Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26 Intent Letter rev 1.28.26BAILIWICK STRATEGIES LLC 406 West Franklin Street, First Floor P.O. Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 By Email: County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development and Board of Zoning Appeals 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Attn: Wyatt Pearson, Director Wyatt.pearson@fcva.us Re: Revised Variance Applicant’s Report; 3266 Valley Pike (PIN 63 A 37) Dear Mr. Pearson: This letter shall serve as the applicant’s report supplementing the application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance (the “Variance”) for the property consisting of approximately 4.20 acres located at 3266 Valley Pike (PIN 63 A 37) (the “Property”) in the County of Frederick, Virginia (the “County”) as shown on the enclosed plat prepared by Koontz Bryant Johnson Williams and entitled “Cline Manor Existing Conditions” dated January 29, 2026 and attached as Exhibit A (The “Plat”) and the Proposed Plan (as defined below). I represent Cline Manor VA LLC (the “Applicant”) in its request for approval of the Variance to authorize a residential development consisting of up to 48 multifamily apartment units (the “Proposal”), as conceptually shown on the conceptual site plan showing a four (4) story building and prepared by Koontz Bryant Johnson Williams and entitled “Site Layout – Proposed Buffer” dated January 28, 2025 and attached as Exhibit C (the “Proposed Plan”). The Applicant is the contract purchaser of the Property and is authorized to make this Variance application pursuant to the enclosed special limited powers of attorney from the owner of record, Clinton Ritter and George Ritter, as co-trustees of the estate of Peggy Carson Ritter. Variance Request. The Applicant seeks a Variance with respect to the 25’ active buffer and 75’ inactive buffer for multifamily use adjoining single family uses provided in County of Frederick Code Section 165-203.02 C and the 40’ active and 40’ inactive road buffers provided in Code Sec. 165-203.02 E, all as shown on Exhibit C. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting a Variance from the foregoing buffers to provide (i) an inactive buffer of 25’, with full screening, together with an active buffer of 25’ all as shown on Exhibit C, and (ii) a 35’ inactive road buffer, with full screening, together with a 40’active road buffer all as shown on Exhibit C. County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 2 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com Background: Board of Supervisors Adopted Ordinance and Resolution Regarding Proposal. The Proposal, in the general configuration proposed in the Proposed Plan, and with the general number and type of affordable multifamily units, was presented to, reviewed by, and unanimously a by the County Board of Supervisors in its adoption of the and revitalization district resolution tax abatement ordinance relating to the Proposal, each adopted on February 25, 2025, copies of which resolution and ordinance I enclose as Exhibits D and E (collectively, the “Adopted Papers”). The Adopted Papers evidence that County adopted an ordinance with force of law, and a resolution, specifically designating the the Property and the Proposal to be a multifamily affordable housing development for workforce and otherwise qualifying residents in low-income housing categories established under Federal programs, and that the County desires and, for tax and rehabilitation district designation purposes, permits the residential density and use for this specific Property and for the benefit of County residents. Background: Other Property Facts. The Property shape and boundary is exceptional, non- standard, and is not repeated in the general pattern of lots and development in the County. The Property is zoned RP Residential Performance District, which permits up to twenty (20) units per acre. In the case of the Property, the permitted maximum number of units is 84 units. The Proposal contains just up to 48 units, slightly over half the maximum permitted number of 84 units. The unit density, features, and configuration of the Proposal would normally be permitted in the Property’s zoning district in an ordinary lot of the same size of the Property in the zoning district if such a lot were in an ordinary configuration generally found in the County. Proposal in Strict Conformance with Existing Buffer is Not Feasible. The Applicant has provided an exhibit showing the strict interpretation of an aggregate 100’ setback contained in the zoning ordinance (the “Ordinance”), inclusive of a 75’ inactive buffer, from the Property boundary line that unusually layers inside the Property due to the Property’s unusual shape and is depicted on the enclosed layout plan depicting a six (6) story building prepared by Koontz Bryant Johnson Williams and entitled “Site Layout – Existing Buffer” dated January 28, 2026 attached as Exhibit B (The “Existing Buffer Exhibit”). The six (6) story configuration would only meet the Ordinance’s height maximums found in the Ordinance, but Exhibit B shows that, even with the building contorted to an absurd narrowness and high number of stories, the overlap of the existing Ordinance buffers reduces the active surface use of the Property to an impermissible number of parking spaces and unsafe access road configuration rendering it unbuildable for the purpose in the Adopted Papers. Meeting the buffer requirement of the Ordinance would accordingly cause the Proposal in the type and scope adopted in the Adopted Papers to violate multiple other provisions of the Ordinance and other site plan review health, life, and safety standards. County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 3 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com Proposed Plan Pursuant to Requested Variance is the Sole Way to Develop the Proposal on the Property. The viable option shown on the Proposed Plan (as defined above) depicts the building in the Proposal in a commercially customary four (4) story building configuration but with the Variance from the existing buffers as shown on the Proposed Plan. The Existing Conditions Plan and the Plat shows that the unusual shape of the lot, with its irregular and unusual boundaries, results in a disproportionately small buildable area for the Proposal use which was adopted in the Adopted Papers. Importantly, the Plat shows an absurd resulting narrow, tower-like six-story building required to conform to the strictly-interpreted setbacks, which then creates un-approvable parking and access configurations. This request is for approval of a Variance of the buffer and setback areas in substantial conformance with the Plat and the Plan due to (i) the exceptional narrowness and shape of the Property and (ii) the resulting