HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000048 Action Letter 1990-08-20 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
�S�llr ki„A„
MEMORANDUM
TO: File VA-90-48 Alma Ball p
FROM: Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator lAj
DATE: August 20, 1990
RE: Status of application
This application, Variance 90-48 is considered null and void. The
applicant's proposal will be administratively permitted pursuant
to Section 10. 3 . 1 which includes the language "where possible . . . "
This has been approved by Mr. Keeler (see separate memo) and me.
No fee was taken pending staff review, therefore none needs to be
refunded.
At the time of subdivision plat review, Planning staff will review
deed restrictions of further division, to insure compliance with
the intent of this section.
AMP/srp
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
December 4 , 1989
Padma Ball
Post Office Box 3
Batesville, VA 22924
RE: Tax Map 85 , Parcel 18
Dear Ms. Ball:
The above-referenced property may be divided into tracts of
five acres or more, each with at least 250 feet of frontage
on Route 636 . This would be deemed an "exempt" division
under the subdivision ordinance but must meet all applicable
zoning ordinance provisions ( i.e - yards, building site,
etc. )
Any new or improved access through the floodplain may
require a special use permit. The County is not obligated
to approve a special use permit even though an "exempt"
division cannot be disapproved. Therefore, you may wish to
continue to use the existing road for access. While not
requisite for exempt plat approval, it is strongly
recommended that an access easement together with a road
maintenance agreement be recorded to avoid dispute among the
various property owners or successors in interest.
If you should have any questions, do not hesitate to contact
me at 296-5823 .
Sincerely,
Richard E. Tarbell
Planner
RET/blb
cc: Reading File
-$.411111Wp
a 4! gip A-
I IRGIN‘''
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator
FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning� !
DATE: July 5 , 1990
RE: Determination Pursuant To Section 10. 3 . 1 of the
Rural Areas District - Alma Ball ETAL
A 42 acre parcel was proposed for division into 3 lots, none
of which was 21 acres and the transaction appeared on its
face to be contrary to 10. 3 . 1 of the Rural Areas zone which
limits such divisions to an aggregate of not more than 31
acres.
The applicant submitted variance application and in the
justification noted that: ( 1) significant portions of the
property are unsuitable to residential development; ( 2) the
subdivision was proposed to allow separate ownership of 3
existing dwellings; and, ( 3 ) the 3 resulting parcels would
be deed restricted against further subdivision and
residential development.
DETERMINATION
Among other things, Section 10 . 3 . 1 states that "the
aggregate acreage devoted to [lots of less than 21 acres]
shall not exceed thirty-one ( 31 ) acres, except in such case
where this aggregate acreage limitation is precluded by
other limitations of this ordinance.
I have compared the representations of the applicant to the
specific language as well as legislative intent of Section
10. 3 . 1. The underlined language of 10 . 3. 1 previously cited
envisions, among other things, limited building sites within
a parcel. While the applicant has stated that much of the
land is unsuited to development, disposal of this matter
Amelia Patterson
Page 2
July 5, 1990
cannot be based on that representation without detailed and
expensive engineering study.
However, an aspect of the applicant's justification which is
compelling is the representation that no further
development will occur and that the land division is to
simply transfer ownership of 3 existing dwellings. As to
zoning regulation, the County cannot rely on private deed
restriction. Nor can property be "rezoned" (i.e. - limited
as to development) through exercise of ministerial act as
opposed to legislative act.
Under Section 10. 3 . 3, the County has established a
mechanism to control future development of rural land
through easement which would accrue to the County of
Albemarle and to the Public Recreational Facility Authority
of Albemarle County.
It is inmaterial to the intent of Section 10. 3 . 1 as to
whether property is physically constrained to additional
development or foreclosed to development through restrictive
easement. Therefore, granting easement to foreclose
additional development/division to the County and Authority
would satisfy the intent of Section 10. 3 . 1 and no variance
would be required. This opinion is applicable only to cases
where development rights (i.e. - small lots) are forfeited.
If you agree with this opinion, this Department will notify
the applicant as to the steps necessary to avoid variance.
Also, we will inform the Board of Supervisors, Public
Recreational Facility Authority, and Planning Commission as
to this reading.
RSK/jcw
cc: Alma Ball Subdivision File
Reading File
a. .
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.
VA-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.
V A-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