Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200034 Action Letter 1992-10-21 ��RGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October 21, 1992 Bill Wortman P. 0. Box 351 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Variance Application, VA-92-34 Estate of Jannie Carr Woodson Tax Map 41, Parcel 14 Dear Mr. Wortman: This letter is to inform you that on October 20, 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5: 0) granted the applicant's request to defer the variance application, VA-92-34, until their November 10th meeting. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, e/11-gt-1 Amelia G. McCull , A.I.C.i Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Estate of Jannie C. Woodson ��OF ALl3,cti ay- COUNTY ry OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 November 11, 1992 Bill Wortman P. O. Box 351 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Variance Application VA-92-34 Estate of Jannie Carr Woodson Tax Map 41, Parcel 14 Dear Mr. Wortman: This letter is to inform you that on November 10, 1992 , during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (4 : 0) approved your request for VA-92-34, subject to the following conditions: 1) This property shall be limited to a total of four (4) lots, with no more than one (1) dwelling on each lot; and 2) Approval is limited to the plat as submitted. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10. 3 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to increase the acreage devoted to development lots from 31 to 48 acres, for proposed subdivision into four (4) lots. The proposed subdivision would be to create three (3) lots of 10. 3 acres, and one (1) lot of 16. 848 acres. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, ( )L& Amelia G. McCulley, . .C. Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Planning Department Estate of Jannie C. Woodson or STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: October 20, 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA-92-34 OWNER/APPLICANT: Estate of Jannie Carr Woodson William M. Currier, Executor c/o Nations Bank TAX MAP/PARCEL: 41 / 14 ZONING: RURAL AREAS ACREAGE: 47.748 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Route 680, approximately 1.5 miles north of Beaver Creek Reservoir, across from Route 811. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10. 3 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS) . . . to the location of five (5) or fewer dwelling units . . . provided that the aggregate acreage devoted to such lots or development shall not exceed thirty-one (31) acres . . provided that, where possible, the residue acreage following exhaustion of division rights shall be twenty-one (21) acres or more. " The applicants propose subdivision of the property into four (4) lots or approximate equal acreage. The proposed subdivision would be to create three (3) lots of 10. 3 acres, and one (1) lot of 16.848 acres. This would be one (1) fewer lot than permitted by- right. These requirements would result in subdivision of this property into six (6) lots: one (1) 21 acre residue parcel, and the approximately 26 acres divided into five (5) lots. These development lots would average 5 acres. The property is presently vacant. In order to settle the estate, it is proposed to be subdivided and sold. The applicant's justification includes: 1. A total of two fewer lots, and houses will be developed by this proposed subdivision. This reduction in development and increase in open area will meet several goals of the rural areas district. 2 . The agricultural preservation goal of this regulation is not relevant to this property. It is not currently in, nor is it suitable for agricultural or forestal uses. The present timber has no commercial value. Land clearing costs for other agricultural activities would not be economically justifiable. RAFT IV. Deferred Public Hearing VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT B. VA-92-34 Estate of Jannie Carr Woodson - Tax Map 41, Parcel 14 Ms. McCulley: Mr. Chairman, this was deferred from the October meeting because the applicant could not attend, and they are here today. This is the Estate of Jannie Carr Woodson, William M. Currier, Executor c/o Nations Bank, Tax map 41, parcel 14, Rural Areas Zoning, and it is just under 48 acres, located on the west side of Route 680, about 1.5 miles north of Beaver Creek Reservoir, across from the intersection of Route 811. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 10. 3 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which is the general section that lays out development rights and discusses the aggregate acreage limitation. The applicants are proposing subdivision of this property into four (4) lots of approximately equal acreage. The proposed subdivision would be to create three (3) lots of 10. 3 acres, and one (1) lot of 16.848 acres. It is on the board, and I think you got copies in your package earlier. This would be one (1) fewer lot than is permitted by-right. Because, of course, by right they could do five lots over 21 acres and could if they went small enough in their lot size do 6 lots. The requirement in the Zoning Ordinance would result in 6 lots which would be one (1) twenty-one (21) acre residue parcel and then twenty-six (26) acres divided into five (5) development right lots, which would give you development lots or housing lots averaging five (5) acres. The property is now vacant, and in order to settle the estate, it is proposed to be subdivided and sold. The applicant's justification includes: First, a total of two fewer lots, that is between what the ordinance would allow which is six (6) lots and the four (4) lots they are proposing. Two fewer lots and two fewer houses. Mr. Kennedy: That is TWO, right. Ms. McCulley: That is right, two, number two. Will be developed by this proposed subdivision. And this reduction in development and increase in open area will meet several goals of the rural areas district. Secondly, the agricultural preservation goal of this regulation is not relevant to this property. It is not currently in, nor is it suitable for agricultural or forestal uses. The present timber has no commercial value. Land clearing costs for other agricultural activities would not be economically justifiable. Third, this variance would improve the character of the adjacent property and that of the district. And fourth, the proposed lot sizes would be more marketable. 