Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200035 Action Letter 1992-10-21 ��•n 'i�"; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 October 21, 1992 David and Carolyn C. Holmes 18 Deer Path Road, Bellair Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 76C, Parcel 02-02 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Holmes: 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) approved your request for VA-92-35 as submitted. This variance approval allows relief from Section 13 . 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to replace an existing deck with an expanded master bedroom by reducing the side setback from 15 to 9 feet, a variance of 6 feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, AINA(e- Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Inspections Department MINUTES OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS October 20, 1992 The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held a special meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 1992 in Meeting Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were Carl Van Fossen, Vice-Chairman; Richard Cogan, William Rennolds, George Bailey, and Max C. Kennedy, Chairman. Staff present were Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator and Babette Thorpe, Zoning Assistant. George St. John, County Attorney, was present. As a quorum was established, the meeting convened at 3 : 00 p.m. Mr. Kennedy stated that anyone aggrieved by a decision of the board could appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. B. The first item before the board was VA-92-35, David and Carolyn Holmes - Tax Map 76C2, Parcel 2. Ms. Thorpe read the staff report as follows: "STAFF REPORT - VA-92-35 OWNER/APPLICANT: David L. and Carolyn C. Holmes TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76C2-2 ZONING: R1, Residential ACREAGE: 1. 391 LOCATION: End of Deer Path Road in Bellair Subdivision REOUEST: In order to expand a master bedroom and bath in an existing house, the applicant seeks relief from Section 13 . 3 , which requires that side yards in R-1 zoning districts be 15 feet. The addition, which would measure approximately 15 x 30 feet and lie nine feet from the side property line, a variance of six feet. The expansion would replace a deck. Copies of the applicants' justification have been mailed to members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The following is a summary: Hardship 1 The house, which was built 20 years ago for a bachelor, is too small for a family of four. When the house was a second residence for the Holmes, its inadequacies were not so noticeable; now that they live in it full-time, they have discovered that they need bigger bedrooms, bathrooms and more storage space. Given the layout of the house, the drainage field, trees and slopes, the area they have chosen is the only practical location for the expansion. Without the expansion, the house would be very difficult to sell. Uniqueness of Hardship Most of the lots in Bellair are larger, with greater frontage and width. An additional problem they face is the topography - the entire lot slopes from the highway at the rear down to a wet-weather stream. Character of the Area The lot is heavily wooded and the applicants intend to maintain the wooded buffer on all sides of the property. The adjacent lot is vacant and wooded. If someone were to build on this lot, there would be plenty of space to position a house without being affected by the proposed addition. The addition would not be visible from other houses in the area. RELEVANT HISTORY: The house was built in 1970. The Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time called for side setbacks of ten feet. The side setback for this zoning district changed to 15 feet with the 1980 Ordinance. The interior of the house measures approximately 2800 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicant that this request meets the third criterion 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. As long as the applicant maintains the wooded buffer between their lot and lot 1, the proposed addition meet this criterion. None of the adjacent property owners has objected to this request. Staff also agrees with the applicant that, given the interior layout of the house and the site's topography, the location chosen by the applicant is the most practical for an expansion. Staff also agrees with the applicant that the house's interior layout may not be ideal for a family of four. However, staff has traditionally held the opinion that most expansions, except in the case of very small houses, are matters of convenience rather than necessity, leaving the hardship criteria unsatisfied. 2 Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. 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. " Ms. Thorpe handed out copies of letters favoring the variance request from Hartwell W. Priest and Jeanne M. Ward. Mrs. Carolyn Holmes, owner, was present to speak for the application. She presented a model of the house showing the proposed addition. She commended Babette Thorpe of the Zoning Department for her outstanding assistance. Mr. Van Fossen asked why the addition could not be placed on the rear of the house, and Ms. Holmes pointed out that they proposed an addition to the rear and then the slope was steep. Mr. Cogan asked if the side yard requirement had changed since 1981, and Ms. Thorpe stated that it had since the requirement was previously 10 feet. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Cogan felt that the applicant met three of the four criteria in that the hardship was not shared by others, the unusual shape of the lot, and since the house was built with different setbacks. Motion was offered by Mr. Van Fossen for approval of VA-92-29 based on the undue hardship as discussed, and seconded by Mr. Bailey. The roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote. Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mr. Bailey - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Aye Mr. Cogan - Aye Mr. Kennedy - Aye The variance was granted (5:0) . STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 10/20/92 STAFF REPORT - VA-92-35 OWNER/APPLICANT: David L. and Carolyn C. Holmes TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76C2-2 ZONING: R1, Residential ACREAGE: 1. 391 LOCATION: End of Deer Path Road in Bellair Subdivision REQUEST: In order to expand a master bedroom and bath in an existing house, the applicant seeks relief from Section 13 . 3 , which requires that side yards in R-1 zoning districts be 15 feet. The addition, which would measure approximately 15 x 30 feet and lie nine feet from the side property line, a variance of six feet. The expansion would replace a deck. Copies of the applicants' justification have been mailed to members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The following is a summary: Hardship The house, which was built 20 years ago for a bachelor, is too small for a family of four. When the house was a second residence for the Holmes, its inadequacies were not so noticeable; now that they live in it full-time, they have discovered that they need bigger bedrooms, bathrooms and more storage space. Given the layout of the house, the drainage field, trees and slopes, the area they have chosen is the only practical location for the expansion. Without the expansion, the house would be very difficult to sell. Uniqueness of Hardship Most of the lots in Bellair are larger, with greater frontage and width. An additional problem they face is the topography - the entire lot slopes from the highway at the rear down to a wet-weather stream. Character of the Area The lot is heavily wooded and the applicants intend to maintain the wooded buffer on all sides of the property. The adjacent lot is vacant and wooded. If someone were to build on this lot, there would be plenty of space to position a house without being affected by the proposed addition. The addition would not be visible from other houses in the area. RELEVANT HISTORY: The house was built in 1970. The Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time called for side setbacks of ten VA-92-35 Page 2 feet. The side setback for this zoning district changed to 15 feet with the 1980 Ordinance. The interior of the house measures approximately 2800 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicant that this request meets the third criterion 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. As long as the applicant maintains the wooded buffer between their lot and and lot 1, the proposed addition meet this criterion. None of the adjacent property owners has objected to this request. Staff also agrees with the applicant that, given the interior layout of the house and the site's topography, the location chosen by the applicant is the most practical for an expansion. Staff also agrees with the applicant that the house's interior layout may not be ideal for a family of four. However, staff has traditionally held the opinion that most expansions, except in the case of very small houses, are matters of convenience rather than necessity, leaving the hardship criteria unsatisfied. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. 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.