Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000083 Action Letter 1990-01-09 of A1.liF, 1 1/7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 09, 1991 Percy Franklin Lawrence Rt 1, Box 246 Free Union, VA 22940 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-83 , Tax Map 17 , Parcel 13B Dear Mr. Lawrence: This letter is to inform you that on January 08, 1991, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board denied your request for VA-90-83 . Anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Board can appeal their decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, (L0), ,p,p1 Amelia AiPatter n Zoning Administrator AMP/srp COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OV NOP?' o�y � r MEMORANDUM Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator TO: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning FROM: December 26 , 1990 DATE: Variances: January 8 , 1991 Agenda RE: The following comments are offered without benefit of field review or discussion with the various applicants : VA-90-82 Townside East Limited Partnership: to reduce number of required parking spaces . In the past, both the Planning Commission and staff have expressed concern that variances of this nature provide a method to overdevelop a site. A similar request for Herndon House furniture was disapproved. , VA-90-83 Percy F. Lawrence: to create two lots with inadequate road frontage. A prior variance in the name of Mariarose Seddon was disapproved. Under private road provisions , this proposal is approvable under both the zoning and subdivision ordinances , by usage of a joint entrance. . VA-90-84 Burger Busters : to reduce sign setback, allow double faced sign, increase sign area, and increase number of signs. The design of a Tacco Bell building is logo and the building itself , therefore, can be viewed as a "sign. " As in the past, staff is concerned about multiple variances ( i.e. - larger, more, closer, etc) . RSK/jcw STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: January 8, 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-83 OWNER/APPLICANT: Percy Lawrence TAX MAP/PARCEL: 17/13B ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4 . 75 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Rt 601, approximately 2 . 3 miles north of Free Union, just south of Rt 667 . REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Sections 10.4 and 4 . 6. 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as follows: "Section 10.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS Minimum frontage existing public roads 250 feet" and "Section 4 . 6. 3 lot width shall be at least the same width as the frontage required for the district. . . " The applicant proposes subdivision into two (2) lots and requests two (2) variances to: (1) Reduce the lot frontage required from 250 feet to 80 and 146 feet; and to (2) reduce the lot width required from 250 feet to 103 and 165 feet. Each lot is proposed for a separate driveway. The existing house will continue to use the pull-off; and the proposed house will use a new entrance at the other end of the frontage, as recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Applicant's justification includes : 1. The owner has relied on the equity of his land for subdivision; at this time, he needs to utilize that equity. 2 . There appears to be no reasonable way to subdivide without a variance. 3 . The proposed subdivision is a result of the market demand. Several propsective purchasers have asked for this design. 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 for information: VA-90-09 . Mariarose Seddon/Percy Lawrence was heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on two occasions, once with separate entrances and once with a joint entrance. Initially it was deferred. On June 12 , 1990, it was denied. Ms. Seddon is no longer the applicant. Mr. Lawrence continues to seek a purchaser for the property and subdivision approval from the County. Staff Report - VA-90-83 Percy Lawrence Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The current variance request is similar to the initial proposal for separate entrances which was deferred by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Staff would like to note two items of new information which were part of the initial review, and have since been corrected: (1) The current pull-off used by Mr. Lawrence and that proposed for the new lot would both meet minimum sight distance requirements. It was noted incorrectly in the initial report that the pull-off does not have adequate sight distance. (2) Use of a joint driveway in almost any location would appear to necessitate a variance. Furthermore, due to the slope of the land and the existing house and lawn location, a joint driveway would not be the most practical use of the land. As with other subdivision requests on relatively small acreages, it is staff's opinion that allowing the land to be subdivided is not necessary for reasonable use of the land. Therefore, denial of the variance and subdivision does not create a hardship. However, should the Board find subdivision to be necessary for reasonable use of the land, staff offers the following considerations: 1) We support the lot frontage variance and the use of a new separate entrance for development of the new lot. The proposed frontage appears to be the most logical property boundary based on existing development and the site characteristics. The proposed entrance will be the farthest point from the curve in Rt 601. 2) We are unable to support the lot width variance as requested, without additional information. It is clear that if the lot frontage is approved as proposed, a lot width variance is necessary. However, staff requests additional information on: a) Confirmation of the most suitable septic area, and therefore building area, and b) Possible property line redesign to widen the narrower proposed lot by approximately 35 feet. The proposed lot width is dictated in part by the fact that most prospective purchasers wish to build up near Route 601 and not back further into the woods. A lot width of 175 feet can be achieved further back on the proposed lot. Staff Report - VA-90-83 Percy Lawrence Page 3 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 the the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance.