BZA 03-16-21 Meeting Agenda1.Call to Order
2.Determination of a Quorum
3.Meeting Minutes
3.A.Minutes of January 19, 2021
4.Public Hearings
4.A.Variance #01-21 for Randy S. Kelly
Submitted for a 30-foot front yard variance to a required 60-foot front yard setback
which will result in a 30-foot front yard setback, and a 24-foot left and right-side yard
variance to a required 50-foot side yard setback which will result in a 26-foot left and
right-side yard setback for a single-family dwelling. This property is located in the
Highview Manor Subdivision, on Meadow Way in Winchester and is identified with
Property Identification Number 60A-2B-A-32 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
4.B.Variance #02-21 for Gerald and Linda Aronovitch
Submitted for a 50-foot rear yard variance to a required 100-foot rear yard setback
which will result in a 50-foot rear yard setback, and a 50-foot right side yard variance to
a required 100-foot right side yard setback which will result in a 50-foot right side yard
setback for a single-family dwelling. The property is located in the Flint Ridge
Subdivision and is accessed off of Fodder Court and is identified with Property
Identification Number 39-A-85C in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
5.Other
AGENDA
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2021
3:30 PM
THE BOARD ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
BZA03-16-21MeetingMinutesJanuary21.pdf
BZA03-16-21VAR01-21.pdf
BZA03-16-21VAR02-21.pdf
1
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: March 16, 2021
Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes
Title: Minutes of January 19, 2021
Attachments:
BZA03-16-21MeetingMinutesJanuary21.pdf
2
Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 1811
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 January 19, 2021.
PRESENT: Eric Lowman, Chairman, Red Bud District; Kevin Scott, Vice-Chairman, Shawnee
District; Reginald Shirley III, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Dwight
Shenk, Gainesboro District; John Cline, Stonewall District and Ronald Madagan, Member at
Large.
ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Roderick Williams, Frederick
County Attorney and Pamala Deeter, BZA Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lowman at 3:30 p.m. and he determined there is a
quorum.
Chairman Lowman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
On a motion made by Mr. Cline and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the minutes for the December 15,
2020 meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS
Mr. Cheran came forward to open the floor for nominations for Chairman. Mr. Rinker made a
motion to nominate Mr. Lowman and Mr. Cline seconded the motion. The floor was closed for
nominations. The vote was unanimous for Mr. Lowman as Chairman.
Mr. Cheran opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Rinker made a motion to
nominate Mr. Scott and Mr. Cline seconded the motion. The floor was closed for nominations.
The vote was unanimous for Mr. Scott as Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Cheran opened the floor for nominations for Secretary. Vice-Chairman Scott made a motion
to nominate Mrs. Deeter and Mr. Lowman seconded the motion. The floor was closed for
nominations. The vote was unanimous for Mrs. Deeter as Secretary.
Mr. Cheran stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals has met at 3:30 p.m. on the third Tuesday of
the month.
3
Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 1812
Mr. Scott made a motion to keep the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting time at 3:30 p.m., on the
third Tuesday of the month. Mr. Rinker seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.
Chairman Lowman asked if anyone had questions on the Adoption of the Bylaws. On a motion
by Mr. Shirley and seconded by Mr. Madagan the Bylaws was approved. The vote was
unanimous.
Chairman Lowman inquired if there are any applications for February Mr. Cheran stated no, the
cutoff date is Friday, January 22, 2021.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowman read the request for Appeal Request #11-20 of Bryan M. Henry, submitted
by Aristotelis A. Chronis, Esq., with Chronis, LLC., to appeal the notice of violation issued by
the Zoning Administrator, dated August 11, 2020. The property is located at 639 Reliance Road,
Middletown, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification Number 91-A-77 in the
Opequon Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran came forward to present the Staff report. Mr. Cheran stated this is an appeal due to the
determination of the zoning administer of a violation to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
Staff stated the property is zoned RA (Rural Areas) and adjoining properties are the same. Staff
presented a map outlining the property. Staff received a complaint and next Staff did an inspection
of the property and issued a violation letter for running an excavating business and storing of
equipment at this RA location. Under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Section 165-401.02
Permitted uses, within the RA Zoning District the excavating business and storing of equipment is
not permitted.
