Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200020 Action Letter 1992-04-15 (cy pF AL • ��RG1N1P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 July 15, 1992 Diana P. Dale, P.E. , L. S. Route 1, Box 542 Scottsville, VA 24590 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Ralph and Yvette Carr Tax Map 46, Parcel 10 Dear Ms. Dale: This letter is to inform you that on July 14, 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board denied your request for VA-92-20. Anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Board can appeal their decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Pahat Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp/5r cc: Alease Blakey Ralph and Yvette Carr C. VA-92-2C alph Carr/Blakey Ms. Thorpe presented the following staff report: "STAFF REPORT - VA-92-20 OWNER/APPLICANT: Ms. Alease Blakey/Mr. and Mrs. Ralph and Yvette Carr TAX MAP/PARCEL: 46-10 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 10 LOCATION: On east side of Route 643, approximately 1.2 miles north of its intersection with Route 29 North REQUEST: In order to create a two-acre lot from a ten-acre parcel, the applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states that lots must have at least 250 feet of frontage along existing public roads. The newly- created parcel would have approximately 282 feet of frontage; the eight-acre residue, approximately 170 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance in lieu of sharing a driveway with the new parcel. The owner lives on what will be the eight-acre residue; the two acres proposed to be subdivided is vacant. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. The owner of the property is handicapped. The handicapped access ramps are on the left side of the house. If she were to share a driveway with the owners of the newly created parcel, she would have to either relocate the handicapped ramp, or build a driveway across the front of her property. Both alternatives would be costly, and the second alternative would cost her the view she enjoys from her house. 2. There are no other driveways within 250 feet on either side of the property; therefore, adding an entrance to the new parcel would not endanger access to neighboring properties. 5 3. At this location, Route 643 runs in a straight direction for about 2500 feet. There are no curves or hills that would be dangerous to, or obstruct the vision of, someone leaving a driveway serving the new lot. RELEVANT HISTORY: This parcel has three remaining development rights. RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicant that granting this variance would not endanger travelers along Route 643; therefore, this request meets one of the three criteria for approval: 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. Nevertheless, because the applicant could subdivide the property without a variance if the two parcels were to share a driveway, staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Strict application of the Ordinance would not impair the exercise of the applicant's division rights. 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. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Any future lots created from the residue shall use (either the driveway serving the residue or) the driveway serving the proposed two-acre parcel as access. " Ms. Thorpe revised the condition in the staff report taking out, "either the driveway serving the residue or" because if a 30 foot access way was required it could render the house nonconforming. Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Carr, property owners, were present to speak for the request. Mrs. Carr stated that they wanted to build a house, but due to the topography a variance was needed since the owner wanted an access road through the two acres to the property in the rear. Mr. Kennedy stated that no easement was located on the plat. Mrs. Carr stated that her aunt, Ms. Blakey, was 94 and had stipulated that they agree not to make any changes to her lot as a condition for the purchase of the land. 6 STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 7/14/92 STAFF REPORT - VA-92-20 OWNER/APPLICANT: Ms. Alease Blakey/Mr. and Mrs. Ralph and Yvette Carr TAX MAP/PARCEL: 46-10 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 10 LOCATION: On east side of Route 643, approximately 1.2 miles north of its intersection with Route 29 North REQUEST: In order to create a two-acre lot from a ten-acre parcel, the applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states that lots must have at least 250 feet of frontage along existing public roads. The newly- created parcel would have approximately 282 feet of frontage; the eight-acre residue, approximately 170 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance in lieu of sharing a driveway with the new parcel. The owner lives on what will be the eight-acre residue; the two acres proposed to be subdivided is vacant. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. The owner of the property is handicapped. The handicapped access ramps are on the left side of the house. If she were to share a driveway with the owners of the newly created parcel, she would have to either relocate the handicapped ramp, or build a driveway across the front of her property. Both alternatives would be costly, and the second alternative would cost her the view she enjoys from her house. 2 . There are no other driveways within 250 feet on either side of the property; the::•efore, adding an entrance to the new parcel would not endanger access to neighboring properties. 3 . At this location, Route 643 runs in a straight direction for about 2500 feet. There are no curves or hills that would be dangerous to, or obstruct the vision of, someone leaving a driveway serving the new lot. RELEVANT HISTORY: This parcel has three remaining development rights. RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicant that granting this variance would not endanger travelers along Route 643 ; therefore, this request meets one of the three criteria for approval: 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. Nevertheless, because the applicant could subdivide the property without a variance if the two parcels were to share a driveway, staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Strict application of the Ordinance would not impair the exercise of the applicant's division rights. 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. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Any future lots created from the residue shall use -either the- driveway serving""the residue or the driveway serving the proposed two-acre parcel as access.