Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000064 Action Letter 1990-10-16 .4' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October 17, 1990 Clarence E. & Harriet Lee Bell Rt. 2 , Box 547 Keswick, VA 22947 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-64, Tax Map 48, Parcel 62A Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bell: This letter is to inform you that on October 16, 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board approved your request for VA-90-65 subject to the following condition: 1. Approval from the relevant utility company for work in their easement. This approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front setback for a pole shed from 75 to 26 feet from a private driveway. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call . Sincerely, Amelia M. Patterso Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: VA-90-64 STAFF PERSON: Amelia M. Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: October 16, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-64 OWNER/APPLICANT: Clarence E. and Harriet Lee Bell TAX MAP/PARCEL: 48/62A ACREAGE: 4 . 047 acres ZONING: RA, Rural Areas LOCATION: On a private road off the north side of Route 640, approximately 0.5 mile east of the intersection with Route 20 north The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "10.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS Yards, minimum Front . . . 75 feet" The applicant seeks a variance to reduce the front setback for an existing garage, from 75 to 26 feet from a private road. The applicant constructed a pole shed with sides without a building permit. The applicant's justification includes: 1. One of the only locations which would meet setbacks is behind the house. Because the property slopes upward, it would involve a lot of cut to construct it. 2 . The other location which would meet setbacks is not practical because it is in front of the house. The septic field in front of the house, well beside it, power easement on the other side and the driveway location, limit a new structure's location. RECOMMENDATION Because the applicant proceeded without the proper approvals, the hardship of relocating the garage is self-imposed. Therefore, we may consider the property as if the garage were not yet built. The applicant chose what appears to be the most practical location for the garage, in staff's opinion. However as with past applications, staff does not consider construction of garages to be necessary for reasonable use of the property. Therefore, in staff's opinion it is not an undue hardship. VA-90-64 Staff Report Clarence E. & Harriet Lee Bell Page 2 Staff does note the following for the Board's consideration: 1. The encroaching area is from a private road with limited traffic, as opposed to a public road; 2) The use of the structure is accessory and not residential. 3) The driveway easement is not hindered. Also, the applicant is subjecting himself to a reduced setback. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2 . The applicant has not 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 not 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. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Approval from the relevant utility company for work in their easement. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ®A il0FVV MEMORANDUM TO: Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator FROM: Ronald S . Keeler, Chief of Planning DATE: September 24 , 1990 RE: Agenda of Board of Zoning Appeals - October 16 , 1990 AP-90-05 Multi-Channel TV Cable Co. appeals Zoning Administrator determination that satellite dishes are primary structures subject to primary setbacks and not accessory setbacks . A precedent for your decision is Hall' s Body Shop on Route 29 North, where Hartwell Clarke, over 10 years ago, determined that "wrecked" vehicles awaiting repair were a primary uses and subject to primary ( i .e. -building) setback. To my way of thinking, an accessory use or structure is not only subordinate to the main use but also that the main use can exist without the accessory use or structure. Certain allowances are to this opinion are wells , public utility lines and the like which must encroach into setbacks . I am unaware of any inherent need for satellite dishes to encroach into setbacks. Therefore, I agree with your opinion that the satellite dishes are subject to primary setback since I do believe that Multi-Channel could operate without them. At the same time, let me state that I do not believe a prior Zoning Administrator( s ) may have viewed this matter differently, but I am unsure of my recollection. Since adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance I have beseeched each of the several Zoning Administrators to reduce presidential opinions to writing without much success. •ch;l c.