The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 03-20-01 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia March 20, 2001 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Minutes of the February 20, 2001 Meeting PUBLIC HEARING 2) 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 properly is located at 192 Green Spring Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 22-7-1-6 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. 3) Variance #03-01 of Kitty Hockman-Nicholas fora 50 -foot rear yard variance to establish a buildable lot. This property is located approximately 1,350 feet north of Shady Elm Road (Route 65 1) and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 74 -A -67B and 74 -A -67C in the Back Creek Magisterial District. 4) Other 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 February 20, 2001. PRESENT: James Larrick, Jr., Chairman, Gainesboro District; Theresa Catlett, Opequon District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Gilbank Hamilton, Shawnee District and Robert Perry, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 11; Carol Huff, Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larrick at 3:25 p.m. WELCOME TO NEW STAFF MEMBER Mr. Patrick T. Davenport, the new Zoning Administrator for Frederick County, was introduced by staff. Mr. Davenport began his duties with the County on February 15, 2001. MINUTES OF JANUARY 16.2000 On a motion made by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mrs. Catlett, the minutes for the January 16, 2001 meeting were unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING Variance #15-00 of Stephen P. Scothorn (amended) for a 41 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a detached two -car garage. This property is located at 333 Songbird Lane and is identified with Property Identification Number 32-12-8 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION -DENIED Mr. Jeremy Camp, Planner II, presented the background information and explained that staff was recommending denial of this application. He passed out two photographs of the property. Mr. Stephen P. Scothorn, applicant, represented himself He presented a rough sketch (not to scale) of his property which depicted the location of the proposed garage, his house, the trees he wanted preserved, etc. He explained his reasons for wanting to locate the garage in the location indicated. He stated that the road ends in a cul-de-sac and did not believe that the 60 -foot setback requirement should apply since Songbird Lane was a private drive. Chairman Larrick asked about the survey which was done after the original application. Mr. Scothorn replied that he had made an error the first time he measured, thus the amended application. Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of February 20, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1100 Mr. Rinker inquired as to the health status of the oak and dogwood trees; Mr. Scothorn assured the board that they were in fine shape and were about three feet in diameter. In response to Mr. Perry's question, Mr. Scothorn told the board that state foresters have not examined the trees; however, they bloom and leaf out nicely each year and do not contain dead branches. Staff clarified a question regarding what constituted "road frontage." Any time there is a road, any side of the property could be considered to have "road frontage" no matter whether it is a side yard, rear yard, etc. This means there is a 60 -foot setback on whatever side there is a road. Mr. Rinker asked about the fact that the hard -surfacing of Songbird Lane was only ten feet in width. Mr. Scothorn explained that the property owners had gotten together and paid for the road to be paved. It is not state -maintained; it is considered a private drive. DISCUSSION Mrs. Catlett asked about the trees that would have to be removed for the garage to be built without being in violation of the setbacks. Mr. Scothorn replied that two of the oaks and five of the dogwoods would have to be removed; additionally, he would have to remove a flower bed that had been placed around the dogwoods. He said that having the garage that far back would block the current parking area and he may not wish to use the garage for parking his vehicles. Additionally, this location would interfere with his well line and he did not want to have to dig it up. He stated that ten feet would be the furthest he could move back. The Board asked him to draw the location of the well and well line, as this was not shown on the sketch provided. More questions followed on the parking and the driveway, at which time Mr. Scothorn explained that he may not wish to use the garage for vehicle storage because he is a mechanic by trade and may use the garage to work on vehicles. Mr. Perry suggested that a compromise might be in order; however there were no motions to this effect. Mr. Rinker asked the applicant if he had considered that he would need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for auto repair on his property; Mr. Scothorn replied that he had. Mr. Rinker moved to approve the application and Mr. Hamilton offered the second; however, the motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Rinker, Mr. Hamilton