BZAAgenda2025February181.Call to Order
2.Determination of a Quorum
3.Meeting Minutes
3.A.Minutes of December 17, 2024
3.B.Minutes of January 21, 2025
4.Public Hearings
4.A.Variance #01-25 for Mike and Kathleen Lattimer
Submitted a request for a 15-foot rear yard variance to a required 25-foot rear yard
setback resulting in a 10-foot rear yard setback for a deck. The property is in the
Abrams Pointe Subdivision at 116 Triangle Court and is identified with Property
Identification Number 55N-1-4-131 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
4.B.Variance #02-25 for Mason See (Mike Artz)
Submitted a request for a 23-foot front yard variance to a required 60-foot front yard
setback resulting in a 37-foot front yard setback, and a 29.1-foot rear yard variance to a
required 50-foot rear yard setback resulting in a 20.9-foot rear yard setback for a
structure. The property is located at the southeastern corner at the intersection of
Virginia Drive and West Street, 0.35 miles northeast of Double Church Road, and is
identified with Property Identification Number 86B-3-A-28 in the Opequon Magisterial
District.
5.Other
AGENDA
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2025
3:30 PM
THE BOARD ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
BZA02-18-25MeetingMinutesDecember17.pdf
BZA02-18-25MeetingMinutesJanuary21.pdf
BZA02-18-25VAR01-25_Redacted.pdf
BZA02-18-25VAR02-25_Redacted.pdf
1
2
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes
Title: Minutes of December 17, 2024
Attachments:
BZA02-18-25MeetingMinutesDecember17.pdf
3
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1927
December 17, 2024
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 December 17, 2024.
PRESENT: Eric Lowman, Chairman, Red Bud District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro
District; James Prohaska, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Vice-Chairman, Back Creek
District; John Cline, Stonewall District; Dolores Stottlemyer, Shawnee District and Ronald
Madagan, Member at Large.
ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Bryton Dean, Zoning Inspector
and Pamala Deeter, BZA Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lowman at 3:30 p.m. and he determined there
was a quorum.
Chairman Lowman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
A motion made by Mr. Cline and seconded by Mr. Rinker the minutes for the November 19,
2024, meeting was unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Mr. Cline to rearrange the agenda to hear item 4D Variance #29-24
Mike Artz (Baljit Sandhu) before hearing item 4C Appeal #28-24 Thomas Rose and
seconded by Mr. Madagan with a unanimous vote to change the agenda.
Chairman Lowman asked if there are any applications for January. Mr. Cheran replied no
but the County attorney will explain.
Chairman Lowman read Variance #26-24 for Thomas Liskey submitted a request for a 20-foot
front yard variance to a required 60-foot front yard setback which will result in a 40-foot front yard
setback for an accessory structure. The property is located at 243 Veterans Road, Middletown and
is identified with Property Identification Number 91-A-9 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
The County Attorney came forward and said a Variance Application#26-25 For Thomas
Liskey was filled out incorrectly and the legal ad was published with the wrong setback
information. The application was filled out for a 20-ft variance and should have been 40-ft
4
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1928
December 17, 2024
variance. It is the County’s recommendation that this be tabled so correct information can
be advertised.
The applicant, Mr. Liskey came forward and stated he wrote the wrong setback information
on the application.
A motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Shenk to table the Variance #26-24 until
the next meeting in January 2025 with a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowman read Variance #27-24 for Steven D. Shuman submitted a request for a 15-
foot right side variance to a required 50-foot right side yard setback which will result in a 35-foot
right side setback and a 38-foot rear variance to a required 100-foot rear yard which will result in
a 62-foot rear setback for a house addition. The property is located at 1515 Millwood Pike and is
identified with Property Identification Number 64-7-1 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mr. Dean came forward to present the staff report and maps. The applicant is looking to build an
extension to his house. The house that is closet to Millwood Pike is considered the front. Mr. Dean
A-2 (Agricultural General) gave the history of the lot. The lot was created before Zoning and was
identified as being Zoned A-2 at the adoption of Zoning in 1967. The setbacks at the time of adoption
of Ordinance were 35-feet for the front, 35-feet for the side yards and 35-feet for the rear. Staff stated
that Ordinance was amended in 1989 changing the A-2 Zoning to the RA Zoning District. February
28, 2007, the Board amended the Ordinance setback for the RA Zoning District. Mr. Dean stated the
setback for RA zoning 60-feet front 100-feet from the left, 50-feet from the right and 100-feet from
the rear of the property. Staff reiterated the setback that the applicant is requesting.