2 STAFF COMMENT - This is the second request for a variance from this regulation, and this Board might recall a request on Route 29 south, Ivar Mawyer I believe was the name, and it is a section of the ordinance that was amended in November of '89 and was again amended recently because there was some language that was under appeal of one of my determinations. Some language had to be cleared up as to what the thirty-one (31) acre rule applied to. As far as the agricultural or forestral availability of this property, staff has done a real cursory review of the suitability and this has shown that the majority of the property is wooded. A soils analysis shows that most of the property consists of good to excellent soils, and so does the surrounding properties. Staff cannot find a hardship unique to this property. The applicant's argument could be made against the ordinance in general. In fact, during its review the Board and Commission were advised of this situation. The fact that this regulation would create additional lots. Not only has the applicant not provided sufficient justification for satisfaction of the variance criteria, but staff has found that on the contrary, this property is suitable for agricultural or forestal uses. And that is the basis for limiting the amount of land available to residential use and requiring that a residue be available for agricultural purposes. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: First, the applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Staff can find no hardship, other than diminished financial returns. It is staff's opinion that the variance would not alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, but would be more a special privilege or convenience. The applicant has not shown that the property could not be subdivided so as to comply with the ordinance, and it appears that it could. Based on the soils information, this property could be suitable for agricultural use. Secondly, the applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same district and the same vicinity. Any property that is of this size is going to be in the same situation, and so it is shared generally. Third, the applicant has not provided evidence that the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed. There is little reason to see substantial detriment to adjacent property resulting from this proposed subdivision. However, the primary intent of this rural areas district as stated within the goals is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands and activities. By reducing the density of homes, this proposal would meet the goals of limiting service delivery and conserving scenic and other resources. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 3 1. This property shall be limited to a total of four (4) lots, with no more than one (1) dwelling on each lot. 2 . If practical, the subdivision shall be designed so that the best soils are located within one (1) lot. Mr. Kennedy: Why is that? Ms. McCulley: So that. Mr. Kennedy: Each lot or one lot. Ms. McCulley: One lot so that if there is any opportunity for any agriculture use at least it will be of such an area a practical arrangement that it would be more possible to make it happen. It is going to be tough, but if it is going to happen we want to give it all the best chances. Ms. Kennedy: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Mr. Bill Wortman: My name is Bill Wortman and I am with Nations Bank, and I am here for Mr. Bill Currier who apparently cannot make it today. I have been warned to keep my comments very brief with a filibuster. That technique is usually unsuccessful here, so I will attempt to do that. Mr. Kennedy: Well we have plenty of time, if that is the problem. Mr. Wortman: Then I will read it twice. The background of this subdivision was motivated by an interest in establishing high quality home sites in the area while preserving its rural characteristics. In this estate we hold four other parcels which are all within a half-mile of this property. So we are attempting to set the tone for future sales of other properties. Our surveyor neglected the twenty-one (21) acre residue rule when he first drew up the plat preparing one with 4, 11.9 and three (3) - 7 acre parcels. We were very satisfied with that plat. We thought it was just excellent and thought it would be approved immediately. After learning about the twenty-one (21) acre residue rule, we attempted to determine the best way to accomplish the subdivision by right. And I have with me approximately six (6) plats which we feel are inferior to one that we are submitting, but which would be theoretically approved by right. We are asking for the variance for the following reasons. We feel that the plat that we are submitting is better, constitutes a plat with better planning than the existing zoning ordinance. The purpose of our being here is not to criticize the existing subdivision or zoning ordinances. In fact the request will accomplish the same goal to maintain a major portion of the land in agricultural usage. With all of the parcels as larger lots we would hope that most of the 48, 47 acres would be utilized for agricultural and of course residential purposes. By giving up two development rights, or I guess division rights, we 4 feel that we exceed the intended scope of the zoning ordinance. Our second argument would be that of market justification. An assumption has been made by the Planning Department, and we feel that we are partially responsible for giving them that theory, that our motivation is only for economic reasons. In our discussions, in fact our estimates indicate that the total value