Staff mentioned that the Frederick County does allow excavating businesses to operate in the B3
(Industrial Transition), M1 (Light Industrial), and M2 (General Industrial) Zoning Districts. The
remedy of this violation would be that the property owner moves the business to a B3, M1, or a
M2 District.
Mr. Cheran concluded with requesting the Board affirm the decision of Zoning Administrator that
the excavating business use is operating illegally. The excavating company is not a permitted use
within the RA District. He concluded that this use shall be discontinued and removed from the
property.
Staff stated that representing the County is Roderick Williams, County Attorney, and the property
owner, Mr. Henry, is represented by Mr. Chronis.
Mr. Chronis came forward and presented background information. Mr. Henry has operated
his business at this location since November 2005. Mr. Henry was a tenant and then purchased
the property. Going forward, in December 2017 the Applicant applied for a CUP (Conditional Use
Permit) for a landscaping, contracting, and mulching business. Mr. Henry went to the Planning
Commission and was recommended approval and the Board of Supervisors denied the CUP.
During the process for the CUP, several inspections were done by County agencies and also aerial
4
Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 1813
photos show exactly the same thing as today. No inspector mentioned anything about a violation.
Mr. Chronis states that the property is still in the same condition as it was in 2018 and yet no
mention of a violation to Mr. Henry. Mr. Chronis comments that Planning Dept. staff issued a
favorable remark in the staff report the was presented to PC and BOS. Mr. Chronis states that an
inspection by the Zoning Department was done and no violation was mentioned to the Applicant.
Now, in the summer of 2020 a compliant was called in and a violation letter was sent out. The
Zoning Department is citing Mr. Henry for the illegal storage facility and illegal excavating
business. The Applicant has remained in this location with the same business for 15 years and
pays County taxes and is just now getting a violation letter.
Mr. Chronis read the Section 15.2-2311C of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Chronis mentioned that his client is only parking vehicles. Mr. Chronis compared his
client’s equipment as to a farmer with equipment on his farm. There is very little traffic only when
his employees come to work and park their vehicles and leave in a company vehicle, and then
coming back to retrieve their personal vehicles in the evening. Mr. Henry is not disturbing the
neighbors. In regard to the photos, you can’t tell that a business is being run on 70 plus acres of
land. Mr. Chronis states that his client has letters from his neighbors supporting his business.
Mr. Chronis states that the only issue that Zoning Department has is the parking. Mr. Henry
is now aware that he needs to operate in a certain district but that is hard to locate.
The Applicant, Mr. Brain Henry came forward. Mr. Henry gave his version of the history
of his property. Mr. Henry leased 73 acres of property Nov. 5, 2005 from Mr. Blackwell and Mr.
Lowenstein. The property owners let me run my business from this location. In the years of leasing
the property, he didn’t have any complaints from the neighbors or the County. The property owner
approached me in 2016 to purchase the property. The first time I received a formal letter from the
County was August 11, 2020 that I was in violation of zoning ordinance. When I investigated
further, that Mr. Molden and Jeramiah Cameron had filed a complaint. I have spoken to the
neighbors in the area and most neighbors were unaware that I had a business there and they
reassured me that I have not been a nuisance to them. Mr. Henry has signed affidavit from the
neighbor showing support.
Mr. Henry believed that the problem is excavating. Mr. Henry’s company is not the usual
excavating company. His company installs fiber optic in Maryland, Northern Virginia, and D.C.
Mr. Henry mentioned if it is a big job, we rent equipment and it is delivered at the project
site. When the project is completed, we either return the equipment to the rental place or we move
it to another job site. Mr. Henry expressed, his employees come to this location and park their
vehicles on property such as F150 because they are not allowed to park the vehicles on the streets.
The employees leave in a company vehicle and commute to a job site and return to pick up personal
vehicles there. Mr. Henry said there are some materials stored at this address, but they are out of
site of the public and are used when needed.
Mr. Henry said he has looked at other properties with the correct zoningzoning, but they
are very limited and not affordable. Mr. Henry mentioned he has 15 employees and he pays his
5
Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 1814
taxes. Mr. Henry asked the Board to allow him to park the vehicles at the Reliance Road address.