Mr. Dean read the Code of Virginia and the Frederick County Code.
Code of Virginia & Frederick County Zoning Ordinance:
The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick County §165-1001.02 state
that no variance shall be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements:
a) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good
faith.
b) Any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance;
c) The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and
nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area.
d) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a
nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be
adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.
5
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1929
December 17, 2024
e) 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; and
f) The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a conditional use
permit process or the process for modification of a Zoning Ordinance.
Staff mentioned that the Variance meets the content of The Code of Virginia and the Code of Frederick
County. The addition to the dwelling appears to be consistent with the character of the district.
Chairman Lowman asked the Applicant, Mr. Shuman to come forward. Mr. Shuman stated he didn’t
prepare a statement but would like to extend his living room, bathroom and bedroom.
Chairman Lowman asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition of this variance to come
forward. No one came forward.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
No discussion
On a motion made by Mrs. Stottlemyer to approve the Variance 27-24 Steven Shuman and was
seconded by Vice Chairman Rinker with a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowman read Variance #29-24 for Michael Artz (Baljit Sandhu) submitted a
request for a 5-foot front variance to a required 35-foot front yard which will result in a 30-
foot setback for a structure. The property is located in Lake Holiday where Laurel Drive
intersects with Connector Way and is identified with Property Identification Number 18A04-
4A-2-60 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran came forward to present his staff report. Staff presented the maps of the lot. The reason
for the variance is the parcel is narrow and topography constraints in the front. Staff noted that this
0.28-acre lot was created in 1972 and is part of the Lake Holiday Subdivision. At the time of
creation, the parcel had no building restrictions lines. The zoning for this parcel is R5 (Residential
Recreational Community) District. The Zoning Ordinance refers the R5 District to the current RP
(Residential Performance) District for setback information. The setbacks for the property are 35-ft
for the front, 10-ft for the side yards and 5-ft for the rear.
Mr. Cheran read the Code of Virginia and the Frederick County Code.
Code of Virginia & Frederick County Zoning Ordinance:
The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick County §165-1001.02 state
that no variance shall be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements:
6
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1930
December 17, 2024
a) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good
faith.
b) Any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance;
c) The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and
nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area.
d) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a
nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be
adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.
e) 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; and
f) The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a conditional use
permit process or the process for modification of a Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cheran concluded that this variance would be consistent with the character of the district and
meets the criteria of The Code of Virginia and the Code of Frederick County for a variance.
Mike Artz came forward to representing the applicant (Baljit Sandu). He stated that he agreed with
Mr. Cheran presentation. Mr. Artz mentioned that if this was a 6 x 6 concrete pad no variance needed
but if a roof connects to the house a variance is needed. If there are any questions, he would be happy
to answer them.
Chairman Lowman asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition of this variance to come
forward. No one came forward.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
No discussion
On a motion made by Mr. Shenk to approve the Variance 29-24 Mike Artz (Baljit Sandu) and was
seconded by Mr. Cline with a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowman read the Appeal #28-24 of Thomas Rose submitted to Appeal the
Decision of the Zoning Administrator, letter dated October 18, 2024, as it relates to Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 165, Section 401.02 Allowed uses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
The property is located at N. Frederick Pike (Route 522) north approximately 5 miles proceed
7
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1931
December 17, 2024
to Old Bethel Church Road (Route 608) continue to 341 Angus Hill Lane and is identified with
Property Identification Number 41-A-98J in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran came forward to present the staff report. The applicant is appealing the decision
of the Zoning Administrator letter dated October 18, 2024, on the property at 341 Angus Hill.
Chapter 165, Section 401.02 of the Zoning Ordinance which stipulates the allowed uses within
the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning.
A complaint came in for 341 Angus Hill Lane for a trucking business operation with multiple
commercial vehicles operating at that property. The property owner was cited for operation a
commercial trucking business on the property. The RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District does not
permit a commercial trucking business on that property per Chapter 165, Section 401.02
allowed uses. The property owner came into compliance and the case was closed.
