Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200033 Action Letter 1992-11-11 OF ALBE'Li J1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 November 11, 1992 John and Ruthlinde Alford Route 2, Box 324 A Crozet, VA 22932 RE: Variance Application VA-92-33 Tax Map 26, Parcel 12 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Alford: This letter is to inform you that on November 10, 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board deferred your application for VA-92-33 until their December 8th meeting. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulle , Zoning Administrator AMP/sp 4044 %RGl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 December 9, 1992 John and Ruthlinde Alford Route 2, Box 324 A Crozet, VA 22932 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-92-33 ; Tax Map 26, Parcel 12 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Alford: This letter is to inform you that on December 8, 1992 , during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (3 :2) approved your request for VA-92-33 , subject to the following conditions: 1) The variance shall be limited to the current deck (building permit AR #92-1474) ; 2) Zoning Department approval of the installation of gravel underneath the deck, in accordance with County Engineering recommendations; and 3) The deck may not be replaced. This variance approval allows relief from Sections 30.5. 6. 1 and 4.2. 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing deck to remain as built: 1) to reduce the setback from Moorman's River, a scenic stream from 65 to 51 feet; and 2) to reduce the setback from the edge of a tributary stream from 100 to 51 feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, rU Amelia G. McCulley, A. . . Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Inspections D. Orr' NRIMMWORMIWAIMOMP • ,Ms. McCulley presented the staff report as follows: (See the attached copy of the Staff Report. ) Ms. McCulley noted that the plat showed the approximate flood plain line by the dotted line. She stated that based on the Engineering Department review that more of the house was in the flood plain. John and Ruth Alford were present to speak for the request. They pointed out that the enlarged deck was only 8 feet closer to the river, and due to the steepness of the property this was the only practical location for the deck. Mr. Kennedy stated that it seemed like an unique situation, but was concerned whether other people would make the same request. Mr. Cogan asked if this deck extended 8 foot further than the old deck, and Mr. Alford stated that it was an additional 8 feet from the house and was 8 foot closer to the stream. Mr. Alford stated that the deck went from 59 feet to 51 feet from the river and the columns were cemented into the ground at the edge. Mr. Bailey asked if the deck complied with the Building Code, and Ms. McCulley stated that it did according to Jay Schlothauer of the Inspections Department. Mr. Rennolds suggested deferring the request to the November meeting due to the calls he had received from other people in the Sugar Hollow area. Mr. Kennedy stated that this raised an interesting point since he felt they had acted in good faith in doing something they did not know they were doing. He voiced his concern about staff putting the other people in the area on notice of the regulations. 6 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: October 13 , 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA 92-33 OWNERS/APPLICANTS: John and Ruth Alford TAX MAP/PARCEL: 26/12 ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 10. 4 Acres LOCATION: On the south side of Route 614, across from Route 674 in Sugar Hollow. REQUEST The applicants request variances to allow an existing deck to remain as-built. This involves relief from two sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 1. (Section 30. 5. 6. 1) Scenic River Overlay - To reduce the building setback from 65 to 51 feet from the Moorman's River; and 2 . (Section 4 . 2 . 1) General Regulations - Building Site Required - To reduce the building setback from the edge of a tributary stream, from 100 to 51 feet. The applicants replaced a non-conforming deck with a larger deck, without a building permit. They are presently seeking compliance. The original deck was approximately 59 feet from the river, and the new deck is 8 feet wider, thereby reducing further the distance from the stream. The applicants' justification includes: 1. Strict application of the ordinance would require removal of the deck, which would produce undue hardship. The old deck was unsafe. Careful planning and financing was done to build the structure. 2 . This hardship is not shared by any other neighbors in the entire vicinity. 3 . The variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the district. On the contrary, the new deck adds aesthetic beauty to the property. In addition, the new deck is better anchored so as to prevent flood damage to downstream properties or to this property. It is 5 feet higher off the ground, and is secured with pylons placed in cement. In accordance with the County Engineering Department's recommendation, gravel will be placed underneath to facilitate drainage. STAFF REPORT - VA-92-33 Page 3 4 . Scenic River Overlay - This prohibits the construction of buildings or structures other than necessary accessory appurtenant fences or walls within 65 feet of the edge of the stream. The intent is to "conserve the elements of the county's scenic beauty. " This would include protection of the riverway itself, as well as the viewshed from the river. 5. General Regulation Building Site Setback from Stream - This requires a 100 foot setback, for consistency with the runoff control ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff consistently does not view building features such as decks, garages, and the like, as necessary for reasonable use of the property. Therefore, it would not be a hardship to not enjoy the use of a deck. Staff comments further that if one presumes a deck in general or in this case to be necessary for the reasonable use of this property, the applicant has not proven why a different design could have been used which would result in an equal or greater setback from the stream than the original deck. Removal of the deck would constitute a hardship financially, and in terms of inconvenience; however, this hardship is self-imposed because the deck construction without a building permit is unlawful. Based on comment from the County Engineering Department, there are no apparent detrimental effects on the stream or adjoining property, due to the deck construction. In addition, there is no negative impact on the character of this district. Therefore, the third criterion is satisfied. However, staff cannot find evidence of the satisfaction of the other two criteria, and recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The hardship of removing the deck is self-imposed. 