BZA 04-20-10 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FIZEDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
1.07 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
April 20, 2010
3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
1) Determination of a Quorum
2) Minutes of March 16, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING
3) Variance Request #04-10 of John McAllister, for a 26 foot southern property line
variance, resulting in a 24 foot side yard setback, for the construction of a deck, screen
porch and a master bedroom. This property is located south at 573 Lake Saint Clair Drive,
and is identified with Property Identification Number 31A-1-1 in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District.
4) 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 March 16, 2010.
PRESENT: Kevin Scott, Chairman, Shawnee District; Bruce Carpenter, Gainesboro District;
Jay Givens, Bach Creek District; R. K. Shirley, III, Opequon District; Eric Lowman, Red Bud
District; and Robert W. Wells, Member -At -Large
ABSENT: Robert Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District
STAFF
PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Dana Johnston, Zoning
Inspector; and, Renee' Arlotta, Acting Secretary.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Scott at 3:25 p.m. and he determined there
is a quorum.
On a motion made by Mr. Givens and seconded by Mr.. Carpenter, the minutes for the
February 16, 2010 sleeting were unanimously approved as presented.
Chairman Scott inquired if there are any applications pending for April. Mr. Cheran
responded there is a variance scheduled for the April 20th mceting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal Application #03-10 of Brad Pollack, Applicant, who is appealing the decision
of the Zoning Administrator as to permitted uses in the RP (Residential Performance)
District under Section 165-402.02 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The
subject property is located at 2032 Martinsburg Pike, and is identified with Property
Identification Number 43-A-130 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
ACTION — ZONING ADMINISTRATOR UPHELD; APPEAL DENIED
Mr. Cheran presented a point of order directed to Mr. Brad Pollack, the applicant, as to his
standing with this appeal. At this time, Mr. Pollack approached Mr. Cheran and handed him a
Conveyance of Property. Mr. Cheran took the Conveyance of Property from Mr. Pollack and stated that
it has not been duly recorded in the Frederick County Clerk's Office, which means that Mr. Pollack is
not the aggrieved party and the Board of Zoning Appeals cannot act upon this appeal application today.
Mr. Cheran fiirther stated that. Mr. Pollack actually lives in Shenandoah County and, under State
Supreme Court ruling, an aggrieved person, in order to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator,
must live within reasonable proximity of the subject property. Mr. Pollack does not meet that
requirement; therefore, this is a moot application.
1537
Frederick ant, Board ffZoning Appeals
Minutes of arc�i 16, 20 0
Chairman Scott asked the Board members what they desire to do at this time.
Mr. Givens stated it is his understanding that if standing is not found, the Board should not hear
the appeal application and he made a motion to deny hearing this application.
Mr. Pollack asked, "Aren't you going to hear from the applicant?" Mr. Cheran again stated the
applicant has no standing, and Mr. Pollack then stated that he is the owner of the property. Mr. Cheran
reiterated that if it isn't recorded in the Clerk's Office, he is not the owner of the property.
Chairman Scott asked Mr. Cheran to clarify what the County Attorney has determined on this
matter. Mr. Cheran responded the County Attorney verified the information that staff had researched
from the Virginia State Supreme Court about an aggrieved person filing an appeal. The Court's ruling
concerning an aggrieved person is meant to allow the locality some protection from overzealous appeals
of its zoning ordinances. Mr. Cheran checked right before this meeting to find out if the property owner
had changed or if we even received a Power of Attorney from the property owner. Our application
package states, if you're being represented by counsel or other people, you must fill out a Power of
Attorney. Therefore, the applicant is not aggrieved, doesn't have any interest here and doesn't own or
occupy any real property in Frederick County. It is not necessary for the BZA to comment on this; the
Circuit Court can make a decision if this applicant so desires.
Mr. Givens asked Mr. Rod Williams, Frederick County Attorney, if you have a deed for a
property to be transferred, does it have to be recorded to be transferred. Mr. Cheran stated it has to be
recorded. Mr. Pollack stated that he happens to be an officer of the Court, and that is not the law. He
stated he has a deed to this property. Mr. Cheran stated there is no proof of delivery.
