Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199500002 Other 1995-02-09 To: Amelia McCulley,John Grady,Jan Sprinkle From: Denise Buckler Subject: Variance Deadlines Date: 2/09/95 Time: 8:59a Please note the following schedule in regards to the variance ad, staff reports, etc. February 10th- Variance Ad Due February 15th - Ad to the Daily Progress, also memo sent for staff comments February 21st - Comments Due In-y1,t_ o P( t., v D6T— February 24th- Staff Reports Due Amelia, I need to know who will be handling the variance and also will the appeal for Alta Mira Farm be heard or will we be requesting deferral to set for a special meeting? 8) aap a./1:J , ikittA4.s , ,;.4 ,04.1A 641.s . - ` -,x d o e--a v -1- yi c4'"" ' wl-eu i?twifza;'La . ; - 1, f ir-"- 17) ILArmtio s s ` '- 7)--eic&„ ,1..--t hK VIA Q;t.t.A-) k -4 `;0. ;,o wvt-Art.t- (14(1 u.Kiticii it- iters,c,1 3.d ..e - c� - 1i.,ao tt-t a- `Ate- 4.4 kaA;c ' `r1.- t _ r� •�•�ce wt,,Q.Q `net 4.c 03 su.d-d 'S l/u•�h�., ,, 6tCg t04- ; ' , lett illy 24a7h) arteA V 5 ,t4 a.►ti u ..- ea a / v A-t £ d�C, ) w l�.c_. VGre�e �5 1,11,(AttiUci kAit.415 itArr 4t) deLdleit-e-D117 44tvirst.e,e7 al s - ea Sirs Xn `��'c n1- p� ac� v-zt�t,.cA�-j ct_, y r -Qhl i.e'[); c -e 55 aticvnt am_ a 1-1 ) �u ket -)1.�x� ,moo (AJW-el t.c.e� {7 7 - , �- -t "a, thatt ea, d-entrxA44-&- 4.4.4.54t)40 4/714 6141,50eric ." S cee c-a-A A-ks - AA-Cad 1-4/4 ace, r ` _ 5/A4 ei-- 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 rn9ve the house. - Siting the,house at the required 75 feetnpush4s the house further down the hill, closer tofRt. 250 and closer to the Ivy Exxon v, h� � � , Y �� h .Atie mar (--o91 t1 tlx:34. �•rv--ov-41) d--"� `�"O niqueness of Hardsh•ip J� 6w-id 'i' - 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 s me subdivision plat as this one) received a variance for setback 2 years ag5 U. n inquiry'ef-A at variance, a Zoning Department employee said lot 3 would h9etz(pMflem with a similar setback variance. - 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. `i ?_na �tlnt��, _. The siting and the story-and-a-half design retains viewsjer roadnda�l}e+nirag 61 -uf1R,a property owners. {Nre-rn STAFF REPORT - VA-95-02 Page 2 RELEVANT HISTORY: .= " er110,6, April 6, 1990: Subdivision plkii was approved administratively by Planning Department which created Lot1,(B rbzeP . 2 , and Ot 3, subject of this variance. On this plat, Mr. Boozer voluntarily dedicated 25' of state road frontage for Rt. 637. 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. 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 thusly 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 ajcorrection of some type. Mr. Boozer and the-County inspectorsboth'picked up the wrong numbers from the plat. They berth added the 75 foot setback and half of the 25 foot road dedication rather than the whole 25 feet./ This error required the house to be only 87.5 feet from the center line of Rt. 637 rather than 100 feet. When Mr. Boozeratually sited the house, he placed it 93.5 feet from the center line, thinking that he w,is v back from the requirement. The inspector also picked up the wrong numbers from the plat and saw that the house was irycompliance and 4ptherefore approved it. 1-LA tn. !0l 6.3,16,7 G,c to d '. -n/a�a �s t� rac � l� B 7,,e". n A.tn4 a 44/A-1,41 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 �: ,& ssc� is the first home on its side of the road that is setback farther than 50 feet. Beyond this 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,{move the existing foundation. `fi c13144 je, �,� clia,Lei c __ _ 60'-- 7e-71 6 3 7, c,u Gu.ac_ a_s 2 S , ► S Yi-t Aaa-a-. wrio,0 conversation�7 N, In ccTnvCtsat lion with another builders, 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 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 foundationAll o this indicates that ale p `"1 ' 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 materials and labor used to this point, but also the duplicate materials and labor as well money and interest tied up as a result of the fact that the builder has been stopped for several weeks (since February 6.) The state code says that standing alone, financial loss cannot establish an extraordinary or exceptional situation or hardship approaching confication 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 16 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 S• seems to be,sufficcient spa °' iowever, some of the available area may have to shift to the front4 r gher area requir a pum system which the county usually frowns upon within our drinking water watersheds. C VI:.ev .144.A ta • STAFF R PE ORT -VA-95-02 Page 3 � li � ��'t.¢..e-•�GE� o•t.7�"� � `�cL.. (50..,404 ti,e; RECOMMENDATION: � ; .4 w(4, Q:krotteeis:L. 1) The applicants have provided evidence that the strict application of the ZWAsla ordinance would produce undue hardship. 2) The applicants have provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; This particular set of circumstances and the magnitude of their combination is unique, and is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district. 3) The applicants have 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. C61AA44 — Set'6"Aket- 46k- CtdLei 41° rftis:4 5Gc .G�.,_ ` 1-1R.a , 15 k 1;11 frp‘oi.,:fk ef.v4 per..CR eta -yiuAkd-H ?) ,-/at_e_ ict,thL a„rvi W j Wce- pad-66t-e-A-- "71 �; ,P.,a 4,(j' - - 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. S 0, A- -. A 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. On this plat, Mr. Boozer voluntarily dedicated 25 feet of state road frontage for Rt. 637. 1 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. 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 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 STAFF REPORT - VA-95-02 Page 3 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 ( J 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. Staff also agrees that this is an unfortunate case where there is 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." 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 a condition, as follows: Any future additions shall conform with the required setback at the time of Building Permit application and not be authorized under this variance.