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. While staff has not surveyed the area, there are several homes which are located fairly close to the stream and would face similar circumstances. STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: October 13 , 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA 92-33 OWNERS/APPLICANTS: John and Ruth Alford TAX MAP/PARCEL: 26/12 ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 10.4 Acres LOCATION: On the south side of Route 614, across from Route 674 in Sugar Hollow. REQUEST The applicants request variances to allow an existing deck to remain as-built. This involves relief from two sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 1. (Section 30.5. 6. 1) Scenic River Overlay - To reduce the building setback from 65 to 51 feet from the Moorman's River; and 2 . (Section 4 .2 . 1) General Regulations - Building Site Required - To reduce the building setback from the edge of a tributary stream, from 100 to 51 feet. The applicants replaced a non-conforming deck with a larger deck, without a building permit. They are presently seeking compliance. The original deck was approximately 59 feet from the river, and the new deck is 8 feet wider, thereby reducing further the distance from the stream. The applicants' justification includes: 1. Strict application of the ordinance would require removal of the deck, which would produce undue hardship. The old deck was unsafe. Careful planning and financing was done to build the structure. 2 . This hardship is not shared by any other neighbors in the entire vicinity. 3 . The variance would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or the district. On the contrary, the new deck adds aesthetic beauty to the property. In addition, the new deck is better anchored so as to prevent flood damage to downstream properties or to this property. It is 5 feet higher off the ground, and is secured with pylons placed in cement. In accordance with the County Engineering Department's recommendation, gravel will be placed underneath to facilitate drainage. STAFF REPORT - VA-92-33 Page 2 RELEVANT HISTORY: This house (with deck) was built in 1969. STAFF COMMENT: This property is subject to five (5) water-related regulations found within both the Zoning Ordinance and the County Code: flood hazard overlay, water resource protection area, runoff control, scenic river, and general building setback from tributary streams. The first three regulations have been applied to this situation, and the deck is found to be in compliance. The last two are the subject of this variance. A brief explanation of the three water regulations which have been satisfied will be provided for the record. 1. Floodplain - The flood plain maps show that a portion of this property is within the approximate floodplain. The County Engineering Department has determined that based on the lay of the land, a portion of the house presently lies within actual flood fringe. The Zoning Ordinance allows this deck addition within the flood plain. Minor or not "substantial" additions are permitted, with guidelines for this determination. 2 . Water Resource Protection Ordinance - This requires a 100 foot undisturbed buffer adjacent to such a stream, with provision for waivers to 50 feet for existing development which has no alternatives. The County Engineering Department has reviewed this request and granted the necessary waiver (see attached memo) . This decision considered the facts that no trees were cleared, nor area disturbed, and the area of encroachment is less than 2500 square feet. 3 . Runoff Control - This is a requirement for a 100 foot setback from tributary streams, and for measures for water quality protection when a certain percentage of the lot is impervious cover. This waiver has been granted in accordance with past practice to permit reconstruction or minor improvements to existing non-conforming uses. In accordance with the County Engineering Department's recommendation, the applicant has agreed to place a 3-4 inch layer of uniformly graded stone under the deck to redistribute runoff from the deck. STAFF REPORT - VA-92-33 Page 3 4. Scenic River Overlay - This prohibits the construction of buildings or structures other than necessary accessory appurtenant fences or walls within 65 feet of the edge of the stream. The intent is to "conserve the elements of the county's scenic beauty. " This would include protection of the riverway itself, as well as the viewshed from the river. 5. General Regulation Building Site Setback from Stream - This requires a 100 foot setback, for consistency with the runoff control ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff consistently does not view building features such as decks, garages, and the like, as necessary for reasonable use of the property. Therefore, it would not be a hardship to not enjoy the use of a deck. Staff comments further that if one presumes a deck in general or in this case to be necessary for the reasonable use of this property, the applicant has not proven why a different design could have been used which would result in an equal or greater setback from the stream than the original deck. Removal of the deck would constitute a hardship financially, and in terms of inconvenience; however, this hardship is self-imposed because the deck construction without a building permit is unlawful. Based on comment from the County Engineering Department, there are no apparent detrimental effects on the stream or adjoining property, due to the deck construction. In addition, there is no negative impact on the character of this district. Therefore, the third criterion is satisfied. However, staff cannot find evidence of the satisfaction of the other two criteria, and recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The hardship of removing the deck is self-imposed. 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. While staff has not surveyed the area, there are several homes which are located fairly close to the stream and would face similar circumstances. STAFF REPORT - VA-92-33 Page 4 Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The variance shall be limited to the current deck (building permit AR #92-1474) ; 2. Zoning Department approval of the installation of gravel underneath the deck, in accordance with County Engineering recommendations. ittitateci