BZA 09-17-13 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
September 17, 2013
3:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
1) Determination of a Quorum
2) Minutes of July 16, 2013
PUBLIC HEARING
3) Variance Request #04-13 of Bruce Johnson and Cynthia Steinkamp, submitted by
Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, PLC, for a 15 foot right side yard variance, resulting in a
35 foot right side setback for a single family dwelling. This property is located at the end of
a Cul-de-sac on Isaac Drive, southeast of Fletcher Drive, south of Northwestern Pike (U.S.
Route), and is identified with (Route 654), and is identified with Property Identification
Number 26-2-21 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
4) Variance Request #05-13 of Clark Neff, Jr., submitted by Pifer Construction, for a 14.9
foot left side yard variance, resulting in a 35.1 left side setback for an addition to a single
family dwelling. This property is located at 485 Lake Serene Drive in the Lake Serene
Subdivision, located off U.S. Route 522 North. The property is identified with Property
Identification Number 31B-1-42 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
5) Other
MINUTES FOR
THE
JULY 16, 2013
BZA MEETING
DRAFT
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1613
July 16, 2013
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 July 16, 2013.
PRESENT: Jay Givens, Chairman, Back Creek District; Gary Oates, Stonewall District; Eric Lowman, Red
Bud District; Bruce Carpenter, Gainesboro District; R. K. Shirley, III, Opequon District.
ABSENT: Kevin Scott, Vice Chairman, Shawnee District.
STAFF
PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector; and Pam Deeter;
Interim Secretary.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Chairman Givens. Chairman Givens stated that
Mr. Wells was appointed to the Board of Supervisor’s therefore the Board will be one short. Chairman
Givens determined there is a quorum present.
Chairman Givens led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Givens pointed out that Variance was misspelled twice in the minutes on the second
and third page under the header of Action and this needed to be corrected. On a motion made by Mr.
Oates and seconded by Mr. Lowman the minutes for May 21, 2013, to be adopted with the exception of
the two misspelled words. The minutes passed unanimously.
Chairman Givens asked Mr. Cheran if any applications had come in for the August meeting. Mr.
Cheran replied that the cut off is Friday, July 19. Chairman Givens stated he would be out of town for
the August meeting.
Chairman Givens stated at the last meeting the Vice Chairman position was postponed since Mr.
Scott was not in attendance. Ms. Dellinger contacted Mr. Scott and he is willing to fulfill the chair but
his work does take him away from the meeting sometimes. Chairman Givens opened the floor to
nomination for Vice Chairman. Mr. Oates asked the board members if they would be interested in the
Vice Chair because he would nominate them. Mr. Carpenter nominated Eric Lowman for Vice Chairman
and was seconded by Mr. Oates. The vote was unanimous to elect Mr. Lowman as Vice Chairman.
Chairman Givens opened the floor for nominations for Secretary because Ms. Dellinger has
retired effective June 30, 2013. Mr. Carpenter nominated Mrs. Deeter and it was seconded by Mr.
Oates. The vote was unanimous to elect Mrs. Deeter as Secretary.
DRAFT
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1614
July 16, 2013
PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal Application #03-13 of Mary Albaugh Good, who is appealing the decision
of the Zoning Administrator as to Chapter 165 Zoning, Part 702 FP Floodplain
Districts, under Section 165-702.10(A)(1) Permit and Application Requirement,
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is located at 120
Brush Creek Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 13-A-25A
in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Chairman Givens asked the petitioner Mary Albaugh Good to come to the podium and state her
name and address. Ms. Mary Albaugh Good was sworn in at this time.
Mary Good stated that FEMA has changed the Floodplain District. Ms. Good said when we
purchased the property on March 1, 2005, that the property was not in the floodplain. FEMA changed
the Floodplain District in 2010 because Brush Creek and Little Brush Creek come together. Ms. Good
says that the two creeks have not flooded for over 150 years or more. Several buildings on the property
have been there for over 200 years and are farm exempt which doesn’t require a permit. The newly
constructed building has only three sides and no electricity. This building was constructed by her sons
and they left clearance at the bottom so if there was a flood, water could run under the building. The
building is used for storage of farm equipment and hay.
