HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZAAgenda2026March171.Call to Order
2.Determination of a Quorum
3.Meeting Minutes
3.A.Minutes of February 17, 2026
4.Public Hearings
4.A.Variance #05-26 for Mark Landrio (Delta Contractors LLC)
Submitted a request for a 5-foot variance to a required 45-foot front yard setback
resulting in a 40-foot front yard setback for an accessory structure. The property is
located at 141 Merrifield Lane and is identified by Property Identification Number 52-20-
1 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
4.B.Variance #06-26 for Zachary and Shaina LoVerde
Submitted a request for a 13-foot variance to a required 100-foot side yard setback
resulting in an 87-foot side yard setback for a dwelling. The property is located off
Green Spring Road, proceed north on Frog Hollow Road, then left on Peeper Lane. The
property is on the right side at the ridge top and is identified by Property Identification
Number 22-A-8A in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
5.Action Item
5.A.Variance #04-26 for Cline Manor LLC
Submitted a request for the foregoing buffers to provide an inactive buffer of 25', with
full screening, together with an active buffer of 25' and a 35' inactive road buffer, with
AGENDA
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2026
3:30 PM
THE BOARD ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
BZA03-17-26MeetingMinutesFebruary17.pdf
BZA03-17-26VAR05-26_Redacted.pdf
BZA03-17-26VAR06-26_Redacted.pdf
1
full screening, together with a 40' active road buffer. The property is located at 3266
Valley Pike and is identified by Property Identification Number 63-A-37 in the Back
Creek Magisterial District.
6.Other
BZA03-17-26VAR04-26RequestforDeferral_Redacted.pdf
2
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes
Title: Minutes of February 17, 2026
Attachments:
BZA03-17-26MeetingMinutesFebruary17.pdf
3
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1986
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 February 17, 2026.
PRESENT: Eric Lowman, Chairman, Red Bud District; Dudley Rinker, Vice-Chairman, Back Creek;
Linda Whitacre, Gainesboro District; John Cline, Stonewall District; James Prohaska, Opequon District;
Dolores Stottlemyer, Shawnee District; and Ronald Madagan, Member at Large.
ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator; John Lowery, 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 March. Mr. Cheran replied yes.
Mr. Cline made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for January 20, 2026, and was seconded by Mr.
Prohaska and was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance #26-25 for Stoneridge Outdoor Living Rob Warren (Denise Simmons) s ubmitted a request
for a 10-foot variance to a required 15-foot rear yard setback resulting in a 5-foot rear yard setback for an
enclosed screened room with deck. The property is located in the Lake Frederick Subdivision at 150
Emperor Drive and is identified by Property Identification Number 87B-5-2-123 in the Opequon
Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran came forward to present his staff report and maps. Mr. Cheran proceeded with background
information. The property is located within the Lake Frederick Subdivision at 150 Emperor Drive and 0.14
acres and is zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District in the Opequon Magisterial
District. The property was created in 2018 and is currently zoned R5 with the setbacks of 25 ft to the front
15 ft to the rear and 15 ft for the sides.
If the property abuts open space, then the setback could extend 5ft into the rear setback for an unroofed
deck. A roofed deck must meet the setback of 15 ft, and this property abuts the open space. The applicant
dwelling is set deep on the property and cannot meet requirements for enclosed deck.
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:
4
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1987
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 noted the applicant does meet the intent of the State and County Codes for a variance on
setbacks.
The applicant is represented by Robert Warren. The only comment request for a variance due to mobility
issue (walker and or cane) so they can enjoy the outdoors on an enclosed deck. No
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT
Chairman Lowman asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition of this request. No one came
forward.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
No discussion
On a motion made by Mr. Prohaska to approve the variance as requested and seconded by Mr. Madagan,
Variance Request #26-25 for Stoneridge Outdoor Living Robert Warren (Denise Simmons) was
unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance #01-26 for Richard L. Molden submitted a request for a 40-foot variance to a required 45-foot right
yard setback resulting in a 5-foot right yard setback from a private right of way for a detached garage. The
property is located at 2633 Cedar Creek Grade, Winchester and is identified by Property Identification Number
61-A-99A in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran came forward to present his staff report and maps. Staff noted the well, drain field and the
shape of the property will not allow the RA setbacks from a private right of way for a detached garage.
