Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100042 Action Letter 1991-10-11 � II III Syr ov COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October 11, 1991 John W. Green P. O. Box 6217 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 80, Parcels 60A/62 (part) Dear Mr. Greene: 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-91-42 , subject the following conditions: 1. Approval shall be limited to the current site plan proposal; 2 . Screening to provide adequate buffer, which may be in excess of minimum ordinance requirements, shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board and Planning. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard setback from 75 to 2 0 feet from I-64, to allow construction of a sewage treatment plant. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, &,(t-Ct Z,1024f. Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: October 10, 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-42 OWNER/APPLICANT: Keswick Acquisition Corporation TAX MAP/PARCEL: 80/60A and 62 ZONING: Rural Areas, with Entrance Corridor Overlay ACREAGE: 4.787 acres LOCATION: Off Keswick Drive, adjacent on the north side of I-64 . REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS Yard, minimum Front 75 feet The applicant seeks a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 75 to 20 feet from I-64, to allow construction of a sewage treatment plant. It will be an advanced waste treatment plant. The proposed sewage treatment plant consists of a control building, sludge drying beds and one or more equalization basins. It will be privately owned and operated. It will be manned 8 hours/day. The applicant's justification includes: 1. The general location was shown on plans for the Keswick development, approved in 1985 with extensions; 2 . The proposed 55 feet reduction in setback should cause no appreciable difference in terms of odors; 3 . Significant expense has already been expended for use of this location. This includes planning and engineering, which has already received approval by the Virginia Water Control Board for a National Pollution Elimination Discharge Permit. The discharge limits are very strict due to the high quality and seasonal low flow of the stream into which it discharges. 4 . Site location was chosen with the consideration of separation from private residences and recreational facilities, and the like. 5. Site constraints will not alter the scenic beauty of the Entrance Corridor in any way. This is based on the following: Staff Report - VA-91-42 Page 2 a) At 65 mph, an interstate traveler will have approximately 2 seconds in which the plant would be visible if there was no tree buffer; b) The plant is significantly distant from I-64 pavement. The interstate has wide right-of-way (100 -150 feet) ; c) The interstate is higher than this site, and this grade difference will limit the plant's visibility; d) Lighting will be shielded from I-64, and will not occur at night; e) The Architectural Review Board will review the plan, and will address screening and building/site design. Planning staff will review screening after the site is constructed. f) There are native evergreen trees about 20 feet deep on the edge of I-64 right-of-way. There is a 10 foot depth of mixed trees on the plant property, which will remain undisturbed, and will be supplemented by a new 10 foot buffer strip. 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: The Keswick Development under construction at this time was approved by several special permits. It includes 37 residential subdivision lots, a guest inn and clubhouse, and a golf course. RECOMMENDATION: The type of construction proposed is not typical, such as a residence or the like. The site constraints due to natural features and engineer parameters, are many. Therefore, this hardship is not shared generally. Based on Architectural Review, additional Planning requirements for screening, the grade difference and distance to I-64 travelers, and the availability of existing tree buffer, staff agrees that this proposal will not be of substantial detriment or change the character of the district. It is clear that failure to approve this location will result in substantial expense in money and time. It is also unfortunate that this was not addressed by the applicant or staff earlier. There was some apparent assumption that setbacks would not apply. Staff Report - VA -91-42 Page 3 However, staff is not in a position to determine this would cause undue hardship. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce hardship; Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Approval shall be limited to the current site plan proposal; 2 . Screening to provide adequate buffer, which may be in excess of minimum ordinance requirements, shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board and Planning.