Mr. and Mrs. Kizak met with Mr. Artz at the time they were going to purchase their lot and Mr. Artz told them it could not be developed, it's a rural preservation lot. Mr. Kisak gave the BZA Secretary a Petition to Deny Appeal Application, signed by opposing residents. Mr. Kizak stated that all the petitioners and people in attendance today bought their land with the understanding that it was a rural preservation lot and would not be developed. Mr. Kisak stated they are all behind Mr. Cheran's analysis. The Kisaks were engaged in a lawsuit with the Dormans over this development. Mr. Kisak read from the lawsuit. This was submitted by . Deborah Dorman Dutcher's attorney during the lawsuit... "The zoning regulation Section 165-54 that says a 40% parcel of the tract must remain in tact as a contiguous parcel." They agreed to this... "This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot". The acreage was designated rural preservation lot prior to the division of the fourth lot. He further read from the document... "No future division of this portion of the parent tract will be permitted". Chairman Catlett pointed out again that the original owner's intent is not what they are considering today. They are considering whether the Zoning Administrator made the correct decision as it applies to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Holliday again approached the podium. He has the Judge's ruling in the case Mr. Kizak is talking about. He contends that Mr. Lofton's statements are hearsay. The ruling, dated 7/26/04, states that "the May 4, 2000 document filed by the Defendant, Paul Kizak, constitutes a cloud on the title of the Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page 1302 Complainant, and was an invalid attempt by the Defendant to file restrictions and covenants against lot 4 owned by the Complainant. That all the terms and conditions contained in the May 4, 2000 document were merged into the deed between those parties. That, therefore, none of the terms of said May 4, 2000 document apply to or affect any lot 4 owned by the Complainant, that neither Paul or Kathryn Kisak have any right of first refusal on lot 4 nor have any right to prohibit any development or subdivision of lot 4 because of said document." Mr. Kizak returned to the podium and stated that the lawsuit was a civil matter and had to do with their contract, which the Dormans signed over 18 times that they would not develop that acreage any farther. He said the Judge's ruling only applied to the fact that he recorded it after they had signed the contract. Mr. Cheran reiterated that we are here for an interpretation of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The Walnut Springs Preliminary Sketch Plat was for a cul-de-sac reduction and really has no business being included in this because it was a Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors action, which is a legislative action. Another point is that this is not in perpetuity. The ordinance clearly states that the applicant may take it to the Board as a waiver of division restriction ten years from the date of the creation of any 40% parcel. This applicant can do this. A lot of the issues brought up are policy issues and policy issues are not decided by this Board. It is the Zoning Administrator's intent that this 40% set-aside cannot be subdivided as it was a recorded plat. Ms. Mather asked why would a builder develop or not when they're in the planning stage and plotting out the lots not go ahead and do everything the way they want it the first time instead of coming back and coming back. Mr. Scott replied cost of development.- - - Mr: Cheran stated that today under the Subdivision- Ordinance you have a preliminary sketch plan - that comes in. In 1992, the zoning ordinance was amended to show all this. Back then it was just a plat which was recorded. Ms. Mather asked what would happen if every rural preservation lot could be further divided. Would we have a lot of these? Mr. Cheran responded there's a possibility you could, but you would have to have the Board of Supervisors answer that question. DISCUSSION Mr. Rinker stated that he believes what they're asking for is not within the realm of this Board but it should be at the Board of Supervisors, requesting that set-aside be redone to come down to the 40%. He stated they're being asked to deny the staff's opinion and they don't have the power to grant the additional lots, that's up to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Perry made a motion to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Scott seconded the motion. Due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Shenk abstained from voting. The motion passed by a majority vote. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page 1303 OTHER Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut off date for the next meeting. Mr. Cheran replied the cut off is the 22"d of April. Mr. Rinker stated that he will not be attending the next meeting. 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 g 1304 Minutes of April 19, 2005 Minute Book Page VARIANCE APPLICATION #10-05 HARRY AND RUTH NEWMAN Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeais Prepared: May 6, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Board of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE: May 17, 2005 - Action Pending LOCATION: 115 Maverick Court MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S3: -76R,l -3-160 PROPERTY ZONING & USE. Zori=afl• -R-P (Residential P,-�rforrorance) District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicants are requesting a five foot left side yard variance. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Existing basement steps extend into side yard setback Variance Request #10-05, Harry and Ruth Newman May 6, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant was cited for violating the building setback requirements for the RP (Residential Performance); the side setback is five (5) feet over the required side setback line. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires building setbacks for the RP zoning district to be: Front - 35'; Sides - 10% Rear - 25'. The steps and wall on the left side of the dwelling are encroaching five (5) feet over the setback line. The permit holder was required to have two (2) survey reports. Section 165-23 H (1) Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides the survey location requirements for primary structures. It states that: "A surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia shall establish the location of any primary structure that is five feet or less from any minimum setback requirement". Exhibit "A" is the building permit with the minimum setbacks written by the Zoning Administrator and a copy of the final subdivision plat with the setbacks. This was submitted with the building permit. Exhibit `B" is a copy of is a sealed survey setback report showing the left setback as 11.0 feet, where the proposed house will be located. Exhibit "C" is a copy of the final house location survey with plat that depicts the house location. The building setbacks on this survey show the left side as setback 11.1 feet. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MAY 17,Z. N_II ETING:. 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 iv, die same zoning district and the same vicinity; and, c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to ad j acent 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 with the recorded plat and building permit, the subject front setback violation and subsequent variance application resulted. The applicant's failure to accurately construct a dwelling according to the information submitted on the recorded plat and building permit does not constitute a hardship. Therefore, denial of this variance would be justified as the applicant has not met the requirements of Section 15.2-2309 (2) of Code of Virginia. O M m w M � O mCD W �CD N� 7-3 s) 3 \ Z« E Ny gz Sy317v �� yg` 7� yy890N1dn7 r :: U d S pZI ��y87d °j b 7 31NbHd31S 2W Wy1111M �da38: 69l E l 89L W 3NNyZnS � � 731Nba '9lya0 9SL £ l 89Z ls/ `38730 %V 89Z 0b�j0 A809389 'Nola 89L E l 89L 768 13 &KARENS SH1PP' GW( K 8g� Wyk>e HO/ 8g! 40 g/2�,b-( SZ$O/,1 b0 LU o r / 89! z d do M W C) m o z m �¢�q p �S . W `Uco I V L ^ z LNil O vd\J3 768 12125 W CIA L OY A & TRIcn BEJ, TR w 01 I LL O 0 � N �1 L C.0 O ' Z ' � � o Q 06 m > i CO CD L CU 01 I LL BY), PHONE: 54051007 11PY1100 TO SITE: Take v22 Suit vc new nuidot; of j�jovv am" a Tlanv to Faverin 0,11 on lion to WD V5, PERMIT 40 Applicau'ASILS i �4) Applicant (please print; . ........ .... . . .. . ....... WU LlIT" ,ULMad-, Alm- I.:' Lu. i A T E, EAT_. N ' T.M. A)) loo Pa'f;s:�. WAKELAND ' / u.(� 776, PG 685 / . 8:. "Et'••^*►:` ZONE- RP USE AGRI. f = ` --_•r. z 'AGE 110, \ EJB 20' Oft GE EASE1lEn�r Z 162 127 \ LOT 161 3 34179 SQ. FT• , 'rojl \ N jp-s 12, 41 LQ\ cc -.. ��yyyy..yyy6ppp, C 126LO zt/ o •� S 173.7¢ 125 ( l 159 SEE SHEET 6 50 - 0 50 GRAPHIC SCALE (JN FEET) F7N4L SUBDMSION PLAT CANTER 'ES TA TES SECTION THREE -- PHASE SHAWNEE DISTRICT — FREDERICK COUNTY WRGINIA v ` SCALE: 1" = so' nems• avnqm..ncv„ -- DARREN S. F111 T7 �la�tl R, YA. 82808 '640) 882-4i86 7 OF 72 ATTACHMENT "C" V) C - CW6 CG:4VE DELTA ANGLE i RADIUSI of AKL [tivv/n /Hrv�civi V/1✓ LLnv/ll nom•:o•c z" 144.00 1 6949' - 354.3" I 68.8'1' S 467544"E LEGEND:TR TR�SFORMER TRB — TELE RISER BOX J /p/•4N 0 WM WATER METER L 0 T 12 7 / /NSj�,D�ENrZ DHF - DRILL HOLE FOUND FIFE - FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CFE - GARAGE FILO ELEVATION B� BASEk! NT FLOOR RJEI1ATION (BRL - BUILDING RESTRICTION UNE / 7 I X(708.0) - EXISTING SPOT ELEV. LOT 126 LOT 161 -ice LOT 160 s�2�069 SF• 15 713 J A GRATE ELEv —(703.81) Jam`' ^ \ I Iw ''C JJ 9 yL DE DWELLING Ile CK FLOOD NOTE: J\\ COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 \\ lk PANIC: 0200 B \ \ w �� DAT(= '37-17—;>I'159 'LOT e NOTES:\�� a 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. 