The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199300006 Application 1993-03-15 County of Albemarle' Department of Zon 3 401 McIntire Roaa Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060 VA- q3- 040 DATE: .3)15 93 FEE: $95. 00 RI STAFF: VARIANCE APPLICATION OWNER (as currently listed in Real Estate) Name Monticello Oil Company Phone (804 ) 977 - 8497 Address 1061 East Rio Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901 APPLICANT (if different from above) Name See Above Phone ( ) - Address CONTACT PERSON (if different from above) Name Steven W. Blaine Phone ( ) - McGuire, Woods Battle & Boothe Day Phone (804 ) 977 - 2588 P.O. Box 1288 Address Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 LOCATION: Tax Map Parcel 61-151A; 1061 East Rio Road PLEASE PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION OF YOUR REQUEST ON THE BACK OF THIS SHEET. OFFICE USE ONLY (oiaVC p lacard0 TAX MAP (p 1 , PARCEL /5/A ; TM , P ; TM , P ZONED: (_— 1 ORDINANCE SECTION: 21 . 7 . Board of Zoning Appeals Date: j_/thf/y3 (4 Special Permit NIA (✓) Variance NlA (.4 Proffers II BZA AC IO : ArpraY-e wi Ce,.l�i+io�J /, Z A.Jcli 3 As----791e4-6':: 4.,e4'47/c. 2) VA-93-06. Monticello Oil Co (owners) . Property located on the E side of Rio Rd approx . 3 of a mi S of the Huntington Rd-Rio Rd inters, zoned C-1, Commercial. TM61/P151A. Variances to 1) reduce the setback from Rio Rd (rt 631) from 30 to 8 ft for a proposed canopy, 2) to reduce the st'atback from Rt 631 and Rt 650 from 30 to 2 and 5 ft for a proposed ciontainment dike and recently constructed 4, 000 gal. replacement kerosene tank, and 3) to reduce the setback from Rt 650 from 30 to 10 ft for a loading dock to remain ac rnnctrnrtnd Xrc1Y-\ i E DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See Attached Addendum JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE BASED ON THESE THREE (3) CRITERIA: 1) That the strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship. See Attached Addendum 2) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. See Attached Addendum 3) 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. See Attached Addendum The application may be deferred by the staff or the Board of Zoning Appeals, if sufficient information necessary to this review has not be submitted by the deadline. I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 3 93 ,3/is 13 i Signature D to Receipt# D to $ tI ADDENDUM TO VARIANCE APPLICATION MONTICELLO OIL COMPANY ALBEMARLE COUNTY TMP 61-151A I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST. The Owner and Applicant, Monticello Oil Company, operates a facility at the Property for the sale of bulk fuel and retail dispensing. Currently, the bulk sale operations are served through Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) , and the retail dispensing is served through Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) . The Owner plans to eventually remove all USTs and to supply both retail and bulk demands from its ASTs system. ASTs are less likely to create environmental impacts since most of the fuel product is moved or stored above ground, and spills are readily visible and easily accessed. The Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) has issued regulations governing most aspects of AST installations including Oil Discharge Contingency (ODC) Planning under VR 680-14-97 . Included among the ODC plan requirements are new requirements for leak detection of ASTs. To comply with these new requirements, the Applicant plans to, among other things, construct a containment dike. In order to accommodate the containment dike, and meet VWCB specifications, a portion of the dike must be constructed within 30 feet of the proposed right-of- way for Rt. 631 (Rio Road) . This proposal brings into question the applicability of the set-back area required under §21.7 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") . The planned location of the dike and its dimensions are depicted on the attached Plan by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, Ltd. dated March 4 , 1993 (the "Plan") . The containment dike will encircle 4- 14 , 000-gallon ASTs which have been located at the facility since before the adoption of the Ordinance. A 4 , 000-gallon AST (which replaces a former UST used for kerosene storage) also will be within the dike. This 4 , 000-gallon AST already has been installed at the Property as it must be in place before construction of the containment dike can begin. The 4000-gallon AST lies within 30 feet of the proposed public right-of-way for Rt. 631 and within 30 feet of the existing public right-of-way for Rt. 650. A loading platform has been relocated from the front to the rear of the Property due to improvements made by VDOT for the widening of Rt. 631. The loading platform also is within 30 ' of the public right-of-way for Rt. 650. Finally, a canopy is proposed for the convenience of the facility's retail customers. This canopy replaces a former canopy