HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199500002 Review Comments 1995-03-07 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: March 7, 1995
STAFF REPORT VA-95-02
OWNER: George II and Carol Griffin
APPLICANT: William H. Boozer, III
ZONING: Rural Areas, RA
ACREAGE: 2.016
LOCATION: North side of Route 637 approximately 400 feet east of its intersection
with Route 786
REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations,
which requires a front yard on an existing public road to be 75 feet. A variance of 10 feet
is requested to allow a dwelling to be completed on the foundation that has recently been
constructed.
The applicants' justification includes the following:
Hardship
- The siting of the foundation was a mistake using the required 75-foot front yard
setback plus 12.5 feet, rather than the entire 25 feet dedicated on the subdivision
plat from the center line of Rt. 637. This error caused the house to be built inside the
setback by 6.5 feet.
- The only alternative is to tear down or move the house.
- Siting the house at the required 75 feet from the right-of-way pushes the house
farther down the hill, closer to U.S. Rt. 250 and closer to the Ivy Exxon.
- A visible rock outcrop may require major and costly rock removal to install the main
drainfield if forced to move back farther downhill. (See Attachments Al and A2.)
Uniqueness of Hardship
- All existing homes nearby are situated from 35 feet to 55 feet total distance from the
center of Rt. 637.
- The adjoining lot (lot 2 from the same subdivision plat as this one) received a
variance for setback 2 years ago.
- The siting of this house was done to allow a maximum distance from the adjoining
homes.
Impact on Character of the Area
- There will be no detrimental effect on any other lot.
- The cape cod design matches traditional design of area homes.
- The siting and the story-and-a-half design retains views from neighboring houses
and from the road.
STAFF REPORT - VA-95-02
Page 2
RELEVANT HISTORY:
April 6, 1990: Subdivision plat was approved administratively by Planning Department
which created Lots 1, 2 (Turner's previous variance), and Lot 3, subject of this variance.
(See Attachment B.)
October 18, 1994: Lot 3 was purchased by George C. Griffin, II and Carroll H. Griffin.
November 22, 1994: Building Permit 94-1688 was issued for a single family dwelling on
lot 3.
November 23, 1994 and December 2, 1994: County inspectors inspected the footings,
first rejecting due to water inside and then approving.
February 1995: Surveyor doing the physical survey for financing discovered that the
foundation does not meet the required setback.
STAFF COMMENT:
On the plat approved in 1990, Mr. Boozer voluntarily dedicated 25 feet of state road
frontage for Rt. 637. Zoning Ordinance Section 2.1.5, Reduction of Yards Below Minimum,
states that, "Yards created after the effective date of this ordinance shall meet at least the
minimum requirements established by this ordinance. This provision shall not apply to
reduction of yard dimension as may result from dedication to or exercise of eminent domain
by a public agency." Therefore, if Mr. Boozer had built the dwelling first and then
dedicated the right-of-way, we would have allowed the dedication without concern for the
setback. This provision was intentionally added to the ordinance in 1992 to make it easy
for landowners to dedicate land to the state rather than force proceedings of eminent
domain, thereby saving the state and thus the taxpayers many dollars in terms of less legal
negotiations. We are now seeing the problem in reverse. The dedication came first and
a simple error caused the need for a variance or correction of some type.
Mr. Boozer and two County inspectors all picked up the wrong numbers from the plat.
They added the 75-foot setback and half of the 25-foot road dedication rather than the
whole 25 feet. The plat does not clearly indicate the center line of Rt. 637. It is easy to
glance at the drawing and think that the cross-hatched area, which is identified as 25 feet,
is the entire road. This error required the house to be only 87.5 feet from the center line
of Rt. 637 rather than 100 feet. When Mr. Boozer actually sited the house, he placed it
93.5 feet from the center line, thinking that he was 6 feet back from the requirement. The
first inspector also picked up the wrong numbers from the plat and saw that the house was
in compliance and he therefore approved it. This variance request for 10 feet when only
6.5 feet is needed is again Mr. Boozer trying to maintain a small buffer for his own
assurance.