2.) PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 766-1-3-160\ 3.) EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 4.) IRON RODS TO BE SET AT LOT CORNERS WHEhI� ; FINAL LOT GRADING IS COMPLETE. 5.) THIS LOT IS SUBJECT TO A 15' UTILITY EASEMENT\ AND AN 8' ACCESS MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ALONG MAVERICK COURT. F/ SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON NOVEMBER 13, 2003 AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE EASEMENTS UNLESS SHOWN. HOUSE LOCATION & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LOT 160 SECTION THREE - PHASE 1 CANTER ES TA TES 1 115 MAVERICK COURT SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, V/RGINM �.FX. 10' GAS a.IEJC 'CASEMENT — Gull. /p' 40' 80' SCALE - 1" = 40' DATE 11/12/03 1 SCALE N 11--; 40' I : SHEET 1 OF 1 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHF:-TER, VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 - FAX(540)667-0469 EMAIL offtceomarshandlegge.cm. Q .t ,TH OF `l FNDouas C. Le gei. 001197 DRAWN BY: C.GREENSPAN DWG NAME: ID5286-HLS <�3 - 11 35� & 11555CK �FF?0 0 DFE DD G6.17 3 - lr FLOOD NOTE: J\\ COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 \\ lk PANIC: 0200 B \ \ w �� DAT(= '37-17—;>I'159 'LOT e NOTES:\�� a 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. 2.) PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 766-1-3-160\ 3.) EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 4.) IRON RODS TO BE SET AT LOT CORNERS WHEhI� ; FINAL LOT GRADING IS COMPLETE. 5.) THIS LOT IS SUBJECT TO A 15' UTILITY EASEMENT\ AND AN 8' ACCESS MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ALONG MAVERICK COURT. F/ SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON NOVEMBER 13, 2003 AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE EASEMENTS UNLESS SHOWN. HOUSE LOCATION & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LOT 160 SECTION THREE - PHASE 1 CANTER ES TA TES 1 115 MAVERICK COURT SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, V/RGINM �.FX. 10' GAS a.IEJC 'CASEMENT — Gull. /p' 40' 80' SCALE - 1" = 40' DATE 11/12/03 1 SCALE N 11--; 40' I : SHEET 1 OF 1 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHF:-TER, VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 - FAX(540)667-0469 EMAIL offtceomarshandlegge.cm. Q .t ,TH OF `l FNDouas C. Le gei. 001197 DRAWN BY: C.GREENSPAN DWG NAME: ID5286-HLS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA APR i _. F P! MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUTININK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner V other (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: NAME:�� 7—/ V fl, �� ✓� fV .ADDRESS // h /��v�; c/r C TELEPHONE: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: 1� 4 W i l�� ,�� ✓� ry ADD�'SS: TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): III The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of cR 4 3 feet and consists of acres (please be exact). Page 5 of 9 24 Zoo zS ��i-s. %ll�= 5 F ro,✓�( yN /11/1VzP Ck C2. 5;dz- s /(l�C�� 6N //��. �nr}/0 The property has a road frontage of feet and a depth of cR 4 3 feet and consists of acres (please be exact). Page 5 of 9 5. The property is owned by/,;/,,,P, v 7 Cly A 1,L). /ik i-, 4 d as evidenced by deed from ,r_ ng� #,)_(,F recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. on page of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 4 )�,qc4ed 6. Magisterial District: S_ 19 1,0 /v � t 7. Property Identification No.: `1R." - / - 3 -/60 8. The existing zoning of the property is:_AW�� 9. The existing use of the property is 10. Adjoining Property: USE North /W East South , West ZONING 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for anattached two -car garage;,") 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 X I �JZ��C�StiRxs - Page 6 of 9 ��13. Additional comments, if any: 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the variance is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME Page 7 of 9 Address `1 3 Property ID # Y �v4VV-7Iii ��c�s i? Com. Address c4. Properly ID # 7 _ _1 C I ,_ �- L t,,, aLL G. Address E o r Property 1D # i -- l — 2 — 12— 2 e K. Y Address Address Property ID # -6; R) __ 1-2 a f _ .moo....-........�y..,-n. _ �✓� A, Address Property ID # � _ , ,_ P ✓ �' i `ti c � , t G/V1, . � �� S G , Address C- Property ID # I •- ;' Address Property ID # -- - Address --Property ID #— - -- - -- -- -- - Page 7 of 9 15. Provide a sketch ofthe property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. Page 8 of 9 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # 10-05 (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 information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT r DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ,vim 17 Lo— ACTION: -DA - APPROVAL DENIAL SIGNED: DATE: Page 9 of 9 DATE ---BZ-A-CHAIIMA-N- - Harry and Ruth Newman 115 Maverick Court Stephens City, VA 22655 March 31, 2005 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development ATTN: Board of Zoning Appeals 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601-5651 To Whom It May Concern: This application is a formal request for a "variance" from Frederick County to allow the existing basement steps at the above address to remain in their current location. This is an "extraordinary" situation that we and the County find ourselves in. Reference the Department of Planning and Development letter, dated February 28, 2005, RE: 115 Maverick Court; Property Identification Number (PIN): 76-1-3-160 Zoning District: ISP (Residential Performance). _This, letter notified idsof the building code violation by the basement steps of our recently constructed and purchased new home extending into the County -required "side -yard setback". We do not dispute the fact that the basement steps are in violationhas been bmiaght .oto our attention. Having now reviewed the code restrictions, the steps obviously do not meet the County requirements, however, it must be noted that the walls of the steps are an integral part of the basement structure of the house, as built originally. This is a newly constructed home we bought in November 2003. We have lived in this home since and have made no changes to the outside of the home since moving in, and it is very disconcerting to be notified of this violation at this time (some 15 months after purchase and required Frederick County inspections), knowing that Frederick County issued a building permit for the construction by Eagle Place Industries and also issued an occupancy permit, allowing us to close on the house and to occupy it. It must be noted that there was never a "complaint" from anyone regarding this issue, as the above referenced letter states. There was not even a concern expressed by a neighbor or anyone else in the neighborhood. The violation was noticed by the Department of Planning and Development on the Housing Location & Topographic Survey (on file at the County Offices) while reviewing county documents while addressing a neighbors question regarding HIS property. The County has had this documentation on file since the Building Permit was issued (site survey, etc), and the House Location and Topographic Survey (attached) was filed with the deed. One would think that a proper review of this documentation along with proper inspections earlier would have revealed the violation well before the occupancy certificate was issued in November 2003. This clearly was not done. Our neighbors most affected by this violation (the basement steps are on their side of the property). Karen and Gary Shinn, have indicated with their letter, attached_, that they have no (issues with the basement steps in their current location, nor the issuance of a "variance" allowing this. Obviously then, this requested "variance" would not be a detriment to this adjacent property, and it would rectify a serious County inspection mistake. The following facts justify the approval of this "variance". The Building Permit (#523-2003) was issued by Frederick County on April 24, 2003 (a copy is attached along w/ County documentation). I can only assume that this action went through the proper process at the Department of Planning and Development, to include a Final Site Plan approval. There were also many on-site inspections (as one would expect) of the house during construction, as evidenced by documentation in your County office (a copy is attached). There was also a "Setback Report" filed with the County by Marsh and Legge Surveyors, dated 21 March 2003 (a copy is attached). The Final Certificate of Occupancy inspection by the County was accomplished on November 10, 2003 (a copy is attached). This allowed us to close on the property on November 18, 2003 and move in the next day. -It is important to note that the walls for --tile basement steps that are in violation of code by being too close to the property line, areap rt of the "poured" basement itself. We did not add the steps to the house following the pj cl ase. In this fegard Ahe h6use is today, as