Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199100058 Public Notification 1992-01-16 OF A1,� ��RGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 16, 1992 Bruce Shifflett P. O. Box 6581 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action John C. Shifflett Tax Map 21, Parcel 13C Dear Mr. Shifflett: 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-91-58 . This variance approval allows relief from Section 4 . 2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the building site from 30, 000 to 25, 000 square feet, for rebuilding where a house had burned. This property is proposed for family subdivision, and previously received variances to reduce front setback and reserve septic area. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, r Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sg;`?f cc: Inspections Department STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: January 14, 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA-91-58 APPLICANT: John C. Shifflett TAX MAP/PARCEL: 21/13C ACREAGE: 27 . 576 acres ZONING: Rural Areas LOCATION: On a private road off the west side of Route 606 across from the General Electric Plant, at Piney Mountain. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 4 . 2 . 2 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which requires that each lot have a building site area of 30, 000 square feet or greater. The applicant requests a reduction of building site area from 30, 000 to 25, 000 square feet, for a proposed family subdivision lot. This lot was proposed and approved by a prior variance (VA-90-42) of setback and septic area. Recently while producing the subdivision plat, the surveyor discovered the discrepancy in building area. The applicant proposes to rebuild a house which burned in September, 1988. The property is on Piney Mountain, with limited area of level land and appropriate soils for building. The owner now disabled, is subdividing his land into lots for each of his three children, a plan begun many years prior to his disability. The owner is now completely mentally and physically disabled. The applicant's justification includes: 1. Due to the topography and soils, available building sites are severely limited; 2 . This proposal provides for the land to be passed on to future generations. This is recognized by special exemptions from subdivision regulation in State law; 3 . The proposed site is a logical house site, the plan is to use what currently remains from the house lost to fire; 4 . The proposed house site will preserve much of the residue in forestry; 5. Significant investment and time has already been expended for this proposed house site. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that each variance is reviewed on its own merits, and is not on its face, precedent-setting. The following history which is attached, is provided for information: STAFF REPORT - VA-91-58 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Because this house site was specifically discussed with the prior variance, it appears that the intention was to approve it as is. However, to avoid any difficulties present or future, the applicant was advised to amend the prior variance for the record to clearly reflect approval of the reduced building area. I can personally attest to approximately five (5) years of discussions with the owner and his son, concerning this family subdivision. This discussion took place over many years while I was a Planner reviewing subdivisions and the like, prior to John Shifflett's disability. The proposed subdivision went through multiple designs and involved negotiations with neighbors for septic easements and so forth. Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. Due to the history of this subdivision alone, denial of this variance would result in undue hardship. This is a unique situation, not shared generally. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence the 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.