removed by the VDOT improvements. A portion of the proposed canopy would be within 30 ' of the proposed right-of-way for Rt. 631. -v;c ■ Applicant purchased the property in 1988 . Although the improvements for Rt. 631 already have been made within the proposed right-of-way, as depicted on the plan, the Applicant finds no evidence of a grant or deed depicting the Rt. 631 right- of-way boundaries as set forth in the VDOT plans. Therefore, as a matter of legal title, the existing VDOT right-of-way does not include all the VDOT improvements to Rt. 631. Applicant respectfully requests approval of variances to the Ordinance to allow: 1) construction of a containment dike and related improvements, including location of a 4000-gallon AST within 30 ' of the proposed right-of-way for Rt. 631 and the existing right-of-way for Rt. 650; 2) location of a loading dock within 30 ' of the existing right-of-way for Rt. 650; and 3) erection of a service pump canopy within 30 ' of the proposed right-of-way for Rt. 631. II. JUSTIFICATION. 1) Strict application of the Ordinance will produce undue hardship. A strict application of the Ordinance will produce undue hardship due to the substantial decrease in land surface available for Applicant' s operations after the VDOT right-of-way expansion. The area taken by the VDOT right-of-way expansion removes a portion of the most desirable topography, leaving only the extremities of the paved surfaces on the site for the location of the necessary improvements relative to this application. Furthermore, the VDOT right-of-way expansion reduces surface area needed to provide safe traffic flow on the Property. Therefore, a strict application of the ordinance which would prohibit locating the proposed improvements at the extremities of the facility poses an undue hardship. A strict application of the Ordinance would require a secondary containment dike at additional cost and with less protection against environmental impacts. If the 4000-gallon AST is moved from its current location, it will have to be placed on the only remaining available area within the Property -- on the East side. Any other location would further limit the Owner' s traffic flow. Such a relocation to the East side would require a separate area of approximately 800-S.F. for secondary containment. An 800-S.F. structure placed between the existing buildings on the East side would dramatically reduce the Owner' s access to his buildings. If the dike were placed on the East side, the resulting expense to render it stable on the steep slope would be very high. Additionally, piping/dispensing equipment serving the relocated 4000-gallon AST would have to be rerouted and could offer substantially decreased protection against environmental impact if a breach occurred and product runs outside of its secondary containment dike. -2- wrcfl. 2) The hardships discussed above are not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity. The Property is bordered by Rt. 631 (Rio Road) on the West, Rt. 650 on the North and Northeast, and the Southern Railroad Right-of-Way on the East. Rt. 650, although a public right-of- way, is not generally used as a public thorough-fare. As a result of the Property's configuration, over seventy percent (70%) of the Property's boundaries abut public right-of-way. This feature is not shared by other properties within the zoning district. Furthermore, there are no other properties within the zoning district, nor within the vicinity with this type of use. 3) Authorization of the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent property nor will the character of the district be changed by the granting of the variance. The variance request will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. In fact, the dike containment construction will enhance environmental protection and therefore poses a substantial benefit to adjacent property. The relocation of the loading dock and replacement of the canopy will not create any greater impact on adjoining properties or on the character of the district. These improvements only relocate former improvements necessitated by the VDOT right-of- way expansion. swb10312 .req -3- VARIANCE CHECKLIST The current application form must be completed by the applicant in its entirety (the request should be clear) . THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION AND IS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. (Application with justification statement. ( ost recently approved recorded plat. If none exists, then a copy of the deed description for the property or properties involved in the request. (VThe appropriate drawings showing all existing and proposed improvements on the property, with dimensions and distances to property lines, and any special conditions of the property that may justify the request. ( e fee payable to the County of Albemarle. THE ZONING DEPARTMENT WILL PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO THE APPLICANT: (✓) One public notice sign for each roadway and/or road frontage. (/) Instructions for posting signs. ( J) Copy of the review schedule. (Person accepti g application) D e County of Albemarle Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060 VA- DATE: FEE: $95. 