Loading...
BZA 04-18-06 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, April 18, 2006. PRESENT Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; and Kevin Scott, Shawnee District. ABSENT: Robert Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; and Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large. STAFF PRESENT Mark R. Cheran, "Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Kevin Henry, Planning Technician; and, Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Catlett at 3:25 p.m. On a motion by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Scott, the minutes for the March 21, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. 0 Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut -off date for the next meeting. Mr. Cheran replied that Friday, April 21, 2006, is the cut -off date. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #02 -06 of Donald Haley, for a 34' southern side yard and an 82' northern yard variance. This property is located at 1008 Back Mountain Road (Route 614), and is identified with Property Identification Number 39 -A -82 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED Mr. Henry gave the staff report. Frederick County adopted performance zoning in 1967. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows this 1.00 acre property was zoned A -2 (Agricultural Limited) in 1972. The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35' for the fronts (any time property faces a road) and 15' for the side yards. Frederick County amended its Ordinance in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, making the current setbacks for the property 60' front, 50' to the southern side and 100' to the northern side, in which the adjoining property is used agriculturally. This property is unique in that it has two front yards because of the existing road location. 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 Frederick County Board of "Zoning Appeals Minutes of Aprii 18, 2006 Minute Book Page 1370 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 requesting a variance of 34' on the southern side and 82' for the northern side yard. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 60' to the front, 60' to the back and new side setbacks of 16' on the southern side and 18' to the northern side. It appears that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2309(2). This request from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. Mr. Donald Haley approached the podium and stated that he had gotten the property surveyed as requested. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else is present in favor of the variance request who would like to speak and no one responded. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone who is opposed would like to speak and no one responded. The public hearing portion was closed. Discussion Mr. Rinker stated that Mr. Haley has complied with the Board's request. He made a motion to grant Application 02 -06 with the new setback numbers. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #03 -06 of Matthew Robertson, for a 36' side yard variance. This property is located on East Parkins Mill Road (Route 644), Lot 51, and is identified with Property Identification Number 77 -A -51 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE WITHDRAWN Mr. Cheran stated that this variance has been verbally withdrawn. The Zoning Administrator sent Mr. Robertson a letter stating that a written withdrawal would be appreciated; however, Mr. Robertson did not comply with that request. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal Application 904 -06 of Stephens City GF LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165- 30A(1), animated or flashing signs. The subject property is located at the northeast intersection of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Double Church Road (Route 641), being developed as Fredericktowne Crossing Commercial Center, and is identified with Property Identification Number 86 -A -10 in the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 18, 2006 Minute Book Page 1 371 Opequon Magisterial District. ACTION — APPEAL APPROVED Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator as to the use of LED (Light Emitting Diode) signage in Frederick County. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not define this type of sign; Section 165 -4 of the Frederick County Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Administrator to make interpretations and applications of the zoning ordinance. Historically, Frederick County has not allowed this type of signage. Any change to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is a legislative action and not within the scope of the BZA Board. Furthermore, Section 165 -30A (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not allow animated or flashing signs within Frederick County. Section 165 -156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance defines animated and flashing signs. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165- 30A(1) and Section 165 -156, Sign, H & 1, that LED signage is not permitted in Frederick County. Mr. Cheran stated for the record that Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering is present and is representing the applicant. Mr. Evan Wyatt approached the podium and identified himself as representing the applicants, Stephens City GF LLC, regarding this matter. Mr. Wyatt stated that he agreed with the staff report until Mr. Cheran said that the ordinance says these aren't permitted. Actually, the ordinance does not define them and, because of that, Mr. Cheran is tasked with the determination of what these signs may or may not represent. With the LED technology, the zoning ordinance does not currently define that. Therefore, Mr. Cheran has determined that this would represent an animated or flashing sign as the type of sign. Mr. Wyatt stated, for those who may not be familiar with the site, that Martin's is developing a shopping center in Stephens City at the intersection of Rt. 277 and Double Church Road. The County's Development Review Committee is doing a complete overhaul of the sign ordinance, but the outcome cannot be guaranteed by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Wyatt gave the Board members a hand -out showing an example of the sign that is being requested. Basically, it's typical of the standard shopping center sign; 150 square feet, and in this case, it's lower than the 35 foot height allowance in that zoning district. Mr. Wyatt wants to impress upon the Board that it is an illuminated sign and the name of the plaza, the anchor store and the tenants would be illuminated. This is not any part of the LED technology being requested. The LED technology being requested is for the gasoline sales prices that are on the sign, which in more normal times, are changed only on a one -to -two week basis. Mr. Wyatt emphasized that this is a sign that is highly unlikely to change during a 24 hour period, and if so, only once. Mr. Wyatt asked that the Board uphold their appeal request of Mr. Cheran's determination. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the appeal request and no one responded. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 18, 2006 Minute Book Page 1372 C7 Discussion Mr. Cheran cautioned that the sign could be used as a flashing sign; it can be controlled from a different source and could be used as a flashing sign. Mr. Rinker asked if the rest of the sign met all the requirements and Mr. Cheran stated yes, it does. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Wyatt to clarify if he said he is not intending for any sort of flashing sign, only to change when the gasoline prices change. Mr. Wyatt stated that is correct; it is a price display sign only. Mr. Wyatt further stated that they would be amenable, if the appeal is upheld, to put a condition on it that it could not be used as a flashing sign. Mr. Scott made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted, with the condition that the sign remains as a price sign only with no flashing mechanism. Mr. Shenk seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ACTION— VARIANCE APPROVED Variance Request #05 -06 of P. Duane Brown, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, PLC, for a 20' side yard variance. This property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Double Church Road (Route 641) and Hudson Hollow Road Route 636), and is identified with Property Identification Number 86- A -260A in the Opequon Magisterial District. Mr. Henry gave the staff report. The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35' for the fronts and 15' for the side yards. Frederick County amended its ordinance in 1989 to change the A2 zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning district, making the current setbacks for the property 60' to the fronts, 50' to the rear and 50' to the sides. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2309(2), states that no variance shall be authorized by the Board unless it finds that a) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an undue hardship; b) that such hardship is not 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 requesting a 20' variance for the eastern side yard. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 60' on both fronts, 50' in the back and would change to 30' on the eastern side. It appears that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2- 2309(2). This request from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Aprif 18, 2006 Minute Book Page 1373 Mr. Henry stated it's important to note that by changing the location of the house that already exists, this allows for less non- conformity. The current house is sitting at 33' off of Hudson Hollow and 17.4' on the other front. Moving it back will put it in conformance with the front setback. Mr. P. Duane Brown, with Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, approached the podium and identified himself as representing the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Wright. (Mr. Brown walked away from the microphone to give the Board members a hand -out. He continued talking, but the microphone did not pick up anything he said.) Mr. Brown stated that the Wrights are trying to work with the Highway Department, unfortunately based upon the current conditions; any kind of slope grading done along that side would be detrimental to the existing structure, which is not in great shape. The Wrights would like to be able to build a new house further back within conformance to the setback regulations. When the property was created in 1979, the setbacks were totally different than from now. They are asking for a variance request to reduce the side yard to 30' to allow a sufficient structure to be built and the Highway Department can do the work they need to do to improve the sight distance. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present in favor of the variance request who would like to speak and no one responded. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone opposed to the request would like to speak. Mrs. Nathella Kitts is an adjoining property owner. Mrs. Kitts is not really opposed to a variance but there is a lot of history to the old house. Mrs. Kitts does not want to see a lot of extra building going up around them. As there was no one else who wanted to speak, Chairman Catlett closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Discussion Ms. Mather asked if the house that's going to be built will be occupied by the owners. Mr. Cheran stated that would be up to the property owners. Mr. Cheran stated that the Wrights have been working with the Virginia Department of Transportation; they were approached by the District Engineer and the Right -of -Way Agent. VDOT has the authority to condemn the land because of setback issues. Mr. Rinker made a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Shenk seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. OTHER Chairman Catlett asked if there is any other business to come before the Board. As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. by unanimous vote. 0 Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Apri[ 18, 2006 Minute Book Page 1374 C Respectfully submitted, O e Theresa B. Catlin, Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary ar I 1 U Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of Aprif 18, 2006 Minute Book Page 1375