Chairman Scott addressed Mr. Pollack and asked him to please let the BZA try to understand and
work their way through this issue.
Mr. Cheran stated that since Mr. Pollack has made the trip here today that Ms. Arlotta, as a
Notary, can swear in Mr. Helsley and the BZA can hear the appeal if they so desire. Mr. Helsley is the
property owner, and as the aggrieved person, has standing in this appeal.
Chairman Scott asked for a motion. Mr. Givens withdrew his original motion, but he feels we
should establish Mr. Helsley's standing. Mr. Cheran explained that if Mr. Helsley testifies that he is the
property owner, then Mr. Pollack can represent Mr. Helsley. Chairman Scott determined that a motion
is not needed. The Board is in agreement to do this.
Ms. Arlotta swore in Mr. Helsley by asking him to state his name, and to swear that lie is the
property owner of 2032 Martinsburg Pike. Ms. Arlotta asked Mr. Helsley to raise his right hand and to
swear to tell the whole truth in his testimony and Mr. Helsley stated yes, he swears to tell the truth.
Mr. Cheran stated we are satisfied that Mr. Helsley does have standing and he is represented by
Mr. Brad Pollack.
Mr. Cheran presented the staff report. He stated that the Zoning Administrator had received a
zoning violation complaint on the property in question, which is the AT&T property. The complaint had
to do with public utilities, setback requirements and uses in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning
District. Section 165-402.02 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides for permitted land
Wederick o int Board Zoning Appeals 1538
mutes o Parc. 16, 20�
uses in the RP district. Subsection B of the ordinance states that structures are to be erected or land used
for one or more of the following uses and ##6 under this section allows for "Utilities necessary to serve
residential uses, including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes and meters". This is a by -right
use, not a conditional use or land use action. The property subject to this appeal has been used as a
utility use since 1986 and has an approved site plan. The site was modified in 1996 and 2008 with
approved site plans. The property has been, and is currently, in conformance with the requirements of
the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Past Zoning Administrators and the current Zoning
Administrator have determined that utilities set forth by the Zoning Ordinance are permitted in all of its
residential districts.
Mr. Cheran continued that staff is requesting that the BZA affirm the decision of the Zoning
Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, Section
165-402.02 that utilities are an allowed use in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District and that
the subject property does not have a zoning violation.
Mr. Wells asked the size of the building and Mr. Cheran responded it's about 3,000 square feet
after the add-on. Mr. Wells said usually when you speak of utilities, it's a box, not a 3,000 square foot
building. Mr. Cheran stated that if it's a utility use, the County doesn't discriminate concerning the size.
Mr. Cheran further clarified that AT&T calls it a point -of -presence site or "POP" site. Mr. Wells asked
if the equipment inside the building is operating or is it just sitting there'd Mr. Cheran replied that he
can't answer that, but he believes it's probably both because they have a battery back-up.
Mr. Brad Pollack approached the podium and identified himself as representing Mr. Helsley.
Mr. Pollack stated that Mr. Helsley consulted him in October about the AT&T building, complaining
that he wasn't able to sleep at night because it made so much noise. It has air conditioning units and
some sort of large diesel generator. But Mr. Helsley showed him a series of pictures, which Mr. Pollack
handed to the Board members. These signs and the building next to where Mr. Helsley tried to sleep
every night were scaring him greatly. Mr. Helsley had done research on these facilities that had blown
up and had information on the dangers of hydrogen, which is kept onsite. Mr. Helsley feels that AT&T
is putting his life in danger. Mr. Pollack stated they're not saying what AT&T is doing there is
generally a public nuisance, but AT&T has chosen to have this facility in a residential area, right next to
Mr. Helsley's house. Mr. Pollack did some checking and then filed complaints on-line. Their
complaints are that this is basically a telecommunications facility that has not complied with Section
165-204.19 dealing with telecommunications facilities, but more specifically, that in no way shape or
form is this a utility necessary to serve residential uses, including poles, lines, distribution transformers,
pipes and meters. This is an industrial building and it violates the setbacks. Mr. Pollack said they are
not asking that these buildings be torn down. All they want the Board of Zoning Appeals to do is to
overrule Mr. Cheran's good faith decision and say that this is not in compliance with zoning. Mr.
