Loading...
BZA 07-17-07 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia July 17, 2007 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Determination of a Quorum 2) Minutes of June 19, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING 3) Appeal Application #09-07 of Skyridge, LLC, to appeal the determination ofthe Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165-52, Permitted Residential Density; Exception. The subject property is located at Duck Run (Route 608) just south of Shawneeland in Section 32, and is identified with Property Identification Number 69-A-1 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 4) Variance Request #07-07 of Bobcat Builders for a 16 foot side yard variance on the right side and a 26 foot side yard variance on the left side, resulting in a 34 foot building restriction line on both sides, for the construction of a single family dwelling. This property is located on Lot 50, Plat 1, Section 32 in Shawneeland at the intersection of Capon Springs and Arbutus Trails, and is identified with Property Identification Number 69A-1-32-50 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 5) Variance Request #08-07 of Franklin and Candy Miller for a 23.5 foot left yard variance, resulting in a 26.5 foot left yard setback, and a 17 foot right yard variance, resulting in a 33 foot right side setback, for the construction of a single family dwelling. This property is located on Woods Mill Road (Route 660) in John Hepfer's Subdivision No. 1, Lot 3, and is identified with Property Identification Number 55A-1-3 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. 6) Variance Request #10-07 of Jeffery Neff for a 15 foot side yard variance on both sides, resulting in side yard setbacks of 35 feet. This property is located in Lone Oak Subdivision, Lot 38, Block A, on the southern side of Virginia Drive (Route 710), and is identified by Property Identification Number 8613-4-A-38 in the Opequon Magisterial District. 7) Other FILE COPY MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on, June 19, 2007. PRESENT: Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Robert Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; Eric Lowman, Red Bud District; Jay Givens, Back Creek District. ABSENT: Kevin Scott, Shawnee District; and, Robert W. Wells, Member -At -Large. STAFF PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Lauren Krempa, Planning Technician; and Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Catlett at 3:25 p.m. On a motion by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mr. Shenk, the minutes for the May 15, 2007, meeting were unanimously approved as presented. The cut-off date for the July meeting is June 20, 2007. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #06-07 of Lori Roberts for a 20 foot rear yard variance, resulting in a rear yard setback of 30 feet. This property is located at 107 Gainesboro Road (Route 684), and is identified with Property Identification Number 29-A-60 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION —VARIANCE DENIED Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The applicant is requesting a 20 foot rear yard variance, which would result in a 30 foot rear yard setback because the applicant constructed a dwelling four feet over the rear setback of the property. Section 165-55 of tlje Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) District to have setbacks of 60 feet in the front and 50 feet on the sides and rear. Mr. Cheran further stated that on February 16, 2007, the applicant applied for a building permit (4278-2007) for a replacement dwelling. The new dwelling was to be placed in the same general footprint of the old dwelling with setbacks of 74 feet to the front, 65 feet on the right side, 75 feet on the left side and 56 feet in the rear. Section 165-2311 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires survey standards to establish the location of primary structures located five feet or less from the Minute Book Page Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 19, 2007 1449 minimum setback required of the zoning district in which the property is located. This building permit did not require a setback survey as the dwelling was not within five feet or less from the minimum setback requirement of the zoning district. The applicant, during the construction phase, placed the rear of the dwelling 4.6 feet over the rear setback. On May 10, 2007, the Zoning Administrator received a complaint regarding the setback violation, and requested a stop work order from the Frederick County Building Official. On May 15, 2007, the property owner was contacted by Frederick County via telephone as to the setback violation and stop work order. The applicant applied for a variance after receiving the stop work order. Staff would note this application for a variance of 20 feet to allow for a rear deck is far greater than the violation of four feet of the rear setback. This application for a variance does not meet the requirements as set forth by the Code of Virginia 15.2-2209(2) stated below. 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. Staff would recommend denial of this variance application as this violation of the setback requirements as set forth in Section 165-55 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is self-inflicted and does not produce an undue hardship as required by the Code of Virginia 15.2-2209(2). Mr. Perry asked Mr. Cheran if the 4.6 feet over the setback line is the 50 foot line, not the 56 foot line that's on the building permit. Mr. Cheran responded that is correct. Mr. Perry said they're really talking about nine feet, six inches. Mr. Cheran stated the 56 foot line is where the applicant thought the setback was. Mr. Givens stated that in his staff report, Mr. Cheran indicated that because of the distances, it was more than five feet, a setback survey was not required, and yet the building permit says one was required. Mr. Cheran responded that on the building permit is a question "Survey Standards Required?" where staff has circled "No" and initialed that a survey is not required. Mr. Givens pointed out that on the building permit it states "Setback Surveys Required". Mr. Cheran stated he does not know why or how that statement is on a building permit, but Planning staff indicated by a circled "No" and initials that the survey was not required. We give people that five foot difference so that they have some leeway and won't have the expense of a survey. If it was within that five foot difference, they would have survey requirements and we would also have a second set of building permits that calls for two surveys; one at the beginning to set the footer in and one with the final house setting for the CO. Chairman Catlett asked on the building permit when it lists what the setbacks are, is that because those setbacks are what the applicant had indicated at the time the permit was approved. Mr. Cheran replied yes, when an applicant applies for a building permit they have to fill out an application and that's what they had on the initial application, Inspections Department puts it on the system and it goes from there to the Inspectors. Minute Book Page Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 19, 2007 1450 Mr. Givens stated that the applicant says that the pegs they were digging by were off by three feet, and he assumes the pegs would have been the foundation. Three feet would have kept them inside the 50 feet. Are we hearing now that the original footprint may have not been 56 feet? Mr. Cheran stated that's hard to tell because the house has already been torn down. Mr. Benjamin Butler identified himself as the attorney for the applicant, Lori