BZA 05-17-05 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester.
Virginia, on May 17, 2005.
PRESENT Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; Robert
Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Kevin Scott, Shawnee District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud District;
and, Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large.
ABSENT: Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District
STAFF
PRESENT Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Bernard S. Suchicital, Zoning
Inspector; and, Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Catlett at 3:25 p.m
On a motion by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mr. Shenk, the minutes for the April 19, 2005
meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
0 Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut -off date for the June meeting. Mr. Cheran responded
that Friday, May 20`', is the cut -off date.
BLIC HEARING
Variance Request 410 -05 of Harry and Ruth Newman for a five foot left side yard variance. This
property is located at 115 Maverick Court, and is identified with Property Identification Number 7613-
1 -3 -160 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report . The applicant is requesting a five foot left side yard variance, and the
reason for this variance is because the existing basement steps extend into the side setback. The Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance requires a setback survey report for primary structures that are five feet or less from a setback.
Section 165 -23H requires two location surveys be taken. As noted in your agenda, two surveys were done on this
property and on the application, the original building permit called for a 35 foot front, 25 foot rear, ten right and
left sides. The Zoning Administrator asked for those surveys; one being dated May 1, 2003 where the setbacks
were noted at 59.2 feet for the front, 60.8 feet on the back, 25.2 feet for the right, and 1 1 feet on the left. The final
was done on November 11. 2003, showing 57.9 feet on the front, 69.7 feet on the back, 24.8 feet on the right, and
11.1 feet on the left. Included with the agenda is a house location survey that shows the encroachment on the left
side.
1
lJ
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1305
Mr. Cheran further stated that The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2309(2), states that no variance shall be
uthorized by the Board unless it finds that a) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an undue
ardship; b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same
vicinity; and, c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. The applicant should have
constructed the dwelling within the proposed setbacks indicated on the recorded plat and building permit. Since
the applicant did not situate the dwelling within the proposed setbacks consistent with the information submitted,
the subject setback violation and subsequent variance application resulted. The applicant's failure to accurately
construct the dwelling in accordance with the information submitted does not constitute a hardship. Therefore,
denial of this variance would be justified as the applicant has not met the requirements set forth in Section 15.2-
2309(2) of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Cheran directed Board members to the screen showing the property location. Also, the applicant
submitted photos of the basement steps and they're included with the agenda.
Mr. Perry asked if the steps were clearly indicated on the original drawings that were approved for the
building permit. Mr. Cheran responded that would be correct - when they did the review of the permit through the
building department. Mr. Perry stated that the basement stairs were not an afterthought, is that correct. and Mr.
Cheran responded that is correct. Mr. Cheran further stated that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Newman, did not
build the house: however, the property owner is responsible for what goes on with the property. Mr. Perry asked if
it was the builder's obligation to situate the house, including the basement steps, within the boundaries of the
setbacks, and Mr. Cheran replied that is correct.
0 Ms. Mather asked who the builder was and Mr. Cheran responded that Eagle Place Industries was the
contractor and owner at the time the permit was issued. Ms. Mather asked if they got a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Cheran responded that once the final inspection is done to allow the dwelling to be occupied that it's just a
sign -off of the Building Official, not the Zoning Administrator.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Harry Newman approached the podium and
identified himself. Mr. Newman stated that they do not dispute the violation of the Code. The house itself is well
beyond and within the Code, but he understands that the steps are an integral part of the dwelling and are in
violation. Mr. Newman further stated that he thinks there is decidedly some false information provided to the
Board by the Planning Office regarding this variance request, and he thinks these false statements may reflect
badly on the request. In the original letter to the Newmans dated February 28, 2005, it stated he came to our
property to inspect "in response to a complaint regarding the location of a set of basement steps located in the
required side yard setback ". Mr. Newman said this is false; there was never a complaint at all in this regard. The
Newman's neighbor, Gary Shipp, was visiting the County Planning Office the week prior to inquire about a side
yard setback for his property because he was considering a garage extension. Mr. Beniamino pulled the plat for
reference and noticed the steps to our basement were encroaching on the ten foot side yard setback. It would
appear that no one from the Planning Office looked at the plat before it was filed. Additionally, Mr. and Mrs.
Shipp have provided a letter stating that they have no problem with the approval of this variance, and they are
present today. Also in the staff report, it states in the staffs conclusions, that the applicant should have
constructed the dwelling within the proposed setbacks. Mr. Newman's issue with that is, as Mr. Cheran explained,
he's referring to Mr. Newman, the applicant, as building the house and this is a new construction. Mr. and Mrs.