On September 30, 2024, Mr. Rose the applicant requested a determination letter from the
Zoning Administrator regarding commercial vehicles being parked at 341 Angus Hill. Mr.
Cheran responded to Mr. Roses request on October 18, 2024. The reply to the request stated
that no more than one commercial vehicle on the property. The Zoning Administrator was just
following prior Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of commercial vehicle parking and
maintenances at a private residence. This was classified as over the road trucker allowance.
The owner of the vehicle is allowed to maintain and service the vehicle as long as no
compensation.
Mr. Cheran continued with the Frederick County Zoning Chapter 165-101.06 states that the
Zoning Administrator has the authority to interpretation and determination of the Zoning
Ordinance. There are no set criteria for the determination or interpretation of the Zoning
Administrator. The determination or interpretation are based on experience, common sense,
staff customs, and practices of Frederick County. The County allows for maintenance of your
own vehicle at residence but when there is more than one vehicle, that is being serviced and
being compensated that is consider a public garage. A public garage needs to have a
Conditional Use Permit.
The Frederick County Code Section 165-202.01C established parking limits for commercial
vehicles in other zoning districts but does not include the RA Zoning District. Any more than
one commercial vehicle on a property could serve as evidence that there is a business use being
conducted at the location and may implicate a violation of the Ordinance if that business is not
a permitted use in the RA District.
In closing staff requested the Board to affirm the determination of the Zoning Administrator
that parking of one (1) commercial vehicle in the RA Zoning District is allowed and secondary
to a private residence and does not violate the allowed use section. Mr. Cheran explained the
process of a determination and certification letters and what type of questions they are asking.
8
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1932
December 17, 2024
Chairman Lowman swore in citizens that will be speaking either for or against this appeal.
Mr. Shenk question that he was cited for violation in November 2023, then property came into
compliance and the violation closed. Does that mean he has only one truck on the property?
Mr. Cheran referred that question to the County Attorney.
The Austin Gano, Acting County Attorney, came forward. Answering Mr. Shenk question, we
meet with the defendant, Mr. Campbell, and his attorney, in court. We addressed what the rules
are and what he could and couldn’t do on the property. From the time of the first court meeting
to the next court date the defendant came into compliance. The Campbell’s complied with the
rules. The defendant is no longer using the property as a hub for a business and only one
commercial vehicle at a time on the property. The Planning Department internal violation case
and the General District court case are now officially closed.
Acting County Attorney stated that Mr. Rose is using this property as an example of what he
doesn’t like. The determination was about this policy and the way Mr. Cheran interpreted that
in the RA Zoning District that only (1) one commercial vehicle is allowed to come home. He
proceeded by saying that this case is closed in the court system, and we are here to determine
if Mr. Cheran interpretation should be upheld. This rule about (1) one commercial vehicle
being allowed at home in RA Zoning District.
Mr. Gano stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals doesn’t have the authority to tell the County
or Zoning Administrator that charges must be placed upon that resident at 341 Angus Hill.
This case has ended with ended with court. Mr. Rose referenced the address as to where this
is supposably happening with more than one truck on property. This is not the property owners
or the subject property we are referring to it is the general policy of the County for allowing
(1) commercial vehicle at a residence. Again, this parcel is not the subject of the appeal.
Mr. Tom Rose came forward to present his information. Mr. Rose confirmed that the Board
reviewed the attachments he provided. Chairman Lowman noted it is the policy of the Board
to review the agenda or visit the site.
Mr. Rose noted this is a private road and services 5 homes. He read Section 165-101.04D the
use of land and structures shall be limited to only uses that are specifically allowed by this
chapter. All other uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. Continued reading from the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance the sub-section 165-101.08 which deals with Violations
and penalties, enforcement and 164-401.02 permitted uses in the RA District. The Ordinance
doesn’t give the Zoning Administrator the authority to disregard the County Codes. Mr. Rose
continued by saying that commercial vehicle parking and maintenance is not a permitted use
in the RA District. He continued by saying the truck maintenance is permitted in the B3, M1
and M2 District not in RA District. Mr. Rose provided paperwork showing Mr. Campbell’s
9
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1933
December 17, 2024
two businesses located at Angus Hill property and pictures of the supposedly business
operation. Mr. Rose explained every photo.
