HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-15 CommentsDecember 22, 2016
Mr. Michael Strawderman
368 McDonald Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Dear Mr. Strawderman:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Director
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/665-6395
E-mail: mruddy@fcva.us
This letter is provided to clarify the County's position regarding the construction
activities at 396 McDonald Road, the neighboring property to you, and to hopefully bring
some closure to your questions.
A review of the Variance application approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA),
Variance #01-15, confirms that the BZA approved the following: a 42.4 foot front yard
variance from a required 60 foot front setback, resulting in a 17.6 foot front setback, a
27.2 right side variance from a required 50 foot right side setback, resulting in a 22.8 foot
right setback, and a 65.0 left side variance from a required 100 foot left side setback,
resulting in a 35 foot left setback. The minutes of the BZA's meeting reflect that this was
the action taken by the BZA.
Subsequently, the structure was built as requested, and with the appropriate building
permit, permit # 0001572-2014 being issued.
Part of the building permitting process is the survey setback standards. A surveyor
licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia establishes and records the location of the
structure on the lot. This building permit setback report demonstrated that the structure
was being constructed as stated on the building permit, and consistent with the Variance
approved by the BZA. It is noted that the structure includes architectural eave features.
The zoning ordinance allows such features to extend into the setback area by as much as
three (3) feet. Site observation further confirmed that the construction was in line with the
approvals obtained.
Planning is aware that the Building Official provided you with the building permit
information, including the survey setbacks that were sealed by a licensed surveyor.
However, I have attached an additional copy of this permit for your records.
Presently, the Building Official is coordinating with the Health Department to ensure that
any connections to the existing health system were made to the satisfaction of both the
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Building Official and the Health Department. We may contact you with additional
information if anything results from their further evaluation.
The County hopes that this clarification helps you understand the steps accomplished to
ensure this project was completed in compliance with County zoning requirements. In
addition, I hope that you are assured that no outstanding violations exist with the location
of the construction of this structure.
Sincerely,
�tilw���T u
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Director of Planning and Development
MTR/pd
Attachments
cc: Kris Tierney — Assistant County Administrator
Rod Williams — County Attorney
10/13/2014 08:35 540722F D5 NRJDC PAGE 01/01
Frederick County, Virginia
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
North Building, 2nd Floor
Winchester, Virginia 22601
October 7, 2014
Dear Sirs;
I am a property owner next to Kenny Wright's property located at 396 McDonald Road in Frederick
County, Virginia. I have no objection if Kenny builds his home closer to my property line than the
prescribed footage set forth in the current building code.
Sincerely,
/ PP �-� -
Ada Patterson
222 Singhas Road
Winchester, Virginia 22602
540-877-1113
To: Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Michael Strawderman
This letter is in reference to the Variance Request 401-15 of Kenneth Wright at 396 McDonald Road
Winchester, VA. My name is Michael Strawderman and I own the residence beside Mr. Wright o+ which
he is seeking a 19.4 foot setback on the right side. strongly oppose any such variance, mainly because
it encroaches on my property even more than it already is and 'will further devalue my property. Lets
start with the variance request itself. According to the documentation given to me by the Planning and
Zoning Department, the request is made because Mr. Wright needs to considerably increase the size of
the structure to repair foundation problems and truss problems. This is absolutely laughable as a basis
to circumvent the code and law. There is no plausible explanation for a requirement to increase the
structure size to "sure up" some foundation and truss problems. I have personally performed such tasks
myself and there is no need for a dramatic increase i; the size of the structure to repair such issues. The
request also stipulated that because of the topography of the rear of the property that it was not
possible to move the structure or build another. Either Mr. Cheran, the Zoning Administrator: that
prepared the report, either never went to the property to visibly see the lot himself or has an agenda
beyond the scope of his job description. Just reading the report, one would assume that there is a creek
bed or large steep incline or a cliff at the rear of the property. This is absolutely and patently false. The
rear half of the lot is a flat beautiful grassy field that Mr. Wright mows with a regular riding mower. It
may be one of the best locations in Frederick County to build a home. Mr. Cheran also said that the
location of the drainfield was a factor. I talked to him at his office when I picked up these documents
and asked about it being an approved drainfield for the current structure and a larger structure. He said
that the Health Department supplied him that information. I went immediately next door to the Health
Department to obtain that information and they explained to me that they have never, without