exceptionally small and shaped size of buildable area on the Property as depicted on the Existing Buffer Exhibit. STANDARD OF REVIEW Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2201 provides that a variance is “a reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, height, area, bulk, or location of a building or structure when the strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property, and such need for a variance would not be shared generally by other properties, and provided such variance is not contrary to the purpose of the ordinance.” The proposed Variance: • Is a reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, height, area, bulk, or location of a building or structure . The proposal is up to 48 units, which number of units is a modest use of the Property permitted use for up to 84 units under its existing zoning district. • The strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The six (6) story strict-interpretation alternative is unreasonable for the workforce and affordable development desired and adopted specifically for the Property by the County in the Adopted Papers. While Virginia courts have not defined “unreasonable” in the context of a variance, “unreasonable” is generally defined as “absurd, inappropriate,” “exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation,” or “unconscionable.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002). The County specifically designated the Property in the Adopted Papers for an affordable multifamily use. The Proposal is at the minimum viable density and configuration for an affordable multifamily use. It would be an absurd result, inappropriate, and exceed the bounds of reason for the County to have created a rehabilitation district and tax exemption area in the Adopted Papers constituting only the area of the Property itself for the presented use and density, and for such a use to accordingly to not be otherwise permitted due to buffers. County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 4 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com • Such need for a variance would not be shared generally by other properties. The lot shape of the Property is unlike the regular, mostly square or rectangle, shapes of adjacent residential lots. Its shape and configuration are not repeated in the pattern of development in the area or in the County. Due to this shape and configuration rarity, the approval of this Variance would not create a precedent with development policy and ordinance interpretation consequences to other lots in the County • Such variance is not contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. The Variance and the Proposal as shown on the Proposed Plan are designed so that the Proposal will conform with all other sections of the Ordinance applicable to the Property. The modest four (4) story building in the Proposal will conform to the existing pattern of development in the area with a use designated in the Adopted Papers. The Board of Supervisors’ approval of the concept for the purposes of the tax abatement and rehabilitation area in the Adopted Papers evidences conformance of the Proposal, proposed use, density with the policy goals of the existing zoning district and in general with the adopted policies of the County. The proposed Variance will not have an undue adverse effect on the public health, safety or general welfare. The proposed Variance is consistent with appropriate future land use density expectations in the County based on adopted zoning and the Adopted Papers, will not cause overcrowding of land and an undue concentration of population, and the use adds no adverse impacts to essential public services ; indeed the Variance provides a desirable opportunity for dignified affordable housing choice for residents of the County pursuant to the Adopted Papers. The proposed Variance will not interfere with adequate light and air; the tower-like absurd alternative in the strictly-interpreted setback scenario would potentially be visually discordant with the existing pattern of development in addition to its other Ordinance violations. • Alternatively to the unreasonable restriction standard above, Virginia Code Sec, 15.2- 2309(2) provides for relief in the case of a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements. The Existing Buffers Plan shows the narrow, condensed, and absurd small buildable area, which would require an incongruous and otherwise impermissible building and configuration. The lot boundary creates a hardship where, without the Variance, the Proposal in the previously Adopted Papers cannot be constructed. • Good Faith of Applicant. The Applicant is the contract purchaser of the Property which purchase has not closed, and accordingly did not create the conditions under which the Variance is requested. County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 5 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com In summary, the Applicant seeks approval of the Variance by the County’s Board of Zoning Appeals. The development of the Property, made possible through the Variance, would guarantee a high- quality use beneficial to the community, in a Proposal supported by the Adopted Papers, that is otherwise impossible to develop without the granting of the Variance. In addition to the Plan and the Existing Setback Plan, I also attach the completed Variance application form and a copy of the recorded instrument vesting ownership. The neighbor information form from the Variance application form is appended to this letter. I further enclose a check from the Applicant for the $400.00 application fee. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request, please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark J. Kronenthal II, Esq. Enclosures County of Frederick January 22, 2026 Updated January 28, 2026 Page 6 PO Box 25309 Richmond, Virginia 23260 804.938.9818 mark@bailiwickstrategies.com Neighbor List from Variance Application Form Name and Property Identification Number Address Minor David L 63 A 36 3258 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Roy Clarence E Jr 63 A 35 3248 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Link Jacqulyn 63 A 34 3242 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602 American Assets Management LLC 63 A 39 40310 Hurley Ln Paeonian Springs, VA 20129 Woodbrook Village Homeowners Assoc 63B 2 2 58A PO Box 2580 Winchester, VA 22604 Plummer Joyce M 63B 1 13 114 Plainfield Dr Winchester, VA 22602 Synoweitz Peter 63B 1 14 112 Plainfield Dr Winchester VA 22602 Lantz Susan D 63B 1 15 110 Plainfield Dr Winchester VA 22602 Howard John J 63B 1 16 106 Plainfield Dr Winchester, VA 22602 SAOM LLC 63B 1 B and 63B 1 C 10024 Pouring Rain Pl Nokesville, VA 20181 Lengyel George 63 A 91 3283 Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22602