6 '°wman did not build the steps. Further, it would be an undue hardship on us to have the steps relocated. Mr.
wman said that throughout the construction and multiple County inspections, this violation was never noted.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1306
The walls of the steps are an integral part of the concrete basement. Therefore, the basis of the denial does not
em to make a great deal of sense even considering that they, as the applicant, did not construct the steps. The
emise of a no hardship argument appears to Mr. Newman to be invalid. As for the hardship, as retired people on
fixed income, paying $9,500 to have steps relocated would definitely be a hardship, especially considering the fact
they did not construct the steps in the first place and the County did in fact grant the occupancy permit. Mr.
Newman feels they should not be made to pay for the mistakes of others, and it makes no sense to require that the
steps now be relocated. They have real concerns that attempting to seal the current entrance and move the steps to
another location would run a very high risk of a basement leak, and the risk of invading the structural integrity of
the basement wall at the new location for the steps. They understand the Board has specific criteria that an
application must meet before a variance can be granted. They feel they meet those criteria. If they are forced to
correct this violation and relocate the basement steps, it will in fact be an undue hardship. Clearly, they did not
cause the violation and requiring them to correct the issue now would be very costly. The approval of this
variance will not be a detriment to the adjacent property as reflected in the Shipp's letter and the character of the
district definitely will not be changed. They respectfully request the BZA grant this variance and allow them to
keep the basement steps in their current location.
Mr. Perry asked Mr. Newman if he'd had any conversations at all with Eagle Place Industries. Mr. Newman
responded that as soon as he got the letter he called them. Mr. Newman stated that.Iim Gibson of Eagle Place was
quite concerned about this, but both of them were hoping that they could get a variance. Mr. Pent' asked if Mr.
Gibson offered any kind of financial help and Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Gibson said they'd work something out
if they couldn't get a variance.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor of the variance and no one responded.
q )e then asked if anyone was present to speak against the variance and no one responded. The public hearing
ortion of the meeting was closed. Chairman Catlett informed the applicant that one member of the Board is
absent today and Mr. Newman has the option of tabling the vote or proceeding. Mr. Newman stated that he
wished to proceed.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Mather asked Mr. Cheran what would happen to the homeowner if he did nothing. Mr. Cheran
responded that if the Board approves the variance, a letter is placed with the Building Department. If the variance
is denied, the Newmans have 30 days to appeal to the Circuit Court. Once the 30 days is up, on the 31 "day, staff
will file criminal charges for setback violations.
Chairman Catlett stated that while the Board may sympathize with the cost of repair, she doesn't know if
that's considered a hardship under what this Board is given as parameters to work within. That the builder failed
to erect it within the required setbacks does not propose a hardship in the fact that a house could not have been
built on that property for residential use.
After discussion by Mr. Perry, Chairman Catlett, Ms. Mather and Mr. Scott with Mr. Cheran conceming the
dates of the survey reports, the fact that this violation is the builder's mistake, adherence to the Code of Virginia,
Section 15.2 - 2309(2), and boundary /set back lines in Canter Estates, Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve this
variance. Ms. Mather seconded the motion and it passed by majority vote.
r 1
U
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1307
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #11 -05 of John and Christina Dicks for an 18 foot front yard variance. This
property is located 581 Germany Road (Route 625). The subject property is identified with Property
Identification Number 73 -A -89 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Suchicital gave the staff report. The applicants are requesting an 18 foot front yard variance in order to
replace an existing mobile home which is more than 30 years old, with a new one. The applicant is unable to
make a one -for -one replacement as required for a non - conforming use. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-
2309(2), states that no variance shall be authorized by the Board unless it finds that a) strict application of the
Ordinance would produce an undue hardship; b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in
the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and, c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting
of the variance. Should this variance be granted, the building setback for this property would be 42 feet in the
front and sides for this corner lot. The application of the current setback requirements of the RA zoning district
may produce an undue hardship due to the narrowness of the property. The granting of an 18 foot variance may be
justified.
Mr. Suchicital displayed pictures of the property and mobile home on the screen.
Mr. Perry asked ifthe new mobile home is going to go on the existing site as the old one, and Mr. Suchicital
Issponded yes.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to speak. Mr. John Dicks approached the podium and identified
himself. Mr. Dicks had made up and displayed a placard of pictures of the existing home and what the new
home looks like. Mr. Dicks stated that he can't do anything in his backyard because that's where the septic
system is. Mr. Dicks stated further that he's married and he's just trying to get something better than he has
now because it's 30 years old, it's falling apart, and it's not going to last much longer.
