HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199400004 Action Letter 1994-07-14 OF AL%
4.�
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, 1994
Daniel D. Shifflett
P. O. Box 642
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-94-04
Tax Map 057, Parcels 32, 32B, 32C, and 32E
Dear Applicant:
This letter is to inform you that on July 12, 1994, during the meeting of the Albemarle County
Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-94-04, subject
to the following conditions:
1) This variance is granted for the following: the combination of parcels 32B, 32C
and 32E, with the addition of a portion of parcel 32 for the purpose of septic field
area resulting in not more than two (2) parcels for the entire 6.297 acres;
2) As a result of this redivision, the residue of parcel 32 shall not be reduced below
4.0 acres in size;
3) This approval is granted for a period not to exceed two (2) years from this date
of variance approval, or until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a
dwelling on the new combined parcel, whichever comes first. Prior to the
expiration of this variance, one of the dwellings on parcel 32 shall be removed
such that no more than two (2) dwellings remain. This shall be noted on the plat.
It shall also be noted in the deed if the property should change ownership prior
to the expiration of the variance.
Letter to Daniel Shifflett
July 14, 1994
Page 2
This temporary variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance to allow the applicant to create only one lot for building, and to remove one
of the three existing dwellings on parcel 32. This is due to the fact that the applicant wants to
create the division and build on the new lot prior to removing the dwelling.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
,4f //Aft<6-
Amelia G. McCulley, A.I.C.P.
Zoning Administrator
agm/st
cc: Steve Key
Planning Department
File
f 7
1
VA 94-04 DANIEL SHIFFLETT
The applicant now proposes to create only one lot for building,
and to remove one of the three existing dwellings on parcel 32.
It is most likely to be one of the mobile homes. Because the
applicant wants to create the redivision and build on the new lot
prior to removing the dwelling, a temporary variance is
necessary. He also wants to allow the current tenants to find
suitable housing.
Under the revised proposal, there will be the same number of
dwellings spread out over the addition of parcels 32B, 32C and
32E totalling 0. 65 acres. And these smaller parcels will be
combined with additional acreage to make them more conforming as
to acreage and as to general regulations relating to sanitary
disposal. Please note that this proposal is superior to an
option available to the owner which would not require a variance:
combining the small lots, creating a septic easement on parcel 32
and keeping the dwellings on it.
In conclusion, staff recommends approval for cause of the
temporary variance:
1. Undue hardship
It would be an undue hardship to take four parcels with three
dwellings in a nonconforming status and not be permitted to
redivide them into a more conforming situation of two parcels
with the same number of dwellings. The size of these parcels and
the development of the property creates constraints on its use.
2 . Unique
Staff is not aware of any comparable situations in the area with
this same set of circumstances. It is not shared generally
within this zoning district.
STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: June 14, 1994
STAFF REPORT VA 94-04
OWNER/APPLICANT: Daniel D. Shifflett
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 57/32, 32B, 32C, 32E
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas with entrance corridor overlay
ACREAGE: Parcel 32 = 5.647 acres; Parcel 32B = 0.33 acres;
Parcel 32C = 0.12 acres; and Parcel 32E = 0.20 acres
LOCATION: On the north side of Route 752 and U.S. Route 250 West, and the
south side of the C & 0 Railway. It is behind Clayton's yard.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests a variance to reduce the acreage and increase the density on an
existing nonconforming lot, through redivision of four (4) parcels into three (3). The
redivision is proposed as follows: to combine parcels 32B, 32C and 32E and part of 32 to
create a new building lot Y of 0.72 acres; to subdivide from parcel 32 building lot X of 0.72
acres, which leaves a residue of 4.857 acres. The variance is to reduce the acreage/increase
the density on the residue of parcel 32 from 5.647 acres with three (3) dwellings, to 4.857
acres with three (3) dwellings. (See attachments A and B)
The property summary follows:
EXISTING PROPOSED
1) Parcel 32 of 5.647 acres (with 3 dwellings) 1) Parcel 32 residue of 4.857 acres
(2 trailers)
2) Parcel 32B of 0.33 acres 2) Parcel X, 0.72 acres portion of
parcel 32 (vacant)
3) Parcel 32C of 0.12 acres (vacant) 3) Parcel Y, 0.72 acres - comprised
of combine parcels 32B, 32C, 32
a portion of parcel (vacant)
4) Parcel 32E of 0.20 acres (vacant)
f _
, 4
STAFF REPORT - VA-94-04/Shifflett, Daniel
Page 2
REQUEST CONTINUES...
Ordinance Regulations
The ordinance regulations which deal with building sites and septic areas is section 4.0,
"general regulations". These lots were created prior to the adoption of zoning in Albemarle,
and are (lawfully) nonconforming as to size. In the case of parcel 32, it is nonconforming as
to density with 3 dwellings on less than 6 acres.
An ordinance section was written in 1989 to allow redivisions which are more conforming,
although not completely in compliance. This is to encourage more practical development.
This redivision is less conforming in terms of parcel 32, and therefore requires a variance.
The applicable ordinance language states: "Section 6.5.4 Lots recorded prior to the
adoption of and not in conformity with this ordinance may be resubdivided and redeveloped,
in whole or part, at the option of the owner(s) of any group of contiguous lots therein; but
every such resubdivision shall conform to this ordinance and all other county ordinances
currently applicable; provided, however, that no such resubdivision which in the opinion of
the zoning administrator shall be substantially more conforming to the requirements of
section 4.0, general regulations, and the area and bulk regulations of the district in which
such subdivision is situated shall be denied for failure to comply with the provisions of this
ordinance."
Technical Information
Of the three existing dwellings on parcel 32, each has a separate septic system. Septic field
location on these properties is subject to steep topography, flood plain setback, setback from
a spring, and some area of unacceptable soil.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION:
Hardship
There currently are four (4) nonconforming parcels. This proposal creates fewer parcels (3),
with two of the three becoming more conforming.
If we build on the three unbuilt parcels (i.e., excluding parcel 32), the location of the houses,
septic fields and septic easements would be impractical and illogical. The land as it exists
has no other practical nor reasonable use.
STAFF REPORT - VA-94-04/Shifflett, Daniel
Page 3
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION CONTINUES....
In addition, numerous setback variances would be necessary for house locations. As a result
of the small lot size and grouping together, a denser and less rural character would be
created. The proposed division utilizes natural divisions in the land. It proposes to take
some of the surplus land (from parcel 32 which is already built), in an area where it is not a
logical part of that property now. (It is up the hill and north of an old roadbed.)
Uniqueness of Hardship
We are unaware of any other lots this small in the vicinity.
Character of the Area
We believe that the granting of this variance stands to help the potential and property values
of the adjoining properties. The rural character of the district will be enhanced by the
reduction in the number of dwellings.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
There is no prior planning or zoning action on this property. The applicant began inquiry
into redivision of this property about 1 year ago. He has had a soil scientist test the parcels
for approvable septic areas, as requested by staff. (See attachments D and E)
STAFF COMMENT:
In the case of nonconforming parcels, it is difficult to determine when a parcel is buildable
for a house. The ordinance standard for 30,000 square feet of contiguous area in slopes of
less than 25%, excluding floodplain and stream setbacks and including approved septic area
(primary and reserve) does not apply. {Section 4.2.6.2 creates an exemption for the
establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unity on the parcel.} Proving that
a house can be located which meets yard setbacks is not a useful test.
The requirement which has been applied is approval of a primary septic field site and a
house (not "building") site on each lot. By letter of August 19, 1993, the applicant was
informed of this and told that "any lot which is not able to provide such, is not buildable and
should be combined with other property." (See attachment C)
STAFF REPORT - VA-94-04/Shifflett, Daniel
Page 4
STAFF COMMENTS CONTINUES...
The soils report dated January 24, 1994 notes this:
Parcel 32B: will not support the minimum size drainfield required by the Health
Department. This is due to the soil, topography and shape of the parcel.
Parcel 32C and 32E (combinedl: will support a primary drainfield required by the
Health Department. {This is proposed parcel Y.}
The report dated February 28th notes that proposed parcel X and residue parcel 32 will
support a drainfield.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports efforts to combine and redivide property into more practical building sites
which not only better meet health regulations, but also further the character of the district.
However, it appears in this case that the applicant is requesting 1 more building lot than is
advisable, for several reasons relating primarily to septic fields. While it seems that there is
an actual "loss" of one lot since it is going from four tax map parcels to three, there are not
four lots approvable for house building.
Staff's concern relates to the septic areas, primarily with respect to replacement fields. The
size, topography, soils and presence of water-related setbacks, all present constraints to
septic locations. Based on the information submitted, there do not appear to be areas for
reserve fields for proposed parcel Y or for the three dwellings on the residue of parcel 32.
In conclusion, staff recommends denial for cause:
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance
would produce undue hardship.
Although they are nonconforming, these lots were created by someone's choice and are not
rendered impractical for building as the result of governmental action. This is then a self-
imposed hardship. It is not, in staff's opinion, an undue hardship to not be able to create
two new building lots.
