HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15 BZA Staff Report
VARIANCE APPLICATION #02-15
PHILIP SMITH
Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals
Prepared: July 9, 2015
Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
______________________________________________________________________________
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Board
of Zoning Appeals to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to
others interested in this zoning matter.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING DATE:
July 21, 2015
Public Hearing Action Pending
LOCATION: The property is located at 122 Cherry Hill Circle.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Redbud
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 54C-2-4-42B
PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RP
Land Use: Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a 7 foot left side yard variance to a required
10 foot left side setback resulting in a 3 foot left side setback.
REASON FOR VARIANCE: To accommodate addition to an existing dwelling. The addition
was built over left side setback, without a building permit.
Variance #02-15 – Philip Smith
Page 2
July 9, 2015
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant applied for a building permit in July 2014 to construct an
addition and was required to provide a setback survey. A setback survey dated August 24, 2014 was
provided to the County which showed that the addition was in violation of the setbacks, yet the
applicant continued to construct the addition without a building permit. In accordance with Section
165-101.07A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, all structures shall meet the requirements
set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and be in compliance with the current Building
Code. Therefore, the addition to this structure constitutes a violation of Section 165-101.07A of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Staff cited the applicant for constructing an addition without a
building permit by certified letter on September 23, 2014 and another letter was sent on March 11,
2015. A criminal complaint was filed on May 11, 2015.
The setbacks for this dwelling on building permit #1209-2014 were: front: attached, right 50 feet, left
10+ feet, and 43 feet rear. Section 165-201.02 H of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires
survey standards to establish the location of primary structures located five (5) feet or less from the
minimum setback requirement of the zoning district in which the property is located. The setback
survey revealed a seven (7) foot encroachment into the left side yard setback.
The property is zoned RP (Residential Performance) and has a lot square footage of 9,172 sq. ft.,
with a single-family dwelling built in the1960’s prior to Frederick County adopting zoning. The
recorded plat for the Green Acres Subdivision Section 4 has a 20 foot front setback on the properties,
and delineated no side or rear setbacks. The property is vested with the front setback of 20 feet.
Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967, the Frederick County historical zoning map shows this
property zoned R-2 (Residential, Limited). The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning
ordinance were 35 feet for the front and 15 feet for the side yards and 25 feet rear. Frederick County
amended its Ordinance in 1989 and changed the R -2 Zoning District to the current RP (Residential
Performance) Zoning District. Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for lots in the RP Zoning
District to range in size from 100,000 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. Section 165-402.09 C of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance, requires setbacks of this housing type to be: 35 feet front, 10 feet sides,
and 25 feet rear. Therefore, the setbacks for this property are: 20 feet front, 10 feet sides and 25 feet
to the rear.
The original dwelling appears to be in compliance; the illegal addition does not comply with
setbacks. 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. The setback requirements of
the RP Zoning District do not produce an unreasonable restriction on the property. The applicant
should have applied for a building permit that would ultimately require an application for a variance.
Therefore, staff would recommend denial of this variance application, as the violation of the setback
requirements was self-inflicted.
Variance #02-15 – Philip Smith
Page 3
July 9, 2015
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE JULY 21, 2015 MEETING: The applicant is seeking a 7
foot left side yard variance. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property
would be 20 feet in the front, 25 feet in the back, 10 feet right side, and would change to 3 feet on the
left side. It appears that this variance does not meet the intent of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-
2309 (2). This request from the current setbacks of the RP Zoning District may not be justified.
Staff would recommend denial of this variance application, as the violation of the setback
requirements was self-inflicted. The strict application of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance did
not produce an unreasonable restriction on the property as required by the Code of Virginia 15.2-
2309 (2).
The Code of Virginia 15.2-2309 (2), states that no variance shall be granted unless the application
can meet the following requirements:
1) The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good
faith.
2) The granting of the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjoining property
or nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area.
3) The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring
as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be
adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.
4) 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.
5) The relief or remedy sought by the variance is not available through a special
exception or the process for modification of a zoning ordinance.