NAYS: Mrs. Catlett, Mr. Perry, Chairman Larrick BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby deny Variance 415-00 of Stephen P. Scothorn (amended) for a 41 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a detached two -car garage. Variance #01-01 of Omps Funeral Home, submitted by G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for a 4.44 -foot front yard setback variance for a free-standing business sign. This property is located at 1260 Front Royal Pike and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-3-A1 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION - APPROVED Mr. Lawrence gave the background information and told the Board that staff was in favor of the variance as the current sign is well under the allowable square footage for the B2 Zoning Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of February 20, 2001 2 Minutes Book Page 1101 Mr. Lawrence gave the background information and told the Board that staff was in favor of the variance as the current sign is well under the allowable square footage for the B2 Zoning District. A zoning district buffer had been required on this property due to the close proximity of residential uses across Route 522; however, complying with this requirement resulted in the landscaping partially blocking the sign which is currently installed. Therefore, staff believes this variance to be reasonable request and recommended approval. Mr. Ron Mislowsky, of G. W. Clifford and Associates, engineering firm for the project, came forward to speak. He stated that he did not really have much more to add, as staff had done an excellent job in presenting their request. He did add that rotating the sign to be more visible to traffic would, in effect, make it less visible to the residences along Route 522. Mr. Larry Omps and the site managger [unidentified], both of Omps Funeral Home, were also present in support of the application. Mr. Omps stated that at times, customers' vehicles have passed the entrance, then upon realizing they did so, hit their brakes to turn around and have created very dangerous traffic situations. They believe that rotating the sign would eliminate this danger. There was no one present who was opposed to the variance. As there was no further discussion on the matter, Mr. Perry made a motion to approve the variance as presented and Mrs., Catlett seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals does hereby unanimously approve Variance #01-01 of Omps Funeral Home, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for a 4.44 -foot front yard setback variance for a free-standing business sign. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lawrence informed the Board members that the applicants who were denied the appeal for R. R. Restaurant last month had filed to have the denial appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court appeal should not require any addition action by the BZA. ADJOURNMENT As there was no further business, the meeting adj oumed by unanimous consent at 4:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James Larrick, r., airman Carol uSecretary Frederick Co. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of February 20, 2001 Minutes Book Page 1102 C 0 BZA REVIEW DATE: 3/20/01 APPLICATION #02-01 APPEAL OF DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RICHARD C. SHICKLE, SR. LOCATION: The property is located 1/4 miles west of White Hall on Route 671, third lot on right. This site is further identified as 192 Green Spring Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 22-7-1-6 PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Vacant - Residence currently under construction ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential; Vacant APPEAL: To appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance, concerning the required side setback for a principal structure. REASON FOR APPEAL: See #10 on the application. STAFF COMMENTS: This appeal is based on an interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator when determining the required building side yard setback. The Zoning Administrator determined that the adjoining property was vacant and that a 50 -foot setback would be required for a proposed dwelling. The appeal applicant, Mr. Shickle, contends that the adjoining property is an agricultural use, which would require a 100 -foot building setback Frederick County Zoninz Ordinance The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provides the framework and regulations for land use Richard Shickle, Sr. Page 2 March 13, 2001 development. It is through the interpretation and application of these ordinances that the document is brought to reality. Section 165-4 states that the Zoning Administrator shall be responsible for the interpretation and administration of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 165-55.A(2) of the Zoning Ordinance provides the required side setbacks for principal structures in the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. The subject property and the surrounding properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. Side yard setbacks are based on the adjoining property's use: Adjoining