The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199200001 Action Letter 1992-02-12 tirri irr 4"t COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 February 12, 1992 Thomas M. and Emma J. Flint Rt 4, Box 217 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 48, Parcel 18B Dear Mr. and Mrs. Flint: This letter is to inform you that on February 11, 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (4:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-92-01. This variance approval allows relief from Section 12 . 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase density from .7 to 1 dwelling unit per acre and to reduce minimum lot size from 60, 000 square feet in order to subdivide four (4) lots for four (4) existing houses. Proposed lots would measure approximately 51, 000, 46, 000, 46, 000 and 36, 000. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp/st cc: Planning Department Jan Sprinkle n c la Jaw : .% .'r:�, 4' STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 2/11/92 STAFF REPORT - VA-92-01 OWNER/APPLICANT: Thomas M. and Emma J. Flint TAX MAP/PARCEL: 48-18B ZONING: VR, Village Residential ACREAGE: 4. 0 LOCATION: On east side of Route 20 North approximately 0. 1 mile of its intersection with Route 600. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 12 . 3 , Area and Bulk Regulations, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: Gross density 0. 7du/acre Minimum lot size 60, 000 sq ft In order to subdivide four lots for four existing houses, the applicants ask to increase the density from .7 dwelling units per acre to 1 dwelling unit per acre and to reduce the minimum lot size r-v4 from 60, 000 square feet to 51, 000, 46, 000, 46, 000 and 36, 000 square v-c feet. (htuce a) cap ° .„, Gt /Lt'(-L a 2. The applicant' s justification includes the following: In 1969, this piece of property was rezoned from A-1, Agriculture to RS-1, Residential. We have constructed one house per acre with four septic tanks and two wells. One well serves two houses. We wish to deed house #3 to our son with one acre of land and reserve water rights to house #4 . RELEVANT HISTORY: On July 17, 1969, the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning of the applicants' four-acre parcel to RS-1, which called for a minimum lot size of one acre. The four houses were built between 1969 and 1972, but the lots were never subdivided. As part of the comprehensive rezoning in December, 1980, this property was zoned VR, Village Residential. With this rezoning came different requirements for lot size and density; therefore, the applicants now need a variance to subdivide the property into four lots, a subdivision they could have done by right before 1980. RECOMMENDATION: As part of the rezoning application, Mr. Flint noted that he wished to subdivide this parcel into four one-acre parcels. Without this variance, he could not subdivide into four lots that satisfy the minimum lot size. In order to meet the density required for VR, he would either have to remove a dwelling or buy more property. Even if he could buy more property, it is unlikely that, given the arrangement of existing houses, he could add the property where it would be needed to satisfy the bulk regulations. If Mr. Flint cannot subdivide this property, he is limited to receiving only rental income from the houses; he cannot sell them as separate units. Nor could his rentors enjoy home ownership. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; Mr. Flint has developed the property and provided the road, septic systems and wells needed to supply the four lots approved in principle under ZMA-069. It is staff's opinion that Mr. Flint has thereby vested his right to subdivide this property and that denying this right would constitute a hardship. This advisory opinion is for your information only: according to a recent Supreme Court decision, the Zoning Administrator may not determine vested rights. 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. This case is unusual in that the development, the houses and infrastructure, preceded the subdivision. 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. Granting this variance would merely formalize an existing situation: everything conferred by ZMA-069, except the proposed lot lines, has been in place since 1972 . i I _'y{C"1 r,"'Of( C ai ` MINUTES OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 11, 1992 The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 11, 1992 in Meeting Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were Carl Van Fossen, Vice-Chairman; Richard Cogan, William Rennolds, and George Bailey. (Max C. Kennedy was absent. ) Staff present were Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator and Babette Thorpe, Zoning Assistant. George St. John, County Attorney, was present. As a quorum was established, the meeting convened at 3 : 00 p.m. Mr. Van Fossen stated that anyone aggrieved by a decision of the board could appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. The first item before the board was VA-92-01, Thomas and Emma Flint. Ms. Thorpe read the staff report as follows: VA-92-01. Thomas M. and Emma J. Flint (owners) . Property located on the east side of Route 20, approximately 0. 1 mile south of the intersection with Route 600, zoned Village Residential, tax map 48, parcel 18B. Variance request to increase density from .7 to 1 dwelling unit per acre and to reduce minimum lot size from 60, 000 square feet in order to subdivide 4 lots for 4 existing houses. Proposed lots would measure approximately 51, 000, 46, 000, 46, 000 and 36, 000 square feet. (See the attached copy of the staff report. ) Mr. Thomas Flint stated that the houses had existed since 1968 . He stated that the septic tank and well had been operating for twenty years without any problems. He pointed out that additional land could not be purchased. As there was no public comment, the matter was placed before the board. Mr. Rennolds supported granting the request since nothing would change. Mr. Bailey stated that a hardship existed which was not shared by others. Mr. Cogan stated that an unique situation existed since Mr. Flint had developed according to the prior zoning, and that the zoning had later been changed. He concurred with the staff report, and therefore made a motion for approval of VA-92-01. Mr. Rennolds seconded the motion. The roll was called. Mr. Bailey - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Aye Mr. Cogan - Aye Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mr. Kennedy - Absent The variance was approved (4 : 0) . The next application was an appeal, AP-92-01, Penn Butler (Deck Plug) . Ms. Patterson read the staff report as follows: AP-92-01. Penn Butler. The applicant appeals the Zoning Administrator's determination of the category of use for the Deck Plug business. The Zoning Administrator determined that the concrete mixing, forming and storage is a "concrete mixing plant, storage distribution, " allowed only in the Heavy Industrial district. (See the attached copy of the staff report. ) Ms. Patterson stated that the use was very unique in many respects and Mr. Butler would explain it to the Board. Mr. Penn Butler stated the business was called Deck Plug because the product was a precast portable footing that was very light weight and unusually strong. He stated that the footings were used for light construction projects such as decks, utility sheds, barns, etc. , and the idea was that someone could literally purchase them off the shelf in the building supply business. He stated that no mixing and pouring was involved prior to building. Mr. Van Fossen stated that the only thing this Board would consider was whether this was a permitted use or not in this zone and whether the Zoning Administrator had ruled properly. Mr. Butler stated that Mr. Keeler had placed the use in the Heavy Industrial classification, but he felt that it fit in the Light Industrial zone. He stated that it was basically mixing and distribution, but pointed out that they did not sell it directly to the contractors but to the retailers. He stated that he wanted the