Mr. Rod Williams, County Attorney came forward, and said that Mr. Chronis is basing his
case on Section 15.2-2311C. Mr. Williams explained that Code section and that particular section
requires some written order, requirement, decision, or a determination by the Zoning Administrator
or other administrative officer. Mr. Williams noted that there has been nothing in writing. Mr.
Williams proceeded with the staff report of the 2018 CUP. In that staff report, there is no mention
of excavating in the writing. The Applicant perceived that being silent constitutes something in
writing The County has nothing in writing stating the applicant could operate an excavating
company from that address. Mr. Henry should have inquired with the Planning Department to get
something in writing, which is his responsibility.
The County Attorney presented the Norfolk 102 case.
Mr. Williams clarified that the Building Official came out to inspect that is correct, but the
building official cannot enforce the zoning ordinance. The only people that can enforce the
Ordinance are Mr. Cheran, Zoning Administrator and Mr. Burke the Zoning Inspector.
The County Attorney said that we can’t go and get tax information because that is
confidential by tax statute and is not allowed to be given out so there is nothing in writing. Again,
the only thing we can verify is that there is a business at this location.
Next point for Mr. Williams is parking. If they can’t park along the street, that doesn’t
make it ok to park on the 639 Reliance Road property either. Also, the State Corporation
Commission has the B & D Excavating listed at the 639 Reliance Rd address. One photo shows
that there is more than a F150 Truck at that property.
Mr. Williams states, you should uphold the Zoning Administrator decision.
Discussion
Chairman Lowman asked if there are any questions for Mr. Williams or Mr. Cheran.
Mr. Madagan has a question for Mr. Cheran. The Building Official can’t make a decision
about Zoning. Mr. Cheran stated no. Mr. Madagan clarified that violations are only on a
complaint basis. Mr. Cheran stated that is correct.
Mr. Rinker asked could the Applicant come back in and apply for a CUP again. Mr. Cheran
replied yes, but not for excavating.
Mr. Shenk questioned could we extend him time to find a location or he could apply for a
CUP? Mr. Cheran stated that we have allowed Mr. Henry time from August 11, 2020 until now.
Vice-Chairman Scott asked what Mr. Henry’s options are. Mr. Cheran replied if we allow
him to come in compliance, we have a year to act on this matter. The year started at the date of
letter. The other option is the Board upholds my decision and the Applicant has 30 days to relocate
6
Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 1815
the
business to one of the Districts we talked about. Now if the Applicant comes in for a CUP, which
he can do, but there is no excavating allowed in this zoning district.
Mr. Rinker clarified if we uphold Mr. Cheran’s decision, the Applicant can go to the Circuit
Court? Mr. Cheran said that is correct.
Mr. Shirley questioned Mr. Henry, when you made the purchase did you contact Planning
Department to see you could operate a business on the property. Mr. Henry replied no.
Mr. Madagan commented that his uncle lives across the road on 100 some acre tract and
has never complained to him.
Mr. Chronis stated, his client would not go the route of a CUP again for several reasons.
Even if he did, he still would not be able to have parking of vehicles. Mr. Chronis expressed that
off-street parking is allowed in this district according to the Ordinance. Now if you are talking
storage, I can’t understand because this is the RA District and this District is for agricultural.
Surely, the farmers would need storage. Mr. Chronis noted that storage should be an allowed use
for the farmers in the District. Mr. Chronis thinks that the problem is the B & D Excavating
signage on the truck. The business isn’t creating any traffic problems or any intense land use issue.
Mr. Chronis presented the aerial photo from the CUP staff report in 2018. If you compare
the 2018 to the 2020 photos you can see that it is the same buildings on the property as well as
other items on the property. The Attorney states this is a non-conforming violation and when my
client applied for the CUP the zoning department made a visit to the property and didn’t make my
client aware of violation.
Mr. Chronis presented to the Board a plat, staff report from CUP, Google map from 2018,
and neighbors’ statements.