Roberts. Mr. Butler stated there was an old house located on this property and the applicant honestly thought she was within the 50 feet. The old house was more than 50 feet from that property line from what Ms. Roberts has told him. One of the motivations was to try to save a couple walnut trees. Apparently the problem was there was an old fence there and Ms. Roberts pulled from that old fence and Mr. Butler thinks someone, perhaps from Frederick County, came out and pulled and it was back 50 feet, but there's a dispute as to whether or not that fence was properly on the line. Mr. Butler further stated that when Ms. Roberts filed the application, she didn't understand that she was going for a variance for the footprint of the house and that's why the application came in as 20 feet, because of a deck. She thought it was one of these things by right that she would get it. Mr. Butler told the Board Members that she will and does amend her application to not ask for a 20 foot variance, but to ask for a variance of one foot, four inches on one end and on the other end it's about three feet, six inches. She's just asking for the footprint of the house. Ms. Lori Roberts reiterated that the 20 foot variance application is overzealous, she's just here to try to save the concrete wall at the back of the house, which is roughly under four feet. Ms. Roberts stated that the original 56 foot setback line was filled in by the group when she was applying for the building permit so she wouldn't have to get it surveyed. By walking the property, she felt that it would be no problem so when she got the permit, she staked out the house and she put the back wall, knowing and well aware of the 50 foot setback, right on 50 feet. She wanted to remain far back from Route 522 and save those two front trees. When Nova Con came to pour the footers, everything passed inspection and Ruckman Engineering came out to do the inspection and somebody pulled the tape and it looked to be 50 feet. They poured and the walls went up and at that time, someone called and said there was a problem so we stopped work. Mr. Givens asked where the pegs were and Ms. Roberts stated the pegs were where she pulled the tape from the old existing barbed wire fence in the back of the property. Mr. Perry asked how far from the foundation are the trees she wants to save and Ms. Roberts replied the trees are about 20 feet from the front wall. The porch is about ten feet off that wall, leaving a ten foot space between the trees and the front porch. The trees have huge overhanging limbs. Mr. Perry stated that the issue should be between the owner and the contractor that made the mistake, not the BZA at this time. Chairman Catlett stated that it looks like we've agreed that it's three feet, four inches. Mr. Cheran responded on the left side you've got 48.8, right side 46.6. Mr. Butler stated that there's only one solution, and it doesn't help in this case, but that is to require a survey every time somebody lays out a house. The City of Winchester has been requiring a Minute Book Page Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 19, 2007 1451 survey for ten to 15 years. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present who would like to speak in favor of or opposed to the request. Ms. Libby Carter approached the podium. Ms. Carter and her husband are adjoiners and they strongly oppose this variance request. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Discussion Mr. Cheran stated that the applicant applied for the building permit on February 16th and it was signed off by our department on the 28th of February. For the record, what Ms. Carter said is correct. The zoning ordinance did change the RA setbacks by the Board of Supervisors at their night meeting on February 28th. Had the permit come in prior to that, they would have had to abide by the 100 foot setback because her property is more than five acres. Because the building permit was applied for and going through the review process prior to the Code changing, the setback is 50 feet. Mr. Cheran informed the members of this for clarification. Chairman Catlett stated that, for the record, the request now is actually for a three foot, eight inch variance. Mr. Givens made a motion to deny this variance request. Mr. Perry seconded the motion and it passed by majority vote. OTHER Mr. Cheran made the Board members aware that the Board of Supervisors is appealing the BZA's decision in the Joyce Myers case. The adjoining property owner, Arcadia Development, is also appealing the BZA's decision in this case. Mr. Cheran stated that an attorney will be hired to represent the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter. vote. As there were no other items to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. by unanimous Respectfully submitted, Theresa B. Catlett, Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Minute Book Page Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 19, 2007 1452 c� = co APPEAL APPLICATION #09-07 w¢� SKYRIDGE, LLC Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals w Prepared: July 9, 2007 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: July 17, 2007 - Pending LOCATION: The subject property is located at Duck Run (Route 608) just south of Shawneeland in Section 32. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 69-A-1 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant APPEAL: To appeal the determination of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-52, Permitted Residential Density; Exception. REASON FOR APPEAL: Applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator as to residential density in the RA zoning district. Appeal Application #09-07, Skyridge, LLC July 9, 2007 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: This case involves an administrative interpretation of the zoning ordinance to determine the residential density on a 194 acre parcel, in the RA zoning district, proposed for a residential subdivision. The overall density on a parcel in the RA district is established by Section l65 -52(A) of the zoning ordinance, which provides: A. The maximum density permitted on any parcel or group of parcels shall not exceed the equivalent of one unit per five acres as determined by the size of the parent tract as it existed on the date of adoption of this section. Section 165-52 was adopted on December 11, 1991. The basic maximum density permitted on any parcel, as set forth in Sectionl65-52, is one unit per five acres. However, if the parcel is a portion of a larger parcel which existed on December 11, 1991 (the parent tract), the maximum density permitted on the parcel is further limited by the provisions of Sectionl65-52 that the density on the subject parcel cannot result in the density on what was the parent tract exceeding one unit per five acres. When a subdivision is proposed, the analysis which is done by the staff is to calculate the presumed maximum density on the subject parcel at a density of one unit per five acres, and then look to see if the subject parcel was a part of a larger parent tract in 1991. If so, it is determined if the other portions of the parent tract have been subdivided, and, if so, then the number of lots created on the other portions of the parent tract are added to the calculated presumed maximum density on the subject tract. If the total exceeds the equivalent of one unit per five acres for what was the parent tract, then the maximum density permitted on the subject tract will be limited to the number of units so that the total number of units which would result from the parent tract will not exceed the equivalent of one unit per five acres. For example, assume a 1991 a parent tract containing 41 