Another factor contributing to the error is the prevailing building pattern. As you drive along
Rt. 637 from Rt. 250, most of the homes are quite close to the road. This new foundation
is the first home on its side of the road that is set back farther than 50 feet. Beyond this
STAFF REPORT - VA-95-02
Page 3
property is the Turner house and garage. In the staff report for the Turner variance, it was
noted that the original footings were too close to the road and had to be moved back to
comply with the 75-foot setback. The footings were then moved and measured at the new
location, the garage was completed, and, a certificate of occupancy was issued before a
physical survey showed that the structure was still 2.5 feet too close to Rt. 637.
Mr. Boozer says that the only alternative is to tear down or to move the existing foundation.
In consultation with another builder, it was pointed out that only the front and rear walls
would have to be replaced. However, tearing out those walls would most likely destroy the
materials used. Also, to move back from the road on the same pad, the rear of the
foundation would most likely have to be built up as the property is sloped at 15 to 20
degrees from the road to a point approximately 65 feet behind the existing foundation
where the lot drops off even more steeply. All of this indicates that the best method to
correct the setback would be to start over further back and lower on the hillside. The
financial loss would be not only all the materials and labor used to this point, but also the
duplicate materials and labor as well as money and interest tied up as a result of the fact
that the builder has been stopped for several weeks (since February 9.) The state code
says that standing alone, financial loss cannot establish an extraordinary or exceptional
situation or hardship approaching confiscation sufficient to justify the granting of a variance,
but it is a factor or an element to be taken into consideration and should not be ignored.
There is one other consideration with moving back further. There is a small rock outcrop
only about 10 feet from the drainfield shown on the health department layout. If there were
found to be large rocks under the outcrop, the drainfield may need to be relocated. There
seems to be sufficient area within the lot, however, some of the available area is in the
front-- a higher elevation than the dwelling. This would require a pump system which the
county usually frowns upon within our drinking water watersheds. Removal of the rock
could also require great expense and carries the potential of environmental damage. Little
Ivy Creek, a perennial stream and major tributary of the South Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir, is at the base of this property with just a small part of its flood plain encroaching
the northern boundary of this lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff agrees with the applicant that this request meets the second and third criterion for
approval of a variance:
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.
With the prevailing building pattern of homes close to the road and the fact that this is the
last vacant lot in the immediate area, the hardship is unique and unlikely to be repeated.
STAFF REPORT - VA-95-02
Page 4
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.
This dwelling will blend well with the Turner's home as well as the older homes in the area.
It is far enough from the road that should there be a widening of Rt. 637, this house would
still appear farther back than the other homes existing now.
Staff also agrees that this is an unfortunate case where there is some hardship. However,
state code dictates, "self-inflicted hardship, whether deliberately or ignorantly incurred,
affords no basis for granting of a variance." The arguments of error, financial loss�
proximity to a commercial area and potential environmental damage are all valid but none
is undue to the extent of "a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation." __v
Staff recommends denial for cause:
1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Should the Board find cause to approve this request, it should be noted that it is believed
to be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance as well as
mindful of the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public. Staff would also
recommend the following condition:
Any future additions shall conform with the required setback at the time of Building Permit
application and not be authorized under this variance.
ATTACHMENT Al
GEORGE C. GRIFFIN, II
POST OFFICE BOX 191
IVY, VIRGINIA 22945
To: County Of Albemarle Board of Zoning
Date: February 14 , 1995
Re: Variance Request re: Griffin Property, Route 637
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is to confirm that William H. Boozer has been given the power
to submit a request for variance to the Albemarle County Zoning
office for the above referenced residence currently under
construction on behalf of myself and my wife, Carroll H. Griffin.
Mr. Boozer is the general contractor for this project.
In addition, Mr. Boozer is adding the enclosed drawings/specs for
the well and septic system which was provided to us after the
Variance request was submitted to your office on 2/4/95. As you
can see both the drain field and reserve drain field are located
behind the house further down the slope. As is stands now, the
main drain field will approach a large outcropping of rock which is
located about forty (40) feet behind where the house is currently
set. Should the house have to be moved an additional ten (10) feet
down the slope to conform with the 100 foot setback line, we will
have to perform major and costly rock removal for the drain field.