Chairman Lowman needed clarification, that in December 2017 Mr. Henry applied for a
CUP. Then Planning Staff visited the property. Next the CUP went to the PC and then to Board
of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors denied the CUP on February 28, 2018. The Applicant
has been operating in violation of the ordinance from the time he was denied by the Board of
Supervisors in 2018 until the violation letter of August 11, 2020. Mr. Cheran replied, that is the
correct timeframe of which Mr. Henry was illegally operating his business. Mr. Henry stated, he
stores items on property such as Fiber Optic. Staff continued, by saying the Google maps are a
certain period of time. Mr. Cheran mentioned that once an application is submitted the Applicant
will need to appear in front of the Board for public hearing. Staff goes and looks at property and
the PC member could visit the site as well. Mr. Cheran stated that the County only works on
complaint bases. A formal violation was submitted to the County. Upon the investigation of the
complaint when staff arrived at the location, staff noticed vehicles were coming to the property to
park and as well as storage of equipment. Again, Mr. Henry stated that his employees come there
to park.
Chairman Lowman mentioned that Mr. Henry had almost two years after his CUP was
7
Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 1816
denied He continued operating because at that point the County had no official complaint. Mr.
Henry had a choice at that time to relocate the business after BOS decision, but he chose to operate
the business and he received two years of revenue.
The County Attorney had an objection as to the aerial photos. Mr. Cheran didn’t create
the photo, but the photos does show there are some vehicles on the property. Mr. Williams stated
we don’t have any idea as to what day or who took the photos of the property. We could only use
the photos as a reference. For the Applicant to say, the County knew something was going on and
that constitutes a determination it is not.
Mr. Chronis came forward to state the photos was taken from Frederick County GIS
mapping. Mr. Cheran would have to review the photos before presenting them to PC or BOS. Mr.
Chronis suggested that Staff just turned their heads to the violation. Mr. Chronis remarked, a
County employee comes to the property, they can’t say that today I am a code enforcer, or I am
administrator giving CUP favorable report. Mr. Chronis expressed, the County was aware
something was going on after all the neighbors attended the BOS meeting on February 28, 2018.
The County Planning Department didn’t act on this matter until August 2020.
Mr. Williams approached and mentioned he doesn’t see a favorable recommendation in the
staff report that Mr. Chronic keeps speaking of. The only thing I see in the staff report is under the
section Planning and Zoning. Mr. Williams read this proposed use will take place on a 73-acre
tract of land which is located in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. A landscaping contacting
business is an allowed use within the RA Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use
Permit. End of the staff report lists the conditions that the Applicant has agreed to. This favorable
recommendation is just an opinion of the Applicant.
Mr. Williams remarked that Mr. Chronis said the conditions that were in staff report were
such as the number of vehicles the Applicant. Mr. Williams stated in the conditions, I can’t find
the word vehicle or automobile or any word referring to vehicles
Mr. Williams states, once the appeal goes to Circuit Court, it doesn’t automatically stay
further enforcement action. The Circuit Court could elect to stay further enforcement action. The
Circuit Court could elect to stay an enforced action pending resolution.
Vice Chairman mentioned, if we uphold Mr. Cheran decision could the Board add a clause
giving the Applicant time to come in compliance with violation or move his business to another
location.
County Attorney replied, I believe that could be done but he would have to check. Mr.
Williams cautioned the Board that if were give an extension, he would like the extension date
before the notice of violation expires.
Mr. Madagan asked Mr. Shenk if the Board gave him a continuous extension on his own
property and Mr. Shenk said yes. Vice-Chairman Scott mentioned that Mr. Shenk was a variance
not an appeal.
8
Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 1817
Mr. Rinker clarified that variances and appeals, after coming to the Board of Zoning
Appeals, have 30 days to file with the Circuit Court. Mr. Cheran replied that is correct. Mr. Rinker
questioned we are here about a decision the zoning administrator made and we either uphold the
decision or not. I don’t think we can put an extension on this appeal.
Mr. Rinker asked what’s the time frame for the Circuit Court system to hear a case? Mr.
Williams replied in normal conditions six months to a year. Mr. Williams mentioned that no jury
trials have been heard since last spring and the courts are waiting for a plan as to the safety of
jurors from the Supreme Court of Virginia after the Courts receive the safety plan it will be difficult
to schedule a date to appear for non-jury cases.
