Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300025 Action Letter 1993-07-14 Cho ALek, tzi �RGINIP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060 TDD (804) 972-4012 July 14, 1993 Patrick 0 and Thyrza B. McCauley 1 Hidden Hills Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 45, Parcel 50G1 Dear Mr. and Mrs. McCauley: This letter is to inform you that on July 13, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (4:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-25. This variance approval allows relief from Sections 10.4 and 4.6.1.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the frontage on an exterior public road from 250 to 160 feet and the lot width from 250 to 135 feet for a proposed family subdivision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Ake& At, ,' Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P. Zoning Administrator AGM/sg cc: Lewis Martin Jan Sprinkle, Planning STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 7/13/93 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-25 OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. Patrick O. McCauley and Thyrza B. McCauley TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45-50G1 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4. 080 LOCATION: In Hidden Hills Subdivision, on the east side of Route 743, about 1000 feet south of its intersection with Route 643 . REQUEST: The applicant proposes to redivide two lots originally divided in 1972 and then combined in 1974 . In order to redivide the property, the applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 and 4 . 6. 1. 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Section 10.4 requires that the frontage along public roads be 250 feet and Section 4. 6. 1. 3 requires that the lot be as wide as the frontage needed. The proposed redivision would create two lots with 160 feet of frontage each and 135 feet in width: Mr. McCauley would keep the first lot and his daughter would receive the second one. A summary of the applicant's justification follows. Please see Attachment A for the complete justification and a history of this division. Hardship To change the existing access roads in the accordance with the zoning specifications would cause undue hardship through significant added expense, demolition of mature, established vegetation, destruction of an existing paved driveway, and diminution of privacy for both the McCauleys and their daughter. Because the Real Estate Assessor' s office treated the property as having an additional buildable lot, the McCauleys have been assessed approximately twice what other Hidden Hills Subdivision owners have been assessed for their land. Uniqueness of Hardship No other lot in the Hidden Hills Subdivision has combined, common entry ways. Enforcing this access alteration would not only cause the McCauleys undue hardship for the reasons cited above, but would also render the property inconsistent with the rest of the subdivision. Character of the Area The McCauleys have contacted all adjoining property owners with their proposal to build on the original Lot 2 and use the existing drive. The owners of Lot 3 , Elvin and Jane Frame, will be most affected by the construction of a dwelling on Lot 2 . The McCauleys VA-93-25 Page 2 have received the Frames' full support for their plan to develop on Lot 2 a residence for Mary M. Lane. The Frames prefer the existing access and believe altering the access should be unnecessary. The other residents in the vicinity do not oppose the use of the existing accesses on Lots 1 and 2, nor do they oppose the construction of the new home. RELEVANT HISTORY: Hidden Hills subdivision was created in 1972, when the frontage required along public roads was only 150 feet. The developer of Hidden Hills, Mr. Wilson Davis, owned Lots 1 and 2, and built his house on Lot 1 in 1972 . In 1974, Mr. Davis combined parcels 1 and 2 to avoid being taxed for two separate lots. The new parcel was known as Lot 1A. In 1980, the County adopted a new zoning ordinance, which required 250 feet of frontage along public roads. In 1984, Mr. and Mrs. McCauley bought Lot 1A. The real estate appraisal cards sent by the County to Mr. and Mrs. McCauley consistently refer to the property as two lots. In 1991, the County began assessing the property at a higher rate due to what was called an "extra site" in the 1991/92 assessment and an "extra lot" in the 1993/94 assessment. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department has reviewed this request and made no comment. The intent of the frontage requirements is to provide spacing between driveways and houses. In this case, separate entrances already exist for the two lots, and the distance between the two houses would be compatible with the development pattern in the area. In cases such as these, staff usually recommends that the lots share a private drive, which would do away with the need for a variance. There are several reasons why sharing a driveway would be very impractical for Mr. McCauley and his daughter. Mr. McCauley's property, developed before the 1980 ordinance, is improved with several outbuildings and an old water tower. It would be difficult to establish an easement for a driveway that would not require either variances for some of these structures or removing them altogether. An easement running down Mr. McCauley's east or west property line would require a variance from the distance required between his house and the easement. Running the easement across the front of the property would require finding another septic site on the daughter' s lot, which could prove difficult given the location of the well to the rear of the property. In any case, a joint driveway would involve removing a substantial amount of well-established and expensive to replace landscaping. Staff recommends approval for cause: VA-93-25 Page 3 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The improvements on both lots, most of which were built before the Ordinance changed in 1980, make it unlikely that this property can be subdivided without a variance or without removing buildings and mature landscaping. 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. Other properties in the general vicinity are legal non-conformities with regard to lot frontage and width. 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 are at least ten lots in the immediate vicinity with less than 250 feet of road frontage. VDoT has determined that the existing entrance to the proposed second parcel meets the Department's private entrance standards. This Department has received no letters of objection to this request.