As I am sure you realize, this would cause major financial hardship
to me in order to remove the rock formation.
Please add the enclosed drawing to our file for a variance at your
earliest convenience and we appreciate your taking this new crieria
into consideration when making your recommendation to the BZA.
Should you think it appropriate, either Mr. Boozer or myself would
be happy to meet you at the property in order to point out the rock
formation and to generally discuss the overall situation concerning
our request.
‘Di/JCer
IL' I V (1.
RECEIVED
3 17 1995
ALBEM nu.,. t., UNTY
z.,,,, ncpARrkeir
— ATTACHMENT A2
Health Department C7b ` L4_c S 5--
Identification Number
Schematic drawing of sewage disposal system and topographic features. PAGE OF
Show the lot lines of the building lot and building site, sketch of property showing any topographic features which may impact on the design of
the system, all existing and/or proposed structures including sewage disposal systems and wells within 100 feet of sewage disposal system and
reserve area. The schematic drawing of the sewage disposal system shall show sewer lines, pretreatment unit, pump station, conveyance sys-
tem, and subsurface soil absorption system, reserve area, etc When a nonpublic drinking water supply is to be located on the same lot show all
sources of pollution within 100 feet.
ee information required above has been drawn on the attached copy of the sketch submitted with the application.
ttach additional sheets as necessary to illustrate the design.
•
. ALL DRY HOLES SHALL BE ABANDONED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRIVATE
WELL PEGS.
A L CONTRACTORS SHALL BE LICENSED
100' BY THE COMMERCE DEPT.
\ 35'
ROAD \� E
RESERV:
AREA lO �
75' HOUS NO SCALE
.41
SITE 10'
125' NB I
l I I I
i l l I l STEEPER
111'll1'll1' SLOPE
50' l l 1 D .
o-
ii 100""�l ►._ 4- 100'X3'LINES
25' WELL 1 1 11' CENTERS
♦ AREA 25X25 150' 42" DEEP
5 0' 1
+ Ily
/
•
The sewage disposal system is to be constructed as specified by the permit r attached plans and specifications ❑ .
This sewage disposal system construction permit is null and void if (a) conditions are changed from those shown on the application (b) condi-
tions are changed from those shown on the construction permit.
No part of any installation shall be covered or used until inspected, corrections made • necessary, and approved, by the local health department
or unless expressly authorized by the local health dept. Any part of any installation , ch has been covered prior to approval shall be uncov-
ered,it neceas (pqn a direction of the Department.
Date: 1( (//// [7/ Issued by: This Construction
Sa arian P It Valid until
Date: Reviewed by: _ `(,)f !�'
Supervisory Sanitarian '(
If FHA or VA financing RECEVEP
Reviewed by Date Date FEB 17 1995
Supervisory Sanitarian Regional Sani arian
q R
C H S 20213 Revised 6 s4 II-2 t REMArli-L. WU
ORIGINAL ZONING DEPARTMENT
90^-0010P) — ATmAnHMENT B --
The divisl, find described heroin Is with the free
consent a _ _:cordance with the desire of the under-
FAMILY signed owner,proprietor,and trustees.Any reference
ADMIN to future potential development Is to be deemed as ke lle fex 1/. 24w,.e w r
PLAN C theoretical only.All statements affixed to this plat are Chairman W/F Designated Agent l.//f
REDATE Iru apd correct�t t bast of my knowledge.
2 aLOTS CREATE'ie7 1�49�I. M�l may-. _ yii/y# 4,1,4140
Date Date
The above was duly executed before me on 3`23-""
My commission expires 14)'(7-'91 The land use regulations listed herein are Imposed pursuant
to the Albemarle Co Zoning Ordinance In effect at this dale
()lilt
and are not reslrlcl(ve covenants running with the lend and
\ //��//,,� their appearance on thin plat is not Intended to Impose
NolQry Public them as such.
