Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200006 Action Letter 1992-04-22 OFA Apr 111 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April, 22, 1992 Roy Shannon Clark, Jr. Rt 2, Box 128 North Garden, VA 22959 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-92-06; Tax Map 87, Parcel 35 Dear Mr. Clark: This letter is to inform you that on April 21, 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5:0) approved your request for VA-92-06, subject to the following condition: 1) The 30 foot existing pipestem use shall be limited to one parcel and one development right. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce required road frontage from 250 feet to 30 feet for a two (2) lot subdivision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, 6-41:a ih.VT)diett Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp/ i cc: Planning STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 4/21/92 STAFF REPORT - VA-92-06 OWNER/APPLICANT: Roy Shannon Clark TAX MAP/PARCEL: 87-35 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 14. 193 LOCATION: On west side of Route 710, approximately one-half mile north of its intersection with Route 29 South. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which requires that lots on public roads have at least 250 feet of frontage. The applicant would like to subdivide a parcel measuring slightly over 14 acres into at least two parcels. One of the subdivided parcels would use the pipestem as frontage. Currently, the parcel 's frontage is measured along Route 779 and conforms with Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. It had always been his intention to subdivide the property and use the entrance of Route 710 as access. 2 . Requiring access from Route 779 would involve constructing approximately 1000 feet of road at a substantial cost. 3 . Entrance off Route 710 is currently used at this time for farm equipment or truck. RELEVANT HISTORY: On March 22, 1976, the County approved a subdivision plat for Rock Branch Acres, leaving a residue of 14 . 193 acres. Since this residue was a lot of record before the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1980, it has five development rights for lots of two acres or more. RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Clark wishes to divide this parcel into at least two parcels, deeding the rear lot to his daughter, who owns a lot adjoining Mr. Clark's property. Without the variance, Mr. Clark could still subdivide his property, accessing the rear lot by extending the driveway that serves the portion of the property bordering Route 779. Or Mr. Clark could subdivide the property and deed the rear lot to his daughter, who could then use a joint driveway to access the lot, rather than have the driveway extended from Route 779. There are steep slcpes toward the front of the property, as indicated on Attachment A. However, the driveway has already been cut into the slope. The topography of the rear of the property is flat to gently rolling. No critical slopes would be disturbed by extending the driveway to serve a building site on the back portion of the lot. The existing driveway could serve the two lots proposed by the applicant without needing substantial improvements. If the driveway were to serve three to five lots, it would have to be widened to 14 feet, and have gravel added. If the road served three or more lots and the slope of the road exceeded seven percent, paving would be required. Most of the lots in the area are two acres and have roughly 150 feet of frontage. Given the nature of the existing development, driveways are close together. The pipestem lies between two existing driveways, about 45 feet from one driveway and 30 feet from the next. While the pipestem has been used to bring farm equipment onto the property, it has not been used often and has not been improved with gravel or culvert. There are no ruts or tire tracks or worn areas of the pasture that would indicate steady usage over a long period of time. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Mr. Clark could subdivide his property as proposed without receiving a variance. This report lists two subdivision available to him without necessitating a variance. 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; and 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. It is staff's opinion that allowing this pipestem to be used as a driveway would create an unnecessarily high number of entrances onto Route 710. The Zoning Ordinance requires substantial frontages (250 feet) along public roads in rural areas to discourage strip development and to improve the safety of motorists traveling along rural roads. Approving this variance would run counter to these objectives. Should you approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The usage of the 30-foot pipestem for an entrance shall be limited to one parcel containing only one development right. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 4,�„v ALR,1 °1 4,V t>RGINx� MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Higgins, County Engineer FROM: Babette Thorpe, Zoning Assistant DATE: April 15, 1992 RE: Determination of Adequate Drainage under Section 4 . 3 of the Zoning Ordinance - Tax Map 87, Parcel 35 Section 4 . 3 states no change shall be made in the existing contours of any land, including any change in the course, width or elevation of any natural or other drainage channel, in any manner that will obstruct, interfere with, or substantially change the drainage from such land to the detriment of neighboring lands . . . the zoning administrator shall refer any application submitted to him to the County Engineer for a determination in the matter. Mr. Roy Shannon Clark is applying for a variance to allow him to use a 30-foot pipestem as a driveway to access a lot he plans to subdivide from an existing parcel. The pipestem in question would access Route 710. Attached please find a plat and topographical survey of the property. If the variance is not granted, Mr. Clark plans to extend the existing driveway, marked in brown to serve the lot and building site he intends to create at the back portion of this property. Apparently, this parcel collects drainage from most of the surrounding area. Mr. Clark' s neighbors have expressed concern about the effect granting this variance would have on the drainage and on their properties. From the perspective of adequate drainage, which would be better: for Mr. Clark to use the pipestem or to extend the driveway? Are there improvements that could be required for either alternative that would mitigate any negative impact on the drainage? Page 2 April 15, 1992 I know this is short notice, but I would really appreciate your determination by Monday, April 20. The Board of Zoning Appeals will meet on Tuesday, April 21 to hear this request. Please let me know how much time these types of determinations generally require and I promise to hold to your schedule in the future.