BZAMinutes2024December17 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
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.
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:
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
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.
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
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
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.
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