Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300018 Action Letter 1993-06-08 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: June 8, 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA 93-18 OWNER / APPLICANT: Dirk Geerlof DeHooge, Sr. (owner) ; Dirk Geerlof DeHooge, Jr. (applicant) TAX MAP / PARCEL: 31 / 44 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 59 . 95 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Route 743, across from the northern entrance to Earlysville Forest. REQUEST: The owner requests variances in order to subdivide his property for his son. They are as follows: 1) to reduce the lot frontage on an exterior public road from 250 to 235 feet and 2) to reduce the lot width from 250 to 210 feet. The subject property, parcel 44 consists of almost 60 acres and has three points of public road frontage. This is in the area of the southernmost frontage; the middle frontage is between parcels 44D and 44E and consists of 220 feet; and the northernmost frontage involves the most, about 1600 feet of frontage adjacent to parcel 44E. The owners intend to create a 2 acre lot between parcel 44D to the east, and the driveway to parcel 44C to the west. Parcel 44D is owned by another son, Franklin DeHooge, and parcel 44C is owned by an unrelated party. The proposed subdivision has not yet been surveyed and submitted to Planning for approval, pending approval of this variance. The applicant's justification is as follows: UNDUE HARDSHIP These two nonconforming frontages were created in 1973, when parcels 44D and 44E were subdivided and the minimum frontage requirement was 150 feet. The request is for a minimal variance, only 15 feet. The property is in land use with cattle. To subdivide at the other end, where there is sufficient frontage, would cut into the fields. To run the road from there to the proposed building site, would involve a long road which would cut across the fields. UNIQUENESS There are no other properties with large acreage, prior subdivision and little frontage which would not interrupt farming, in this area. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-18 Page 2 CHARACTER OF THE AREA This property is in an area where numerous lots with now- nonconforming frontages, where developed under the prior Ordinance. Therefore, there would be no detrimental impact on the area. RELEVANT HISTORY: There is none in the Zoning Department files. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff has commented on this and the Herndon variance (VA 93-22) : "Both involve properties partially subdivided and developed under and in conformance with prior zoning. The existing conditions (frontage) do not conform to current regulation and cannot be made to conform without redevelopment of access (which may still require variance) . " Based on a field visit, staff recommends that this variance be deferred until additional review has been completed on the proposed subdivision. No comment has been received from the V.D.O.T. or the Health Department. There appears to be a drainage swale which carries discharge from a culvert under the state road. This would limit the area for septic field placement. In addition, this area is moderately rolling topography. Staff questions why the area with the most frontage can not be utilized to create a conforming lot. We are certainly in support of the County's goal of preserving and promoting agricultural use, however; there is no guarantee that if the variance is granted, the residue will remain in agricultural use. Nor is staff aware of any significant damage to the agricultural use on the residue if a residential lot is created along the frontage. Staff concurs with the applicant with respect to criteria #3 . There appear to be about 20 lots within the immediate area which have frontage of less than 250 feet. This is the northernmost property in that situation in this area. Therefore, there should be no detrimental impact on the character of the area. 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 REPORT - VA-93-18 Page 3 However, because other options exist, there are no apparent undue hardships. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. There is area with sufficient frontage in which to create a conforming lot. Or, they could create a lot with a platted joint access easement within this or the other small frontage. 2. The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Staff can not identify extraordinary circumstances or uniqueness, which is not found by properties developed under a prior Ordinance. If the only logical building site is that which is proposed, the prior development of the property would have created unique circumstances.