we purchased it, as new, in November 2003. Please see the attached photographs of the outside basement steps for a visual understanding of the situation. One can clearly see that the step walls are part of the poured foundation. It was mentioned at one of our meetings with the Department of Planning and Development Office that the referenced "side yard setback" codes are there for a purpose, such as a fence put up by our neighbor could block our access to the basement steps. We understand the issues involved here, however, it should be pointed out that Article VII Use Restrictions and Covenants of Canter Estates Homeowners Association, Para 5, Page 15. (1 will have a copy at the BZA hearing) clearly states that, "No fence or hedge shall be constructed or planted in the front, nor along the side of any residence.........." As you can determine from the attached photos, no fence or hedge on the adjacent property would impact these basement steps if positioned appropriately and according to the community restrictions. If I am forced to correct the oversights by the builder, surveyor and Frederick County inspections, it would be very costly and certainly an undue hardship. An estimate is attached for $9,500. Note that the steps can not be simply "turned" toward the back of the house to be in compliance. First, there does not appear to be sufficient room (between the house and the property line) to do that, and secondly, the gas line to the house would be 2 in the way. The basement steps would have to be moved to another location, thereby requiring another entrance to the basement and the closure of the existing entrance. Obviously this would also be very disruptive, not to speak of having to invade the structural integrity of the existing basement wall. That is never good. The risk of adeauateiy sealing the current opening is monumental. The risk in adequately invading the structural integrity of the basement wall in another location is also considerable. Both could easily result in a very leaky basement due to poor drainage around the outside of the basement walls and potentially very expensive to correct. We, as residents of the Frederick County, must (and do) depend and rely on the County to protect us (through the required inspections) in the purchase of a new home by ensuring the various codes covering construction are met by the builder / surveyors. As the Frederick County "Site Plan Application Package" clearly states on Page 5, in Paragraph 6, "Final Certificate of Occupancy: ........................................ The inspection is necessary to ensure that all requirements shown on the approved site are completed. " And clearly (as stated earlier) there were a number of inspections leading up to this final inspection for occupancy that should have detected this violation, including the final inspection. This is clearly what we would have expected from the County inspectors. Now we are realistic enough to know and understand that mistakes can and are made, however, it appears the County is now holding us, the current owners, responsible for correcting a costly code violation that we depended on the County to ensure were not there to start with (just as County documents state, it is the County's responsibility).. This is very much unfair and just plain wrong. Both Mr. Beniamino and Mr. Cheran of the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Office agreed that this violation "...should have been caught during the various inspections". I certainly agree with their assessment. Regardless what an inspector does or fails tp. do, or who the County depends upon for information (the builder and/or surveyor), the County should be responsible for its mistakes. If a Frederick County resident can not depend on his county to ensure the various building codes are met during construction, then why does the county have the requirement for the county inspections in the first place? Also, Mr. Beniamino and Mr. Cheran both told me the County depends on the surveyor to be correct in his survey as a certified surveyor (by the State of Virginia). It certainly appears that in this case the surveyor placed the house and steps correctly on the plat (and was properly filed with the County), and the County simply missed what we were told the County depends on to properly address compliance of the building codes. It would appear that the plat was not even looked at until over a year after the house was built and sold. We acquired this property in good faith, depending on Frederick County to conduct the proper inspections to "ensure that all requirements shown on the approved site are complete ". We have made no changes to the house that caused this violation of the required setback. The walls of the steps were and are an integral part of the basement wall construction. This is clearly an instance of an extraordinary situation / condition. Mistakes are made by all of us, but none of us should be made to pay for those mistakes of others. Authorization of this requested "variance" would certainly not change the character of the district — nothing would be changed from the current state by the 3 issuance of this variance. Keep in mind also that no one has complained about the situation of the basement steps extending into the required side yard setback, and there is no detriment to the adjacent property as evidenced by the attached letter from the adjacent property owner. Also attached for your reference is a map to the site location for attachment to the application for appeal. Thank you for your consideration of this request for "variance" on our property. Respectfull Harry and Ruth Newman (540) 869-4274 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. House Location & Topographic Survey dated November 11, 2003 -2. Karen and Gary Ship letter, dated March 22, 2005 3. `Building Permit (includes County file)ed April 25, 2003 =" 4. -Build ng Inspection- History of Inspections for 115 Maverick Court - 5: Setback Report by Marsh & Legge Surveyors, dated March 2120, ", 6. Certificate of Occupancy (includes County file) dated November 10, 2003 7. Photographs of Property 8. Estimate by David R. Dill, Inc, dated March 22, 2005 9. Site Location Map 0 J)-)- % ) d CURLS DELTA ANGLE RA01US I ARC LENGTH TANGENT CHORD LENGTH CHORD 9£AR/NG C1 jTi 853" 144.00" 1 69.49' 35.4.3" 68. Bl , S 457544' E LEGOD- wm - WATER Reox Lor 127 / ( NY DHF - DRILL HOLE FOUND FFE - FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION - GARAGE ELEVATION OOR ELEVATION B - BASEMENT FL BRL - BUILDING RESTRICTION UNE f K(708.0) - DOSTING SPOT ELEV. � LOT 126-w �(/�� LOT 161 \ �� j� Ni \ Y �� I I v 41 \ N\ J V LOT 160 b6.-7 2,069 S F. 15 24. -, r J 1 pUIE Elfv-(703.81) '� 1 Y v. EXISTING DWELLING 715.09 G E FLOM NOTE , ��\ � \ --- -.: X. 1fl' (,e, LINT_. COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 _ PANEL: 0200 B �,, � -'`�.�� 1�� ;-� � EASEMENT`�'�' DATE: 07--17-7uLOT \ . ` ` ; -� ��1 NOTES:� 15' WA REPORT FURNISHED �� i; f 1. NO TITLE ASEMENT 2.) PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 76B-1-3-160\� /� J 3.) EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST\\ 4.) LRON RODS TO BE SET AT LOT CORNERS WHE4\\1 o fie/ p G FINAL LOT GRADING IS COMPLETE. p EASEMENT\ 5.) THIS LOT IS SUBJECT TO A 15' UTILITY [��G AN 8' ACCESS MAINTENANCE EASEMENT P / AND ALONG MAVERICK COURT.��% SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE: 'S' 1 HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION 1h pP ACTUAL SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS BASED ON AN FIELD SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION V��O 0' 40' 80' ON NOVEMBER 13, 2003 AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE EASEMENTS UNLESS SCALE - 1" = 40' SHOWN. HOUSE LOCATION & rOPOGWHIC SURVEY L 0T 160 TH OP y r� SECTION THREE - PHASE I CANTER ESTATES 115 A64WR/CK COURT Do las C. Is SHAWNEE AaGISTERW 057R/CT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIN44 o. 0011 7 �� 04 '1'D suT;gs LWE- 11/12/0.3 SCALE - 1 '-40' SHEET 1 OF 1 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors,LP,L.C, _ % 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET N WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 DRAWN BY: C.GREENSPAN PHONE (540) 667-0485 - FAX(540)667-0469 E11AIL oFBceOmmahandegge can DWG NAME: 195288-HL5 J)-)- % ) d Mr. and Mrs. Gary Shipp 113 Maverick Court Stephens City, VA 22655 March 22, 2005 County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 202 ATTN: Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Winchester, VA 22601-5000 To Whom It May Concern: We have been made aware of a property violation notice for our neighbors, Ruth and Harry Newman — 115 Maverick Court; Property Identification Number (PIN): 7613-1-3- 160. The issue, as we understand it, is that the property's basement steps extend into the County's required side yard setback. Reference the Department of Planning and Development Office letter to the Newman's, dated February 28, 2005. This letter is to inform the BZA that we have no issue with the current location of the referenced basement steps of the Newman home. Other then insuring that if we should sell our home at 113 Maverick Court and expand our existing garage to the legal setback limits -that there will be no conflicts in doing so. This is not something they added since . _ . moving into the newly constructed home, but rather the way it was built when they _ purchased the home. The location of the steps does not adversely impact our property, and we support the Newman's appeal and request for a "variance", allowing the existing structure to remain. acerely, Kar and Gary Ship _ INSPECTIONS iii -factors, Erectors, or Owners of buildings or structures must notify the Inspector at the foiiowinc points of construction, and they snaii proceed beyond these points until the Building Inspector has inspected and approved the work,:.