Mr. Cheran mentioned this parcel is 1.00-acre and was created in 1980’s. The current zoning of the parcel
is RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran proceeded with
background information that the historical maps show this property being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General).
5
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1988
In 1989 the Zoning Ordinance was amended by changing the zoning district to RA (Rural Areas). Frederick
County amended accessory structures along a private right of way in 2017 make the setbacks from 60 ft to
45 ft.
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
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 ends the presentation by stating this variance meets the Code of Virginia and Frederick County.
Chairman Lowman asked the Applicant to come forward, Mr. Molden did not have a statement prepared
the only thing he could say was this is a one level ranch home for my personal use.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition of this variance. No one came
forward.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
No Discussion
On a motion made by Vice-Chairman Rinker to approve the variance as requested and seconded by Mr.
Cline, Variance Request #01-26 for Richard L. Molden was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance #02-26 for James and Angela Payton submitted a request for a 5.6-foot variance to a required 50-
foot left yard setback resulting in a 44.4-foot left yard setback for an addition. The property is located at 942
Gun Club Road Stephenson and is identified by Property Identification Number 45-2-B in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
6
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1989
Mr. Cheran came forward to present his staff report and maps. Mr. Cheran proceeded with background
information. The property is 1.11 acres and is zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District in the Stonewall
Magisterial District. The property was created in 1977, and the historical maps show this property as being
zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) at the adoption of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in 1967. The
setbacks at the adoption of the ordinance were 35 ft for the front, 15ft for the side yards and 3 5 ft for the
rear yard. The A-2 Zoning District was changed to RA (Rural Areas) Zoning when ordinance was amended
in 1989. This makes the current setbacks 60 ft front, 50 ft side yard and 50 ft rear yard. The setbacks limit
the buildable area for an addition.
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
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.
Chairman Lowman asked the Applicant to come forward; Mr. and Mrs. Payton did not have a statement
prepared the only thing she added was her mother was coming to live with them and the need for addition.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition of this variance. No one came
forward.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
No Discussion
On a motion made by Mr. Cline to approve the variance as requested and seconded by Mr. Prohaska,
Variance Request #02-26 for James and Angela Payton was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Variance #03-26 for Aliya Small (Darcy Ann Redding) submitted a request for a 7.5-foot variance to a
required 25-foot rear yard setback resulting in a 17.5-foot rear yard setback for a covered patio. The property is
7
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1990
located at 109 Triangle Court Winchester and is identified by Property Identification Number 55N-1-4-154 in
the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran came forward to present his staff report and maps. Staff noted the shape of the property limits
the area for a covered patio. Staff noted this parcel is 0.31 acre and was created in 2022. The current setback
is 35 ft for the front, 10 ft for side yards and 25 ft rear yard in the RP (Residential Performance) District.
The reason the Applicant is requesting a 7.5 ft rear variance is the size of the lot and the shape.
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
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 noted that the variance appears to be consistent with the character of the district; and meets the
Code of Virginia and Frederick County Code.
Chairman Lowman asked the Applicant to come forward; Ms. Small and Ms. Redding did not have a
statement prepared the only thing Chairman Lowman stated is that the letter and photos explained why they
requested for a variance.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone would like to speak in favor or opposition of this variance. 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 #03-26 for Aliya Small and Darcy Redding was unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
8
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1991
Variance #04-26 for Cline Manor VA LLC. submitted a request for the foregoing buffers to provide an
inactive buffer of 25’, with full screening, together with an active buffer of 25’ and a 35’ inactive road buffer,
with full screening, together with a 40’ active road buffer. The property is loc ated at 3266 Valley Pike and
is identified by Property Identification Number 63-A-37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran came forward to present his staff report and maps. Mr. Cheran proceeded with background
information. The property is 4.20 acres and is zoned RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District in the
Back Creek Magisterial District. The property was created in 1950’s before Frederick County adopted
Zoning. Zoning was adopted in 1967. Historical map shows this property being zoned R -2 (Residential
General). The applicant cannot meet the zoning buffers because of the shape of the property.
The applicant applied for a revitalization and tax abatement district for multifamily low-income housing.
The intent is for forty-eight (48) unit apartment building. In 2025, the Board of Supervisors approved a
resolution for Cline Manor revitalization and a tax abatement resolution.
Mr. Cheran mentioned that in 2023 the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance buffer section was updated.