Pollack stated they have violations of 165-402.02, 165-402.09, and 165-204.19. AIso, the
Commissioner of the Revenue has determined that the use going on at this facility is industrial. And,
according to the Board of Equalization, they will reduce the value of his property because of this awful
building next door.
Mr. Pollack continued that in the General Business District, among the allowed uses are
communication facilities and offices including telephone, telegraph, radio, television and other
cominunications. This building might be allowed in General Business District, it's not in Residential
Performance. It's also allowed possibly as a public utility distribution facility in General Business. It
may be allowed in B3 Industrial Transition, where uses include communication facilities and offices,
Werick �o1inty Board ffZoning Appeals 1539
Minutes oMarc"h 16, 200
including telephone, telegraph, radio, television and other communications. It's also mentioned in M1
Light Industrial. Mr. Pollack stated that considering what's before the Board of Zoning Appeals under
the current law and the current facts, they pray that the Board of Zoning. Appeals would recognize that
this building and this facility is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance,
Mr. Cheran read 165-402.09 Setbacks for Other Uses in the RP Zoning District: Tile following
setbacks shall apply for uses not otherwise specified. For anything not specified, the setbacks are 35
feet in front, 15 feet for side, and 50 feet rear. The site plan shows 15.5 feet on the side so they're
within the setback. Mr. Cheran stated we are not here to talk about taxes; the question is, do we allow
utilities in the RP Zoning District. In processing a site plan, Frederick County requires comments from
reviewing agencies, such as the Fire Marshall who looks for hazardous materials. The Fire Marshall, the
Building Official, VDOT, Service Authority and Planning and Zoning were all OK with allowing this
site plan. Further, telecommunication towers are set aside as a Conditional Use Permit. They're
permitted in the RP Zoning District. As a platter of fact, a Conditional Use Permit for a tower was
applied for on this property and was denied by the Board of Supervisors. All the required measures
were completed by the applicant for this utility use.
Mr. Shirley asked if the Zoning Code has a specific definition of a utility. Mr. Cheran responded
no. However, if you look at the Definitions and Word Uses section in the Code, it states that any word,
term or phrase used in this Zoning Ordinance not defined below shall have the meaning ascribed to such
word, term or phrase in the most recent edition of Merriam -Webster's Dictionary unless, in the opinion
of the Zoning Administrator, established customs or practices in Frederick County, Virginia justify a
different or additional meaning.
Chairman Scott asked if anyone is present who would like to speak in favor of or against this
appeal application. There were no public comments. Chairman Scott closed the public hearing portion
of the meeting.
Discussion
Mr. Givens stated that this Board's only concern is the Zoning Administrator's decision that this
use is allowed in the RP District. Mr. Givens further stated from what he's hearing, the building does
have a use; it is providing a utility service. Chairman Scott stated there's fiber optics in the building so
it's definitely beyond residential use. Mr. Givens said that may be true, but it is providing for residential
uses and, accordingly, it would be a permitted use in the RP District. Mr. Givens made a motion to
uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Shirley seconded the motion.
Chairman Scott asked the Board if they had any discussion before the vote. Mr. Wells asked if
industrial and utility are the same things. Mr. Cheran responded that is a distinction of the
Commissioner of Revenue, Mr. Lowman asked if the Board of Supervisors turned down a Conditional
Use Permit for the original building. Mr. Cheran said that was for a telecommunications tower. The
reason it was denied is because this part of Route ll, according to the Comprehensive Plan, is
considered a Developmentally Sensitive Area with historic considerations.
Mr. Shirley stated that he seconded Mr. Givens' motion because he thinks the Zoning
Administrator's decision is correct and that if they're not using it in the proper manner, that isn't for this
Board to decide.