--- Failure o P _-Failure to call fc t gentsons constitutes A'dIOL�++ Date L) - FOWING iPt i'E,'+t.;t , 'Call ro.,''o0tind wr pfction after tEie tootings have been excavated, any forms and steps have been cnnstrucie i, any reinforcement has been installed and grade pins have been set prior to placing any concrete. 2.) FOUNDATION INSPECTION: Call for foundation Inspection after, foundation walls have been constructed ' and waterproofed, anchor bolts have been installed, prior to doing any backfilling. 3.) SLAB INSPECTION: Basement and floor slabs, poured concrete foundation walls, and any self supporting slabs must be Inspected to ensure placement of vapor barriers and reinforcements, or contraction jpints 30' on center. 4.) FRAMING INSPECTION: Call for framing inspection after all framing, firestopping, rough plumbing and electrical, masonry, including fireplaces and chimneys are complete and prior to concealing same. 5.) INSULATION INSPECTION: Call for insulation inspection after insulation is installed. 6.) FINAL INSPECTION: Call for final Inspection when structure is complete and ready for occupancy. 7.) OTHER INSPECTION: In addition to the called inspections above, the Building Department may make or require any other Inspec- tions to ascertain compliance with the Code. 8.) Call for plumbing and electrical inspections as needed and prior to concealing same. To schedule any of the above listed Inspections please call 665.5650. MECHANICS LIEN AGENT INFORMATION Address: Phone Number. DONE DESIGNATED 1062 ' Building Official / Inspect kCii .. .. ..�L4 rt#'.:tet , .^t ,r,, . _Y / BUILDING , ;CTION HISTORY OF INSPECTIONS PI -T NUMBER: 0000523 - 2003 PERMIT TYPE INSPECTION TYPE INSPECTOR RSLT * * C O M M E N T S 2003/05/01 SETBAC setback surveyl Private Engineering Repor*P MARSH AND LEGGE FRONT 59.2' BACK 60.8' - RIGHT 25.2' 2003/05/23 BLD Footing LEFT 11.0, Private Engineering Repor*P 2003/05/29 BLD Wall NO COLUMN FOOTINGS INSPECTED AT THIS TIME. RUCKMAN Private Engineering Repor*P (11) INTERIOR COLUMN FOOTINGS ALSO INSPECTED, (3) #4 REBARS TOP AND BOTTOM OVER DOOR, #4 REBAR 18" OC VERTICAL AT BRICK LEDGES OVER 2' 1003/06/06 BLD RUCKMAN Backfill/Draint Private Engineering Repor*P 003/06/09 PLUMB Ground Groundworks INTERIOR CROCK AND PUMP USED, CONTRACTOR TOLD TO BACKFILL NO MORE THAN 3' UNTIL FLOOR SYSTEM IS PLACED. RUCKMAN Mike Puffinberger *p 003/06/09 PLUMB 003/06/10 BLD BACK WATER VALVE IN PLACE Groundworks Mike Puffinberger Ba*R Basement Slab Private Engineering Repor*P WWM USED. CONTROL JOINTS RECOMMENDED. DRAIN TILES TO INERIOR CROCK AND PUMP. 103/06/10 BLD Ga Garage Slab g RUCKMAN Private Engineering Repor*P - STRUCTURAL SLAB. (4) 16"X,16" GRADE BEAMS EQUALLY SPACED WITH (5) #5 REBARS 2" FROM BOTTOM IN BEAM POCKETS AT EACH END, #4 REBAR. 12" CC E!,CH WAY DOWLED 3" INTO WALL PLACED - MIDWAY IN 4" THICK SLAB WITH 6 MILL POLY FILM ON EARTH. FRONT OF SLAB ON SUBWALL AT DOORS. )3/06/19 BLD deck footing RUCKMAN Private Engineering Repor*P TRENCH FOOTING DUG 13/06/20 BLD wall repair RUCKMAN Private Engineering Repor*P 3/06/20 PLUMBI Water & Sewer 44 REBAR DOWLED AND EPDXYED INTO EXISTING WALL ON 4 - CENTERS WITH 3 44 REBARS HORIZONTAL AND 44 REBAR VERTICAL 3' O.C. CONTRACTOR TOLD TO PROTECT CONCRETE FROM RAIN. Kirby B. Place *PUCKMAN 3/07/28 ELECT Service NO CUT-OFF NEEDED Kirby B. Place *p 200 AMP U&M 1/08/21 BLD Framing 422894 Kirby B. Place *F /08/21 MECH Gas Piping CO 32879 - BRACE GABLE TRUSS ON BACK PORCH TO DETAIL. NEED SOLID BLOCKING ON OPEN AND JOISTS IN BASEMENT. ADD COLLAR TIES ON RAFTERS. NEED LVL DETAILS. GAS PIPING NOT INSTALLED. Kirby B. Place *F /08/21 ELECT Rough Electric Kirby B. Place GAS PIPING NOT INSTALLED. *p 7t ZI - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ij + ri ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- - 77: ! t �( �_.r Photos of Steps at 115 Maverick Court Stephens City The following photographs depict the Basement steps in question. The property line (where in the photograph) has been drawn in. Entrance to Basement (clearly, part of original foundation) NOTE: The walls for the basement steps are part of the original foundation and were planned from the beginning with the Builds g.Permit (#523-2003), issued by Frederick County on April 24,2003. 1 ver 'id � �ti ��ft Val ir ,:�c!_ r"e.`,.rc..vu9t ,_t.._.u,7�i,.! Y.iy.: Sez`�t i.•n'z:,.�. _dam' < ,s..., .. _ .. ,� Showing Proximity to- Adjacent Property (113 Maverick Court) 1 2 Angle Toward Street t� � a ; View From Front Yard Toward Back of Lot 3 View From Back of Lot Look Along the Property Line Toward the Street M DAVID R DILL CONCRETE, INC 1135 SULPHUR SPRINGS ROAD. MIDDLHTOWN, VA 22645 (540► 869-38541 f540i 869-7721 FAX vTRC.nNLA CONTRACTORS LICENSE # 2701 039519A .Submiaed tcv irAgia Pisco Industries p'0 Box Isee iluinaheeter, VA 22004 Date Submitter.' March 22. lob Locadon: Mr & Mrs Tear Out Existing Welled Exit Walls ft tm opposite aide of house; Cut out new r perform tearing out & replacing welled inetalllna pew exterior draintile. in these Lot #k160 Colter Estates Goes in Existing Doorway, Install Welled Exit m Estimated Cost to include the excavation re and removal of all contrete new walled Total Estimated Cost 1E�me f]nhr H R aulrsti 1159 Ca L.oadcr - Houdy U- will aMily to the event of ROCK CONDnIiONS $ 123.00/How Additional Concaac/iAbor 41 footings/wi ig 5175.00/Yard (I.c, float. footings, iaetinp dug wAwdldaoe. Sart grotuld, hok out oFlcval, other coil rrinditiona, etd #4 Rebar • Horiumtal ut laooti» p wxlior Vortical at Walls 3 0.73!1 init OLa. due to soil Conditions and/or Dat.M Height • To be deterraitaed !ay Inspedor at tine of lnaN tioul S 126.00/&di jumps tta Bccuilp;,`c1 ;'dips its Wa11, S i30.Op/luch A'Wcd air 11sy Ctrnera Wlotcr C01141donw Hot Water & Calcium Additive to Crntcrole poured bi Wit, an Temperatw'ea ffi 2.50NWj 1laiciled rnad/or 9labledge $.450.00,100 roam liar Your Penia m rev- Rwo,-, AMepted by: prepared by: //'J� , t Date: Data: — Pi Z0'd TZ!L6930tiS �JNIt+1t7U�WSQL313�IUN0��1I1i Wd 6S: 0T S00Z—ZZ-21tJW-- VARIANCE APPLICATION #11-05 JOHN AND CHRISTINA DICKS Staff Report for the Board of Zoning_ Appeals Prepared: May 6, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Board of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE: May 17, 2005 - Action Pending LOCATION: 581 Germany Road (Route 625) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon I'1 0I' :It ' ' ID Nir TA R1S): 73-A-$9 PRQPF, RTY .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: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicants are requesting an 18 foot front yard variance. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Applicants desire to replace existing mobile home with a new one. Variance Request #11-05, John and Christina Dicks May 6, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: This one (1) acre property was created prior to Frederick County adopting performance zoning, which was adopted in 1967. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1967. The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35'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 sides. The applicant is requesting an 18' variance to allow for a new mobile home on the property. The mobile home currently located on the property is more then 30 years in age and needs to be replaced. This model is no longer in stock to enable the applicant to make a one-for-one replacement, as required for non -conforming uses. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MAY 17, 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 an 18' front yard variance. Should this variance be granted, the - l u 4�iiti setbac ;:s for this property would be: 32' -front and sic .4 ` l: - c®rr lot. 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' variance may be justified. a Y Q / -77 ZLU W co J m Wo w J_ W D co Q z J_ N Q N Z D Z N W z O > O W � U.