Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZAMinutes2026June16Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 2008 June 16, 2026 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 June 16, 2026. PRESENT: Eric Lowman, Chairman, Red Bud District; Dudley Rinker, Vice-Chairman, Back Creek; James Prohaska, Opequon District, John Cline, Stonewall District; Dolores Stottlemyer, Shawnee District; Linda Whitacre, Gainesboro District and Ronald Madagan, Member at Large. ABSENT: 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. Mr. Rinker made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for April 21, 2026, and was seconded by Mr. Madagan and was unanimously approved. Mr. Rinker made a motion to approve the meeting minutes for May 19, 2026, and was seconded by Mr. Madagan and was unanimously approved. Chairman Lowman asked if there are any applications for July. Mr. Cheran replied no. The cutoff date is Thursday. PUBLIC HEARING Variance #10-26 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 41-6-21 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 one acre or less lot and the zoning is RA (Rural Areas) District. The property was created in 1965 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. The current setback are front 60-ft and the left, right, and rear are 100-ft. Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 2009 June 16, 2026 On the property is an abandoned non-conforming trailer. For more than two years the trailer was not occupied which means the non-conforming use is extinguished. 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. A committee member inquired about the metal frame in the yard. Mr. Cheran replied that will be moved before the new trailer arrives. Mr. Dollar came forward. He did not have a statement prepared but he would answer any questions. Chairman Lowman clarified that he was cleaning up the property and the applicant would occupy the trailer. Chairman Lowman asked if there is anyone to speak in favor or in opposition to come forward. No one came forward. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT A committee member stated that if Mr. Dollar does what he says then that would be an improvement for the area. Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 2010 June 16, 2026 Mrs. Whitacre made a motion to approve the Variance 11-26 for James Dollar and was seconded by Vice-Chairman Rinker and was unanimously approved. ACTION ITEM 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 and is identified by Property Identification Number 63-A-37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran came forward to present the history of this application. This board held a public hearing in February, but the applicant’s representative asks to postpone action. The representative asks for 30 days at the Public Hearing in February. Then the representative postponed until today because a buffer and screening ordinance amendment that was going to the Board of Supervisors. Staff explained the procedure to change an ordinance amendment. Before the Board of Supervisors hears the proposed amendment, the amendment will be presented to the Subcommittee then Planning Commission and for the final approval of the Board of Supervisors. When the amendment was presented, the Board of Supervisor said this is not the direction that we suggested to staff to follow. Staff also suggested to Applicant to change the buffer requirements or purchase additional property in order to proceed with project. Staff mentioned this property is 4 acres and has tax credits. The tax credit expires in December 2026. This Board here today has a decision to approve with reduced buffers or deny, and the Applicant could appeal through the court system or start all over again with a new design of the project. Mr. Mark Kronenthal came forward to address the Board and Staff comments. He stated that the ordinance that was before the Board of Supervisor was the County staff making the change to the ordinance which had nothing to do with our project. Mr. Kronenthal states that he doesn’t see any paperwork stating that he wasn’t the attorney representing the applicant when the Board of Supervisors approved the tax credit on the property. There was no conversation about obtaining additional property for buffers. This is the only avenue the applicant has by law. Pursuing another zoning, rezoning or any other application would be unlawful. The decision lies with this Board. Chairman Lowman need clarification on an item #4 in the letter dated June 15. The letter states that if the mandates are met this property is unbuildable. Mr. Kronenthal replied we have three mandates two from the Board of Supervisors and one from the State application to build the project with tax credits before December 2026. Chairman Lowman asked if the tax credit could be sold the attorney replied no. A member asked when submitting this plan to the Planning Department what was the buffers on the plans. Yes, the attorney replied. The buffers on the plans were the proposed buffers. A board member asked if the County attorney would address the rebuttal from Mr. Kronenthal. Mr. Andrew Fox, County Attorney, came forward. The Attorney stated he received the letter yesterday and reviewed it. The Attorney disagrees with certain parts of the letter. One is if the variance is not approved that would restrict the land. That is not the case the land does have usable right to build just not what they’re proposing. Under the strict statute of rights, tax credit resolution is not an invested right on the property. The Attorney gave some examples of vested rights subdivision plat and proffers, etc. Just because the Board of Supervisors gave a tax credit to the property owner, the owner still needs to meet the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. Lastly the Frederick County Board Zoning Appeals 2011 June 16, 2026 screening buffers are a detriment to the adjoining property owners. DISCUSSION A BZA member spoke with a Board of Supervisors about the proposed ordinance change. He stated we do need that type of housing but need to follow the ordinance or find another piece of property. Another comment was that this is a hardship for the property owner, but why would we put a hardship on the adjoining property owners. Another board member said that she has a hard time putting impacts on the surrounding neighbors. A motion made by Mr. Rinker to deny Variance 04-26 for Cline Manor VA LLC and seconded by Mrs. Whitacre and was unanimously denied. The meeting was adjourned at 4:15. ________________________________ Eric Lowman, Chairman ________________________________ Pamala Deeter, Secretary