Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100052 Action Letter 1991-12-12 - III COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 December 12 , 1991 Mr. and Mrs. Cleveland Marsh Rt 9, Box 265 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 92 , Parcel 53 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Marsh: This letter is to inform you that on December 10, 1991, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-91-52 , subject to the following conditions: 1. The mobile home shall be removed within 60 days of the applicants receiving a certificate of occupancy, or 18 months from the date of approval of this variance, whichever comes first. 2 . Entrance B may be used a access to and from the proposed 2 . 18 acre parcel only. Properties currently using access easement along southern boundary of parcel must use Entrance "C" . Entrance "B" shall be gated to prevent access to the easement. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in order to create a 2 . 18 acre lot, with a variance of 140 feet from 250 feet required for lot frontage and width. - If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, / Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Jan Sprinkle Fannie Marsh STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 12/10/91 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-52 OWNER/APPLICANT: Mrs. Fannie Mae Marsh (owner) Mr. and Mrs. Cleveland and Sharon Marsh (applicants) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 92-53 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 6. 43 LOCATION: South side of Route 53 approximately . 7 mile south of its intersection with Route 795. REQUEST: In order to divide a 2 . 18-acre parcel from a 6. 43-acre parcel, the applicants request relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: Minimum frontage existing public roads: 250 feet The proposed lot would have 110 feet of road frontage, a variance of 140 feet from the 250 feet required. The applicant' s justification includes the following: 1. This variance is necessary in order for them to continue using Entrance "B" , rather than Entrance "A" or Entrance "C" (see attachment) . The applicants prefer to use the middle entrance for several reasons: it is a more convenient access to their property and it would be less of a nuisance to Mrs. Marsh, the owner of the property. To reach their property from Entrance "A" , the applicants would use a section of the old roadbed of Route 53 . This old road was never abandoned; it is still a public right-of-way. The applicants fear that any improvements to this old road might encourage others to use it. 2 . The portion of the property the applicants have chosen to subdivide and build on contains the only building site on this parcel, due to steep slopes and drainage problems. 3 . If the variance is approved, the applicants plan to build a home and remove . the old mobile home that is now on the property. RELEVANT HISTORY: All three entrances have been used for years; all three were recently improved. The applicants and owner paid for the improvements to two of these entrances. When the applicants and owner approached the County about subdividing the property, they were told that, if they used Entrance "C" , the frontage would be measured along the length of that access easement and could be only 150 feet, instead of the 250 feet required along public roads. Then the applicants learned that they did not have a legal right to use Entrance "C" and that using Entrance "B" would VA-91-51 Page 2 of 3 require a variance, because now the frontage must be measured along Route 53 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicants that the middle entrance offers the most convenient access to their property. All three entrances offer the same amount of sight distance to cars entering and exiting the properties; all seem equally safe to use. Staff also agrees that the proposed subdivision contains the best building site available on Mrs. Marsh' s property. This request for a variance 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. The applicants plan to remove the mobile home, which will improve the view along Route 53 , an entrance corridor. Gating entrance "B" as recommended in condition #2 would reduce the amount of traffic using this entrance, which would be an improvement over the existing situation. However, it would be possible to subdivide the property, just as it is shown on the proposed plat, without a variance. If the applicants were to share Entrance "A" with Mrs. Marsh, the lot would not need 250 feet of frontage on Route 53 . If the variance is denied, the applicants will have to close Entrance "B" , at some cost to themselves. This would reduce the number of entrances along this section of Route 53 , which the Planning Department has said would be desirable. The applicants could then petition the Board of Supervisors to abandon the old portion of Route 53 , which would limit the use of that segment to the owner and applicants. Of course, the procedure for abandoning roads is lengthy, about three months, and the outcome is difficult to predict, given the fact that the old roadbed appears to feed into the access easement on the southern boundary of the property. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; The property could be subdivided without the variance; it is the applicants ' desire to continue using the middle entrance that has created the need for a variance. 04* 2 . The applicant has4provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; If this Board finds that the old roadbed and the issue of the entrance constitute a VA-91-52 Page 3 of 3 hardship, staff would like to point out that these features are not shared by other properties in the same zoning district and area. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The mobile home shall be removed within 60 days of the applicants receiving a certificate of occupancy, or 18 months from the date of approval of this variance, whichever comes first. 2 . Entrance B may be used as access to and from the proposed 2 . 18-acre parcel only. Properties currently using access easement along southern boundary of parcel must use Entrance "C" . Entrance "B" shall be gated to prevent access to the easement. III