The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZAAgenda2026June161.Call to Order 2.Determination of a Quorum 3.Meeting Minutes 3.A.Minutes of April 21, 2026 and May 19, 2026 4.Public Hearings 4.A.Variance #11-26 for James Dollar Submitted a request for a 29.9-foot variance to a required 50-foot left yard setback resulting in a 20.1-foot left yard setback, and a request for a 18.4-foot variance to a required 50-foot right side yard setback resulting in a 31.6-foot right side yard setback, and a request for a 31.6-foot variance to a required 60-foot front yard setback resulting in a 28.4-foot front yard setback for a dwelling. The property is located at 290 Old Bethel Church Road, Winchester, and is identified by Property Identification Number 41-6-2-1 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. 5.Action Item 5.A.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 located at 3266 Valley Pike, Winchester, and is identified by Property Identification Number 63-A-37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2026 3:30 PM THE BOARD ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA BZA06-16-26MeetingMinutesApril21.pdf BZA06-16-26MeetingMinutesMay19.pdf BZA06-16-26VAR11-26_Redacted.pdf BZA06-16-26VAR04-26_Redacted.pdf 1 6.Other 2 Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: June 16, 2026 Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes Title: Minutes of April 21, 2026 and May 19, 2026 Attachments: BZA06-16-26MeetingMinutesApril21.pdf BZA06-16-26MeetingMinutesMay19.pdf 3 Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 1999 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 April 21, 2026. PRESENT: Eric Lowman, Chairman, Red Bud District; Dudley Rinker, Vice-Chairman, Back Creek; John Cline, Stonewall District; James Prohaska, Opequon District; Dolores Stottlemyer, Shawnee District; and Ronald Madagan, Member at Large. ABSENT: Linda Whitacre, Gainesboro District 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 May. Mr. Cheran replied no. The cutoff date is Friday. Mr. Cline made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for March 17, 2026, and was seconded by Mr. Rinker and was unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Variance #07-26 for Deer Tree LLC. (Tyler Beiler, Beiler & Co. LLC.) submitted a request for 75-foot variance to the required 100-foot left and right-side yard setbacks which will result in a 25-foot left and right-side yard setback for a dwelling. The property is located off Route 50 West onto Wardensville Grade (Route 608) pass Mall Barn Lane on the left then proceed right the lot is next to 4648 Wardensville Grade and is identified by Property Identification Number 58-A-29 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 located Back Creek Magisterial District and is 76.4 acres and is zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. The property was created in 1967 and has no assigned setbacks. In 2013, the Board of Supervisor amend the setback requirements in the RA Zoning District, and the setback is based on the adjoining property acreage. The setbacks for this property are 60-ft front, 100-ft rear, and left and right sides 100 ft. The reasons for the variance are the overhead utility lines and the 4 Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 2000 topography of the land. Since the overhead utility lines are on the property, the applicant has restrictions and cannot build under them. The Applicant would need to build around them. 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 ended the presentation by stating this variance appears to be consistent character of Back Creek District and meets the Code of Virginia and Frederick County. The Applicant Charles Swope came forward. He stated they are trying to build a home, but the overhead lines are creating problems with getting a house location site. A board member inquired as to who would be living in the dwelling. The Applicant responded that he would be living in the dwelling. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT Chairman Lowman asked if there is anyone to speak in favor or in opposition to come forward. No one came forward. Discussion None CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING On a motion made by Mr. Rinker to approve the Variance #07-26 for Deer Tree LLC as requested and seconded by Mr. Madigan and was unanimously approved. 5 Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 2001 PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lowman mentioned if anyone going to speak about this Appeal #08-26 Thomas and Lanah Fitzgerald will need to be sworn in. He proceeded with the swearing in. Appeal #08-26 for Thomas and Lanah Fitzgerald submitted to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator, letter dated February 9, 2026, as it relates to the operation of commercial outdoor shooting range as an unauthorized accessory use to a short term rental Conditional Use Permit on the property per Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 165, Section 165-401.03 X Conditional Uses. The appellant contests they are not operating a commercial shooting range. The property is located at 506 Shickle Lane, Gore and is identified with Property Identification Number 2 8-3-9 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 located in the Back Creek Magisterial District and is 10.96 acres and is zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. Staff reiterated why the Applicant is Appealing. The Applicant is appealing against the Notice of Violation letter dated February 9, 2026. The Board of Supervisors adopted in 2022 an ordinance for Short Term Lodging (STL). The Applicant has a STL. The Applicant applied for a STL in 2023 and provided a floor plan for the building official, parking requirement, fire escape plan and health department etc. These agencies viewed the application and the plan. The agencies had to make a site visit. If the agencies approved of their requirements, then a STL permit is issued and a business license issued. The STL is good for two years and the applicant must follow the regulations. When the application was presented, there is no indication of a shooting range. The STL was renewed in 2025 with no record of a shooting range. Mr. Cheran stated the County allows commercial shooting ranges and archery ranges in the Rural Areas with an approved Conditional Use Permit not as an accessory use to n STL. In closing Staff mentioned the property was issued a STL Permit #14-23 in 2023 with no record of a Commercial Shooting Range. The renewal in 2025 again no record of shooting range. There were no conditions to allow a shooting range to be on that site. The County Code allows commercial shooting ranges in the RA Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit but not as an accessory use to a STL. Staff has reviewed the Applicant’s website, and she is listing the commercial shooting range as an amenity. The reviews on the website mention about the shooting range. The letter the Applicant presented to the Board clearly states the range would be accessible for the guest. No money is exchanging hands for the commercial shooting range but is linked as an amenity for staying in the STL. Therefore, the use of a shooting range on this property is a violation of Frederick County Code. The only issue this Board of Zoning Appeals must address is to affirm or overrule the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding the violation of County code. Chairman Lowman asked the Applicant Lanah Fitzgerald to come forward and stated her name. She stated she had no idea that she could not have a shooting range. The range is not open to the public and there are no employees, no office area, and definitely not a commercial shooting range because they are not charging their guest. The shooting range is just there to use like the swimming pool. When she applied for the STL permit, she had inspectors from different agencies come to the property to do a site inspection. One inspector said she needed a fence around the swimming 6 Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 2002 pool. The fence was installed. Not one inspector mentioned the shooting range. All the shooting is not coming from her property; the neighbors have hunting land. Ms. Fitzgerald wants to be a good neighbor and see if she can resolve any of these concerns. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT Chairman Lowman asked if there is anyone to speak in favor or in opposition to come forward. Several citizens came to the podium to speak against the STL and the shooting range. Gary Seabright mentioned safety concerns because bullets are not contained to that property, and the grounds not kept up, a neighbor had a bullet to fly by him, advertising as an amenity with the STL, and does not have the Conditional Use Permit for a commercial shooting range. Mr. Schuler a resident at 480 Shickle Lane, stated on the website that the policy is 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. maximum 2 hours daily shoot at your own risk, and the Virginia and Federal firearm laws must be followed and are included in STL fee. Mr. Patterson said the constant noise and safety is concerns of all the neighbors. Mr. Patterson shared a recording of a discharged bullet that came close range to his face. Mr. Doug Connor walks all the time and safety is his concern. Barbara Seabright 109 Shickle Lane, stated the shooting continues about 4 to 5 hours daily and safety is a big concern. The last time she called the sheriff department on Christmas Day because the shooting noise continued 2 to 3 hours. She is unable to sit on her porch or work in flower bed because of safety issues. Sheriff Millholland came forward stating the Frederick County ordinance limits what the sheriff office can do about noise. For months they have been getting calls or text saying they are shooting again. When a citizen called, he could hear the firing of guns in the background. He followed up with Mr. Cheran about the calls. The Sheriff Office has had more calls to this property than any other property in the County. This is a safety concern for the Sheriff Office when bullets are leaving one property and extending to another. A Board member asked is this your professional opinion. Sheriff Millholland if this would be considered a safe shooting range. The Sheriff replied no only judging by what had happened. A shooting range would not have rounds of ammunition firing like I heard in the recordings. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Cheran came forward to clarify information about a commercial shooting range or archery range. The ordinance states the applicant must apply for a Conditional Use Permit which goes to two public hearings. The Board of Supervisors can put conditions on the use such as hours of operation, how many customers and would need to follow the Wildlife hunting laws and regulations. Anything that is open to the public and a fee is taken their engaging in business. The Virginia State Supreme Court made a definition that any business open to the public and a profit is being turned that is considered a business. The reviews on the website customer mentioned the shooting range and that is why a violation letter went out to the applicant. The Applicant mentioned that surrounding property also shoot and yes, they can practice shooting because it is permitted in the RA District. Staff were getting calls from citizens, letters, as well as calls from the Sheriff’s Office. This address had the most complaints. Again, when hunting season comes in, staff are sure the surrounding properties will be practicing. 7 Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 2003 Ms. Fitzgerald came forward; she wants to work with the neighbors and be a good neighbor. The applicant stated that Mr. Seabright doesn’t live in that area, and he played a recording where the bullet whizzed past him. She disagrees where Mr. Seabright was standing that it was physically impossible to make the recording. The applicant described the shooting range and the ridge lines. A citizen stated two or three times a week shooting was happening on her property. The Applicant said that is not the case because they didn’t have a reservation for incoming clients. She offered to show the Board the reservation booking information. The Applicant apologized for the Christmas shooting. Ms. Fitzgerald will personally inform the guest as to the time limit for shooting. The Sheriff did not come out and verify that the shooting was coming from her property. Again, Ms. Fitzgerald property is surrounded by properties that have the ability for hunting. Ms. Fitzgerald still believes that she is not a commercial shooting range because she does not take money and the range is available at your own risk and is included with the room like the swimming pool is. Ms. Fitzgerald wasn’t sure if she listed the shooting range on the STL application. When the agencies came out to review their components of the STL application, the County workers would have seen the shooting range. Ms. Fitzgerald said she goes to the STL and practice shooting and so does some of her friends. We are trying to regulate the type of guns since the noise issue with neighbors. Discussion The Board members had questions for Ms. Fitzgerald. Does her insurance company know she has a shooting range. Ms. Fitzgerald replied yes. Do she require her guest to have a firearm safety course and documentation. Ms. Fitzgerald reply was no. Has she and Mr. Fitzgerald taken a firearm class. Ms. Fitzgerald replied yes. Then she is aware that once a bullet is discharged it could rickasha. Does she offer a safety course. Ms. Fitzgerald replied no but that is something for us to consider. A Board member states that the Zoning Ordinance clearly states in order to have a shooting or archery range the property owner needs a Conditional Use Permit and as far as regulating the noise there is no ordinance in the Rural Areas District. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING On a motion from Mr. Rinker to uphold the Zoning Administrator decision on the Appeal #08-26 Thomas and Lanah Fitzgerald and was seconded by Mr. Prohaska and the vote was 6 to 0 with 1 absent to uphold the Zoning Administrator decision. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50. ________________________________ Eric Lowman, Chairman ________________________________ Pamala Deeter, Secretary 8 2004 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 May 19, 2026. PRESENT: Eric Lowman, Chairman, Red Bud District; Dudley Rinker, Vice-Chairman, Back Creek; John Cline, Stonewall District; Dolores Stottlemyer, Shawnee District; Linda Whitacre, Gainesboro District and Ronald Madagan, Member at Large. ABSENT: James Prohaska, Opequon District STAFF PRESENT: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator; 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 June. Mr. Cheran replied no. The cutoff date is Friday. PUBLIC HEARING Variance #09-26 for Backwoods Properties (Michael Artz) submitted a request for a 10-foot variance to a required 60-foot front yard setback resulting in a 50-foot front yard setback and a request for a 40-foot variance to a required 100-foot right side yard setback resulting in a 60-foot right side yard setback for a dwelling. The property is located off Route 50 West (Northwestern Pike) proceed 0.72 miles west of (Route 610) Parrishville Road and is identified by Property Identification Number 27-A-2 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran came forward to present his staff report and maps. Mr. Cheran proceeded with background information. The property is located Gainesboro District and is 2.9377 acres and is zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. The property was created in 1975 and has no assigned setbacks. In 1967, at the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, this property was classified as A-2 (Agricultural General). The setbacks at the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance were 35 feet for the front, 15 feet side yard and 35 feet rear yard. In 2013, the Board of Supervisors amended the setback requirements in the RA Zoning District, and this setback is based on the adjoining property acreage. The current setback is 60 feet front, left, right and rear 100 feet. Today’s setbacks limit the buildable area for a single-family dwelling. The property owner cannot meet the current RA setbacks. Staff mentioned the property is located within the FIRM Zone A with most of the property being unbuildable. Mr. Cheran stated the applicant cannot meet the current setbacks due to the floodplain. The floodplain maps were changed in 2021. Prior to 2021 FEMA 9 2005 would not allow property owners to build in floodway or floodplain. A floodway is considered the middle of a creek, river or a stream and that could expand past the banks. This parcel is in the floodplain and a dwelling can be built there but a requirement from FEMA is a special engineer for design of the house and location. 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 medication of a Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cheran ends the presentation by stating this variance appears to be consistent character of Gainesboro District and meets the Code of Virginia and Frederick County. The Applicant is represented by Michael Artz. This parcel is in the 100-year flood zone. Mr. Artz submitted a letter to FEMA for map amendment to determine the exact extent of the 100-year flood zone. Mr. Artz received a letter back from FEMA and that is how he prepared the setback on the plat for a dwelling. Mr. Artz stated FEMA is still processing the LOMAR map. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT Chairman Lowman asked if there is anyone to speak in favor or in opposition to come forward. No one came forward. Discussion A board member inquired about the garage on the property. 10 2006 A motion made by Mrs. Whitacre to approve the variance #09-26 for Backwoods Properties as requested and seconded by Mr. Rinker and was unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Variance #10-26 for Maynard C. Marple, Jr., Trustee (Michael Artz) submitted a request for a 30.4-foot variance to a required 60-foot front yard setback resulting in a 29.6-foot front yard setback and a request for a 70-foot variance to a required 100-foot left side yard setback resulting in a 30-foot left side yard setback and a request for a 30.8-foot variance to a required 100-foot right side yard setback resulting in a 69.2-foot right side yard setback for a dwelling. The property is located on the north side of Hollow Road (Route 707), proceed 0.10 miles west of Fletcher Road (Route 733) and is identified by Property Identification Number 26-A-41 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran came forward to present his staff report and maps. Mr. Cheran proceeded with background information. The property is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District and is 1.33 acres and the zoning is RA (Rural Areas) District. Mr. Artz represents the Applicant which he provided a 1949 subdivision plat with no assigned setbacks. When the County adopted the Zoning Ordinance in 1967, this property was in the A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The A-2 District setbacks were 35 ft for the front and rear and 15 ft for the side yard. Staff noted the Ordinance was amended in 2013 changing the setback requirements. Now the setbacks are based on the adjoining property acreage. The setbacks for this parcel are 60 ft front setback, left, right and rear 100 ft setback. 