Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300020 Action Letter 1993-06-09 1 illll`Nl9 ALg�,_ friRGII`Os COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 June 09, 1993 Steve Key P. O. Box 1346 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-93-20, Walter Collins Tax Map 89, Parcel 23A2 Dear Mr. Key: This letter is to inform you that on June 08, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (3:2) denied your request for VA-92-20. Anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Board can appeal their decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, 009-644_ Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Walter Collins Michelle R. Dudley STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 6/8/93 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-20 OWNER/APPLICANT: Walter M. and Ethel Collins TAX MAP/PARCEL: 89-23A2 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 14 .55 LOCATION: Northwest side of Route 706 about two miles southwest of its intersection with Route 631. REQUEST: In order to divide three acres from his larger parcel, Mr. Collins requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This section requires 250 feet of frontage along a public road; the newly created lot would have 230 feet of frontage. The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship The parcels need to exist as separate parcels with separate entrances. To use a common entrance would necessitate a driveway approximately three times as long and would cross a stream at a location that would require a much greater fill. Uniqueness of Hardship This parcel is different from parcels in the immediate vicinity. Character of the Area Mr. Collins owns parcel 23A, the adjoining parcel. At least 13 parcels in the immediate vicinity were created before 1980 and have less than 250 feet of frontage. RELEVANT HISTORY: Parcel 23A2 was created in 1982 ; the house was built in 1983 . The frontage requirement changed from 150 to 250 feet in 1980 with the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Collins also owns the adjoining property, parcel 28A. This parcel measures 12 . 11 acres and is developed with 12 dwellings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees that this request meets one of the three criteria for approval: 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. Many of the lots in the area have less than 250 feet of frontage. According to the applicant's surveyor, the Virginia Department of Transportation has approved an entrance for the proposed lot. VA-93-20 Page 2 This Department has received no letters of objection to this request. However, this request does not meet the hardship criteria, because the applicant could subdivide his property without a variance. His options include: 1) Combining parcel 23A with 23A2, then dividing off the two-acre parcel. This would give Mr. Collins the frontage he needs and bring the density of parcel 23A more closely into compliance with the Ordinance. 2) Adjusting the boundary between Parcel 23A and 23A2 to give the latter more frontage. Parcel 23A appears to have over 270 feet of frontage. The boundary would have to be adjusted without decreasing the acreage of Parcel 23A, or its density would become more non-conforming. 3) Sharing a driveway with his granddaughter, who will own the proposed three-acre parcel. This would require either abandoning Mr. Collins's existing, paved entrance and driveway or extending to serve the new house. Staff would be more inclined to recommend approval if Mr. Collins could find no practical way to subdivide his property without a variance. The Planning Department has reviewed this request and stated that the applicant can "easily conform to zoning and subdivision regulation" by using either of the first two options outlined above. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. There are ways to subdivide the applicant's property that would not require a variance. 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. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1) Any future dwelling on or parcel created from the residue shall share an entrance with the parcel proposed in this variance.