�.:1 =� i h tilt � I°''fit ih;• V.f.1 1 V\ ,,,,v-- 4jn ----v4k) 1,,l,„, SEP 25 1990 tcL ;.:MN-LE COJl. 1 1 ZCN,41G 0i:PARTMEkT Memo to: Amelia M. Patterson September 24, 1990 Page 2 VA-90-68 Multi-Channel TV Cable Co. petitions for variance to allow existing structures to remain as located. As stated previously, I am unsure as to past Zoning Administrator' s interpretations, however, I do believe it incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate by copy of the building permit or other document that the County specifically authorized and approved location of the various existing structures (Be advised that zoning designation of this property changed in 1980 . I am unaware as to what structures were located prior to or after such designation) . VA-90-64 Clarence and Harriet Bell petition to reduce front setback for a pole barn from 75 to 26 feet from a private driveway. I have not received the file but assume "private driveway" to be synonymous to private road or access easement. If the plat creating this property was approved pursuant to County regulation, variance should not be granted since such approval was based on strict compliance with ordinance provision (unless variance would have been necessary prior to subdivision) . VA-90-67 Lee and Rosie King petition to reduce side setback from 25 to 18 feet for an existing dwelling. I suggested the petitioner discuss variance with you as opposed to petitioning the Board of Supervisors to vacate the well lot. While not currently in use, the well lot may be needed in the future. Therefore, approval of this variance would not only benefit the property owner but potentially other property owners in Rivanwood. ADDITIONAL COMMENT 1 . I have no comment as to sign variances since the sign ordinance is under review. However, I have always been concerned as to multiple variances involving area, number, and location. Charlottesville has language in its ordinance limiting variances to setback, based on the notion that number and area provisions area valid for everyone. e Memo to: Amelia M. Patterson September 24, 1990 Page 3 At this time the Board of Supervisors is considering establishment of an Entrance Corridor district and creation of an Architectural Review Board to implement design guidelines along selected roadways , including signage regulations . This action is in large part a result of what is believed to be unregulated development as to visual quality. 2 . While I think I ' ve commented on this issue in an earlier memo, I notice that 4 of the 7 variance petitions deal with setback for existing structures o VA-90-68 Multi-Channel TV Cable Co. o VA-90-67 Lee and Rosie King o VA-90-69 Grove Construction Co. o VA-90-65 J.F. and Virginia B. Lorber In know that all of these structures have been established since zoning was adopted. This appears to be a serious and widespread problem which needs to be corrected. ,\J6t um COUNTY OF ALBFMARLE Department P.�1 Znninq 4101 McIntrr.. 1Zo,rrl Charlottesville, Virginia 229901-15% SO4) 2%)e 58'75 August 22 , 1990 Clarence E. and Harriett Lee Bell Rt 2 , Box 547 Keswick, VA 22947 RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS (CP-90-171) Tax Map 48, Parcel 62A & 62C and Mobile Home Permit 90-10 Dear Mr. Bell: I have attempted to reach you by phone several times over the past week. This letter is to discuss two violations: setback for the new pole shed on parcel 62A and replacement of a mobile home on parcel 62C. 1 . Pole shed on parcel 62A - You claimed that you have constructed a major portion of a pole shed without a building permit. You say it is 36 feet from the centerline of a 20 feet access easement running down the western side of the lot. That makes it setback 26 feet from the edge of this easement. That setback does not meet the zoning requirements of a 75 foot setback. You are currently in violation and need to either receive a variance or move the shed. I have attached information for a variance. 2 . Mobile home on parcel 62C - You have applied for a permit to replace a mobile home now on your property. We cannot process it as a replacement permit because the existing mobile home is in violation. Instead, you will need to apply for a special use permit for any mobile home - the existing one or a new one. I have attached information for that process. I am told that the existing mobile home has not received a certificate of occupancy. August 22 , 1990 Mr. Bell Page 2 The reason the existing mobile home is in violation is that it did not receive zoning approval for its placement. A mobile home permit MHP-77-10 was obtained by Barbara Bell in July, 1977 , for a temporary home during construction of a permanent residence. It was voided because by 1980, there was no mobile home on the property. I urge you to make the necessary applications for compliance. This will delay and hopefully avoid legal action by this Department. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, y Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp cc: Willie Mae Hoover .- l.) RECEIVED BY: 1�` -L- ` '� � — DATE: L Z - I DATE: August 22 , 199G CERTIFIED MAIL# P 487 503 054 FIRST NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION No. CP-90-171 To: Clarence and Harriett Lee Bell (Owner and Violator, if other than Owner) From: Amelia M. Patterson (Zoning Administrator) You are hereby notified that the Zoning Administrator has received information indicating that a zoning violation exists as follows: Property: 48 62A & 62C _ (Tax Map No. ) (Page No. ) (Parcel No. ) Record Owner: Clarence and Harriett Lee Bell (Name) Violator: Clarence and Harriett Lee Ball (Name, if other. than Owner) — -- _- Nature o._ 'sl i clat i.on: 1) Location of a structure _(,pole=shed] (Use or activity; section of that_does not meet setback (Section 10. 4) ; 2) Location cf a ordinance being violated, etc. ) mobile home without issuance of a special permit (Section 10 . 2 . 2 (10) ) ;_3) Occupancy of a residence without issuance of a certificate of occupancy (Section 31. 2 . 3) . You are further notified that the Zoning Administrator is proceeding to investigate this violation and as part of this investigation you have the right to furnish the Zoning Administrator any information you wish either in person, by telephone or by letter, no later than September 07, 1990 Subsequent to that date the Zoning Administrator will make an administrative decision as to whether the above violation exists and notify you in writing. ZQQt ing Administrator Albemarle County, Virginia