Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100029 Action Letter 1991-07-10COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 July 10, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Peyton Weary 204 Magnolia Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 60B, Parcel B6 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Weary: This letter is to inform you that on July 09, 1991, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-91-29, subject the following conditions: 1. Maintenance of landscape screen to minimize the visual impact of the pool from the road. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front setback from Magnolia Drive right-of-way from 75 to 55 feet for construction of a pool. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: July 9, 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-29 OWNER/APPLICANT: Peyton E. and Janet G. Weary TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60B/B6 ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1.65 acres LOCATION: 204 Magnolia Drive, on the northeast side off Montvue Drive in Montvue Subdivision. This is on the north side of Route 654 (Barracks/Garth Road) . REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: 1110.4 AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS Yards, minimum front 75 feet" The applicant requests a reduction in the front setback from Magnolia Drive from 75 to 55 feet, for construction of a detached swimming pool. The pool is proposed to be 14 X 48 feet vinyl with aggregate deck enclosed by a fence. They intend to landscape around the fence. It is desired for exercise and recreation for family and friends. House was built in 1959. The applicant's justification includes: 1. Several neighbors have signed a petition signifying their support of this request; 2. The Montvue Association and Building Committee have approved this request; 3. Available building sites are extremely limited due to slopes, utility easements, and the like. 4. The pool location proposed is the most practical. To move the pool back the 20 feet necessary to comply with setbacks, will result in the loss of a large number of mature pine trees. 5. The pool will be screened by mature pine trees along the road frontage. RFCOMMFNDATION: Staff continues the opinion that accessory structures, such as this one for recreation, are not necessary to enjoy reasonable use of the property. Therefore, in out opinion it is not an undue hardship. Staff Report - VA-91-29 Page 2 Staff concurs with the presence of many constraining factors limiting building area. The applicants have chosen the most practical location for a pool. A sloping wooded area comprises the major part of the rear yard. A drainage easement transverses the property. The septic field is located just beyond the rear of the house. The south side yard opposite the proposed pool, is of insufficient depth and is bound by multiple overhead utilities. The existing house was built in 1959, prior to the first Zoning Ordinance. Much of the development of this subdivision does not comply with the current Rural Areas 75 foot front setback, because it was either built prior to the first Zoning Ordinance in 1969, or after 1969 under a 30 foot front setback for the agriculture district. Therefore, in staff's opinion, a pool at a 55 feet setback would not be detrimental to adjacent property or the character of the district. The road frontage is planted in mature evergreen trees. This buffers the visual and audio impact of the pool from the road. The fencing around the pool will further screen it. It is only partially visible from the house across the road. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. A recreational structure such as a pool, is not necessary to reasonable use of the property. 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; Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Maintenance of landscape screen to minimize the visual impact of the pool from the road.