00 STAFF: VARIANCE APPLICATION OWNER (as currently listed in Real Estate) Name Monticello Oil Company Phone (804 ) 977 - 8497 Address 1061 East Rio Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901 APPLICANT (if different from above) Name See Above Phone ( ) - Address CONTACT PERSON (if different from above) Name Steven W. Blaine Phone ( ) - McGuire, Woods Battle & Boothe Day Phone (804 ) 977 - 2588 P.O. Box 1288 Address Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 LOCATION: Tax Map Parcel 61-151A; 1061 East Rio Road PLEASE PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION OF YOUR REQUEST ON THE BACK OF THIS SHEET. OFFICE USE ONLY TAX MAP , PARCEL ; TM , P ; TM , P ZONED: ORDINANCE SECTION: Board of Zoning Appeals Date: _/ /_ ( ) Special Permit ( ) Variance ( ) Proffers BZA ACTION: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See Attached Addendum JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE BASED ON THESE THREE (3) CRITERIA: 1) That the strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship. See Attached Addendum 2) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. See Attached Addendum 3) 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. See Attached Addendum The application may be deferred by the staff or the Board of Zoning Appeals, if sufficient information necessary to this review has not be submitted by the deadline. I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature Date Receipt# Date ADDENDUM TO VARIANCE APPLICATION MONTICELLO OIL COMPANY ALBEMARLE COUNTY TMP 61-151A I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST. The Owner and Applicant, Monticello Oil Company, operates a facility at the Property for the sale of bulk fuel and retail dispensing. Currently, the bulk sale operations are served through Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) , and the retail dispensing is served through Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) . The Owner plans to eventually remove all USTs and to supply both retail and bulk demands from its ASTs system. ASTs are less likely to create environmental impacts since most of the fuel product is moved or stored above ground, and spills are readily visible and easily accessed. The Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) has issued regulations governing most aspects of AST installations including Oil Discharge Contingency (ODC) Planning under VR 680-14-97 . Included among the ODC plan requirements are new requirements for leak detection of ASTs. To comply with these new requirements, the Applicant plans to, among other things, construct a containment dike. In order to accommodate the containment dike, and meet VWCB specifications, a portion of the dike must be constructed within 30 feet of the proposed right-of- way for Rt. 631 (Rio Road) . This proposal brings into question the applicability of the set-back area required under §21. 7 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") . The planned location of the dike and its dimensions are depicted on the attached Plan by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, Ltd. dated March 4 , 1993 (the "Plan") . The containment dike will encircle 4- 14, 000-gallon ASTs which have been located at the facility since before the adoption of the Ordinance. A 4, 000-gallon AST (which replaces a former UST used for kerosene storage) also will be within the dike. This 4 , 000-gallon AST already has been installed at the Property as it must be in place before construction of the containment dike can begin. The 4000-gallon AST lies within 30 feet of the proposed public right-of-way for Rt. 631 and within 30 feet of the existing public right-of-way for Rt. 650. A loading platform has been relocated from the front to the rear of the Property due to improvements made by VDOT for the widening of Rt. 631. The loading platform also is within 30 ' of the public right-of-way for Rt. 650. Finally, a canopy is proposed for the convenience of the facility' s retail customers. This canopy replaces a former canopy removed by the VDOT improvements. A portion of the proposed canopy would be within 30 ' of the proposed right-of-way for Rt. 631. Applicant purchased the property in 1988. Although the improvements for Rt. 631 already have been made within the proposed right-of-way, as depicted on the plan, the Applicant finds no evidence of a grant or deed depicting the Rt. 631 right- of-way boundaries as set forth in the VDOT plans. Therefore, as a matter of legal title, the existing VDOT right-of-way does not include all the VDOT improvements to Rt. 631. Applicant respectfully requests approval of variances to the Ordinance to allow: 1) construction of a containment dike and related improvements, including location of a 4000-gallon AST within 30 ' of the proposed right-of-way for Rt. 631 and the existing right-of-way for Rt. 650; 2) location of a loading dock within 30 ' of the existing right-of-way for Rt. 650; and 3) erection of a service pump canopy within 30 ' of the proposed right-of-way for Rt. 631. II. JUSTIFICATION. 