Loading...
BZA 10-17-06 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia October 17, 2006 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Determination of a Quorum 2) Minutes of August 15, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING 3) Variance Request #18-06 of Z. L. Metz Contracting, L.L.C., for a 35 foot side yard variance on both sides. This property is located on the right side of East Parkins Mill Road (Route 644), approximately 1,260 feet from the intersection of Route 50 East and East Parkins Mill Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 77-A-51 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 4) Variance Request #19-06 of Charles and Christine Gilbert, for a six foot rear yard variance. This property is located at 104 Richwood Court, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75D-4-3-82 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 5) Variance Request #20-06 of Donald Adams, submitted by Artz and Associates, PLC, for a 40 foot right side yard variance and a 35 foot left side yard variance. This property is located in Fair View Subdivision, Lot 1, off Old Bethel Church Road (Route 608), and is identified with Property Identification Number 30 -A -144A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. 6) Variance Request #21-06 of Dennis Longerbeam, for a one foot front yard variance. This property is located in the Red Fox Run II Subdivision, Lot 48 on Travis Court, and is identified with Property Identification Number 64D-8-2-48 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 7) Variance Request #22-06 for Funkhouser Lot 35, submitted by Artz and Associates, PLC, for a 20 foot front yard variance to Callaway Court and a 40 foot side yard variance on both sides. This property is located 113 Callaway Court, and is identified with Property Identification Number 76A-1-35 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. FILE COPY 8) Variance Request #23-06 for Funkhouser Lot 37, submitted by Artz and Associates, PLC, for a 20 foot front yard variance to Callaway Court and a 40 foot side yard variance on both sides. This property is located on Callaway Court, and is identified with Property Identification Number 76A-1-37 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. 9) 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, August 15, 2006. PRESENT: Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; 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; Lauren Krempa, Zoning Inspector; Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary; and Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., Attorney for the BZA. 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 July 18, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut-off date for the next meeting. Mr. Cheran replied that Friday, August 18, 2006, is the cut-off date. PUBLIC MEETING — OLD BUSINESS Continuation of Variance Request #10-06 of Kay -Mor, Inc., and Debra Toms, submitted by Clinton R. Ritter, Esq., for a 30' variance on the eastern side of the property. This property is located on the east side of Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655), 1/10 mile north of the entrance to the County Landfill, and is identified with Property Identification Number 65-A-176 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED Chairman Catlett stated that the Public Hearing has been held on this item and the Board needs to make a decision on the request today. Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The variance requested is for a 30 foot side variance on the eastern side of the property. The reason for the variance is the lot predates the zoning ordinance with regards to setbacks of the RA zoning district. As a brief overview, Mr. Cheran stated that the lot was created in 1966, prior to Frederick County adopting zoning on March 11, 1967. At the time of the adoption of the zoning ordinance, this one acre property was zoned A2 (Agricultural General) as shown on the Frederick County historical map. The property is currently zoned RA, which Frederick County adopted in 1991. The current setbacks for the property are 60 feet from the front, 50 feet from the right side and 100 feet from the rear. Minute Book Page 1395 Frederick oun y Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of August 15, 2006 Two items were brought to the Board's attention by staff. One is the proposed Route 37 right-of-way. This is a policy issue only. The second issue is the impact on the County Landfill. There is a letter in the agenda from Mr. Ed. Strawsnyder, Public Works Director, spelling out his concerns about the impact to the landfill. Staff will also point out that the Landfill protection area is not indicated in any of our land use policies or plans, or the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan. 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 Mr. Cheran further stated that the applicant is seeking a 30 foot eastern side variance on the property to build a residential structure of approximately 2,016 square feet. Should this variance be granted, the property setbacks will be 60 feet front and 70 feet left side and rear. It appears the variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2) and the request from current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. The Board heard this item on June 20, 2006 and there was a tie vote on the motion made by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Wells. As the motion did not receive the required affirmative votes, this application is being brought back to the Board for conclusive action. Mr. Rinker asked if the property has a proposed drainfield site that has not been applied for. Mr. Cheran stated that Mike Artz told him that the paperwork has been submitted to the Health Department. Mr. Rinker stated that part of being in the flood plain means he would want that permit in hand. Mr. Cheran said it is a legitimate concern, but the Health Department, under their current regulations, does not look at being in the flood plain as a detriment. Mr. Clinton Ritter, who is representing the applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Scott asked if this is a spec home and Mr. Ritter replied it's going to be a spec house. Mr. Ritter stated they had a new survey done and on the new plat the proposed drainfield site is shown. Mr. Ritter further stated that this piece of property is grandfathered. One of the reasons that the Legislature in Virginia set this Board up and gave the Board members authoritative power is to grant variances to people when it creates hardship when you have changes in ordinances such as going to a 100 foot setback. What the applicant is asking for is a 30 foot variance so that they can put a nice home on this piece of property. The applicant spent several thousands of dollars with Mr. Carl Evans, who is a soil scientist, to find a site that he could approve for a three bedroom perc. Once the variance is granted, they can go to the Health Department, get their permit and they can start construction. Mr. Ritter stated that some concerns addressed in the letter from Mr. Strawsnyder were about possible pollution of a well. Mr. Ritter pointed out that directly across the road from this lot is a house and directly -to the south of it is a house. Mr. Ritter stated he knows of no evidence in Frederick County where the Landfill is polluting any wells in that district. If it was, he's sure EPA and every other organization of the government would be concerned. The decision of the Board should be based upon facts and law. The fact in this case is that this piece of property is grandfathered; the applicant is asking for a 30 foot variance and if they don't get it, it will create a hardship on them. There is no legal basis to turn this request down based on speculation or concern. This is also about people's property rights, which are protected under the Constitution of this State and the United States. Mr. Ritter asked the Board to approve this variance today. Minute Book Page 1396 Frederick ounty Board or Lofting Appeals Minutes of August 15, 2006 Mr. Rinker commented that a hardship would be that the applicant does not have a place to build on the property and they do have a spot where they can build; it may not what they're requesting, but they do have a spot they can build on. Mr. Ritter stated if you take the 100 feet and apply that, you would have a rectangular shaped home. Mr. Rinker stated that's right, but you still have a rectangular spot that you can build a 36x56 home. Mr. Ritter stated they do not. Mr. Ritter asked Mr. Rinker to review the plat; they need the variance in order to be able to build the 36X56. Mr. Cheran stated that a mobile home or a smaller cottage -type house could probably fit into that setback, if you're talking hardship. The setbacks currently on this property, without the variance, would be 60 feet from Sulphur Springs Road, probably 50 feet from the Putmans and 100 feet from the Landfill. Mr. Cheran stated for the record that there were not setbacks assigned to the original plat. Mr. Rinker stands corrected; he misread the numbers. Mr. Shenk made a motion to approve Variance Application #10-06. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and the motion passed by majority vote. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal Application #08-06 of Arogas, Inc., submitted by Mark E. Stivers, Esquire, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding the proffered uses on this property and rejection of a site plan for the uses on this property. The subject property is located at the intersection of Rest Church Road (Route 669) and Route 11 North, and is identified with Property Identification Number 34-A-4 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION —APPEAL DENIED Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator pertaining to the proffered uses and rejection of a site plan for the uses on this property. The applicant submitted a site development plan to the Zoning Administrator on April 13, 2006. This site plan could not be processed due to a discrepancy between the proposed use and the proffers associated with this property. The property was rezoned in 2004, with assigned proffers, by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The proffers included no retail or wholesale of diesel fuel for over -the -road truck carriers. The owner of a property offers proffers for a rezoning and these are restrictions that are beyond the general regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located. Truck stops are a permitted use in the B2 zoning district; however, the proffers approved with this rezoning have removed this use from the property. Enforcement of proffers in Frederick County falls under Section 165-13(E) and are the responsibility of the Frederick County Zoning Administrator. Mr. Cheran further stated that the applicant contends that the Zoning Administrator's decision in regards to the enforcement and interpretation of the proffers of Rezoning #02-04 is arbitrary and capricious. Staff was in no position to review the site plan as it was presented. The applicant should have understood the proffers assigned to this property before investing the time and money to develop the property. The only issue before this Board today is to affirm or overrule the decision of the Zoning Administrator with regards to the assigned proffers of Rezoning #02-04. Any change to the assigned proffers must be made by the Board of Supervisors Minute Book Page 1397 F—re—de—fl—eR County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of August 15, 2006 and is not within the purview of this Board. In conclusion, staff is asking that the Board affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County zoning ordinance regarding the proffered uses on this property and that the Zoning Administrator was correct in not reviewing the applicant's site plan. Mr. Cheran stated for the record that Mark Stivers, representing Arogas, is present. Mr. Mark Stivers approached the podium. Mr. Stivers had prepared a brief memorandum and he presented it to the Board members. Mr. Stivers stated that, essentially, what he is asking the Board to do is to make certain findings of fact, because findings of fact that are found by this Board are presumed correct, if this matter is appealed to the Circuit Court. Additionally, Mr. Stivers is asking the Board to make certain findings of law, and under the Code of Virginia, that's exactly the function and purpose of this Board. Among other things, the power and duties of the Board include this statement that: "The Board shall consider the purpose and intent of any applicable ordinances, laws and regulations in making its decision". Mr. Stivers stated that on the surface, this may look like a simple denial, but behind it, it's important this Board understand certain things that have transpired. One of the things that's important for the Board to understand is that the proffer that is at issue in this instance was never publicly advertised, never made a matter of public comment or record, never reviewed by the County's Counsel, and was not the subject of the requirements of the Frederick County zoning code. What happened is this: George and Carol Sempeles owned some land in the northern portion of the County, in Clearbrook. They came before the Board on April 27, 2004 on a rezoning application. In that rezoning application, there was a specific proffer. That proffer, among other things, for the B2 usage, which was being requested at that time, was to disallow the sale of diesel fuel, wholesale and retail, to trucks. After the public hearing was closed, the Board of Supervisors engaged in a conversation. During the course of that conversation, among other things, it was decided that the proffers should be changed. The proffer that you see before you is the proffer that was determined should be the proffer, if there is to be a proffer at all, that would be at issue here today. Mr. Stivers cited this proffer in his memorandum, on page 2, and is as follows: "Any use involving the retail or wholesale of diesel fuel for over -the -road truck carriers shall not be conducted or performed on this site or commercial or industrial