Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300008 Action Letter 1993-04-15 OF AL%p[. 4741t,©1=. RciN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April 15, 1993 The New Green Mountain Baptist Church do Theodore N. Gardner Route 1, Box 205 Esmont, VA 22937 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-93-08; Tax Map 128A1, Parcel 26 Dear Mr. Gardner: 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-93-08, subject to the following condition: 1) Building official review of proper anchoring to reduce any potential safety hazard due to structure collapse. This variance approval allows relief from Section 4.10.3.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the setback required for structures 68 feet in height from 68 to 40 feet from the front property line and to 63 feet from the side property line. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Atbd-f-e_ C� Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Inspections STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 4/14/93 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-08 OWNER/APPLICANT: New Green Mountain Church TAX MAP/PARCEL: 128A1-26 ZONING: RA ACREAGE: 1.205 acres LOCATION: On Route 627 about one-half mile north of its intersection with Route 6 REQUEST: The applicant proposes to add a 34-foot tall fiberglass steeple to an existing church. The total height of church and steeple would be 68 feet. Section 4. 10. 3 . 1 of the Ordinance requires that steeples be set as far back from property lines as they are tall. The applicant requests relief from Section 4 . 10. 3 . 1 in order to allow the steeple to be erected 40 feet from the front property line and 63 feet from the side property line. A copy of the applicant's justification was provided in the Board's packet. A summary follows: Hardship The strict application and interpretation of the ordinance would produce several hardships. The steeple is phase 2 of a renovation that began over three years ago. The steeple was designed to complement the changes made to the facade in phase 1. A steeple that would comply with County regulations would be incompatible with the renovated building. The building would also be incomplete without the steeple. The second hardship concerns the shape of the lot. The church was built, on an oddly shaped piece of land, before zoning existed in the County. Uniqueness of Hardship Other churches in the area are located on larger lots and set back farther from the roadway. The community is primarily residential, so there are no structures such as silos that would not comply with the height regulations. Character of the Area Authorizing the variance would not be detrimental to adjacent properties. It is very unlikely that the structure would fall, because the steeple would be fiberglass and anchored as recommended by the manufacturer. The steeple would be beautiful and would complement the renovated church and portico. If the structure should fall, it would fall mostly on the applicant's property. RELEVANT HISTORY: The church was built before zoning existed in the County. In 1989, the church received a variance to allow the portico to be built 24 feet from the right-of-way of Route 627. VA-93-08 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department has reviewed this request and made the following comment: "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 to be the subject of variance" . The Zoning Administrator has consulted with the County Attorney, who has stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals has the statutory authority to hear and act on this request. It is particularly appropriate for the BZA to hear this request because no site plan has been, or needs to be, submitted to the Commission for approval. Furthermore, this request arises from a pre-existing condition that creates a hardship. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The church and lot predate zoning in the County. Given the location of the building, the church cannot purchase more land to make the steeple conform. Nor can the steeple be moved back along the roofline, because the triangular shape of the lot would make the steeple more non- conforming along the side setback. A steeple appears to be an indispensable architectural feature to most churches. Without a variance, the church could erect only a six-foot tall steeple. Given the dictionary's definition of steeple as a "tall tower", a structure only six feet tall would not even qualify as a steeple. 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. Other properties in that area are larger and rectangular. 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. Staff agrees with the applicant's assertion that a steeple of the height proposed would complement the structure and in turn, the neighborhood. With proper anchoring, the steeple should present no safety hazards to motorists. This Department has received no letters of objection to this request. Should you approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Building official review of proper anchoring to reduce any potential safety hazard due to structure collapse. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE �oy A 4 14 1011 -4 �'fRGIN1P 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. VA-93-05 Joseph B. Orlick: to reduce side yard from 25 to 7 feet. 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. 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 feet; building #2 to 5 feet; building #3 to 10 feet. �,e,t k) g -+ to reduce setback required Oketi 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 stamp) that the structure has been located accordingly. Zero foot 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