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. 11 2007 Staff noted that the property is split down the middle with powerlines, so the property owner has limited area for a dwelling. The intent of The Code of Virginia and the Code of Frederick County has been met. Mr. Michael Artz’s came forward representing the Applicant. The parcel is only 200 ft wide from left to right and a 30 ft powerline easement down the center of the parcel. The soil scientist found a drainfield site in the rear of the property. The placement of the dwelling was determined by the topographic issue. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT Chairman Lowman asked if there is anyone to speak in favor or in opposition to come forward. No one came forward. Discussion A board member stated the County has changed a lot since 1949 when the property was created. A motion made by Mrs. Whitacre to approve the Variance #10-26 for Maynard C. Marple Jr. Trustee as requested and seconded by Mr. Madagan and was unanimously approved. Staff gave an update stating that the Board approved the new format of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Cheran updated the board on the Winchester Wireless. Mr. Cheran gave an update on the Cline Manor Variance. The meeting was adjourned at 4:05. ________________________________ Eric Lowman, Chairman ________________________________ Pamala Deeter, Secretary 12 Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: June 16, 2026 Agenda Section: Public Hearings Title: Variance #11-26 for James Dollar Attachments: BZA06-16-26VAR11-26_Redacted.pdf 13 VARIANCE #11-26 Applicant Name: James Dollar Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Prepared: June 5, 2026 Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator Hearing Schedule BZA: June 16, 2026 Action: Pending Property Information Property Identification Number (PIN) 41-6-2-1 Address 290 Old Bethel Church Road Magisterial District Gainesboro Acreage 1.00+/- 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: Residential Variance Requested & Reasoning Reason: This property cannot meet the current RA setbacks due to the size of the parcel. Minimum Variance Requested Resulting Setback Front 60-Ft 31.6-Ft 28.4-Ft Left 50-Ft 29.9-Ft 20.1-Ft Right 50-Ft 18.4-Ft 36.1-Ft Rear N/A N/A N/A Staff Comments: • This 1.00-acre property was created in 1965with no assigned setbacks. • Frederick County amended the setback requirements in the RA Zoning District in 2013 based on adjoining property acreage. 14 Page 2 of 2 • The Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) at the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1967. The setback lines at the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance were 35 feet for the front, 15 feet side yard and 35 feet rear yard. An abandoned non-conforming mobile home was located on the property. This mobile home was abandoned for more than two (2) years. The non-conforming use has been discontinued. Therefore, the current RA Zoning District setbacks would apply to this property. The current RA setbacks cannot be met and would limit the buildable area for a mobile home on this 1.00 Ac. parcel. Code of Virginia & Frederick County Zoning Ordinance: The Code of Virginia §15.2-2309(2) and the Code of Frederick County §165-305.01 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. 15 OLD BETHEL CHURCH RD41 6 2 1 333 OLD BETHEL CH RD 326 LITTLE POND LN 287 OLD BETHEL CH RD 308 OLD BETHEL CH RD 316 OLD BETHEL CH RD 326 OLD BETHEL CH RD 278 OLD BETHEL CH RD 268 OLD BETHEL CH RD 258 OLD BETHEL CH RD µ Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: May 29, 2026BETHE L GRANGE RDOLD BETHEL CHURCH RDSANCTUARYDRIN D I A N HO L L O W R DRANDALLSTUEWE DRDICKSHOLLOW RDLITTLE POND LN 0 70 14035 Feet VAR # 11 - 26: James Dollar PIN: 41 - 6 - 2 - 1 Rear, Left, and Right Side Variance Zoning Map Application Parcels VAR #11-26 16 OLD BETHEL CHURCH RD41 6 2 1 333 OLD BETHEL CH RD 326 LITTLE POND LN 287 OLD BETHEL CH RD 308 OLD BETHEL CH RD 316 OLD BETHEL CH RD 326 OLD BETHEL CH RD 278 OLD BETHEL CH RD 268 OLD BETHEL CH RD 258 OLD BETHEL CH RD µ Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: May 29, 2026BETHE L GRANGE RDOLD BETHEL CHURCH RDSANCTUARYDRIN D I A N HO L L O W R DRANDALLSTUEWE DRDICKSHOLLOW RDLITTLE POND LN 0 70 14035 Feet VAR # 11 - 26: James Dollar PIN: 41 - 6 - 2 - 1 Rear, Left, and Right Side Variance Location Map Application Parcels VAR #11-26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: June 16, 2026 Agenda Section: Action Item Title: Variance #04-26 for Cline Manor VA LLC Attachments: BZA06-16-26VAR04-26_Redacted.pdf 29 VARIANCE #04-25 Applicant Name: Cline Manor VA LLC Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Prepared: June 5, 2026 Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator Hearing Schedule BZA: February 17, 2026 BZA: June 16, 2026 Action: Postponed Action till June Action: Pending Property Information Property Identification Number (PIN) 63-A-37 Address 3266 Valley Pike Magisterial District Back Creek Acreage 4.20+/- acres Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District Land Use: Residential Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use North: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential South: B2 (General Business) Land Use: Business East: B3 (Industrial Transition) Land Use: Business West : RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential Variance Requested & Reasoning The applicant is requesting variance of an inactive buffer of 25 feet with full screening together with an active buffer of 25 feet. A 35 feet inactive road buffer with full screening with a 40 feet active road buffer. Reason: This property cannot meet the current buffer requirements due to its shape. Minimum Variance Requested Resulting Setback Front N/A N/A N/A Left N/A N/A N/A Right N/A N/A N/A Rear N/A N/A N/A Staff Comments: This 4.20-acre property was created in the 1950’s prior to Frederick County adopting Zoning. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property as being 30 Page 2 of 3 zoned R2 (Residential General) at the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1967. The Applicant applied to Frederick County for a revitalization and tax abatement district for multifamily workforce and qualify low-income housing. This project is for a forty-eight (48) unit multifamily apartment building, The Applicant applied for a variance to reduce the residential separation buffer from 25-feet active buffer and 25-feet inactive buffer from 100-feet to allow a full screen buffer of 50-feet. The Applicant has also applied for a reduced the inactive road efficiency from 40 feet to 35 feet with full screening. The Applicant believes the property shape and boundary of the property is exceptional, non- standard, and is not repeated within Frederick County. The current buffer requirements of the Zoning Ordinance limit the buildable area to allow forty-eight (48) unit apartment building on the property. Frederick County amended its ordinance in 1989 to change the R2 Zoning District to the current RP Zoning District; Frederick County amended its Zoning Ordinance in 1973 to add buffer requirements within the zoning districts. The provision of the Zoning Ordinance has been updated throughout the years as needed. The last update of the buffer requirements was done in 2023. Furthermore, the Applicant contends that the buffer requirements imposed for development on the property produced hardship and will result in an unreasonable use of the property. The property was acquired in good faith. However, the Applicant should have understood all the zoning requirements and restrictions for developing the property. The Applicant could add additional property to increase the size and shape this property to accommodate the buffer requirements to develop the property. The Board of Zoning Appeals should take into consideration not what the property is being developed for, but the variance that is being applied for. In this case, the property owner should have done their due diligence as to the development restrictions that will be placed on this property prior to acquiring it. Frederick County Code does not produce an undue hardship as the hardship is self-inflicted by the applicant. 