Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100038 Action Letter 1991-10-11COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October 11, 1991 Bill Lester P. O. Box 35 Cobham, VA 22929 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 66, Parcel 31 Dear Mr. Lester: This letter is to inform you that on October 10, 1991, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-91-38, subject the following conditions: 1. The variance is for the structure described in Building Permit 91-1154 ANR; no portion of which may lie closer than 35 feet to Route 22 and 50 feet to Route 640. 2. Shed when completed will match the existing house with same windows, shutters and siding. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard setback from 75 to 50 feet from Route 22, to allow a garage addition to an existing well pump house. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, / a4qz� Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp OCTOBER 10, 1991 AGENDA 1. VA-91-38 Martha R. SMITH: to reduce setback to allow garage addition to an existing well pump house. Planning has no comment regarding the variance. Recommend the applicant contact the Health Department regarding possibilities of well contamination. Generally, Health Department recommends 100 feet separation from structures which may be termite -treated or where petroleum products are stored. 2. VA-91-46 Georgia LEARE: to reduce lot area related to utilities. Members of Planning and Zoning met several times with the applicant over the last year or so. Of the various alternatives discussed, the current proposal is the least consistent with regulations. Staff opinion is the public water is "reasonably available" to the site and therefore, this property (mathematically at least) could be divided consistent with zoning and subdivision regulation. (i.e. - 2 lots of +/- 40,000 square feet). Even if the property cannot be divided to meet regulation (due to existing development) a more conforming division can be presented. (The current proposal does not contain the required 30,000 square feet building site as required by 4.2.1 and the Planning Commission would have to have to waive that provision.) While I am sure everyone is sensitive to the issue that VDOT has condemned the applicant's dwelling the following factors should be considered: 1) The applicant has been compensated for that taking. If the applicant does not believe compensation was adequate, that matter should be addressed between the applicant and VDOT. As stated on earlier occasions I do not believe the Zoning Ordinance should be used as a compensatory tool. Even if zoning were intended as a compensatory tool, the applicant has already been compensated. No hardship exists in this regard. 2) In discussions with the applicant, the notice of combining the residue from the VDOT take to a family member's property was suggested as a "swap" which under certain circumstances could be approved administratively. However, there is not mention of this option in the variance application. If this variance is granted, then the applicant would own two (2) lots which do not conform to zoning regulation. 3) The applicant has not demonstrated that the residue lot from the VDOT take is unbuildable. STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 10/8/91 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-38 OWNER/APPLICANT: Mrs. Martha R. Smith (owner) Mr. Bill D. Lester (applicant) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 66-31 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1.36 LOCATION: On the southeast quadrant ofthe intersection of Routes 22 and 640. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: Yards, minimum: Front 75 feet The applicant seeks the variance in order to build a shed, measuring 16 by 20 feet, 35 feet from the right-of-way of Route 22 and 50 feet from the right-of-way of Route 640. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. The house has no basement for storage. Adding a storage building would provide a place for the lawnmowers, tools and toys that now must remain outside in all weather. 2. The proposed shed would not be visible from Route 22, because many evergreen trees and bushes screen the property from the road. 3. The shed would be connected to an existing pump house. The shed would be designed to match the house, with the same windows, shutters and siding. RELEVANT HISTORY: The pump house was built in 1971, before the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted. In accordance with Section 6.0, Non -Conformities, of the Zoning Ordinance, structures that existed before the current Ordinance was adopted may be expanded according to the setbacks that existed when they were built, as long as the structure does not become more non -conforming. In 1971, the front yard setback was 30 feet in the rural areas. This request is before you because the expansion would become more non -conforming: the structure would lie closer to Route 22 (due to the way the road curves) and closer to Route 640. RECOMMENDATION: There appears to be no place on this property where a shed of these dimensions could be sited without requiring a variance from at least one of the roads. Moreover, the proposed location is one of the few building sites that would not encumber land that may be needed in the future for septic fields. VA-91-38 Page 2 Staff also agrees with the applicant that the proposed structure would be an attractive addition to the property and that it would probably not be visible from Route 22. The shed would be visible from Route 640; however, this road is little -traveled and deadends about 600 feet from the property. For these reasons, staff finds that the request meets one of the three criteria for approval: 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. Nevertheless, staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. While applying the ordinance strictly may make it impossible for the applicant to build a storage shed, staff has not considered the lack of such a structure to constitute hardship in the past. 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; and Should the Board approve this variance, staff recommends the following condition: 1. The variance is for the structure described in Building Permit 91-1154ANR; no portion of which may lie closer than 35 feet to Route 22 and 50 feet to Route 640.