The reason for residential buffer is the surrounding properties are single family, and this would be a different
housing type (apartments). The County has buffers for commercial and industrial areas. Staff mentioned
that the applicant property is a unique shape and that should be an exception to the buffer requirements.
This is not a hardship the applicant had other options change the footprint of building, purchase more land,
applicant should have looked at or contact the Board about changing the ordinance requirements. The
applicant was approved for a tax credit and revitalization area for mixed-income housing development.
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
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 noted that the variance request does not meet the Code of Virginia and Frederick County Code.
The applicant is here represented by Mark Kronenthal II, Esquire. Staff noted that he has several letters in
opposition from the Woodbrook subdivision. An adjoining property owner sent in a letter regarding the
drainage issue. If this request was approved, then the drainage issued would be addressed at the subdivision
design stage.
9
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1992
Chairman Lowman asked the applicant’s attorney to come forward. Mr. Mark Kronenthal said he practices
land use matters and commercial real estate matters. I am here representing the Cline Manor which has the
option buy. Mr. Kronenthal introduced Mr. Clinton Ritter the seller which is also the executor of the estate
and will be providing information the property. Mr. Scott Dawson is the broker of the property, Jen Sauver
principle of the applicant and a civil engineer. There are some points in the staff report which need to be
clarified. The applicant is at the point of doing its due diligence before the purchase of the land and
resolving some of the issues with the buffers. The applicant is seeking relief from the BZA because there
is no other avenue to pursue.
This is permitted use in the RP district but is limited to the buffers. The maximum the applicant could build
would be 84 units. The applicant is here because of the scale of the property and the active and inactive
buffers and to the shape of the property. Mr. Kronenthal stated that in 1988 in Loudoun County there was
a court case about housing type. The Board of Supervisors approved the tax relief and the revitalization
area housing type last year. In regard to good faith, we are here to obtain relief from the Board which is
part of the applicant’s due diligence. The hardship was not self-inflicted, that is why we are here requesting
approval of variance. There was a case in 1959 Virginia Beach against a landowner who purchased a lot.
The landowner knew he had to get a variance to build the type of house he desired. The detriment of the
neighbors is something we were unaware of. The state code states the applicant must be able to obtain and
review letters of opposition within a timeframe of three days. The applicant has agreed to provide a
screening of a 6ft fence and landscape planting. Mr. Kronenthal gave the charcterics of what surrounds the
property to the back of the property has an old hog facility and across the road is an active car dealership,
so this is not purely residential.
Vice-Chairman inquired to the attorney since you have not received the letters in a timely manner would
you want to postpone the hearing. Mr. Kronenthal said since the neighbor sare here, we would like to hear
their thoughts and concerns.
Mr. Ritter came forward to present the background information on the estate. The property has been in his
family for 75 years. Mr. Ritter does not want to harm the neighbors or the area where he has fond memories.
Hardships are interrupted in different ways. The hardship for Mr. Ritter is that his siblings have passed,
and he has been the executor of this estate for 16 years and at the age of 82 he needs to settle the estate.
Over the years all the expenses incurred by the estate such as taxes, insurance and keeping the estate open.
Then the next problem is finding buyers to purchase the land at fair market value. The applicant states if
we follow the setback according to the ordinance 50ft off each side then we have given up a large buildable
land to setbacks and buffer screening. Mr. Ritter pointed out the car lot doesn’t have a 50ft screening buffer,
the cars are close to the road; another surrounding property is the Trex Company which parks trailers there
and no buffer screening. The other side has an old hog facility right up to the road and no buffer. In closing
Mr. Ritter states the Board has approved this project and the state has offered money toward this project.
Mr. Scott Dawson, agent representing the seller, came forward and presented photos taken from Mr. Ritter
estate showing what the surrounding properties appearance and buffer screening. The attorney stated there
are two aspects to this that appear reasonable and hardship. Reasonably this was not created by the
applicant, and the hardship is the shape of lot and buffers. After Mr. Ritter spoke with planning department
it was suggested to change the housing type to townhouses. The Board of Supervisors has approved the
housing type and how many apartments.
Mr. Cheran mentioned the area where the photos were taken the County considers this to be the Kernstown
area which the parcels are non-conforming. The car lot is a non-conforming use but has a site plan. The
photos that the seller agent presented were taken from the applicant’s parcel looking toward Route 11. Now
if buffers were up the applicant’s property would not be able to view those areas. The buffers protect
property owners. The Woodbrook subdivision has an open space that adjoins the applicant, along with the
10
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1993
HOA. The manager has called and the letters from the citizens of Woodbrook subdivision were dropped
and presented to our department after 1:00 today. The agenda is emailed out a week before the meeting.
Chairman Lowman inquired with Mr. Cheran how the procedure works if the applicant wants to get the
Board to change the ordinance. Staff replied to go through all the steps it is usually 30 to 60 days. What
the applicant would do is either approach his Board representative or come to a Board meeting and bring
that subject matter up. The Board then asks the Planning Department to study it; next it will go to the
Planning Commission and then to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone would like to speak in favor of this variance to come forward.
Scott Dawson came forward in favor of the variance, and the lower income housing is needed for this
County. The State and the County are backing the workforce housing project. In order to grow, the County
needs good paying jobs for tax revenue and the employees will need to have housing. Mr. Dawson said this
is a benefit to the County and he hopes this 4.20-acre parcel with minimal buffers will be approved.
Chairman Lowman ask if anyone would like to speak in opposition of this variance to come forward.
Mary Barb mentioned she lives in a 55 and older retirement Woodbrook Village subdivision. The
subdivision is not in support of this variance. The staff report states that this project does not meet the
requirements of the State and County codes. The ordinance does not produce an unreasonable restriction
or hardship on the property. She has concerns about the noise, pollution, loss of green space, water runoff
and quality of life for the subdivision. Another citizen has concerns about rear buffer, noise, security and
visibility. He also thinks if this variance approved the Committee is setting up a presidency for developers
to inquire about adjusting buffers. Mary List, Manager of HOA, stated she dropped off 51 letters for
Woodbrook Village and another 25 from neighboring properties. When Woodbrook Village was built we
had buffer to follow. Putting a road in approximately 50ft from property line would create noise. Another
concern is children. Mr. Lupton concerns were traffic light, water drainage and City water pressure.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mr. Kronenthal came forward to address comments. The open space is in the rear which adjoins the
applicant’s property there would be at least 90 ft between the parcels by the time opaque fence and planting
of trees. Since this is a workforce housing project, we must conform to certain State standards. At the site
plan stage water runoff will be addressed. The photos that were presented, he does not see any conservation
of wildlife. The thought process is if the Committee approves this variance, then the County is opening for
any developer to come and ask for a variance. As far as a presidency is concerned, each variance under
state code must stand alone. Timing is the next issue which we have till December 31, 2027, to complete
the whole project.
Jane Sauver came forward to explain in further detail about the timeline. We are using the Virginia Housing
Authority and the credits that were allocated are governed by the IRS. Once you receive allocation of
credits you have two years to complete the project. The date the credit was allocated December 2025.
Mr. Kronenthal is requesting table action for 30 days or until the next meeting. That will give the applicant
and myself time to review the letters.
Discussion
11
Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1994
Ms. Stottlemyer inquired if approved would the variance go with the property. Chairman Lowman said
once sold that will stay with the property.
Mr. Prohaska clarified are we being asked to delay the Board decision and what about the citizen that
attended the meeting. Chairman Lowman mentioned that the applicant has requested for 30 days
postponement to work with Planning to come to an agreement. Chairman Lowman stated that it appears
that the Board of Supervisors recognizes this need in the County.
Mr. Madagan mentioned that this Committee always takes into consideration the adjoining properties.
Vice-Chairman Rinker inquired if we denied them, the applicant has a right to appeal through the court
system.
On a motion made by Vice-Chairman Rinker to table the variance as requested for 30 days or next BZA
meeting and seconded by Mr. Prohaska Variance #04-26 for Cline Manor VA LLC was unanimously
approved.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20.
________________________________
Eric Lowman, Chairman
________________________________
Pamala Deeter, Secretary
12
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Variance #05-26 for Mark Landrio (Delta Contractors LLC)
Attachments:
BZA03-17-26VAR05-26_Redacted.pdf
13
VARIANCE #05-26
Applicant Name: Mark Landrio (Delta Contractors, LLC Nick
Sardelis)
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Prepared: March 9, 2026
Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
Hearing Schedule
BZA: March 17, 2026 Action: Pending
Property Information
Property Identification Number (PIN) 52-20-1
Address 141 Merrifield Lane
Magisterial District Back Creek
Acreage 5.0620+/- acres
Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Residential
Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use
North: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Vacant
South: RA (R ural Areas)District Land Use: Residential
East: RA (Rural Areas)District Land Use: Residential
West : RA (Rural Areas)District Land Use: Vacant
Variance Requested & Reasoning
The applicant is requesting a 5-feet variance to a required 45- feet front yard setback which
will result in a 40-feet front yard setback for an accessory structure.
