Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100009 Action Letter 1991-03-12 s�pp AI.IfFlr ityf J IRG1r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 March 12 , 1991 Ronald W. Mauer Rt. 1, Box 404 Barboursville, VA 22923 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-91-09 Tax Map 34 , Parcel 13B Dear Mr. Mauer: This letter is to inform you that on March 12 , 1991, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-91-09 subject to the following conditions: 1 . Approval is limited to two houses/lots sharing the joint driveway. (One existing on Tract A and one proposed on Tract C. ) Further development of additional lots or houses shall require amendment of this variance, and 2) Subdivision shall be in general accordance with the plan submitted to this Board showing tracts A, B, and C. Condition #1 shall be noted on the subdivision plat recorded in the Clerk's Office. This variance approval allows relief from Sections 10. 4 and 4 . 6 . 3 . 2 for reduction in the front setback for an existing house from a proposed private road from 75 to 52 feet for proposed subdivision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call . Sincerely, SrAit a. Amelia M. Patterson lJl v�(Y°d Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: vf7A-91-09 Inspections Department Planning Department STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: March 12 , 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-09 OWNER/APPLICANT: Ronald W. Mauer TAX MAP/PARCEL: 34/13A and 13B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 14 . 686 and 2 . 0 acres LOCATION: On the east side of Route 640, approximately 1/2 mile north of the railroad tracks at Gilbert. 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" and "4 . 6 . 3 . 2 Other yards adjacent to streets shall have a minimum depth, equal to the minimum front depth required in the district in which the lot is located. . . " The applicant seeks a reduction in setback for an existing house from an existing driveway from 75 to 52 feet, a variance of 23 feet. The property currently consists of two parcels of land, with one residence located on each. The applicant proposes subdivision to create one additional lot, for a total of three lots. Parcel 13B (Tract A) will be increased in size, with the addition of part of parcel 13A. The residue of parcel 13A will be divided into two lots, Tract B and C. New parcel 13B (Tract A) and the part of parcel 13A divided into Tract C will share a driveway, which currently exists to serve the house on Tract A. The other lot, Tract B will continue to use an existing driveway on another segment of road frontage. The applicant's justification includes: 1. It appears that a variance is unavoidable for subdivision of the 14 acre property. Due to the location of the existing structures (dwellings on parcels 13A and 13B) , and the narrow shape of the parcels, any access road to the approximate 10 acre rear portion of the property will necessitate a variance. 2 . Based solely on topography, the best possible location for the joint driveway is as proposed. It is relatively level and uses part of an existing logging road. Alternate access through Tract B is difficult due to steep terrain, a small creek and drainage area. 0 \ Staff Report - VA-91-09 Page 2 3 . The proposed joint driveway will have the most impact on the applicant's property. The impact should not be detrimental because the house fronts to the south, away from the proposed joint driveway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. The Virginia Department of Transportation has approved the entrance location for the proposed joint driveway. Due to the shape of the property and the location of structures, access routes are limited. If they were required to utilize access from the other segment of road frontage past the other house, it appears that the lot is narrower; therefore, the setback from the road would be less, and more variance would be necessary. This variance does not anticipate subdivision of minimal acreage, with multiple constraints and ordinance modification. The proposed subdivision involves the use of approximately 10 acres not currently used for agricultural or forestry activities, and not directly related to the residential use. However, the applicant does have use of the property and would not suffer undue hardship without subdivision. The following criteria are met: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 4 2 . 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. The following criteria is not met: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Results of denial : Without subdivision, a second house may be constructed on the large parcel without this setback requirement. Although not necessarily practical, the applicant could relocate the house, or seek access through some other property. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Approval is limited to two houses/lots showing the joint driveway. Further development of additional lots or houses shall require amendment of this variance.