acres, which was subsequently divided into two parcels of 11 acres and 30 acres, and the owner of the 11 acres then did a family subdivision of three lots of two acres each, with a remaining lot of five acres (as permitted by Section 165-54(B)). If the owner of the 30 acre parcel then came in to subdivide, the following calculation of density would be done: (1) the 30 acres would have a presumed maximum density of six lots, at one per five acres; (2) the maximum density for the parent tract of 41 acres is eight lots, at one per five acres; (3) a review of the parent tract shows that four lots had already been created; and (4) therefore, the maximum density on the 30 acres would be four lots, not six (eight lots less the four lots created). Therefore, the end result would be that the development of the 41 acre parent tract would not exceed the density of one unit per five acres, or eight lots. Appeal Application #09-07, Skyridge, LLC July 9, 2007 Page 3 Looking at the proposed subdivision in this case, the Applicants 194 acre parcel has a presumed density of 3 8 lots (194). The 194 acre parcel is a portion of a parent tract of 262 acres which existed on December 11, 1991, and which was divided into two tracts of 194 acres and 58 acres. The maximum density on the parent tract is 52 lots (262 ) 5). There has been no residential subdivision of the parent tract. Therefore, there is no diminution in the maximum permitted density of the Applicants 194 acre parcel, and the maximum permitted density on the Applicants tract is 38 lots. The Applicants seem to suggest that they have a right to locate all 52 lots permitted on the 262 acre parent tract on their 194 acre tract, thereby leaving the 58 acre tract with no permitted density. There is no provision in the Frederick County zoning ordinance to transfer density or development rights between tracts. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MAY 15, 2007 MEETING: Staff is requesting to affirm the determination of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165-52, regarding density in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. 73bH��W 37069 A 38 m �OBE b 69 Od BRILL, RAY G — o Q ' Y Y ✓ () 4 Q K ( J e K e Q \ m H D _ 69 A 30 BRILL, RAY G l co 0 w l�6y m �L w �o 2 o eo 0 1 0 LL I 69 2 6 z � FADELEY, DONNIER a� a> Q z ui O w Q o Y T / 1 .ZQ�~ 68 1 3 68 A 6 EV. Qw� SUFFA, WILLIAM P. RIGFIARD w'IIFRIN P a°j pa��P �/ SPG it V • � 1.x.1 cc 6 m Q A U I I � r � m y E Y m u c a E c Zr ¢ p a E_�o.n R a v J 73bH��W 37069 A 38 m �OBE b 69 Od BRILL, RAY G — o Q ' Y Y ✓ () 4 Q K ( J e K e Q \ m H D _ 69 A 30 BRILL, RAY G l co 0 w l�6y m �L w �o 2 o eo 0 1 0 LL I 69 2 6 z � FADELEY, DONNIER a� a> Q z ui O w Q o Y T / 1 .ZQ�~ 68 1 3 68 A 6 EV. Qw� SUFFA, WILLIAM P. RIGFIARD w'IIFRIN P a°j pa��P �/ SPG it a _m co N V C N E 3 U O 0 a m W- v� b Baa 0 is ii nSu.aa�in ya`m ��50 c m O 4La+ y a _m co N V C N E 3 U O 0 a m W- APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA -OFFICE USE ONLY - Appeal Application #b`-(). Submittal Date Submittal Deadline /0-7 I For the meeting of rJ Fee Paid eyes initials: 1. The applicant is the owner x other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) Skyridge, L.L.C. NAME: HT Development, LLC NAME: ADDRESS 19892 Fort Valley Rd -ADDRESS: Strasburg, VA 22657 TELEPHONE: (5 4 0) 974-1484 TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): matel r 0.7 Mile East of State Route 55 (Warrdensville Pike) At Duck Run, On State Route 608, Just South of Shawneeland Section 32, Property Has Posted Signs of Trees Fronting RT. 608, Listing "Skyridge" as Owned', On Left Side Rt. 608 as Headed East. of 4. Magisterial District: Back Creek 5. Property Identification No.: 69-1-A 6. The existing zoning of the property is: RA Rural Areas District 7. The existing use of the property is: undeveloped 8. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North _Wooded RA East Wooded RA South _Mostly Wooded,One Resi- RA West One Residence. dence. RA 9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.) Appealing decision of Zoning Administrator that property of 194 +/- acres has permitted residential density of 38 lots, rather than 52 lots, where parent tract as of December 11, 1991, had 262 acres. 10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision. (This may be provided on separate sheet.) See Attached "Grounds of Appeal" 11. Additional comments, if any: A. 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list Property Identification Number.) NAME Floyd, Walter I. Jr. Renner, Gary L. Bryan L. VHB, Inc. Paramount Corporation Lamb, Johnny R. Joann North Mountain Volunteer c/o Roger Milburn Paramount Corporation Orsini, Michael John Wright, George Peter Jr. Thrush, John P. Ruth A. Ernst, Michael G. Brenda L. Address 6283 Wardensville Grade Property ID # 69 A 45 Address 3010 Valley Ave. Property ID # 6 9 A 46 Address 503 Fawn Dr. Property ID # Address 503 Walnut Rd Riva, MD 21140 Property ID # 6 9 A 132 2 Address 6909 Ridge Rd Marriottsville,MD 21104 Property ID # 69 132 3 1951 Back Mountain Rd Address Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 69A 132 4 Address Mut Riva,R 2YY40 Property ID # „ a Address 4043 Gilford Ct. Property ID # tiQA 122 6 Address 11413 Pleasant Drive Property ID # 6 9 A 132 7 Address NewO5 oxbA burg, PAy172240 Property ID # 6 9A 132 8 Address 140 Beaver TRL . Winrhpst-r_ VA 226 Property ID # 6 9A 132 9 0 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list Property Identification Number.) Ernst, Michael G. Address 140 Beaver TRL. Brenda L. Property ID # 69A 1-32 in Address 140 Beaver TRL. Ernst, Michael G. Winchester, VA 22602 Brenda Property ID # 132 11 Saville, Brian B. Address Winchestersy Dr. VA 22603 Property ID #___ 6 9 A 132 12 Mitchell, clarence W. Address 6508 Fish Hatchery Rd. Thurmont, MD 21788 Property ID # 69A 132 13 Paramount Corporation-Rilza Address 503 Walnut Rd. . MD 21140 Property ID # 6 9A 132 14 Address 503 Walnut Rd. Paramount Corporation - Riv Property ID # 6 9 A 132 15 Milano, Dominic J. 4845 Norrisville Rd. Address Property ID # QA I Paramount Corporation Address 503 Walnut Rd. Riva, MD 21idn Property ID# 6 9 A 132 17 Lebrum, Charles S. Sr. Address 1914 van Buren Rd. Baltimore ; ,, Property ID # 69A 132 18 Funk, Gilbert R. Address 422 Elmwood Rd. Property ID # Matthews, David C. Address 104 Buffalo TRL. & L Linda J. Property ID# ti Q T C. 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list Property Identification Number.) NAME Matthevs, David C. Linda J. Matthews, David C. Linda J. Matthews, David C. Linda J. Matthews, David C. TRL. Address 713 Strasburg St . Linda J. VA 2� Medlin, Lewis E. 9 A 3 0 Jean P. St. Horton, William J. Property ID# 6 9A 132 22 Bradley J. Thurber, Charles H. Jr. Cave, Michael Andrew Teresa M. Perry, Stuart M. INC. Huntt, Charles E. Jr. Debra J. Old Virginia Land, LLC Address 104 Buffalo Winchester TRL. Address 713 Strasburg St . Manassas, VA 2� Property ID# 9 A 3 0 6 9 A 13 St. Address 104 Buffalo _ Winchester, TRL VA Property ID# 6 9A 132 22 Address 104 Buffalo TRL. Property ID# 6 9A 132 23 Address 104 Buffalo TRL. Winchester VA 2 Property ID# 6 9 A 132 24 Address 3105 Plantation Property ID # 69A 13 2 2 Address 6901 Wardensville GR. Property ID# 6 9A ') 3 i 7 Address 7510 Essex Ave. _ S )rinafi PLd VA 2: Property ID # 69A 130 54 Address 212 Tomahawk TRL. Property ID# 6 9 A —13D— 5 Address 117 Limestone Ln. Property ID # 6 9 A 130 36 Address 713 Strasburg St . Manassas, VA 2010 Property ID#6 9 A 3 0 101 Lee Address St. Winches r VA 2? Property ID# h a A 130 1 10 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the sides; rear; and in f,-ont of (across street firoiri) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (Please list Property Identification Number-) IUd Aster TRL Kleiderlein, Robert B. Address Star Tannery, VA 22654 Cbristina Property ID# 6 9 A 130 12 P.O. Box 12 Nicholson, William E. Sr. Address Star Tannery, VA 22654 Lillie L. Property ID# 6 9 1 8A ox Nicholson, William E. Sr. Address Star Tannery, VA 22654 Property ID# 69 1 8 Address 6341 Wardensvi I le , Gr. Littleton, Mark R. Star Tannery, VA 22654 Property ID # 9 A 39A Richard, Martha Lane Address 136 Lambden Avenue & Winchester VA 226 Naomi H. Property ID # 69 A 47 Paramount Corporation503 Walnut Rd. Address Riva, MD 21140 Property ID # 126 Enstrom, Ryan Address 15500 Morning Mist Pl & 7 Kathleen Property ID # 69A 132 127 Foster, Ray H. Address 19360 Magnolia Grove Sq, Unit 2,05 Lansdown VA 20176 Property ID # 128 Buckner, Richard W. Address 1118 Lake Ridge DR. Sunderland, MD 20689 Property ID# 6 9 A 132 129 Paramount Corporation Address 503 Walnut Rd. Property ID# 6 9 A 132 130 Address Property ID # AGREEMENT APPEAL #_ 6 1 :O I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition the Frederick County Board ofZoning Appeals (BZA) to overrule the administrative interpretation of the County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions required by the BZA. I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the property for site inspection purposes. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) /`4',ruDATE Z C 7 j P.A W , ryu--vJ4-L. DATE 6 6j r 'all0 -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF B ACTION: - DA E - APPEAL OVERRULED LjAPPEAL SUSTAINED File: OALmd Use Applications\Application Fo=n APPEAL Revised: 01/14/03 SIGNED: DATE: BZA CHAIRMAN 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) DONALD L. POE, Member of Skyridge, LLC and HT Development, LLC (Name) SUSAN S. POE, M6mber_of Skyridge, LLC and HT (Phone) 540-974-1484 eve opment, (Address) 19892 Fort Valley Road, Strasburg, VA 22657 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. 050017639 on Page 0611 , and is described as 69 Tax Map: 69-1-A Parcel: 1 Lot: Block: Section: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Douglas W. Napier, Esquire Subdivision: (Phone) 540-635-2123 Pond, Athey, Athey & Pond, PC (Address) 35 N Royal Ave., Front Royal, VA 22630 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 ® =Sftt=Pjan BZA APPEAL My attomey-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we, -lave hereto set my (our),hand and seal this 22ndday of June ) 200? , Signature(s) State of Virginia, C4 -/County of Warren To -wit: I, Donna M Jordon , 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 acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 72n(iay of June 2200 7 ONO& A&Qdh My Commission Expires: Aug. 31, 2009 otaryu lic CERTIFIED MAIL May 25, 2007 Mr. Douglas W. Napier Pond, Athey, Athey and Pond, P.C. 35 N. Royal Avenue P.O. Box 395 Front Royal, VA 22630 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development RE: Zoning Determination for Skyridge, L.L.C. and HT Development, L.L.C. Property Identification Number (s) (PIN): 69-1-A Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Napier: 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 This letter is in response to your correspondence dated May 9, 2007, to the Zoning Administrator requesting a zoning detennination of the residential density of the above -referenced property. The property has 194 +/- acres of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. In accordance with Section 165-52 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the maximum permitted density shall not exceed one (1) unit per five (5) acres determined by the size of the parent tract. Therefore, the total of residential lots allowed on this property is thirty-eight (38). You may have the right to appeal this zoning determination within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. This decision shall be final and unappealable if it is not appealed within thirty (30) days. Should you choose to appeal, the appeal must be filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in accordance 1.. A -/.:.,1 �TVT C�....a-: ,.« l 4C 1 CC A /l l {+1�� 1+r�.�n,•, .1� i~�iiritc, %+rtt'T ��'d '1 `,1 T?/`� Thispr With hl Llc-lc 11111, Ucl+ ori 1 V✓ -1 ✓.it >� 1 J iia aa.. requires the submission of an application form, written statement setting forth the decision being appealed, date of decision, the grounds for the appeal, how the appellant is an aggrieved party, any other information you may want to submit and a $300.00 filing fee ($250.00 filing fee and a $50.00 refundable sign deposit). Once the appeal application is accepted, it will be scheduled for public hearing and decision before the BZA. Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions you may have at (540) 665-5651. Sincerely, Mark R- Cheran Zoning Administrator MRC/dlw 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF SKYRIDGE, L.L.C. AND HT DEVELOPMENT LLC, TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The Appellants, Skyridge, L.L.C., a Virginia Limited Liability Company, and HT Development, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, by counsel, respectfully represent as follows: 1. This is an appeal of a written determination dated May 25, 2007, by Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator for Frederick County, Virginia (the "Determination Letter"), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "I". In the Determination Letter Mr. Cheran ruled that the Appellants Skyridge, L.L.C. and HT Development, LLC, both Virginia Limited Liability Companies, have a permitted residential density of only 38 lots on their real property, zoned RA Rural Areas District, located in Frederick County, Virginia, under the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, rather than up to 52 lots that Appellants properly believe and assert that they lawfully have under the provisions of Frederick County Code Section 165-52. 2. The Appellants are the owners of the following described real estate (the "Property"): All that certain lot or, parcel of land together with all improvements thereon and all appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, lying and being situate in the Back Creek Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, adjacent to Wardensville Grade at Duck Run, about eighteen miles West of the City of Winchester, being known and designated as "T. M. SECTION 69 PARCEL 1 AREA NORTH SIDE OF ROAD", containing 194.6903 Acres, more or less, as shown on plat entitled "SURVEY OF THE CHARLCIE B. FRALEY PER 579/262 BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY,VA", prepared by Joseph G. Brogan, Sr., C.L.S., dated April 20, 2005, Addendum July 26, 2005, Addendum July 28, 2005, and BEING the same real estate conveyed to the Plaintiffs by deed dated August 5, 2005, from Charlcie B. Fraley, said deed being of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia as Instrument No. 050017639, a copy of which deed and the plat and survey of Joseph G. Brogan attached to said deed and recorded therewith (the "Plat") is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "2"; and BEING a portion of the real estate conveyed to Charlcie B. Fraley from R. W. Fraley by deed dated July 17, 1984, recorded in the Clerk's Office aforesaid in Deed Book 579 at Page 262, a copy of which deed is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "3". 3. The Property is zoned under the Frederick County, Virginia, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Sections 165-49 to -57, (the "Zoning Ordinance") as RA Rural Areas District. 