question, been to the property and have no records that a drainfield even exists on this property. They
requested that I obtain that documentation from Zoning because they would like to see it. went next
door to Zoning again and asked Mr. Cheran for that information. and his exact words were changed my
mind". Hniriirn, my next question was simple, so according to your report, Mr. Wright is way out of
compliance now with current code, so basically, if he is even more non-compliant then that is okr His
quoted response was "What does it matter at this point?". Therefor, Mr. Cheran's report is filled with
false information meant to mislead this board. I obtained a copy of the building permit application via a
Freedom of Information Act Request for Mr. Wright's property. The setbacks on that application are not
even close to what he even currently has, more or less the variance he is requesting. Therefor; the
survey that was supplied to this board is based on either purposely misgiven information or information
obtained through error. Either way, the dimensions of the structure and the encroachment on adjacent
properties are wrong. In the notification, it is discussed that other properties in the area are in similar
setbacks. Again, patently false. This gives the impression that most if not all the properties in this area
are so close to the road. Mr. Wright's property is one of the closest, if not the closest to the road as any
property on this road for miles. At my property next door, I recently, within the past several months,
went through the same circumstances that Mr. Wright faces today. I replaced an existing structure with
a similar structure in the same footprint of the original. This was not my first choice for my plans for the
property and it cost me more money and I was not able to do all of the things ! wanted to do. However,
by playing within the rules, I was able to get my project completed without undue harm on my
neighbors. Mr. Wright seeks to encroach on my property and that of my neighbors and is requesting
that the County force a variance of the codes that protect our properties so that he can accomplish his
goal for the least amount of money as possible. This is a ridiculous request of his neighbors and of the
County. He wants to build the structure bigger forward and to each side but not an inch bigger
backwards because he may have to move or put in a septic that meets code today and does not pollute
my property and the environment. Mr. Wright is trying everything in his power to skirt around the rules
and come up with his own. The notice states that the house is _:urrently unlivable Mr. Wright.
purchased the property from an estate of an elderly woman w, -,o was placed in a nursing home She
lived there until her health was such that she required nursing Nome care. Tne property, when
purchased, was perfectly livable. Mr. Wright went in, without a permit, (According to the building
department, no building permit has ever been issued at this property), and performed a demolition on
the property making it unlivable. the structure doesn't even have floors, it is bare dirt, and no working
plumbing or electricity. I have outbuildings in better condition _han this place now due to the
demolition that he performed without a permit. There are good reasons for permits as they protect
homeowners and neighbors, as well as the community as a whole. For instance, was asbestos removed
from this home, circulating in the air for me and my family to breathe, was it disposed of so as not to
harm the environment or landfill employees? If granted, this variance would put undue harm on me
and my property. The increased encroachment will reduce the value of my home and that of others in
the community forever. It will cause safety concerns with traffic on a horrible turn (there is a sharp turn
caution sign in my front yard, the turn is so bad) on a road with speed limits higher than in a suburban
residential neighborhood. This may eventually lead to a loss of life. There are no solutions mentioned in
the variance request to control rain water shedding over onto my property because of the closer
proximity as well as the contamination of a currently substandard well source and its pollution of the
underground water that we all drink. Not to mention issues with privacy and light and sound pollution
with a structure that is much closer to all of our properties and the road. In conclusion, I am one of the
biggest limited government folks on the planet. I feel you should be able to do whatever you want as
long as it doesn't affect other peoples' civil and property rights Mr. Wright's request violates my
property rights that were supposedly protected and spelled ou'. clearly for my property in this county. I
ask that you protect the value and integrity of my property and the community by dismissing this
request. If Mr. Wright wants to build his structure bigger, he can go backwards where he has plenty of
property and if this means an alteration to a septic that most likely is poor functioning, then so be it. He
can move the structure to the confines outlined in the survey that he submitted. He can tear down the
existing structure with a permit and build a new one in the exact same footprint or he can do nothing
and continue using it as a storage shed. This request reduces he setback requirements drastically, we
are not quibbling over a small percentage of the code requirements but an enormous variance of the
code, which should never be taken lightly. The information supplied to you in the notification is false
and misleading and not a true representation of any facts. Again, I ask that you protect my property and
its value from this burdening encroachment by dismissing this request.
Thank you, Michael Strawderman