Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300005 Action Letter 1993-04-14 Aoo ALN ��RGlN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April 15, 1993 Joseph B. Orlick HCR 1, Box 1 Farlysville, VA 22936 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-93-05; Tax Map 31, Parcel 38C Dear Mr. Orlick: This letter is to inform you that on April 14, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5:0) approved your request for VA-93-05, subject to the following condition: 1) Addition shall be limited to the 23 X 12 foot expansion sketched by the applicant, no portion of which shall come closer then seven (7) feet to the side property line. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side setback from twenty-five (25) to seven (7) feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Inspections i STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 4/14/93 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-05 OWNER/APPLICANT: Joseph B. Orlick TAX MAP/PARCEL: 31-38C ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4 . 606 LOCATION: On west side of Route 663 just north of its intersection with Route 743 REQUEST: In order to place a 276-square foot addition seven feet from a side property line, the applicant requests relief from Section 10.4. This section requires houses to lie at least 25 feet from side property lines. The applicant' s justification includes the following: Hardship This circa 1820 home has limited closet space, baths and a poor laundry area. The house was built close to the property line. On the opposite side of the master bedroom is a porch and a large tree. Uniqueness of Hardship The house was built unusually close to both the front and rear property lines. Character of the Area The adjacent property is situated such that the dwelling is far from the house in question and the property line is next to a drive that is buffered by a stand of trees. RELEVANT HISTORY: The house was built before zoning existed in the County. The lot also pre-dates zoning: no acreage has been divided off since side setbacks were adopted with zoning in 1969 . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department has reviewed this request and made the following comment: "Yard requirements, among other things, are intended to provide fire safety. Recommend that analysis of this request should be in accord with Section 4 . 11. 3 and that appropriate fire agencies be consulted" . Staff has requested that the Fire Officer review this request and recommends conditioning approval on his review and approval. The house is within four miles of the Earlysville Fire Station in accordance with 4 . 11. 3 . 1(a) . As are all structures covered by building permits, this addition will be constructed in accordance with Table 401, Fire Resistance Ratings of the BOCA code. • VA-93-005 Page 2 The applicant's house contains about 1600 square feet. It was built in 1820, without consideration for modern conveniences such as closets and laundry rooms. There is no space within the house that could be converted to these uses without compromising the historical integrity of the interior, which was recently restored. Adding onto the back of the house would require a variance and could require relocating the well. Adding onto the northern facade would involve removing several large boxwoods, a large tree about two feet in diameter and relocating a power line. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Both the house and the lot pre-date the ordinance. Restricting old houses to their original floor space could be a hardship if it denies the owner such common conveniences as closets and laundry rooms. 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 house was built unusually close to two property lines. 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. The property to the south is a two-acre parcel with one house located toward the rear of the property. Given the size of the lot and the location of the house, it is unlikely that reducing the setback in this case would affect the privacy of the owner of parcel 5C. Despite the rural areas zoning, the character of the district more closely resembles a village, with houses clustered relatively close to the road. This Department has received no letters of objection to this request. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Review and approval by Fire Officer before a building permit shall be issued. 2 . Addition shall be limited to the 23 x 12-foot expansion sketched by the applicant, no portion of which shall come closer than seven feet to the side property line. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OF AL �'�RGIIy�P MEMORANDUM TO: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning DATE: March 29 , 1993 RE: Variance Comments The following comments are offered without review of all files or field inspection: VA-93-03 Mt. Ararat Lodge: to reduce front setback from 75 to 49 feet and rear setback from 35 to 26 feet. Due to the shape of the lot, this variance would appear appropriate. RA setback and yard requirements are intended to maintain a rural character and to provide fire separation. Prior to 1976, front setback was 30 feet and rear yard was 35 feet in depth. VA-93-04 Kroger Company: to increase height of a wall sign from 20 to 27 feet. This does not appear to be a request for, increased sign area, but configuration. Dimensions of Kroger sign at Hydraulic/Route 29 should be investigated. The sign provisions, adopted in July, 1992, were intended to be reasonable and to avoid variance. The BZA is entreated to be cautious in granting variances which would set precedent to undermine the sign regulations. } nv� to reduce side yard from 25 to 7 feet. 'ar• requiremen s, among other things, are intended to • provide fire safety. Recommend that analysis of this request should be in accord with Section 4. 11. 