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; 31 Page 3 of 3 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 and Requested Action: This application for a variance does not meet the requirements as set forth by The Code of Virginia 15.2-2209 (2), and the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, Section 165-201.05 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not produce an unreasonable restriction or hardship on the property. Summary and Action from the Meeting of February 17, 2026. This application was deferred at the request of the applicant until the June 16, 2026. This deferment was to allow the applicant to request zoning ordinance amendment to reduce setback buffers. As of the date of this memo the Board of Supervisors is considering a code amendment relative to buffers but has not yet rendered a final decision. The Board of Zoning Appeals needs to act on this application at this date. Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals on this variance application. 32 £¤11KNOLLW O O D CT PLAINF I E L D D R VALLEYPIKE63 A 37 301 KNOLLWOOD CT 3257 VALLEY PIKE 3283 VALLEY PIKE 3321 VALLEY PIKE 3277 VALLEY PIKE 3248 VALLEY PIKE 107 BUCKWOOD LN 3302 VALLEY PIKE 101 TANGLEWOOD LN 103 TANGLEWOOD LN 105 TANGLEWOOD LN 107 TANGLEWOOD LN 207 KNOLLWOOD CT 209 KNOLLWOOD CT 211 KNOLLWOOD CT 308 KNOLLWOOD CT 304 KNOLLWOOD CT 130 PLAINFIELD DR 128 PLAINFIELD DR 126 PLAINFIELD DR 124 PLAINFIELD DR 122 PLAINFIELD DR 112 PLAINFIELD DR 110 PLAINFIELD DR 106 PLAINFIELD DR 113 PLAINFIELD DR 109 PLAINFIELD DR 105 PLAINFIELD DR 3212 VALLEY PIKE 3222 VALLEY PIKE 3232 VALLEY PIKE 3242 VALLEY PIKE 303 KNOLLWOOD CT 305 KNOLLWOOD CT 3267 VALLEY PIKE 3258 VALLEY PIKE 109 TANGLEWOOD LN 111 TANGLEWOOD LN 205 KNOLLWOOD CT 213 KNOLLWOOD CT 103 PLAINFIELD DR 136 PLAINFIELD DR134 PLAINFIELD DR 132 PLAINFIELD DR 120 PLAINFIELD DR 118 PLAINFIELD DR 116 PLAINFIELD DR 114 PLAINFIELD DR 133 PLAINFIELD DR 129 PLAINFIELD DR 127 PLAINFIELD DR 121 PLAINFIELD DR 100 ROSEWOOD LN 201 KNOLLWOOD CT µ Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: January 28, 2026 £¤11 VALLEY PIKEAPPLE VALLEY RDTANGLEWOODLNSHADYELM RDROSEWOOD LNNUTMEG LN PLAINFIELD DRRIDGECRESTCTCRANBERRY CT DOONBE G CT SH A W N E E D R 0 150 30075 Feet VAR # 04 - 26: Cline Manor VA LLC PIN: 63 - A - 37 Variance Zoning Map Application Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels B2 (General Business District) B3 (Industrial Transition District) M2 (Industrial General District) RP (Residential Performance District) VAR #04-26 33 £¤11KNOLLW O O D CT PLAINF I E L D D R VALLEYPIKE63 A 37 301 KNOLLWOOD CT 3257 VALLEY PIKE 107 BUCKWOOD LN 3302 VALLEY PIKE 101 TANGLEWOOD LN 103 TANGLEWOOD LN 105 TANGLEWOOD LN 107 TANGLEWOOD LN 207 KNOLLWOOD CT 209 KNOLLWOOD CT 211 KNOLLWOOD CT 308 KNOLLWOOD CT 304 KNOLLWOOD CT 130 PLAINFIELD DR 128 PLAINFIELD DR 126 PLAINFIELD DR 124 PLAINFIELD DR 122 PLAINFIELD DR 112 PLAINFIELD DR 110 PLAINFIELD DR 106 PLAINFIELD DR 113 PLAINFIELD DR 109 PLAINFIELD DR 105 PLAINFIELD DR 3212 VALLEY PIKE 3222 VALLEY PIKE 3232 VALLEY PIKE 3242 VALLEY PIKE 3283 VALLEY PIKE 3321 VALLEY PIKE 3277 VALLEY PIKE 3248 VALLEY PIKE 303 KNOLLWOOD CT 305 KNOLLWOOD CT 109 TANGLEWOOD LN 111 TANGLEWOOD LN 205 KNOLLWOOD CT 213 KNOLLWOOD CT 103 PLAINFIELD DR 136 PLAINFIELD DR134 PLAINFIELD DR 132 PLAINFIELD DR 120 PLAINFIELD DR 118 PLAINFIELD DR 116 PLAINFIELD DR 114 PLAINFIELD DR 133 PLAINFIELD DR 129 PLAINFIELD DR 127 PLAINFIELD DR 121 PLAINFIELD DR 100 ROSEWOOD LN 201 KNOLLWOOD CT 3267 VALLEY PIKE 3258 VALLEY PIKE µ Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: January 28, 2026 £¤11 VALLEY PIKEAPPLE VALLEY RDTANGLEWOODLNSHADYELM RDROSEWOOD LNNUTMEG LN PLAINFIELD DRRIDGECRESTCTCRANBERRY CT DOONBE G CT SH A W N E E D R 0 150 30075 Feet VAR # 04 - 26: Cline Manor VA LLC PIN: 63 - A - 37 Variance Location Map Application Sewer and Water Service Area Parcels VAR #04-26 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 / /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// //VALLEY PIKERTE. 1180' R.O.W.POSTED SPEED: 35 MPHN/F:MINOR DAVID LPARCEL ID:63 A 36ZONED: RPN/F:ROY CLARENCE EPARCEL ID:63 A 35ZONED: RPN/F:LINK JACQUELYNPARCEL ID:63 A 34ZONED: RPN/F:AMERICAN ASSETS MANAGEMENT LLCPARCEL ID:63 A 38ZONED: RPN/F:WOODBROOK VILLAGEHOMEOWNERS ASSOCPARCEL ID:63B 2 2 58AZONED: RPN/F:PLUMBER JOYCE MPARCEL ID:63B 1 13ZONED: RPN/F:SYNOWIETZ PETERPARCEL ID:63B 1 14ZONED: RPN/F:LANTZ SUSAN DPARCEL ID:63B 1 15ZONED: RPN/F:HOWARD JOHN JPARCEL ID:63B 1 16ZONED: RPN/F:SAOM LLCPARCEL ID:63B 1 BZONED: B2N/F:SAOM LLCPARCEL ID:63B 1 CZONED: B2EX. BUILDING(TO BE DEMOLISHED)EX. BUILDING(TO BE DEMOLISHED)±30'±53'±103'±109'±65'±101'N/F:RITTER CLINTON R ETALST:\Projects\RVA_Projects\32171-001_Cline Manor-Ph.I_Surber_Frederick Co VA\Engineering\CAD\Concepts\3266 VALLEY PIKE.dwg | 01/28/26 4:13pm | cpalmoreCLINE MANOREXISTING CONDITIONS3266 VALLEY PIKE , FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.DATE: JANUARY 9, 2026SCALE: 1" = 40'EXHIBIT ASITE LOCATION MAP ~ SCALE: 1"=1000'1 inch =GRAPHIC SCALEfeet40402004080SHAWNEE DR.NAD 83 VALLEY PIKEI-81 SITE1703 N. Parham Rd. Suite 202 Henrico, Va 23229(804) 740-9200 FAX (804) 740-7338 www.KBJWgroup.com43 / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// //VALLEY PIKERTE. 1180' R.O.W.POSTED SPEED: 35 MPHN/F:MINOR DAVID LPARCEL ID:63 A 36ZONED: RPN/F:ROY CLARENCE EPARCEL ID:63 A 35ZONED: RPN/F:LINK JACQUELYNPARCEL ID:63 A 34ZONED: RPN/F:AMERICAN ASSETS MANAGEMENT LLCPARCEL ID:63 A 38ZONED: RPN/F:WOODBROOK VILLAGEHOMEOWNERS ASSOCPARCEL ID:63B 2 2 58AZONED: RPN/F:PLUMBER JOYCE MPARCEL ID:63B 1 13ZONED: RPN/F:SYNOWIETZ PETERPARCEL ID:63B 1 14ZONED: RPN/F:LANTZ SUSAN DPARCEL ID:63B 1 15ZONED: RPN/F:HOWARD JOHN JPARCEL ID:63B 1 16ZONED: RPN/F:SAOM LLCPARCEL ID:63B 1 BZONED: B2N/F:SAOM LLCPARCEL ID:63B 1 CZONED: B2818'(TYP)24'(TYP)VANVAN575'INACTIVE25'ACTIVE24'(TYP)75'INACTIVE25'ACTIVE75'INACTIVE25'ACTIVE40'INACTIVE40'ACTIVET:\Projects\RVA_Projects\32171-001_Cline Manor-Ph.I_Surber_Frederick Co VA\Engineering\Info from Proposal Phase\CAD\3266 VALLEY PIKE_CP-6.dwg | 01/29/26 9:52am | cpalmoreCLINE MANORSITE LAYOUT - EXISTING BUFFER3266 VALLEY PIKE , FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.DATE: JANUARY 28, 2026SCALE: 1" = 30'EXHIBIT B1703 N. Parham Rd. Suite 202 Henrico, Va 23229(804) 740-9200 FAX (804) 740-7338 www.KBJWgroup.comSITE LOCATION MAP ~ SCALE: 1"=1000'ENGINEER:SITE DATASITE ADDRESS:3266 VALLEY PIKEWINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602EXISTING USE:PIN: 63A37HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 020700040901UNIT NAME: OPEQUON CREEKRECEIVING WATERS: SULPHER SPRING RUNKOONTZ BRYANT JOHNSON WILLIAMS, INC1703 NORTH PARHAM ROAD, SUITE 202HENRICO, VIRGINIA 23229CONTACT: F. CAMERON PALMORE, P.E.PHONE: (804) 200-1900 ~ FAX: (804) 740-7338EMAIL: CPALMORE@KBJWGROUP.COMRESIDENTIALMAP REFERENCE:PARCEL ZONING:PARCEL AREA:±4.2 ACRES (TOTAL)PARKING:PARKING REQUIRED: 96 SPACES (2 SPACES PER UNIT)PARKING PROVIDED: 13 SPACESU.D. ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED: 10 (10%)U.D. ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED: 5OWNER:RITTER CLINTON R ETALS23 RICHMOND RD.FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630PHONE:EMAIL:DISTRICT:BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTBUILDING INFO:NO. OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS: 1NO. OF APARTMENT UNITS: 48 (20 UNITS/AC)GENERAL NOTES1.THIS PLAN IS FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS LAYOUT HASYET TO BE FULLY DETERMINED.2.PLANIMETRICS AND PROPERTY INFORMATION ARE COMPILED FROM EXISTING DESIGNPLANS, AS-BUILT PLANS, GIS DATA, AND OBSERVATIONS FROM A SITE VISIT.3.A GENERAL REVIEW OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS WAS DONE IN PREPARING THISCONCEPT; HOWEVER, THE CONCEPT DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM FORMAL MEETINGS ANDREVIEWS FROM THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION WHICH MAYUNCOVER ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS.4.SITE AND DESIGN RELATED CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GRADING,STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, WATER, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, DRY UTILITIES,ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, AND EXISTING SOIL CONDITIONS WERE NOT FULLYCONSIDERED WITH THIS EARLY CONCEPTUAL LEVEL LAYOUT.BUILDING HEIGHT:RP (RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT)MAXIMUM DENSITY 20 UNITS/ACREOPEN SPACE REQUIRED (OVERALL) = 1.26 AC. (30%)SHAWNEE DR.SIX (6) STORIES (TYP. MAX ALLOWABLE 60')NAD 83 VALLEY PIKEI-81DEVELOPER\APPLICANT:SURBER DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTING LLCCONTACT: JEN SURBER120 GREENTREE CIRCLE ROADBRISTOL, VIRGINIA 24201CONTACT: JEN SURBERPHONE: (276) 698-8760EMAIL:JENSURBER@SURBERDEV.COMPROPOSED USE:MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTSSITE NOTES1.REQUIRED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT\BMP FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED UNDERGROUND.2.REQUIRED PARKING WOULD NEED TO BE MET WITH ALTERNATIVE METHODS.SITEPHASEBLDG #1AREA (AC)0.3PHASE SUMMARYAREAS BASED ON GIS INFORMATIONSUBJECT TO CHANGELEGENDPR. BUILDINGSPR. PAVEMENT(PARKING\TRAVELWAYS)PR. CONCRETESIDEWALK\PADOPEN SPACE AREASBUFFER1 inch =GRAPHIC SCALEfeet30301503060PR. PAVEMENT(SHARED VEHICLE &PEDESTRIAN USE)44 / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / // / /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// //VALLEY PIKERTE. 