STAFF REPORT - VA-94-04/Shifflett, Daniel
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION CONTINUES...
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.
There are numerous situations of nonconforming lots, including those in clusters, throughout
the County. Even some larger acreages which are entirely poor soils or steep slopes, such as
a mountainside, may not be buildable.
3. The applicant has not 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.
The character of the district issue relates back to whether this proposal results in fewer or
more lots than could otherwise be built, and at what separation from each other and adjoining
property.
The concern about septic fields, by its nature, becomes an issue to consider with respect to
the impact on adjacent property. Should a septic field fail and there be no area for reserve,
what impact is there on this property and could there be on neighboring wells and the like?
Should the Board chose to approve this variance, staff recommends that the applicant
agree to conditions which:
1. Restrict further subdivision of the residue of parcel 32; and
2. To not replace any one (1) home this parcel, in the event it is removed or damaged.
an � L 1
111
• "IRG1tatP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
• Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road — ATTACHMENT C
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 r
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060 "
• TDD (804) 972-4012
August 19, 1993
Steven Key
Steve Key, Inc.
P. O. Box 1346
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Property of Danny Shifflett
Known as Tax Map 57, Parcels 32,
32B, 32C and 32E
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
Dear Mr. Key,
This is to confirm that which we have discussed verbally. Your
client wishes to redivide this property and construct additional
homes on the above-noted property. The three smaller parcels (32B,
32C and 32E) are vacant, and will need to be reviewed to determine
that they are buildable. That will require approval of a primary
septic field site and a house site on each lot. Any lot which is
not able to provide such, is not buildable and should be combined
with other property.
This ruling on the methodology for determining whether or not a
site is buildable has been confirmed by Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning. It is a reasonable interpretation which does not impose
the full 30 , 000 square feet for primary and reserve, for existing
nonconforming lots.
I' understand that your client would like to redivide the property
so as to increase the size of the smaller vacant lots. If this
involves reducing the size of parcel 32 , it will make it less
conforming and can not be done without a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals. I don't wish to discourage your client, because it
is advisable given how small the vacant lots are.
•
Steven Key Letter
August 19, 1993
Page 2
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
You have thirty days from this date in which to appeal this
decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accbrdance with Section
15. 1-496. 1 of the Code of Virginia, or this decision shall be final
and unappealable.
Sincerely,
dAtAt/
Amelia G. McC 1 ey, A I .C.P.
Zoning Administrator
cc: Jan Sprinkle
z . .':4t4 e
!' c
OF A /�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
• Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road — ATTACHMENT C
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
TDD (804) 972-4012
August 19 , 1993
Steven Key
Steve Key, Inc.
P. O. Box 1346
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Property of Danny Shifflett
Known as Tax Map 57, Parcels 32,
32B, 32C and 32E
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
Dear Mr. Key,
This is to confirm that which we have discussed verbally. Your
client wishes to redivide this property and construct additional
homes on the above-noted property. The three smaller parcels (32B,
32C and 32E) are vacant, and will need to be reviewed to determine
that they are buildable. That will require approval of a primary
septic field site and a house site on each lot. Any lot which is
not able to provide such, is not buildable and should be combined
with other property.
This ruling on the methodology for determining whether or not a
site is buildable has been confirmed by Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning. It is a reasonable interpretation which does not impose
the full 30, 000 square feet for primary and reserve, for existing
nonconforming lots.
I' understand that your client would like to redivide the property
so as to increase the size of the smaller vacant lots. If this
involves reducing the size of parcel 32 , it will make it less
conforming and can not be done without a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals. I don't wish to discourage your client, because it
is advisable given how small the vacant lots are.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
FAX(434)972-4126 TELEPHONE(434)296-5832 TTD(434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO: Files,VA 94-04 and VA03-08
FROM: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration
SUBJECT: NO NEED FOR VARIANCE TO REMOVE CONDITION#2 OF VA94-04
DATE: 06/13/03
I originally told the applicant, Paul Grady, that he needed a variance to remove condition #2 of
VA94-04 in order to subdivide tax map 57, parcel 32. I have since read the entire file of VA94-04
and have reversed my position—no variance is needed to divide the parcel into two parcels each less
than 4.0 acres.
The request for VA94-04 changed after the original staff report was done. The item was deferred,
amended and came to the BZA with a substantially different request. In the amended request, the
applicant was willing to remove one of the three dwellings on parcel 32 and maintain at least 4.0
acres to make it more conforming than it had been at 3 dwellings on only 5.6 acres. We did not
investigate the septic issues for this parcel other than the area that was being added to the proposed
combination of parcels 32B, 32C, and 32E.