4. The aforesaid deed dated July 17, 1984 is the "parent tract" (the "Parent Tract") of the Property, and at all times between July 17, 1984 and August 5, 2005, contained slightly more than 262 acres, according to the Plat. 5. On December 11, 1991, Frederick County amended its Zoning Ordinance by adopting Section 165-52 (the "Ordinance"), which ordinance provides in relevant part: "A. The maximum density permitted on any parcel or group of parcels shall not exceed the equivalent of one unit per five acres as determined by the size of the parent tract as it existed on the date of adoption of this section." 2 "B. ...Within subdivisions utilizing rural preservation lots, the forty -percent parcel shall not count against the permitted density of the parent tract." 6. On December 11, 1991, the date of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, the Parent Tract consisted of slightly more than 262 acres. Thus, the permitted residential density of the Property would be 262 divided by 5 equals 52 lots. 7. Prior to purchasing the Property, and prior to dividing the Property from the Parent Tract, Joseph B. Brogan, Jr., Appellants' surveyor and agent for Appellants, inquired of Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Mark R. Cheran whether if Appellants purchased and subdivided only the Property and not the entirety of the Parent Tract, if Appellants would be able to retain the residential density of 52 lots on the Property after dividing off the Property, and thereby not having to purchase the entire Parent Tract. The said Mark R. Cheran informed the said Joseph B. Brogan, Jr., that Appellants would be able to retain the residential density of 52 lots on the Property after dividing the Property from the Parent Tract. In reliance on this affirmative representation of Mr. Cheran, the Appellants had the Property and the residue of the Parent Tract surveyed, this being the plat referred to in paragraph no. 2 of this Grounds of Appeal, incurring significant expense therefor, and purchased the Property, incurring significant expense therefor, and recorded both the deed to and the plat of the Property, incurring even more expense. 8. After purchasing the Property, incurring great expense in doing so, Larry Weaver, a project manager with Racey Engineering, PLLC, engineer for and agent of Appellants, who was engaged by Appellants to do a site plan for the residential 3 development on the Property, submitted a pre -formal submission of a sketch site plan with Mark R.Cheran, with a written e-mail message stating: "Mr. Cheran, "I just wanted to send you an e-mail on the status of the Fraley Subdivision Layout with the two entrances that I submitted to you. Our client called me and said he had spoke to you this morning and asked me to e-mail you. If the new two entrance layout is approved please let me know and we will move forward with preparing a clearing plan for submittal and once approved Mr. Poe can clear some of the trees and get equipment in to start establishing locations for drainfields. Also, could you please provide me with the name of the gentleman that reviews erosion and sediment control plans so I can give him a call to see what all is required for a generic clearing plan? As discussed at our previous meeting we wanted to get the approval on the layout from you so that we can do the clearing plan, once approved, Mr. Poe [an owner and member of Plaintiff Skyridge, L. L. C.] would could then start getting equipment in place and start to establish drainfield locations since these are required for the eventual preliminary plat. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Larry Weaver" With this submission Mr. Weaver submitted to Mr. Cheran a preliminary lot layout of the proposed development showing a residential density of 51 lots. To these submissions Mr. Cheran e-mailed back to Mr. Weaver: "The plan with the roads looks good to me give me a call." Printed copies of the respective e-mails of Mr. Weaver and Mr. Cheran are attached hereto as Exhibits "4" and "5". 9. In conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance, the Appellants wish to develop the Property so as to put in up to 52 residential lots on the Property. Based on information and belief, if Appellants formally submit a formal application for subdivision approval, their application would be rejected and disapproved. 10. Appellants respectfully submit the Letter Determination of Mark R. Cheran is an incorrect, plainly wrong, unwarranted and arbitrary interpretation of Section 165-52 E the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia, and the Appellants are aggrieved by such action as they are deprived of the lawful use of their property. 11. The Appellants ought not to be put to the needless expense of formally submitting a formal engineered site and subdivision plan laying out a 52 lot residential development on the Property, only to have such plan rejected and disapproved by Frederick County, Virginia. WHEREFORE, the Appellants appeal the Determination Letter of Mr. Cheran and request that the Board of Zoning Appeals determine that the Determination Letter of Mr. Cheran, that the permitted residential density on the Property is less than 52 residential lots, is an incorrect, plainly wrong, unwarranted, arbitrary and therefore unlawful interpretation of Section 165-52 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance; that Appellants be determined to have vested rights in having a residential density of 52 lots on the Property; that the appropriate officials of Frederick County, Virginian be required to issue to the Appellants a written statement that the permitted residential density for the Property is up to 52 lots; and that Appellants have such further and other relief as the nature of this matter may find warranted. Respectfully submitted, Douglas W. Napier Counsel for Plaintiffs VSB #16136 35 North Royal Avenue Front Royal, VA 22620 Skyridge, L.L.C. HT Development, LLC ti By: F Dougli W. Napi r, Counsel 5 Phone: 540.635.2123 Fax: 540.635.7004 J. DANIEL POND II KIMBERLY M. ATHEY CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR. J. DANIEL POND III JOHN S. BELL DOUGLAS W. NAPIER Mr. Mark R. Cheran POND, ATHEY, ATHEY & POND, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 35 N. ROYAL AVENUE P.O. BOX 395 FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630 April 16, 2007 Zoning and Subdivision Administrator 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA i 60 1 Via First Class Mail and Facsimile: 540.665.6395 And e -nail : mcheran@cofrederick. va. us Re: Skyridge, LLC Fraley Subdivision Dear Mr. Cheran: APF 1 PHONE (540) 635-2123 FAX (540) 635-7004 lawyers@pond-athevlaw.com PLEASE REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 395 I received your recent message in my voice mailbox that you were interpreting Section 165-52.A. of the Frederick County Code as allowing my client, Skyridge, LLC, to put in only 38 lots instead of the 52 lots that my client calculates to be allowed. As we pointed out on our meeting of this past March 29, the parent tract, as it existed on the date that ordinance was adopted, was 262 acres in size. Reading the ordinance literally, "[t] maximum density permitted on any parcel or group of parcels shall not exceed the equivalent of one unit per five acres as determined by the size of the parent tract as it existed on the date of adoption of this article", it is difficult for me to escape the conclusion that the number of lots permitted by right would be 262 divided by 5 equals 52.4, or 52 lots. There would be a large loss of value to my client if it were to put in only 38 lots as opposed to 52 lots. Given that I cannot read into that Section why the density is not based on 262 acres, the size of the parent tract as it existed on December 11, 1991, the date of adoption of the ordinance; would you please indicate to me how it is my reading of this ordinance is infirm? Obviously, my clients would not like to challenge this interpretation Oi we are not reading something incorrectly. Your help is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, n Douglas W. Napier cc: Skyridge, LLC Racey Engineering M ante, / C13 0 f / z EL -y U) o w Y O O Q: r7 m ,� W n SV o co �f C f / o o co co ` 00LO 0 N N v Q N S cli N cli N G 4 4 G 9 '. a G � •, .. s n A 4,0l s � °'� b� F LO 4 (O ` sy t 4 a 4 Jay Q m x dy � s -- o w ( - Also, I have attached a copy of the layout of the subdivision the email is in reference to. This is what was submitted to Mr. Cheran for his early review to see if he had any concerns or questions. Thanks, Larry Note: forwarded message attached. Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small_ Business. From: "Mark Cheran" <mcheran@co.frederick.va.us> To: "'Larry Weaver"' <lweaver_racey@yahoo.com> CC: <mmoore_racey@yahoo.com>, "'Pat Racey"' <raceyengr2002@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Fraley Subdivision Preliminary Layout of Lots Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:57:19 -0500 The plan with the roads looks good give me a call -----Original Message ----- From: Larry Weaver [mailto:lweaver_racey@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 1:05 PM To: Mark Cheran Cc: mmoore_racey@yahoo.com; Pat Racey Subject: Fraley Subdivision Preliminary Layout of Lots Mr. Cheran, I just wanted to send you an email to check on the status of the Fraley Subdivision Layout with the two entrances that I submitted to you. Our client called me and said he had spoke with you this morning and asked me to email you. If the new two entrance layout is approved please let me know and we will move forward with preparing a clearing plan for submittal and once approved Mr. Poe can clear some of the trees and get equipment in to start establishing locations for drainf elds. Also, could you please provide me the name of the gentleman that reviews erosion and sediment control plans so I can give him a call to see what all is required for a generic clearing plan? As discussed at our previous meeting we wanted to get the approval on the layout from you so we can do the clearing plan, once approved, Mr. Poe would could then start getting equipment in place and start to establish drainfield locations since these are required for the eventual preliminary plat. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Larry Weaver 12/l/2006 VARIANCE APPLICATION #07-07 BOBCAT BUILDERS Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: June 14, 2007 Staff Contact: Lauren E. Krempa, Planning Technician 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: July 17, 2007 - Action Pending LOCATION: Lot 50, Plat 1, Section 32 in Shawneeland at the intersection of Capon Springs and Arbutus Trails MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 69A-1-32-50 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: Rural Areas (RA) 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/Vacant Use: Residential/Vacant Use: Residential/Vacant Use: Residential/Vacant VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a 16 foot side yard variance on the right side and a 26 foot side yard variance on the left side, resulting in a 34 foot building restriction line on both sides, for the construction of a single family dwelling. REASON FOR VARIANCE: With current setbacks and the size of the property, there is no buildable area to build a dwelling. Variance #07-07 — Bobcat Builders June 14, 2007 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) 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-1 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 the right, and 60 feet to the left (because this is a corner lot). Based on the small size of this property and the large setbacks associated with the RA zoning district, the applicant is requesting a 16 foot side yard variance on the right side and 26 foot variance on the left side yard. This variance, if granted, would result in a 34 foot side yard variance on both sides (one of which fronts on Capon Springs Trail). The majority of the properties located in the Shawneeland Subdivision are zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) and would have a setback of 35 feet off both Capon Springs and Arbutus Trails, 25 feet in the rear and ten feet on the side. Therefore, this variance request would be in character with those lots in the majority of the Shawneeland Subdivision. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE JULY 17, 2007 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 16 foot variance on the right side yard and a 26 foot variance on the left side yard in order to build a 32'x26' single family dwelling. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 60 feet from Arbutus Trail (front), 50 feet from the rear property line and would change to 34 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. a5 1Nryy,,��\P Q� UN �4 ♦�a0� 55 Sic a0 X50 e"�ti�L ♦�ti c,P �O ♦ 8 JQ 6 \VHF, N. a� 5°. o�,ti GPS �0,�'l. ♦ry�SJ�Pa _ 6�P50a ♦a♦ y0� ♦�ti GPQ- �qP ♦ ,r0�0 ♦�tiy+�- �P? p M a N ZON ��♦L�P � OR a o - sr�rf�/db bsv 0, d� s Od. C9P,j0 � 6r�00 as9 �d6 w olS '� b� z i �•�a}: ce, rfe yr a = z 3 o: a U O \ �',rPcrl 4 X91 ��OGPP50, 'Oa? OSS �J u s J� Q_ 3 2s H ♦o� JPO P,JOGP 6 � � ♦� ��P == • a R 69 fiQ0 o z RH HERgE� !o L Q ,5 m 3 S „ e � � N d � � U Rm R16 r :. o .oii o Z,03r E �Q •� a¢. c LL H� J F R S LL i Q f%1 m Y d fn N d g -1OiQL% 112ssi Yqj J a5 1Nryy,,��\P Q� UN �4 ♦�a0� 55 Sic a0 X50 e"�ti�L ♦�ti c,P �O ♦ 8 JQ 6 \VHF, N. a� 5°. o�,ti GPS �0,�'l. ♦ry�SJ�Pa _ 6�P50a ♦a♦ y0� ♦�ti GPQ- �qP ♦ ,r0�0 ♦�tiy+�- �P? p M a N ZON ��♦L�P � OR a o - sr�rf�/db bsv 0, d� s Od. C9P,j0 � 6r�00 as9 �d6 w olS '� b� z i �•�a}: ce, rfe yr a = z 3 o: a U O \ �',rPcrl 4 X91 ��OGPP50, 'Oa? OSS F�'P�4,O a5 1Nryy,,��\P Q� UN �4 ♦�a0� 55 Sic a0 X50 e"�ti�L ♦�ti c,P �O ♦ 8 JQ 6 \VHF, N. a� 5°. o�,ti GPS �0,�'l. ♦ry�SJ�Pa _ 6�P50a ♦a♦ y0� ♦�ti GPQ- �qP ♦ ,r0�0 ♦�tiy+�- �P? p M a N ZON ��♦L�P � OR a o - sr�rf�/db bsv 0, d� s Od. C9P,j0 � 6r�00 as9 �d6 w olS '� b� z i �•�a}: ce, rfe yr a = z 3 o: a U O \ �',rPcrl ��OGPP50, Q_ 3 2s ♦o� JPO P,JOGP 6 � � ♦� ��P == 69P t N dR b oa JPO ^�yO�a6 69 fiQ0 o z RH HERgE� Q ,5 m 3 S 0 '7 Z = Q w m _ E _- m� a ILJlHljli�� Q O V APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA -OFFICE USE ONLY - Variance Application No. Submittal. Date: Fee Paid: e�. initials: Sign Deposites;' MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: NAME: �0b erS LLC, ADDRESS34 beer Runcirde, Fu"t VN q L VA Z430 TELEPHONE: 54o u 1 4/ 1 OCCUPANT: (if different) �p fn NAME: ADDRESS: g ��, j �;t,U�i� LAc{-p-ma4 F TELEPHONE: The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): 4. The property has a road frontage of j 0 © feet and a depth of 2 (2 0 and consists of r 1,59 acres (please be exact). Page 5 of 9 feet 5. The property is owned by Fred + RAIl 15 hf� Y i C It as evidenced by deed from q T j e C , >4C . recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. _' (.)O ion page 56 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: S a c 1<, C r -P t K 7. Property Identification No.: (q AC►� i321 (5b) S. The existing zoning of the property is: R ucc L A reQ 9. The existing use of the property is: R W V a C Q h+ ) 10. Adjoining Property: USE North R G w `0,00' East EGw j m( South ROW Gnd West R av� Ckn d ZONING r, i R -A �..rM 'IS - 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.") f2� h-4-. ' Y 1IYAef n lii10,-+- V:1 a V1 C -L, c--:)Vl Lft-,+ Qr 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 prop W't�C�a�i'>°nt (5f immediately adjacent thereto Page 6 of 9 R 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: lern!! .1 (� Page 7 of 9 Address D(\ l�0'� 1 I V V 0 �C �i�S �( °C�6 A PropertyL I ID # 3 � Address � 0 ihLke ic( VA Property ID # r 2 Address Nul 4w r LocK{AV c � t Property ID # I 131 5 1 E Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Page 7 of 9 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. Page 8 of 9 1. Easements, if any, not shown. No title report furnished. 