of the land using all five development rights exceeds the projected sales prices of the lots under subdivision being considered. And I have justification of that if you need it, but I assume for the time being that we all can see that if we had five lots to sale plus the twenty-one (21) acre residue we would probably net more than the four lots that we have to sale. And as I said I could give you those numbers if they are meaningful. The third reason would be the rural conformity. If this variance is approved the rural character of the district will be preserved for a longer period than a by-right subdivision of the property. We envision five small family farms, rather than five suburban like lots plus one small family home. And I guess the fourth reason is more a personal comment than something that you really need to weigh heavily. We don't feel that you're, you will be setting a precedent by approving this variance. We feel that other property owners would be very unwilling to give up two division rights in order to accomplish a better planned subdivision. Mr. Kennedy: Any questions. Mr. Van Fossen: I was just wondering, you said that you have, you have a division that would comply with the ordinance. Mr. Wortman: I've got six plans right here, and the reason for even taking it this far was there are six, I've got to be careful with my adjectives, six inferior subdivisions to that we feel to this plat of different driveway cuts. I am sure that Ms. McCulley is right about the nature of the soils, but we don't see that as really being a viable tract for farming. Mr. Van Fossen: Amelia, would this property be, say that someone wanted to develop a subdivision there, could they go in with that and file for a complete planned subdivision with smaller lots. Ms. McCulley: Under the zoning they couldn't do anymore than the five small lots and one large lot unless they rezoned it (inaudible) or with special permit. Mr. Kennedy: That wasn't his question. Mr. Van Fossen: No. Ms. McCulley: What was your question? Mr. Van Fossen: The planned subdivision, a planned subdivision that you come in there and divide it up into one acre lots if they 5 wanted to. Ms. McCulley: They would have to rezone it. To do anything under two acres they would have to rezone it. So they could if they got the rezoning approved. Do you want me to put his plans on the board, would that be a good idea? The other schemes. Mr. Van Fossen: No, I am impressed with the idea really, well I guess I better save that until the time. Mr. Kennedy: Well, is there anybody here in opposition to this hearing. Mr. Ackroyd: Is there public comment available on this? Mr. Kennedy: Yes. Are you here in favor or opposition. Mr. Ackroyd: I am here on another matter. I am actually your second person on the agenda, however I live less than a mile from this site on that same road. I have, I own my residence and have been there for over five years. Let's face reality, that area out there is going to be high priced residential and no one will ever invest the money in that land to farm it. It hasn't been farmed for thirty years or better, and the growth on it is, demonstrates that. And as a neighbor to what they are proposing doing, what they want to do makes a lot of sense. It is going to preserve a lot more rural character. And if they go in with their by-rights you are going to have what is going to look like a little cluster there and then one-21 acre parcel and you know they are not going to be 12 acre gentlemen farms, they are just going to be residences. But as a neighbor, I would much prefer seeing what they are proposing than seeing a cluster of homes on 2 acre lots and then a 21 acre parcel. You know I could comment on the zoning ordinance and I don't care to do that, but as a neighbor to that I would much prefer seeing what they are proposing. Mr. Kennedy: Thank you. Alright. Mr. Bailey: (Inaudible) In the original package that came out the plat came out just like that. Is that the plat that they want. Ms. McCulley: I believe so. Mr. Bailey: The four lots. Ms. McCulley: Yes, sir. Mr. Bailey: Just like that. That was that came as the original plat with the original package. I think it is well planned and I certainly go along with the Zoning Administrator's recommendations there on the one dwelling on a lot. I don't understand number 2 if practical the property subdivision shall be designed such that the 6 best soils will be located in one lot. I don't understand that, but I do agree with the four lots. He has provided for four lots there. I so move that. Mr. Kennedy: Well the. Mr. Bailey: You said the public hearing was closed, didn't you. Mr. Kennedy: Yes. If not, we'll close. We are closing now. I think I asked her about that. Would that be the lot that is not used. Mr. Bailey: That takes up the whole thing, I think. Mr. Rennolds: (Inaudible) as long as it is the largest lot. Mr. Kennedy: Well you would almost have, (inaudible) if you are looking at it and you are going to approve this variance based on this plat you would have to know that the best soil was in that one lot. Mr. Bailey: That is the reason that I don't understand it. The Chairman asked you about the best soils are located within one lot. I don't understand that, and the Chairman doesn't either. Is that with this plat up here is the best soils in each lot. I think it is, I have known the property all my life, Jannie Woodson, and I knew her pretty well since 1955. I knew you before that really. All of the land seems to be the same. All that land on the right hand side of the road there. (Inaudible) Mr. Van Fossen: Doesn't this go down to the reservoir. Does it have some reservoir frontage also. Mr. Wortman: Not this parcel. Mr. Van Fossen: This parcel doesn't. Mr. Bailey: This goes on back about a mile and a half past that. Mr. Van Fossen: Is this where the old house was. Mr. Bailey: An old house up on a hill. (Inaudible) Just past that on the right. Mr. Thurston, you might know where he had a bunch of chickens and all of that adjoining that property. It adjoined the road. Ms. McCulley: I don't have a soil's study to show you how the best soils fall on that property, but so I don't know whether the way they've designed it falls into the larger lot. But that's what my recommendation would be that whichever, wherever on the land the best soils fall it be the largest lot because that is the most likely location for somebody to do any kind of crop growing. 