Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300009 Action Letter 1993-04-29 ,s4IOFALI 9 1N.:1Z3,GICO" COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April 29, 1993 Mark's Market do Mark Deaton General Delivery Howardsville, VA 24562 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 139A, Parcel 12B Dear Mr. Deaton: This letter is to inform you that on April 28, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (3:0) approved your request for VA-93-09. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front setback from the state road from 75 to 40 feet for the construction of fuel pumps. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P Zoning Administrator AGM/sp STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: April 28, 1993 STAFF REPORT VA 93-09 OWNER / APPLICANT: Mark Deaton T/A Mark's Market TAX MAP / PARCEL: 139A / 12B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1.440 acres LOCATION: In Howardsville, on the north side of Route 626 near the public boat landing. REQUEST: To reduce the front setback from Route 626 from 75 feet to 40 feet, for the construction of fuel pumps. This request is for a reduction of 35 feet and involves Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant intends to locate three tanks: gasoline, diesel and kerosene. The dispensers will be located adjacent to the tanks. They will be located in essentially the same location as the pumps and tanks which were there until recently, when the current owner had them removed upon purchase of the property from the Babers. He did so out of concern for any possible water and/or soil contamination, due to the age of the tanks. Hardship: There are several circumstances which create a hardship. They are as follows: 1. The tanks were removed in good faith, with environmental concerns in mind; 2. It was not known that once the tanks were removed, they could not be simply replaced; 3. The property is constrained in several ways: a. There is a notable area of floodplain. b. Immediately behind the proposed tanks, the property rises sharply. It would involve significant cut to achieve any acceptable grade. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-09 Page 2 Uniqueness of Hardship: 1. The nearest fuel is approximately 10 miles away; 2. This store is very close to the public boat landing. It is a daily request from numerous people, that fuel be available. 3. Fuel sales are necessary to draw business, which is otherwise slow. Character of the Area: Because the pumps were so recently here, there would be no material change. Also, pumps in and of themselves would no change the character of the area. RELEVANT HISTORY: This site was previously known as "Baber's Store." It was built prior to zoning, and therefore does not have a special permit or site plan. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff has commented: "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." Staff is not aware of any other requests for fuel sales at an existing store which until recently had fuel sales. It is likely that this may recur, due to the State Water Control Board regulations for underground fuel storage tanks. The proximity to a public boat landing and the distance from other fuel sales further distinguish this request and make it unique. The topography, size and shape of the property create a hardship for compliance with the front setback. All other setbacks can be met. In addition, staff does not foresee any circulation difficulties based on the proposed proximity to the road. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-09 Page 3 Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. For the reasons mentioned in the preceding, it would be a hardship of proportions greater than economic or convenience for the applicant. It would continue what is a hardship for the general public, in their utilization of a public area. 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. For the reasons stated in the preceding, this is undoubtedly unique and can be distinguished from other cases. There are no properties in the same vicinity which suffer this hardship. 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 can envision no substantial change to the character of the district, and no detrimental impact on the adjacent property. The circulation as it relates to the road setback is easily managed onsite. • COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE �pg AL� ��RGIN�i;V 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. 'Elea S keeL5s -' 061 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. 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