Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300032 Action Letter 1993-09-15 • aim OF ALA ��RGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE • Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 September 15, 1993 Kathleen and Bruce Mahanes Route 1, Box 40 Afton, VA 22920 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-93-32, Tax Map 69, Parcel 20A Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mahanes: This letter is to inform you that on September 14, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (3:0) denied your request for VA-93-32. 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, )1, , Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P. Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Tan Sprinkle, Planning Department STAFF PERSON: Amelia i..cCulley PUBLIC HEARING: September 14, 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA 93-32 OWNER/APPLICANT: Kathleen and Bruce Mahanes TAX MAP/PARCEL: 69/20A ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 34 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Route 637, about 600 feet south of the intersection with Route 6, off of U.S. Route 250 West. REQUEST: The applicants request a variance from Section 10.4 in order to reduce the road frontage requirement for a lot which will be created by subdivision of this property into two (2) lots. This section requires that frontage along public roads be 250 feet and this subdivision proposes a frontage of 213 feet, a reduction of 37 feet. The subdivision proposes the creation of two lots: 20 (parcel B) and 14 acres (parcel A), of which the 14 acre lot (parcel A) will be retained by the Mahanes. They also own and reside on the 5.0 parcel 20C which this property surrounds. The proposed subdivision line is an existing stream. This property has road frontage to the north on Rt. 637 (418 feet), is then interrupted by the road frontage of the other parcel owned by the Mahanes (20C), and continues to the south for about 600 feet of road frontage. A summary of the applicant's justification follows. Please see the application for the complete justification. HARDSHIP We currently utilize a 15 foot pasture gate along the northern road frontage of proposed parcel A. Shifting the property line would remove our ownership of the farm entrance, and the only level access to our front pasture and to the remainder of 21 acres of agricultural land. Along the southern road frontage, the land is steep and rocky. UNIOUENESS OF HARDSHIP Most other neighboring properties do not have the topography which makes agricultural use a challenge. This topography includes steep slope, a creek which parallels the land, and another running perpendicular to it. There is very wet land between the creek and the hills, which compound the access problem. CHARACTER OF THE AREA Granting this variance to provide our parcel access to our land and preserve our only desirable pasture land will not negatively affect our neighbors, or impact the character of our neighborhood. The parcels will not be subdivided into less than 10 acres and the agricultural/scenic character of this area will be preserved. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-32 Page 2 RELEVANT HISTORY: There is no history in Zoning Department files. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees that there are topographic difficulties in access to and use of this property. Staff supports the agricultural use of the land (proposed parcel A), as supported within the Comprehensive Plan and the statement of intent of the Rural Areas District. It is possible for the applicants to continue to utilize the farm access, by providing a joint access easement to avoid a variance. In that case, the road frontage requirement would be reduced to 150 feet and it would be measured off of the internal access easement. That would necessitate the crossing of the stream, which is neither floodplain nor of significant slopes. This property has all of its development rights. However, due to the topography all 5 building sites may not be available. Also due to the topography, it is likely that further subdivision is better accessed by an entrance along the northern portion of road frontage. The desire to own one's driveway, and not have easement over it is a common one. However, driveway easements for 2 or more homes are also common and present little problems if they are properly addressed in terms of location, maintenance and the like. One possible redesign would involve giving all of the road frontage, including the farm access, to parcel A and providing an easement to parcel B. This would allow the Mahanes to own their driveway, and to share it. Staff is unaware of any adjoining properties which would be negatively impacted at this time. For the most part, they are large acreages in agricultural use. There are no homes directly adjacent on either side or across the road. The impact to the district would be that two entrance would appear in closer proximity than is the standard for this district. In light of the preceding, this request will meet the third criterion as follows: 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. Because there are other options, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. There are options for redesign which include the sharing of a driveway. In staff's opinion, that would not present an undue hardship. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-32 Page 3 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. The desire to own one's driveway is common. Staff would comment however, that the topography of this property is somewhat unique and presents constraints to development.