Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100004 Public Notification 1991-02-13 sqW, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 February 13 , 1991 Joe and Sally Gieck Rt 9 , Box 238 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 92 , Parcel 40 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gieck: This letter is to inform you that on February 12 , 1991, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-91-04 , subject to the following condition that approval be limited to building permit #90-1653 . This variance approval allows relief from Section 10 . 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front setback from an old public road (Old Palmyra Road) from 75 to 10 feet and from an internal private road from 75 to 63 feet for construction of a new house. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp cc: Inspections STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: February 12 , 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-04 OWNER/APPLICANT: Joe and Sally Gieck TAX MAP/PARCEL: 92/40 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4 . 979 acres Tract C1 LOCATION: On the north side of Route 53 , approximately 0.8 q mile east of Route 795. REQUEST: 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 from an old public road, Old Palmyra Road, from 75 to 10 feet, and from an \" internal private road from 75 to 63 feet, for construction of a new house. A building permit was issued with our oversight as to the requirement for setback from the old public road and without the new subdivision plat showing the private raod. Footings have been dug and poured. The applicant's justification includes: 4, 1. Aesthetics - the proposed house site is well screened from Route 53 with a white pine buffer, and from other homes on the property by the difference in grade. 2 . The location for the septic field and well as recommended by the Health Department, limit the building site. The well and `J septic are behind the house. 3 . Power lines limit the buildable area. The septic field is vl being located approximately under the power lines, and beside �M the house site. Kir 4 . The property is moderately sloping - the proposed house site is the most level spot. RELEVANT HISTORY: Old Palmyra Road was not abandoned when it was realigned as Route 53 . It no longer physically exists for the entire length platted. It does serve as driveway to the proposed house and an adjoining property. This property was subdivided into three (3) lots by plat approved in November, 1990. Staff Report - VA-91-04 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: This is a situation of mutual mistake by the County and the applicant. The setback errors were only discovered after footings were poured, an approximate $1, 000. 00 investment. The public road ,from which setback is not met has extremely limited usage. ( Staff is more concerned with setback from major public roads, such as Route 53 in this case. That setback is met here.� (The internal private road serves other property also owned by the applicant. ) Staff does not concur with the applicant's justification for the most part. It appears that the house could be more easily located on the other side of the driveway, and meet setbacks. Therefore, staff concludes that while there is not undue hardship in siting the house on the whole 5 acres, there are multiple constraints on the portion of the property on the east side of the driveway. We would have recommended the house be located in the larger area on the other side of the driveway. There are not the same constraints. The proposed house will not be located in close proximity to other dwellings. It is approximately 200 feet from two dwellings on adjoining property owned by the applicant. It will be screened from Route 53 by the white pine stand. It is staff's opinion that one of the three criteria will clearly be met as follows: 1. 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. It is our opinion that the remaining two (2) criteria are not met. The Board should be mindful that denial would result in the loss of money and time invested for construction to date Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Approval shall be limited to building permit NR #90-1653 .