Reason: The property owner wants to add an accessory structure on the property that will not
meet the current front (rear) setbacks.
Minimum Variance Requested Resulting Setback
Front 60-Ft N/A N/A
Left 50-Ft N/A N/A
Right (Front) 60-Ft N/A N/A
Rear(Front) 45 -Ft 5-ft 40-Ft
Staff Comments:
• This 5.0620-acre property was created in 1996 as part of the Roscommon Subdivision.
• This property is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) District with setback lines of:
14
Page 2 of 3
Front; (Merrimans Lane Route 621): 60-Ft
Left: 50-Ft
Front: (Merrifield Lane) 60-Ft
Front (R-O-W): 60-Ft
This parcel is a corner parcel with three (3) fronts: Merrimans Lane (Route 621), Merrifield
Lane, and 50-ft right-of-way (R-O-W) easement. The shortest of the three (3) fronts is along
Merrimans Lane (Route 621) is designated as the front yard.
The applicant is requesting 5-foot variance to the required 45-foot front yard setback which will
result in a 40-foot front setback from a private right of way (R-O-W) for a detached garage. In
2017 Frederick County amended the setbacks for accessory structures located along private R-O-
W from 60 ft. to 45 ft.
This application for a variance does not meet the requirements as set forth by The Code of Virginia
15.2-2309 (2), and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The setback requirements for Parcels
within the Roscommon Subdivision do not produce an unreasonable restriction on the property.
The Applicant can place this proposed accessory structure 45-ft. or greater off the 50- Ft ingress/
egress R-O-W and Merrifield Ln.
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:
It appears that this variance does not meet the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309
(2), and the Frederick Zoning Ordinance. Staff would recommend denial of this variance
15
Page 3 of 3
application. As 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).
Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals on this
variance application.
16
MERRIMANS LNME
R
R
I
F
I
E
L
D
L
N
52 20 1
1251
MERRIMANS LN
261
MERRIFIELD LN
1370
MERRIMANS LN
1281
MERRIMANS LN
1249
MERRIMANS LN
179
MERRIFIELD LN
1304
MERRIMANS LN
1350
MERRIMANS LN
µ
Frederick County Planning & Development
107 N Kent St
Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: February 23, 2026
¬«37
BAL
L
Y
G
A
R
DR PARKINSLN
FO
X
ME
A
D
O
W
L
NCAMPFIELD LNS
A
I
N
T
A
N
D
R
EW
S
C
T
MERRIMANS LNM
E
R
R
I
F
I
E
L
D
L
N
R
O
B
I
N
S
O
N
D
R
0 180 36090 Feet
VAR # 05 - 26: Delta Contractors, LLC
PIN: 52 - 20 - 1
Rear Yard Variance
Zoning Map
Application
Parcels
VAR #05-26
17
MERRIMANS LNME
R
R
I
F
I
E
L
D
L
N
52 20 1
1251
MERRIMANS LN
261
MERRIFIELD LN
1370
MERRIMANS LN
1281
MERRIMANS LN
1249
MERRIMANS LN
179
MERRIFIELD LN
1304
MERRIMANS LN
1350
MERRIMANS LN
µ
Frederick County Planning & Development
107 N Kent St
Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: February 23, 2026
¬«37
BAL
L
Y
G
A
R
DR PARKINSLN
FO
X
ME
A
D
O
W
L
NCAMPFIELD LNS
A
I
N
T
A
N
D
R
EW
S
C
T
MERRIMANS LNM
E
R
R
I
F
I
E
L
D
L
N
R
O
B
I
N
S
O
N
D
R
0 180 36090 Feet
VAR # 05 - 26: Delta Contractors, LLC
PIN: 52 - 20 - 1
Rear Yard Variance
Location Map
Application
Parcels
VAR #05-26
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Variance #06-26 for Zachary and Shaina LoVerde
Attachments:
BZA03-17-26VAR06-26_Redacted.pdf
29
VARIANCE #06-26
Applicant Name: Zachary & Shaina LoVerde (Mike Artz)
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Prepared: March 9, 2026
Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
Hearing Schedule
BZA: March 17, 2026 Action: Pending
Property Information
Property Identification Number (PIN) 22-A-8A
Address 516 Peeper Lane
Magisterial District Gainesboro
Acreage 8.6558+/- acres
Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Vacant
Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use
North: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Residential
South: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Residential
East: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Residential
West: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Vacant
Variance Requested & Reasoning
The applicant is requesting a 13-foot variance to a required 100-foot left side yard setback
which will result in an 87-foot left side yard setback for a dwelling.