zones". Mr. Stivers stated that it doesn't say that all sales of any sort are disallowed, rather it says for over -the - road truck carriers. When you look at the zoning code, there is no definition of over -the -road truck carriers. There's a definition of trucks and tractor -trailers, but not of over -the -road truck carriers. That's not the critical factor. There are two things Mr. Stivers is asking the Board to look at. One, if you accept the proffer as being valid, the question is, does this proffer disallow all SIC (Standard Industrial Classification Code) 55 usages? The SIC permits, among other things, gasoline and diesel sales. That fact is admitted by the County. The County acknowledges that SIC 55 is permitted in B2 and specifically that in this instance, but for this proffer, it would be allowed. There was an erroneous assumption made by the County back at the time that the Board voted on this, and it's continued until today. This mistake is what the County has assumed is that commercial vehicles that utilize diesel are taxed at a different rate and in a different fashion; in fact it was even argued that the diesel that they consume is dyed. Therefore, commercial usage could be distinguished from all other usages. One of the underlying assumptions that was made by the County is erroneous. It's important because the County was hanging its argument on the word "for"; any use involving retail or wholesale fuel "for" over -the -road trucks. Their argument being that if diesel that was utilized for those types. Minute Book Page 1398 l,reclerICK Counly Board of Loning Appeals Minutes of August 15, 2006 of vehicles could not be sold there, then all commercial diesel could not be sold. Diesel fuel that's sold for over -the -road usage is not taxed any differently for a car than it is for a tractor - trailer truck. Mr. Stivers continued that the one type of fuel, for the Board's edification, that is taxed differently is off-road usage; and in fact, that's dyed. What we have is the County, on page 3 of its staff report, specifically argues that the type of over -the -road truck carrier that is proffered out here is taxed differently when it plies its goods over the road and that's a false statement. Because it is a false statement, we need to evaluate whether or not the County is suggesting that a simple modifier, that an exception, becomes the rule and it does not. This proffer does not preclude B2 usages. This proffer does not preclude the sale of gasoline and diesel to vehicles of any sort other than over -the -road truck carriers. What that means is that tractor -trailers, if they're not over -the -road truck carriers, are also included in that other classification of vehicles that are permitted. The County has argued that over -the -road truck carriers means tractor -trailers, so let's ignore that argument for the moment and look at all the other types of usages. The classic Mercedes. Benz burns diesel, Volkswagens burn diesel, Ford trucks, GMC trucks and the like that are 250's and 350's that consume diesel. What about buses? School buses consume diesel; school buses are not precluded by this proffer from buying diesel in a B2 or on this particular property. What about campers? Greyhound buses are not precluded. We need to look at the question of whether or not the exception is going to become the rule. Mr. Stivers respectively requests that under no circumstances should that be the case. Therefore, the decision of the Zoning Administrator to reject the site plan in its entirety was a wrong decision. This Board has the authority to reverse that decision. On the simple basis of the fact that the exception is not the rule, Mr. Stivers asked them to make that ruling and determination. Beyond that, Mr. Stivers asks the Board to look at a more fundamental issue and that is whether or not this proffer is even valid. Mr. Stivers' research shows this proffer is void ab initio, which means it's not enforceable. If it's not enforceable, the determination of the Zoning Administrator is constrained far more than it would be if the proffer itself is valid. Mr. Stivers stated that the way the proffer originated was in a discussion that occurred by the Board of Supervisors after the close of the public hearing; there had been no advertisement, there had been no opportunity for public comment and there had been no review by the County Counsel. These things are contained as required conditions for a proffer; in fact it has to be advertised, signed five days in advance by the County Code 165-13A, etc., which has those specific conditions in it. The proffer was not tendered and adopted in accordance with our own Code; therefore it is not a valid proffer. Does that mean the entire rezoning is invalid — no, it does not. It is important for this Board to make a factual determination that the County Administrator's assumption that diesel fuel for over -the -road truck carriers is taxed differently than other diesel -consuming vehicles is wrong. If you make that decision, it's easy to conclude that the exception cannot govern the rule and, therefore, notwithstanding the proffer itself, for all the other uses that would be permitted, the sale of gasoline to gasoline -consuming vehicles and the sale of diesel to all the other categories of vehicles discussed, are permissible under B2 and permissible as passed by the Board that night, notwithstanding the validity of this proffer. Beyond that, Mr. Stivers asks the Board to make a factual determination that what the Board did on that evening was contrary to our own zoning requirements, our own law, and as a result of that, the proffer itself is void ab initio. Because it is void ab initio, when this County Zoning Administrator ultimately looks at this site plan, he must disregard any language that is suggested in that particular proffer. Mr. Stivers stated that he asked for a stipulation from Mr. Mitchell if they're in agreement on the diesel issue or does he need to offer testimony on that. Mr. Stivers further stated it's the specific allusion in the staff report on page 3 to the fact that diesel fuel is somehow taxed differently. Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Stivers what Minute Book Page 1399 Fredefick County JJoarQ 01 Loning Appeals Minutes of August 15, 2006 he's referring to. Mr. Stivers stated it's under staff response to Paragraph 3, the last sentence of the first paragraph of that response..."furthermore, the sale of diesel fuel retail or wholesale to be used by over -the - road trucks is taxed only by those carriers that ply the roadways with freight". Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Stivers -,x,hnt he is readinfrom and Mr. Stivers replied he's reading from the staff report. It was then discovered that Mr. Stivers had in his possession the staff report from May 2006, not the current staff report dated July 21, 2006. Mr. Stivers stated that he did not receive a copy of the July 21 St staff report and he asked for a copy of the updated staff report. Mr. Stivers noted that the particular paragraph he was reading from has been deleted from the July 21" staff report. Mr. Stivers still asked for that stipulation because he doesn't believe that it in any way changes the underlying assumptions of the County on this. Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn't believe it's material to the issue before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Stivers offered Mr. Pat Manning of Arogas, Inc., for the purpose of having him testify that in his 35 years of experience in selling diesel and gasoline, that diesel for over -the -road vehicles is not taxed any differently. With regard to the balance of the staff report, because he has been taken somewhat aback by this and it has not been shared with him, Mr. Stivers asked for a moment to sit down and to read it and to have the opportunity to address the Board after he has had the opportunity to read it. Mr. Stivers was informed by the BZA secretary that the staff report was mailed to him. Staff apparently has an incorrect address for Mr. Stivers if he did not receive the staff report. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Mitchell if the question before the Board today is not whether or not the proffer is valid or invalid but whether or not the Zoning Administrator made the proper decision based on the rezoning that was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Mitchell responded that is exactly right. Mr. Mitchell further stated that the proffers are part of a rezoning and rezonings, whether they be conditional rezonings with proffers or whether they be other types of rezonings, are legislative acts of the Board of the Supervisors. This Board cannot declare, it does not have the jurisdiction or the authority, to declare a legislative act of the Board of Supervisors invalid. This Board has to accept the legislative action, the legislative act, of the Board of Supervisors as it was enacted. In this case, the proffer says "any use involving the retail or wholesale sale of diesel fuel for over -the -road truck carriers shall not be conducted or performed on this site either in the commercial or industrial zones". What a proffer does is, it takes away certain rights that are given under a zoning ordinance for use; they voluntarily proffer to eliminate that as a use on the property. That's what this is. While truck stops or diesel sales to over -the -road trucks may be permitted in this zoning district generally, they are not permitted on this property because they were proffered out by the voluntary proffer submitted by the applicant. Mr. Mitchell gave a brief history. The Board may be wondering why they worded it that way. In 2001, this same applicant on another piece of property had a site that he submitted that had multiple fueling stations and a restaurant and he claimed it wasn't a service station, it was a restaurant. That matter was appealed that it wasn't a truck stop or service station, it was a restaurant, and the truck stop aspects of it were accessory to the restaurant use. That went to the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court upheld their decision. With that history, when this comes around, they didn't want to get into the problem again of saying we're going to proffer out truck stops, because if it has a restaurant with it, we may be right back where we were. This proffer says specifically "for over -the -road truck carriers shall not be conducted or performed on this site". This Board has to take this legislative enactment, that proffer, as is written and interpret it in its clear and normal usage of the terms. What happened in this case, there was a site plan submitted and the Zoning Administrator said this site plan, on the face of it, violates the proffers. Mr. Mitchell told the Board they haven't heard Mr. Stivers say that they don't intend to put a truck stop there or that they don't intend to sell Minute Book Page 1400 re eric County oar of Zoning Appeals Minutes of August 15, 2006 diesel to over -the -road trucks. Mr. Stivers is saying we're not bound by the proffer because it's not valid. This Board cannot determine that it's not valid. Only a Court can declare a legislative act of the Board of Supervisors invalid. Mr. Mitchell told the Board that what they're required to do under the statute is determine whether the Zoning Administrator was correct in determining that this would not be perinitted under the proffered rezoning. In doing that, the statute says you shall consider the purpose and intent of any applicable ordinances, laws and regulations in making your decision. Mr. Stivers stated that he sees that the staff report is not substantially different than what was sent to him in May. The allusion he made earlier to the plying of goods over -the -road has been deleted. The one provision of this says that the decision of the Zoning Administrator was not arbitrary or capricious in the enforcement of the proffers in the procedure on returning the site plan. It further says that the site plan could not be reviewed by staff due to the site layout. The site plan clearly shows pavement details for heavy truck use and clearly shows fuel islands and parking spaces to accommodate over -the -road trucks. Mr. Stivers asked again does the exception govern the rule. What they have is a site plan to sell two types of fuel. In the future, that fuel may change. We're in a dynamic time and whether or not we're selling hydrogen or some alternative such as propane is a very real possibility. When it comes to planning things, it's not unreasonable to account for that. But on its face, they're here to sell two types of fuel. The one type of fuel, if the proffer is invalid, that cannot be sold is for the one classification of vehicle that fuel cannot be sold to, is an over -the - road truck carrier. Again, what that means and why it wasn't defined more specifically, Mr. Stivers doesn't know. Mr. Stivers stated that with all due respect to Mr. Mitchell with regard to the reasons for the Board making the decision that it did, he's going to come back to what he said earlier. Had the proffer been reviewed by Counsel, which it was not, had the proffer been advertised and subject to public comment, which it was not, then that proffer may have turned out differently. What we have here is a simple one exclusion from the general rule. The general rule is, we can sell to every type of vehicle that consumes diesel and gasoline save over -the -road truck carriers. The Zoning Administrator has said you could sell to over -the -road truck carriers; you have the configuration that would permit that. Yes, arguably, the configuration is there that would permit that. But the configuration also permits the sale to very large vehicles other than tractor trailers. The County did not preclude the sale to school buses, any type of commercial or private bus, diesel - operated campers, dump trucks, or any other form of vehicle that would consume diesel other than the over - the -road truck carrier, whatever that may be. Was the Zoning Administrator correct in his decision to say that you could possibly sell to over -the -road truck carriers so therefore I'm not going look at this site plan, period. Mr. Stivers would suggest, respectively, not. There is nothing in that proffer that disallows a tractor trailer from pulling into that parking lot and parking. A well written proffer that intended that would have said that, and it doesn't. Simply because this site plan would accommodate a large truck such as a tractor trailer does not make this an invalid site plan, one that's not worthy of review, and the decision of this Zoning Administrator to summarily reject it, was a wrong decision and Mr. Stivers asks the Board to reverse that decision. With regard to Mr. Mitchell's argument that you cannot determine that the proffer in this instance is invalid, what you can do is make factual determinations. You can make a determination that in this particular instance the proffer was not advertised, the proffer was not subject to public continent, it was not subject to Counsel's review, that was signed five days after the close of the public hearing, all contrary to our 165-13 provisions of our County Code. Mr. Stivers asks the Board to make that factual determination. Mr. Stivers stated that Mr. Dunlap, who is the engineer who prepared the site plan, is here and he's prepared to talk about the site plan should the Board have any questions. Mr. Stivers asked Mr. Dunlap, for factual determination purposes, whether or not in his experience if he's ever had a similar rejection of a site plan when prepared for all conditions of the allowed use. Chairman Catlett told Mr. Stivers that she's not sure Minute Book Page 1401 re eric County oar ol Zoning ppea s Minutes of August 15, 2006 if that's relevant to what's before the Board. Mr. Stivers said very good. Chairman Catlett further stated that what's before this Board is whether or not the Administrator properly interpreted the proffer that was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Stivers stated that he thinks it's also before this Board to decide whether or not, even if he did properly interpret it, as a consequence of his interpretation, he can summarily reject a site plan that in every other instance meets the B2 requirements, and in no instance in and of itself, violates that proffer. Chairman Catlett stated that she thinks that's before this Board to decide today. Mr. Rinker stated that when this rezoning was brought forth with the proffers, it was duly advertised. During the proffer discussion, this proffer was changed after the public comment, and it was changed because of the public comment and that is perfectly fitting to do. It does not need to be continually advertised. Mr. Stivers stated he wouldn't disagree, with the exception of one facet, and that is if you look at the cases in Virginia, the central question revolves around the intensity of the use. Mr. Stivers further stated that if he advertised a very intense use, but then there's a revision in the proffer which backs off of that and reduces the intensity, case law holds that in that instance you need not follow the public comment requirements, etc. However, if in the other instance, those that may have otherwise been alarmed by the intensity that's being permitted by the revisions that take place after the fact and don't appear, could arguably be harmed. It's for that reason that the case law suggests and holds that if you create a more intense use, in that instance you must indeed follow the public disclosure requirements. Mr. Rinker stated that if that should stand up and it wasn't a proper proffer but the Board acted on it as a whole, this rezoning should go back to zero. Mr. Stivers stated that the case law does not hold that either. Mr. Stivers stated that it's for this reason, and this is a very sensitive matter before this County, because in his experience he's seen a lot of things go on in this County over the years, he's watched a lot of rezoning hearings and matters at different levels of the zoning process and this is an extraordinarily important issue because of the way in which it was done. When you look at the record as it transpired that evening, it's important to recognize that the County failed to follow its own procedures. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Stivers if the Board should uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator, can he assume that this will probably end up next door. Mr. Stivers replied that what he would ask the Board to do is to follow the mandate of the Board and that is to review the decision for its properness. In this instance, Mr. Stivers suggests that what Mr. Cheran did, not with malice, he made a simple mistake. Actually the simple mistake revolves around what has now been deleted from the staff report and that is the way in which the fuels are taxed are different so therefore, you can make a distinction in the type of classification of vehicle that can be utilized at a particular site. With that no longer a consideration, it's simply the question of whether or not the exception can become the rule and Mr. Stivers respectfully suggests that is not proper. Mr. Stivers respectfully requests that the Board reverse his decision and if the Board chooses, based on the comments of Mr. Mitchell, not to address this second question of the validity of the proffer, so be it. Mr. Scott said he understands, but Mr. Stivers did not answer his question. Mr. Stivers said he'd have to wait and see what the Board's decision is with respect to the two questions. Mr. Scott stated part of his reason for asking is because there's a lot of complexity here and Mr. Scott thinks that some of this is beyond his scope of being fair to either side. Mr. Stivers stated he appreciates that. Minute Book Page 1402 Frederick oun y DOUG of Loning ppea s Minutes of August 15, 2006 Mr. Stivers said this is within your ability to comprehend and is within your knowledge. It's a simple question. A site plan comes in and in all respects meets the B2 zoning requirement; it is for SIC 55-41, gasoline and diesel sales. The configuration of the site plan allows large vehicles onto the site and Mr. Stivers agrees it would allow a vehicle as big as a tractor trailer on the site. But it also allows all the other big vehicles that aren't specified and aren't precluded by that proffer to also enter and utilize the site. It's in the context of whether or not that one exception can govern the actions of the Zoning Administrator in its entirety. Mr. Stivers respectfully suggests that it is an improper and an illogical method of evaluating this site plan. This site plan, if evaluated and subject to comment by the Zoning Administrator, can well result in changes, which is what happens; it's an administrative function in almost every instance and it's customary for the Zoning Administrator to say we need to tweak this, we need to do that, and the applicant works along with the engineer to accomplish those concerns. But in this instance, they never even got that opportunity and that's the decision Mr. Stivers is asking the Board to overturn. Mr. Rinker asked if there's anything on the Master Plan to deter over -the -road trucks from coming in and being serviced. Mr. Stivers stated that the proffer itself is. Mr. Rinker said that's just a piece of paper and some words. What's in place on the Master Plan to keep those vehicles from coming to the property? Mr. Stivers asked Mr. Rinker if he's asking if there's a sign or is there a barrier? Ms. Mather asked is there's a height deterrent, so that you could run a pickup truck into it but not a tractor trailer. Mr. Stivers stated there's another issue that isn't directly on the site plan that would affect this and that is, it's an industrial access road and as part of the public comments that were made during the Semples rezoning also includes thru-trucks prohibited. Mr. Rinker asked what's in place to implement the proffer. Mr. Shenk asked how they would police it. How would they allow a bus to come in but not a tractor trailer? Mr. Stivers supposes that's something that would have to be worked out with the Zoning Administrator. It's the Zoning Administrator's responsibility to do that. However, in the same context, if there were suggestions as to how not to sell fuel to over -the -road truck carriers, they would gladly implement those. One thing they can do is refuse to turn the pump on for that type of vehicle. The sign at the entrance to the industrial access route, among other things, precludes ' a vehicle - it says, "No Thru Trucks". Again this is one of these issues of what are we concerned about here. There was an allusion to the fact that across the street, there's a rezoning application pending for a truck stop. Is that what we're worried about? Are we then stepping outside of our discretion and/or the purposes of this Board or the Zoning Administrator, and it seems to Mr. Stivers we are. Mr. Stivers introduced Mr. Pat Manning, the Chief Executive Officer of Arogas. Mr. Manning asked about the public hearing of the Sempeles and he has a copy of it, he can make it available. It shows how this proffer was hatched, how it evolved, what procedures were taken, what weren't taken. Mr. Mitchell reiterated the point that this Board can't get over into the area of adjudicating the validity of a legislative act of the Board of Supervisors in approving the rezoning and the proffer that's on the property. Mr. Mitchell stated that he does not agree with Mr. Stivers' recitation of what happened at the public hearing and how the proffer came about and what the proffer was before it went to the public hearing or the fact that it represented a more expansive use of the property. That's a factual issue that Mr. Mitchell feels is not even before the Board because the issue is not before the Board. Mr. Mitchell stated it's hard to tell from their presentation as to whether or not they're saying that this site plan is set up to serve diesel fuel to Minute Book Page 1403 Frederic -R County oar 01 Loning Appeals Minutes of August 15, 2006 over -the -road truck carriers or whether they're saying we can serve other vehicles. Mr. Mitchell feels one has to take a common sense approach to this. If you look at page C4 in the agenda, there is a convenience market with a fueling canopy right in front of it, obviously for vehicles. There are eight fueling stations there in front of the convenience store. In the rear is a large fueling area that would serve; Mr. Mitchell guesses, with seven fueling stations. Does that look like the occasional bus or truck that's going to use diesel fuel — seven fueling stations? Mr. Mitchell feels that the Zoning Administrator took a common sense approach to what was being presented, and this was clearly a site plan for selling diesel fuel to over -the -road truck carriers. That was the basis of his determination. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else would like to speak and that they will be held to no more than three minutes per person. Mr. Ken Rice, Chief Operating Officer of H. N. Funkhouser & Co., approached the podium. Mr. Rice stated their property is on the other side of the entrance, about 3-1/2 acres. Unlike Mr. Manning, who Mr. Rice believes is under contract pending site plan approval, H. N. Funkhouser purchased their land. They purchased it with the clear understanding that truck stops were prohibited. Mr. Rice stated that he's not going to get into all the legal issues before the Board today, but it was clearly the intent of all parties involved that truck stops were not supposed to be put in this area. VDOT is clear in that direction because of the traffic concerns. They bought their land with that clear understanding of the proffer and now they continue to see these issues come up about legal niceties and language and intent. He thinks everyone knows what the intent is. It was a clear understanding of all parties — VDOT, zoning — that truck stops were prohibited. That's how they bought it. To see this issue come up again and someone trying to wiggle around and get a truck stop in there concerns them. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone else would like to speak and no one responded. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Discussion Mr. Scott asked Mr. Cheran when he first received the site plan, did he respond to them and point out the discrepancies he found per the proffers and what was the response to that? Mr. Cheran replied there's a letter in the agenda which he sent to Mr. Dunlap after reviewing the site plan. That's the only response by staff. Ms. Mather asked Mr. Cheran what his personal opinion is of what the Board of Supervisors was trying to do with this proffer. Mr. Cheran responded that he doesn't have a personal opinion, but his professional opinion is what the proffer states. Mr. Stivers asked to speak again. He said that he knows that Mr. Cheran indicated there had been no additional correspondence, but there was additional correspondence that transpired. It's not part of this hearing so it's for that reason Mr. Stivers thinks Mr. Cheran may have responded that way. Mr. Rinker stated that he believes the proffer speaks for itself and the Master Plan presented speaks for itself, and he believes the Administrator made the proper calls. Mr. Rinker made a motion that the Board uphold the Zoning Administrator's determination. The motion was seconded by Mr. Scott and the vote was unanimous to deny the appeal. Minute Book Page 1404 Frederick oun y Board of Zoning ppea s Minutes of August 15, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING Variance Relquest #15-06 of ay Mergler, submitted by Ii.Gi� Builders, for a 15 foot front yard variance and a one foot rear yard variance for the construction of a single family home. This property is located on High Street (Route 635), 0.1 mile on the right, and is identified with Property Identification Number 91A03-164-15 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE APPROVED Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. This request is for a 15 foot front yard variance and a one foot rear yard variance for the construction of a single family home. The reason for the variance is the lot is exceptionally shallow and is bordered on three sides by unimproved platted right-of-ways. Mr. Cheran further stated this 1.72 acre property was part of the New Middletown Subdivision created in 1890. In 1967 Frederick County adopted zoning. The historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) and building restriction lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet front and 15 feet on the sides. In 1987 this property was subject to a lot consolidation of 23 lots with building restriction lines of 35 feet front 15 feet on the sides. Frederick County amended its Code in 1989 to change the rural zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning district, making the building restriction lines for the property 60 feet front for all four sides. Mr. Cheran further stated a variance request by Mr. Mergler on this property was heard and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals at their meeting of November 15, 2005 (Variance #23-05) The request was for a ten foot variance in the front and a 15 foot 6 inch variance in the rear. The owner is now seeking a variance of 15 feet left side and one foot right side. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 35 feet left side, 43.5 feet right side and would remain 60 feet front and rear. 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 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. Cheran stated that these are "paper" right-of-ways, not platted right-of-ways. When the plats were done in 1890 and as we moved forward, some of these streets were on those plats, so the County has to recognize them as a right-of-way. High Street is a state -maintained road. Mr. Charles Lucas of Urban Engineering, and representative for H&H Builders, approached the podium. Mr. Lucas stated that the owner of this property had submitted for a variance last year and that was approved. Mr. Lucas's client intends to purchase this property and has a home that will not fit within the current approved variance. He has also placed similar homes on the two corner lots on High Street. Mr. Lucas Minute Book Page 1405 Fredefick County Board of Loning ppea s Minutes of August 15, 2006 believes this house type in this community would be a benefit to the community, aesthetically, and it would fit in well with the homes that currently exist on that end of High Street. Ms. Mather asked if she understood correctly that the variance that the owner got does not work with the builder's new house. Mr. Lucas responded that's right. Mr. Cheran stated that to clarify, the Board has already acted on this property. The reason this variance may meet the intent is that this is a separate application with a different house size. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone in favor of the variance would like to speak and no one responded. She then asked if anyone against the variance would like to speak and again, no one responded. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Discussion On a motion by Mr. Scott and seconded by Mr. Shenk, this variance was unanimously approved. 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 4:55 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Theresa B. Catlett, Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Minute Book Page 1406 FredericK County oar 01 Loning Appeals Minutes of August 15, 2006 VARIANCE APPLICATION #18-06 Z. L. METZ CONTRACTING, L.L.C. Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: September 25, 2006 Staff Contact: Lauren E. Krempa, Zoning Inspector 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: October 17, 2006 - Action Pending LOCATION: Right side of East Parkins Mill Road (Route 644), approximately 1,260 feet from the intersection of Route 50 East and East Parkins Mill Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 77-A-51 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant 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: 35 foot side yard variance on both sides (resulting in 15 foot side yard setbacks) for a single family dwelling REASON FOR VARIANCE: Narrowness in the front of the property Variance 418-06 — Z. L. Metz Contracting, L.L.C. September 25, 2006 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Frederick County adopted zoning 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 feet for the fronts and 15 feet for the side yards. Frederick County amended its Ordinance in 1989 to change the A-2 zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, making the current setbacks for the property: 60 feet to the front, 50 feet to the rear, and 50 feet to both sides. This variance would change the setbacks for the side yards to 15 feet. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 2006 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 35 foot side yard variance on both sides. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 60 feet in the front, 50 feet in the back, and would change to 15 feet on both sides. 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. �La�s�ona Roaa ceItl lfiles Pyr a ® BuaY� VALS IS -X06 Z.L. Metz Contracting Location Map (77-A-51 ) 0 75 150 300 Feet N W�G .k r _ +h TI A tot O&NDOF-FF, KAY W. r -n A 55 � KIR. z1EOR6,F1 H SF'- D. fr *f-,EPT fdr- t r _ 413 PPYTDN, SANFOF-D "�raoon R-1 Cllr rr il- VAR # 18 - ORB / yeo�az v°mary T- Z.L. Metz Contracting R co Aerial Ma W ` (77-A-51 ) 0 75 '150 300 Feet } •� moi, , T7 F l02 „may W I_ANDSUMNG, G-.."' jfJ +��•,•� AP � 64 F , � ,� � • r � y arkins7MquRd - Wt{,vj7 gE, HU&H DONALD'• d. . w. .k r _ +h TI A tot O&NDOF-FF, KAY W. r -n A 55 � KIR. z1EOR6,F1 H SF'- D. fr *f-,EPT fdr- t r _ 413 PPYTDN, SANFOF-D "�raoon R-1 Cllr rr il- VAR # 18 - ORB / yeo�az v°mary T- Z.L. Metz Contracting R co Aerial Ma W ` (77-A-51 ) 0 75 '150 300 Feet } APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNT �' OF F R DERIC; , V � X"1 .TIA -OFFICE USE ONLY - Variance Application No. dJ0( Submittal Date: �1� T(y_ Fee Paid: initials: Sign Deposit �s' Submittal Deadline:������ For the meeting of 0 MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner _X other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: NAME:–Z. L. Metz Contracting L.L.0 ADDRESS–P.O. Box 2999 _Winchester, Va 22604 TELEPHONE: -540-678-1667 OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 3.The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): Property is located on the Right side of East Parkins Mill Road (Secondary Route#644). Approximately 1260ft(0.23mi+/-) from the Intersection of Rt. 50 E. and E. Parkins Mill .e 4. The property has a road frontage of _69.54 feet and a depth of and consists of _1.35149 acres (please be exact). on .488.41—feet 5. The property is owned by _Z. L. Metz Contracting L.L.C. as evidenced by deed from _Robert R. Kennedy recorded (previous owner) in Instrument no. 060008783 in the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: _Shawnee 7. Property Identification No.:_77-A-51 8. The existing zoning of the property is:RA 9. The existing use of the property is:_Vacan 10. Adjoining Property: 7nNINCr RA RA RA RA 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") _A 35ft sideyard variance on both sides of the lot for placement of a house 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of- exceptional f 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 _The lot is exceptionally narrow in the front. 7 USE North _SFD East _SFD South _SFD West _SFD 7nNINCr RA RA RA RA 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") _A 35ft sideyard variance on both sides of the lot for placement of a house 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of- exceptional f 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 _The lot is exceptionally narrow in the front. 7 13. Additional comments, if any: _Steep Topography and location of drainfield eliminate the option of house placement in the rear of the lot. 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 Paul L.Davis Address: 40 Pidgeon Hill Dr. Sterling, VA Property ID # 77-A-50 Charles L. and Ella Mae Tinsman Address: 236 E. Parkins Mill Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 77-A-52 Marie D. and Robert Watts Address: 3361 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 77-A-44 Albert C. and Kimberly D. Franklin Address: 110 E. Parkins Mill Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 77-A-49 Hugh Donald Whitacre Address: 190 E. Parkins Mill Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 77-A-4913 J&W Landscaping Inc. Address: 233 E. Parkins Mill Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 77-A-62 Kay W. Orndorff Address: 321 E. Parkins Mill Rd. Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 77-A-61 IN 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. I NOTES: 1. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY - I2. THE PROPERTY DELINEATED ON THIS PLAT IS LOCATED ON TAX MAP NUMBER 77 -((A)) - AS LOT 51 AND IS ZONED: RA. 3. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE "C", AN AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING, AS SHOWN ON FLOOD INSURANCE y,_-,i<INS 1 (30' P{21 Sc xir �} O f I Ll �\11 F� O E TING ��n 1 �POWE POLE O 1 ��O z � I �� B__I #644 -WAY) rnl 1.� ^11`° rn !1 RATE MAP OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, -I COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 510063 0200 B, z�pp� o EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 17, 1978. C, 4- IRON PIPES WILL BE SET AT ALL CORNERS �cF I f j I i t5-56' NOT PREVIOUSLY MONUMENTED UPON �� m I APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION. L& 15.75 11 B. 1 PHO SE POSED 5. * DENOTES: POTENTIAL OVERLAP CREATED IN DEED I 11 U 1 BOOK 914 AT PAGE 988 WITH AN AREA I p: OF 249 SO.FT.t. N, 6. THE OUTER BOUNDARY OF PARCEL "B" v m WAS RECREATED USING ORIGINAL PLATS & P:. ,; : ::::. \ p ;:;...;i-__;•.,,';:; DESCRIPTIONS FOUND IN DEED BOOK 208 : - Y.`�, - \ ; 50AT PAGE 78, AND DEED BOOK 678 AT PAGE 775. Kl .. u 7 -ALL ELEVATIONS BASED ON ASSUMED "'-' - """- � 1 �' '00o�: ^:t- LOCAL REFERENCE DATUM. S 62'59'16" E 152. 4'\\ 9 - o \APPR . EXF TING \ \ / �I\I� eT12}N i ,d,\ `3n\ r� m 1 w �� \ A XXISTING u o �\\ �I.u. NU B 0 0412 :;� �\ E�iC TANK \E I1 N1 o \ \ QCI TI S 64"06'02" E00 243.42' ALB=Rl' C. & K: LY D. -19 \ �os3o 645 : �� I, B�Y�: 944 RAG= 988 \\ \ Z 1 * \ \\\ RQL RCEB_�. -a51,49,,ACRES±l EZISTIN� SQ. FT. 7 00\ .50cb- \ N 1 C7 6S6., LINE TABLE NO# BEARING DISTANCE L1 S 67'16'57" E 69.54' 0' 50' 100' 150'` I SCALE: 1" = 50' VARIANCE EXHIBIT SHOWING LAND OF Z. L. METZ CONTRACTING, L.L.C. SET BACKS PARCEL "B" FRONT: 60' TAX MAP #77 -((A)) -LOT 51 SIDE: 50' INSTRUMENT #060008783 REAR: 50' SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHEET 1 OF 1 SCALE: 1" = 50' CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' I URBAN ENGINEERING & ASSOC., INC. DATE: 8/24/06 DRAWN BY: MTD CHECKED BY: CJR CIVIL ENGINEERS o LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS " LAND SURVEYORS 210 FRONT ROYAL PIKE TAX MAP #77-A-51 WNCHESTER VA 22602 INSTRUMENT #06-8783 PHONE (540) 450-0211 FAX (540) 450-0206 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # %-9s 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 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. h _ .4 , `% SIGNATURE OF AAPPPLICANT _ DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION: - ATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: 10 VARIANCE APPLICATION 919-06 CHARLES AND CHRISTINE GILBERT Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: October 5, 2006 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: October 17, 2006 - Action Pending LOCATION: 104 Richwood Court MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 7513-4-3-82 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) 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: Six (6) foot rear yard variance to allow for an attached screen porch. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Narrowness and shape of the lot. Variance #19-06 — Charles and Christine Gilbert October 5, 2006 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: This application is a variance to allow an encroachment of six (6) feet into the rear setback of this property. The property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and has a square footage of 15,388 sq. ft. with a single-family dwelling built on the property. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for lots in the RP Zoning District to range in size from 100,000 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. Section 165-65 C of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, requires setbacks to be: 35 feet front, 10 feet sides, and 25 feet rear. Furthermore, Section 165-23 F (3) the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for decks to extend three (3) feet into the required setback provided the the deck comprises less than 1/3 the length of the wall of the primary structure. The Code of Virginia 15.2-2209 (2), states that no variance shall be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements: 1) The strict application of the Ordinance will produce an undue hardship. 2) The hardship is not generally shared by the properties in the same zoning district and vicinity. 3) That the authorization of such variance will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the variance. This application for a variance does not meet the requirements as set forth by The Code of Virginia 15.2-2209 (2), that the strict application of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance would produce an undue hardship. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 2006 MEETING: Staff would recommend denial of this variance application, as strict application of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not produce an undue hardship as required by the Code of Virginia 15.2-2309 (2). r Qi APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA Variance Application NQ. Submittal Date: 4 Fee Paid: es initials Sign Deposit e -OFFICE USE ONLY - Submittal Deadline: f, For the meeting of 10 1 MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner - other 2. APPLICANT: NAME: e ADDRESS 1gti1 TELEPHONE:V�'40 . (Check one) OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): JC 1 /l X15 [ vt fl CAitci `]iiC� ov)iu Tos l-,ev- a� E' 1 c�;-,iU �cjrf-icr- 0 1- e. L -e' -- � I PyRR-,t PkiGhfi co -60 Vince'ril, /0'-i Ri chwoc) 6 Ct . 