Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100039 Action Letter 1991-10-11COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October 11, 1991 W. Ivar Mawyer P. O. Box 67 North Garden, VA 22959 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 98, Parcel 8 Dear Mr. Mawyer: 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-91-39, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building sites shall be no closer than 150 feet to Route 29 and no farther than 500 feet from Route 29. 2. Disturbance of wooded area and critical slopes shall be limited to the minimum necessary. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.3.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance which would result in subdivision of this property into six lots: one 21 acre residue parcel, and the approximately 14 acres divided into five lots averaging 3 acres each. The applicant proposes instead to create five (5) lots of approximate) equal size, pp acres each. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, 0�^ ►rl - paaae� Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP /sp STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: October 10, 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-39 OWNER/APPLICANT: W. Ivar Mawyer TAX MAP/PARCEL: 98/8 ZONING: Rural Areas and Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 34.739 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Route 29 South, approximately 1 mile south of Crossroads at Route 692. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.3.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS) ...to the location of five (5) or fewer dwelling units... provided that the aggregate acreage to such lots of development shall not exceed thirty-one (31) acres... provided that, where possible, the residue acreage following exhaustion of division rights shall be twenty-one (21) acres or more." These requirements would result in subdivision of this property into six (6) lots: one (1) 21 acre residue parcel, and the approximately 14 acres divided into five (5) lots averaging 3 acres each. The applicant proposes instead to create five (5) lots of approximately equal size, approximately 5 acres each. The property is built with one (1) house. This house has been recently renovated. A second house was destroyed by fire and not rebuilt. The applicant proposes five parcels, each with separate driveways. Each lot would have the required 250 feet frontage on Route 29, and would extend back to the mountain ridge. The applicant's justification includes: 1. If developed without a variance, the subdivision would consist of small lots as in strip development. 2. The five larger lots allows building sites situated back far enough from the road that the houses could be easily concealed from the highway. 3. Creating one large residue lot would result in confusion over property lines. 4. This large residue, if actively forested, would scar the mountain; Staff Report - VA-91-39 Page 2 5. Because much of the property is steep, it is not favorable to create six building sites. RECOMMENDATION: This is the first variance of this regulation. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in November, 1989, to further restrict subdivision into residential lots. This restriction is intended to limit land devoted to residential use, while increasing that available for agricultural/forestry uses. Rather than a simply maximum residential lot size, a maximum area for all 5 development rights was determined, allowing the subdivider more freedom to vary lot sizes. Planning and Zoning staff have visited the property, and concur recommending approval. This is based on the following: 1. This land is of marginal forestal value, due to its acreage, topography, and tree growth. It has little to not agricultural value. 2. If developed without a variance, at lease one building site would involving traversing critical slopes for access, and possibly for building or septic location. 3. If developed without a variance, both harvesting the lumber and building houses would result in development of the mountain. The a voidance of negative visual impact is the purpose behind the pending Hillside Protection Ordinance. In summary, the diminutive value of creating a 21 acre residue for preservation of forestal land is out weighed by the value of conserving this scenic resource. In fact, it is apparent that the intended subdivision is likely to maintain the trees. 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. Staff Report - VA-91-39 Page 3 Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Building sites shall be limited to the distance of 600 feet from Route 29. 2. Disturbance of wooded area and critical slopes shall be limited to the minimum necessary.