John Trenary was called after the building was almost complete. Mr. Trenary and Mr. Cheran
visited the building and it was then determined that the structure would need to be moved. Mr.
Trenary said FEMA determines the floodplain.
A violation was filed against Mary Good for a structure in the floodplain. Mr. Johnston sent out
a notice of violation to Ms. Good.
Ms. Good has hired a land surveyor, Shannon Stotler. Mr. Stotler is licensed in the following
states: WV, VA, MD, and PA. Mr. Stotler also told her FEMA changes their maps all the time due to the
storms that move through the area. There is a way to override the Floodplain District. This form is
called the FEMA Calculization form, and Ms. Good is in the process of obtaining one. This form may
provide determination if the structure meets the FEMA guidelines.
Ms. Good contacted Mr. Johnston and wanted to postpone this meeting. The engineer and the
surveyor were both on vacation and since their return they have submitted the paperwork to FEMA.
They are waiting for FEMA to get the paperwork back to them. Ms. Good said their farm building would
not restrict any water if there was a flood. No water would dam up around the building because the
building is open at the bottom.
Chairman Givens asked if there was anyone to speak on her behalf. Ms. Good said no. Ms.
Good did say Mr. Hess visited the structure that afternoon.
DRAFT
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1615
July 16, 2013
Chairman Givens asked if there were any questions.
Ms. Good realizes that she should have contacted Mr. Trenary’s office first before building the
shed. Ms. Good’s son has put considerable amount of money and time into the structure. Making hay is
part of their livelihood as farmers. The roof that was put on the structure was to keep the farm
equipment out of the weather. No electricity will be run to this structure. The barn on the corner has
been there for more than 150 years and no flood has occurred. Ms. Good’s family has put lots of money
into the building and taking it down and rebuilding the structure would require money they don’t have.
If they have to take the building down and move it up the hill it will not be safe for the farm equipment.
Mr. Oates said that FEMA is a federal agency and we can’t regulate them. Mr. Oates agrees
with Ms. Good that there should be a farm exemption. The County adopted the state code which the
County was forced to adopt. The code doesn’t have a farm exemption so Ms. Good is appealing the
decision of the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Cheran, that the building is in a floodplain. Mr. Oates asked
Ms. Good if she suggested that the County table the item because she is waiting for the paperwork to
come back from FEMA. Ms. Good is waiting for the FEMA’s calculization form stating she has met FEMA
requirements which included safety and that water won’t be damming at the structure. Mr. Oates
thinks she is waiting on a LOMAR. Ms. Good wanted to know if the County could override the FEMA
decision. She stated that FEMA is Federal Government. When she receives the calculization form back
from FEMA; then submits the form to the County the problem should be resolved. Mr. Oates asked Mr.
Cheran if Ms. Good sends the form back to the County, would this take care of the violation? Mr.
Cheran said yes this would resolve the problem.
Ms. Good has put out money for the building as well as $300.00 for the appeal and she will only
get $50.00 for the return of the sign. Ms. Good is looking for a solution and she takes responsibility for
not calling Mr. Trenary, the building official. Ms. Good is not sure who filed the complaint and why. Mr.
Stotler was not aware that FEMA expanded the floodplain. In order to change the floodplain on an
individual property, the landowner can get a calculization form and submit the form to FEMA for their
review.
Ms. Good said that FEMA is working on this form and that it should be received back soon which
is why she was asking for postponement until next month. Mr. Oates said we could table the item for 30
or 60 days. Ms. Good would like 60 days just in case there is a delay.
Mr. Carpenter hypothetically asked Mr. Cheran if the new structure was attached to an old
building would the same rule apply and would this be exempt? Mr. Cheran answered with yes the same
rules would apply. Mr. Carpenter asked if there is a no existing structure clause? Mr. Cheran said no.
Chairman Givens would like to hear the County’s position. Then complete the hearing and have
a discussion.