� 0- U3 w o cn <Cn ZY Q z C) ¢ LC7 0 C� CB M o ' t= QO O LoLL LL co N Q 06 r -- C14 N CD e e� �nH � bNilsr�ya 6 V d Nye/' Ell LD O ti oma. •' co W 21 Q O �~�mj �" • = b CD b Z LO Y CN cr- 0a0 a 3 = m _ N [If F�Z� w mo Of m U a 5 W...; LU Z ��O u LLI a _ a�F m LCA N a 1 Lo LL �+ Q iiHS�Wb Ch w NJ APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner V other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: To ti n P. D i (- )r J- NAME: G h j'; s f j')i c4 M. 0: L hs - ADDRESS S ADDRESS 1 U c r i/vI e4 y R p ADDRESS: 5- 0 j 6 e r m g h y R JD V% TELEPHONE:- TELEPHONE: 656 8- 0 G a 0 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): L, tuc -C VALL F_ y -- 0 Cf bo', lf1 lo, 1 /C s- " - (4 m L e `� ! o n P, G c l c 1r5 L- l✓ j 0 fo J toij S 1 GJ 0 U r it / i,5 % it CEYI 6 Cr /P1,; s� 4(J-5 f- Priv` ivv(;W o✓) -At Leet 4. The property has a road frontage of 3 G 1 feet and a depth of feet and consists of I acres (please be exact). Page 5 of 9 5. The property is owned by d� n D �,� h s + ; �� E% as evidenced by deed from 6, ory L : !) :` L � � �; � .,e A, p,c�fecorded (previous owner) in deed book no. -7 Ns f 1 ttmo C pagel:r-cigrit,-,ayl4 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: O%P. U U it i1 7. Property Identification No.: 7 - A -09 S. The existing zoning of the property is: XX 9. The existing use of the property is: Re 5 % i� 10. Adjoining Property: USE North � e, , a e,,c e - East f)e_ ; c e i c p South R p.s , q er)L e West R es -A ei - ZONING Azl 44 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") IEt 4- ro ✓, Jl YC4 )16.1 VC4r1aNLC o ✓` DC1,4blC_ WAe fVgiJd✓' 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of property, or "A 3.5' exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of property, or the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto Page 6 of 9 13. Additional comments, if any:�� c j h 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the variance is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: NAME IiCSs� __L I'l C Address Q - Q . —e�,, OX l0 -3 Lk)- nC- Zz(Dbq Property ID # 7 3 — %-q — 5r' apps 141 Son, Address C' cc L?,� S% h C4� Property ID ` poleaddress Co r P'Property Rd s'"1 w�Q P . c) , W, n.0 ID # _ _ Address W? r tz . Property 1D # Address 2z,c� a Property ID # 173 Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Page 7 of 9 15. Provide a sketch ofthe property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structures) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. Page 8 of 9 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # 11-06 (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 properly 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 information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE -- SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION: - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: Page 9 of 9 DATE BZA CHAIRMAN T U s "I X0+11 is 001 c Id R V ��q' V .0 _P xPi OIs $4 V H a Irr-HINOW3N MrVN_Y AT LAW 3 SRAOOOCK BT NESTER,vA=2 l 040020419 0 CD w THIS DEED OF GIFT, made and dated this '5- day of October, 2004, by and between GARY L. DICKS and JOYCE A. DICKS, husband and wife, hereinafter called the Grantors; and JOHN PAUL DICKS and CHRISTINA M. - DICKS, husband and wife, hereinafter called the Grantees. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars, and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of title unto the Grantees, as tenants by the entireties, with common law right of survivorship, the following property: All that certain lot or parcel of land, containing one (l) acre, more or less, together with all improvements and appurtenances thereto belonging, lying and being situate at the intersection of Germany (formerly Old Hite) Road -and Carter's Lane (formerly N�wrown Road t Relief, about three and one-half (a-1/2), miles West of Stephens City, in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick Counter, Virginia; AND BEING the same.property conveyed. to Gary L. Ricks and Joyce A. Dicks by deed dated Jura.e 16, 2003, Paul Dicks of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument Nc. 030012949. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the attachments and the references therein contained, for a more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. 0 CD Cn This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of way and restrictions of record, if any, affecting the subject property. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: 4&LLea A1�4_ (SEAL) GARY Xf DICKS t v c C• C 11 (SEAL) !OYCg A.1 ICKS STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in my City and State this day of October, 2004, by Gary L. Dicks and Joyce A. Dicks. �y 1 My Commission L'xpires: � 1 � 1 6^, ®� WAX NOT Y Pi�PI.I' ;^'' +�• .� -7 V1RGJNJA: FREDF-RICIS COUNTY, SCT. ' $p Tb ts instrument of writing was produced to me on c at a-,1114 n;l with cc rtifocat� of acknowledgement thereto annexed <, in r e was admitted to record. T imposed by Sec. 53.1-802 of �tt_d 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable. 4et Aldr— . Clerk ORRW0RY F. UTCMINRCN rTLIr YATVw a a. 6 DQOa sT CHEBTEA. VA 22901 Cl) O O m cK , 00 APPEAL APPLICATION #12-05 DONALD CONRAD Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals w l� Prepared: May 9, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator 38 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 he useful to others interested in this zoning matter. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE: May 17, 2005 - Pending LOCATION: The property is located at 712 Dicks Hollow Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 41 -A-50A PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zone: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: - - Residential AD.I N Il�7G PROPERTY ZONING & USE - Zone: RA Land Use: Residential Zone: RA Land Use: Residential Zone: RA Land Use: Residential Zone: RA Land Use: Residential APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-50, permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District. REASON FOR APPEAL: Applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator pertaining to permitted uses in the RA District. Appeal Application #12-05, Donald Conrad May 7, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant was cited by Frederick County for an illegal trucking operation at 712 Dick Hollows Road. The applicant has been operating three (3) over -the -road trucks from this location. Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance prohibits the operation of trucking in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Frederick County has traditionally and customarily allowed over -the -road drivers to park one (1) truck at their residence in the RA Zoning District. Trucking operations are a permitted use in B-3 (Industrial Transition), M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (General Industrial) Zoning Districts of Frederick County. 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, Section 165-50, regarding trucking operations in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. o a� a b Odd ¢ x v¢ 16 a s:L ; Lf7h �� o0 O � r, N CV O CD O � c6 03 _ o '��'� o fti d�/ ��O�b o a Q o o¢Hb�� SN/� Q ¢w �z •6f Lb MbN ¢m LL O a u' µ LL 1 O -i q - 3 t J N DLLJ f� LLT z 5 �N �ry L U 13abp21bWN��N1 }_ l OS y p p bSON/7 p `3l _ E 7 'o m co O Ir LO ¢ O C7 Z M z b sib A LU ti0 o � Qa as o LL V !/J CD 2 4A O� v ¢ O h ¢ x v Z � � o w w v p Q 2 r o w Ouw o 4r of m > w J �= ¢ LU = v V ¢ LL N O� K _ a S1b13= ui N 4 S3Wyp '.37Sb Hp "' a b66 b Gti vo w Q x U) U) March 25, 2005 Donald Conrad 712 Dicks Hollow Rd Winchester, VA 22603 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of :Planning and Development 540/665-5651 IMAX: 540/665-6395 C ertfied Mail RE: 712 Dicks hollow Road; Property Identification Number (PIN): 41 -A -50A Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Conrad: On March 23, I visited the above -referenced property in response to a complaint regarding the alleged operation of an illegal business. My inspection of the site revealed the presence of an illegal trucking business including the storage of three dump trucks. In accordance with Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, a trucking business is not a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Therefore the storage of three dump trucks constitutes a violation of the provisions of section 165-50. This office will allow thirty (30) days from receipt o:l'this letter to resolve this violation.. Specifically, resolution of this violation may be accomplished by removing the dump trucks from the above -referenced property. Failure to comply with the Zonipg Ordinance could restih in a. criminal complaint being filed against you. You may have the right to appeal this notice of violation 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, a written statement setting forth the decision being appealed, the 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. Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions that you may have at (540) 665-5651. Sincerely, Patrick R. Sowers Planning Technician PRS/dlw f y�v ` ... A APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME]IIaE�n NAME: A d' ADDRESS s{(j�L2 ADDRESS: . TELEPHONE: �L) TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): i y gg jj y iA` p 4. Magisterial District: 5. Property Identification No.: 6. The existing zoning of the property is: 7. The existing use of the property is:�c,��_-hfi!C� S. Adjoining Property: USE North East South West ZONING 9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.) C 1 lbs l Y 10: Describe the basis of the appeal; indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision. (This may be provided on separate sheet.) k/JC`� � �;V��2) C ��- rVf �S �l ✓Inch cL� it�S ' S��a��c� Q70 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 oc,ii ,Qi C &-ck'w,44, Address -2 00) dez;(; /6' Y7 Ll - �-t-v �o,' Property ID # �V)d W Ocv'da Address Property ID e- ilAyin, A 2-1&,df Address/ D, cks2 - Property ID # f.4 f()� -, C bf7d-541--. Iii/2 ,,�kddress dL b-,-AOAv rip NOID, /D r Property ID 4 e'C%V,I 6" ol&i 0", 'iA Address Property 1D 4 I-- c /V'J' re J-' OrT- 7 Address Z" TIA Property FD 4 914 Address A) Property ID Address Property ID Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID 4 !26 I L, AGREEMENT APPEAL # Zj --0S; 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 SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF 5- /A ACTION: - DAT - APPEAL OVERRULED APPEAL SUSTAINED SIGNED: DATE: File O.