FI deoCNilt,lBoa1Voning Appeals 1540
minutes ?
Chairman Scott called for the vote. Mr. Wells stated that a utility building is permitted in the RP
and he voted yes; however, he feels this needs to be investigated. The vote to uphold the Zoning
Administrator's decision and deny the appeal application was unanimous.
Other
Mr. Cheran stated there is one bill in Richmond that will affect Boards of Zoning Appeals. It's
filing of fees and the aggrieved party. The proposed bill would allow the aggrieved party to ask the
Circuit Court for reimbursement of any legal fees. That is not a concern of this Board; that will be up to
the Circuit Court.
As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Scott, Chairman
Bev Dellinger, Secretary
W-derick Fo int Board fZoning Appeals 1541
mutes o arc b, 20(1
VARIANCE APPLICATION #04-10
JOHN McALLISTER
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: March 31, 2010
Staff Contact. Dana M. Johnston, 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:
April 20, 2010 - Action Pending
LOCATION: 573 Lake Saint Clair Drive
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER:. 31A-1-1
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Area)
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Area)
South: RA (Rural Area)
East: RA (Rural Area)
West: RA (Rural Area)
Use: Residential
Use: Residential
Use: Residential
Use: Residential
VARIANCE RE UESTED: The applicant is requesting a 26 foot southern property line variance,
resulting in a 24 foot side yard setback, for the construction of a deck, screen porch, and master
bedroom.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: This property has a width of 221 feet and a depth of approximately
335 feet; therefore, current setback requirements for the RA zoning district eliminate buildable area
on the property.
Variance #04-10, John McAllister
March 31, 2010
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 district 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 this
property 60 feet to the front, 50 feet to the rear, and 50 feet to both sides.
This property is one acre in size with a width of 221 feet and a depth of 335 feet, and cannot meet the
current setbacks associated with the RA zoning district. The applicant is requesting a variance of 31
feet on the southern property line from the current fifty (50) foot setback side requirement of the RA
zoning district, to construct a 12'x 54' deck 13'x15' screened porch, and a 13'x28' master bedroom.
This variance, if granted, would result in a 24 foot side yard variance. The Code of Virginia 1950 as
amended 15.2-2309 (2) and Section 165-1001.2 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance states that no variance
shall be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements: The strict application of
the Ordinance will produce an undue hardship, the hardship is not generally shared by the properties
in the same zoning district and vicinity, that the authorization of such variance will not be substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and the character of the district will not be changed by the variance.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE APRIL 20, 2010 MEETING:
In conclusion, this variance request does not meet the intent nor the requirements of The Code of
Virginia 1950 as amended 15.2-2309 (2) and Section 165-1001.2(0) of the Zoning Ordinance, as it
relates to the threshold of a hardship.
s
LAKE SAINT CLAIRE DRIVE
50' R/W nE'Q ON
NOS 256 PG 12�
N 18'20'00" E IPF 1
IPF 90.00'
25' BRL
I
1 c
� 0 1
TAX ID131A-((1))- 1
JOHN E MCALUSTER &
N w o JOHN E. MCALLISTER, JR.CIA
a
.
INST10900 1 0295 r
4, LOT 1 f 38,116 sgft.\
1 / GRAVEL=
tr DRIVEWAY
Z ONE-STORY
I FRAME WELLING
27' °y `�,, IRF .
X S5
WOODEN N
I � � DECK
ML
25' BRL
ASPHALT
S 14'20'00" W DRAIEWAY
IRF 90.00,
(PRIVATE LAKE AREA) I
LAKE ST. CLAIRE INC. /
DR 256 PAGE 127 /
p _ _ - 50 160
'TLE REPORT FURNISHED. FASEMENTS
R THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST.
