Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 11-15-11 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia November 15, 2011 3:25 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 1) Determination of a Quorum 2) Minutes of May 17, 2011 and June 21, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING 3) Variance Request #04 -11 of Smithfield Properties, for a 76.7 foot variance of the 100 foot right side setback, a 49 foot variance of the 50 foot left side setback and a 4.6 foot variance of the 50 foot rear setback, to enable construction of a single family dwelling. The subject property is located at 417 Frog Hollow Road, and is identified with Property Identification Number 22 -A -20 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. 4) Other EN _`TES 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 May 17, 2011. PRESENT: Kevin Scott, Chairman, Shawnee District; Jay Givens, Vice Chairman, Back Creek District; Gary Oates, Stonewall District; R. K. Shirley, III, Opequon District; Eric Lowman, Red Bud District and Bruce Carpenter, Gainesboro District. ABSENT: Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large. STAFF PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector; and Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Scott at 3:25 p.m. and he determined there was a quorum. On a motion made by Mr. Oates and seconded by Mr. Givens, the minutes for the January 18, 2011 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Chairman Scott inquired if there are any applications pending for June. Mr. Cheran responded there are no applications at this time; the cut -off date is Friday, May 20, 2011. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal Application #01 -11 of Dr. Ayman Salem, who is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator as to Chapter 165 Zoning, Part 201 Supplementary Use Regulations, Signs, under Sections 165- 201.6G(7)(c) Height and 165- 201.6H(7)(c) Size, of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is located at 241 Garber Lane, and is identified with Property Identification Number 64 -A -5 -C in the Shawnee Magisterial District. ACTION APPEAL TABLED AT THE REQUEST OF APPLICANT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SCHEDULED APPEAL APPLICATION FOR THE JULY 19, 2011 MEETING Mr. Lawrence stated that the Board Members have in front of them a copy of a letter. received Friday, May 13, 2011, from Harrison Johnston concerning today's appeal application. This letter is a request to table the appeal and to not further discuss it today. Mr. Lawrence offered two options for the Board: accept the request and table the appeal for a specific length of time or deny the applicant's request to table and proceed through the process. Mr. Lawrence continued that in the letter. the applicant's representative is asking that the application be tabled so they can further refine how they Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1566 May 17, 2011 wish to resolve the matter. Mr. Oates stated he would support tabling the application for 60 days. Chairman Scott asked the applicant if he wanted to speak at this time. Mr. Tim Mayfield is representing Dr. Salem in this matter. The reason they are requesting the appeal be tabled is because they have retained the services of a new architecture firm to design a different sort of scheme that will meet Frederick County code requirements. Mr. Mayfield thinks a tabling of 60 days would be appropriate and enough time in order to apply for a new building permit. Mr. Oates made a motion to table Appeal Application #01 -11 of Dr. Ayman Salem for 60 days. Chairman Scott suggested that the motion be worded to table Appeal Application #01 -11 for 60 days, and/or until the July 19, 2011 meeting. Mr. Carpenter seconded the motion that Appeal Application #01 -11 be tabled for 60 days and /or until the July 19, 2011 meeting. The vote to table was unanimous. Variance Request #02 -11 of Connie Carter, for a 13 foot front yard variance, resulting in a 47 foot front yard setback, for a deck. This property is located at 130 Rhinehart Lane, and is identified with Property Identification Number 28 -A -22 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION APPEAL TABLED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS VARIANCE APPLICATION SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 19, 2011 MEETING Mr. Cheran presented the staff report. The applicant applied for a building permit after staff received a complaint that remodeling of the structure was taking place without a building permit. The applicant added a front deck, which was larger than the original deck, as noted when staff visited the site. The current setbacks for the RA district are 60 feet to the front, 50 feet to the rear and 50 feet on both sides. The larger deck that was added made the front setback 50 feet to the front and caused the violation of the Frederick County Code in the RA zoning district. Mr. Cheran continued that this property does not meet the threshold requirement of hardship as to the use of the property. An undue hardship would apply only if a principal use could not be built on this parcel. This variance request does not meet the intent nor the requirements of The Code of Virginia 1950 as amended 15.2- 2309(2) and Section 165- 1001.2(C) of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the threshold of a hardship. Staff would recommend denial of this variance request. Mr. Cheran told the members that their agenda packet includes a copy of the applied -for building permit, and that the applicant, Ms. Carter, is available to answer questions. Mr. Givens questioned why the permit and the staff report state the front setback is 50 feet, yet the applicant is requesting a 13 foot variance and the plat shows a 47 foot setback. Which is correct? Mr. Cheran answered that the 47 foot setback is what the applicant is requesting. Mr. Givens asked if the building permit that's been applied for is incorrect and Mr. Cheran replied that is correct. Mr. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1567 May 17, 2011 Givens asked if the applicant needs a 47 foot setback and Mr. Cheran responded yes. Mr. Oates asked if the 47 foot setback is measured from the edge of road or edge of right -of -way. Mr. Cheran responded Rhinehart Lane is a private lane so it would be from the edge of road. Mr. Oates asked if there is an easement on the lane and Mr. Cheran stated just the easement to get back to the lane. Mr. Oates wondered if there was an actual dedicated easement of 15, 20, or 50 feet. Mr. Cheran deferred to the applicant. Chairman Scott asked Mr. Cheran the date of the photograph in the agenda packet showing the original deck. Mr. Cheran responded that this photo was taken from the Assessor's file and did not have a date on it. Chairman Scott asked the dimensions of the original deck. Mr. Cheran said the Assessor's file didn't indicate the dimensions. Ms. Connie Carter approached the podium and identified herself as the sole owner of the property. Ms. Carter stated she purchased the property in March 2007. Due to home owner's insurance demands, Ms. Carter was told she needed to put a railing on the deck. In 2008, Ms. Carter had dormers put on the house, but she didn't apply for a building permit to do so. One of the Frederick County building inspectors called her and told her to cease work on the house, and after visiting the site, he noted that the deck was new and was over expanded from the joists underneath and the railing was not up to Code. Ms. Carter had railings put on the stairs, put new railings on the deck and put two new legs underneath to try to bring it up to Code. Ms. Carter stated that she followed the paperwork for the dormers in 2008. The building inspector stated that she did not have a permit for the deck. even though Ms. Carter said she didn't build it. She called back later in 2008 to find out where the permit stood and apparently Ms. Carter had put the wrong phone number on the application. In 2010, Ms. Carter started inquiring about the permit again and was told that because of the structure of the dormers, she would need an analysis by an engineer. She got that fixed and she again asked about the permit standing. In 2011, she's still struggling with the permit. Ms. Carter stated that the house itself is over the setback by five feet. To put a four foot landing on the front puts her nine feet over the setback. In order to keep the deck on her house, she would need a total variance of 47 feet. Ms. Carter asked the Board to allow her to keep her deck. Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Carter the dimension of the deck. She stated it's 8x16. Mr. Carpenter asked if the deck that is currently on the house was on that house when she purchased it. Ms. Carter responded yes. Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Carter if she enlarged the size of the deck and she said no. Mr. Oates asked Ms. Carter if the 47 feet is to the edge of an existing right -of -way or the edge of a road. Ms. Carter said she was at the edge of the road when she measured it. Mr. Oates has a concern that if a survey is done which shows a right -of -way and she's 60 feet off that, she could in fact need a 25 foot variance or something less. Mr. Oates asked if any research has been done to see if there is a dedicated easement for Rhinehart Lane. Ms. Carter stated she couldn't find anything. Mr. Lowman asked if Ms. Carter recalls when she purchased the property if there was an as -built survey or any type of survey at the closing. Ms. Carter doesn't recall that. Mr. Lowman stated that would help in the Board's decision to know if the existing deck was there. Chairman Scott asked for citizen comments, either for or against this variance. No one Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1568 May 17, 2011 responded. Chairman Scott closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Cheran stated if the Board so desires. staff can do research and work with the applicant to better understand what's needed. Mr. Shirley asked if staff disputes the fact that the existing deck was there when Ms. Carter bought the property. Mr. Cheran said no, staff is not disputing that. It was the consensus of the Board to have staff conduct research on this request in order to answer the questions needed to make a decision. Mr. Givens made a motion to table Variance Request #02 -11 until the July 19, 2011 meeting. Mr. Carpenter seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Other Chairman Scott thanked the County for allowing Mr. Oates, Mr. Wells and himself to attend the BZA classes. It has been very helpful. They finish up on June 6` There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Scott, Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1569 May 17, 2011 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 June 21, 2011. PRESENT: Jay Givens, Vice Chairman, Back Creek District; Gary Oates, Stonewall District; Eric Lowman, Red Bud District; Bruce Carpenter, Gainesboro District; and Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large. ABSENT: Kevin Scott, Chairman, Shawnee District; and R. K. Shirley, 111, Opequon District. STAFF PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator; and Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Givens at 3:25 p.m. and he determined there is a quorum. On a motion made by Mr. Wells and seconded by Mr. Carpenter, the minutes for the May 17, 2011 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Vice Chairman Givens inquired if there are any applications pending for July, other than the two that were tabled from May. Mr. Cheran responded there are no new applications at this time; the cut -off date is Friday, June 24, 2011. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #03 -11 of Orange Partners at Kernstown Commons, for a four and one half foot variance of the ten foot setback for an interstate sign as it relates to Chapter 165 Zoning, Part 704 IA Interstate Area Overlay District, Section 165 704.05(D)(1) District Regulations; Setback Requirements. The subject property is located on the southwestern quadrant interchange for Route 37 and Route 11 in Kernstown, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75 -5 -10 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION VARINANCE APPROVED Mr. Cheran presented the staff report. Frederick County adopted the Interstate Area Overlay District (IA) in 1995. The IA District qualifies uses to be allowed on the sign, height of the sign, number of signs and sign setbacks within the district. The IA District setbacks are ten feet from property lines. The applicant is requesting a four and one half foot variance of the required ten foot setback due to utility easement lines and the future expansion of Interstate 81. If granted, the variance will result in a five and one half foot setback from the property line. Mr. Cheran stated that the sign Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1570 June 21, 2011 itself has met the qualifications of and been approved by Frederick County and VDOT. Mr. Cheran further stated that the sign manufacturer met with him and VDOT. Because this is the interstate overlay and this request concerns VDOT's right -of -way, Mr. Cheran felt that VDOT should be represented in the meeting. VDOT, by email, stated that as Frederick County's regulations are more stringent than VDOT, they will defer the waiver question to the County. VDOT further stated that they have provided information so that "the applicant's engineer has been made aware of the planned excavation for the construction of the future 1 -81 Exit 310 ramps and C -D lanes, and should design the sign footer accordingly. The incursion into the zoning buffer will be at the applicant's risk and liability should any problems arise from the future excavation on the Interstate right -of- way." In conclusion, Mr. Cheran stated that this request from current setbacks of the IA District may be justified to accommodate the future expansion of Interstate 81 and due to the existing utility easements in the vicinity which restricts movement of the sign. This variance request appears to meet the intent of The Code of Virginia 15.2309 (2). The application shows the request is for a five foot setback and Mr. Lowman asked Mr. Cheran if it is five feet or four and one half feet. Mr. Cheran responded they're requesting a four and one half foot variance resulting in a five and one half foot setback. Mr. David Lellock, who is representing the applicant, stated that where the sign is proposed to be located, Orange Partners has dedicated about 20 feet of property and that the previous sign easement extended the original VDOT right -of -way line, which is actually the fence line. Mr. Lellock said it is unique that they have donated the property to VDOT but a new limited access fence has not been constructed yet. Mr. Scott Marsh of Marsh Legge Land Surveyors stated that he and Mr. Lellock work together. Mr. Marsh said the additional right -of -way is a voluntary right -of -way area and that it was the right thing to do. A sign can be in the wrong place and cause people to go the wrong way or it can be in the correct place and help guide people to where they want to be. Further, this sign meets Frederick County's and VDOT's requirements. A larger sign has a large concrete "dead man" and that's the restrictive element of where a sign is positioned. Mr. Marsh feels the sign is proposed for the right place and he requests approval of this variance. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had looked into a monopole -type sign instead of a two post type sign as shown in their sign design. Mr. Bob Runyan of Eddie Edwards' Signs responded that what works out the best for all parties involved is to do a sign of this style, where the structural integrity of two poles is shared. With two poles, you don't have to have as much structure built into the huge cabinet. which is 23 feet wide and 22 feet tall, for all the properties' signs /logos. It would be very difficult to take a box that big and put it 80 feet in the air with just one support. Two supports makes for a safer, better built system. Mr. Oates asked if a monopole -type sign would work if it was 50 or 60 feet tall instead of 80 feet. Mr. Runyan stated the same issues are involved. The same square footage amount would be subject to up to maybe 90 mph winds. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1571 June 21, 2011 Mr. Oates stated that one of VDOT's comments was that if the variance is granted, it will be at the applicant's risk and liability should any problems arise from the future exaction on the Interstate right -of -way. Mr. Lellock stated that the bottom of the sign foundation is going to be below their ditch line in this area. Mr. Lellock's understanding is that basically signs are now designed so that it would not be a fall hazard. So excavation near this is going to be minimal and it doesn't appear there will be any undercut of this sign. Mr. Oates stated it sounds to him like if the sign needs to be removed, it will be at the applicant's cost, not VDOT's. Mr. Oates asked if the applicant has any problem with the condition of the variance. Mr. Lellock said they're fine with that, provided they don't take more right -of -way. Vice Chairman Givens stated that it seems the setback question came up earlier this month, based on the date on the plat. Part of the applicant's reasoning of requesting a variance is because the applicant has a manufactured sign. Why has the sign already been manufactured? Mr. Marsh responded that originally the easement created for the sign was intended to go all the way to the existing right -of- way into the voluntary area. There was an implication that was the original intent and the reservation of all this was to allow for that. Mr. Marsh explained the design of the sign is very standard and tailored to the site. They're here for the variance; the sign hasn't been built and the foundation hasn't been poured because they want to get this resolved with the variance. Vice Chairman Givens referred to a letter from Lellock Consulting to the BZA where it states "will require additional revisions to portions of the sign that have already been manufactured Mr. Lellock stated the only part of the sign that's been manufactured is the columns and the columns have been ordered because there was a mistake made between the purchasing person and the vendor for the pipes. Mr. Cheran stated the applicant was within the County's required setback requirement and the permit was issued. The applicant's representatives discovered this issue, came to the County for guidance and then applied for the variance. This accounts for what may appear to be a discrepancy in the time line. Mr. Wells asked Mr. Cheran if there was any other place on the property where the sign could be located and achieve the same signage effect without granting this variance. Mr. Cheran responded no. Vice Chairman Givens asked if anyone present wished to speak either in favor of or against this variance request. There was no response and Vice Chairman Givens closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Discussion Vice Chairman Givens suggested that any motion that is made, particularly to approve, that we include the fact that the applicant is responsible. The BZA and the County will have responsibility for approving a variance only not the design of the sign or any future design of 1-81. Vice Chairman Givens looked at the site and he understands that storm drain structures and the water lines would have to be relocated if the sign was moved back. Vice Chairman Givens questions if that's a hardship to relocate those utilities even though there is cost involved. Why wouldn't it work if Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1572 June 21, 2011 the sign was moved a little further south? Mr. Lellock said if they try to move it past the structures that are existing, they'll have to go back through the process of moving the sign easement. That involves going back through the covenants with Kernstown Commons, which at times is cumbersome with some of the national tenants they have in the development. Another aspect is there is a certain distance that this sign has to be located to existing parking spaces. Mr. Lellock believes right now they meet that criteria, but if they move further south, they'll be required to add additional paved surfaces and parking areas to meet that requirement. Mr. Cheran stated this is a requirement of the Department of Transportation; they're very particular about signs on the interstates and byways. Vice Chairman Givens stated that would create an unusual hardship for the applicant. Mr. Lellock continued that the sign can only reach a certain height. The way it's designed now, they are just at that height. The further they move south, the shorter the sign legs have to be, so poles that have been manufactured are going to be too long. Mr. Wells made a motion to approve Variance Request #03 -1 1 of Orange Partners at Kemstown Commons with the understanding that after construction of the sign that Frederick County and the Board of Zoning Appeals be held at bay, and that any obstacle pertaining to the sign or placement of the sign be held between the applicant and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. Carpenter seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Other There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jay Givens, Vice Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1573 June 21, 2011 CE E EST VARIANCE APPLICATION #04 -11 SMITHFIELD PROPERTIES Staff Report for the Board of Zoning Appeals Prepared: October 27, 2011 Staff Contact: Dana M. Johnston. Zoning Inspector This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Stuff 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: November 15. 2011 Pending LOCATION: 417 Frog Hollow Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 22 -A -20 PROPERTY ZONING USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential Use: Vacant Use: Residential Use: Residential VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a 76.7 foot variance of the 100 foot right side setback, a 49 foot variance of the 50 foot left side setback and a 4.6 foot variance of the 50 foot rear setback in order to allow the construction of a 24'x 35' dwelling on the site. This variance, if granted, would result in a 23.3 foot right side yard setback, a one foot left side yard setback, and a 45.4 foot rear yard setback. REASON FOR VARIANCE: With current setbacks, size topography, location of drainfield well, there is no buildable area to construct a dwelling. Variance Application #04 -11 Smithfield Properties October 27, 2011 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS: The subject parcel was created on January 6, 1966 when the 0.4 acre parcel was transferred from James Saville (Frederick County Clerk's office, Book 328, Page 639). Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. Therefore, this lot was created prior to the adoption of zoning. 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, 50 feet to the rear, 100 feet to the right, and 50 feet to the left. Based on the limited size, topography, the placement of drainfield well, and the large setbacks associated with the RA zoning district, staff believes this renders the property a challenge on which to place a dwelling. The applicant is requesting a 76.7 foot right side yard variance, a 49 foot left side yard variance, and a 4.6 foot rear yard variance. This variance, if granted, would result in a 23.3 foot right side yard setback, a one foot left side yard setback, and a 45.4 foot rear yard setback. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER 16, 2010 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. The applicant is seeking this variance in order to construct a single- family dwelling. Therefore, this application for a variance meets the requirements as set forth by The Code of Virginia 1950 as amended 15.2- 2309(2), and Section 165- 1001.02 (C) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The strict application of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does produce an undue hardship as required by the Code of Virginia. Should this variance be granted, the building setbacks for this property would be 23.3 feet on the right side, one foot on the left side, and would change to 45.4 feet on the rear property line. Staff would recommend approval of this variance application. VAR #04 11 Smithfield Properties PIN:22 -A -20 Variances: 76.7ft Right Side 4.6ft Back Side 49ft Left Side gED VAR0411_SmiihF eldPropeities Parcels Building Footprints B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MHI (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) VAR #04 -11 Smithfield Properties PIN: 22 A 20 Variances: 76.7ft Right Side 4.6ft Back Side 49ft Left Side 0 75 I i Note: Frederick County Dept of Planning Development 107 N Kent St Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 540 665 5651 Map Created: Oct 28, 2011 Staff: djohnston 150 300 Feet Su,k t� 2. APPLICANT: NAME: im, �aP/GF� /I ADDRESS: 1/ z Sri, i�tie rrcC TELEPHONE: S S3 qy Z 5 ZS TELEPHONE: 7 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Variance Application Ott--1 1 Submittal Date /b//q/ /I Fee Amount Paid y00 Sign Deposit Paid 1/ e7 c� OFFICE USE ONLY Submittal Deadline d For the BZA Meeting of Initials: FY) Receipt 0g/ /c>. MUST BE TYPED OR FILLED OUT IN INK PLEASE PRINT 1. The applicant is the owner x other (Check one) Please list all owners, occupants (adult individuals as well as any entities occupying the property), or parties in interest of the property. OCCUPANT: (if different) NAME: ADDRESS: 3. The property is located at (give exact directions and include State Route Numbers): L// 7 )_5 bW k So? 7 /k //ok, &Ad k nA srch? c{ pew l2ne. 0iL 0 L The property has a road frontage of 9q, Z( feet and a depth of L% SD feet and consists of 2/ acres (please be exact). 5. The property is owned by Sh1,. i7 ape/ e S as evidenced by deed from 134 /v�Lyp/Sori recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 3; t on page e 3 7 or instrument number of the deed books of the Clerk of the Court for Frederick County. Please attach a copy of the recorded deed. 6. Magisterial District: L9ae ail -e5 bO ✓d 7. Property Identification Number (P.I.N.): 8. The existing zoning of the property is: 9. The existing use of the property is: 10. Adjoining Property: p USE North f4_SI 1 East (ICS�4 South Vae, West sr toe U -4 -zO s,' L 8 ZONING LA 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. 1.4[ s Illh 12. List specific reason(s) why the variance is being sought in terms of such as: g xceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of property, or Exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of property, or 10- The use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto Name and Property Identification Number Address /f 3 C- ■re-L' c�v -wi— l.. &JryvILL. VA -1 k1 Nam r.' (Sr 6tt r,. �.1.. Property a-Z- _n P tY I� Name La tl M. fJ t.,ais' 1 J r 3")-.\ CS+4 --n t rt`^g 5 Qerc) IALl c.A..S pct— 1 vi 2Z to 6 3 Property (1:1. h 11 Name 4 4 '4 SSi�C.. 1, e_ST. 36_4 Fro&- I krt., 2c'A 1/0r,/0 14- 1 s ?£ft- i v$ 2ZG63 Property 22— A_ L/3 Name Property Name Property Name Property Name Property Name Property 13. Additional comments, if any: 14. The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, fir nis, 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 notified by mail of this application: 9 15. Provide a sketch of the property (you may use this page or attach engineer's drawing). Show proposed and /or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines and to the nearest structure(s) on adjoining properties. Please include any other exhibits, drawings or photographs with this application. 10 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 knowledge, true. SIGNATURE OF APPLICAN DATE /049h /7 SIGNATURE OF OWNER AGREEMENT VARIANCE (Number to be assigned by the Planning Dept.) (if other than applicant) BZA PUBLIC HEARING OF SIGNED: DATE: APPROVAL DENIAL OFFICE USE ONLY- d/6 -DATE- BZA CHAIRMAN ACTION: 11 ned herein are, to the best of my DATE