1180' R.O.W.POSTED SPEED: 35 MPH18'(TYP)18'(TYP)24'(TYP)18'(TYP)18'(TYP)24'(TYP)RECREATIONAREA(±3,700 S.F.)OUTDOOR AMENITYSPACE (±1,300 S.F.)N/F:MINOR DAVID LPARCEL ID:63 A 36ZONED: RPN/F:ROY CLARENCE EPARCEL ID:63 A 35ZONED: RPN/F:LINK JACQUELYNPARCEL ID:63 A 34ZONED: RPN/F:AMERICAN ASSETS MANAGEMENT LLCPARCEL ID:63 A 38ZONED: RPN/F:WOODBROOK VILLAGEHOMEOWNERS ASSOCPARCEL ID:63B 2 2 58AZONED: RPN/F:PLUMBER JOYCE MPARCEL ID:63B 1 13ZONED: RPN/F:SYNOWIETZ PETERPARCEL ID:63B 1 14ZONED: RPN/F:LANTZ SUSAN DPARCEL ID:63B 1 15ZONED: RPN/F:HOWARD JOHN JPARCEL ID:63B 1 16ZONED: RPN/F:SAOM LLCPARCEL ID:63B 1 BZONED: B2N/F:SAOM LLCPARCEL ID:63B 1 CZONED: B224'(TYP)25' INACTIVE 25'INACTIVE25'INACTIVE71010VANVAN1010991010VANVAN1070'1024'(TYP)25'ACTIVE25'ACTIVE25' ACTIVE 25'ACTIVE35'INACTIVE40'ACTIVE25'INACTIVET:\Projects\RVA_Projects\32171-001_Cline Manor-Ph.I_Surber_Frederick Co VA\Engineering\Info from Proposal Phase\CAD\3266 VALLEY PIKE_CP-4.dwg | 01/29/26 9:51am | cpalmoreCLINE MANORSITE LAYOUT-PROPOSED BUFFER3266 VALLEY PIKE , FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.DATE: JANUARY 28, 2026SCALE: 1" = 30'EXHIBIT C1703 N. Parham Rd. Suite 202 Henrico, Va 23229(804) 740-9200 FAX (804) 740-7338 www.KBJWgroup.comSITE LOCATION MAP ~ SCALE: 1"=1000'LEGENDPR. BUILDINGSPR. PAVEMENT(PARKING\TRAVELWAYS)PR. CONCRETESIDEWALK\PADOPEN SPACE AREASENGINEER:SITE DATASITE ADDRESS:3266 VALLEY PIKEWINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602EXISTING USE:PIN: 63A37HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE: 020700040901UNIT NAME: OPEQUON CREEKRECEIVING WATERS: SULPHER SPRING RUNKOONTZ BRYANT JOHNSON WILLIAMS, INC1703 NORTH PARHAM ROAD, SUITE 202HENRICO, VIRGINIA 23229CONTACT: JONATHAN COSBY, P.E.PHONE: (804) 200-1933 ~ FAX: (804) 740-7338EMAIL: JCOSBY@KBJWGROUP.COMRESIDENTIALMAP REFERENCE:PARCEL ZONING:PARCEL AREA:±4.2 ACRES (TOTAL)PARKING:PARKING REQUIRED: 96 SPACES (2 SPACES PER UNIT)PARKING PROVIDED: 105 SPACESU.D. ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED: 10 (10%)U.D. ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED: 10OWNER:RITTER CLINTON R ETALS23 RICHMOND RD.FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630PHONE:EMAIL:DISTRICT:BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTBUILDING INFO:NO. OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS: 1NO. OF APARTMENT UNITS: 48 (20 UNITS/AC)GENERAL NOTES1.THIS PLAN IS FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS LAYOUT HASYET TO BE FULLY DETERMINED.2.PLANIMETRICS AND PROPERTY INFORMATION ARE COMPILED FROM EXISTING DESIGNPLANS, AS-BUILT PLANS, GIS DATA, AND OBSERVATIONS FROM A SITE VISIT.3.A GENERAL REVIEW OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS WAS DONE IN PREPARING THISCONCEPT; HOWEVER, THE CONCEPT DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM FORMAL MEETINGS ANDREVIEWS FROM THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION WHICH MAYUNCOVER ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS.4.SITE AND DESIGN RELATED CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GRADING,STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, WATER, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, DRY UTILITIES,ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, AND EXISTING SOIL CONDITIONS WERE NOT FULLYCONSIDERED WITH THIS EARLY CONCEPTUAL LEVEL LAYOUT.BUILDING HEIGHT:RP (RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT)MAXIMUM DENSITY 20 UNITS/ACREOPEN SPACE REQUIRED (OVERALL) = 1.26 AC. (30%)OPEN SPACE PROVIDED (OVERALL) = 1.13 AC. (26.8%)**WAIVER REQ'D W/ ADDITIONAL RECREATION PER FREDERICKCOUNTY Z.O. 165-402.07D & 165-402.08.SHAWNEE DR.FOUR (4) STORIES (±55 TO RIDGE) (MAX ALLOWABLE 60')NAD 83 VALLEY PIKEI-81DEVELOPER\APPLICANT:SURBER DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTING LLCCONTACT: JEN SURBER120 GREENTREE CIRCLE ROADBRISTOL, VIRGINIA 24201CONTACT: JEN SURBERPHONE: (276) 698-8760EMAIL:JENSURBER@SURBERDEV.COMPROPOSED USE:MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTSSITE NOTES1.LAYOUT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM 30% OPEN SPACE, WAIVER REQUIRED BYFREDERICK COUNTY B.O.S. PROVIDED ACTIVE RECREATIONAL AREAS ARE PROVIDED.2.ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS RATIO OF 0.60 OR ±2.52 ACRESFOR THIS SITE, LAYOUT EXCEEDS MAXIMUM RATIO, PARKING AREAS MAY NEED TO BEDESIGNED AS PERMEABLE PAVEMENT TO MEET REQUIREMENT.3.REQUIRED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT\BMP FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED UNDERGROUND.SITEPHASEBLDG #1 (PH.I)AREA (AC)2.7PHASE SUMMARYAREAS BASED ON GIS INFORMATIONSUBJECT TO CHANGE1 inch =GRAPHIC SCALEfeet30301503060BUFFER45 Exhibit D 46 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025 7:00 P.M. BOARD ROOM, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 107 NORTH KENT STREET, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA ATTENDEES Board of Supervisors: Josh E. Ludwig, Chairman; Judith McCann-Slaughter, Vice Chairman; Robert W. Wells; Blaine P. Dunn; Heather H. Lockridge; John F. Jewell; and Robert T. Liero were present. Staff present: Michael Bollhoefer, County Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Austin Cano, Interim County Attorney; Karen Vacchio, Public Information Officer; Wyatt Pearson, Planning Director; Kayla Peloquin, Planner I; Cheryl Shiffler, Finance Director; and Ann W. Phillips, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ludwig called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Associate Pastor David Whitacre of Open Door Baptist Church delivered the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Slaughter led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA - APPROVED Vice Chairman Slaughter moved for the adoption of the draft agenda. Supervisor Lockridge seconded the motion which carried on a voice vote. CITIZEN COMMENTS Leslie Spencer, Gainesboro District, urged the Board to pause before considering the Cline Manor Revitalization Resolution and Tax Abatement request. Christiana Maw, Back Creek District, spoke in favor of an ordinance amendment addressing backyard chickens. 47 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 2 ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA – APPROVED Vice Chairman Slaughter moved for the adoption of the consent agenda. Supervisor Lockridge seconded the motion which carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye - Approval of the Work Session & Regular Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2025 – CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL - Approval of Work Session Minutes of February 19, 2025 – CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL - Acceptance of Public Works Committee Report of January 28, 2025 - CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL, Appendix 1 - Acceptance of Finance Committee Report of February 19, 2025 - CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL, Appendix 2 - Acceptance of the FY 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)- CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL - Approval of Revisions to County Code – Chapter 143 – Stormwater/Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance as Requested by the Public Works Committee - CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL ORDINANCE TO AMEND FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 143 – STORMWATER/EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL §143-100 Purpose; §143-105 Authority; and §143-110 Definitions WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) adopted new regulations related to stormwater management and erosion and sediment control; and WHEREAS, the new regulation is 9VAC25-875-00 and the changes in the state regulations require that Frederick County update the County Code, Chapter 143, Stormwater and Erosion and Sediment Control, to stay in compliance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, that in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, the amendment to Chapter 143, Stormwater and Erosion and Sediment Control as displayed in the attached document is adopted. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 48 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Dunn referenced the Board’s denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPPA) #01- 24, Appleland Properties, following a public hearing at the most recent meeting of February 13, 2025, and said he had learned more information that had not been presented to the Board at the time of the public hearing. He moved that the Board reschedule consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPPA) #01-24, Appleland Properties, and set a public hearing for March 26, 2025. Supervisor Wells seconded the motion. Following discussion, the motion carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye + + + + + + + + + + + + + + COUNTY OFFICIALS PRESENTATION OF THE BOARD'S RESOLUTION HONORING THE 2024 CLASS 4 ALL-STATE CHAMPION JAMES WOOD HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS’ VOLLEYBALL TEAM On behalf of the Board, Chairman Ludwig presented the signed and framed Resolution Honoring the 2024 Class 4 All-State Champion James Wood High School Girls’ Volleyball Team which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at the meeting on February 13, 2025. The Champion James Wood High School Girls’ Volleyball Team and coaches were in attendance to receive the Resolution. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 49 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 4 APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS KENNETH BAKER APPOINTED TO SHAWNEELAND SANITARY DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPROVED Supervisor Jewell moved to appoint Kenneth Baker to the Shawneeland Sanitary District Advisory Committee to fill an unexpired two-year term ending 10-25-25. Supervisor Wells seconded the motion which carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye VAUGHN WHITACRE APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS GAINESBORO DISTRICT REP. - APPROVED Supervisor Lockridge moved to appoint Vaughn Whitacre to the Planning Commission as Gainesboro District Rep. to fill a four-year term ending 2-22-29. Supervisor Wells seconded the motion which carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye COMMITTEE BUSINESS – FINANCE COMMITTEE LAKE HOLIDAY FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $231,898 – APPROVED Supervisor Lockridge moved for approval of the Finance Director’s request for a Lake Holiday Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $231,898. This amount represents the Bank of New York reserve funds used to pay off the Lake Holiday bond. Supervisor Liero seconded the motion which carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye 50 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (NON PLANNING ISSUES) – None PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS – PUBLIC HEARINGS – None PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS - OTHER PLANNING BUSINESS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) 2025-2030 – APPROVED Director of Planning and Development Wyatt Pearson reviewed the timeline for adopting the CIP and noted the Board held a public hearing on the Plan on January 22, 2025, and postponed action. The Board and Mr. Pearson briefly discussed the CIP. Supervisor Jewell moved for adoption of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) 2025-2030. Supervisor Dunn seconded the motion which carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2025-2030 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) WHEREAS, the Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) discussed the 2025-2030 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) at their regular meeting on December 16th, 2024. The CPPC recommended approval of the CIP and affirmed that the projects contained within the CIP are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission discussed the 2025-2030 CIP at their regular meeting on January 15th, 2025, and recommended approval of the CIP affirming that the projects contained within the CIP are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing and discussed the CIP at their regular meeting on January 22nd, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors supports the priorities shown in the 2025-2030 CIP and has affirmed the determination of the Planning Commission that the projects contained in the CIP conform to the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2025-2030 CIP for Frederick County, Virginia as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 51 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 6 CLINE MANOR REVITALIZATION RESOLUTION AND TAX ABATEMENT - APPROVED Director of Planning and Development Wyatt Pearson explained that Surber Development and Consulting LLC (the Applicant) has requested the Board pass a Revitalization Area Resolution and Tax Abatement Ordinance to support their Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application for a multi-family housing complex at 3266 Vally Pike (PIN 63-A -37). He said if approved, the applicant would include both requests in their LIHTC grant application. He added that the LIHTC program is a competitive process, and having the support of the local governing body via these two requests helps the Applicant's project score better and makes it more likely to receive a grant award. The applicant, Jen Surber of Surber Development and Consulting, discussed the proposal with the Board members including the annual recertifying of residents to ensure the income qualifications are being met. Supervisor Jewell moved for approval of the draft Revitalization Area Resolution. Supervisor Wells seconded the motion which carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye A RESOLUTION BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DESIGNATING A REVITALIZATION AREA FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENCOURAGING MIXED-INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 36-55.30:2.A of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors wants to designate as a Revitalization Area the property identified as Tax Map Number 63-A- 37, on which the multi-family apartment development known as Cline Manor proposes to locate; and WHEREAS, the industrial, commercial, or other economic development of such area will benefit the County but such area lacks the housing needed to induce manufacturing, industrial, commercial, governmental, educational, entertainment, community development, healthcare, or nonprofit enterprises or undertakings to locate or remain in such area; and WHEREAS, private enterprise and investment are not reasonably expected, without assistance, to produce the construction or rehabilitation of decent, safe and sanitary housing and supporting facilities that will meet the needs of low and moderate income persons and families in such area and will induce other persons and families to live within such area and thereby create a desirable economic mix of residents in such area; and WHEREAS, this resolution is predicated upon Cline Manor Development’s proposal to include an even mix of units ranging from 30% of the Area Median Income to 80% of the Area Median Income, providing a blended range of affordability within the development; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, that the above-referenced development at Tax Map Number 63-A-37 is located in a Revitalization Area in the County of Frederick. 52 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 7 # # # Supervisor Jewell moved for adoption of the draft Tax Abatement Ordinance. Supervisor Wells seconded the motion which carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn Aye Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye AN ORDINANCE TO PARTIALLY EXEMPT REAL ESTATE TAXATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE ESTATE OF PEGGY CARSON RITTER HENCEFORTH KNOWN AS CLINE MANOR VA LLC, LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA, BY LOCAL CLASSIFICATION OR DESIGNATION FROM FULL ASSESSMENT OF TAXES: WHEREAS, ESTATE OF PEGGY CARSON RITTER, (hereinafter referred to as CLINE MANOR VA LLC) has applied to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (hereinafter referred to as “the Board) for an ordinance providing it with partial tax-exempt status from the County of Frederick on real property taxes relating to the proposed development of CLINE MANOR VA LLC apartment complex in Frederick County, Virginia located on the Frederick County Tax Map Number 63-A-37 located at 3266 Valley Pike; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to support and encourage the development of said property by enacting an ordinance to provide CLINE MANOR VA LLC with a partial tax exemption from the County of Frederick’s real property taxes; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Code Section 58.1-3219.4, authorizes the County to enact such exemptions within the limitations therein prescribed and as may be prescribed by this Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED pursuant to Section 58.1-3219.4 of the Code of Virginia that: 1. The real property of the Estate of Peggy Carson Ritter to be partially exempted hereby is located within the County of Frederick, Virginia, being tax map number 63-A-37 located at 3266 Valley Pike. 2. The Frederick County Board hereby finds that: a. The subject real property, along with improvements currently located thereon, is assessed at a total of Five Hundred Two Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($502,000) and the cost of the intended improvements is expected to be Nine Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($9,900,000.00). b. The real property taxes that were paid by the subject property’s owner for tax year 2024 were Two Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Dollars and Twenty Cents ($2,560.20). The increase in value caused by the proposed improvements could result in an increase in the amount of total tax on this real property to the amount of Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Forty Nine Dollars and Fifty Five Cents ($51,349.55). 3. The Board finds that CLINE MANOR VA LLC is an organization that proposes to develop housing structures for historically underprivileged residents in the County of Frederick, and nearby areas. The proposed development CLINE MANOR VA LLC will serve the County of Frederick, and its residents, as an affordable housing options. As such, said organization is eligible for a part exemption from the assessment of real property taxes as a result of said development under Virginia Code 58.1-3220, for a period of three (3) years, in an amount not to exceed Two-Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($2,000) annually. 4. The Board hereby exempts CLINE MANOR VA LLC from that portion of their real property taxes accruing as a result of an increase in property value by reason of the proposed improvements or Fifty Percent (50%) of the cost of such improvements, whichever is greater, but not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) 53 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 8 annually, for a period of three (3) tax years once all improvements are completed. a. The cost of improvements shall be presumed as shown on the building permit application. The proposed improvements are those described in the attached exhibit A which is hereby incorporated into this ordinance. b. The exemption hereby granted in contingent upon the following: i. CLINE MANOR VA LLC providing housing predominately for persons with low to moderate income as defined by Virginia Housing. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING BACKYARD CHICKENS – SENT FORWARD TO PUBLIC HEARING Planner Kayla Peloquin said that Ordinance amendments to allow backyard chickens in residential districts have been considered and denied by the Board of Supervisors in 2018, 2020, and 2022. She said this proposed ordinance amendment to allow backyard chickens as accessory to any single-family detached residence in the Residential Performance (RP), Residential Planned Community (R4), and Residential Recreational Community (R5) Zoning Districts was initiated at the request of a Board member. The Board and staff discussed lot sizes, the number of chickens proposed for each parcel, the need to clarify proper waste disposal methods, and the fact that a homeowners association’s rules could disallow would prevent chickens regardless of the County’s ordinance. Supervisor Dunn said he was not supportive of an ordinance allowing chickens in residential areas. Supervisor Jewell said he had constituents asking that the Board consider allowing chickens in certain residential areas. He moved for adoption of the draft Resolution Directing the Planning Commission to Hold A Public Hearing Regarding Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance regarding backyard chickens. Supervisor Lockridge seconded the motion which carried on the following recorded vote: Blaine P. Dunn No Robert T. Liero Aye John F. Jewell Aye Robert W. Wells Aye Heather H. Lockridge Aye Josh E. Ludwig Aye Judith McCann-Slaughter Aye RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CHAPTER 165, ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 165 – ZONING 54 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 9 ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101 – General Provisions ARTICLE II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 402 – RP Residential Performance District WHEREAS, a proposal to amend Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to add a definition for chicken coops, add additional regulations for backyard chickens and chicken coops, and add backyard chickens to the permitted uses in the RP (Residential Performance) District was considered; and WHEREAS, the amendment will be referred to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) for review at their next regular meeting; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed changes on February 26, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds it appropriate in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice to direct the Frederick County Planning Commission to hold a public hearing regarding an amendment to Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, that in the interest of public health, safety, general welfare, and good zoning practice, the Frederick County Planning Commission hold a public hearing to consider changes to address Chapter 165 – Zoning Ordinance to add a definition for chicken coops, add additional regulations for backyard chickens and chicken coops, and add backyard chickens to the permitted uses in the RP (Residential Performance) District. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + BOARD LIAISON REPORTS Supervisor Liero provided updates from the Planning Commission and the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission. Supervisor Jewell provided an update from the Handley Regional Library Board. Chairman Ludwig provided an update from the Frederick Water Board. CITIZEN COMMENTS Scarlett Meadows, Stonewall District, expressed concern about the state of the County’s schools. She suggested a social worker be brought into the schools to listen to students’ concerns. 55 Regular Meeting Minutes Frederick County Board of Supervisors February 26, 2025 10 James Moulder, Back Creek District, said there is waste in government spending. He suggested the Board use the power of the purse to reign in the County schools. Vaughn Whitacre, Gainesboro District, thanked the Board for appointing him to the Planning Commission. He said the Board needs to see where the schools are spending tax dollars. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Dunn thanked the County’s first responders for their service. He referenced a closed session meeting from 2024 and requested a copy of the audio recording. Supervisor Lockridge said the Board needs to hold the school system accountable. She thanked Scarlett Meadows for her remarks during the Citizen Comments period. She said she plans to meet with School Board Vice Chair Klein to discuss her concerns. Chairman Ludwig asked the public to come forward with any concerns about the schools adding that the Board of Supervisors gives money to the County Schools but does not direct the spending of funds. He discussed the decision of the Board at the work session earlier in the evening to advertise a possible real estate tax rate saying that it is a working cap, and the final adopted real estate tax rate will not be higher than what is advertised. ADJOURN On motion of Vice Chairman Slaughter, seconded by Supervisor Lockridge, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 56 Exhibit E 57 58 BAILIWICK STRATEGIES LLC 406 West Franklin Street, First Floor P.O. Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 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: Revised Variance Applicant’s Report; 3266 Valley Pike (PIN 63 A 37) Dear Mr. Pearson: This letter shall serve as the applicant’s report supplementing the application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance (the “Variance”) for the property consisting of approximately 4.20 acres located at 3266 Valley Pike (PIN 63 A 37) (the “Property”) in the County of Frederick, Virginia (the “County”) as shown on the enclosed plat prepared by Koontz Bryant Johnson Williams and entitled “Cline Manor Existing Conditions” dated January 29, 2026 and attached as Exhibit A (The “Plat”) and the Proposed Plan (as defined below). I represent Cline Manor VA LLC (the “Applicant”) in its request for approval of the Variance to authorize a residential development consisting of up to 48 multifamily apartment units (the “Proposal”), as conceptually shown on the conceptual site plan showing a four (4) story building and prepared by Koontz Bryant Johnson Williams and entitled “Site Layout – Proposed Buffer” dated January 28, 2025 and attached as Exhibit C (the “Proposed Plan”). The Applicant is the contract purchaser of the Property and is authorized to make this Variance application pursuant to the enclosed special limited powers of attorney from the owner of record, Clinton Ritter and George Ritter, as co-trustees of the estate of Peggy Carson Ritter. Variance Request. The Applicant seeks a Variance with respect to the 25’ active buffer and 75’ inactive buffer for multifamily use adjoining single family uses provided in County of Frederick Code Section 165-203.02 C and the 40’ active and 40’ inactive road buffers provided in Code Sec. 165-203.02 E, all as shown on Exhibit C. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting a Variance from the foregoing buffers to provide (i) an inactive buffer of 25’, with full screening, together with an active buffer of 25’ all as shown on Exhibit C, and (ii) a 35’ inactive road buffer, with full screening, together with a 40’active road buffer all as shown on Exhibit C. 59 County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 2 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com Background: Board of Supervisors Adopted Ordinance and Resolution Regarding Proposal. The Proposal, in the general configuration proposed in the Proposed Plan, and with the general number and type of affordable multifamily units, was presented to, reviewed by, and unanimously a by the County Board of Supervisors in its adoption of the and revitalization district resolution tax abatement ordinance relating to the Proposal, each adopted on February 25, 2025, copies of which resolution and ordinance I enclose as Exhibits D and E (collectively, the “Adopted Papers”). The Adopted Papers evidence that County adopted an ordinance with force of law, and a resolution, specifically designating the the Property and the Proposal to be a multifamily affordable housing development for workforce and otherwise qualifying residents in low-income housing categories established under Federal programs, and that the County desires and, for tax and rehabilitation district designation purposes, permits the residential density and use for this specific Property and for the benefit of County residents. Background: Other Property Facts. The Property shape and boundary is exceptional, non- standard, and is not repeated in the general pattern of lots and development in the County. The Property is zoned RP Residential Performance District, which permits up to twenty (20) units per acre. In the case of the Property, the permitted maximum number of units is 84 units. The Proposal contains just up to 48 units, slightly over half the maximum permitted number of 84 units. The unit density, features, and configuration of the Proposal would normally be permitted