Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 03-20-01 Meeting MinutesMEETING 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 March 20, 2001. PRESENT James Larrick, Jr., Chairman, Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; and Robert Perry, Stonewall District ABSENT Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Gilbank Hamilton, Shawnee District STAFF PRESENT Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Carol Huff, Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larrick at 3:25 p.m. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20. 2001 On a motion made by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mrs. Catlett, the minutes for the February 20, 2001 meeting were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Prior to hearing the first application, Chairman Larrick explained to those present that due to unforseen circumstances, two members of the Board were unable to be present. He explained that under these conditions, it would be understandable if the applicants wished to have their applications postponed and heard at the following meeting. After a brief discussion, both parties stated that they wished to proceed. Appeal #02 -01 of Richard C. Shickle, Sr. to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Section 165 -55, concerning the side setback of a principal structure. This property is located at 192 Green Spring Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 22 -7 -1 -6 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. APPEAL DENIED - DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AFFIRMED Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 20, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1103 Chairman Larrick briefly explained that the first application was an appeal of a decision which was made by the Zoning Administrator and that the Board's duty in this matter was to determine if the Zoning Administrator's decision was correct. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director, spoke on behalf of Eric R. Lawrence, who was the Zoning Administrator at the time that the decision in question was made. Mr. Wyatt gave the back- ground information and explained that it was in regard to a side property line setback. He stated that three different scenarios are used to determine the setbacks for a property line, and that they are based on whether the adjoining property's use is agricultural, an orchard, residential or vacant. In this particular case, the plat drawn up by the surveyor showed th&adjoining property as agricultural with a 100 -foot setback, and the builder asked for a reevaluation of this designation. The Zoning Ordinance does not give a definition of vacant or forest land; therefore, the Zoning Administrator made the determination that Mr. Shickle's property did not meet the qualifications of agricultural land as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Larrick asked about the Forest Management Plan that was mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Wyatt explained how Forest Management Plans work, and that staff did not find out that a such a plan existed for Mr. Shickle's property until after the zoning determination had been made. Forest Management Plans are not a matter of public record; this information is confidential and available only to the Treasurer's Office for taxation purposes. Unfortunately in this instance, by the time this information was brought to light, construction on the property had already begun. Chairman Larrick asked if a Forest Management Plan was like a contract or was mandatory in any way. Mr. Wyatt explained that the plan is voluntary and involved recommendations only. In any case, the Planning Department is not involved in the process. Mr. Perry asked how it was determined when land use changes from one use designation to another. Mr. Wyatt referred to "C" under Section 165 -145, Definitions and Word Usage as it defines Agriculture and Farming. Mr. Richard C. Shickle, appellant, came forward next and handed out copies of a prepared statement which he proceeded to read. Mrs. Catlett asked what types of activity Mr. Shickle has done to the land in regard to the forestry management plan and Mr. Shickle stated that he had done nothing with the property in question because he is waiting for the smaller trees to grow. He said the plan was developed in 1996. Further discussion followed on whether any work had been done with the unsightly areas, how long Mr. Shickle had owned the property, whether any work had been done in the time he had owned the property and, specifically, why was he opposed to the residential construction. Chairman Larrick asked if anyone else was present to speak and Mr. Jeff Webber, realtor and representative for the builder, came forward. He told the Board that from their perspective, Mr. Hicks followed procedure exactly as he had been instructed to do. He went to the County, asked the questions, was issued a legitimate building permit, and proceeded to break ground. Mr. Webber said that he understood Mr. Shickle's point exactly; however, from a standpoint of equatability, Mr. Hicks would have lost a considerable amount of investment, including the contract and the buyers, and under the circumstances advised him to continue with the construction. The Board asked if a stop -work order had ever been issued and Mr. Lawrence replied that he had written Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 20, 2001 t Minutes Book Page 1104 2 a letter to the County's Building Official, Mr. John Trenary, revoking his zoning determination and requesting a stop -work order. However, upon Mr. Trenary's meeting with Mr. Jay Cook of the Commonwealth's Attorney's office, Mr. Trenary was informed that until the Board of Zoning Appeals reversed Mr. Lawrence's decision, the County was not in a position to place a stop -work order on a legitimate building permit. Mr. Dave Hicks, the builder, came to the podium and told the Board that using a 100 - foot setback would have created extremely difficult building conditions due to the topography; that is why he asked the Zoning Administrator for a reevaluation of the setbacks. Even using the 50 -foot setback, they have had to bring in countless loads of dirt to fill the low -lying area. Mr. Hicks stated that similar circumstances had occurred two years where he had been issued a building permit using 50 -foot setbacks for property adjoining woods. He brought the permit with him and offered to show it to the Board. He brought this up for the purpose of precedence. Mr. Robert Solenberger, owner ofFruithill Orchard, came forward to state that he was not opposed to this particular house being built but wanted to voice his opinion that setbacks should be definitive, not subject to interpretation. He further stated that adjoining property owners should be notified when waivers of this nature are about to occur. Louise Shickle, the applicant's wife, stated that she wanted to address the question regarding the `messy undergrowth.' She explained that the woods are in a waiting period and when trees are larger, there normally is not a lot of undergrowth. Additionally, a 100 -foot setback would prevent the new neighbors from having to view their unattractive woods. DISCUSSION There was no further discussion by the Board; therefore, Chairman Larrick asked if there was a motion. Mrs. Catlett moved to deny Appeal #02 -01 of Richard C. Shickle, Sr. and to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Perry seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously deny Appeal 902 -01 of Richard C. Shickle, Sr. and does hereby affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, pursuant to Section 165 -55, concerning the side setback of a principal structure. Variance #03 -01 of Kitty Hockman- Nicholas for a 50 -foot rear yard variance to establish a buildable lot. This property is located approximately 1,350 feet north of Shady Elm Road Route 651) and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 74 -A -67B and 74 -A -67C in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 20, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1105 3 Mr. Lawrence gave the background information and stated that staff is in support of the variance. Upon questioning from the Board, Mr. Lawrence informed them that the platted lots were quite old and the variance was necessary to create a buildable lot to meet today's building standards. Additionally, the two lots would be consolidated so the variance would only apply to a single lot. Chairman Larrick called for public comment and Mrs. Hockman- Nicholas came forward. She explained that the property had been deeded to her sister and herself to build upon at a future date; however, at that time there were no setback requirements and requested that the Board grant their request. No one spoke against the application DISCUSSION There was no further discussion by the Board; therefore, Chairman Larrick asked if there was a motion. Upon a motion made by Mr. Perry and seconded by Mrs. Catlett, Variance #03 -01 was unanimously approved. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously approve Variance 403 -01 of Kitty Hockman- Nicholas for a 50 -foot rear yard variance to establish a buildable lot. OTHER BUSINESS As there was no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 4:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted James Larrick ., Chaan Carol . u f, Secre a Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of March 20, 2001 4 I Minutes Book Page 1106