ORTION OF THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN SCALE: 1" = 50'
100 YEAR r OOD ZONE AS SHOWN ON L -PO ND
W. PANEL f51069C-0125-0, IRF =.IRON REBAR FOUND
7 SEPTEMBER 2, 2009. IPF IRON PIPE FOUND
REFERENCE.' INSTRUMENT 1 090010295. BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE
REFERENCE. • DEED SOOK 256 PAGE 127. ML = METAL LID UNDERGROUND TANK
-RTY CORNERS ARE IRON REBAR SET
5S NOTED OTHERWISE.
HOUSE LOCATION SURVEY
kATEN
1 N LAKE ST. CLAIR INC. SUBDIVISION
Ili
STREETADDRESS
'#57"3 LAKE SAINT CLAIRE DRIVE'
SBORO MAGISTERIAL�'DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
BER 25, 2009 SCALE: 1" - 50FILE#: 09-037
q S L
7ltz Land Surveying, Inc. FSHEI2P.O. Bas 23 Stephens City, Virginia 22656
Can Plarincr: MChcran
John McAllister
AIN
—
(:m;I
Variance
24ft Right Side
<:>VAR041U_J,h,V,A111,t.r
"I �.
F+nmu.
. ....... . 1-4 It, 91-.) 141-
11-11 All
Current Zoning
(w -dm. [30., DI.IH.)
30 A 63
RUBAL DAVID J & PAMELA
PIN: 31A - I - 1
M;
ri
df
w 0
(608)
250
500 Feet
i
Y.
31A 1 1
M5A[LIST`F.R JOHN E
31 A 33
GROVE THOMAS A
677 CLAIR
SR. & HELE
31 A 34
C'�,f LAIR INC.LAK
C
fi:5
(:431A
1 2
LAKE S•T CLAIR PROPERTIES LLC
314 1 3
WERCHAN RICHARD &ANN
-T1
<1N
34A A
31A 1 4
t rj
oKEL LESLIE ANDERSON
T
31A 1 5
S
BOYD KEITH W & GRET CHM kv
4
Can Plarincr: MChcran
—
(:m;I
<:>VAR041U_J,h,V,A111,t.r
"I �.
F+nmu.
. ....... . 1-4 It, 91-.) 141-
11-11 All
(w -dm. [30., DI.IH.)
ri
w 0
125
250
500 Feet
i
MAR 1 5 2010
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE T
IN THE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA
-OFFICE USE ONLY -
MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK - PLEASE PRINT
1. The applicant is the owner _/_ other . (Check one) Please list all owners, occupants
(adult individuals as well as any entities occupying the property), or parties in interest of the
property.
2. APPLICANT::`` OCCUPANT: (if different)
NAME:niOt`Y.�t1 /�C�iQc�G`.
�SIE� NAME:
ADDRESSoWca,eitl�
Simi°/�,�.✓sa.�1 f�4. ��6�e
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:'Wl1-6W - O SzW TELEPHONE:
3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route nlunbers):
4. The property has a road frontage of o2o2% feet and a depth of +33.5-' feet and
consists of - 8 /J� acres (please be exact).
38�
5
5. The property is owned by as evidenced by deed
from GD UiSE /I'1; Ci4 fry recorded (previous owner) in deed book
zoo o� 6 on page 1677 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.: 314 / /
8. The existing zoning of the property is:�.�/% AL
9. The existing use of the property is:
10. Adj oining Property:
USE r ZONING
North pt'N /'-f7rA1C�' /,Sir J
East
South ..
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. ")
z )'uc ,its+
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
LGr3 (?,I� 3r7�v�� 'b '3c
3RS ()^l Q' 517T34CK_ "T r l O
C+'
13. Additional connnents, if any:
- f -W- IU,4 5 i ZE- +4- 3 -3fjorLC - H&VI r
14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, funs, 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:
f
r'�%C> �/✓ J Cfi / '
Address//26 &19C&�Ilille
Property ID #,?/q .
ZL-IE/ eAIRV)
Address�,�" L�
Property ID #~,3ff} % J
�C 0'7-1&)
Property ID # J/ A 33
J
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
Address
Property ID #
7
�9
),s
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.