Mr. Rose’s concern was the noise from trucks, the lights on the garage, miscellaneous items
alongside of the garage, brush hog, road millings and the water. The truck engine is washed
off and concern of the hazardous materials getting into the wells.
.
Chairman Lowman expressed his opinion that there is no way to cover every aspect of every
single happening that occurs on this earth in words and governing in law so there is
interpretation that have to be made by officials that are put into place that work for County’s
or work for large government entities. The Board is not here about that parcel but if you contact
the Planning Department, they would be able to open another violation and revisit the site and
see if there is violation of the agreement that was put into place.
Chairman Lowman inquired about the agreement between Mr. Campbell and the County. If
there was another violation, they would need to call Planning Office again.
County Attorney yes that is correct. As far as an agreement, there was nothing in writing and
it was a meeting before court and discuss what need to happen to come into compliance. This
agreement is the same as the determination letter that Mr. Cheran wrote to Mr. Rose. Mr. Gano
reiterated that this meeting is not about the Campbell’s it is about the appeal of the Zoning
Administrator decision.
Chairman Lowman asked Mr. Cheran the process for a compliant. We fill out a violation form,
and the Zoning Inspector goes and looks at the property to determine if there is a violation. If
it is a violation a violation letter is sent out to property owner, they have a 30-day notice to
come into compliance or file for an appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowman asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition of this variance to
come forward.
Chris Jennings came forward; I am the builder and a developer. I had a permit for the garage
and engineered plans. I hear complaints all the time from citizens. I purchase several lots and
the first person in there has a view and along comes another house and now the view has
changed or no view. Then that citizen should have bought the lot next to his dwelling. Mr.
Rose stated about the water might become contaminated with the washing of the trucks. Mr.
Rose is at the top of the hill and the Campbell’s are below him and I don’t think water runs up
a hill. The 200 Angus Hill address is a farmer, Mr. Gardner. Mr. Jennings noted that there was
10
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1934
December 17, 2024
no date stamp on the photo. Mr. Jennings questioned rather or not he was on his property when
taking some of the photos.
Mr. Rose spoke and said the photo did have a date but when load from the Planning Department
that was cut off. I was on my property when taking the photos.
Mrs. Kim Michelitch came forward to speak against the appeal. I residence at 320 Angus Hill.
We have lived at this property 22 years. Then in 2011 the Campbell’s started operating their
business at their home address. Then he was summoned to court. Mr. Campbell then stop
running the business at the house location and operate at another location. Mrs. Michelitch
stated that Mr. Campbell told them he was building a garage, and my husband was told that
one truck would be operating there. The noise is the main concern. Apparently, he was given
permission for only one truck at a time on the property, but he swaps the trucks throughout the
day for maintenance.
Mr. Kevin Campbell came forward. He stated yes, I do take the truck out every day, and I
service truck but not all the time. As far as the trailers that property is Mr. Gardner, my father-
in-law. I maintain the road, so I brought millings in and dropped them on my father-in-law
property.
Mr. Jennings came forward and gave examples of people bring home commercial vehicles such
as Frederick Water and a tow truck. It would be difficult to regulate commercial vehicles
because there all over the County. I don’t think the County has enough manpower to enforce
violation. I believe if Mr. Campbell abides by the agreement, he would be fine.
Mr. Eugene Gardner came forward. I created this subdivision. I would like to suggest neighbor
think about who maintains the road. Mr. Campbell is just trying to make a living.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Comment/Discussion
Mr. Madagan gave several examples of his subdivisions with vehicle and a big garage, but I
didn’t purchase the property beside my house. I believe you can do what you want on your
property.
Vice -Chairman Rinker reiterated that we are here for the appeal on the Zoning
Administrator decision and not for Mr. Campbell.
On a motion made by Mr. Shenk to affirm the Appeal 28-24 to uphold the Zoning Administrator
decision and was seconded by Mr. Madagan with a unanimous vote.
11
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeal 1935
December 17, 2024
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00.
