HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900006 Action Letter 1989-02-15 , ‘?
A"\A
'"-':"ZtiXttAC,71a;tf •••,°-3--1-\-*0-s..44„, - r .
_ i , .._- - •
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLF
1)epattment of Zoninq
11H1 Nichltirc R,
<Math,ttul,\ilk'. Viurr,1 220(11 TM()
NM I 2% 875
February 15, 1989
David Wilderman
Case Edwards Development, Inc.
9600A Martin Luther King Highway
Lanham, MD 20706
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-89-6 , Tax Map 46, Parcel 26B (part of)
bear Mr. Wilderman:
This letter is to inform you that on February 14 , 1989 , during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, the Board ruled to allow your application for VA-39-6
to be withdrawn and dropped from the agenda .
If you have any questions, please contact our offce.
Sincerely,
004
6,;,','„,,,i,•:'., ea arkif4*-41v
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWBJr/st
cc: VA-89-6
STAFF REPORT - VA-89-6
OWNER: Frank Kessler
APPLICANT: Case Edwards Development, Inc.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 46/26B, part of
ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
ACREAGE: 26.79 Acres
LOCATION: East side of Powell Creek Road, + .1 mile
north of its intersection with Tinker's
Cove Drive
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 32.7.6. 1 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, which states:
"32.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
32.7 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
32.7.6 FIRE PROTECTION
32.7.6. 1 In areas where public water is deemed reasonably available
by the commission, fire hydrants and distribution systems
shall be provided by the developer. Hydrant locations
and fire flow requirements shall be as prescribed by Insurance
Service Offices (ISO) standards and subject to approval
of the Albemarle County fire official. Access ways for
emergency vehicles shall be provided as specified by the
fire official. In areas where public water is not reasonably
available, the fire official may require such alternative
provisions as deemed reasonably necessary to provide adequate
fire protection."
The applicant proposes to construct an apartment complex and seeks a variance
from the fire flow requirements of the Insurance Service Offices (ISO) standards
which are the referenced requirements of Section 32.7.6. 1 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the applicant seeks a reduction
of the required fire flow from two thousand (2000) gallons per minute to
one thousand forty (1040) gallons per minute. The applicant requests the
reduction on the basis that the one thousand forty (1040) gallons per minute
represents the available flow to the property.
It should also be noted that Section 32.7.6. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance is subject to waiver and/or variation by the Planning Commission
as stated in Section 32.3. 11. 1, to wit:
"32.3.11 WAIVER; VARIATION; SUBSTITUTION
32.3. 11.1 The commission may waive, vary or accept substitution for
any requirement of section 32.7, minimum standards for
improvements in a particular case upon a finding that
VA-89-6
Frank Ressler
Case Edwards Development, Inc.
Page Two
requirement of such improvement would not forward the purposes
of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest; or
in the case of substitution, that such alternative will satisfy
the purpose of this ordinance to at least an equivalent degree
as the required improvement."
The Planning Department Staff has prepared a staff report for the Planning
Commission to address the issue of a waiver or variation of Section 32.7.6. 1
and recommends that no such waiver or variation be given. As of this writing,
a public hearing date for the Planning Commission to address the issue has
not been scheduled.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the request be denied for cause:
1) The applicant has not shown that a strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would cause a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation
as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience.
2) The applicant has not demonstrated that the perceived hardship is not
generally shared by other properties in the general vicinity or same
zoning district.
3) The applicant has not shown that the granting of the variance request
would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or
that the character of the district would not be altered.