-11-6 0�7 .19/V`)/ el'-Oit-/? dlz- �� -
5-14111 LI/I Cl/
l
LAK" Sftr CLAIRE DRIVE
' R,✓�®RTrG 12
18 7
N 20'0
0Y E IPF 1 OB 256
IPF 90.00'
25' BRC
1 1�0
a
TAX LD,43�((1)-1
JOHN l MALS& &
�y o JOHN E. MC LOISTER, JR. 3 oma"
INSTIO5p01 295 '
�4 c, LOT 1 N �8,1�6 sgfA
a
ego 3 AQ o
n
h o } .GRAVEL
l g
� NE— TORY DRI"AY
I FRAO'VE
WELLING
IRF
4j
Cs
DECKN
ro �tv
25' BRL YL
ASPHALT I
DRIVEWAY
IRF 90.00'
(PRIVATE LAKE AREA)
LAKE ST CLAIRE INC.
DB 256 PAGE 127
NOTES•
1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS
OTHER THAN SHOWN MAY EXIST,
2. NO PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN
THE 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE' AS SHOWN ON
FI,R.M. PANEL i51069C-0125--D,
DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 2009.
3. DEED REFERENCE.- INSTRUMENT 1090010295.
4, PLAT REFERENCE: DEED GOOK 256 PACE 121.
5. PROPERTY CORNERS ARE IRON REBAR SET
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
S 14'20'00' W
0 100
SCALE: I" = 50°
LEGEND.
IRF = . IRON REBAR FOUND
IPF = IRON PIPE FOUND
BRL - RUILDING RESTRICTION LINE
ML = METAL LID UNDERGROUND TANK
HOUSE" LOCATION SURVEY
T 0 LOT 1 - LAKE ST. CLAIR INC" SUBDIVISION
fly STREET ADDRESS
G1„ #573 LAKE SAINT CLAIRE DRIVE
.M
GAINES80RO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DARREN : FDL DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2009 SCALE: 1" = 50° FILE#: 09-037
LIC, 0, 7 Foltz Land Sur'veyi'ng, Inc. 646 S101F
(4Vo SUI�vE °¢ Phone #. 640— 291497 Faxhens f: Yi540-860-2383 email: 1o1(Z*Wsue111nk.com
AGREEMENT
VARIANCE # O -/0
(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 hearin 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. I ---
SIGNATURE OF APPLICAXJ_:���
DATE 3 1�1 1
SIGNATURE OF OWNE
4- �(if�other than applicant)
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF `t Q ACTION:
- D TE -
APPROVAL SIGNED:
DENIAL DATE:
DATE
BZA CHAIRMAN
Demolition Notes
1. Contractor io remove all low pitched built-up roof occas on the existing house
to include ociling finishes, joists and roofing.
2. Existing ham wall to be removed including windows and doors. New, wall to
be constructed a this location using the existing foundation wall. Sea sheet
A2 for car&mction.
3. Contractor to confirm construction of de to rwo walla to be =d as bearing
-ills for new roof trasscs prior to installation of stew roof" Minimum
construction to be 2 x 4's at E C' oc; or 2 x 4's or 2'-0" oc (with studs Iocated
directly below roof trusses). Wails (called out in note 02 & 03) shall be
inspected to confirm they have Y" minimum structural sheathing, if ool,
contractor to install the sheathing.
Front Elevation
1181,= F- 01,
MI
2itT- F?C1HEi 'LAY
CL
Z6'- 3" Ix
x4- .
max- bscl",
First Floor Plan
1/8„ =1,_ 0„
o z�
an
w
U
to
-3 0A�.;
48 . E 'y o
m
[C=n
i2.61. 0
C
PROJECT NO. 1001
v
U
a
n C
:rl i
b
a
P
pay b
v
rL�
U N
vi
lna 2010
page
Al
of 3
F -X., KONG fj GIFIMIIC)l
Right Side Elevation .Front Elevation - T WaL __
Left Side Elevation
1/8" = Z'- 0"
=TLntt rlo7�
1._Ex.WAi,L°s AKE SNTNJH_.:...� -
:A -,.MOKE
New First Floor Plan