________________________________
Eric Lowman, Chairman
________________________________
Pamala Deeter, Secretary
12
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes
Title: Minutes of January 21, 2025
Attachments:
BZA02-18-25MeetingMinutesJanuary21.pdf
13
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals
January 21, 2025 1936
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 21, 2025.
PRESENT: Eric Lowman, Chairman, Red Bud District; Linda Whitacre, Gainesboro District; John
Cline, Stonewall District; James Prohaska, Opequon District; Dolores Stottlemyer, Shawnee District;
and Ronald Madagan, Member at Large.
ABSENT: Dudley Rinker, Vice-Chairman, Back Creek
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Bryton Dean, Zoning Inspector 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.
Chairman Lowman asked if there are any applications for February. Mr. Cheran replied yes.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS
Mr. Cheran opened the floor for nominations for Chairman. Mr. Madagan 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 the Chairman.
Chairman Lowman opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Ms. Stottlemyer made a
motion to nominate Mr. Rinker and Mr. Cline seconded the motion. The floor was closed for
nominations. The vote was unanimous for Mr. Rinker as the Vice-Chairman.
Chairman Lowman opened the floor for nominations for Secretary. Chairman Lowman made a motion
to nominate Mrs. Deeter and Mr. Cline seconded the motion. The floor was closed for nominations.
The vote was unanimous for Mrs. Deeter as the Secretary.
Mr. Cheran stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals has met at 3:30 p.m. on the third Tuesday of the
month. Mr. Cline made a motion to keep the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting time at 3:30 p.m., on
the third Tuesday of the month. Chairman Lowman 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
Ms. Stottlemyer and seconded by Mr. Cline the Bylaws were unanimously approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
14
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals
January 21, 2025 1937
Chairman Lowman read Variance #26-24 for Thomas Liskey submitted a request for a 40-foot
front yard variance to a required 60-foot front yard setback which will result in a 20-foot front yard
setback for an accessory structure. The property is located at 243 Veterans Road, Middletown and
is identified with Property Identification Number 91-A-9 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Mr. Dean came forward to present his staff report. The property is located at 243 Veterans Road in
the Back Creek District which is zoned RA (Rural Areas). Then proceed to show the maps of the
property. The adjoining properties are RA (Rural Areas). Staff mentioned that Mr. Liskey is requesting
a 40-foot front yard variance for a detached structure. The applicant cannot meet the current setback
for RA (Rural Areas) District because the well and septic.
Mr. Dean proceeded to give the background information on the property. The parcel is 3.2068-acres
and was created before 1936. The property does not have building restrictions lines so the applicant
would need to meet today's requirements. At the time of adoption, of Zoning in 1967 the parcel was
classified as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. At the time of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, the
accessory structures were 20-feet from all property lines. The A-2 District changed to the RA District
in 1989 when the Board amended the Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors amended the Ordinance
on February 28, 2007, for primary setbacks in the RA District. Staff mentioned the Ordinance changed
again on May 24, 2017, for the accessory use section. Mr. Dean said the setback are 60-feet from
public street or roadways, 45-feet from private right-of-way or ingress/egress, and 15-feet from any
side or rear property line.
Staff concluded by stating The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick
County §165-1001.02 state that no variance shall be granted unless the application can meet the
following requirements:
a) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith;
b) Any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance;
c) The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and
nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area;
d) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature
as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an
amendment to the ordinance;
e) 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; and
15
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals
January 21, 2025 1938
f) The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a conditional use permit
process or the process for modification of a Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Dean noted we did receive a e-comment today in favor of the variance. The applicant does meet
the intent of the State and County Codes for a variance on setbacks.
Chairman Lowman asked if the Applicant would come forward. Mr. Tom Liskey came forward. Mr.
Liskey stated I have no statement prepared but willing to answer question if the Board has some.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone would like to speak in favor of this variance.
A resident came forward Mr. Michael Legg mentioned he has the Garrett Farm and Mr. Liskey property
boarders mine and I am in favor of the variance.
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone in opposition that would like to speak come forward. No one came
forward.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
No Discussion.
On a motion made by Mr. Madagan to approve the variance as requested and seconded by Ms.