2. This property does not lie within the 100 year Flood Zone as shown on the F.E.M.A. F.I.R.M. Community Panel. 3. Boundary derived from a field survey and from deeds of record as found among the Land Records of Frederick County, Virginia, as shown hereon. 4. Iron Pins set at all drainfield corners. LEGEND 0- Iron Pin Found i 1� Q� Q 15o i 0� I I I ,I ,I I/Lot I \51/ I I I I'Lot \52/ — I I C) I I D I I N 5_ °50'56"_E _ 17.40' O I — - ��.��' 6.10' Sp — — — — — — — — — — — — - _ 1g 71 50' z —96 N 92 -- - ---90 ---b 6 50' B_R.L Prop. o DIF !!^^ VJ Z N rn Cn o_ o v N Im N ti D O 0 o h b o _ /Lot \ f 41. 0 34 00' � I 49 I 0 32.00, rn \ _ / C:) Pmp- 8 Hse. 34.00' _ 60' B.R.L. _ 15.70' Note: Cannot show 50' B.R.L. from �i We1ll is line, as B.RL. lines would overlap Lot 50 ov 0.459 acres _ 20000.00 sq ft 100.00' _ S 52°50'56" W ____ ARBUTIS TRAIL(60' RA/V) PROPOSED DRAINFIELD, WELL, & HOUSE LOCATION SURVEY PLAT Property of "FRED D. HERRICK, JR., & PHYLLIS J. HERRICK" Deed Book 400, Page 58 Tax Map #69A (1) (32) 50 "SHAWNEE -LAND" Subdivision, Section 32, Lot 50 p Back Creek Magisterial District> Frederick County, Virginia p U C fE D DS JR, Scale: 1" = 50' Date: April 2, 2007 , 0.459 Acres or 20,000 Sq. Ft. Revised May 15, 2007 o. 3 Prepared by Dodson Surveying, Inc. 5Jh l �J P.O. Box 672_ xtBt�`f Luray, Virginia 22835 (540) 843-0608 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. ATURE 0PLICANT V I T i rA1'1k1AAA'U 0 pAk�t DATE S-10 - 01 MCLO G Cf -e—rl M e m6e-r SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF SIGNED: APPROVAL (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- - DATE - BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: Page 9 of 9 ACTION: VARIANCE APPLICATION #08-07 FRANKLIN AND CANDY MILLER Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: July 6, 2007 Staff Contact: Lauren E. Krempa, Planning Technician 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: July 17, 2007 - Action Pending LOCATION: Woods Mill Road (Route 660) in John Hepfer's Subdivision No. 1, Lot 3 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55A-1-3 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: Rural Areas (RA) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Agricultural Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a 23.5 foot left yard variance, resulting in a 26.5 foot left yard setback, and a 17 foot right yard variance, resulting in a 33 foot right side setback, for the construction of a single family dwelling. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Exceptional narrowness of lot. Variance #08-07 — Franklin and Candy Miller July 6, 2007 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. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors amended the setbacks for the RA Zoning District on February 28, 2007 making the current setbacks for the property: 60 feet to the front, 100 feet to the rear, and 50 feet to both sides. Based on the narrowness of this lot, the applicant is requesting a 17 foot variance on the right side and a 23.5 foot variance on the left side in order to construct a single family dwelling. The current RA setbacks, if enforced, would eliminate a buildable area on this lot. If granted, this variance would result in new setbacks of 60 feet to the front, 100 feet to the rear, 26.5 feet on the left, and 33 feet on the right. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE JULY 17, 2007 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 23.5 foot left yard variance and a 17 foot right side variance in order to build a single family dwelling. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 60 feet to the front, 100 feet to the rear, 26.5 feet on the left and 33 feet on the right side. It appears that this variance meets the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 (2). This request from the current setbacks of the RA zoning district may be justified. DD 3 Up yF. G� rl m� l� 4� OO clicn 1--I •--I yS t_ S�. y v F o 4 Ct L; vdi w `n o 4 V J I 41 1 3 J O +i N fL C � rT m u- iii¢¢�in E 6 m rn n3 �a`rn��fn o P� a )fib P '\ hh G�0 P )P Sg yyP 00y0 O `6'00a� h (je I ,a ss r 2 C f y � Q .s Pooh t 4 y W d � C N ti fi K � = U � C f0 U / O ey Q rrrr// � oi .n w � ■ o o � 9S I �ooas �oHNs,M�� I Jr I DD 3 a 3 2 3 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA -OFFICE USE ONLY - Variance Application No. 09-C)7Submittal Date: 6/16 0 7 Fee Paid: geinitials: Sign Deposi Submittal Deadline: 61Aq /017 For the meeting of MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1-11" 1. The applicant is the owner other "� . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: NAME:�,f.: ADDRESS 1Q'G VA a or�22 TELEPHONE:��" OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS: --?4% Uoa�3 TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): . r 4. The property has a road frontage of Q-5 0_7 feet and a depth of �, �l `� feet and consists of 1, 0 acres (please be exact). 5. The property is owned by A;1 `c '`,CRIcelI W =-f as evidenced by deed from Zuc.•r 3- a-,01 recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. on page of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: 7. Property Identification No. 8. The existing zoning of the property is: `.a s it -- i --" PA 9. The existing use of the property is: C Z._,( vr, 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North i:,;"c 1 Q A East r: > re IRA South R, .,A �, R West QS; clwi.:a if (RO 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 33 rear yard variance for an attached two -car garage.") if ` t V t'f 'qn(i <J Cr2 .3'A �_AS 1 � ��.� . �, tie z �:� �� ��, �:,� a ►� �• b S • � :- 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 7 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 A Address Property ID #S� /a C�S L Address 143�5`� �n Property ID # SS 1 7 v Address il('�>�s KI VA -)Xq Property ID # Address '1,13 �)wc)s MIA �� . tg�i�e�s�, YA Property I D # 7 Address Property ID # Address Property ID # Address Property ID # A 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, prope�,� including mcasure-ments to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this applieatio1-1. 9 NOTES: 1. FREDERICK COUNTY TAX MAP: 55A-1-3. 2. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED, EASEMENTS AND/OR OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN HEREON - 3. THIS PLAT IS THE RESULT OF A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. 4. VERTICAL DATUM IS ASSUMED. EP`TH OF 19 c BENJAMIN C. D MONTGOMERY p Lic. No. 30342 O �� Z10NA L �NG� s N N 55—A-136 JRW PROPERTIES & RENTALS, INC. 5$8 ---------- D.B. 591, PG. 630 pG R=11,479.16'A N28-18'WE- A=95.09' 4.55' ROUTE 660 WOODS MILL ROAD 40' R/W (D.B. 251, PG. 162) GRAPHIC SCALE 0 25 50 1010 I MSI � I inch = 50 ft PROPOSED DRAINFIELD EASEMENT PROPOSED D/W XISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ASPHALT D/W GRADING PLAN LOT 3 JOHN M. HEWER'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1' = 50' DATE JUNE 11, 2007 ® MONT. OMERY efsgllreerAfy Ivroup, ,fne. 180-9 Prosperity Dc (540) 450-3236 VOICE Winchester, VA 22602 —.MEGi—b¢ (540) 450-3235 FAX SENT BY: ERA (3AI{G°Fitt REALTY; vuN- i6• H: �jHMJ raaut c1c AGREEMEN'I` VARIANCI, # 09-0q (Number to be assigned by the Planning [apt.) I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application, and petition the Fredet County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to grant a variance to the terms of the Fredet County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions for variance required by the BZA. I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the for site inspection purposes. 