Reason: This property cannot meet the current RA setbacks.
Minimum Variance Requested Resulting Setback
Front 60-Ft N/A N/A
Left 100-Ft 13-Ft 87-Ft
Right 100-Ft N/A N/A
Rear 100-Ft N/A N/A
Staff Comments:
• This 8.6558-acre property was created in 2004. The property had no setbacks assigned.
• When this property was created the RA setbacks were:
Front: 60-Ft
Sides: 50-Ft
30
Page 2 of 2
Rear: 50-Ft
• Frederick County amended the setback requirements in the RA Zoning District in 2013
based on adjoining property acreage.
• Setbacks for this property are: 60-Ft front, 100-Ft rear and sides.
The property had no setbacks assigned when created. Therefore, the current RA setbacks must be
followed. The adjoining properties surrounding this property were built prior to the ordinance
change in 2013.
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 as the
current RA setbacks cannot be met.
Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals on this
variance application.
31
PEEPER LN22 A 8A
751
FROG
HOLLOW RD
675
FROG
HOLLOW RD
396
PEEPER LN
336
EVENING LN
550
PEEPER LN
771
FROG HOLLOW RD
472
MCCUBBIN RD
939
FROG
HOLLOW RD
775
FROG
HOLLOW RD
629
FROG
HOLLOW RD
490
PEEPER LN
560
PEEPER LN
416
PEEPER LN
446
PEEPER LN
µ
Frederick County Planning & Development
107 N Kent St
Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: February 24, 2026
EVENING LN
PEEPER LNFROGHOLLOW RD0 260 520130 Feet
VAR # 06 - 26: Zachary and Shaina LoVerde
PIN: 22 - A - 8A
Side Yard Variance
Zoning Map
Application
Parcels
VAR #06-26
32
PEEPER LN22 A 8A
336
EVENING LN
550
PEEPER LN
771
FROG HOLLOW RD
472
MCCUBBIN RD
939
FROG
HOLLOW RD
775
FROG
HOLLOW RD
751
FROG
HOLLOW RD
675
FROG
HOLLOW RD
396
PEEPER LN
490
PEEPER LN
560
PEEPER LN
416
PEEPER LN
446
PEEPER LN
629
FROG
HOLLOW RD
µ
Frederick County Planning & Development
107 N Kent St
Winchester, VA 22601
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: February 24, 2026
EVENING LN
PEEPER LNFROGHOLLOW RD0 260 520130 Feet
VAR # 06 - 26: Zachary and Shaina LoVerde
PIN: 22 - A - 8A
Side Yard Variance
Location Map
Application
Parcels
VAR #06-26
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: March 17, 2026
Agenda Section: Action Item
Title: Variance #04-26 for Cline Manor LLC
Attachments:
BZA03-17-26VAR04-26RequestforDeferral_Redacted.pdf
43
BAILIWICK STRATEGIES LLC
406 West Franklin Street, First Floor
P.O. Box 25309
Richmond, Virginia 23260
March 4, 2026
By Email:
County of Frederick
Department of Planning and Development and
Board of Zoning Appeals
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Attn: Wyatt Pearson, Director
Wyatt.pearson@fcva.us
Re: Deferral Request for Variance 04-26; 3266 Valley Pike (PIN 63 A 37)
Dear Mr. Pearson:
On behalf of Cline Manor VA LLC (the “Applicant”), this letter is the Applicant’s request that
the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing for VAR # 04-26 be deferred for an additional ninety (90)
days to the June 2026 Board hearing date. The deferral period is necessary in order to review
items relevant to the Board’s ultimate decision in the Applicant’s case.
The Applicant agrees that the time periods provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2312 would toll for
the duration of the deferral period.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Kronenthal II, Esq.
cc: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator (by email)
Jen Surber (by email)
44