Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199600002 Review Comments 1996-02-06 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: February 6, 1996 STAFF REPORT VA-96-02 OWNER/APPLICANT: Wylie R. Cooke, Ill TAX MAP/PARCEL: 73/1 B ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 5.156 Acres LOCATION: West side of Rt. 682, approximately 0.9 mile north of its intersection with 164 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 44 feet is sought to reduce the 75-foot requirement to 31 feet to allow the applicant to reconstruct an existing porch roof and additionally to reduce the 75-foot requirement to 21 feet to allow an addition to the side and rear of an existing two-story dwelling. The applicant's justification includes the following: Undue Hardship: In November of 1987, I, Wylie Cooke, purchased said property in good faith to become my permanent residence. At that time, the ordinances allowed me to add on to the house. Since then the rules have changed and I am no longer allowed to add on without a variance. I have recently married and we are expecting our first child, hence we need more space and would like to make improvements. In approving this application for variance the county would avoid creating unnecessary hardships for my family or myself. Some hardships would include and are not limited to; - The emotional and psychological trauma of relocating my family. - The financial burden of having to sell my home "as is" without the right to improve or add on to it. - The financial impracticality of tearing down the existing home and building farther back on the property. Uniqueness: Mine is not the only property that would require a variance in the neighborhood. There are two other homes as close, if not closer to the road than my own. However, my situation is unique because of the anticipated new addition to my family and the need for Staff Report: VA-96-02 Page 2 substantial improvements as well as more space in the existing building. Again, when originally purchased this property it was permissible to improve and add on to the structure. Detriment to the Character of the District: There will be no detriment to any adjacent properties in the neighborhood. There would, in fact, be an increase in property values. VDOT has already purchased a right-of- way to improve and pave Broad Axe Road. The proposed addition would be built farther away from the new set back than the existing structure. Any addition and/or improvement to the existing structure would bring the building up to current county codes and improve the aesthetic quality of the exterior. RELEVANT HISTORY The earliest Real Estate Department records indicate that this dwelling existed on the property in 1966. There are no zoning files/records on this property. STAFF COMMENT Undue Hardship: The dwelling that is subject to this variance request was constructed 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 what the words mean. 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 apply. (Added 9-21-88; Amended 9-9-92)" The current interpretation is that all structures constructed prior to the 1969 ordinance must abide by the 1980 ordinance. Therefore, since this house is totally within the 75-foot front yard setback, it can not be added to in any direction unless a variance is granted. The proposed scope of work includes two separate items. The first part of the request is a two-story addition which would extrude approximately 30 feet from the southern side of the house, extend towards the rear following the same pattern as the existing deck and wrap around 30 feet to the approximate center of the rear wall. This addition would add approximately 1300 square feet to a home that is only approximately 1200 square feet, more than doubling the size. Staff Report:- VA-96-02 Page 3 The present front building line, including the front porch, of Mr. Cooke's house is 34-plus feet from the newly acquired right-of-way of Rt. 682'. The addition is planned to have a front building line at 54-plus feet from the r/w (thus the 21-foot variance) with the rear of the addition falling 84-plus feet from the r/w. This indicates that a portion of the desired addition will fall behind the current 75-foot setback line. Zoning staff is currently reviewing the language of Section 6.4.2 to consider allowing this type of request. If the Cooke's were not expecting their first child in the summer, staff would advise them to wait for the outcome of the Zoning Text Amendment. However, they have a definite time table from which they are working and they would like to proceed with the planning now and to have their renovations completed by the time the baby arrives. Unfortunately, the Cooke's do not currently have their plans from the architect so staff cannot review precisely how much of the addition will be where, or how it will look. One of the reasons for the architect's delay is the roof line. The gambrel roof is difficult to work with when contemplating a two- story addition. In his justification for the variance, Mr. Cooke mentions two things of a financial nature. The first is the "burden" of having to sell the home "as is" without the right to improve or add on to it. Mr. Cooke has the right to make as many interior improvements as he so desires. An external addition is the only restriction. However, there are many people in Albemarle County who need and can only afford small homes. There is no indication that selling this home "as is" would not be possible or would create a financial loss for the Cookes. The other financial item mentioned is the "impracticality of tearing down the existing home and building farther back on the property." This is truly the only by-right method of having a larger home on this parcel. Parcel 1 was subdivided in 1982 creating parcel 1 B and parcel 1 C each with the right to have only one dwelling unit. Therefore, the only way to build a new dwelling on this parcel would be to raze the existing structure and then build in compliance with the ordinance. This would be a substantial financial loss as you would lose a dwelling currently assessed at $54,700 as well as paying the cost of demolition. The second part of this request is to reconstruct the existing front porch roof. Mr. Cooke won't know if the variance for the porch roof is really needed until after construction begins. The request is before you now because the side and rear addition must receive variance and it seemed appropriate to address both items at once. The porch roof currently has posts that sit on the concrete slab floor. With the proposed change in the pitch of the roof and the desired knee-wall, Mr. Cooke may need to install new support posts on new footers which would have to be six to eighteen inches in front of the existing 'The Virginia Department of Transportation is just completing purchasing additional right-of-way along the entire length of Rt. 682 for a widening and paving project. Mr. Cooke and both of his adjoining neighbors had land taken for the project. Staff Report: VA-96-02 Page 4 slab to allow for digging without disturbing the slab. The eave of the porch may extend as much as another foot. The potential revision of §6.4.2 is not envisioned to allow this intrusion into the front yard. The new text will probably require that the existing front building line be maintained. Although both portions of this variance seem to be for the desire, comfort, and convenience of the owners, there is a much greater hardship being denied the ability to expand a small dwelling to make it reasonable for a small family than to be denied the ability to easily change the roof pitch and/or add to the front porch. It isn't certain that the roof couldn't be changed without the variance. The building inspections department has commented that the porch has existed for at least 30 years and it can be repaired, and/or replaced so that it may last at least 30 more years without new footers and without variance. Although one variance, these two components can be acted upon separately. Uniqueness and Character of the District: The general area along Rt. 682 has at least two homes which are in the same circumstance of not meeting the front setback. These are also older homes which would probably be in the same circumstance with regard to the possible change in Section 6.4.2. The granting of the variance would not cause any substantial detriment to the adjacent properties since both the improved front porch and the addition and will 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 proximity to the road and size of the dwelling are the only problems and since the dwelling has been used for approximately 30 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. Staff Report: VA-96-02 Page 5 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. The main addition is on the side and rear of the dwelling and will not effect the adjacent property nor the character of the district. The front porch roof-line change and addition of a knee-wall, possibly with screening, will improve the aesthetic quality of the dwelling and therefore, the character of the district. Should the Board be leaning toward approving any part of this request, staff would like to point out three options: 1. Approve only the 21-foot request which would allow the side/rear addition; or, 2. Approve only the 44-foot request which would allow the porch roof change as proposed; or, 3. Approve both requests. If any approval is granted, staff recommends the following conditions, as applicable: 1. This variance is for the construction described in this report only but may vary from the actual dimensions described since the architectural plans are not completed at this time. Zoning staff shall review the building permit application for general compliance with this variance. 2. Any further expansion of this dwelling must comply with the ordinance at the time of application to the county or request an additional variance. 0' 12?017 f_p 7 5 u t-D NI67 si- ACt- L1JL ADP'rtom 33# ETtN 28' 151 EX. 170Re-44 ff. \/A 9 - oz 1 LLUT ION