HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300010 Action Letter 1993-04-29 4,ov ALBFt
�%RGtNtP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
April 29, 1993
Marilynn Gale
Roudabush, Gale & Associates
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
Dennis and Jane Sigloh
Tax Map 41, Parcel 44A
Dear Ms. Gale:
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-93-10,
subject to the following condition:
1) Recordation of an instrument which would provide area on the residue
or adjoining property, as a full reserve septic easement. Noting that
Mr. St. John would review the submittal in the Planning Department.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 4.2.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to reduce the requirement for the creation of a lot with a building site including a full
100% reserve septic field. The applicants proposed to do a family subdivision with an existing
house on a proposed two (2) acre lot, with no (0%) septic reserve.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
ao&
Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C. .
Zoning Administrator
AGM/sp
STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: April 28, 1993
STAFF REPORT VA 93 - 10
OWNER / APPLICANT: Dennis B. and Jane E. Sigloh
TAX MAP / PARCEL: 41 / 44A
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 22.78 acres
LOCATION: On the north side of Route 614 (Owensville Road), across from
the intersection with Route 675 to Lake Albemarle.
REOUEST:
The applicants request a variance to reduce the requirement for the creation of a lot with a
building site including a full 100$ reserve septic field. They propose to do a family
subdivision with an existing house on a proposed 2 acre lot, with no (0%) reserve. The
house under construction on the proposed 20.124 acre residue has full primary and reserve
field area.
Hardship:
The owners are in the process of building a new house on the proposed residue. They wish
to sell the existing house to their daughter, and were not aware that the soils in that area
were not suitable for a drainfield under current Health Department regulations. Any area on
the property suitable for a drainfield site on the residue is more than 600 feet away, and
would require pumping.
Uniqueness of Hardship:
There was no problem in finding suitable drainfield area for the Sigloh's house under
construction. There are numerous other houses on this road, and we have no knowledge of
this problem on adjacent properties.
Character of the Area:
Granting the variance would permit the Siglohs to sell the existing house and 2 acres of land
to their daughter. Otherwise, they will most likely have to rent the house. Allowing
ownership of this house will have a beneficial effect on this and surrounding properties as
owners occupying the house will take care not to overload the existing septic system, and
may be willing to invest in new technology to prolong the life of the existing drainfield.
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-10
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff has commented: "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 Board of Zoning Appeals. I have viewed this property and
reviewed Mr. E. O. Gooch's letter. Should the BZA choose to grant variance it is strongly
recommended that easement be provided on the parent tract for a replacement drainfield.
Reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
1) This property is situated in a reservoir watershed which heightens
health concerns should the existing field malfunction.
2) One 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.
This portion of the building site requirement for subdivision may be varied or modified by
either the B.Z.A. or the Planning Commission, in my opinion. It was the applicant's
decision to seek review by the Board of Zoning Appeals, thinking that this is a unique
hardship. I am not aware of any other Planning Commission or variance request to
completely waive the requirement for a secondary or reserve septic field. This Board recalls
cases were the request was to reduce it to some proportion, such as 50 or 75%, and usually
in the case of an existing lot upon which someone wished to build.
This situation does appear to meet part of criteria number 2:
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.
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-10
Page 3
Staff is unaware of any properties in this area with the same soil limitations. There are
countless cases elsewhere, such as Schuyler, of existing homes without adequate septic
reserve in the Rural Areas district.
Staff offers these observations/comments:
1. This property is located within a reservoir watershed.
2. Homes in this area are on private wells, and not public drinking water. There are other
homes in the immediate vicinity. It is a conclusionary concern that any failed septic
system on this property not negatively impact area drinking water.
3. The State Code and local ordinance not only endorses, but supports by decreased
regulation, family subdivision. It is part of this country's heritage that family is carried
on through the generations. Property conveyed by family subdivision need only stay
within the family for one year.
4. It is our continued position that subdivision is not a right in every case. Some property,
for various reasons and sometimes regardless of size, is marginal for development. In
this case for example, it provides fewer options and more complications if the property is
under different ownership and the septic system fails. Innovative techniques, such as
alternative treatment systems, have not yet been approved in Albemarle for individual
homes.
Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause:
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance
would produce undue hardship.
It would be a hardship at some level for the daughter not to enjoy fee-simply ownership.
There may be some other ownership arrangements that could be arranged, should she want to
live in the existing house. Also, what of dividing off a lot elsewhere on the property for
construction of a new house or relocation of this one?
3. The applicant has not 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.
There are no proffers of conditions which would protect area water supplies, in the event of
septic failure.
STAFF REPORT - VA-93-10
Page 4
Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following
condition:
1. Recordation of an instrument which would provide area on the residue or adjoining
property, as a full reserve septic easement.
•
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
oFAL,ec_
��RGIN�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.
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'e'` .7,A6 k 3 -
01-4/
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.
x.= to create a lot with no backup
septic field. As cited in VA-` 3-08, 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