7 Mr. Van Fossen: So in other words, you are suggesting where they are putting the sixteen acres that might not be the 16 acres. The 16 acres could be one of the other lots. Ms. McCulley: Right. Mr. Rennolds: The best soil in that lot. Mr. Bailey: Ten or fifteen years ago that land was hayfield. I mean ten years ago, maybe even less than that because Ms. Jannie Woodson had a hayfield and people came there. I think it was Edgar Garwood who came and cut the hay off of it so it doesn't go back that far that you are talking about. I knew him real well. And I think it good land there. Mr. Chairman, I just think it is a good plan that Mr. Currier and the bank has presented a good plan here and if they find out that they can't get it, that it doesn't perk then it is their problem. They have asked for it, and I move that it be approved. Mr. Cogan: Do you want put any conditions on it. Mr. Van Fossen: With the stipulation that the shall consist of number one, the property shall be limited to a total of four (4) lots with no more than one (1) dwelling on each lot. Mr. Kennedy: Why don't you limit to the plat that is submitted. Mr. Bailey: With the plat as submitted and that one stipulation. Mr. Kennedy: Any second. Mr. Rennolds: I will second it. Mr. Van Fossen: Let me make a comment, Mr. Chairman, before we vote on it. Mr. Kennedy: I have a comment, too. Mr. Van Fossen: That if no one has an objection I will vote on this that but I want it noted that you know Mr. Currier and I were business associates for roughly thirty years. And I don't want anyone to think that because of that I am influenced on this piece of property. So if anyone has any objections to my voting on this thing they might raise that. Mr. Kennedy: Well, Mr. Currier is only the executor of the estate and you don't own anything in the estate. Mr. Bailey: That applies to me the same thing. Mr. Currier and I had business dealings. Mr. Kennedy: Well I know Mr. Currier, too. 8 Mr. Van Fossen: Well we were in the same corporation for thirty years though. Mr. Kennedy: Alright, my only comment is that this variance will probably put us in the planning business and probably put us. There is a precedent in a way in that you are taking a particular situation and you are deviating from the ordinance to accommodate something that is probably unique and with certain proffers, if you want to call them that, made by the applicant, which might in themselves be unique. As he pointed out, others would not do that. But you are going to be called on for now to make some decisions because the other people will want similar variances. Mr. Van Fossen: I think that the Board of Supervisors has indicated on their own that they willing to make some changes if you have some proffers too. So this is a case where they are giving up one of their development rights. Mr. Bailey: Maybe so, he has proffered a whole lot, I think. Mr. Rennolds: We have done similar things before. Mr. Kennedy: Alright. O.k. Call role. Ms. Taylor: Mr. Rennolds. Mr. Rennolds: Aye. Ms. Taylor: Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey: Aye. Ms. Taylor: Mr. Van Fossen. Mr. Van Fossen: Aye. Ms. Taylor: Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy: Aye. Mr. Kennedy: O.k. The variance was approved with the following conditions: 1) This property shall be limited to a total of four (4) lots, with no more than (1) dwelling on each lot; and 2) Approval limited to plat as submitted. 9 (--pF ALR4 T&. 144 p L!RGl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning Y'`b .. DATE: October 9, 1992 RE: Variances To Section 10. 3 . 1 This memorandum is generated in response to VA-92-34 Jannie C. Woodson Estate but is also intended to be applied to any similar variance request to §10. 3 . 1. A prior variance was granted to §10. 3 . 1 by the Board of Zoning Appeals, citing perceived deficiencies to the ordinance language. In response the Board of Supervisors amended that section to clarify language and restrict applicability. Section 10. 3 . 1 contains a provision which recognizes that operation of other zoning requirements may conflict with the "31 acre limit" and provides relief without requirement of variance. That is to say, the ordinance language anticipates certain conditions (topographic conditions, etc) that are normally bases for variance and allows modification of the provisions without requirement of variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. It would be difficult to conceive of an argument that this provision "would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property" since application of the regulation would generally produce more lots (This issue was discussed with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors at time of original adoption in 1989. The objective of maintaining as much rural land in tracts of 21 acres or more was determined superior to the increase in lot yield) . Amelia McCulley Page 2 October 9, 1992 Clearly, it is the duty of a trustee to attempt to maximize the interest of the trust, but that does not require that government set aside its laws to serve proprietary interest. A reasonable use of land should be provided by zoning regulation and the operation of §10. 3 . 1 provides reasonable use of land. Finally, the requirements of the Rural Area zone and subdivision ordinance are so intertwined as to discuss one without the other is difficult. However, recommended condition #2 of VA-92-34 proposes Zoning Administrator approval of subdivision design. I do not believe the Zoning Administrator has any authority under the subdivision ordinance and that Planning is not obliged to sign any design approved by the Zoning Administrator. RS K/j cw