Chairman Given’s asked Rod Williams, County Attorney to come forward. Mr. Williams said that
Ms. Good is not disputing the facts but he will state the County information so it can be put on record
for this case. Then the Board could ask questions or continue the matter. Mr. Williams points out the
structure cannot be built in the floodplain according to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The
structure has to be flood proof, this does not mean just the obstruction of the flow of water. The
structure has to be proven to be safe in the time of flooding.
DRAFT
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1616
July 16, 2013
Mr. Cheran, the Zoning Administrator, is the person to interpret the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Williams is asking Mr. Cheran to answer a few questions. Mr. Williams asked Chairman Given’s to swear
Mr. Cheran in before he starts proceeding with questions.
Mr. Cheran, the Zoning Administrator, was sworn in by Mr. Given’s the Chairman. Mr. Williams
asked Mr. Cheran to state his name and his title. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Cheran if he was familiar with
the property. Mr. Cheran stated yes. Is the property located at 120 Brush Creek Road? Mr. Cheran’s
response was yes. Mr. Williams asked if this property is located in Frederick County. Mr. Cheran’s
response was yes. Mr. Williams asked if the tax map number is 13-A-25A, Mr. Cheran said yes sir. Mr.
Williams wanted to know how Mr. Cheran became familiar with the property? Mr. Cheran said that Ms.
Good wanted to get an ag exempt building so she contacted the building official and he looked it up and
building official said it was ok for ag exempt. The Building Official realized it was in the floodplain and
wanted to know if the Zoning Department would allow an ag exempt building in the floodplain. The
Building official referred this matter to Mr. Cheran and they looked it up together on the tax map. It was
determined that the structure was in the floodplain. The Building Official and Mr. Cheran met with Ms.
Good on her property and addressed the issue of the floodplain. Mr. Cheran said that is how he
became aware of the problem. At the time of this meeting the structure was being constructed in the
floodplain by our maps.
Mr. Williams put an aerial location map on the screen and asked Mr. Cheran if this is the
violation property. Mr. Cheran indicated that this is the correct property. Mr. Cheran indicated on the
map as to where Ms. Good’s property is outlined in black. Mr. Cheran indicated the floodplain is in blue
for Frederick County. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Cheran to be specific as to where the structure is. The
structure is located between two roads Brush Creek Road and Howard Chapel Road. Mr. Cheran
indicated on the map as to where the structure was built. Mr. Williams said let the record show that Mr.
Cheran circled an area of Brush Creek Road and Howard Chapel Road and intersecting with Siler Road.
Mr. Williams asked if the map that is on the screen is a true and correct document used by the Planning
Department. Mr. Cheran answered yes.
Mr. Williams asked if a notice of violation was sent to Ms. Good. Mr. Cheran answered yes; a
copy of the violation is in the file. Mr. Williams wanted to know if the letter dated May 17, 2013, that is
with the agenda package is this the same letter of violation. Mr. Cheran responded yes. Is this a true
and correct copy of the letter of violation? Mr. Cheran responded yes sir. How would Ms. Good correct
this violation? Mr. Cheran said she would need to get a LOMAR through FEMA or a Floodplain Elevation
showing the property is not in floodplain area. The County keeps all the LOMARS submitted to us from
FEMA on file in our office and she would be ok to keep the structure. That can be done for any property
in the County that is in the floodplain. Mr. Cheran also said that if Ms. Good would ever sell the
property the floodplain should be disclosed to the buyer. The buyer could come to the Zoning
Department and we would show them the FEMA information. Mr. Williams asked who would prepare a
Floodplain Elevation? Mr. Cheran responded that a certified engineer or surveyor in the state of
Virginia.
Mr. Cheran testified about the letter of violation and Mr. Williams addressed Chairman Givens
to make the letter of violation part of the record since it is in the agenda package. Chairman Givens
gave his approval.
DRAFT
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1617
July 16, 2013
Mr. Williams introduced another witness Mr. Patrick Fly with the GIS Department of Frederick
County. Patrick Fly was sworn in by Chairman Givens.
Mr. Fly was asked by Mr. Williams if he was familiar with the map on the screen and to explain.
Mr. Fly said the blue outline is the floodplain and the black outline is Ms. Good’s property. Mr. Williams
presented the question to Mr. Fly if his department maintains the data and software to create these
maps? Mr. Fly’s response was yes. How would you go about creating a map with the floodplain on it?
Mr. Fly said FEMA provides the County with floodplain maps and the data is dropped into our County
mapping software and a layer is created for floodplain. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Fly if this is a true and
correct copy of where a floodplain is shown that is created by the GIS Dept. of Frederick County? Yes
was Mr. Fly’s response based on the data provided by FEMA. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Fly if it is the
ordinary course for the GIS Dept. to create these documents? Again Mr. Fly replied yes.
Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Cheran and Mr. Fly have verified the map and relevant information
would like the admission of that document. Mr. Williams will try to get a copy of the map to the Board
that outlines the floodplain area and Ms. Good’s property. Chairman Given’s so ordered the admission
of the document.
Chairman Given’s wanted to know if the Board could ask Mr. Fly questions. Chairman Given’s
wanted to know if the floodplain changes on a regular basis? Mr. Fly said the last changes were in 2009
or 2010 and there were major changes to the County. Chairman Given’s asked will they do this again or
is it random? Based on an engineered survey a citizen can petition FEMA to make changes per Mr. Fly.
As far as FEMA changes they are not made too often. Mr. Fly thinks the last major update was in the
late 70’s but not sure.
Mr. Carpenter said if there hasn’t been a flood for 100 to 150 years what criteria does FEMA
have to change this area to a floodplain? Mr. Fly has no knowledge of how FEMA determines their
criteria.
Chairman Given’s has a question for Mr. Cheran. It is my understanding that your office has just
started addressing the violations that are in the floodplain? Mr. Cheran’s response is yes. Mr. Cheran
states that the County was going by the 1978 maps. The County didn’t update maps since 1978. Then
the change came out from FEMA in 2009 or 2010. Mr. Cheran, Mr. Fly, and Mr. Trenary met with The
Department of Environment Resources and FEMA because the three of them would need to address any
structure in the floodplain.
Chairman Given’s is expressing his understanding to Mr. Cheran that the main reason of the
violation is the obstruction of the waterway. This particular structure is a barn with no electricity and
does not pose a safety concern. If the County receives a FEMA Calculization form, would this be
resolved? Mr. Cheran said yes.
Chairman Given’s says he sees the problem with the violation is the 30 days to resolve the issue.
The 30 days starts from the date of the violation letter and not from the meeting date. Maybe Ms. Good
needs another 30 days from the meeting. The County can’t do anything until we receive notification
from FEMA. Is this correct? That is correct per Mr. Cheran
DRAFT
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1618
July 16, 2013
Ms. Good protected her rights by appealing within the 30 day period to the BZA and if she had
not appealed to the BZA the County would be going to the General District Court for resolution.
Mr. Williams clarifies if the BZA affirms the Zoning Administrator’s decision today; the clock will
start today and will lead to some other decisions that will need to be made. The County will need to
seek enforcement in General District Court. Mr. Cheran is not obligated to do so ASAP but there is a
statute of limitation. Mr. Williams is not sure of the actual date of violation so he is not sure when the
time expires. Mr. Williams says should the BZA rule against Ms. Good, and if Ms. Good wants to seek
further resolution in the court system she has only 30 days to appeal to the Circuit Court. The County
doesn’t want to put Ms. Good in a situation where she has to seek further resolution. If Ms. Good can
get the FEMA calculization form, which she has described previously that would be the reasonable
resolution to this violation.
Mr. Williams doesn’t think the members of the Board would want to come back in 30 or 60 days
and hear that the issue is resolved or not resolved. Then at that time the Board would have to make a
decision. Mr. Williams suggested that if we delay the decision it would give FEMA some time to process
the forms. Again, Mr. Williams can’t speak for Ms. Good but this would buy her time.
Mr. Williams answered Chairman Givens question.
Mr. Carpenter posed a question, besides the Board possibly giving Ms. Good time, does this
Board have no appeal rights over FEMA. Then since the County is governed by Fed’s the County has no
right? Mr. Williams said that is correct the BZA powers are limited. The Board is to make sure the
Zoning Administrator’s ruling and his interpretation of a violation is a correct decision. The BZA Board
has no power to over-rule County, State Law and Federal Law.
Mr. Williams needed Mr. Cheran to clarify LOMAR that way it will complete the record. Mr.
Williams assumes LOMAR is an acronym. Mr. Cheran states that the LOMAR is looking to change the
water course in a floodplain.
The public hearing was opened by Chairman Givens for citizen comments. No one came
forward to speak and Chairman Givens closed the public comments portion of the hearing.
Ms. Good had a question. She wasn’t sure if she had 30 or 60 days. Chairman Givens said that is
for the Board to discuss. Ms. Good preferred the longer period of 60 days over 30 days. Ms. Good’s
other question is if she gets the paperwork soon who should get the paperwork Mr. Johnston or Mr.
Cheran. Chairman Givens said to bring it to the Zoning Department and Mr. Cheran will notify the
Board.
Mr. Oates stated since Ms. Good appealed the decision she would have to voluntarily withdraw
her complaint. Mr. Cheran concurred with that. Then Mr. Cheran would advise the Board.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Givens asked would we postpone or table either one. The question is tabling action
and postponing action are they one of the same. Mr. Oates responded they are one of the same. The
Board agreed with Mr. Oates.
DRAFT
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1619
July 16, 2013
Mr. Oates responded if a motion is made to table there will be no discussion of the matter. Chairman
Givens states if we have a motion, I think we need to put a time frame on the issue. Mr. Oates is
suggesting 60 days.
Are there any more comments responded Chairman Givens before we make a motion to table
the matter. Mr. Shirley asked what if FEMA doesn’t approve that structure requirements and is there
anything else the Board can do? Mr. Lowman responded that the Board would meet again and make a
decision on whether the Mr. Cheran’s decision is valid. If the Board tables the matter or not, Mr.
Willams, would like to have the opportunity to come back and make a closing statement on behalf of
the County.
Chairman Given’s states if FEMA denies her application, we could just say that the Zoning
Administrator was either right or wrong with his interpretation. The Zoning Administrator cannot
change what the County code states.
Mr. Carpenter made the motion to postpone for 60 days so Ms. Good would have time to
receive the paperwork back from FEMA before a decision will be made.
There was a unanimous vote to table or postpone the application for 60 days.
OTHER
There being no further business Mr. Oates moved to adjourn and Mr. Carpenter seconded
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
James Givens, Chairman
______________________________
Pamala Deeter, Secretary
VARIANCE REQUEST #04-13
OF
BRUCE JOHNSON
AND
CYNTHIA STEINKAMP
VARIANCE APPLICATION #04-13
BRUCE JOHNSON & CYNTHIA STEINKAMP
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: September 3, 2013
Staff Contact: Mark 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:
September 17, 2013 – Pending
LOCATION: The subject property is located at the end of Cul-de-sac on Isaac Drive, southeast of
Fletcher Drive, south of Northwestern Pike (U.S. Route 50).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 26-2-21
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Lake Isaac
East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
The applicant is requesting a 15 foot right side yard variance, resulting in a 35 foot right side setback
for a single family dwelling.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: 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 (Agricultural
General) District to the current RA (Rural Areas) District. The Frederick County Board of
Variance #04-13 – Bruce Johnson & Cynthia Steinkamp
September 3, 2013
Page 2
Supervisors amended the setbacks for the RA (Rural Areas) 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.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has applied for a variance to construct a single-family
dwelling. The property cannot meet the current setbacks associated with the RA (Rural Areas)
District. The applicant is requesting a variance of 15 feet on the right side property line from the
current 50 foot setback side requirement of the RA (Rural Areas) District. This variance, if granted,
would result in a 35 foot right side yard setback.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 MEETING: The property cannot
meet the current setbacks associated with the RA (Rural Areas) District. The applicant is requesting
a variance of 15 feet on the right side property line from the current 50 foot setback side requirement
of the RA (Rural Areas) District. This variance, if granted, would result in a 35 foot right side
setback. 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 a substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the
character of the district will not be changed by the variance. It appears that this variance meets the
intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 (2). This request from the current setbacks of the
RA (Rural Areas) District may be justified.
