Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199500016 Review Comments 1995-12-05 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: December 5, 1995 STAFF REPORT VA-95-16 OWNER/APPLICANT: Walker L. & Mary E. Rush TAX MAP/PARCEL: 127/56 ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2.014 Acres LOCATION: East side of Rt. 715 approximately 0.5 miles north of its intersection with Rt. 723 REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states, in part: "Yards, minimum: Front (existing public roads), 75 feet." A variance of 15 feet is sought to reduce the 75-foot requirement to 60 feet and therefore, allow the applicant to continue building an addition (which includes a carport, shop, bathroom and pantry) to an existing dwelling. This construction was started with no building permits. The applicant furnished no justification. RELEVANT HISTORY: August 9, 1977 a variance of 27 feet was granted to Mr. Rush to build a porch addition 48 feet from the right-of-way. In 1987 Mr. Rush made an addition to the house that was interpreted by the Zoning Administrator and/or County Attorney at the time to be in compliance with Section 6.4.2, under "Nonconformities." STAFF COMMENT The dwelling that is subject to this variance request was constructed in 1965 prior to the adoption of the first Albemarle County zoning ordinance. Since adoption of the first ordinance in 1969 and the subsequent adoption of the 1980 ordinance, there have been many amendments and many interpretations of the words on the pages. The section of our current ordinance that guides this request is §6.4.2 which states, "Any building or structure located or constructed prior to the adoption of this ordinance may be expanded, enlarged or extended in accordance with the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of the prior zoning ordinance. In all other cases, the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of this ordinance shall STAFF REPORT VA-95-16 Page 2 apply." The current County Attorney has advised that all structures constructed prior to the 1969 ordinance must abide by the 1980 ordinance. Therefore, this house can only be added to from a point 15 feet into the depth of the house and added towards the rear. Since Mr. Rush would like to expand so that the addition is in the same front plane as the rest of the house (but not extend beyond the present front building line) a variance is needed. The addition is already well under construction but without building permits. This report will not consider any financial hardship because had Mr. Rush applied for a building permit, he would have been stopped prior to making any investment, either financial or physical. Any hardship claimed from this action is obviously self-imposed. The addition actually violates the side yard also, but that can be remedied simply by a property line adjustment since Mr. Rush owns the adjacent property also. The general area has several homes which are in the same circumstance of not meeting the front setback. Three homes, all on the same side of Rt. 715, are in view of this dwelling and do not meet the 75-foot setback. Another two to 5 homes are close (within 0.25 miles) but not visible and do not appear to meet the 75-foot setback. Thus, the granting of the variance would not cause any substantial detriment to the adjacent properties and would be in the nature and character of the surrounding environs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial for cause: 1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; This property owner acquired his property in good faith before a zoning ordinance existed. However, there is no physical reason nor exceptional topographic condition which restricts this property to the extent of "unreasonable" or "demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation." The location of the dwelling is the only problem and since the dwelling has been used for approximately 20 years, there appears to be no hardship. 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 other dwellings in the same zoning district and the same vicinity that share the same problem. 1 STAFF REPORT VA-95-16 Page 3 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 addition is on the side and rear of the dwelling and will not effect the adjacent property nor the character of the district. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1 . Zoning staff approval and evidence of recordation of a plat to bring the dwelling including the addition into compliance with side yard requirements. 2. This variance is for the approval of the addition subject to building permit 95- 1475AR only. Any further addition shall require an additional variance.