Mr. Jason Orndoff with Wampler Homes spoke in favor of the variance, explaining that the present mobile
home is too old to be replaced and that it's too far gone to repair.
Mr. Bob Lilly spoke in favor of the variance. He lives across the street from the Dicks family and believes
they arc very nice. Also, they can't move the home back any further because the land just drops off.
Mrs. Joyce Dicks, mother of Mr. Dicks, spoke in favor of the variance.
Mr. Cheran pointed out that staff had received a fax from Joseph and Amanda Keaveney in favor of the
variance.
There was no one present to speak against the variance request. The public portion of the meeting was closed.
l.J
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals 1308MinutesofMay17, 2005 Minute Book Page
DISCUSSION
Mr. Scott made a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Perry seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal Application #12 -05 of Donald Conrad, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in
the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165 -50, permitted uses in the RA
Rural Areas) District. The subject property is located at 712 Dicks Hollow Road, and is identified
with Property Identification Number 41 -A -50A in the Gainesboro District.
ACTION — APPEAL DENIED
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The reason for the appeal is the applicant is appealing the decision of the
Zoning Administrator pertaining to permitted uses in the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district. The applicant was
cited for an illegal trucking operation. Section 165 -50 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance prohibits the
operation of trucking in the RA district. Frederick County has traditionally and customarily allowed over -the-
road drivers to park one truck at their residence in the RA district. Trucking operations and parking of trucks are
allowed in the B3, M1 and M2 zoning districts. Furthermore, if the applicant feels that the Zoning Ordinance
needs to be changed to allow trucking in the RA district, it is not this Board that can accomplish any ordinance
changes but the Board of Supervisors. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in
0-ie administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165 -50, regarding truck operations in the
RA zoning district.
Mr. Cheran displayed an aerial photograph of the property on the screen.
Ms. Mather asked if the applicant personally has three trucks on the property and Mr. Cheran replied that is
correct.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Donald Conrad approached the podium and
identified himself. Mr. Conrad stated that it was just a fluke the day the person took the photo of three trucks.
The trucks are currently at their driver's location. Mr. Conrad stated he is asking permission for two trucks to be
parked on the property, one which is driven primarily and the other one that can be driven by his wife. He further
stated that they do not conduct any business whatsoever at the residence. They have had trucks parked in
industrial -type parks only to have them broken into. There is one truck in their driveway every day and he's
asking permission to park the second one there. Mr. Conrad stated that he has a rather large lot and one part of
the property is far away from anyone and he would be willing to improve that property just to have a vehicle sit
there.
Ms. Catlett asked Mr. Conrad if his wife has a license to drive these trucks also and he replied that she has
her learner's permit.
0 Mr. Scott asked Mr. Conrad how long he's lived and worked from the property. Mr. Conrad stated lie has
ved there almost two years. He doesn't feel he conducts any business there: it's just a parking spot. He's been
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1309
in business for six years.
0 Mr. Wells asked Mr. Conrad how many trucks he currently owns and Mr. Conrad replied four trucks.
Mr. Scott asked how many acres is Mr. Conrad's property and he responded it's almost five and one half
acres.
There was no one else present to speak in favor of the appeal. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone was present
to speak against the appeal.
Ms..loanne Hawkins approached the podium and identified herself. Ms. Hawkins stated that she lives on the
left side of Mr. Conrad. Ms. Hawkins addressed Mr. Conrad's statement about the asphalt driveway. He came to
her. Ms. Hawkins driveway was washing out from heavy rains and Mr. Conrad had extra asphalt that he used to
fix the driveway. Then he started using her driveway to bring his trucks up and make a u -turn to come into his
parking. There have been as many as four trucks there at one time, and in the past week as many as three. Ms.
Hawkins stated that Mr. Conrad is killing her. She has lived at this residence for 30 years and it's been quiet and
she's had no trouble with anybody but him. Ms. Hawkins stated she needs a heart transplant, she has congestive
heart failure, asthma, COPD, COAD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. When Mr. Conrad started his business,
Ms. Hawkins asked him if he would put his trucks on the other side of his house and he said no, he's using this
driveway. He starts his trucks any time in the morning from 4:45 and lets them run till 6:00, sometimes longer.
