Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100036 Action Letter 1991-10-11 L COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October li, 1991 Beulah W. Watkins Estate c/o Abraham Watkins Rt 1, Box 151 Esmont, VA 22937 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 111, Parcel 58 Dear Mr. Watkins: rinthe g This letter is to inform you that on October 10, 1991, during Board he meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, unanimously approved your request for VA-91-36, subject the following conditions: 1. The variance shall be limited to building permit MHC #90-1625. 2 . Evergreen landscape screening shall be required - one row of 4-5 feet white pines or equivalent, 10 feet on center for 9 trees total. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow a mobile home to remain as built 63 feet from Route 717 . Please remit $32 . 50 to cover the cost of application and processing fee. Checks should be made out to the County of Albemarle. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, ^ Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: October 10, 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-36 OWNER/APPLICANT: Beulah Watkins Estate/Abraham L. Watkins TAX MAP/PARCEL: 111/58 ZONING: Rural Areas with Special Permit 90-86 ACREAGE: 5. 62 acres LOCATION: On the east side of Route 717, 1/2 mile south of Route 712 . REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: AREA AND BULK REGULATION Yards, minimum Front 75 feet The applicant seeks a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 75 to 63 feet, to allow a mobile home to remain as built. The home has been constructed for Mr. Watkins' grandson. The applicant's justification includes: 1. This was an honest error, and not willful noncompliance; 2 . The mobile home is not unsightly. 3 . The applicant relied on his professional contractor; 4. Building location was constrained by several factors: a) The well is in the front yard. b) There is shallow depth to rock in the rear; c) It was diffcult to find suitable septic area. 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: STAFF REPORT - VA-91-36 Page 2 This single-wide mobile home was approved administratively on October 10, 1990, with SP-90-86. The application showed an intended 200 foot front setback. The home location was shifted forward after the contractor consulted the Health Department. It was only after the home was complete and was given final inspections, that the setback error was discovered. Due to the significant setback reduction, the mobile home special permit has been re-processed. Both approval of the variance and the special permit are necessary to remedy the violation and issue a certificate of occupancy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is sympathetic to the applicant's plight. It is viewed as mutual mistake. Better coordination and communication between agencies and with the applicant would have avoided a variance at this stage. This is distinguished from willful noncompliance, which is self-imposed. It appears that due to site constraints, a variance would be necessary. Staff will confirm this with the Health Department and the Contractor. If alternative suitable building area does exist, relocation of the mobile home would involve some expense. While it is not as expensive as moving a site built house, it would increase the costs of a structure type (mobile home) chosen by most for its affordability. Most homes in the area do meet the required setback. It is staff's opinion, that with required landscape screening, this will not cause substantial detriment to adjacent property, nor change the character of the district. 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. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following: 1. The variance shall be limited to Building Permit MHC 91-1625; 2 . Evergreen landscape screening shall be required - one row of 4-5 feet white pines or equivalent, 10 feet on center for 8 trees total.