Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000046 Action Letter 1990-07-11 JV1' COUNTY OF ALBEMARI.E Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22001-4i )h (804) 2%-5875 July 11, 1990 Virginia Land Trust 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, VA 22906 ATTN: Stephen M. Melton RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-46, Tax Map 62 , Parcel 112 Dear Sir: This letter is to inform you that on July 10, 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-90-46. This variance approval allows relief from Section 4 . 1. 6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the septic reserve area from 100% to 65%, for the location of a 3 bedroom house on an existing lot. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, ,-144416:-Iv Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/srp cc: VA-90-46 Inspection Dept. STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: July 10, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-46 OWNER/APPLICANT: Virginia Land Trust TAX MAP/PARCEL: 62/112 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2 . 005 Acres LOCATION: In Franklin subdivision, on the south of Franklin Drive, approximately 1/4 mile from the cul-de-sac. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 4. 1. 6. of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. For residential usage, at a minimum, each septic disposal field shall consist of suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health. " (Amended 11-15-89) This property is under contract to Richard and Laura Pence. They intend construction of a three (3) bedroom house. Due to site constraints, there is not sufficient area for a full 100% reserve septic site. They therefore request a variance to reduce septic reserve area to 65%. It is likely that full reserve is available for a 2 bedroom house. The applicant's justification includes: 1. This lot was approved prior to the requirement for a full reserve field. It complies with the Health Department requirement for 50% reserve area. Franklin was approved 1979. 2 . A 3 bedroom house is a typical house size for reasonable use of the land. 3 . According to the soil scientist, factors limiting the reserve area are : a. 50 foot septic setback from several streams that flow through the lot; b. Shallow soil cover over bedrock; c. Steep slopes. Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-46 RECOMMENDATION SEE ATTACHED PLANNING COMMENTS. Staff wishes to distinguish this case from three others which commonly lend a similar request for septic area variance. These are: 1) When the property owner sacrifices the better septic area because it is a more appealing house site; or 2) when the lot is not already of record prior to the current Zoning Ordinance, but is now proposed for additional subdivision development with inadequate septic reserve; or 3) a larger than standard house is built with septic requirements beyond the 3 bedroom standard. In many cases due to the owner's choice or prior notification of septic constraints, a 2 bedroom house is built and considered reasonable use of the land. Please note however, that the Zoning Ordinance which is based on Health Department policy, requires septic area to be adequate for a 3 bedroom house. Based on the preceding reasons and the site constraints enumerated by the soil scientist, staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2 . The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3 . The applicant has provided evidence 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. k Amelia Patterson Page 2 June 22 , 1990 VA-90-34 Earlysville Family Health Center: This property is situated in a PUD. While the sign regulations of a PUD may or may not be viewed as adequate, the Board of Supervisors expressed concern that in the Four Seasons PUD multiple sign variances were granted over the years. In this case, the commercial area consists of multiple lots and it may be appropriate for the BZA to consider the future implications of granting individual variances. VA-90-45 Thomas P. or Lois H. Nottingham: Several variances of this nature have been entertained in the past and appear to result from inadequate or inaccurate inspection as to setback and yard requirements. Electronic devices are available at modest cost which can accurately measure distance and require no judgement for usage. County acquisition of such equipment could avoid future exposure of the public to the uncertainty of variance as well as reduce costs to every party involved. A-90-46 Virginia Land Trust: The applicant proposes location of a three bedroom dwelling on a site which does not meet County requirements for location of a three bedroom dwelling. Reasonable usage of the land can be achieved by location of a smaller dwelling. For areas not served by central or public utilities, it is the County's policy that development not exceed the support ability of the land. There are many properties which cannot support a three bedroom dwelling on well and septic system "in the same zoning district" and there may be other properties in "the same vicinity" (Section 34 . 2) . VA-90-47 County of Albemarle School Board: I believe that for each public school developed or expanded since adoption of this ordinance in 1980, the School Board has sought variance. It would appear that if the School Board does not agree with zoning regulation, an amendment would be appropriate. This was suggested several years ago. I do not think that "government" schools can be continually granted variance, and then "government" regulation can be successfully asserted against private schools of similar character. VA-90-48 Alma Ball, Etal: I have read the justification for this request together with measures proposed by the applicant and I would recommend that the applicant's proposal be viewed as consistent with the intent of the RA zone as well as specific language of Section 10. 3 . 1. In this particular case I DO NOT BELIEVE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. RSK/jcw