Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200027 Action Letter 1992-08-12 • fop ALii . -37 Qt._ �hli V.177. ��RG1N�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 August 12, 1992 Marek and Grazyna Kruszec 1642 Cool Spring Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-92-27 Tax Map 46, Parcel 45A Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kruszec: This letter is to inform you that on August 11, 1992 , during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5: 0) approved your request for VA-92-27 with no conditions. The variance approval grants relief from Section 4. 1. 6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the septic field reserve area to seventy (70) percent, a variance of thirty (30) percent to allow construction of a four (4) bedroom home. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, ari\ae.a. /r\c Amelia . McCulley, A.C. .P. Zoning Administrator AGM/st cc: Inspections Department File Gary Rice, Health Department B. VA-92-27 Max. , and Grazyne Kruszec - Tay %dap 46, Parcel 45A Due to Mr. Grady's absence, Ms. McCulley read the following staff report as follows: "STAFF REPORT - VA-92-27 OWNER/APPLICANT: Marek and Grazyna Kruszec TAX MAP/PARCEL: 46/45A ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2. 011 acres LOCATION: The west side of Proffit Road (Route 649) approximately two-tenths of a mile north of the Route 649/741 intersection. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 4. 1.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "4.1.6: For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. . . " The applicant proposes to construct a four (4) bedroom home on two (2) acres of land. According to Mr. Gary Rice (Virginia Department of Health) , Mr. and Mrs. Kruszec do not have adequate reserve drainfield area on their property or within the drainfield easement area on the adjacent property to accommodate a four (4) bedroom home. Mr. Rice has indicated that there is adequate soils for a primary drainfield and a seventy (70) percent reserve. Therefore, 8 the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the reserve area to seventy (70) percent, a variance of thirty (30) percent. The applicant's justification includes: 1. They have already put a good deal of labor and money into the property. A well has been drilled, and septic easement secured. 2. Without a variance, the property will have to be sold and other options explored. 3. The adjacent property owner is reluctant to sell additional land for septic easement. 4. The area in the rear of the property is not suitable because of steep slopes and existing well location. HISTORY: o The parcel has been a legal lot of record since April, 1976. o The Kruszecs purchased the property in 1991. They applied for a well permit on December 11, 1991 and a septic permit January 24, 1992. The well was drilled. o January, 1992, an interim mobile home was located on the property. This is temporary housing used during the construction of the proposed new home. Staff has met with Gary Rice and concluded the following: . 1) There is no area on the existing parcel (45A) that is suitable for a drainfield; 2) No additional area may be added to easements "X" or "Y" because of a drainage swale located between the easements and an existing drainfield located southeast of "X"; 3) No suitable area exists on the parcel to the north (parcel 43B) or to the rear of the parcel (45) ; 4) Easements "X" and "Y" do provide adequate area for a primary drainfield and a one-hundred (100) percent reserve area that would accommodate a three (3) bedroom home. It is staff's opinion that other options are available. The applicant could sell the existing property and relocate. This would be somewhat of a financial hardship as they have already placed a temporary mobile home on the property and installed a well. Because the house has not been started as of this date, the applicant has the option of building a three (3) bedroom house instead of the four (4) bedroom house they propose. This would 9 mean two (2) of the children would have to share a bedroom. Staff is not aware of other drainfield problems in this area. Therefore, the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. However, to modify the reserve area when there are no other options available on the two acre parcel or adjacent property, may prove to be detrimental to adjacent property owners. Staff is sympathetic to the applicant's request, but is of the opinion that they have not met the criteria listed below. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1) That a strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. There are options: a) Build a three (3) bedroom house or b) sell the property. 2) 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. " Ms. and Mrs. Kruszec were present to speak for the request. Ms. Kruszec stated that Gary Rice had stated that there was not enough reserve area for a four bedroom house on the property. She stated that Mr. Gooch's office had suggested this area since the area was very steep and rocky. There being no further. -comment, the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Cogan stated that this would not be detrimental to, any other owner and no hardship was shared generally by others. He felt the applicants had worked real hard and had communication problems with the health inspector, and therefore moved for approval. of VA92-27. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion, which was approved with the following recorded vote. Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mr. Bailey - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Aye Mr. Cogan - Aye Mr. Kennedy - Aye STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: August 11, 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA-92-27 OWNER/APPLICANT: Marek and Grazyna Kruszec TAX MAP/PARCEL: 46/45A ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2.011 acres LOCATION: The west side of Proffit Road (Route 649) approximately two-tenths of a mile north of the Route 649/741 intersection. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 4 . 1. 6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "4. 1. 6: For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. . . " The applicant proposes to construct a four (4) bedroom home on two (2) acres of land. According to Mr. Gary Rice (Virginia Department of Health) , Mr. and Mrs. Kruszec do not have adequate reserve drainfield area on their property or within the drainfield easement area on the adjacent property to accommodate a four (4) bedroom home. Mr. Rice has indicated that there is adequate soils for a primary drainfield and a seventy (70) percent reserve. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the reserve area to seventy (70) percent, a variance of thirty (30) percent. The applicant's justification includes: 1. They have already put a good deal of labor and money into the property. A well has been drilled, and septic easement secured. 2 . Without a variance, the property will have to be sold and other options explored. 3 . The adjacent property owner is reluctant to sell additional land for septic easement. 4. The area in the rear of the property is not suitable because of steep slopes and existing well location. HISTORY: o The parcel has been a legal lot of record since April, 1976. Staff Report - VA-92-27 Page 2 o The Kruszecs purchased the property in 1991. They applied for a well permit on December 11, 1991 and a septic permit January 24, 1992. The well was drilled. o January, 1992, an interim mobile home was located on the property. This is temporary housing used during the construction of the proposed new home. Staff has met with Gary Rice and concluded the following: 1) There is no area on the existing parcel (45A) that is suitable for a drainfield; 2) No additional area may be added to easements "X" or "Y" because of a drainage swale located between the easements and an existing drainfield located southeast of "X"; 3) No suitable area exists on the parcel to the north (parcel 43B) or to the rear of the parcel (45) ; 4) Easements "X" and "Y" do provide adequate area for a primary drainfield and a one-hundred (100) percent reserve area that would accommodate a three (3) bedroom home. It is staff's opinion that other options are available. The applicant could sell the existing property and relocate. This would be somewhat of a financial hardship as they have already placed a temporary mobile home on the property and installed a well. Because the house has not been started as of this date, the applicant has the option of building a three (3) bedroom house instead of the four (4) bedroom house they propose. This would mean two (2) of the children would have to share a bedroom. Staff is not aware of other drainfield problems in this area. Therefore, the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. However, to modify the reserve area when there are no other options available on the two acre parcel or adjacent property, may prove to be detrimental to adjacent property owners. Staff is sympathetic to the applicant's request, but is of the opinion that they have not met the criteria listed below. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1) That a strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. There are options: a) Build a three (3) bedroom house or b) sell the property. 2) 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.