Stottlemyer, Variance Request #26-24 for Thomas Liskey, was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lowman read Variance #30-24 for Gregory Missar submitted a request for a 20-foot rear
yard variance to a required 25-foot rear yard setback resulting in a 5-foot rear yard setback for a
deck. The property is in the Abrams Pointe Subdivision at 112 Triangle Court and is identified
with Property Identification Number 55N-1-4-129 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Mr. Dean came forward to present his staff report and maps. Staff noted the property is located at 112
Triangle Court and is zoned RP (Residential Performance). The surrounding properties are RP
(Residential Performance).
Staff reiterated what the property owner is requesting. The property owner cannot meet the current RP
setbacks for a deck. This parcel is in the Abrams Pointe Subdivision which was created in 2020 and
lot size is 13504 square foot. The reason the applicant can’t meet the setback is because the parcel is
a pipestem lot which has different setbacks that other RP lots.
Staff concluded by stating The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick
County §165-1001.02 state that no variance shall be granted unless the application can meet the
following requirements:
a) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith;
16
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals
January 21, 2025 1939
b) Any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance;
c) The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and
nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area;
d) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a
nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be
adopted as an amendment to the ordinance;
e) 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; and
f) The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a conditional use
permit process or the process for modification of a Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Dean ends the presentation by stating this variance meets the Code of Virginia and Frederick
County.
Chairman Lowman asked the Applicant to come forward. Mr. Gregory Missar came forward. Mr.
Missar stated he had nothing to add to Mr. Dean’s presentation but if the Board had questions, he
would be happy to answer them.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone would like to speak in favor of this variance. No one came forward.
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone in opposition that would like to speak come forward. No one came
forward.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
No Discussion
On a motion made by Mr. Madagan to approve the variance as requested and seconded by Mr. Cline,
Variance Request #30-24 for Gregory Missar was unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourned at 3:50.
________________________________
Eric Lowman, Chairman
________________________________
Pamala Deeter, Secretary
17
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Variance #01-25 for Mike and Kathleen Lattimer
Attachments:
BZA02-18-25VAR01-25_Redacted.pdf
18
VARIANCE #01-25
Applicant Name Mike and Kathleen Lattimer
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Prepared: February 6, 2025
Staff Contact: Bryton Dean, Zoning Inspector
Hearing Schedule
BZA: February 18, 2025 Action: Pending
Property Information
Property Identification Number (PIN) 55N-1-4-131
Address 116 Triangle Court
Magisterial District Red Bud
Acreage 0.31+/-
Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RP (Residential Performance)
District
Land Use: Residential
Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use
North: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Open Space
South: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Residential
East: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Residential
West: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Residential
Variance Requested & Reasoning
The applicant is requesting a 15-foot variance to a required 25-foot rear yard setback which
will result in a 10-foot rear yard setback for a deck.
Reasoning: This property cannot meet the current RP setbacks for a pipestem lot.
Minimum Variance Requested Resulting Setback
Front 20 Ft N/A 20 Ft
Left 20 Ft N/A 20 Ft
Right 20 Ft N/A 20 Ft
Rear 25 Ft 15 Ft 10 Ft
Staff Comments:
• This property was created in 2020 as part of the Abrams Pointe subdivision and is Zoned
RP (Residential Performance). This property is a pipestem lot with different setbacks than
19
Page 2 of 2
other RP lot types with respect to reduced setbacks for decks and other similar features.
The setbacks for this lot type are noted above.
Code of Virginia & Frederick County Zoning Ordinance:
The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick County §165-1001.02 state that
no variance shall be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements:
a) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith;
b) Any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance;
c) The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and
nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area;
d) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature
as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an
amendment to the ordinance;
e) 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; and
f) The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a conditional use permit
process or the process for modification of a Zoning Ordinance.
Summary & Requested Action:
This proposed variance appears to be consistent with the character of the district; and meets the
intent of The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick County. This is a request
for a variance from the current setbacks of the RP Zoning District and may be appropriate.
Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals on this
variance application.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: February 18, 2025
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Variance #02-25 for Mason See (Mike Artz)
Attachments:
BZA02-18-25VAR02-25_Redacted.pdf
36
VARIANCE #02-25
Applicant Name Mason See (Mike Artz)
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Prepared: February 6, 2025
Staff Contact: Bryton Dean, Zoning Inspector
Hearing Schedule
BZA: February 18, 2025 Action: Pending
Property Information
Property Identification Number (PIN) 86B-3-A-28
Address
Magisterial District Opequon
Acreage 0.45+/-
Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Vacant
Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use
North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential
Variance Requested & Reasoning
The applicant is requesting a 23-foot variance to a required 60-foot front yard setback which
will result in a 37-foot front yard setback and a 29.1-foot variance to a required 50-foot rear
yard setback which will result in a 20.9-foot rear yard setback for a dwelling.
Reasoning: This property cannot meet the current RA setbacks.
** Information on corner lots provided on Page 3 **
Minimum Variance Requested Resulting Setback
Front (West St.) 60 Ft N/A 60 Ft
Left 50 Ft N/A 50 Ft
Front (Virginia Dr.) 60 Ft 23 Ft 37 Ft
Rear 50 Ft 29.1 Ft 20.9 Ft
Staff Comments:
•This 0.45 +/- acre property was created in 1967.
37
Page 2 of 3
•This property is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This property does not have Building
Restriction Lines (BRL) assigned to it and would have to meet the current RA District
setbacks.
•As this lot was created prior to Zoning, the property was identified as being Zoned A-2
(Agricultural General) at the adoption of Zoning in 1967.
•The property setback lines at the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance were 35 feet for the
front, rear and side yards.
•Frederick County amended its ordinance in 1989 to change the A-2 Zoning District to the
RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
•The Frederick County Board of Supervisors amended the primary setbacks for the RA
Zoning District on February 28, 2007, making the current setbacks for this property 60-
feet for the front (West St.), 50-feet for the rear, 60-feet for the right (Virginia Dr.
frontage) side and 50-feet for the left side.
Code of Virginia & Frederick County Zoning Ordinance:
The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick County §165-1001.02 state that
no variance shall be granted unless the application can meet the following requirements:
a)The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith;
b) Any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance;
c)The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and
nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area;
d)The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature
as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an
amendment to the ordinance;
e)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; and
f)The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a conditional use permit
process or the process for modification of a Zoning Ordinance.
Summary & Requested Action:
This proposed variance appears to be consistent with the character of the district; and meets the
intent of The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick County. This is a request
for a variance from the current setbacks of the RA Zoning District and may be appropriate.
Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals on this
variance application.
38
Page 3 of 3
Section 165-201.02 Setback Requirements
D.Corner lots. On a lot with more than one side abutting a street or road, front setback yards shall
be provided wherever the lot abuts a street. To determine the location of side and rear boundaries,
the front shall be deemed to be the shortest side with frontage on the street or road. The rear
boundary, with a required rear yard setback, shall be deemed to be opposite from the front side. All
other sides not abutting a street shall be deemed to be side boundaries. The Zoning Administrator
may determine that a side other than the shortest is the front in order to ensure that the placement
of the setback yards conforms with the placement of structures on surrounding lots. In all cases, a
front and rear yard shall be designated.
39
86B 3 A 28
211FORESTLAKE DR
120VIRGINIA DR
1571DOUBLECHURCH RD
124VIRGINIA DR
146WEST ST
148WEST ST
125VIRGINIA DR
140WEST ST
147WEST ST
145WEST ST
141WEST ST
139WEST ST
WEST ST
VIRGINIA DRApplication
Parcels µ
Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: January 23, 2025WEST STD
O
U
BLE C
HU
RC
H R
DVIR GINIA DR0 75 15037.5 Feet
VAR # 02 - 25: Mason SeePIN: 86B - 3 - A - 28Front and Rear VarianceZoning Map
VAR #02 -25
40
86B 3 A 28
211FORESTLAKE DR
120VIRGINIA DR
1571DOUBLECHURCH RD
124VIRGINIA DR
146WEST ST
148WEST ST
125VIRGINIA DR
140WEST ST
147WEST ST
145WEST ST
141WEST ST
139WEST ST
WEST ST
VIRGINIA DRApplication
Parcels µ
Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: January 23, 2025WEST STD
O
U
BLE C
HU
RC
H R
DVIR GINIA DR0 75 15037.5 Feet
VAR # 02 - 25: Mason SeePIN: 86B - 3 - A - 28Front and Rear VarianceLocation Map
VAR #02 -25
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51