1 understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be place the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the BZA public hearin& and maintai 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 my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (if other than appl.icanf, -OFFICE USE ONLY - 13ZA PUBLIC IfF.AWNG OF -€ 1//)7 _.-® `� ACTION: - I -A e APPROVAL SIGNET: BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: Lut VARIANCE APPLICATION 910-07 JEFFERY NEFF Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: July 6, 2007 Staff Contact: Lauren E. Krempa, Planning Technician 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: July 17, 2007 - Action Pending LOCATION: Lone Oak Subdivision, Lot 38, Block A, on the southern side of Virginia Drive (Route 710) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 86B -4-A-38 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a 15 foot side yard variance on both sides, which would result in a 35 foot side yard setback on both sides, for the construction of a 52x32 single family dwelling. REASON FOR VARIANCE: Current setbacks for the property result in a small buildable area on the property. Variance #10-07, Jeffery Neff July 6, 2007 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. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors amended the setbacks for the RA Zoning District on February 28, 2007 making the current setbacks for the property: 60 feet to the front, 100 feet to the rear, and 50 feet to both sides. With the current setbacks, this property does have a buildable area of 25 feet by 85 feet which would allow for a house to be built on the property. The applicant has requested reduced setbacks in order to build a 52 foot by 32 foot house (1,664 square feet per level). The proposed dwelling could be reoriented on the property and reduced slightly in size in order to meet the requirements of the current RA setbacks. Staff would also note that the majority of the homes in this neighborhood are small, one story structures typically less than 2,000 square feet and it would be in keeping with the character of the existing development for this applicant to construct a similar dwelling. Therefore, this variance request may not meet the requirements for a variance under the Code of Virginia. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE JULY 17, 2007 MEETING: 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. Staff would assert that a primary residential structure, of a reasonable size, could be built on the property with application of the current RA setbacks and, therefore, would recommend denial of this variance application based upon the above requirements of the Code of Virginia. �O Ory � i � M I O G�0\F• pQ'�y� eP p\ �0 660 OZF. O�P 0010 P� F.a4. 660P00P Z� O O 1r �P OP �P � ,P T / 1p 0F' 860 �FZ C C G000y0 G,�P¢- b6�y,FQ" � i �SO�, ePs;OF• F�� OJT � pP�FPPa00S 1�m m Y 3 / 660 QPJ�' SO �6 yp C a o � 000. gyp. y O pP0`\�6 V P 10 y� �pQ' 6cp0 0S Q- 0 60�PV 000 �6O�a�SQ,a 0�00P� �O Ory O G�0\F• pQ'�y� eP p\ �0 660 OZF. O�P 0010 P� F.a4. 660P00P Z� O O 1r �P OP �P m; �00JZ04 ,P ya0 Y 5 P00 9 aG DPOp\ 1p 0F' 860 �FZ � G000y0 G,�P¢- b6�y,FQ" � i �SO�, ePs;OF• F�� OJT � pP�FPPa00S 1�m m Y 660 QPJ�' SO �6 yp 000 aP 0Q' .1`�S 60 OFF IO 000. gyp. y O pP0`\�6 P 10 y� �pQ' 6cp0 0S Q- 0 60�PV 000 �6O�a�SQ,a 0�00P� PO�y�G 9 � G0PaQ0 O.t.PO� \0 ]O� 060 FO 0?• O O�y� JP 66�00Z � 0�1F y00 �F� N�[, p'OPQ- �0�0 1P FQ'Oy Z60 0ZF. Off' 0�,P Il 0�. 00�. � 10 660 00� 0Q'J A'L FtC+ �P 60 P�' Off' da a � P 0PO Y 00� o a G 66 00 a� �E P� 86B B 7 00JR� KERNS -GARY m n n V V D 3 K APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner —_ other . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) 3 Q NAME: Jeffery A. Neff ADDRESS 6095 Valley Pike Stephens City, VA 22655 NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: -(540)869-1010 TELEPHONE: The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): Lot 38 is located in Block A, Section Four of Lone Oak Subdivision on the southern side of Va. Sec. Route 710 (Virginia Drive) approximately 530 feet northeast of the intersection of Virginia Drive and Va. Sec. Route 641 (Double Church Road). The property has a road frontage of 125 feet and a depth of, 50 feet and consists of 0.72 acres (please be exact). 51 5. The property is owned by Jeffery A. Neff as evidenced by deed from Mildred S. Neff recorded (previous owner) in d b% Instrument no. 050022086 onqmagpc of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: Opequon 7. Property Identification No.: 86B -4-A-38 8. The existing zoning of the property is: RA 9. The existing use of the property is: Residential 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Residential RA 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.") A 15' reduction of left and right side yard setbacks from 50' to 35' to allow construction of a 52' x 32' dwelling 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 Current zoning setbacks (60' from road right of way, 50' from side and 100' from rear) yield a very small unsuitable building site that is not in keeping with the adjacent residential dwellings in this subdivision. 7 13. Additional comments, if any: Dwelling on adjoining Lot 37 lies 32.8' from the east property line and 25.8' from the west property line 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 Dennis R. & Mary Jo Whitacre Fred A. & Phyllis L. Wilson Charles E. III & Carolyn G. Newton Lisa Frances Lacivita Charles E. III & Carolyn G. Newton E. R. Neff Excavating, Inc. Address 109 Virginia Dr. Stephens City,VA 22655 Property ID # 86B -4-B-28 Address 107 Virginia Drive, Stephens City, VA 226 5 Property ID # Address 801 Wage Dr., SW, Leesburg, VA 20175 Property ID # 86B -4-B-30 Address 110 Virginia Dr., Stephens City, VA 2265 Property ID # 86B -4-A-37 Address 801 Wage Dr., SW, Leesburg, VA 20175 Property ID # 86B -4-A-39 Address P.O. Box 1027, Stephens City, VA 22655 Property ID # 86-A-229 Address Property ID # 3 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. LOT 39 VA. SEC. ROUTE 710 (VIRGINIA DRI VES 60' R/W EXISTING SITE CONDI TIONS PROPERTY OF JEFFERY A. NEFF LONE OAK SUBDIVISION — LOT 38 — BLOCK A — SECTION FOUR OPEQUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA LOT 36 GRAPHIC SCALE 50' 0' 50' SCALE 1 — 50' DRAWN BY: JTG I DWG NAME: ID7962—BZA I SHEET 1 OF 1 1 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, !VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 FAX (540) 667-0469 �Lr EMAIL office0norshondlegge.com DATE: 06/21/2007 SCALE: 1 " = 50' VA. SEC. ROUTE 710 (VIRGINIA DRIVE) 60' R/W PROPOSED SETBACKS (VARIANCE 60.0' REQUEST) 117.0' 32.8' i EXISANG I , SETBACKSI I ( 35.0 36.5' i 36.5' � I 0' 100.0' OT 39 PROPOSED 52 X32' DWELLING OT 38 VARIANCE REQUEST (SIDE YARD SETBACK REDUCTION) PROPERTY OF ZFFERY A. NEFF LONE OAK SUBDIVISION — LOT 38 — BLOCK A — SECTION FOUR OPEOUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ---ice-i 54.7' EXISTING DWELLING 25.8' 159.2' LOT 37 OT 36 GRAPHIC SCALE 50' 0' 50' SCALE 1 " = 50' DRAWN BY: JTG I DWG NAME: ID7962—BZA I SHEET 1 OF 1 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, PIRG/NlA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 FAX (540 667-0469 EMAIL off/ce@morshondlegge.com DATE: 06/21/2007 SCALE: 1 " = 50' AGREEMENT VA_RTA_N(--F.. # /t) -0'7 (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 ec - 19.0- 7 SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF /'? 4 ACTION: - ATE - APPROVAL SIGNED: BZA CHAIRMAN DENIAL DATE: 10