Chairman Lowman ask is there anyone here to speak for or against the appeal. No one
came forward.
Public Hearing Closed
Mr. Shirley feels empathy for the Applicant, but it also comes back to him that he should
have checked the zoning on the property before purchasing. Mr. Shirley doesn’t think extending
the time frame will make a difference because the court system is backlogged.
Chairman Lowman comment that Board has been supplied with documentation to make a
decision on Mr. Cheran’s interpretation. Chairman Lowman stated I am inclined to extend the
time frame for the Applicant; that way he can decide what his course of action will be. Mr.
Williams suggested 90 days, but I think 30 days is not enough so 60 days to come in compliance
or may have to relocate business.
Mr. Shirley made a motion to uphold the Zoning Administrator decision with extending
for 60 days before taking further enforcement on the violation and was seconded by Mr. Shenk.
The vote was unanimous.
On a motion made by Mr. Rinker to adjourn meeting and seconded by Mr. Cline 4:55.
_________________________
Eric Lowman, Chairman
_________________________
Pamala Deeter, Secretary
9
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: March 16, 2021
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Variance #01-21 for Randy S. Kelly
Attachments:
BZA03-16-21VAR01-21.pdf
10
VARIANCE APPLICATION #01-21
RANDY S. KELLY
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared March 4, 2021
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:
March 16, 2021
Public Hearing; Action Pending
LOCATION: The property is located in the High View Manor Subdivision, on Meadow Way in
Winchester.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 60A-2B-A-32
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant
South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant
East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant
West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant
VARIANCE REQUESTED: The Applicant is requesting a 30-foot front yard variance to a required
60-foot front yard setback which will result in a 30-foot front yard setback, and a 24-foot left and right
side yard variance to a required 50-foot left and right side yard setback which will result in a 26-foot
left and right side yard setback, for a single family dwelling.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: The property cannot meet the current setbacks due to the size of the
property and location of the dwelling.
STAFF COMMENTS: This property is part of the High View Manor Subdivision that was created
in 1962. This subdivision does not have Building Restriction Lines (BRL) assigned to it and would
have to meet the current RA (Rural Areas) District setbacks. The Frederick County historical zoning
11
Variance #01-21 – Randy S. Kelly
Page 2
March 4, 2021
map shows this property as being zoned A-1 (Agricultural Limited) in 1967. The property setback
lines at the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance 35-feet for the front, 15-feet for the side yards and 50-
feet for the rear yard. Frederick County amended its Ordinance in 1989 to change the A-1 Zoning
District to the 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 for the front, 50-feet to the rear, and 50-feet left and right-side yard.
The Applicant is requesting a variance of 30-feet from the required 60-foot front yard setback
resulting in a 30-foot front yard setback. A 24-foot left and right-side variance from the required 50-
foot left and right-side yard setback resulting in a 26-foot left and right-side yard setback, to
construct a single-family dwelling.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MARCH 16, 2021 MEETING:
The Code of Virginia 15.2-2309 (2) and Code of Frederick 165-1001.2, states that no variance shall
be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements:
1) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith.
2) The granting of the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjoining property or
nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area.
3) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring as to
make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an
amendment to the ordinance.
4) The granting of the variance does not result in a use that is otherwise permitted on such
property or a change in the zoning classification of the property.
5) The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a special exception or
the process for modification of a zoning ordinance.
This proposed variance appears to be consistent with the character of the District; and meets the
intent of The Code of Virginia 15.2309 (2) and the Code of Frederick County. This request from the
current setbacks of the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District may be justified.
12
60A 2B A 32
2777WARDENSVILLE GR
134FLEGAL LN
115MEADOWWAY
113MEADOWWAY
107MEADOWWAY
105MEADOWWAY
103MEADOWWAY
117GLENRIDGE RD
W A R D E N S V IL L E G RMEADOW WAYApplication
Parcels µ
Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: February 22, 2021WARDENSVILLE GRMANOR DRFLEGAL LNMEADOW WAYGREENWAY CT
0 100 20050 Feet
VAR #01-21
VAR # 01 - 21: Randy S. KellyPIN: 60A - 2B - A - 3230' Front Yard Variance and 24' Left and Right Side Yard VariancesLocation Map
13
14
15
16
17
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
theBZA.
