The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199100046 Action Letter 1991-11-13 oY AL/34, oZ IGI�' t1RGlN/' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 November 13 , 1991 Georgia M. Leake 605 Stagecoach Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Variance Application VA-91-46 Tax Map 76, Parcel 53F Dear Ms. Leake: Please be advised that at their meeting on November 12, 1991, the Board of Zoning Appeals indefinitely deferred your application for VA-91-46 at your request. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, &-ejL- Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: November 12, 1991 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-46 OWNER/APPLICANT: Georgia M. Leake TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76/53F ZONING: R-2, Residential ACREAGE: 2 . 05 acres LOCATION: On the Forest View Road cul-de-sac, off the south side of Stagecoach Road (Route 631) . REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 4. 1. 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "4. 1. 3 "For a parcel served by neither a central water supply nor a central sewer system, there shall be provided a minimum of sixty thousand (60, 000) square feet per. . .dwelling unit. . . " This minimum lot area for private well and septic, supercedes the minimum lot size of the zoning district, or 0.5 acre in this case. The applicant proposes subdivision of 2 . 05 acres into two (2) lots: one with existing house comprised of 60, 000 square feet, and the other of 29,481 square feet proposed for future house construction. The applicant has not submitted written justification. This is proposed as the most preferable house location, out of several options. This is proposed as a family subdivision, with the 60, 000 square foot lot with house to be transferred to the applicant's son. 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 applicant owns three (3) adjoining lots: Lot A of 1. 386 acres with her and her husbands house; Lot B of 1.948 acres with daughter's house; and the subject property of 2. 05 acres with son's house. Lots A and B have driveways off Route 631, and were created by subdivision in 1984. The subject property is located to the rear of the others, and was created by subdivision in 1976. As a result of the Route 631 road realignment, Virginia Department of Transportation will purchase the house and all but 0.582 acres in Lot A. The proposed subdivision will create a new house site for that which will be lost by eminent domain. Staff Report - VA-91-46 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning staff have discussed this issue with the applicant on more than ten (10) occasions over the last year. The first agreement with VDOT requires abandoning the house by September 27th. No subdivision application has been submitted. The applicant has not provided minimal information relative to subdivision approval, such as : 1) Health Department approval of septic site and reserve area; 2) County Engineering and/or VDOT approval of proposed access from Forest View Road. It is possible that additional variances or waivers may be necessary. The applicant has not provided evidence of undue hardship. There are several options available for a new building lot, even some which would not necessarily require variances or waivers. These options area available because the applicant owns three (3) adjoining lots. Even if the only lot considered was that diminished by VDOT take, the applicant has not proven that it is unbuildable. The current subdivision proposed will result in a total of four (4) lots owned by the applicant, from the three (3) existing lots. The applicant has chosen to have two lots available for new house sites; the lot X subject to this variance, and the approximately 1/2 acre residue from VDOT take. Planning staff has the following comments: Of the various alternatives discussed, the current proposal is the least consistent with regulations. Staff opinion is that 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 Section 4.2 .2 . 1 and the Planning Commission would have to waive the 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: Staff Report- VA-91-46 Page 3 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 notion 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 no 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 recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 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; 3 . The applicant has not 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 conditions: 1. The proposed Lot X of 29,481 square feet shall connect to public water. 2. Approval of this variance shall not impair the Planning Commission in the review of waiver of the building site requirement; 3 . The residue of Lot A shall be combined with Lot B, and shall not consititute a separate building lot. 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 . A-91-46 Georgia LEAKE: to reduce lot area related to utilities. IemT�ers 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. • r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT f MEMORANDUM To• Flle• Goa rJ•'•` L¢. ,� No ' . From '`'•t;41 r,�C,/j Re: ��''? S374 537 z .53F l � DOCUMENTATION OF VERBAL COMMUNICATION TELEPHONE Meeting Personal Contact DATE• 7 / TIME• Z , d 6 LOCATION• '/ PARTICIPANTS• "` �- , Q . `c ) GrS�v�-/� DISCUSSION•.e //// F +^'� �•• .6g2 a4..L/C�t &wet �I�p 4, 4 (a 6- Q...L� f Q/'- Co it jCw^.tio...41'G moo+ J�0.f••• __ ��. V o�.e_ `;(2. e_s 5-34 G0000 /1,1,,2_,/,• io04.-04,•-•7 61-210 lokor 6:6 4.0....V.1 in., ef • 5'S '2, 4...c. a Q A► e)il " z•►J!/` )• _ G¢-- n ti/ 5:74 �- "‘•k...0 e— C__4>ne 06 w/S j -;‹ ,<",iy. Re.r Q .�..✓ , � � .,� . 4,a�c Q 4 Spa a4Ac 00,0...6 i'r fo �o_ 53F �4 .-J :s a.OSo acres Z.kJttlee.r 53/=1I47 53F can net 4 4 3 /o!!+[ air 6000'1 . �J/�(-/Y J•Ow•� .Kr '1;r b p:eq if 5. :II test- �,/ • •U / / / r/° �!/et A✓ol�oSov+ uloa,/1)/'E;M tN ✓4r. eG/�•4 rnihlG4/S/44 Co..lJ jv:�e S3F 4S Jo A, I L:taw NJ/&le (04 �k ( 146 ei�o w14. )1:vcs lAere now (-44 ,ei ✓o►�:a+tC! �a� o4,e /sP. 3dln..;1 J'v. �elTl a,•o..j es5:l./e Qr:vt�t re.tp/reSf"r:Cte� ,oatd :lstneS. AMP ,•Oecc.-o0 +%.ct- oe-t':.n i ob.�e :s st:a �,C4-� COPIE1TO• ATT�A/ CHMENTS• J _` w..� aC,wy ^cr-e 51. {e- ✓4r:a-.�Gt 1"--1 P2£/ "--e tit40t t/sf�[ yve {nP P L y:�t.,e .10 Ge,1dt ' €. /oaf- roe de✓elolo lip-K f' o�'� :d- •E.. ! S3 4 • �? 6! Lve see .,,:d-h d,Je!! eigS 6h CIF •'S V oeso� _tt !` •'� �0-0<. 1 1 w�'1�.:,.� �e �o ,,../ VDo� e,wdtt�.1. see waT:.,• --y ,tee w. , t, ..s !' a►-^e�'� _