The variance was only temporary so that the plat could be done and put to record BEFORE one
mobile home on parcel 32 was removed. Everything else that was being done made the situation
more conforming and would have been allowed by right. The variance in essence allowed parcel 32
(the one that was 5.647 acres) to become MORE nonconforming for no more than two years—able
to keep the 3 du's and record the plat that reduced the acreage and combined part of it with the
other 3 small parcels. It is my opinion that the condition was only to insure that the subdivision plat
that they were putting to record before removal of one mobile home didn't reduce the acreage
below the 4 acres required to make it conforming when there were only 2 remaining dwellings. The
language of the conditions is poor and rather confusing,but I am making a determination that says
that condition went away when parcel was made conforming which happened in 1995—plat signed
4/3/95. I spoke with Francis MacCall, subdivision planner in P&CD, and he will insure that any
new plat to divide parcel 32 will meet the primary and reserve drainfield requirement of 4.1.6.
Page 1 of 1
V
1
i14. 9�
3�v •• r
rf;•
�'�RGtN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
FAX(804)972-4126 TEI FPHONE(804)296-5832 TTD(804)972-4012
August 10, 1999
Richard Cooper
P.O. Box 62
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: Tax Map 57, Parcel 32B
Dear Mr. Cooper:
The above referenced parcel, TMP 57/32B, is shown as Parcel X containing 1.478
acres on a subdivision plat approved on April 3, 1995. That approval was subject to
Variance 94-04 which required that the following note be placed on the subdivision plat:
"Note" This approval granted for a period not to exceed two (2) years from July
12, 1994 being the date of variance approval, or until the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for a dwelling on the new combined parcel, whichever comes first.
Prior to the expiration of this variance, one of the dwellings on Parcel 32 shall be
removed such that no more than two (2) dwellings remain.
One of the mobile homes shown on the plat was removed within the time allowed.
Therefore the above note has been complied with.
Parcel 32B is a legal parcel upon which a dwelling may be constructed subject to the
approval of a building permit.
Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
/1.414‘47
John Shepherd
Permit and Plans Specialist
June 13 , 1994
Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
Re: Daniel Shifflett
VA-94-04
Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals:
The undersigned are owners of property adjacent to that
owned by Mr. Daniel Shifflett or are residents of the immediate
neighborhood. We are each familiar with Mr. Shifflett' s petition
and join in this letter to express our mutual and unanimous
response thereto. If each of you are familiar with the property,
you will appreciate our concern that no additional parcels be
created whether by consolidation or further subdivision which
would result in the same or similar uses as the present site is
used. That site contains numerous vehicles and parts of vehicles
parked or stored on the property, the main residence is in need
of painting and the number of people residing there and the two
mobile homes located thereon is difficult to determine. However,
the noise generated from time to time would indicate that every
available space is occupied. We have reviewed the staff report
and agree with the recommendation that the application be denied
because we do not believe that the resulting hardship is not
unique to Mr. Shifflett' s property but is applicable to several
of the parcels in that immediate neighborhood. We agree that the
rural character of this area would be enhanced by the reduction
of the number of dwellings. Further, the concerns expressed in
the staff report regarding the septic field and the impact of the
failure of the field on the adjoining property is of major
concern. If you are familiar with the topography of this
property you will note that is slopes downward toward Lickinghole
Creek from Route 240 and 250 at a rather steep grade. Just to
the west of this property is the sediment basin which was
constructed to cleanse the water of Lickinghole Creek prior to
entering Mechums River and becoming a part of the water source.
A malfunction in the septic system on these properties would not
only affect the adjoining neighbors but could possibly affect the
waters of Lickinghole Creek after they have passed through the
sediment basin. Due to the present condition of Mr. Shifflett' s
property and the manner in which it is maintained we respectfully
request that the staff ' s recommendation be followed so that
conditions will not be such that the detrimental impact this
property currently has on the neighborhood could be increased and
the risks outlined by the staff report can be avoided.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted:
1
....„„,;....)crAc.„....3.0,
kI ,� A
! \ .I r
,-/)
C:_6-11h,As cc/,i6 /2,v).-(r
(_ _ r.).\r,Jon
J /3 ,1� t
9' a .�� ./
9.../..,.‘,/,../6.,,e-,7-----
,.. 7 -----,
c,„„-„,c, ' QQ, ,
__
ram.. ,_,AL,L�t,„L,... -,L,,
FIF:egivez ,
..,v,a. 41994 sc,-f