Mr. Conrad lives on the west side and she lives on the east side. The winds are constantly blowing her way. Her
bedroom window is 44 feet from his trucks and it tills her bedroom with diesel fuel. She can't take diesel fuel.
As well as the noise from the trucks, he has his drivers out there talking over the noise of the diesel trucks. She
Oas said something about it to Mr. Conrad, and he doesn't care. Ms. Hawkins called DEPORT in Richmond and
Mr. Conrad does not have a license to operate from his home.
Mr. Henry Boyce spoke against the appeal. He is the brother of Ms. Hawkins. The trucks fill Ms. Hawkins
house with diesel fuel fumes. Mr. Conrad could move his trucks eight feet and it would improve the situation.
Chairman Catlett closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Mather asked Mr. Cheran if there is anything in the ordinance that says where a truck can or cannot be
parked. Mr. Cheran stated no, as long as the vehicle is on the subject's property, he can park it wherever he wants
to because we don't have any regulations on that.
Mr. Scott asked if it was one truck per residence or one truck per resident. Mr. Cheran replied that the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not define that. The County looked at regulating over -thc -road drivers
in the rural areas about seven years ago and it died in committee. It was decided then as an interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance, which is interpreted by the Zoning Administrator, that one vehicle per residence would be
allowed. The Zoning Ordinance does allow trucking operations in the B3, M1 and M2 zoning districts —they are
a by -right use there. Mr. Conrad may not be operating from this site but lie is indeed operating a trucking
operation, so there can't be more than one truck on this site.
Mr. Perry stated that in the agenda there is a letter from the applicant, on his letterhead indicating 712 Dicks
0ollow Road as his address. Could it be construed that someone that had their address on their letterhead would
dicate that's their place of business? Mr. Cheran replied that's how he would see it.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1310
Mr. Perry also asked, depending on whether the Board upholds or denies the appeal, who on a day -to -day
basis is going to police this piece of property? Mr. Cheran stated that he's sure the neighbor is going to be callingbasis
office every day when there's more than one truck there. Mr. Cheran further stated that there is a letter in the
agenda from Mr. Hawkins opposing this appeal. Mr. Cheran stated that we would have to go out and verify it.
Mr. Perry asked what would be the next consequence if he has more than one truck there and Mr. Cheran said he
would be cited and then we would take criminal actions against him.
Mr. Wells asked if Mr. Cheran is talking about overnight parking. Mr. Cheran stated this is done on a
complaint basis and we'd have to follow up. Mr. Cheran wouldn't send someone out there just because someone
stopped for 15 minutes and left. Mr. Cheran further stated that the other issue world be is this business a
permitted use, in parking and operation, and it is not a permitted use there.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone who drives a truck, whether they own it or not, is allowed to take it home
and park it at their residence and Mr. Cheran replied yes. Chairman Catlett asked if Mrs. Conrad drove a truck
for someone else and brought it home at night, would that be allowed. Mr. Cheran stated we would interpret that
as a violation.
Ms. Mather stated she is not interested in shutting down a small business but on the other hand, just by the
way the houses sit, it doesn't look like it's a good idea to have trucks that close to somebody else's house.
Mrs. Cynthia Conrad approached the podium. She said when they met with the Zoning Administrator, they
offered to improve part of their lot in order to park the truck away from the neighbor. They are just asking for
permission to park another truck on their property if the need arises.
Chairman Catlett stated they are here to either uphold or not the decision of the Zoning Administrator and it
is not within the authority of this Board to make exceptions to the zoning. That would have to be done by the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Perry made a motion to affirm the Zoning Administrator's decision. Ms. Mather seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request #13 -05 of All Imports & More, LLC for a front variance of six inches and a left side
variance of six inches. This property is located in Canter Estates, Section 3, Phase I, Lot 228,
Clydesdale Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number 7613-1 -3 -228 in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The staff report states that the variance requested is one foot, six inches
and that is incorrect. The variance is for six inches front and left sides, to correct violations ofthe building
setbacks. The applicant had purchased the property to finish construction to the existing dwelling. The
dwelling was in violation of the setback requirements when the applicant purchased it. Repairs and
corrections were required by the Building Department and these repairs were completed, which resulted in
the setback violation.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of Mav 17. 2005 Minute Book Page 1311
The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2309(2), states that no variance shall be authorized by the Board
unless it finds that a) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an undue hardship; b) that such
hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and, c)
that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the
character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. Granting of this variance may be
appropriate. There is no substantial detriment to any of the adjoining properties or character of this zoning
district.
