Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300022 Action Letter 1993-06-09 oo AL -4iore,"4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 June 09, 1993 Kirk Hughes, L.S. Kirk Hughes & Associates 220 E. High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-93-22; Margie B. Herndon Tax Map 99, Parcel 36 Dear Mr. Hughes: This letter is to inform you that on June 08, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (5:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-22. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the frontage required from 250 to 158 feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely�,� gac��'�:.r 't Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Margie B.-Herndon STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 6/8/93 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-22 OWNER/APPLICANT: Margie B. Herndon TAX MAP/PARCEL: 99-36 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 185.476 LOCATION: On the west side of Route 712 about two-tenths mile south of its intersection with the railroad. REQUEST: In order to divide five acres for an existing house from the 185-acre parcel, 11 -- ,-}p,� ,-o1 4 A f from Section 10.4 of the Albemar 0( O1' 7-ae" Lin Zi This section requires 250 feet oqu4 cak_ 42,40114 /(pke _ Dad; the newly created lot would hay 6 /5 �f/vi ,c� /I The applicant's 'ust. 0/9-Didi�'C� .�,�,cbu-vdei z : J g C{ ktigett au c .iyA,cc,,,e A lot containing the l #�jfac . 'en the frontage conditions. (� 0 There is no property /eloped as this parcel is without ha' The frontage condition has existed since 1976. RELEVANT HISTORY: In 1973, Mrs. Herndon subdivided her property, ' giving a two-acre parcel to her daughter. Her daughter built a house in 1973 and in 1976, Mrs. Herndon built her house on the remaining property near her daughter. Under the zoning ordinances in effect until 1980, the frontage required along public roads was 150 feet. Had Ms. Herndon subdivided her property before December of 1980, she could have done so without a variance. RECOMMENDATION: Without this variance, Mrs. Herndon would have to do one of two things in order to create a smaller lot surrounding her home: 1) She could carve out a much larger parcel, with 250 feet of frontage on the south side of her daughter's lot. This would result in a large, oddly shaped lot that could be difficult to sell in the future. In addition, such a lot would undermine Sec. 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which prohibits creating oddly shaped lots VA-93-22 Page 2 merely to satisfy frontage requirements. It is also unlikely that the additional land would contain a satisfactory building site, given the streams criss-crossing the property, one of which carries a 100-foot setback requirement. 2) She could share a driveway with her daughter, which would allow the frontage to be measured along the driveway instead of the public road. In that case, only 150 feet of frontage would be required. This alternative would also require a variance, because her daughter's house would lie too close to the private easement required for the driveway. The location of Mrs. Herndon's well between the two driveways would also complicate sharing an easement. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Without this variance, no practical alternative exists to allow Mrs. Herndon to divide the land her house is on from the bulk of her property. 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. There are no properties in the immediate vicinity that have been developed and not subdivided. 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. There will be no change to the character of the district because the property is already developed: the houses, entrances and driveways will remain as built. Both entrances have at least 300 feet of sight distance in both directions. This Department has received no letters of objection to this request.