in the Property’s zoning district in an ordinary lot of the same size of the Property in the zoning district if such a lot were in an ordinary configuration generally found in the County. Proposal in Strict Conformance with Existing Buffer is Not Feasible. The Applicant has provided an exhibit showing the strict interpretation of an aggregate 100’ setback contained in the zoning ordinance (the “Ordinance”), inclusive of a 75’ inactive buffer, from the Property boundary line that unusually layers inside the Property due to the Property’s unusual shape and is depicted on the enclosed layout plan depicting a six (6) story building prepared by Koontz Bryant Johnson Williams and entitled “Site Layout – Existing Buffer” dated January 28, 2026 attached as Exhibit B (The “Existing Buffer Exhibit”). The six (6) story configuration would only meet the Ordinance’s height maximums found in the Ordinance, but Exhibit B shows that, even with the building contorted to an absurd narrowness and high number of stories, the overlap of the existing Ordinance buffers reduces the active surface use of the Property to an impermissible number of parking spaces and unsafe access road configuration rendering it unbuildable for the purpose in the Adopted Papers. Meeting the buffer requirement of the Ordinance would accordingly cause the Proposal in the type and scope adopted in the Adopted Papers to violate multiple other provisions of the Ordinance and other site plan review health, life, and safety standards. 60 County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 3 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com Proposed Plan Pursuant to Requested Variance is the Sole Way to Develop the Proposal on the Property. The viable option shown on the Proposed Plan (as defined above) depicts the building in the Proposal in a commercially customary four (4) story building configuration but with the Variance from the existing buffers as shown on the Proposed Plan. The Existing Conditions Plan and the Plat shows that the unusual shape of the lot, with its irregular and unusual boundaries, results in a disproportionately small buildable area for the Proposal use which was adopted in the Adopted Papers. Importantly, the Plat shows an absurd resulting narrow, tower-like six-story building required to conform to the strictly-interpreted setbacks, which then creates un-approvable parking and access configurations. This request is for approval of a Variance of the buffer and setback areas in substantial conformance with the Plat and the Plan due to (i) the exceptional narrowness and shape of the Property and (ii) the resulting exceptionally small and shaped size of buildable area on the Property as depicted on the Existing Buffer Exhibit. STANDARD OF REVIEW Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2201 provides that a variance is “a reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, height, area, bulk, or location of a building or structure when the strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property, and such need for a variance would not be shared generally by other properties, and provided such variance is not contrary to the purpose of the ordinance.” The proposed Variance: • Is a reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, height, area, bulk, or location of a building or structure . The proposal is up to 48 units, which number of units is a modest use of the Property permitted use for up to 84 units under its existing zoning district. • The strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The six (6) story strict-interpretation alternative is unreasonable for the workforce and affordable development desired and adopted specifically for the Property by the County in the Adopted Papers. While Virginia courts have not defined “unreasonable” in the context of a variance, “unreasonable” is generally defined as “absurd, inappropriate,” “exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation,” or “unconscionable.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002). The County specifically designated the Property in the Adopted Papers for an affordable multifamily use. The Proposal is at the minimum viable density and configuration for an affordable multifamily use. It would be an absurd result, inappropriate, and exceed the bounds of reason for the County to have created a rehabilitation district and tax exemption area in the Adopted Papers constituting only the area of the Property itself for the presented use and density, and for such a use to accordingly to not be otherwise permitted due to buffers. 61 County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 4 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com • Such need for a variance would not be shared generally by other properties. The lot shape of the Property is unlike the regular, mostly square or rectangle, shapes of adjacent residential lots. Its shape and configuration are not repeated in the pattern of development in the area or in the County. Due to this shape and configuration rarity, the approval of this Variance would not create a precedent with development policy and ordinance interpretation consequences to other lots in the County • Such variance is not contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. The Variance and the Proposal as shown on the Proposed Plan are designed so that the Proposal will conform with all other sections of the Ordinance applicable to the Property. The modest four (4) story building in the Proposal will conform to the existing pattern of development in the area with a use designated in the Adopted Papers. The Board of Supervisors’ approval of the concept for the purposes of the tax abatement and rehabilitation area in the Adopted Papers evidences conformance of the Proposal, proposed use, density with the policy goals of the existing zoning district and in general with the adopted policies of the County. The proposed Variance will not have an undue adverse effect on the public health, safety or general welfare. The proposed Variance is consistent with appropriate future land use density expectations in the County based on adopted zoning and the Adopted Papers, will not cause overcrowding of land and an undue concentration of population, and the use adds no adverse impacts to essential public services ; indeed the Variance provides a desirable opportunity for dignified affordable housing choice for residents of the County pursuant to the Adopted Papers. The proposed Variance will not interfere with adequate light and air; the tower-like absurd alternative in the strictly-interpreted setback scenario would potentially be visually discordant with the existing pattern of development in addition to its other Ordinance violations. • Alternatively to the unreasonable restriction standard above, Virginia Code Sec, 15.2- 2309(2) provides for relief in the case of a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements. The Existing Buffers Plan shows the narrow, condensed, and absurd small buildable area, which would require an incongruous and otherwise impermissible building and configuration. The lot boundary creates a hardship where, without the Variance, the Proposal in the previously Adopted Papers cannot be constructed. • Good Faith of Applicant. The Applicant is the contract purchaser of the Property which purchase has not closed, and accordingly did not create the conditions under which the Variance is requested. 62 County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 5 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com In summary, the Applicant seeks approval of the Variance by the County’s Board of Zoning Appeals. The development of the Property, made possible through the Variance, would guarantee a high- quality use beneficial to the community, in a Proposal supported by the Adopted Papers, that is otherwise impossible to develop without the granting of the Variance. In addition to the Plan and the Existing Setback Plan, I also attach the completed Variance application form and a copy of the recorded instrument vesting ownership. The neighbor information form from the Variance application form is appended to this letter. I further enclose a check from the Applicant for the $400.00 application fee. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request, please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark J. Kronenthal II, Esq. Enclosures 63 County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 6 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com Neighbor List from Variance Application Form Name and Property Identification Number Address Minor David L 63 A 36 3258 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Roy Clarence E Jr 63 A 35 3248 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Link Jacqulyn 63 A 34 3242 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 American Assets Management LLC 63 A 39 40310 Hurley Ln Paeonian Springs, VA 20129 Woodbrook Village Homeowners Assoc 63B 2 2 58A PO Box 2580 Winchester, VA 22604 Plummer Joyce M 63B 1 13 114 Plainfield Dr Winchester, VA 22602 Synoweitz Peter 63B 1 14 112 Plainfield Dr Winchester VA 22602 Lantz Susan D 63B 1 15 110 Plainfield Dr Winchester VA 22602 Howard John J 63B 1 16 106 Plainfield Dr Winchester, VA 22602 SAOM LLC 63B 1 B and 63B 1 C 10024 Pouring Rain Pl Nokesville, VA 20181 Lengyel George 63 A 91 3283 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 64 65 66 67 68