FLETCH
E
R
R
D
K
E
N
D
A
L
L
D
R
B
R
Y
C
E
C
T
ISA
A
C
D
R
FloodZoneA
26 23 26
26 23 27
26 23 28
26 23 29
26 23 30A
26 23 31
26 23 32
26 23 30
26 2 16
26 2 17
26 23 33
26 2 18
26 2 19
26 2 2A
26 2 20
26 2 21
26 2 22
26 A 22A
26 A 19B
26 A 22
26 2 3
26 2 2
26 2 23
26 2 126 A 39F
26 A 24A
26 A 24B
VAR0413
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: August 27, 2013Staff: mcheran
FLETCH
E
R
R
D
HOLLOW RD
PARI
S
H
V
I
L
L
E
R
D
HOLLOW RDHOLLOW RD
VAR # 04 - 13Bruce Johnson and Cynthia SteinkampPINs:26 - 2 - 21Variance 15' right side yard
VAR # 04 - 13Bruce Johnson and Cynthia SteinkampPINs:26 - 2 - 21Variance 15' right side yard
0 290 580145 Feet
VARIANCE REQUEST #05-13
OF
CLARK NEFF, JR.
VARIANCE APPLICATION #05-13
CLARK NEFF, JR.
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: August 28, 2013
Staff Contact: Mark 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:
September 17, 2013 – Pending
LOCATION: The property is located at 485 Lake Serene Drive in the Lake Serene Subdivision.
Take 522 North, turn right onto Cedar Grove Road (Route 654), left onto Saint Clair Road (Route
677), and left toward Lake Serene Drive.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 31B-1-42
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Lake
South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant
East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
The applicant is requesting a 14.9 foot left side yard variance, resulting in a 35.1 foot left side yard
setback for an addition to a single family dwelling.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: 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 (Agricultural
Variance #05-13 – Clark Neff, Jr.
Page 2
August 28, 2013
Limited) District to the current RA (Rural Areas) District. The Frederick County Board of
Supervisors amended the setbacks for the RA (Rural Areas) 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.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has applied for a variance to construct an addition to an
existing dwelling. The property cannot meet the current setbacks associated with the RA (Rural
Areas) District. The applicant is requesting a variance of 14.9 feet on the left side property line from
the current 50 foot setback side requirement of the RA (Rural Areas) District. This variance, if
granted, would result in a 35.1 foot left side yard setback.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 MEETING:
The Code of Virginia 1950 as amended 15.2-2309(2) and Section 165-1001.2(C) of the Frederick
County 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 a substantial detriment to adjacent property, and the
character of the district will not be changed by the variance. This proposed variance does not meet
the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 (2) or Section 165-1001.2 (2) of Frederick
County. Therefore, this request for a variance from the current setbacks of the RA (Rural Areas)
District may not be justified.
LAKE SERENE DR
FloodZoneA
31 A 79
31B 1 B
31 A 81
31 A 80
31 A 82
31B 1 42
31B 1 40 31B 1 41
31B 1 38
31B 139A
31B 1 39
31 A 9931B 1 19
31B 1 18
VAR0513
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: August 27, 2013Staff: mcheran
CED
A
R
G
R
O
V
E
R
D
VAR # 05 - 13Clark Neff JrPINs:31B - 1 - 42Variance 14.9 foot left side
VAR # 05 - 13Clark Neff JrPINs:31B - 1 - 42Variance 14.9 foot left side
0 110 22055 Feet