4. The property has a road frontage of -3b feet and a depth of j j-� R C feet 4 and consists of .33 acres (please be exact). 51d e -,7 7 Page 5 of 9 5. The property is owned byc �)CAOC Via` 6 O) ns`ytf}C G Ae4as evidenced by deed from C.(InA e x "c)me,-_-) recorded (previous owner) in deed beol�no. r�n�toge-fid of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: CSV) a \N f) e E 7. Property Identification No.: W1 �� - '-� - 3 `- 2- S. 8. The existing zoning of the property is: 9. The existing use of the property is: C-71 1 `Oq \ e_ 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North `-w)6e �om+l_ East South �nc_- �— resi6e_« 1 West 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") an 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 ,ric�nc �XCeptaa,_NCA� nQf1r a,AYneE.,S c y-0 Sl aw- CA r�� pCir& popevfy 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 `105 Pit\'% XC c , CC Uv+ Property ID # `7 5 ti LI�i1 W►�I���,� Address i11`C�tt�r�c�,� Property ID Ckr6 I~ C<uv% 1A1 W► ' Address Property ID # -�5 p )-t� DoN';d w\6 N ce'ff\� V -- a ctl Address I () /-- R\- c -ir-"' C ct':"s -t Property ID # -] S 3 g3 Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Page 7 of 9 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Shove proposed and/or existing structures oil file prGpc y, inciudirig 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 ' J�- AGREEMENT VARIANCE # J� (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 DATE , 0, `a- 0() (a SIGNATURE OF OWNER ? 0(4 DATE (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF _ / ACTION: - DAT - SIGNED: APPROVAL BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: Page 9 of 9 V:\project\-2003\03032\Sure\Cadfi' Sec3\WALLCHECKS\0082.dwg, 10/4;200 :14:21 PM l ion s -95 \ 5 94 LOT SEW ESMTJ88 SF \ f1Q74 SM O RN \ ` 9o�y �O \ 0' 20' STM. ORN. ESMT. ��ZS�.'N»T/JS ._ hti� Toea• \ r 7o Vl\ I CTO N7.98' P 1 JST F Y FRAM _ Q / p0� / `V BSA.•T F�Ev 7J>0. (? \ —70fi- / W f1 � \ ELEv lis J • 7i2\ 0Q`' ,�\ _ �'30 144• a 5 \ 1� �p 20.5 -P 17 4. W . JS' BRL .t L n y �_ 1 COV CO C Q \ I STOOP SIY • J CJ Ln u ASPy \ k m / w 2 20' STM \ i ORN ESMT tai 770 6" 0wu L=50.22' \ � PS R=54.00' �,,,• /PS R/CHWOO I \ COURT R'� STH of 'I z� SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ALL LOTS ARE SUBJECT TO A 15' 2 y THE PROPERTY DEL/NEA TED HEREON LS LOCATED UTILITY EASEMENT AND AN 8" IN ZONE C (AREAS OF MINIMA FLOOD/NC) AS ACCESS/MAINTENANCE EASEMENT 2 DELINEATED ON THE U.S DEPAR7MENT OF HEREBY RESERVED ALONG ALL k HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENTS FLOOD STREET RIGHT—OF—WAY LINES INSURANCE RATE MAP OF FREDERICK COUNTY, PER INSIR NO 040017089 VIRGINIA COMMUNITY—PANEL NUMBER OA7F" 09—JO-05 51006) 0200 B EFFEC77VE ✓UL Y 17 1978 WALL CHECK 06-08-05 FINAL:9-29-05 HOUSE LOCA T/ON SUR VFY LOT 82 WA/(ELAND MANOR ALL EXISTING E51W7S SHOWN PHASE THREE HEREON ARE RECORDED IN INSTR NO. 040017089 UNLESS SHA!'Y/VEE MAG/STER/AL DIS TRIC T OTHERWISE NOTED. FRLcDER/CK COUNTY, VIRGINIA STH of 'I BC Consultants Planners . Engineers - Surveyors - Landscape Architects SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE o 0 BRADLEY U BRADLEY T. RIGGLEAIAN a A43 West Jubal Early Drive, Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-0475 (540) 665-1874 (Fax) I, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS PRO - PERTY HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY (' 7No.22p16 �j OC O 4 2UU5 TAPE ESTABSURVEY LISHED BAND UNLESSY A T REFERENCE DRAWN BY." DC CHECKED." B7R 1 tuft x_,..104' V c�- OTHERWISE SHOWN, THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. INS7R NO. 040017089 SCALE.- 7" = JO" OA7F" 09—JO-05 F/LE NO.: 0-30-T2-71 a,�_-T-.qan,.ap6+.S�,�r�..�..�!5��'7.?F?rr�.,�9.w*.nn,,.FrTP4Meerna7�rA�l.. F,.; �..:_ ....-_. -.�.- � �: e::. °� #_,..'??�4^yv"..'S+om*xz+nM€•�x�y-^a,-.u, .xmq sem'-xri,-::., t�!x:�wr i 2003\03032\SLl�'\Cadiiles\Sec3\WALLCHECKS\0082.dwg, 10/4/12005 2:14:21 Fri /PS 95 . ......... 0 4 41, sciy L snr r. .3u,� �. , ,, v /1 C)• g�. _ 65 .ST,L! aid '. ' ��`� ,� - •� � ��.. \ * \. Ar CA CFV —:N f ,n.� m:°u>waS rwra,�,m7 7• i. _�, R 5 � 20' 571W, -01 \ J , j LOTS AfE SU6.1CC7' TO A I5' h� F• >_' t7LE F"Fa fRTf G.EtitV£s?mg Ir'f v is b., .ALL U771 - E;.S:%9fiYT Atv'-f7 AN 8' � jC' � GY .ZO/6`T C rr2RFA5 OF fs(AV'; ,;<?L !�Lf?al.��vc) ACr ;=5,5/.^'.>::i'I?�Tc!�.%AIYG>� £ii S/'A+`.�ry'T O r � Cry i� f) 7 ",'LA rt r7 C 'br .-17J£ U. S 191 £." n ;1 �lFa i C,r , R£SF{i kEV A101tlf .ALL Low"t"', � '_:.7t�:atalt?-'.`.�. {."uu. c r w;z 't AW.I,ll f' T r L ? s e i�Ix' ii n�! i.5! ^y't-Ai i 7'(.U R't°. c��`L OW! KWf L OCA IC Ii'+ !s'I i'�'! i� VARIANCE APPLICATION #20-06 DONALD C. ADAILYIS Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: September 25, 2006 Staff Contact: Lauren E. Krempa, Zoning Inspector 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: October 17, 2006 - Action Pending LOCATION: Fair View Subdivision, Lot 1, off Old Bethel Church Road (Route 608) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 30 -A -144A PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: Rural Areas (RA) District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: Rural Areas (RA) South: Rural Areas (RA) East: Rural Areas (RA) West: Rural Areas (RA) Use: Vacant Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: 40 foot right side yard variance and 35 foot left side yard variance (resulting in a 10 foot right side yard and a 15 foot left side yard) for a single family dwelling. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Subdivision was created in 1947; parcel predates existing Zoning Ordinance requirements. Variance #20-06 — Donald Adams September 25, 2006 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-1 (Agricultural Limited). The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet for the front yard setback and 15 feet for the side yards. Frederick County amended its Ordinance in 1989 to change the zoning district to the current RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, making the current setbacks for the property: 60 feet to the front, 50 feet to the rear, and 50 feet to both sides. This variance would change the setbacks for the side yards to 10 feet on the right and 15 feet on the left. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 2006 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 40 foot right side yard variance and a 35 foot left side yard variance in order to build a house of 2,486 square feet. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 60 feet in the front, 50 feet in the back, 10 feet on the right side and 15 feet on the left side. It appears that this variance does meet 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. 3o A 154 WHITAGRE, LESLIE WILLIAM •3o A 1415 DOEREN, SHERYL 30 '1 '9Dd• M�2y 30 ti/ q SRL/N �36c T� tea. v. y a `t' HOOVER HOWARD T IV1j AP 522 522 c y � J 3o A 14(0 NOEL, WADE A \t\\P volt)E oO�t\P 3o A 136 rPATHER, TERRY 0 c TPANNA G Road Centerlines oP \q1P NIECE 3o5PP, i,pP tzIGKPC� • 3o A 141 YOLK, ANTHONY R Ix SUSAN V 3o A 1385 WILSON, TAMES W 717 f, CATHY L VAR #.?0-66 Donald Adams Location Map (75D-4-3-82) 0 50 100 200 ®��� Feet Q VQ o C, Z9 7 o i �Z 3 3o A 13gA BAKER TERRY R TR 3o A 1385 WILSON, TAMES W 717 f, CATHY L VAR #.?0-66 Donald Adams Location Map (75D-4-3-82) 0 50 100 200 ®��� Feet c ' t k i 522 � IV Oil 30 PFF�tFs. ¢ . f � P K M���� �` !� 3'0 P .1' 3 A 14(o r} l .iSy ' 1 6 may,_ i y . . •. "� NOEL. WADE A �� � 3o A Awl 5 r. D067 -EN, $HERYL AN Ty `' P Ae 608 3o A i4i c e � � - • PDLK, PNTHONY V Mq�,�+ e jl n' GATHER, 7MFFY D 8r7A1 G ' 47- � a uon RIld Centerlines L_s•e wa��., NseW� ry 30 A 13QA '`+K BAKER. 1EIZRY R S(c VAR#20- 06 Donald Adams Aerial Map (75D-4-3-82) 0 50 100 200 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA -O//FFICE USE O__N_ LY - Variance Application -o. Submittal Deadline: Submittal Date: IA c3 For the ineeting, of %0 p(� Fee Paid: Yes initials: Simi Deposit 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: Michael M. Artz NAME: ADDRESS: 16 E. Piccadilly St. ADDRESS: Winchester, VA 22601 TELEPHONE: 540-667- 3233 TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 0.3807ac Old Bethel Church Road Fair View Subdivision VA Rte. 60 4. The property has a road frontage of 86' feet and a depth of 240 feet and consists of 0.3807 acres and 16,584.4 sq. ft. (please be exact). 5. The property is owned by Donald C. Adams as evidenced by deed from Robert A. Cather recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 693 on page 296 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: Gainesboro District 7. Property Identification No.: 30-A- 144A 8. The existing zoning of the property is : RA 9. The existing use of the property is: Vacant SET 1 2 2006 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Old Bethel Church Road East Residential RA South Residential RA West Residential RA 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") 40' side yard Variance- Right 35' side yard Varicance-Left 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 Subdivision was created in 1947 the parcel pre -dates existing zoning Requirements. 13. Additional comments, if any: 0.3807ac consolidated Ints. # 060016974 Proposed house is 2,486 sq ft 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 Mauzy, Marvin J. & Dixie D. Address: 1480 Old Bethel CH. Rd Property ID# 30 -A -136C Markely, Kenneth R Address: 1500 Old Bethel CH. RD Property ID# 30-A141B Adams, Don C Address -.1498 Old Bethel Church RD Property ID#30-A-142 Riddle, Aaron C Address: 1496 Bethel Church RD Property ID#30-A-144 Address: Property ID# Address: Property ID# Address: Property ID# Address: Property ID# 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer=s drawing). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. ds-/ to cq to b of 09/ ,3k Z 10 IC) tu L to ko kk to to sL cl� oy Ld EU 0 to 1c) 40 J to h UD tii 45) \A G d Cl� 90/9l/8 O O HIMON 'OVW = N j w \ ME 1j U_ v W 6h d R� 00 M V a� o 4 V d /. m Z) •; hQ0 �c�vz t�rdo O Q�0� 6 Mews o= , Iv lt Z ao CDH � ¢ W Vl W oW aj�� = M �JD QQ=C7 SF-w� < �¢m� ciO j 060016974 FINAL PLAT CONSOLIDATION of LOT 1 & the SOUTHERN o HALF of LOT 2 FAIRVIEW SUBDIVISON Donald C. Adams TM 930 -A -144A Deed Book 947, Page 459 August 23, 2006 Zoned RA Gainesboro District, Frederick County, Virginia VICINITY SKETCH 6ETNANY� y?T J� �� 14P 14 o'�F BRA HILL;' DOCK W ti Acts hr #m�s� ye o� EST TES s fallow ppP�ppE >P uT s i11 J, u 6[T8 �� =P 856 P 746 87 ° 4 QP u'� PEpPEP E Np�NO ° 5 0�=� 0 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I, Michael M. Ariz, a duly authorized land surveyor, do hereby certify that the land hereby consolidated is in the name of Donald C. Adam and was acquired stated O s ificate. Certified Land Surveyor OWNER'S CERTIFICATE: The undersigned fee simple owner hereby certifies that the land herein consolidated is all of the land acquired by Donald C_ Adams by deed dated September 14, 1999 and recorded in Deed Book 947, Page 459. Said deed being of record in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia. This consolidation as it appears on the accompanying plats is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners of said land and the same is hereby confirmed and submitted for record in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, V' D Donald C. Adams "'"'"' . LiV NOTARY CERTIFICATE: ;. '� = to -wit: STATE OF VIRGINIA; CITY/COUNTY OF ; 1 0 - �� << The foregoin wners c nsent and dedication was acknowledged before me this X5" day of 120 .1 DOlr� ' My commission expires 11:x;••....• "''�`' Not Pu lie C' i CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL This consolidation is approved by the undersigned in accordance with existing subdivision regulations and may be admitted to record. Z,;W "G �= date Frederick County Subdivision Administrator SHEET 1 Amanda IC Lightner NOTARYPUBLIC Commonwealth of Urginia MY Commission Erpin, 04/30/2010 N O N Lj x O Z1O M N HLNON "Wri ry CP O� i O m F- n �Jo� ci CD zo od»> 00 0 U l xA v < Tb Q Y • 0 j Q o Qp 6 = Z = L) aa� cd Ow Nei mz�3g� b� m d �a °-Ar- '; hQ0 Q QZ::Er H M j VIRGRA: flRff)N&k COUNTY.SCT. -.. This instrument of writing was produced to me oil ar,Au-ith thereto annexed 1h' s ad"'ith:4 hySce.58.1-802of 4". zo,--�'Clcrk AGREEAMNT VARIANCE # j 0 — 0 Number to be assigned by the Planning Dept.) I (v .e), the un dersigned, do hereby respectf lly 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) ays 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 EDF - DATE O'�K-t?-C)(,,, SIGNATURE OF OWNER 4 / • DATE D'� - 19 - 0 (,, (If other than applicant) -OFFICE YSE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF /0 6 ACTION: APPROVAL SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: 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) (Name) Don Adams (Telephone) 540-664-6156 (Address) 1498 Old Bethel Church Road; Winchester, VA 22603 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property) conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. on Page , and is described as Parcel: Lot: 1 Block: Section do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Michael M. Artz ,LS Subdivision: Fairview Subdivision (Telephone) 540-667-3233 (Address) 16 E Piccadilly Street; Winchester VA 22601 to act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described property, including: ✓ Rezoning (including proffers) ✓ Conditional use permits ✓ Master development plan (preliminary and final) ✓ Subdivision ✓ Site plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer approved proffered conditions except as follows: 40 conditions and to make amendments to previously This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or moditied. In witness thereof, I ( e hereto set_ ny (our) hand and seal this I q#,- day of G , 200 (p Signature(s) State of Virginia, "/County of F .ectfY 1 C�_ , to -wit: I, Y1C n a Notary public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that The erson(s) who signed to the regoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared bef .rp me and s ackn wledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this �" day of , 200 tp My commission expires: b"L- Notary Public VARIANCE APPLICATION #21-06 DENNIS LONGERBEAM Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: October 5, 2006 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: October 17, 2006 - Action Pending LOCATION: Red Fox Run II Subdivision, Lot 48 on Travis Court MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64D-8-2-48 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: Residential Performance (RP) Use: Residential South: Residential Performance (RP) Use: Residential East: Residential Performance (RP) Use: Open Space West: Residential Performance (RP) Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: One foot front yard variance for a single family dwelling. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Dwelling built over front setback. Variance #21-06 — Dennis Longerbeam October 5, 2006 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: This application is a variance to allow for a one (i) toot encroacnment into the front setback. The property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and has a square footage of 13,224 sq. ft., with a single-family dwelling built on the property. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for lots in the RP Zoning District to range in size from 100,000 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. Section 165-65 C of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, requires setbacks to be: 35 feet front, 10 feet sides, and 25 feet rear. The setbacks for this dwelling on building permit #2802-2005 were: front 37 feet, rightl 1.8 feet, left 44.8 feet, and 36.1 feet rear. Section 165-23 H of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires survey standards to establish the location of primary structures located five (5) feet or less from the minimum setback requirement of the zoning district in which the property is located. This building permit was required to provide setback surveys. The applicant reversed the building plan lay out during construction. The field change was revealed on the final setback report recorded September 15, 2006. The Code of Virginia 15.2-2209 (2), states that no variance shall be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements: 1) The strict application of the Ordinance will produce an undue hardship. 2) The hardship is not generally shared by the properties in the same zoning district and vicinity. 3) That the authorization of such variance will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the variance. This application for a variance does not meet the requirements as set forth by The Code of Virginia 15.2-2209 (2), and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. This violation to the setback requirements of the RP Zoning District is self-inflicted, and does not produce an undue hardship. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 2006 MEETING: Staff would recommend denial of this variance application, as the violation of the setback requirements was self-inflicted. The strict application of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance did not produce an undue hardship as required by the Code of Virginia 15.2-2309 (2). mK m County of Frederick Winchester VA 22601 LIEN AGENT: Setback Report OWNER NAME/ADDRESS SITE ADDRESS DEN14I5 LONGERBEAM CONSTRUCTION, LLC Travis Court 329 RUSSELL RD Red Fox Run II ; Lot 48 00000 BERRYVILLE, VA 22611 PHONE: 540-955-6264 PERMIT NUMBER: USBC: APPLICATION DATE: ISSUANCE DATE: RENEWAL DATE: DATE: CONTRACTOR NAME/ADDRESS OWNER PHONE: 0002802 - 2005 2000 9/27/2005 10/06/2005 RE ACCOUNT#: 42463 DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION LOCATION TAX MAP NO.: 64D 8 2 48 LOT: 48 BLOCK: SECTION: BLDG NO.: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SET-BACKS: HEALTH PERMIT NO.: DISTRICT,:,.,.-, SffAW,Nd FRONT: 35 BACK: 25 FLOODPLAIN: SUB-DIVISIl1N QED FOX RUN RIGHT: 10 LEFT: 20 AREA: Bufflick ZONE: Residential.Performance CNTR FRTGE: RIGHT-OF-WAY: S/E CUP NQ;', SITE PLAN: DIRECTIONS TO SITE: 522 South to left on Bently to left on Melissa, to `R right on Travis lot at end of culdesac Map Book 221, B-3 USE GROUP: Use Group "R" Residential USE CODE: Single Family Dwelling SQ FEET: CNST.TYPE: New NATURE/WRK: single family dwelling ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Setback Report SETBACKS * FRONT 35 * BACK 25 * RIGHT 10 * LEFT 10 } } f } * } } } } } } * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOB VALUE: r---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PERMIT FEE: ! SURVEYOR INFORMATION ! ! ! ! NAME:�rI��SEI � �0�� FRONT: i3� BACK:3S- I1 ! ! DATE OF SURVEY:C� jj,5-jC)(, RIGHT: li,Q' LEFT: 5(),1' SEAL ! r r G�. TOTAL FEES: ! O r----------------------------------------- _U - - - - ----r REQUIRED SIGNATURES No, 001197 � b SURA �") �l()OL-0 S" 6vC-)--�--)-_ Yk GA F0,, kvj qT- OPEN SPACE 1� m 10 o 3 LOT 49 11.8' tl- 0 I� i EX. 20' FCSA WATER ESM'T cl GO URI LOT 47 SRP 60' EX. 20' FCSA SAN. SEWER EASEMENT I I ;1 GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 e°\ CURVE TABLE �- NO. RADIUS ARC TAN BEAR/NG CHORD DEL TA NOTES: 1 inch = 30 ft. C11 54.00' 58.91 2.77 N 0939 50" EI 56.03 623032" I. THIS PLAT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE W/TH SETBACK AND SIDE YARD REGULA TIONS. 2. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 3. ALL EXIS77NG UNDERGROUND U77LI77ES SHALL BE PHYSICALLY LOCA 7ED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE BE67NN/NG OF CONS7RUC77ON. 4. BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE TAKEN FROM A PLAN FURNISHED BY THE BUILDER/DEI,ELOPER. 5. THIS LOT IS SUBJECT TO A 20' SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG TRA WS COURT AND A 10' U77LITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES ID 7249 BUILDING SITE PLAN LOT 48 RED FOX RUN 11 TRA WS COURT SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINIA AUGUST 4, 2005 BUILDER APPROVAL INITIALS DATE S�0oS DAF MARSH LEGGE 5WINCHESTER, VIRGIN STREET VIRGINIA 22601 Land Surveyors, P.L.C. PHONE 540 667-0468 _ FAX 5403 667-0469 S 38 08'03" W 90.24' LOT 48 DWELLING 13, 224 SO. FT. 25' BRL " 6.35'017.0 1� m 10 o 3 LOT 49 11.8' tl- 0 I� i EX. 20' FCSA WATER ESM'T cl GO URI LOT 47 SRP 60' EX. 20' FCSA SAN. SEWER EASEMENT I I ;1 GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 e°\ CURVE TABLE �- NO. RADIUS ARC TAN BEAR/NG CHORD DEL TA NOTES: 1 inch = 30 ft. C11 54.00' 58.91 2.77 N 0939 50" EI 56.03 623032" I. THIS PLAT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE W/TH SETBACK AND SIDE YARD REGULA TIONS. 2. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 3. ALL EXIS77NG UNDERGROUND U77LI77ES SHALL BE PHYSICALLY LOCA 7ED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE BE67NN/NG OF CONS7RUC77ON. 4. BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE TAKEN FROM A PLAN FURNISHED BY THE BUILDER/DEI,ELOPER. 5. THIS LOT IS SUBJECT TO A 20' SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG TRA WS COURT AND A 10' U77LITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES ID 7249 BUILDING SITE PLAN LOT 48 RED FOX RUN 11 TRA WS COURT SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINIA AUGUST 4, 2005 BUILDER APPROVAL INITIALS DATE S�0oS DAF MARSH LEGGE 5WINCHESTER, VIRGIN STREET VIRGINIA 22601 Land Surveyors, P.L.C. PHONE 540 667-0468 _ FAX 5403 667-0469 PROPOSED / DWELLING � 6.35'017.0 20.00' o F�-10 � 9R 35 1� m 10 o 3 LOT 49 11.8' tl- 0 I� i EX. 20' FCSA WATER ESM'T cl GO URI LOT 47 SRP 60' EX. 20' FCSA SAN. SEWER EASEMENT I I ;1 GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 e°\ CURVE TABLE �- NO. RADIUS ARC TAN BEAR/NG CHORD DEL TA NOTES: 1 inch = 30 ft. C11 54.00' 58.91 2.77 N 0939 50" EI 56.03 623032" I. THIS PLAT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE W/TH SETBACK AND SIDE YARD REGULA TIONS. 2. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 3. ALL EXIS77NG UNDERGROUND U77LI77ES SHALL BE PHYSICALLY LOCA 7ED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE BE67NN/NG OF CONS7RUC77ON. 4. BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE TAKEN FROM A PLAN FURNISHED BY THE BUILDER/DEI,ELOPER. 5. THIS LOT IS SUBJECT TO A 20' SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG TRA WS COURT AND A 10' U77LITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES ID 7249 BUILDING SITE PLAN LOT 48 RED FOX RUN 11 TRA WS COURT SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGINIA AUGUST 4, 2005 BUILDER APPROVAL INITIALS DATE S�0oS DAF MARSH LEGGE 5WINCHESTER, VIRGIN STREET VIRGINIA 22601 Land Surveyors, P.L.C. PHONE 540 667-0468 _ FAX 5403 667-0469 Su I rtf N. ^j Tb -70L- VA- OA I Owner's lNarrze: Address: _'-'2,, (For Office Use Ono") APPLICATION FOR PERMIT --Oa 4 voA-IoA. LLC Phone Number:— s Owner's are allowed to act as their own contractor provided DPOR Title 54 Owner C=ontractor Definition is met. *Contractor's Name: 1 nt- _ J Address: . --- Prone Number: *:'NOTE: If you have never obiained permits in Frederick County please attach a copy of your state contractor's license. Any jobs over 525,000 will also need a. Frederick County Business License unless you are building in the Town of Middletown or the To,,,,rn of Stephens City. You Would thea need that town's business license. All businesses in Frederick County are required to .have a Frederick County Business Licenses regardless of the job value. MECHANICS LIEN AGENT: z Ves {� :Vlech�...lics Lien Agent: _' a t � �� LOC.AriON OF PROPERTY Subdivision:___—R t�Y�I ir Street Name: T, ax 'vlap Identification Number of thi Pr p� ,.rtv no (if yes, please complete below) © — ---- Phone :'v urnber 1 Lot Number SETBAC=KS % Y t� u! Le _ Rear Y'--- Front -3— I Y E OF PERMIT APPLYING FOR: Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing PERMIT FOR: S_r1 Sign I li;.reby agree to comply with all provisions of the Virginia Unitor_m Statewide Building Codc and the Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the County of Frederick. Signature of Applicant A/_ Contractor _V Owner ,_— Agent Engineer/Architect *Acents; please note that a s-igned authorization fronn the owner or contractor muss be attached. Please list a daytime telephone number in which you can be reached incase of q�jestions. Permit Appiication Page Tivo RESIDENTIAL _ Z Ne;v _ Addition Remodeling Demolition BUILDING INFOWNIATION NEEDED FOR PE.R ITIS COMMERCIAL Nev, Addition Remodeling Demoh,1.10112 Residential Demolition - Requires a letter from the Power Co. verifying power has been removed and a letter from the Gas Co. verifying gas has been rerno,,.,ed. Commercial Deniolitis►n/Additiaais/R.emodelings - Requires the sarne information as Residential and in addition to that. information requires Asbestos afzidavit if built prior to January 1, 1985. List tivhat is being corstructed: RESIDENTIAL Master Plan Number (if applicab'e) l 8uiiding Size (Dimensions) 5D W X_ Total Sauare Footage of Living Space Squa e Footage of Basement Unfinished Finished Number of Stories --�—_ ---. 'umber of Bedrooms ___�-----_—_--- —__. Number of Bathzooms _ _—_— Total Number of Roorns— Garage - (Size of Garage) !ar-)_r us/_�_'_Z"� Deck - (Size of Deck) _ LQ� s_lip _` Porch - (Size of Porch) �asonry Chimney/Fireplaces MOBILE HOMES Make Fear Model Serial Number Length — -- Width Number of Bathrooms '`:umber of Bedrooms Type of Heat COMMERCIAL Total Square Footage of Building Building Size —_ Number of Stories Number of Bathrooms Total Number of Rooms LJse Group _ Occupant Load permit Application Page Three SIGNS Type of Sign --- Sign Size Size (Dimensions) Sian Reads Height From Ground To Top Of Sign _ Other Signs On Property _ -- Input Amps ----- Input Volts Marking & Listing Number — Square Footage of Front of Structure (if wall sign) ELECTRICAL PERMIT RESIDENTIAL: Amp Service ` (this is the only thing needed fo: new dwellings) For Additions/Remodeling: Number of Switches Lights ____ Receptacles Size of sub -panel if adding one: — Upgrading service to COMMERCIAL: (Lis° all equipment, motors, and wiring) FI MBING PERIMIT Basins Garbage Disposal Sewer Pump u_ Sump Pumps Water CIosets Other Residential & Commercial (list number of fixtures by each) Dishwasher _Floor Drains Fountair. Grease Traps _ Laundry Tub Lawn Faucets Sewer Service Showers Sinks TubsiWhirpools Urinals Wash :Machine _—� Water Heater Water Service Well Pump tMECHANICAL. PER -MIT RESIDENTIAL: (list number of fixtures installing) i, Heat Pump � Gas Furnace A C Unit _+ Gas Logs —_ Gas Water Heater Other — Size of Tanks Under 500 Gal. COMMERCIAL: (list ail equipment giving btu's and tors) Gas Piping Gas Range NOTE. All comniercial jobs for building, electric, plumbing and mechanical will need to submit. 2 sets of plans (sprirkler plans and fire suppression systems require 4 sets). All building permits for residential Jobs will need to submit I set ofp?ans. ISSUED: AGREEMENT IN LIED OF AN EROSION A:sdD SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN For a Sing!e Family Residence in a Subdiifision Bldg. Permit >;E��' Lot_q_2_. Subdivision��� Street -:zt6w ,"s�L�� in lieu of submission of a complete Erosic.n and Sedilllent Control Plan f or the construction of a single fanliiy dwelling at the above stated IJcLtion; I agree to comply with tl;e requirements deen7ed necessary by the Frederick Cow tv P, blic Works Department. The erosion a 7d sediment control regmrements shall be based an the stavidards contained within Chapter 79, Erosion alio Sediment Control, of the Frederick County Code, and shall represent the minimum practices necessary to provide adequat.= Control cf erosion -and sediment au -off residtljig froi'this prnject- ilie l`.i17i1Tliinl `-eC1L;. rE:l7l�Ilt IS for all denuded areas on the tot to be sta, ilized within sevc-n C days of final grading with pennanant vegetat;on or a protective ground °cover. A construction entrance a!7ii tel �porary perimeter erosion and sediniej; �•O;7tr Ol 171e15LreS Shall lie 17stallEd at t, -.-e star-,Gt tl:e construction. .,l : -) '- , g days folloy� i:� 1 understand that fa'i? Ie t0 Qilll1 \:'IM SGCh requirenlentS \vahili iiVe i ��'QrtiL7 notice to comply by t;.e Frederick Courty Public Works Depamment could res°u'i in legal action for a ylolation cf the t` r ederick Co'u ty Code. ill addition to legesd acttO: , a SLQL 4vOrK Orraer 1Tiay lc iSSUed and revocatic:n wftl7e land disturbance permit may, occur. Note: The fee for a single farnily pErmit shall be S-50. The fee for a multj-flinily unit shall be ten dollars (SIO) per unit. Erosicn and sediment Control measures specified by the Fredet ck County -Public Forks Staff': PROVIDE EROSION & SEDEVIENT CONTROL MEASURES; INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. SCHEDULE INSPECTION ONCE THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. ql • �wneir z .'Signatui•e of C,anL i'arry i e.sponsible for Erosion and Sediment Control Print'�ame Date Responsible Land Disturber Certification .4 %SJ 3 Date of Expiration iq041 Permit Applicant _6_aai, -> (11E?��c �/ C) itiEI2 J-wr�L_!51 S L Frederick County Public Works Staff r 1pe rosed by: __f Date: __✓ �-'l / Z,__ 6 AFFIDAVIT I, I)e-t-w'; S Lonay r�� t' Ck m on (date) j 0 i �1 10 S� affirm that I am the owner of a certain tract of parcel of land located at: M),,— , i LJ?` j/S My permit number is:-,,? ( (� A,�}y I am aware that my property (described above) is: located in the 100 year flood plain ---�OT located in the 100 year flood plain OT no knowledge of the 100 year flood plain I affirm that I am familiar with the prerequisite of Section 54.1-1111 by state law and I am not subject to licensure as a contractor or subcontractor. ✓"'I affirm that I am familiar with the Section of 119.1 of the Statewide Building Code of Virginia. You are reminded that before occupancy, you are required to have a FINAL INSPECTION and be issued a Certificate of Occupancy. NOTE: Occupying a building before obtaining a temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy constitutes a violation under the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Violations are a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be punished by a fine of not more than $1,goo. I also understand that a BURNING PERMIT is required for burning materials from land clearing operations. This permit may be applied for in the Fire Marshal's office. The burning of construction debris such as cardboard, scrap lumber, siding, paper, etc. is NOT PERMITTED in Frederick County. This is a violation of Frederick County Chapter 10 and Air Pollution Control Laws of Virginia. Violators are subject to /prosecution. I also understand Section 312.2 Toilet Facilities For Workers shall be provided for construction workers and such facilities shall be maintained. in a sanitary condition. Xonstruction worker toilet facilities of the non -sewer type shall conform to. ANSI Z4.3. I also understand (Section 115.5) that the person requesting an inspection' ghall ptovide '' the code official with any ladder, scaffolding or test equipment_ necessary., o conduct the requested inspection. I further understand that.at the time of inspection all., finished. surfaces (floors, walls, etc.) shall be protected and the moving of any fixtures or furniture is the responsibility of the person requesting the inspection. If you have any questions about building permits, please call John S. Trenary, Building Code Official, at 665-5650. If you have any questions about burning permits, please call Dennis Linaburg, Fire Marshal, at 665-6350. Signed and acknowledged by �/� ,c��� in the County of Frederick, Virginia on theis +�- day of O y b , 20 o in the presence of the and s' ned witness "(Witness) SPP 2 -12006 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE CO",1 ry OF FvEDEprru VAXRGINIA 111 1 Vt' 1\1J 1:L \1.v11, ♦ 11\V 1 MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner X other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: Dennis Longerbeam NAME: ADDRESS 329 Russell Road ADDRESS: Berryville, Virginia 22611 TELEPHONE: 540/955-6264 TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): Lot 48 is located in Frederick County on the eastern side of U.S. Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) south of the intersection of Front Royal Pike and TT .g Route 17/50 (Millwood Pike) in the Red Fox Run II Subdivision. Lot 48 is is located at the end of the easternmost cul-de-sac of Travis Court 4. The property has a road frontage of 58.9 feet and a depth of 105 feet and consists of 0 --lo acres (please be exact). 5. The property is owned by Dennis Longerbeam Construction, L.L.C. as evidenced by deed from He ler Construction recorded (previous owner) j"AN&Wk 1G Tnstrumen o• o of the deed boons of t he Clerk of the k-Oult lur Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: Shawnee 7. Property Identification No.: 64D-8-2-48 8. The existing zoning of the property is: RP 9. The existing use of the property is: Residential 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Residential RP East Oben Space RP South Residential RP West Residential RP 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") A 1.0' front setback variance for the front load attached 2 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 See Attached 7 12. This dwelling and attached front load two -car aaraae was positioned on this lot to accommodate the reasonable direct access at the existing curb and gutter driveway connection. Steep slopes at the rear of this lot restrict the ability to freely place the location of the building foundation. This lot was designed with extensive geotechnical evaluation at the time of subdivision construction that specifies foundation placement. These specifications were followed for this dwelling. The existing storm drainage structure and drainage pipe at the front N.W. corner of the lot and along the northerly side property line created limitations on moving the driveway entrance from its existing location. The building plan layout for this dwelling was reversed for construction on this lot in an effort to meet the lot limitations listed above. This field change did not reveal a setback issue along the arc of the curve for the cul-de-sac right-of-way and 35' setback line. 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: AI An.0 Kum N. Porter Address 149 Travis Court, Winchester, A 22602 Property ID # 64D-8-2-45 Michael A. Cabaniss Address 151 Travis Court, Winchester, VA 22602 Property I D # 64D-8-2-46 Michael L. and Christine M. Goss Address 153 Travis Court, Winchester, VA 22,602 Property ID # 64D-8-2-47 Jamie C. and Sunny L. McGann Address 154 Travis Court, Winchester VA 22602 Property I D # 64D-8-2-4 Robert A. and Veronica M. McDonald Address 152 Travis Court, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64D-8-2-50 Charles V. Loudermilk Address 150 Travis Court, Winchester VA 2260P. Property ID # 64D-8-2-51 Address Property ID # 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. N <o -6� _- rrjPf G�, q\ PIN 64-A-44 DAWSON W. RIGGLEMAN, 1R et ux. G DB 735 PG 168 �I / ,-y A LOT it p� �T LOT 114/ I Ei ti� rA LOT 15 1 yp� i013 PIN 64 -A -40d AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK, LLC 27� I DB 942 PG 1354 LOT I LOT 18 SKEET No. itttE LOT 23 "§� 1 LOT 88UYr 24 LOT 20 LOT 19 I LOT 85 _IFS � LOT 41LOT 8 64 %b N LOT 40 o 9 LOT 63 9 I o LOT 39 11 x LOT 38 LOT 62 4 61 LOT 31 �`�.' ' LOT 37 LOT 61 S, LOT 32 I lc, ,I IAT 60 14 ,o 0 LOT 59 n' PIN 64 -A -40E �o IAT 58 A KOIIL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. 1225 a j; DB 860 PG \! IAT 57 IAT 40 18 g2 IAT 56 IAT 41 �v / 5,8,10-16 & 19-22 vpR LOT 31 1LOT 55 LOT 42 / LOT 54 LOT 43 ki�( I EX. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR LOT 30 IAT 53 kk SSHFFT TI MF.'Y OPEN SPACE 6� I LOT 47) I I r �p�ytvP/- 9 \ LOT 4a / stip PIN 64-A-37 NS DB 271UPGE371 APPROXIMATE UMTS OF--- I * 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE \ KEY MAP LOTS SKEET No. 1-5 6 6-9 7 10-12 8 13-16 & 21-22 9 17-20 10 23-24 & 64-66 11 25-32 12 32-34 13 35-40 14 41-45 15 46-52 16 53-57 17 58-63 18 OPEN SPACE 5,8,10-16 & 19-22 FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF j,TH OF LJ�� RED FOX RUN II SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT a FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA o DATE.- MAY 27, 2004 SCALE.' 1 "=300' P. Duane Brown GRAPHIC SCALE No. 001285 300 0 150 300 600 May 27 2004 4*1D SUR 1E�0 ID 4110 1 inch = 300 ft. SHEET 2 OF 22 60 NORTH LOUDOUN MARSH & LEGGE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIAS22601 �� Land Surveyors, P.L.C. PHoAX5403 667-0469 FLOOD NOTE- LUNL: G COMMUNITY NO.: PANEL: 0115 B DA TE- 07-17-78 510063 GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 60 1 inch = 30 ft. �r� � o Q tl. 0 z 0 66 167 r IISI II,, 673xi �66� P1EN' PACE � /79- m FOUND SET RESTRICTION LINE V CONTROL BOX _VE WM - WATER METER CURVE TABLE FH - FIRE HYDRANT INO.1 RADIUS I ARC I TAN I BEARING I CHORD I DEL TA 15' CPP - 15' CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE C7 54.00' 58.91' 2.77' N 093950" E 56.03' 6230'32 FFE - FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION GFE - GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION NO TES.' BFE - BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT 72x9- EX. SPOT ELEVATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. --i�25 EX. CONTOUR 2. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 64D-8-2-48 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICA TE - E3. 3.BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A PLAT OF / HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMA77ON SURVEY ENTITLED 'FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF RED FOX RUN II' DATED SHOWN ON THIS PLAT /S BASED ON AN AC77JAL MAY 27, 2004, PREPARED BY MARSH AND LEGGE LAND SURVEYORS, P.L.C. FIELD SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON AND RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 040011700. SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 AND THAT TO THE BEST 4. THIS LOT IS SUBJECT TO A 20' SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THERE ARE NO ALONG TRANS COURT AND A 10' UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG ENCROACHMENTS OR WSIBLE EASEMENTS UNLESS ALL PROPERTY LINES. SHOWN. V HOFHOUSE LOCATION & AS -BUILT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY j�G, o ,� RED FOXLOT RUN11/ 155 7RA I45 COURT o as SHAWNEE MAGI57ERIAL DIS77?/CT o. 0,01197 FREDERICK COUNTY VWGINIA �Z�/� SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 G t'�ND SURVE�o4 ID 7249-HLS DAF MARSH & LEGGE WINCHESTER, VIRG N60 NORTH IIASTREET 22601 Land Surveyors, P. L.C. PH667-0468 Fax (540) 667-0469 AGREEMENT VARIANCE # -2 l' 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 terins 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 c -T, ! Z- e) SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF /C? AACTION: - DA E - APPROVAL SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: 10 WL ZI �e pwp { i !,-', I J' l� . � iMt'�'��+�aYor"�>fK`.' .� rt•E f .. 1 r I NO 14 ..dE.� .�v �m.r.,•.+.�.-y -e � n•. �RtU"i"'� r �,, if`"T• L +'*r,,•„ "..T..-mR "_"°r_'y.."'.{ , 1�t{irfi� '` aG�" �yLy:. — [,D,ARi•�,� ,.., ..1 t y' 4 `�._.a 77 a}•I�} l� r 4 jl' of;L'h'_..�, � � it t if 1�<+ 9 .F i } �, . 4 .M S..�I.' ILI , i•YntS µ� �,.,*.'[., it _ } '`�1�y1`, ,t �.'. ,�tLYs'a,s � �• { i � /4P{j li f,�1,.(.t ��t��j���yyr����at� ..4'Is�. a. -+ � 1. �. 1 1'C�,"Lt�i F t,�-. � �.lS'.r \, 1� ; I � - VARIANCE APPLICATION #22-06 FUNKHOUSER LOT 35 Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: October 6, 2006 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: October 27, 2006 - Pending LOCATION: 113 Callaway Court MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 76A-1-35 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: A 20 foot front yard variance to Callaway Court and a 40 foot side yard variance on both sides REASON FOR VARIANCE: The lot predates the current zoning ordinance with regards to RA setbacks. Variance Request 422-06 — Funkhouser Lot 35 October 6, 2006 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Lot 35 is part of the Funkhouser Subdivision that was created in 1946 prior to Frederick County adopting zoning in 1967; the Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) in1967. The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet for both fronts and 15 feet sides. 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 feet front, 60 feet rear, and 50 feet side setbacks. 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 has proposed a lot consolidation of three (3) lots in an effort to meet the current RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District setbacks. The consolidation of the three (3) lots will not meet the current setbacks for the RA Zoning District. Staff would note that the proposed lot consolidation will result in a non -conforming RA lot of 11,000 sq. ft. in size. The character of the surrounding district will not have changed as the lot sizes in this area are 12,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. in size. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 2006 MEETING: The applicant is seeking a variance of 40 feet on both side yards and a 20 foot front yard variance to build a two-story residential structure of approximately 3,000 square feet in size. The Callaway Court front variance is being requested so as to save a large white oak tree. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be: 40 feet in the front, 60 feet in the back, and 10 feet on the sides. It is important to note that with the given setbacks the dwelling will fit the appearance of the neighborhood. 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. 4t N tiPF-TL6y, F-E.&INP, F PRO, .4 93 Yo%v, C) d' J Z 7L- A_22 C) 522 PPOFFITT X A J-At4 93gJW L PffyLL'S A4 oto A VA tt a 56e, AUPF-6Y m LAKE A TUANITA D CTALS TRUSTEES T, A 10, FFZDFJl4Gr r-OUNTYSCIADOL 50PF-D w1b P, tA qo RAY, SANE PFTVAC R'll C-1111"ll IVA. R # 23 Funkhouser LOT 35 CD Location Map (76A- 1 -35) 0 125 250 500 lllmlllc� F,el TI: 16 P, 22. RP L -k 522 PROF',,, -'6 A XAMCS y3b & PtlyLLIS A4 lu P, q -3p, I U P, 92 566, MDF -EY M LA K E, 'TLIANITA E5 F-TALS TPU ES 44 f -ju A q0p. FFZD6FU9 COUNTY 5CHODL ?�DPP-D lu lup, tA q0 RAY, :TANe PETPF vpi iron Road C -1,I.— pan VAR # 23 - 06 T: Funkhouser LOT 35 Zoning Map (76A - 1 - 35) 125 250 500 4w Fcct 0 125 250 500 Feet 5 2�� SEP 2 2�0C APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN '--rHE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA OFFICE USE ONLY Variance Application NO. —q,7 Submittal Deadline:0 Submittal Date: f1 For the meeting of 0 %- 06 Fee Paid:ve. initials: Sign Depose ej MUST BE TYPED OR FILLET) OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner 2. Applicant: Name: Artz & Associates, PLC Address: 16 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 Telephone: 540-667-3233 other ✓ (Check one) Occupant : (if different) Name: Address: Telephone: 3. The property is located at (give exact direction and include State Route numbers): 113 Callaway Ct. Stephens City Consolidated Funkhouser lot 35 Front Royal Pike, (VA State Rte. 522) 4.The property has a road frontage of 75' feet and a depth of 163.05 feet and consists of 0.2749 acres and 11,976 sq. ft. (please be exact). 5. The property is owned by: Gene Eugene Staton as evidenced by deed from Clifford Eugene Staton; Hazel Inez Staton recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 449 on page 378 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: -Opequen- -S-H 1 WJ.EF 7. Property Identification No.: 76A-1-35 8.The existing zoning of the property is: RA 9.The existing use of the property is : Vacant 10. Adjoining Property: NORTH EAST USE Residential RA Rte.522 SOUTH Residential WEST Callaway Court IM ZONING 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") 20' front yard variance to Callaway Ct. 40' Side yard variance on both sides 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: BZA requested that consolidation be prepared and resubmitted. Lots predate existing zoning ordinance, existing RA zoning side setbacks overlap & there is no buildable area. Front yard variance is requested to save large trees. Adjoining properties are very similar in nature 13. Additional comments, if any: 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporation 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 form) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: Name: Gufee, Keri B Address: 115 Callaway Ct; Stephens City, VA 22655 Property ID# 76A-1-34 Sommer, Philip W. Address: 114 Callaway Ct; Stephens City,VA 22655 Property ID# 7613-1-3-238 Dotson, Charles A Address:316 Clydsdale Dr; Stephens City,VA 22655 Property ID# 768-1-3-237 Happel, Kenneth O. Jr. Address:341 Clydsdale Dr.;Stephens City,VA 22655 Property ID# 768-1-3-236 Ketterman, Charles D. Jr Address: 105 Callaway Ct; Stephens City, VA 22655 Property ID# 76A-1-40 Address: Property ID# Address: Property ID# Address: Property ID# 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Showing 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, drawing or photographs with this application. AGREEMENT VARIANCE # Z2-06 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, DATE '45- /11 1 SIGNATUPCE OF OWNER i �Wy.kA— pm DATE D (If other than applicant) -OFFICESZ116 NLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF 1071-7 ACTION: APPROVAL SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: 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 Alt.MenRy These Presents: That I (We) (Name) C' l+ r c}1 I& (Phone) Ci V-6_ 5�- (Address) 97, �.� �' ' . , ' I the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels o land ("Pro erty") co veyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. on Page , and is described as Parcel: Lot: °y Block: Section: Subdivision:/ul`� IZiJGG a c'.i/` do hereby teak , con titute nd appoint: (Name) ��A t� CI= r (Phone) (Address) a �. i. - To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fac for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ✓ Rezoning (Including proffers) ./Conditional Use Permits ✓ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ✓ Subdivision ✓ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This aut f ization shall' pire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified.6)v�� In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this �day ofAsl�l 200 , State of Virginia, City/C un y of 0A? , To -wit: (��%rallotary 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 , 206`, . .1 a - �)k - My Cormnission Expires: Notary ublic NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY PERFORMED BY ARTZ & ASSOCIATES ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2003. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. - REBAR SET UNLESS No TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. NOTED OTHERWISE 4 p 'NORTH 1Nsr. 2 019782 TM #76B-1-3-238 'HILIP W. SOMMER INST. #040009773 N 13'10'20" w 0.72' CALLAWAY COURT N 77'24'45" E 3.89' / N 13'57'15" W 74.32' 75.01 CONSOLIDATED LOT 35 1.01 11,976 sq. ft.10.0 CONSOLIDATED LOT 37 0.o' 12,046 sq, ft• 1o.ol TM #76A-1-38 I CHARLES D. I KETTERMAN, JR_ 410/690 SHEET 1 OF 1', 0 M 0 I`D w Iw I�Of rco 60' B.R.L. EXIST. DWLG F- 60' B.R.L TO BE Z REidOVED I 75.00' 75.00' S 13'12'27" E FRONT ROYAL PIKE (US RTE. 522) VARIABLE WIDTH R/W PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 35136 & 37 FUNKHOUSER LOTS OPEQUON DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ,CAL :1" = 30' DATE: AUGUST 25, 2006 PRESENT OWNER: GENE STATON TM #76A-1-35, 36 & 37 DB 449 PG 378 PROJECT #21746 ' T H OF MICHAEL M. ARTZ v No. 1951 l;&NO SUR1j�� Artz and Associates, PLC A Subsidiary o[Valley Engineering, PLC LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 16 East Piccadilly Street WINCHESTER, VA 22601-4740 TEL 540-667-3233 FAX 540-667-9100 TOLL TREE 1-000-755-7320 , VARIANCE APPLICATION #23-06 FUNKHOUSER LOT 37 Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: October 6, 2006 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: October 17, 2006 - Pending LOCATION: Callaway Court MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 76A-1-37 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Open Space VARIANCE REQUESTED: A 20 foot front yard variance to Callaway Court and a 40 foot side yard variance on both sides. REASON FOR VARIANCE: The lot predates the current zoning ordinance with regards to RA setbacks. Variance Request #23-06 — Funkhouser Lot 37 October 6, 2006 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Lot 37 is part of the Funkhouser Subdivision that was created in 1946 prior to Frederick County adopting zoning in 1967; the Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) in1967. The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet for both fronts and 15 feet sides. 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 feet front, 60 feet rear, and 50 feet side setbacks. 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 has proposed a lot consolidation of three (3) lots in an effort to meet the current RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District setbacks. The consolidation of the three (3) lots will not meet the current setbacks for the RA Zoning District. Staff would note that the proposed lot consolidation will result in a non -conforming RA lot of 12,000 sq. ft. in size. The character of the surrounding district will not have changed as the lot sizes in this area are 12,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. in size. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE OCTOBER 17, 2006 MEETING: The applicant is seeking a variance of 40 feet on both side yards and a 20 foot front yard variance to build a two-story residential structure of approximately 3,000 square feet in size. The Callaway Court front variance is being requested so as to save a large white oak tree. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be: 40 feet in the front, 60 feet in the back, and 10 feet on the sides. It is important to note that with the given setbacks, the dwelling will fit the appearance of the neighborhood. 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. lln A Z2 BASSO, INC aimsannas Roatl Cmn[erlines tvi Pr. crams IV same ary lb A 2i NARTLEY, REGINA F N �" yb ,DIN,�rCEFYy r 1 lu Ey M JUN VELFDv, PROFFirr T�44 � � �, Y 4 'POFF,TT A TAAjES L& pHYLL M lle A q3A �S .� A, A q2 SEE, AUDREY M 7(0 ( AKE TUA V(A 11 TA B ETALS TRUSTEES 16 A q0A FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD l(a A q0 RAY, SANE PETIziE VARN23-06 Funkhouser LOT 37 Location Map` (76A-1-37) 0 125 250 500 0 m Feet HAV-TLEY, REGINA F 76 /,VC :TmaSO, INC - C) RP 7- 'A 522 PPDFF17-rY30 'TAA4ES L &- Pffyl-LIS A4 41 P, vp, 16 t% q?- AUDIZ-6y m LAKE W, A TUANITA g ETA D LS TRUSTEES &u A, A, q0P, V I FF-FDF-F-lr-r COUNTY SCHOOL 50AFID TE Mlup, ae F�M�EF� Ey qo MY 1'.kNe PFIT7-16 11, WA # 23 06 91L. - "Road' —"lines R - IV T— Funkhouser LOT 37 Zoning Map 76A -1-37) 0 125 250 IQ Feet 500 0 -R,,, 76 � 7u A 2-2- INSVIO, INC. 522A kt lu A q3P, P"YL-L'S M p{4 jr ju pk q? - SEE, ALIPREW tA LAKE: W, A TUA,j 11 15 TA ETAL13 Tp TEES lu X qoik FF-Epegmr COUNTY SCHOOL 6DAjZV !10 la -Y-1 %U IUIUPM t T, P, qo FAY, TANS PFTPE RIld C111,11"ll CD Fercels VAR # 23 - 06 F-unkhouser LOT 37 Landuse Map (76A - 1 - 37) 0 125 250 500 N F—t — ,K f �/ r.�`•h ,! . Acl? 73 .a y � .� 7 522 POFF/ri t76 A 7�6 Es LAK 6TALB TRUSTEES f � a iF r o F r — } Ala . gyp, `�q v 7_ — ' • jaw ���� ! • a • • _ _ � � r r Y• 'i� � 9 �g/�� Road Centerline 0 w e% is n L_ - APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA -OFFICE USE ONLY - Variance ApplicationN9. Submittal Date: Fee Paid: initials: Sign Deposit Submittal Deadline: For the meetita- of 0 MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner 2. Applicant: Name: Artz & Associates, PLC Address: 16 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 Telephone: 540-667-3233 other (Check one) Occupant: (if different) Name: Address: Telephone: 3. The property is located at (give exact direction and include State Route numbers): Consolidated Funkhouser lot 37 Callaway Ct; Stephens City Front Royal Pike WA State Rte.522) 4.The property has a road frontage of 75' feet and a depth of 161' feet and consists of 0.2765 acres and 12,046 sq. ft. (please be exact). 5.The property is owned by: Gene Eugene Staton as evidenced by deed from Clifford Eugene Staton; Hazel Inez Staton recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 449 on page 378 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.: 8.The existing zoning of the property is: --Bpe�en- Sift? !�1 it►EE 76A-1-37 I� 9.The existing use of the property is : Vacant 10. Adjoining Property: NORTH EAST USE ZONING Residential RA Rte.522 SOUTH Residential RA WEST Callaway Court 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") 20' front yard Variance to Callaway Ct. 40' Side yard Variance on both sides 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of- -exceptional £ -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: BZA Requested that consolidation be prepared and resubmitted. Lots pre -date existing zoning ordinance. Existing RA zoning side setbacks overlap & there is no buildable area. Front yard variance is requested to save large trees. Adjoining properties are very similar in nature. 13. Additional comments, if any: 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporation 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 form) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: Name: Gufee, Keri B Address: 115 Callaway Ct; Stephens City, VA 22655 Property ID# 76A-1-34 Sommer, Philip W. Address: 114 Callaway Ct; Stephens City,VA 22655 Property ID# 7613-1-3-238 Dotson, Charles A Address:316 Clydsdale Dr; Stephens City,VA 22655 Property ID# 7613-1-3-237 Happel, Kenneth O. Jr. Address:341 Clydsdale Dr.;Stephens City,VA 22655 Property ID# 7613-1-3-236 Ketterman, Charles D. Jr Address: 105 Callaway Ct; Stephens City, VA 22655 Property ID# 76A-1-40 Address: Property ID# Address: Property ID# Address: Property 1D# 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Showing 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, drawing or photographs with this application. AGREEMENT VARIANCE #� 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, DATE � � q � 0 �`'' SIGNAT OF OWNER i1aA-A� DATE 10(If other than applicant) -OFFICE AIE - NLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF (' ACTION: APPROVAL SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: 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 These Presents: That I (We) (Name) C. �� r� Ic a /J (Phone) (Address) 6 97, 1,"'a. /0 .5';74- L it the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels o land ("Pro, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Instrument No. on Page Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: ._ V 55 _-�ZG to me (us), by deed recorded Virginia, by , and is described as Subdivision: /0 H /7 occ .,!; -e-if do hereby mak , con btute nd appoint. 1 (Name) o J '2 (Phone) (Address) &J, -- V 0 C7 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fac for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ./Rezoning (Including proffers) ✓ Conditional Use Permits ./Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ✓ Subdivision ✓ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This aut f izationshall 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 __U!!72day of , 200 , Si State of Virginia, City/C un y of 0 ouri , To -wit: 1,(�,titft4�' 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 mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of 200 . l a - -_�)t - -_XoQ­A Notary ublic My Commission Expires: NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY PERFORMED BY ARTZ & ASSOCIATES ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2003. REBAR SET UNLESS THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ' - NOTED OTHERWISE 40 TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. 1? PLAT NORTH #p2001978? TM #76B-1-3-238 PHILIP W. SOMMER INST. #040009773 N 13.17)iE,f-3T CALLAWAY COURT 3.89' N 13'57'15" W__ 75.01' CONSOLIDATED CONSOLIDATED LOT 35 o LOT 37 CL 11,976 sq. ft. ,DD.,D_D 121046 sq. ft.,DD 10.0' — — W Tn o �W� o to QUO � o H w cl� t co = m m cp �WU1 o m m o, d J Z 60' B.R.L. E 5T. DiyLO r\ 60' B.R.L. TO CE z I RE=GVFp ! I I 75.00' 75.00' S 13' 12'27" E FRONT ROYAL PIKE (US RTE. 522) VARIABLE WIDTH R/W PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 35136 & 37 FUNKHOU5ER LOTS OPEUON DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCAL :1" = 30' DATE: AUGUST 25, 2006 PRESENT OWNER: GENE STATON TM #76A-1-35, 36 & 37 08 449 PG 378 PROJECT #21746 SHEET 1 OF 1 I TM #76A-1-38 1 CHARLES D. I KETTERMAN, JR. 1 410/690 MICHAEL M. ARTZ v No. 1951 �(�NO SURv�yO Artz and Associates, PLC A Subei4i—y of Valley Engineering, PLC LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 16 East Piccadilly Street WINCHESTER, V& 22601-4740 TEL 540-667-3233 FAX 540-667-9188 TOLL FREE 1-800-755-7320