1) Strict application of the Ordinance will produce undue hardship. A strict application of the Ordinance will produce undue hardship due to the substantial decrease in land surface available for Applicant's operations after the VDOT right-of-way expansion. The area taken by the VDOT right-of-way expansion removes a portion of the most desirable topography, leaving only the extremities of the paved surfaces on the site for the location of the necessary improvements relative to this application. Furthermore, the VDOT right-of-way expansion reduces surface area needed to provide safe traffic flow on the Property. Therefore, a strict application of the ordinance which would prohibit locating the proposed improvements at the extremities of the facility poses an undue hardship. A strict application of the Ordinance would require a secondary containment dike at additional cost and with less protection against environmental impacts. If the 4000-gallon AST is moved from its current location, it will have to be placed on the only remaining available area within the Property -- on the East side. Any other location would further limit the Owner's traffic flow. Such a relocation to the East side would require a separate area of approximately 800-S.F. for secondary containment. An 800-S.F. structure placed between the existing buildings on the East side would dramatically reduce the Owner' s access to his buildings. If the dike were placed on the East side, the resulting expense to render it stable on the steep slope would be very high. Additionally, piping/dispensing equipment serving the relocated 4000-gallon AST would have to be rerouted and could offer substantially decreased protection against environmental impact if a breach occurred and product runs outside of its secondary containment dike. -2- 2) The hardships discussed above are not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity. The Property is bordered by Rt. 631 (Rio Road) on the West, Rt. 650 on the North and Northeast, and the Southern Railroad Right-of-Way on the East. Rt. 650, although a public right-of- way, is not generally used as a public thorough-fare. As a result of the Property's configuration, over seventy percent (70%) of the Property's boundaries abut public right-of-way. This feature is not shared by other properties within the zoning district. Furthermore, there are no other properties within the zoning district, nor within the vicinity with this type of use. 3) Authorization of the variance will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent property nor will the character of the district be changed by the granting of the variance. The variance request will not be of a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. In fact, the dike containment construction will enhance environmental protection and therefore poses a substantial benefit to adjacent property. The relocation of the loading dock and replacement of the canopy will not create any greater impact on adjoining properties or on the character of the district. These improvements only relocate former improvements necessitated by the VDOT right-of- way expansion. swb10312 .req -3- ALBEMARLE CCUJNTY 4.5�////�////�,U • ."fi,, .23y . , . irillilar / / / `7� Izs / 12a \\'‘411V124 R /�� //�.. eev \SONSiA:pa ✓,�'Pft4cI 1 T' • N— / //� _` !0v 9ERI[ELEY/ N"IOG / / / COMMUNITYi'/B" IN h • SEC TIO h. jik4144 L WW2 (/sllu SECTION 624 Ntr. / /1 �� NORTMFlELDS . M{NOR /'' A®,s/�. ` ;1� \\ y\\�Ea nu/*fit4fIlit l -1 11 ' or ,.t...,.....___= --____._.__ ,.i. :ws. RR \ i �- SECTION 6M'1„, -..... ...\\�`��// /74.- ----1111kkAdr, i� % 4,4111,fOC.• little . '�� ' \` See 61w \�. STFE••-SEC 61h / �� \� ��ji—_ TION61Z-�- -�� • \ ` �wwi RANCHLANOS ,� i< �•1 A I' SE :� iii 4��11 ,.,..� �`\ „ot�= �—�—— -� � �Ti ��I. ,;� / ,' !� Ise �1.144,1%1N‘ ....-44›......„..... ;,== .. ,,,2,,..:::/-, ‘ i 4 ( ,IM.\‘'SIP71 1 41.4% 6I. .. , —_.__---:----.--- , ,i,s' , i ill I.. \ IP 6,(41,� � ` � — , .�� LIFE - 1 n`` ` iGl . _LIMITS _ ,-� I SECTION 61 V • O_ \1 kik _•F !;� X� 16/4 „,,,.*0"...06. , d. 4, -...2_,,,,:: .. —All ' . ,,,, AL,.,,, # /4°A, ` VA-93-06 Monticello Oil Co. ,1,, ,.wv� _ % _`,� � Tax Ma 61 Te i4� ,�� .. tP , Parcel 151A 6 ^��/ 62 tr SECnON eo• L A7ff/lA O F s 67 �,E� v a /= CHARLOTTESVILLE °/ Wes;,_ o. e'/ ay/ iNo,„,...--_, ,/ 44 168 sccno" fI• I 111./---, / cP/2�? JI'I®�444,...w.: p (' am -pH1 IT SEC Ai 'N NEB 11111•11111rArA .7 lappo\ Iiiiiii„ 'IL :t..,0War ' ' *7W[f�'� , 210 SECT• 1.1.111.1111111.11....1111.111 7/ . 4, 1M:111W / ' SC/LE � 1939 71/1\ f7 f JACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND' '" ' ' SECTION 61 CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS