Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100055 Action Letter 1992-01-16 • 0 AL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 16, 1992 Charles and Shelvie Morris Rt 3 , Box 126 Gordonsville, VA 22942 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-91-55; Tax Map 36, Parcels 41 and 41B Dear Mr. and Mrs. Morris, This letter is to inform you that on January 14, 1992 , during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (4 : 0) unanimously approved your request for VA-91-55, subject to the following conditions: 1) Should the property be subdivided, or a dwelling placed on the building site to the rear of the property, the mobile home shall be removed from the property, or an amendment sought to this variance. This variance approval allows relief from Sections 4 . 2 . 2 . 1 (a) and 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance building site area and Rural Areas bulk and area regulations. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, igaheHe Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Yolanda Hipski STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 1/14/92 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-55 OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Charles and Shelvie Morris TAX MAP/PARCEL: 36-41/41B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 17 acres LOCATION: On northeast side of Route 608 approximately 1.4 mile northwest of its intersection with Route 645. REQUEST: In order to place a single-wide mobile home on 17 acres containing a frame home, the applicant requests relief from the following sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance: 4.2 .2 . 1(a) : For each dwelling unit served by other than a central sewerage system, the building site shall have an area of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet or greater . . . 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations Minimum lot size 2 . 0 acres While the applicants do not intend to subdivide their property at this time, Section 10.2 . 1(1) of the Ordinance requires that the area and bulk regulations be met for each dwelling regardless of whether the use is on an individual lot. The applicant' s justification includes the following: 1. The back part of the property, totaling nearly 14 acres, is very steep. Putting the trailer back far enough to satisfy the area required for each dwelling would cost thousands of dollars. 2 . The trailer would be a home for the applicants' son and his wife. Both applicants have health problems and need someone nearby to look after them. RELEVANT HISTORY: The applicants recently purchased Parcel 41B, giving them the acreage they thought they needed for two dwelling units. In November, they applied for a special use permit for the mobile home. As Planning staff reviewed the application, it became clear that, given the shape of the property and the slopes, it would be difficult to place a second dwelling on the property that satisfied the area and bulk regulations of the Ordinance. The Planning Commission has deferred action on this special use permit until this request has been decided. RECOMMENDATION: There appears to be a building site on Parcel 41B that would meet the Ordinance' s requirements. This site lies at VA-91-55 Page 2 the top of a ridge near the rear of the property. Building a road to this site would entail about 4000 feet of roadway on slopes of 30 percent and greater, which would mean a significant amount of earth would have to be disturbed. In addition to being steep, the site is heavily wooded; clearing it would cause environmental damage. The applicants' proposal - locating the mobile home at the base of the ridge near the existing home - is certainly more environmentally sound than placing the home farther up the ridge. The applicants' proposal also seems more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goal of protecting mountainsides and with the Ordinance' s guidelines for regulating development on critical slopes. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. In addition to incurring substantial expense, the applicants could be forced to develop their property in a way that would damage both the beauty and the environmental balance of their property, were they to use the building site on the rear of the property. 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. The combination of a steep slope and narrow lot is not shared by other properties in this 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. There is a cluster of frame and mobile homes at the base of this ridge. Some of these dwellings do not meet the area and bulk regulations of the Ordinance. Clearing the ridge to build a road and site a dwelling would alter the character of this area far more than placing the mobile home in the location proposed by the applicant. The extent of the variance required and the probable building site raise the issue of over-development. To address this issue, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Should the property be subdivided, or a dwelling placed on a building site to the rear of the property, the mobile home shall be removed from the property, or an amendment sought to this variance.