Mr. Cheran displayed photographs of the dwelling on the screen. He explained that a permit was
pulled for this property by a contractor that went bankrupt, a site survey wasn't done and the walls weren't
properly put in. The Zoning Administrator at that time did not sign off on the building permit to make this
correction. The applicant tried to fix the house and now cannot get a C.O. to get into the house. This is a
unique situation because the original permit pulled by a different contractor, other than the applicant, started
the ball rolling on this one.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to come forward. Ms. Rita Wilson approached the podium and
identified herself. Ms. Wilson stated that they did try to do a boundary line adj ustment with a neighbor. He
was in agreement with it, but he was hoping this could be solved with a variance.
There was no one else present to speak for the variance and no one present to speak against the
variance. Chairman Catlett closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
DISCUSISON
Ms. Mather stated that she needs to abstain from the vote.
Mr. Wells made a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed by a
majority vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance Request 414 -05 of Paul Huber, for a 39 foot right yard variance and a 39 foot left
yard variance. This property is located on the eastern side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522)
approximately 0.1 miles south of the intersection of Front Royal Pike and Vine Lane (Route
850), and is identified with Property Identification Number 64D -4 -5 in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED
Mr. Suchicital gave the staff report. This property was created in 1959, prior to Frederick County
adopting performance zoning. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in 1967; the historical zoning
map shows the property was A2 (Agricultural General) in 1967. The property setback lines at the adoption
of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet front and 15 feet sides. Frederick County amended its Code in 1989 to
change the rural zoning district to the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning district. The current setbacks for the
property in the RA zoning district abutting lots with residential use are 60 feet front and 50 feet rear and
sides.
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1312
The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2309(2), states that no variance shall be authorized by the Board
unless it finds that a) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an undue hardship; b) that such
hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and, c)
that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the
character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. Should this variance be granted,
the building setbacks for this property would be 75 feet front, 1 1 feet sides and 50 feet rear. The application
of the current setback requirements of the RA zoning district may produce an undue hardship due to the
narrowness of the property. The granting of the 39 foot variance may bejustified.
Mr. Suchicital displayed photographs of the property on the screen.
Mr. Perry asked if the dwelling would be consistent with other homes in the area, if the variance is
approved. Mr. Cheran responded it is to a point.
Chairman Catlett asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Paul Huber of Classic Contractors. Inc.,
approached the podium and identified himself. Mr. Huber has a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Fox to build a
home on this property. After signing the contract, they realized that the way it was zoned, it's got a 50 foot
setback on each side and the lot is 90 feet wide.
Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Huber the square footage of the house and Mr. Huber replied 2,000
square feet.
Mr. Wells stated that he has seen the property that Mr. Huber is talking about and the 2,000 square
foot house, he believes, would fit in that residential neighborhood and not be obtrusive to any of the other
houses.
Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present to speak in favor of this variance request. Mrs.
Elwood Fox approached the podium, owner with her husband, of the lot. These lots were purchased in 1967
as an investment. The Foxes house is built on another lot close to the lot in question and all the houses are
built on the same sized lot.
There was no one else present to speak in favor of the request. Chairman Catlett asked i ranyone is
present to speak against the variance.
Mr. William Braithwaite approached the podium and identified himself as an adjoining owner. Mr.
Braithwaite stated that on the variance he did not have any objections, but he does have an unanswered
question. Mr. Braithwaite stated that this subdivision has a natural drain and he was wondering how they
were going to work that around. if the water backs up, it will be detrimental to his house.
Mr. Cheran responded when the building permit would come through, the Public Works Department
would probably take a look at that issue to determine if the property owner would have to do any changing of
drainage.
Mr. Wells told Mr. Braithwaite that he thinks what he'll find is that drainage problems, those types of
situations whenever you have a vacant lot, you'll see that a lot in many subdivisions. Prior to a house being
constructed there, that has to be addressed and approved by the County so that no other neighbor is imposed
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Page 1313
upon by drainage problems.
There was no one present to speak against the variance request. Chairman Catlett closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. Perry seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
OTHER
Mr. Cheran commented on the Writ of Certiorari copies that staff had distributed to the Board
members. 'this document concerns Deborah R. Dorman Dutcher, Michael M. Artz and Artz and
Associates, P.L.C. vs. Board of Zoning Appeals, et. al.
As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 5:15
p.m. by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Theresa B. Catlett, Chairman
C
Bev Dellinger, Secretary ,
Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes of May 17, 2005 Minute Book Paee 1314