Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200037 Action Letter 1992-11-11 ,~of ALA 1 8►1..WI trr. __GtN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 November 11, 1992 Duane Ramm P. O. Box 35 Covesville, VA 22931 RE: Variance Application VA-92-37 Tax Map 54 , Parcels 34 and 35 Dear Mr. Ramm: 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) deferred your application for VA-92-37 until their December 8th meeting. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, &di& - 1 e � Amelia G. McCulley, A.I``!C.'P. Zoning Administrator AGM/spr pFAL, ��RG1N�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 December 9, 1992 Duane Ramm P. 0. Box 35 Covesville, VA 22931 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-92-37; Tax Map 54, Parcels 34 and 35 Dear Mr. Ramm: This letter is to inform you that on December 8, 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5:0) approved your request for VA-92-37, subject to the following conditions: 1) Health Department approval of primary and reserve septic fields, to include proposed easements; 2) County Attorney approval of septic easement agreements; 3) Health Department approval of central well, to include description on the plat; and 4) Frontage variances are subject to approval of entrances for location and sight distance, by either Planning staff or the Planning Commission. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to subdivide two (2) parcels with ten (10) existing homes (one (1) to be removed) , into nine (9) lots. Variances to 1) reduce the minimum lot size in Rural Areas district from 2.0 to a range of 0.424 to 1.796 acres; 2) reduce the minimum lot size based on central well and private septic from 60,000 square feet (0.918 acre) for three (3) lots, to 0.424, 0.530 and 0.730 acre; 3) reduce the road frontage from 250 to a range of 112 to 205 feet; 4) reduce the lot widths correspondingly; and 5) reduce the side yard setback for the existing house on lot 7 to the proposed property line, from 25 to 15 feet. December 9, 1992 VA-92-37: RAMM Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, 141---Ce Amelia G. McCul ey, A.I. .P. Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Health Department Roger Ray County Attorney Planning Department STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: December 8, 1992 STAFF REPORT VA-92-37 OWNER/APPLICANT: Duane Ramm TAX MAP/PARCEL: 54 / 34 and 35 ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 10.206 acres total Parcel 34 is 6.906 and parcel 35 is 3 . 3 acres LOCATION: On the northwest corner of the intersection of Route 691 and Route 827 (Beagle Gap Road) , in Greenwood. REQUEST: To subdivide 2 parcels with 10 existing homes (1 will be removed) , into 9 lots. This is to allow each house to have a separate lot, and will make these rental units available for sale. These homes were built prior to zoning in Albemarle County. In order to subdivide, variances from five (5) ordinance sections are necessary. None of the proposed lots will conform to the zoning ordinance. These variances are as follows: 1. (Section 10.4) - A reduction in the minimum lot size in the Rural Areas district from 2.0 acres to a range of 0.424 to 1.796 acres. All nine lots need variances. The resulting acreages are as follows: Lot 1 - 0.530 acres Lot 2 - 0.424 acres Lot 3 - 1. 385 acres Lot 4 - 0.960 acres Lot 5 - 0.730 acres Lot 6 - 1.796 acres Lot 7 - 1.201 acres Lot 8 - 1. 635 acres Lot 9 - 1.540 acres. 2 . (Section 4. 1.3) - A reduction in the minimum lot size based on service by a central well and private septic fields. This is an overall reduction from the required 60, 000 sq. ft. (0.918 acre) to a range of 0.424 to 0.730 acres. There are three lots which need variances. They are as follows: Lot 2 - 0.424 acres Lot 1 - 0. 530 acres Lot 5 - 0.730 acres. 3. (Section 10.4) - A reduction in the minimum road frontage per lot from 250 feet on a public road, or from 150 feet on a private road, to a range of 112 to 205 feet. A total of 6 lots need variances. They are as follows: Lot 1 with 112 feet on Route 827; Lot 2 with 127 feet; Lot 4 with 134 feet on an internal private road; Lot 7 with 122 feet on Route 827; Lot 8 with 205 feet; Lot 9 with 178 feet. Staff Report: VA-J2-37: Ramm Page 2 4 . (Section 4. 6. 1.3) - A reduction in minimum lot width accordingly. This ordinance section requires that the lot width shall be at least the same distance as the frontage required for the district in which such lot is located. 5. (Section 10.4) - A reduction in the minimum side yard setback from 25 to 15 feet for the existing house on lot 7, to the proposed property line. The applicant's justification includes: a. This is a situation of undue hardship. The houses currently on the property were constructed prior to the zoning ordinance. There is no way to comply with the ordinance and place each house on a separate lot. b. This situation is not shared generally; there are no known similar cases in the area. c. The granting of the variance will not change the physical characteristics of the subject property, except the removal of one existing dwelling. Granting the variance will improve the character of the district as it will lead to more single family home ownership. RELEVANT HISTORY: In 1968, the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 68-15 to rezone this property from Al, Agricultural to R1, Residential. In 1980, with the County's comprehensive rezoning, this property was zoned RA, Rural Areas. The main house was constructed in 1900+, according to County Real Estate records. There is A one-room schoolhouse in close proximity to this main house. The other houses were built much later. The house sizes range from about 640 to 1250 square feet. Their structure assessments range from $18, 000 to $50, 000. The homes are served by individual septic fields, which have been field-located. A soil study has been conducted, and has found reserve fields for all 9 homes. Several reserve fields are off- site easements. The 10 homes and 2 adjoining homes are all served by one central well. Another well is proposed to be drilled. The existing and proposed wells fall within the Health Department's review and approval. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION: Several residents who currently rent these homes wish to purchase them. In this general proximity, there are numerous parcels which are smaller than the ordinance requires, due to "grandfathering, " and which are built with more than one residence. Staff Report: VA- 2-37:Ramm Page 3 The property owner, Mr. Ramm does not own adjoining property. Given the location of the existing homes and surrounding development, even if adjoining property could be acquired, it would not substantially improve the situation for most of the homes in the interior of the property. Under the principle of nonconformity, the idea is that over time, those structures or uses (particularly of lesser value or investment) , would be abandoned. The result would be fewer homes, and more conformity on most counts. Once the individual lots are created, that result is significantly less likely. Staff is concerned about the long-term potential for septic failure. Even though septic easements have been platted, several of the lots are small. Staff has considered conditions to address this issue, but discovered none. The fact that one home is being removed will not only decrease the density, but also decrease the load on the land in terms of well and septic. In this and the Flint case, one could apply the reasoning of the Natrella case. This cast (attached) was based on the conversion of rental apartments to condos for ownership. It said that physically identical property has to be treated the same. Another variance case which bears some similarities is that of VA 92-01 for Thomas and Emma Flint. They too had rezoned the property and located the homes in accordance with County regulations. The County's comprehensive rezoning made it impossible for the homes to be subdivided into individual lots without variance. That variance was granted on property currently zoned Village Residential. However, a point of dissimilarity is the lot sizes: the minimum was 0.83 acres, and the range was 0. 83 to 1. 17 acres. ** It is necessary to note that in the event of approval of this variance, compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance is still required. This could include closing or improving existing entrances and / or roads which do not meet minimum standards. To date, no information has been obtained about the sight distance at those entrances belonging to the lots with the road frontage reduction requests. Zoning staff does not intend to imply approval of these, but instead recommends that this be an issue of the subdivision approval to be resolved by the Planning Commission. In other words, it is possible that the Board of Zoning Appeals could find cause to grant these road frontage variances, but the Planning Commission would not grant approval of the entrances. Staff Report: VA-92-37:Ramm Page 4 Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; It seems impractical to limit both the property owner and the residents to rental of the homes. This is particularly evident in light of the facts that this development occurred in accordance with a rezoning, and that the development will be physically identical whether rental or home-ownership. 2. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. This case is unique in that the development was previously approved by rezoning, and then rezoned so as to be nonconforming. 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. Granting this variance would merely formalize an existing situation: everything except the proposed lot lines was approved with the 1968 rezoning. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval of primary and reserve septic fields, to include proposed easements; 2 . County Attorney approval of septic easement agreements; 3 . Health Department approval of central well, to include description on the plat; 4. Frontage variances are subject to approval of entrances for sight distance, by either Planning staff or the Planning Commission. AGM/ �OF ALA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 March 23, 1993 Richard E. Carter Attorney at Law McClure, Callaghan, Carter & Atkins P.O. Box 1333 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Variance 92-37 Duane Ramm Dear Mr. Carter, I have reviewed the situation in response to your letter of March 18th. Based on Mr. Ramm's plan to reduce the number of residences served by the central well, I do not think the Health Department or Engineering Department approvals of flow tests and the like, are necessary. Therefore, the only requirement with regard to the central well is the proper notation on the plat. I am certain that you will execute some form of maintenance agreement. The operative condition is #2 "Health Department approval of central well, to include description on the plat." The location of the central and joint wells should be shown on the plat. I will defer to your judgment as to any other relevant notes or depictions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You will note that Ms. Jan Sprinkle of the Planning Department will receive a carbon copy of this letter, because she will likely be the approving staff member. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulley, .I. .P. Zoning Administrator AGM/ cc: Jan Sprinkle