Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200011 Action Letter 1992-05-13 _of ALB., COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 May 13, 1992 Glenys W. Jones Rt 10, Box 72 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Variance Application VA-92-11 Tax Map 58, Parcel 7 Dear Ms. Jones: This letter is to inform you that on May 12, 1992 , during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board indefinitely deferred your application for VA-92-11 as per your request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 664,11!N Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp,= AWNAN cN 1:ar i ri-, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 August 11, 1992 Glenys W. Jones Rt. 10, Box 72 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-92-11 Tax Map 58, Parcel 7 Dear Ms. Jones: This letter is to inform you that on August 11, 1992 , during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5: 0) approved your request for VA-92-11, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met: a. Parcels 7 and 7A shall either be combined or an instrument shall be recorded which provides for future or existing septic easement on 58/7A for the benefit of 58/7. b, Zoning Administrator approval of the installation of evergreen screening or fencing along the rear in this area. 2. Tax Map/Parcel 58/7 shall be restricted to a maximum of 5 units plus one main residence for residential occupancy. This fact shall be communicated to future owners, by deed or other appropriate mention. Glenys W. Jones VA-92-11 Approval August 12, 1992 This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the rear setback from 35 to 17 feet for an addition to an existing cottage. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, �^ Amelia G. McCulley, A .I.P. Zoning Administrator AGM/st cc: Inspections Department File Planning Department ADDENDUM TO REPORT VARIANCE 92-11 GLENYS W. JONES BACKGROUND: This item was heard by the Board on May 12th and deferred indefinitely at the applicant's request. This was to allow additional time to resolve issues raised by staff in their report. These issues include: 1. Analysis of alternate designs, with emphasis on the reduction in the number of units; 2 . Proposal of conditions of approval; 3 . Approval from the Health Department. Since that time, approval from the Health Department has been obtained for existing and area for future replacement septic fields. This approval is based on the included use of adjoining property in the same ownership, almost 4 acre Parcel 7A. In addition, the applicant discussed alternate designs with staff, and concluded that none were feasible. The idea of joining together units will create units which are not practical because they are long and narrow. Furthermore, the preservation of the existing general layout is essential to its historical value as an old "strip motel. " In further discussions with the applicant, she agreed to restrict the occupancy of the units to a maximum of five (5) , including that which is proposed for expansion at this time. This is a reduction in four (4) from the total of nine (9) which exist. The four (4) which would no longer be used for residential purposes (and currently are not) , would be utilized for accessory purposes such as storage. Because of this reduction in, or the opposite of an expansion or intensification in use, it is my opinion that there is no conflict with Section 6. 4, Nonconformities. Therefore, staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The existing cottage size (180 sq. ft. ) does not allow reasonable use of the property. The location of the existing development with respect to the rear property line and spacing between cottages, necessitates a variance. 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. Staff is not aware of any properties in the vicinity which share this hardship. The slope of the property, combined with its narrow depth, make imposition of the scenic highway overlay setback with the rear setback to be unfeasible. 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 will be no obvious change to the property, particularly when viewed from the road. Therefore, there is no apparent change to the character of the district. With appropriate screening to the rear, there is no immediate or substantial detriment to adjacent property. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following conditions shall be met: a. Parcels 7 and 7A shall either be combined, or an instrument shall be recorded which provides for future septic easement. b. Zoning Administrator approval of the installation of evergreen screening or fencing along the rear in this area , \ lere 2. This property shall be restricted to a maximum of five units' for residential occupancy. This fact shall be communicated to future owners, by deed or other appropriate mention. rr,ss �dtG L7� te 501,f ttiJ e °feted i61 STAFF PERSON: Amelia Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: May 12, 1992 STAFF REPORT VA 92-11 OWNER/APPLICANT: Glenys W. Jones TAX MAP/PARCEL: 58/7 ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2 .35 acres LOCATION: South side of Rt. 250 West, at the intersection with Rt. 676. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to reduce the rear setback from 35 to 17 feet, for addition to an existing cottage. In addition, the building addition will be approximately 125 feet from the front property line/Rt. 250 West right-of-way. Although this is within the scenic highway overlay (a 150 foot setback) , the addition to the rear of the building will be no less conforming than the existing building. This property is improved with a main residence and 9 cottages. It was built as a motel in the 1930's, the Sunset Lodge, and the cottages are now for monthly/yearly rental. The applicant's justification includes: 1. The rental cottage is so small (1 room) , that it does not afford sufficient space for the essentials of a kitchen and the like. It is only 180 square feet. 2. There is no other area available for expansion, except to the rear. 3 . There are 5 buildings on the property which do not meet the setback requirements. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that each variance is reviewed on its own merits, and is not on its face, precedent-setting. The following history is provided for information: VA-77-64 Glenys Jones was approved on November 9, 1977 . This allowed a reduction in the scenic highway setback from 150 to 116 feet, for a deck addition onto a single-family dwelling. (This involved the main residence. ) Staff Report - VA-92-11 Page 2 RELEVANT HISTORY CONTINUE. . . . VA-78-27 Glenys Jones was approved on June 13, 1978. This allowed a reduction in the rear setback from 35 to 20 feet, for a deck addition onto the garage apartment. RECOMMENDATION: The applicant began construction without the necessary building permit or variance. Based on the history of prior variances, it seems that this current work was knowingly done in violation of regulations. The concrete slab has been poured, the room is framed, and plumbing is roughed-in. Any hardship based on work already complete is self-imposed. Staff was informed of this zoning violation by a neighbor. The conversion of use from a motel to a longer term boarding situation such as an apartment, is not uncommon. Often as is the case here, the units which are of suitable size for one or several nights stay, are too small for longer term accommodations. This is one of several units, each consisting of 180 square feet in which to provide sleeping, sanitation, and cooking facilities. Staff recommends that rather than continue piecemeal improvement of the property by multiple variances on individual dwelling units, the owner analyze various options for addition, and propose a master plan. Both the use of the property as a motel, and the use of the property with multiple dwellings on insufficient acreage, are nonconforming or "grandfathered" from the ordinance. The ordinance currently allows only one (1) dwelling on this acreage, and not the 9 or 10 that presently exist. One option might include addition between two units, such that they are connected, or that they are larger without connecting. Connection or any other arrangement that would result in fewer dwellings, would be more in conformance with the ordinance and with the comprehensive plan. Staff is not aware of the adequacy of the well and septic systems for this property. It is possible that further variances would be necessary for the provision of the full septic reserve area required. This reserve area is required for the issuance of a building permit of any type, and is not waived for "grandfathered" properties. Although the expansion would not necessarily result in an additional bedroom, it is more likely that more than one person would occupy one unit. Staff Report - VA-92-11 Page 3 It is staff's recommendation that this application be deferred until the following has been submitted by the applicant: 1. Analysis with explanation, of alternate designs for expansion of units, with emphasis on the reduction in the number of units; 2. Proposal of conditions which may be appropriate; 3 . Approval from the Health Department for the proposal, including confirmation of the availability of septic reserve area in compliance with the ordinance. This will allow for review by the Zoning Administrator, with consultation from the County Attorney, for compliance with Section 6.4 Nonconformities - Expansion or Enlargement. It is possible that the proposed expansion/addition may necessitate a zoning application, such as a special permit.