II Development Rights:
TITLE SOURCE. Lot 2 may be divided Into 2 parcels.
DB 1076 p.277 plat p 279 Lots I and 3 may not be divided. IVY
Railroad- NOTE• �usRrzso
�i
Shaded Strip I 5{Ac,) is hereby dedicated m k � / sR 6j7
to public use for ST RT.637 and ST.RT.786 a,
ROW if not previously dedicated SITE swat
'1v�• ss \, LOCATION
+ sosc?B. N36. ' es �F VDH (� rM 2�'
�6 's 20F, Center of 'KS 3 • Mon. S RO
s6 a i
`SSo OF 060 Creek Is�170.10' .F0 •via-,R°'' i949 UTF 2S0
309 20' G� se�9 6s.
N d5'22'00"E N 84'11'S0"E"E IVY / Iron .�.
Iron _ 0 q LITTLE
•J/J,` - a 7l.1 Co,,,, 4 _-- ®—____ //A found
". Spike in ..e a _'-
osl• >.-— MH ---�_ o �"
Fence_P 0--- LINE -j~ � O. °' ul
MH -- _ - CO Sewer - "+ FLOOD V MH / W
�' D yR. a
,1_- Sanitary s'�FINED ..10 . ._ . ....,..-C' }' r 0. Iron
▪ WO Bldg. and Septic Setback ~ 325' set w wT.
' 100'from Stream Anr 15' 5 E
�' Lol X/o be N. No Buildings or Septic Oroin/fields set N 72' 0 08399-05
h added /o TM 58- h O ore allowed within the HUD defined w i plat
I-. ,n Parcel 94 H o 100 yr.Flood Area
CO
W N
O Z 0
v 1.47 Acs. h y U
hL OT 3 � m
iN New Combined Area of _ W
A,
O TM 58-94= • Iron set p• 2.016 Acs.
'D
.2 7.092 ecu i'oo E LOT 2 "s'.
Iron N 74' J p ya
,I', Set 218' N 5, 7/2 Acs. - `�.,,,000
m 25.40 N �e
a'N� , - 5g650' . 4..
� • Iron found
rl n'".-
v N O. Red° 178 80 le'. az..-
N. g LOT l �, i Ar` �- ,- 4517'
01 W N e W
h o 2.O 6/ Acs. "� col,. �1P� • 90 " -5 I5o' S 77•42'
• Iron found s 15 t3 - n°31.3� 1f5`� l• -Rod, 1
c Z Residence `Sa• 56 62 .''�
6
3 �° s v. ��s',-
CO ' .� 64 car
V /% 1, o s F s s y 55��.. RT, i 10.73'
01 3 °° / // / 63. srSOsp �'60•31 51% Iron
I CO in M - F3 s0 0•\ �•,' 5 14 43'
h Q N — _ O� LG,
0• -" 80.63. • , S 56.1/'45"W, 67.90' ¢•
Iron S8 •5p'1 ',��/� S 49'56'S0"W, 41.80' .
Z 2gq,43' set �� �7/ l• S 53.56'05"W,49.50' DETAIL "A"
S 80'27'05 W //I��„'� .'Cliff/ _ _
Angle Iron .' - 78 "_ —- - -,'•
found STATE f7T_.—-6_ i sr7''� 63?
NOTE: Lots I,2, and 3 each has a building site of
30,000 s.f.of contigious areo with slopes less thpn 25%.
• PLAT SHOWING
, ,( DIVISION of TM 58 - Parcel 93
r,.•111URR 18s1'Jl WILLIAM H. BOOZER TII and
CER11FlG1TENa :+{ TRACY S. BOOZER - Owners
54.17.3(a)998
54-17.3(b)171 Situated at the Village of Ivy in the
\`'•.osunsit:' SAMUEL MILLER MAG. DISTRICT of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VI R G IN I A
W. MORRIS FOSTER
Land Surveyor SCALE I"= 100' MARCH 20,1990
NELLYSFORD, VIRGINIA