Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12 BZA Staff Report VARIANCE APPLICATION #04-12 BURNT FACTORY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: July 30, 2012 Staff Contact: Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector ______________________________________________________________________________ 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: August 21, 2012 – Pending LOCATION : 1943 Jordan Springs Road (Route 664). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT : Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER : 56-A-8 PROPERTY ZONING & USE Land Use: Church and Cemetery : Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE : North: Rural Areas (RA) Use: Residential South: Rural Areas (RA) Use: Residential East: Rural Areas (RA) Use: Residential West: Rural Areas (RA) Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a 52 foot front yard variance resulting in an 8 foot front yard setback, and a 75 foot right side variance resulting in a 25 foot right side setback, for a church addition. REASON FOR VARIANCE: The Church cannot expand their building because to the north, there is an existing cemetery, to the east the existing side yard is already less than the required 100 foot building restriction line and an existing well is located there, and to the west there is an existing fellowship hall building, parking lot and existing septic system. Variance Application #04-12 – Burnt Factory United Methodist Church July 30, 2012 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. The Frederick County historical zoning map shows this property was zoned A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1967. The property setback lines at the adoption of the zoning ordinance were 35 feet for the front and 15 feet for the side yards. Frederick County amended its Ordinance in 1989 and 2009 to change the A-2 zoning districts to the current RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, making the current setbacks for the property 60 feet to the front, 100 feet to the right and 50 feet to the rear and left side. Based on the Commissioner of Revenue records this church was built in 1926, predating any zoning laws or regulations, therefore, this building would be considered non-conforming to the current RA (Rural Areas) setbacks. The Church currently encroaches upon the minimum 60 foot front setback and the minimum 100 foot right side setback. This variance request is to allow an expansion of the Fellowship Hall and Sanctuary. The proposed addition would be constructed in front of the existing church and would remain flush with existing walls of the Church on the left and right sides. The closest distance to which the addition is being proposed would be approximately eight (8) feet to the front property line and a distance of approximately twenty-five (25) feet from the right property line. The reasoning behind the location of the proposed addition is due to the existing cemetery to the north, the existing parking lot and septic to the west, and the existing well and location of existing wall of Church to the east. The Health Department had concerns that the current drainfield would not accommodate the expansion of the Fellowship Hall and Sanctuary. Based on the percentage of people and potential water usage, the property owner would be responsible for upgrading the current drainfield to the Health Department’s regulations and satisfaction. This variance, if granted would result in an 8 foot building restriction line for the front, and a 25 foot building restriction line for the right side. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE AUGUST 21, 2012 MEETING: 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 strict application of the Ordinance will produce an undue hardship. 2) The hardship is not generally shared by the properties in the same zoning district and vicinity. 3) That the authorization of such variance will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the variance.