Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000067 Action Letter 1990-10-17 474/4 t7), VGA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October 17, 1990 Lee J. & Rosie King 1036 Wildmere Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-67 , Tax Map 45, Parcel 182 Dear Mr. & Mrs. King: 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-90-67 subject to the following condition: 1. Approval is for the existing house only. Any addition or expansion will require a new variance. This approval allows relief from Section 10. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side setback from 25 to 15 feet from a well lot for an existing house. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, cea- Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/st cc: VA-90-67 STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 10/16/90 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-67 OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Lee and Rosie King TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45-182 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2 .445 LOCATION: The end of Rivanwood Drive off the east side of Route 676 REQUEST: The applicants request 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 applicants request that the side setback be reduced from 25 to 15 feet, a variance of 10 feet, to allow an existing house to remain as built. The applicants ask that the variance be approved because it would be a hardship to relocate the house, which the County approved for occupancy on August 24, 1990. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that each variance is reviewed on its own merits, and is not on its face precedent-setting. The following history is provided to show the merits of granting the variance, rather than reconfiguring or vacating the well lot. Approved on April 24, 1979, the plat for Rivanwood subdivision shows two well lots. Well Lot 1 holds the well that supplies water to 11 of the lots in this subdivision; the remaining lots are serviced by private wells. One well has failed on Well Lot 1; a second well was drilled and appears to provide no more than the minimum amount of water needed for the 11 lots. Given the limitations of the current well and the fact that the second well had to be drilled off the well site, the Planning Department would be reluctant to support vacating Well Lot 2 . The applicants have also investigated the possiblity of redrawing the lot lines in order to move the well lot further away from the house. According to the Virginia Waterworks Regulation, however, a central well can be no closer than 50 feet to any well lot line. Therefore, neither dimension of the well can be reduced. Reconfiguring the lot lines is impossible; vacating the well lot is undesirable. The final option, moving the house, constitutes a hardship in staff's opinion. RECOMMENDATION: 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; and 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. In fact, approving this variance may benefit the community of Rivanwood, because it would no longer be necessary to petition the Board of Supervisors to vacate the well lot. The subdivision would then benefit from the reserved water supply. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Approval is for the existing house only. Any addition or expansion will require a new variance. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE rC� - ',, oEr® iY"; -0W,,, 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. � i., ' �y rj�r, 1 l 2 1,,-.t �J 4 t ri,fit 7.1t'ZG'N.�j.4, ;4/„.f 1a; 1 {I_\ tfr SEP 25 1990 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. 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.