-U.and Use Applications�Application FomLsWPEAL Revised: 01/14/03 :_ . •l :u_► DONALD CONIZAD T/A CONRAD TRUCKING ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. April 22, 2005 Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals RE: Appeal statement 712 Dicks Hollow Rd. Dump trucks I am appealing the decision of this office related to a complaint made 3/25/05. The complaint that was made was most likely the work of a nosey neighbor who was actually upset over a prior incident in which my stepdaughter was in her yard attempting to catch her dog after the last snow. This incident resulted in an argument and thus the reporting of my trucks which have never bothered her for the last year and a half. I do not operate an illegal business and fully comply with State and Federal guidelines. I am an upstanding member of the community and hard-working small business owner. I am well known and have a good reputation in the construction industry which I feel could be damaged by your decision and this complaint. I am not interested in keeping a fleet of trucks here, only two. My prior experience with remote storage of vehicles has convinced me that constant monitoring during non -working hours is crucial due to the ever- increasing costs of insurance, repairs from vandalism, fuel, high taxes and fees on everything possible. Solely, this is the machinery that is responsible for my family's well-being and prosperity. My company, family, and I have done nothing, but attempt to do good for our neighbors and community. As a hard-working businessman that helps our community thrive, I urge you to reconsider any further action. Thank you for your serious consideration in this matter. Donald Conrad, Jr. co APPEAL APPLICATION #12-05 DONALD CONRAD W Staff Report for the Doard of Zoning Appeals Prepared: May 9 2005 w � p Y 78 Staff Contact: !lark R. Gheran, 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: May 17, 2005 - Pending LOCATION: The property is located at 712 Dicks Hollow Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 41 -A -50A PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zone: Land -t. se: AJDJf3IVi y -7T :PROPERTY Z�1i d 1'1J(a & tjSF: Zone: RA Zone: RA Zone: RA Zone: RA RA (Rural Areas) District F3 c-idential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-50, permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) District. REASON FOR APPEAL: Applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator pertaining to permitted uses in the RA District. Appeal Application #12-05, Donald Conrad May 9, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant was cited by Frederick County for an illegal trucking operation at 712 Dick Hollows Road. The applicant has been operating three (3) over -the -road trucks from this location. Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance prohibits the operation of trucking in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Frederick County has traditionally and customarily allowed over -the -road drivers to park one (1) truck at their residence in the RA Zoning District. Trucking operations are a permitted use in B-3 (Industrial Transition), M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (General Industrial) Zoning Districts of Frederick County. 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, Section 165-50, regarding trucking operations in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. LL y �o J LLI aQ �6 a LL Ln o0 O N Q O LO' U ' 0 o L (f o N N r�aw '+ y� ' zo ��>Oy o �i 0 t o w by o Q o blS ��dr LLI ¢ w'r b `d �Mby Q m �z vL, �1 vOf f Q 7y LU z CN In UJ 3 MI ;j o �' 13y y�'Jb6y N� _ " 1 OSl m rn- Cb ) 3)p0 3 E e a Qi ca 7TA iJ O L Q o ¢` -co; A I Qb � LU r- o Fes. m � I as as o LL � y � a O� v¢ 0 u' ¢ ca 441 w z z vC.D O ¢ r Q w ¢ 2� z co > COw7 4p 47 o c Lu �`a w 2 �v ¢ LL N O QQ LL Slb 13 N `r a S3Wbp `N3lS btiy y bH� "' ui N tp U w of Q U) I March 25, 2005 Donald Conrad 712 Dicks Hollow Rd Winchester, VA 22603 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of ?lanniing and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 CertRtied "ail RE, 712 Dicks Hollow Road; Property Identification Number (PIN): 41 -A -50A Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear iVlr. Conrad: On March 23, I visited the above -referenced property in response to a complaint regarding the alleged operation of an illegal business. My inspection of the site revealed the presence of an illegal trucking business including the storage of three dump trucks. In accordance with Section 165-50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, a trucking business is not a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Therefore the storage of three dump trucks constitutes a violation of the previsions of section 165-50. This office will allow thirty (30) days from receipt of thiF letter to resolve this -violation. Specifically, resolution of this violation may be accomplished by removing the dump trucks from the above -referenced property. Failure to comply with the Zoning_ Ordinance could result in o crimihal complaint being filed against you. You may have the right to appeal this notice of violation 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), ofthe Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This provision requires the submission of an application form, a written statement setting forth the decision being appealed, the 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. Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions that you may have at (540) 665-5651. Sincerely, Patrick R. Sowers Planning Technician PRS/dlw .__ -1 -1 . — , n ..n.. lar -v. - _..--- vn____t_ .anin� &-nnn �\ �\ .. � � . , a; , §. . , .. ,\° ��.�. (<> �. �} \ . � - � APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: NAME: r; r' G ' ✓� �A 4 v ADDRESS. -w. TELEPHONE: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): f7on `r L_ �'✓� �c a-cyll I L.� c' : , 4' �%t? �? f, ��' *y� R r ,Qs' -t— Par, A n f 4. Magisterial District 5. Property Identification No.: r i ` r Vh 6. The existing zoning of the property is: 7. The existing use of the property is:er;;c��C. 8. Adjoining Property: USE North East South West ZONING 9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.) II rr 10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision. ( This may be provided on separate sheet.) WC� hC'LVQ- -I-)L--. � � �aiVC' S 11 �L� -yrs r 11. Additional comments, if any: e^ -s 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 Properly Identification Number.) NAME Drul i eiC P-r'J-C-1 !V'e'CJ'& Address 0) dl -"C J-&16'k�j 'e -d Ivnida, i - — Property ID 4 (4 I'V)d V'^J W C /CVde, Address O% ASN V 12--0 Ck (7e) Li tic LJ Property ID 4'—1 A Y),, A 7-1e-�,dl Address Z - Property ID C Lji7d-scy ddress - S /.- /2- 14- LIU-4J7' /D Cc, PC f Property ID P'C�V-Address A 2 - 0 Z�14 rc ( Ur I" Property ID 4 7 0, Address jvi,6 /A). e),dy'.4r- Or, Property ID 4 914 4-- Address 2-Z , Property ID Address Property ID Address Property ID Address Property ID Address Property ID Xt I ii, AGREEMENT APPEAL #_ J 2,— 0,5— 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. -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF 511L- ACTION: - DAT - APPEAL OVERRULED APPEAL SUSTAINED SIGNED: DATE: File. 0 \Lmd Use Applications\Application Fomis\APPEAL Revised: 01/14/03 BZA CHAIRMAN DONALD CONRAD T/A CONRAD TRUCKING ........................................................................................................................................................................................... .......... r 7 April 22, 2005 Zoning Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals RE: Appeal statement 712 Dicks Hollow Rd. Dump trucks I am appealing the decision of this office related to a complaint made 3/25/05, The complaint that was made was most Rely the work of a nosey neighbor who was actually upset over a prior incident in which my stepdaughter was in her yard attempting to catch her dog after the last snow. This incident resulted in an argument and thus the reporting of my trucks which have never bothered her for the last year and a half. I do not operate an illegal business and fully comply with State and Federal guidelines. I am an upstanding member of the community and hard-working small business owner. I am well known and have a good reputation in the construction industry which I feel could be damaged by your decision and this complaint. I am not interested in keeping a fleet of trucks here, only two. My prior experience with remote storage of vehicles has convinced me that constant monitoring during non -working hours is crucial due to the ever- increasing costs of insurance, repairs from vandalism, fuel, high taxes and fees on everything possible. Solely, this is the machinery that is responsible for my family's well-being and prosperity. My company, family, and I have done nothing, but attempt to do good for our neighbors and community. As a hard-working businessman that helps our community thrive, I urge you to reconsider any further action. Thank you for your serious consideration in this matter. Donald Conrad, Jr. VARIANCE APPLICATION #13-05 ALL IMPORTS & MORE, LLC Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: May 9, 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: May 17, 2005 - Action Pending LOCATION: 331 Clydesdale Drive MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPS ID NI 1VIIIlrJR� }: 7bB-1-3-228 PROPEaTYZONING & USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) District - Land 'Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) South: RP (Residential Performance) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a front variance of one foot, six inches and a left side variance of one foot, four inches. REASON FOR VARIANCE: To correct violations of the building setbacks. Variance Request #13-05, All Imports & More, LLC May 9, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting a variance to abate violations of the building setback requirements for the RP (Residential Performance). The front setback is one foot, six inches over the setback line. The left side setback is one foot, four inches over the set back line. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires building setbacks for the RP zoning district to be: Front - 35'; Sides - 10'; Rear - 25'. The applicant purchased the property to finish the construction of the existing dwelling. The dwelling was in violation of the setbacks when the applicant purchased the dwelling. Repairs and corrections were required by the Frederick County Building Department. These repairs were completed and resulted in the setback violations. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE May 17, 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. Granting of this variance -in -ay be appropriate, in that there will be no substantial detriment to, adjacent properties or character of the zoning district. INo JG4 A N b,j,b3^38 Z E ZH89w11 `SN\ l Ada3.i 12 v N31iVM 'SGdVMC13 6ZZ £ L 891 a J tmD _J ^ W z U U o O LO J O w0-4 N M p IV— 2E M a> ch6 o LO w LL co CQ O �, L Q C_o N Q o 'WUN t is r TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INI{ _PLEASE PRINT I . The applicant is the owner V-/ other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS 1 &aU V�.IIe,��Q ADDRESS: Conr�� TELEPHONE: Q 74 - �y p TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 4• The property has a road frontage of 409, feet and a depth of (, feet c�ti and consists of—a,-3& :S acres (please be exact). y it Gail Gii�s� page 5 of 9 5. The properly is owned by A 11 i;&65 4 (` cl m_ 1.1 C as evidenced by deed from C - 9 -CC. Buy IAe m Ll C recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 3Dc;3 on page '30-3i of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: 7. Property Identification No.: `) Lc 3 S. The existing zoning of the property is: 9. The existing use of the property is:y►rcies 10. Adjoining Property: North East South West 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distanm and type. (For example: "A 3.51 rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.') � • � � ��...1 troch �� s moo,_ �_ O • (, , Cr) 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 ac�iacent thereto, Vic- c,-4-iL(A- ccA G's ct 12. • Building permit was pulled • Mr. Ambrogi was told not to start building due to 4 other homes he started • Mr. Ambrogi did not listen and hired Diamond Walls to do the foundation • Diamond Walls poured the walls. We later find out that they had poured the walls twice both times incorrectly. Mr. Ambrogi was told to correct this problem. • We leave town • We return to find that he has worsened the situation by hiring a framer and frames the house (the framer Buster Cubbage has since died) • See photos for walls/framing • We asked Mr. Ambrogi to account for the construction draws and repair the issues with the walls, he did neither and totally stopped working on the house and left it set • We further found through legal proceedings that there were mechanic liens on the property; at this time Mr. Ambrogi even stopped answering his -phone. • We talked to the county inspectors and they asked us to draw a sketch on repairing the wall so we did and they accepted the modifications. See 040-69-d • So they were repaired, inspected and passed by the county. • We thought all was good. • Until the final house location survey. That showed that we had two set back violations. • One -issue is on the side of the garage consisting of 0.6' (7 inches). We are in the process of satisfying this issid 4vnth a boundary line agreement with the neighbor. • The second issue is on the front side of the garage consisting of 0.4' (5 inches). • See att cher' plat. • We are here at your mercy so please help end this whole ordeal. L3 -Additional comments, if any: ,1 4. The following names and addresses are all of the individtfals, tirDis, 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: NU"J'Ay, Rc)(q Address TC) BU -_- t I VA as Properly ID # q '�3C-DMMO" Q G (- Caf*-C Co-Ntx S Address -k)o C_) - e (LL VA Property ID # 9CE _IA Address Property ID Address Property ID # r) LO f3 - a � ic\ Address Ln CL -A SVvhuyz, CJ--' VA �DW-�< Property ID # 9 (0 e- - Address iao Lac-Jc> CL,4 'SkOhn5c, Vk Property ID # r)�./ 3- Q -3 -Dib 4-rno-f i 4n n K I O-ne'-C Address laa Lir l Property ID # r)& _All 4 fV)Dk L L[ -C— Address 1 Cl e 4r. ► \JA Property ID # qt, -3 -a � � Paee 7 of 9 15. Provide a sketch ofthe property (you may use this page or attach en Show proposed and/or existingstructures on the roe sneer's drawing). to all property lines and to the nearest structures) on adjoining pro measurements include any other exhibits rira ,,,.. Frope�rties. Please — in --' ruOtographs with this application. Page 8 of 9 LOT 218 a FLOOD NOTE:• OF ZONE- C COMMUNITY NO.: 510063 ,OtPa 1a2 LOT 217 PANEL: 0200 B \ / DA TE- 07-17-780 LOT 216 18348 0.2 AIF S, Z \ \ 17054 I00.7CDNG• 70546 70344 I I I n°j„ 1 .7 x AD �j 698.7 DECK 13 I \ 19.4 26.6 I � I �'1 1l ONE STORY lois II 97.169k BR/CK & FRAME DWELLING LOT 227 1 I 11 NO ,¢7 POSTED I I 1�' 703 55 16.6' N P CH ]4.6'' lows 217' D 70544 \ 108x8 \ \ \ 70 1 7094 \ \ 711 \ 706x8 7 / ,. 704-9 \, LOT 228 16,096- SQ. F- 705.4 705.4 o6�r rr 705x4 63`S" LOT 215 I 1 • 70 34 - 704.1 J _ 35' BRL' - - O OPEN SPACE 1696x4 2. 103.4 /0.S 1 1 CONCRETE 7o3.e n 79z 70 - - - - JJ � �G 7olx7T fi45.4\ 1 701-�L E 10' GA5 BRABi0R1�1 SD 6 9.2 11 9.7f � —�— ��' LAVEESM / I 95.6 ' -5r 1 698.404 WM -� ! �' ✓ 1 6997 X17-8 -07.7- 1697.5-6915 _ 397.T - - - - - - - ! 697 R 7.7 697. x_ �/ �+ [ (� `/ ' 69& CL /Q�JL�A G DRI VE-- 52' R/W IRF - IRON ROD FOUND "R'l. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE GRAPHIC SCALE TRO - TELEPHONE RISER BOX 30 015 30 TVRB - CABLE TV RISER BOX 1 1 SDG - STORM DRAINAGE GRATE WM - WATER METER 1 inch = 30 ft. FFE - FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CURVE TABLE GFE - GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION BFE -BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION NO. RADIUS ARC TAN BEARING CHORD DELTA 720-5- EX. SPOT ELEVATION C1379.00" 108.83' 54.79" S 35 45 J6" W1108.46'11627-11-1 —720— —EX. CONTOUR SURVEYOR'S CER17FICA TE NOTES / HEREBY CER 77FY THAT THE INFORMA77ON 1. NO 777LE REPORT FURNISHED. SHOWN ON THIS PLAT lS BASED ON AN ACTUAL 2. PROPERTY IDENT7F7CA77ON NO. 76B-1-3-228 FIELD SURREY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION J. EASEMENTS 07HER THAN SHOWN MA Y EXIST. ON APRIL 15, 2005 AND THA T TO THE BEST 4. THIS LOT /S SUBJECT TO A 15' U7TUTY OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THERE ARE NO EASEMENT AND AN 8' ACCES5AA/N7FNANCE ENCROACHMENTS OR VISIBLE EASEMENTS UNLESS EASEMENT ALONG CLYDESDALE DRIVE: SHOWN. HOUSE LOCA77ON & AS—BUILT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TH OF yj� LOT 228 SECTION THREE N PHASE l CANTER ES TA TES ou as . CLYDESDALE DRIVE o. 001 97 SHAWNEE MAG157ERIAL DISTRICT�l2,I 0S FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA APRIL 21, 2005 lgND SURVE�13 ID 5263A DAF NORTH LOUDOUN MARSH& LEGGE 5� HE TER, VIRGINIAS22601 IuLand Surveyors, P.L.C. PHFAX X540; 667-0469 AGREEMENT VARIANCE #_ (Number to be assigned by the planning Dept.) I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application, and petition the Frede County Board of Zoning Appeals grant a rick (BZA) to ranvariance 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 ofthe 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 belace the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the BZA public hearin:y p d at so as to be visible from the road or right-of-way until the hearing. `and meed I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. r,- - SIGNAA LYRE OF APPLICA iTjd-c� _- DA'Z'E SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) DATE ------ -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION: -'DATE- - APPROVAL DATE - APPROVAL DENIAL SIGNED: DATE: Page 9 of 9 BZA CHAnZMAN r z2 V 110 Elath too l ' V 5 -11 GO CX3 II J77—ii On a nw. 6'. d _jArqyp 44 PLANS APPROVED 0j"? I too ls2A�tC r_ 110 5 -11 GO CX3 II J77—ii On a nw. 6'. d _jArqyp 44 PLANS APPROVED 0j"? I too ls2A�tC r_ VARIANCE APPLICATION #14-05 Paul Huber Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: May 6, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Board of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE: May 17, 2005 - Action Pending LOCATION: 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) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 64D-4-5 PROPERTY 'ZOINI tiG & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas District Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA Use: Vacant South: RA Use: Residential East: RA Use: Residential West: B-2 Use: Business VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a 39 foot right yard variance and a 39 foot left yard variance. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Current setbacks render the lot unbuildable. Lot created prior to current setbacks for RA district. Variance Request #14-05, Paul Huber May 6, 2005 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: This property was created inl959, prior to Frederick County adopting performance zoning, as noted by the deed and plats included in your agenda. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in 1967; the historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1967. The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35' front and 15'sides. Frederick County amended its Code in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts 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 sides. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE May 17, 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 thirty-nine (39) feet on the sides of this property. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be: 75' front; I I'sides; and 50'rear. (See plat) It appears that this variance meets the -intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15_.2-2309 =(2), this request for a thirty mho e �3 } %ot va -lance %ray -n the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. Y Q cn co W M H v= �G mO W 1I s } LU U) N Q Q U N ? m Q 0 v 2 � U U J W 163A3'NVWM339 9£ V V9 N LO LU I Y w Z J a d' Y N a a w d' ' as �D W06 F Y- N �r Ld C ? � .:r (n i LL 05 Q) Cl Ca '� 0� m F= i o = (n Oce o C13 W W X OLL O LL r N LO I Lo O d' a d' Q oQ) u' c i LL Q) Ca '� N co = o C13 a_ Pagel of APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA -OFFICE BSE ONLY - Variance Application No. -04 Submittal Deadline �Z a Submittal Date q 12--2--10:5- For the meeting of Fee Paid initials:_ Sign Deposit C>`9 Sign: Returri _Date MWMN* MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INR - PLRASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner _ other X (Check one) 2. APPLICANT,'] ,/ceder/ OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: �,�l{�SlG `f dit�JkC. NAME: ADDRESS "r ti.J.s� 1�'C ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 364 /Z4:' g 5-5- 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): ��® C ort l ft e CQ.S 41 -Z z %�t rsec�rh•. f?a _ otir� l b�'�e 011 kY- PS_ (Ur`t, f lip �. 4. The property has a road frontage of Q,O feet and a depth of SO.O feet and consists of Q, ��acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by �Ajowl 11 Sr. omW 7iressa & % y as evidenced by deed from �, ' Le �' Qolo C. refue� recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 26' on page 763 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. Page 2 of 5 6. Magisterial District: kJ/1aul ee 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 6 16 ` 7"'"_S_ 8. The existing zoning of the property is: 9. The existing use of the property is: 10. Adjoining Property: USE/ North /Pe -3. Bast South West ZONING 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example; "A 3.51 rear yard. variance for an attached two car garage.") i+ �� j ��rdl �/Qf 1 a Ace- a4fCA_ VC1rd ✓4�rQ�cf_... 1S SOGCQ�� r t'Psrl'I�Cri,��i.� QW� �ta��,. 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: exceptional riarro-rieaz, 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 �v �arryc. a �a Lc Y1 Gt�Qs �r�QeD� ,Drier Coup q 3A-6 A- PA Zoee 13. Additional comments, if any thereto paga 3 d5 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 ur;tt be nniiMA by n—of this —Ii f:--- NAME_ ecu rads Sr-, Address_ !Z 31 Frnsl Y-. Ko K/ P Ae ti I'Jt4,s%.r, IM z--�O -z- Property Property ID# NAME A J 'a . + 4�&i Wai4q Address Z5 M,f B Pke OitJe3kc VA zZ6OL Property ID# �" V'D — q — 4 NAME if A t S Address J57 Lf�tefwaoa� fir'{2, i (�es r{Ve4 L-z&OZ Property ID# `Y A — J b NAME JUCAPA L C. _ Address 1c�ce�.J4ers'�'_ hlnc�i`iesT �V� �Z�n� Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# NAME Address Property ID# Page 4 of 5 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page). 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. Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) I � _ Ccs) (Name) E r LA -10 0 / U L 5 S 1k FOX X (Phone) (Address) `3 v C,+�y c ?tG; �= L1,im e- h f 014 Z;? 6G2 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels o and ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Cleric's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. ` 4 _ 6' on Page %!j t , and is described as Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: 11 e W\ c7 j-,[0_( � �� do hereby make, constitute and appoint: % e�l� �,ti [- 'L 30'4 (Phone) � (Address) 6 r, \3 c CCi _� c� ---- ' `� � u �� 5 J �` �.1.� V � 17 ?S To act as my tiue and lawful dtorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead w full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: -14 ision 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 (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of L 200,E , Signature(s)iCJ�1/Yl-�' State of Virginia,it County of/�, , To -wit: I, 611,e,5, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this �%' day of L r%L , 200,57 ti''.t" My Commission Expires:</ - N ry Public Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT ST T7 A 1�T!'�Ttt Jl I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfi,11;T make application, and pet.lur the Fre lerick 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 information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (if other than applicant) � /` j(7- -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ! L' �_ ACTION: - DATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: RECORD NORTH - DB 425 PG 768 FRONT ROYAL PIKE N US RTE 522 80' R/W a - W GRAPHIC SCALE 40 0 20 40 80 NOTES' 1 inch = 40 ft. 1. THIS PLAT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH SETBACK AND SIDEYARD DISTANCES FOR THE DWELLINGS AS DIMENSIONED HEREON. 2. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 3. ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE PHYSICALLY LOCATED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION. 4. BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN WERE TAKEN FROM PLAN FURNISHED BY BUILDER/DEVELOPER. UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES. BUILDER APPROVAL BUILDING SITE PLAN LOT s MEMOR/AL HEIGHTS BEEKMANN L O TS INITIALS SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, 1/IRGINIA MARCH 22, 2005 DATE ID 6890 AMW EET MARSH & LEGGE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA60 NORTH OUDOUNS22601 Land Surveyors, P.L.C. ol� PHONE �540� 667-0468 667-0469 RECORD NORTH - DB 425 PG 768 WATER YALVE FRONT ROYAL PIKE US RTE 522 80' R/W GRAPHIC SCALE 80 40 0 20 4,0 i NOTES 1 inch = 40 ft. 1. THIS PLAT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE -WITH SETBACK AND SIDEYARD DISTANCES FOR THE DWELLINGS AS DIMENSIONED HEREON. 2. EASEMENTS OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST. 3. ALL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE PHYSICALLY LOCATED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION. 4. BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN WERE TAKEN FROM PLAN FURNISHED BY BUILDER/DEVELOPER. UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES. BUILDING SITE PLAN LOT 5 MEMORIAL HEIGHTS BEEKMANN L O TS SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINIA MARCH 22, 2005 AMW BUILDER APPROVAL INITIALS DATE ID 6890 MARSH & LEGGE 60 NORTH WINCHESTER, LOUDO VIRGINIA5TREET 22601 Land Surveyors, P.L.C. NE �540) PHOFAX 667-0468 540) 667-0469 '1 DANIEL L. KREMER, ET UX q- TO: DEED ELWOOD H. FOX, SR., ET UX t v�K 125' u 766 - THIS DEED made and date this 12th day of March, 1974, by and between Daniel L. Kremer and.Dorothy C. Kremer, his wife, parties of the first part, and Elwood H. Fox, Sr., and Tufessa K. Fox, his wife, parties of the second part. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the said parties of the first part do hereby grant, sell, and convey, with general warranty of title, unto the parties of the second part, as tenants by the entirety, with common law right of survivorship, all of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, lying and being situate along the Eastern.side of Virginia - U. S. Highway No.,522, about _. five miles South of Winchester, in 6hewne-e District, Frederick County, Virginia fronting on said highway a distance of 90 feet, and extending back Eastward between parallel lines a distance of 250 feet, and being the same land identi- fied as Lot No. 5 on the Flat of Memorial Heights, Beekmann Lots, which is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Fre.zeriek County, Virginia in Deed Book No. 259, page 95, and further being the same land that was con- veyed to the said Daniel L. Kremer by Robert W. Wilt, et ux, by deed bearing date of January 6th, 1964, and of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book No. 304, page 216. A reference to said records, and to the reference therein contained, i's here made for a further and more particular description of said land. It is expressly stipulated that said land is conveyed subject to all of the restrictive conditions and covenants contained in the Deed of Dedication to said Memorial Heights, Beekmann Lots, which is of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book No. 259, page 93, together with any and all other applicable, or legally enforceable, restrictions and'easementa, if any, of record affecting same. Except as noted above the aforesaid grantors covenant that they have j the right to convey the said land to the aforesaid grantees that the said grantees shall have quiet possession of the said land, free from all encum- brances; that they have done no act to encumber the -said land; and that they will execute such further assurances of the said land as may be requisite. -P 0 it Oil Eat 1. a=ID 'mil � $� o s u ow IF 40 29 � _� � 40ILK IL �wC Am.. 4 LZ 411" n4saverh. lz JfA W M'q ` r w� � z •=4 IC:x .