3 and that appropriate fire agencies be consulted. VA-93-06 Monticello Oil Company: to reduce setback from Route 631 from 30 to 8 feet for a proposed canopy; to reduce setback from Route 631 to Route 650 form 30 to 2 and 5 feet respectively for a proposed containment dike and recently constructed 4,000 gallon replacement kerosene tank; to reduce setback from Route 650 from 30 to 10 feet for a loading dock to remain as constructed. New construction was done with no building permits or other County approvals, but was at the direction of some state Amelia McCulley March 29, 1993 Page 2 agency. This agency should be contacted as to the particulars of this case. Appropriate fire agencies should be consulted as to safety issues of volatile fluids in such close proximity to a heavily traveled public road. If recommended by such agencies, kerosene tank should be relocated for safety purposes or possibly protected by collision structure. VA-93-07 Keswick Corporation: to reduce front setback from 25 feet on internal private road as follows: building #1 to 21 � g feet; building #2 to 5 feet; building #3 to 10 feet. pee/ VA-93-08 New Green Mountain Church: to reduce setback required for structures 68 feet in height from 68 to 40 feet ( front) and 63 feet (side) . Presumably, this is a variance from the requirements of Section 4. 10. 3 , which places this decision in the hands of the Planning Commission. I have expressed concern in the past and reiterate here, that when the zoning ordinance specifies the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, Public Recreation Facilities Authority, Board of Supervisors, or various other governmental agencies/staff with authority to decide an issue, it is inappropriate for such provision the be subject of variance. I do not believe under the language of the Code, the BZA is authorized to grant variance from procedural or administrative matters. VA-93-09 Mark Deaton: to reduce front setback from Route 626 from 75 go 40 feet for installation of gas pumps of gas pumps. As I understand, this variance is for reinstallation of gas pumps farther back from the public road and outside of the James River floodplain. During development of the 1980 zoning map, staff had recommended that existing Country stores be afforded C-1 Commercial zoning. If that had been the case, thus variance would be unnecessary. VA-93-10 Dennis and Jane Sigloh: to create a lot with no backup septic field. As cited in VA-93-08 , the zoning ordinance (Section 4. 2. 5) places this decision in the hands of the Planning Commission, and I do not believe is appropriate to variance by the BZA. I have viewed this property and reviewed Mr. E. 0. Gooch' s letter. Should the BZA choose to grant variance it is strongly recommend that easement be provided on the parent tract for a replacement drainfield. Reasons for this recommendation are as follows: Amelia McCulley March 29, 1993 Page 3 1) This property is situated in a reservoir watershed which heightens health concerns should the existing field malfunction. 2) Once the property is in divided ownerships, discontinue of use of the older home ( in the event of septic system failure) would be more difficult in terms of reasonable use of the land. In an undivided state, the owner would continue to enjoy residential use of the new dwelling. 3) Providing such easement would not be a hardship or otherwise excessive condition. To the contrary it could be viewed as "insurance" to the Sigloh daughter should she wish to sell the property or should her parents sell their property. 4) Providing such easement would allow the division and would (to an extent) satisfy the intent of Section 4.1 and 4. 2. No construction would be necessary until failure of the existing drainfield. VA-93-11 Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation: to increase area of temporary event sign from 32 to 84 square feet and to increase the time period from 15 to 315 days. VA-93-12 Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation: to increase the size of a temporary event sign from 32 to 266 square feet and to increase time period from 15 to 315 days. 1) VA-93-12 has not been signed by the property owner; 2) VA-93-12 includes request that the authorized time period be 21 times the length of time specified by the ordinance. Under such circumstances, it may be more appropriate to treat that sign as an "off-site advertising sign" which can only be authorized by issuance of a special use permit; 3 ) The sign under VA-93-11 is about three times the sign area allowed in the RA zone. The sign in VA-93-12 is about 2 1/2 times the size of the largest sign allowed in commercial zoned; Amelia McCulley March 29 , 1993 Page 4 4) To grant the requested variance to sign area could be deemed as acknowledgement that the maximum area permitted by the newly adopted sign provisions is inadequate. If temporary display is employed to justify this factor, then why not allow all temporary signs to be 266 square feet as opposed to 32 square feet. That is to say, if a hardship exists due to setback from the roadway as to the ability of a traveler to receive the message, then such hardship would presumably exist for any other signs similarly situated (i.e. - compare location from public roads to VA-93-04) . VA-93-13 University Commons Condominiums: to reduce setback from Route 656 from ten feet to zero feet. The new sign provisions were intended to provide more reasonable setback provisions to reduce the number of variance requests. The question her is simple: Is the proposed sign readable at the required setback? If not, then setback should be reduced only to the extent necessary for the sign to be readable. Virginia Department of Transportation should verify that no additional right-of-way will be necessary along Georgetown Road for future improvements. A zero foot setback for any structure should always be conditioned upon verification by the applicant' s surveyor (including foot dngamp) that the structure has been located accordingly. setbacks simply invite neighbor disputes in the future and should only be granted under the most extreme circumstances. It would be very difficult for a property owner to demonstrate that a one or two foot setback (i.e - some margin of error) would constitute a hardship. RSK/mem/blb