Land Use Setback (feet) Orchard 200 Agricultural 100 Residential 50 Vacant 50 Section 165-145 Definitions and Word Usage defines Agriculture and Farming as follows: Any of the following activities: A. Cultivating the soil or raising or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity on a farm, including the raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training and management of animals. B. Handling, drying, packing or storing on a farm any agricultural or horticultural commodity in its unmanufactured state but only if the owner, tenant or operator of the farm regularly produces more than % of the commodity so treated. C. The proposal to develop or the actual development of a forest either through planting or natural regeneration, or both, or the actual maintenance of a forest by applying proven forest management practices. Such land shall, at the time of consideration as forest land, actually carry sufficient forest growth of suitable character and so distributed to give reasonable assurance that a stand of merchantable timber is developed therefrom. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a definition for "Vacant" nor "Forest" land. Determination Process for Building Setbacks Determining the appropriate building setbacks are based on the adjoining property use. Often the recorded plat that is submitted with the building permit application contains setback lines. In situations where the recorded plat does not contain setback lines, or when a property owner requests a setback determination, staff conducts the necessary review and site inspections. It is during site inspections that staff is able to visually evaluate the adjoining properties, and determine their land use Richard Shickle, Sr. Page 3 March 13, 2001 classification. The determination of land uses is based on visual (site) inspections, and the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and its definitions. In the RA District, setbacks are based on four possible adjoining land uses: Orchard, Agricultural, Residential, and Vacant. Most often the site inspection is sufficient to identify the adjoining property use. In situations where the adjoining property use is not obvious, staff utilizes the ordinance, makes an interpretation, and arrives at the land use determination. If a use does not satisfy the defined and standard knowledge of an orchard, agricultural or residential use, the adjacent property may be considered vacant. Vacant is not defined by the ordinance, so staff is left with interpreting what constitutes a vacant property in terms of land use. Application of the Zoning Ordinance to the Sub'ect Propertv: PIN 22-7-1-6 In the application of the Determination Process to the subject property (PIN 22-7-1-6), it was determined that the initial building permit application did not comply with the subject property's platted left side yard, 100 -foot building setback. As a result, the property owner (Hick's Contracting) requested that staff further review the adjoining property's land use, to determine how the land use would be classified. The applicant felt that the adjoining land use was not agricultural land, but was vacant as no signs of agricultural use were apparent. Staff conducted a site inspection to visually review the adjoining property. It was determined that the area of the adjoining property adjacent to the subject property was woods. During this site inspection, there was no indication of animals, crops, nor timbering efforts. The adjoining property was wooded, and contained overgrowth (vines, weeds, less desirable trees). There was no obvious evidence that seedlings had been planted to establish harvestable timber, nor that the woods had been maintained. Staff also reviewed the department's USGS quad maps and areal photography of the adjacent property. The imagery revealed that woods did exist adjacent to the entire length of the property boundary line with the subject property. Based on the site inspection and review of historical imagery maintained in the department, staff made the determination that the adjacent property did not satisfy the agricultural definition. Therefore, it would be appropriate to classify the site vacant, and apply the 50 -foot setback requirement. The building permit was revised to reflect the 50 -foot setback requirement, confirmed that the application complied with the Zoning Ordinance requirements, and the permit was granted zoning approval on February 5, 2001. The building permit was issued to Hick's Contracting on February 8, 2001. Additional In ormation Following the issuance of the building permit, staff was contacted by the adjoining property owner regarding the placement of the structure. The adjoining property owner advised staff that a Forest Richard C. Shickle, Sr. Page 4 March 13, 2001 Management Plan was developed for his property. He further advised staff that the land use determination should be agricultural. Staff contacted the Department of Forestry and the Commissioner of Revenue's Offices to determine if a Forest Management Plan existed for the adjoining property. The Commissioner of Revenue's Office confirmed that a Forest Management Plan had been submitted as part of an application for the Land Use Assessment Program. Staff was not allowed to review the Forest Management Plan as the release of individual taxpayer information is not provided for through the Freedom of Information Act. Staff was informed that the Forest Management Plan for the adjoining property recommended that desirable trees be identified, seedlings be planted, less desirable trees be removed, and that a 40 -foot buffer area be established around the desirable trees. This buffer area should be maintained, and be clear and free of less desirable trees and undergrowth. The plan also stated that the site presently contained limited harvestable timber, and recommended procedures, which included planting seedlings, to increase the amount of harvestable timber. The current conditions of the adjoining property do not reflect the recommendations made in the Forest Management Plan. Therefore, the staff would not have any basis to determine that the land use of the adjoining property was agricultural. STAFF CONCLUSION FOR MARCH 20.2001 MEETING: Affirmation of the actions made by the office of the Zoning Administrator in determining the use of an adjoining property to be vacant, and approving a building permit application with a side yard setback of 50 feet. File: AAShickle appeal.wpd SHICKLE 22 A 52C HICKS 22 11 6 HOKKANEN 22 A 53 ng FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC 32 A 54 ERDAL 92 71 7 Rd - SHERIFF 22 71 5 Appeal # 02-01 Location Map For, Richard C. Shicide Jr. PIN: 22-7-1-6 Office of Mapping and GIS, 03/C igray COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: File r 'v. FROM: Eric Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director SUBJECT: Richard C. Shickle Appeal Forest Management Plan DATE: March 5, 2001 This morning I spoke with Sam Russell, a Land Assessor with the Commissioner of Revenue's Office, regarding the Land Use Assessment Program. Mr. Russell advised me that in order for an agricultural property to qualify for the reduced Real Property Tax, the property would need to be included in the Land Use Program. In order to qualify for this program, a property must be used for farming, produce an income, and depending upon the property's land cover, be of a minimum acreage. The minimum acreage are as follows: pasture and crop land must be at least 5 acres in size, and forest land must be at least 20 acres in size. In order for forest land to qualify for the program, a forest management plan must be submitted. A residence may not be counted towards this minimum parcel size. Mr. Russell also informed me that the Shickle property (PIN 22 -A -52C, 60.96 acres) is currently included in the Commission of Revenue's Land Use Program. The property was initially included in the program in 1986 as an agricultural use. In 1996, 27.9 acres were switched to a forest use and a forest management plan was submitted. While I was not permitted to acquire a copy of the forest management plan due to privacy issues (personal and real estate property tax related), Mr. Russell was able to provide me with some of the Shickle property's forest management plan's basic concepts. The plan stated that the property presently did not contain much harvest -quality timber, and that planting seedlings was recommended. Furthermore, the plan stated that the 'good' trees should be identified, and less desirable trees and scrub plants should be removed. A 40 - foot buffer should be provided around the base of `good' trees; less desirable and scrub plants should be removed from this buffer area. Trees should also be planted to increase the harvest availability. The plan also stated that the property would be maintained as a forest. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22501-5000 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT W INK - PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner other -< . (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: 9- NAME: NAME: ADDRESS Z-°tZ-G �, Qu�r�. �cQADDRESS: TELEPHONE:TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give enact directions and include State Route numbers): '1L-\ vn-- e w r -A ok W1 Ar- �A4A 1 0 t, Romk t. 4. Magisterial District: GacjN�n"Zr o 5. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: zzZ -� -- \ - (P 6. The existing zoning of the property is: �- 7. The existing use of the property is: %'b tAv, r N'Mt 8. Adjoining Property: ILSE ZONING North ? -A East Sin Ae %s%o yk IM South IAIN RA West Fa ov,,..,c.�� ►\ Rh 9. Describe the decision being appealed. (Attach a copy of the written decision.) 'fir �.� r^r•� wa's it A (s \-\ ► a1� `5 10. Describe the basis of the appeal, indicating your reason(s) for disagreeing with the decision. (This may be provided on separate sheet.) %65 C a u DA ca a UxI,ase c ' 4 Se-. 4 4" .eta► _. ►c .� -�G - 11. Additional comments, if any: 12. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the appeal is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: Please list complete 14 -digit properly identification number.) NAME AGREEMENT APPEAL # I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to overrule the administrative interpretationof the County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions required by the BZA. I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the property for site inspection purposes. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT C DATE 2 O SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY - DATE BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF - r A ® ' D 1 ACTION: - DATE - APPEAL OVERRULED Dwomm, APPEAL SUSTAINED SIGNED: - BZA CHAIRMAN DATE: File KAWPICMMAPPLICATwPEAL Rev. 1/97 zS 4 • r: • BZA REVIEW DATE: 03/20/01 VARIANCE #03-01 KITTY HOCKMAN-NICHOLAS LOCATION: The property is located at 690 Shady Elm Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 74-A-6713 and 67C PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Uses: Residential and Agricultural VARIANCE: The applicant is requesting a 50 -foot, rear yard setback variance to create a buildable lot. REASON FOR VARIANCE: The variance is being sought due to the exceptional narrowness of the existing lot which was created before current restrictions were placed in the ordinance. As presently zoned and with applicable building restriction lines, the allowable buildable space is 25.5 feet from east to west. This does not allow for a normal size house (28'x 40' or larger) to be built without setback encroachment. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant presently owns two parcels, each. approximately 1.1 acre in size. The applicant has submitted to the County a lot consolidation plat that combines these two parcels into a single 2.2 -acre lot. This variance request would apply to this 2.2 -acre lot ("subject property"). The subject property is presently wooded, and vacant in terms of use. The subject property is adjoined on the north and west by agricultural uses. The properties to the east and south contain residential uses. All properties are zoned RA (Rural Areas). Kitty Hockman-Nicholas, Variance #03-01 Page 2 March 13, 2001 Section 165-55.A(2) of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the rear yard setbacks for principal structures in the RA Zoning District. The adjoining property to the rear of the subject property is presently agricultural; therefore, the required rear setback is established at 100 feet. The applicant is the Trustee of the agricultural property adjoining the subject property's rear (western) boundary. While the applicant currently does not have plans to construct a residence on the subject property, she is seeking the requested variance in order to confirm that the property may accommodate a home. When the subject property is overlaid with the required setbacks, the property's buildable area is significantly limited. The requested 50 -foot setback variance would enable the 2.2 -acre lot to contain a house footprint of similar size to the Adjoining property's residence. STAFF CONCLUSION: The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309(2) states that no variance shall be authorized by the board unless it finds that a) strict application of the Ordinance would produce an undue hardship approaching confiscation; b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, and; c) that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. The unusual size and location of the subject property, when considering the adjoining properties, creates a unique situation. In addition, the applicant's intention to consolidate two legally non- conforming parcels (in terms of size) into a single 2.2 -acre lot increases the property's conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. The establishment of a single 2.2 -acre parcel, with the reduced setbacks are requested, maybe less intrusive to the adjoining properties. Staff feels that based on the specifics of this site, it would be reasonable to allow the variance as requested. 0 \Agendas\BZA\Staff Report\200 I\Kitty Hocktn n.wpd MADIGAN 62 A 81 LONG CREEK FARM, INC. 62 A 40 74�A Y67A JENKINS� 62 A 83 NrCHOLAs 74 A 67B 63 A 60 HOCKMAN LAHMAN 74 A 67 74 A 67C(�� 'BAR#Olt -01 Location Map For: Kitty flOclanan - Nicnoias PIN. 74 -A -67I3 74 - A - 6'7C Office of Mapping and GIS, 03/01, Agray ----- ------ --- --- q_ I ti i t IIII qqq i I I �I I rCl(lil�� !� 1 -.........- j..... i .i .. 62 ` it A 67C 74 A 67B 1 � i C f 'i 'BAR#Olt -01 Location Map For: Kitty flOclanan - Nicnoias PIN. 74 -A -67I3 74 - A - 6'7C Office of Mapping and GIS, 03/01, Agray h Page 1 of 5 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IN THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA r-, —o C) DEPT, OF NL!' i\I!`I( inFi - rpI 1. MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED The applicant is the owner OUT IN INK - x other PLEASE PRINT (Check one) 2. APPLICANT: OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: Kitty Hockman Nicholas NAME: ADDRESS 690 Shady Elm Road ADDRESS: Winchester, VA 22602 TELEPHONE: 869-2622 TELEPHONE: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route numbers): Approximately 1,350 feet north of Virginia Secondary Route 651 (Shady Elm Road). 4. The property has a road frontage of 527 feet and a depth of 215 feet and consists of 2.268 acres. (please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Kitty Hockman Nicholas and Robin Hockman Fcldy as evidenced by deed from Robert E. and Kitty B. Hoclanan recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 610 on page 728-730 of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Attach a copy of the deed. Page 2 of 5 6. Magisterial District: Back Creek 7. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.: 74 -A -67B and 67C 8. The existing zoning of the.property is: RA 9. The existing use of the property is: Residential/Vacant 10. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING North Agricultural RA East Residential RA South Residential RA West Agricultural RA 11. Describe the variance sought in terms of distance and type. (For example: "A 3.5' rear yard variance for an attached two car garage.") 50 -foot rear yard variance along the westerly property line 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of: exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of property, or exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of property, or - the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto Due to the exceptional narrowness of the existing lot which was created before current restrictions were placed in the ordinance, a 50 -foot rear yard variance is requested to allow for a buildable_ space on this property. 13. Additional comments, if any As presently zoned and with applicable building restriction lines, the allowable buildable space is 25.5 feet from east to west. This does not allow for a normal size house (28' x 40' or larger) to be built without setback encroachment. page 3 of 5 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the variance is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notifd by mail of this application: 976 Springdale Road NAME Long Creek Farm, Inc. Address Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 62-A-40 690 Shady Elm Road NAME Kitty B. Hockman, Trustee Address Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 74-A-67 227 Soldiers Rest Lane NAME Michelle Lahman Address Winchester VA 22602 Property ID# 74 -A -67A 243 Soldiers Rest Lane NAME James Warden Jenkins, Jr. Address Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 62-A-83 NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property IN NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# NAME Property ID# Address Address Address Address Address Address GRAPHIC SCALE so 0 30 so 120 Q` 1 inch 60 ft - C, ,ic t W" EXISTING DRAINF1EiD EASEMENT DB 933 PG 172 TM 74-A-679 2.268 ACRES ZONED.' RA EX APPROVED USE REWDVRAL WELL SITE DB 933 PG 171 ^O I h N 1 PROPOSES DWELLING q 36 x46' (�O TRACT ONE HEREBY ACATEI LOT 3 I v�0 _ — _ — — _ — — 41' NO 7ES- 1. NO 7771E RDDORr FURiW9Ym 2 EA.SEIADV7S 07NDZ 7NAN WOMV MAY EXIST. .1 BOUNDARY INFORMA770V WONN AOiFaV rAKLN FRcm PLAT cF REcm0 DA 7E 0 11 .SEP7EWED? 1975 MADE BY LEE A EBERT, LS, AND RECOWM /N DEEV BOOK 610 AT PAGE 732 ID 2401 OSED. . FELD . � j � 42'16" W 215.52' MICHELLE LAHMAN 2 �W5 D8 967 PG 1818 - o TM 74 -A -67A, ZONE RA USE: RESIDENTIAL RIVAL PLA T CONSOLIDA 77ON OF LOT 2 AND LOT 3 INTO LOT 2A BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT fREDER/CK COUNTY, NRGYNIA DATE.• fEBRUARY23, 2001 SCALE- 1"=60' SHEET 2 OF 2 AREA TABULA UON LOT 2 - 1.134 ACRES LOT 3 - f 1.134 ACRES LOT 24 - 2.268 ACRES TH OF I U 9 Douglas C. Legge No. 001197 sUBQl,�� MARSH & LEGGE SSC R, VIRGRUAS22 01 Land Surveyors, P.L.C. PHOKE 540 667-0468 1 Q FAY 540 667-0469 AWS LOT 2 i(.-� 2 1 W I K f\Y J� ((� DL DRAINFl EASEMENT HEREBY ACATED DB 933 PG 171 I i 1 NO 7ES- 1. NO 7771E RDDORr FURiW9Ym 2 EA.SEIADV7S 07NDZ 7NAN WOMV MAY EXIST. .1 BOUNDARY INFORMA770V WONN AOiFaV rAKLN FRcm PLAT cF REcm0 DA 7E 0 11 .SEP7EWED? 1975 MADE BY LEE A EBERT, LS, AND RECOWM /N DEEV BOOK 610 AT PAGE 732 ID 2401 OSED. . FELD . � j � 42'16" W 215.52' MICHELLE LAHMAN 2 �W5 D8 967 PG 1818 - o TM 74 -A -67A, ZONE RA USE: RESIDENTIAL RIVAL PLA T CONSOLIDA 77ON OF LOT 2 AND LOT 3 INTO LOT 2A BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT fREDER/CK COUNTY, NRGYNIA DATE.• fEBRUARY23, 2001 SCALE- 1"=60' SHEET 2 OF 2 AREA TABULA UON LOT 2 - 1.134 ACRES LOT 3 - f 1.134 ACRES LOT 24 - 2.268 ACRES TH OF I U 9 Douglas C. Legge No. 001197 sUBQl,�� MARSH & LEGGE SSC R, VIRGRUAS22 01 Land Surveyors, P.L.C. PHOKE 540 667-0468 1 Q FAY 540 667-0469 AWS Page 5 of 5 AGREEMENT VARIANCE #3 I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application, and petition the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to grant a variance to the terms of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as described herein. I agree to comply with any conditions for the variance required by the BZA. I authorize the members of the BZA and Frederick County officials to go upon the property for site inspection purposes. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line. at, least seven (7) days prior to the BZA public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road or right-of-way until the hearing. I hereby certify that all of the statements and information contained herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT / "'ATE _02 23/01 ty Nic Hockman holas SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE (if other than applicant) -OFFICE USE ONLY- BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF M APPROVAL SIGNED: DENIAL DATE: ACTION-- BZA CTION; BZA CHAIRMAN