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.
/ / 1
SIGNATURE OF APPLICAN T __ �---�--/r!_b ___ lJt _________
DATE :2 .... I?'°-;)..OJ..,/
-OFFICE USE ONLY-
BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF ACTION: ---------------D APPROVAL D DENIAL
SIGNED:
DATE: ---------
-DATE-
BZA CHAIRMAN
11
01-21
18
19
20
21
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: March 16, 2021
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Variance #02-21 for Gerald and Linda Aronovitch
Attachments:
BZA03-16-21VAR02-21.pdf
22
VARIANCE APPLICATION #02-21
GERALD AND LINDA ARONOVITCH
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared March 4, 2021
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:
March 16, 2021
Public Hearing; Action Pending
LOCATION: The property is located in the Flint Ridge Subdivision and is accessed off of Fodder
Court, Winchester.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 39-A-85C
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant
West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
VARIANCE REQUESTED: The Applicant is requesting a 50-foot rear yard variance to a required
100-foot rear yard setback which will result in a 50-foot rear yard setback, and a 50-foot right side yard
variance to a required100-foot right side yard setback which will result in a 50-foot right side yard
setback, for a single-family dwelling.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: This property has an existing pond, its location and the required
100’ setback would require the proposed dwelling to be close to the pond. Locating the dwelling in
close proximity to the pond would all water to settle around the proposed dwelling.
STAFF COMMENTS: The property is 5.2+/- acres in size and currently zoned RA (Rural Areas)
23
Variance #02-21 – Gerald and Linda Aronovitch
Page 2
March 4, 2021
and was created in 2008. The setback lines for the RA Zoning District are: 60-feet for the front, 100-
feet for the side yards and 100-feet for the rear yard. The Applicant is requesting a 50-foot rear yard
variance to a required 100-foot rear yard setback resulting in a 50-foot rear yard setback and a 50-
foot right side yard variance to a required 100-foot right side yard setback resulting in a 50-foot right
side yard setback, for a single family dwelling. Should this variance be granted, the building
setbacks for this property would be 60-feet in the front, 50-feet in the rear, and 50-feet on the right
side.
This application for a variance does not meet the requirements as set forth by The Code of Virginia
15.2-2209 (2), and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The setback requirements of the RA
Zoning District do not produce an unreasonable restriction on the property. The Applicant can place
the proposed dwelling in a different location on this 5+/- acre parcel to abate the drainage issues.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE MARCH 16, 2021 MEETING:
The Code of Virginia 15.2-2309 (2) and Code of Frederick 165-1001.2, states that no variance shall
be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements:
1) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith.
2) The granting of the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjoining property or
nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area.
3) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring as to
make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an
amendment to the ordinance.
4) The granting of the variance does not result in a use that is otherwise permitted on such
property or a change in the zoning classification of the property.
5) The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a special exception or
the process for modification of a zoning ordinance.
It appears that this variance does not meet the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 (2).
This request from the current setbacks of the RA Zoning District may not be justified. Staff would
recommend denial of this variance application, as the setback requirements currently can be met.
The strict application of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not produce an unreasonable
restriction on the property as required by the Code of Virginia 15.2-2309 (2).
24
39 A 85C
1039HEDRICK LN
360PLOWRUN LN
130FODDER CT
130FODDER CT
117FEEDMILL CT
130WINDROW CT
FODDER CTHEDRICK LNApplication
Parcels µ
Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: February 23, 2021HEDRICK LNS HAYFIELD RDBACK MOUNTAIN RDTECUMSEH TRL
PLO W RUN LN
WINDROW CT0 210 420105 Feet
VAR #02-21
VAR # 02 - 21: Gerald and Linda AronovitchPIN: 39 - A - 85C50' Rear Yard Variance and 50' Right Side Yard VarianceLocation Map
25
26
27
28
29
02-2130
31
32
33
34
35