Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100021 Public Notification 1991-06-13 AI j,,l, k"i 9 ��1?GIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 June 13 , 1991 Lawrence C. Stallings Rt 1, Box 646 Scottsville, VA 24590 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 131, Parcel 83 Dear Mr. Stallings: • This letter is to inform you that on June 11, 1991, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-91-21 as requested with no conditions. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the road frontage for a proposed subdivision lot from 250 to 50 feet on Route 638 . If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp • cc: Planning Dept. • STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: June 11, 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-21 OWNER/APPLICANT: Lawrance C. Stallings TAX MAP/PARCEL: 131/83 ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 82 acres LOCATION: On the south side of Route 638 and north side of Route 622 , east of Route 795. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS Minimum frontage existing public roads: 250 feet The applicant seeks a variance to reduce the road frontage for one (1) proposed lot from 250 to 50 feet, the width of the existing pipestem. The property consists of approximately 82 acres, of which approximate 12 acres lies on the north side of Route 638. The remainder lies on the south side of Route 638 past the end of state maintenance, and on the north side of Route 622 with an existing 50 foot pipestem of frontage. A creek crosses the property east-west, and divides it with approximately 1/4 or 18 acres on the south and 3/4 or 53 acres on the north side (including that which lies north of Route 638) . The current proposal is to subdivide the property, utilizing the creek as the boundary between two lots. The property is currently in woodlands and hayfields, with no residence. Proposed lot 1, lying south of the creek will access by the 50-foot pipestem. The Virginia Department of Transporta- tion has confirmed that adequate sight distance exists at this Route 622 location. Proposed lot 2, north of the creek, will have approximately 175 feet of state road frontage on Route 638, with several hundred additional feet of frontage on the road beyond state maintenance. This lot is presently vacant, and will maintain its current access. The applicant's justification is as follows: 1. Natural features such as creeks, are common property boundaries; 2 . The banks on either side of the stream are so steep as to be unpassable by ordinary passenger vehicles. Therefore, without extensive fill and culverts, access from Route 638 to the property on the south stream side, is impractical. 3 . Access from the buildable area on the south side of the stream to Route 638 is also impractical due to the distance. A driveway approximate 1/4 mile long would be necessary. 4 . Without access from Route 622 , the land south of the stream is unreasonably restricted as to its use. 5. This applicant has owned the property since the 1950's. It is the old homeplace. RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. This request clearly satisfies the tests as outlined within the Zoning Ordinance, and the criteria for finds cause for approval. The property was acquired in good faith. The pipestem exists as the only property frontage on Route 622 ; it is not within the applicant's ability to provide additional frontage. The property is of such exceptional shape and topographic conditions as to make one access road impractical and of significant environmental impact. The property south of the creek is of sufficient acreage and condition as to provide agricultural or residential usage. The 50 foot pipestem is reported by Virginia Department of Transportation to have sufficient sight distance to meet the standards for further subdivision. Future subdivision would be subject to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance for provision of access and the like. No homes could be built within the pipestem itself. 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; 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.