Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199600009 Review Comments 1996-06-25 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning, Room 223 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4035 TDD (804) 972-4012 June 25, 1996 J. Timothy Beeghly 13 Sutton Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Variance Application, VA-96-09 Tax Map 128, Parcel 3 Dear Applicant: For your convenience and to allow you to organize your thoughts prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on Tuesday, July 2, 1996, please find the staff report for your case. It will be necessary for someone to be present to speak for the variance application If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, rjtA,1711/60-- an Sprinkle Zoning Assistant JS/db STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: July 2, 1996 STAFF REPORT VA-96-09 OWNER/APPLICANT: J. Timothy Beeghly TAX MAP/PARCEL: 128/3 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 5.846 LOCATION: On the north side of Rt. 6, approximately 0.6 mile west of its intersection with Rt. 715 REQUEST: The applicant has built a three bedroom house, measuring roughly 2500 square feet with an unfinished basement and garage on a lot near Esmont. They have been unable to locate the full (100%) reserve septic field required by Section 4.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Mr. Beeghly proposes to install a primary septic system and to leave an area for the reserve septic system which measures only 50% of the primary field. This is a variance for 50% of the reserve septic. The applicant requests relief from Section 4.1.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve such use. For residential usage, at a minimum, each septic field shall consist of suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal for a three (3) bedroom dwelling as determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of Health The applicant's justification includes the following Hardship - A building lot of almost 6 acres was purchased in good faith. - The land perked for a 4 bedroom house with full reserve and a well location. - Bedrock was encountered during the foundation excavation which resulted in the decision to move the house 30 feet to the west. - The lot has topographic limitations including sloping land, stream, and high shale content in the soil. - The owner has attempted to obtain both easements and additional land from neighboring parcels. STAFF REPORT - VA-96-09 Page 2 - He has spent over$200,000 on the construction, permits, and soil testing which will be lost if an occupancy permit is not issued. Uniqueness of Hardship - The neighboring properties are developed and do not appear to have drainfield problems. - The property to west has been perked for subdivision purposes and found to meet the ordinance. Impact on Character of the Area - There will be no detrimental effect on any other lot. - The house, if occupied, may increase property values, while if abandoned, may decrease property values. RELEVANT HISTORY: July 1, 1994: Application date for Building Permit 94-1026SF (4 bedrooms and 3.5 baths) (The Beeghly's were unable to find a builder they liked within their price range so they did not pursue this permit.) September 13, 1994: Issuance date for a Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit from the Health Department. August 21, 1995: Application date for Building Permit 95-1260SF (3 bedrooms and 2 5 baths.) March 13, 1996: Expiration date of the Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit. STAFF COMMENT: This property was acquired in good faith by the current owner. A septic construction permit was issued by the Health Department for a four bedroom house that included both the primary and reserve drainfield locations and a well location However, when bedrock was encountered during the foundation excavation, the decision was made to move the house 30 feet to the west never anticipating that this was the only area available for the reserve drainfield. This act created the self-imposed hardship that exists today. Balancing that self-imposed hardship with the exceptional topographic condition of the land is the basis of this variance. The property has steep slopes (25% or greater) across the entire frontage from Rt. 6 down to a drainage swale, then a slightly less steep slope (15 - 20% ±) up to the house site. Beyond the house, both to the rear and the east side, the property drops off toward another swale. Both the plat and the septic construction permit show a stream bisecting the remaining area in the rear of the house and steep slopes up the opposite side to the rear property line. STAFF REPORT - VA-96-09 Page 3 The first test for variance approval asks if the strict application of the ordinance would either effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. The question before you today then is what is unreasonable? With 5.8 acres, this lot is larger than many residential lots in the Rural Areas zoning district—almost 3 times the 2-acre minimum lot size. Staff cannot recall many lots of this size needing relief from Section 4.1.6. The subdivision ordinance exempts lots greater than 5 acres (with the required road frontage) from Health Department approval of drainfield locations. The County thus assumes that lots of this size will be able to meet our ordinance requirements. In this case, the Health department and a soil consultant have worked extensively with the applicant to locate drainfields on this parcel, but to date cannot meet Albemarle's requirement for 100% primary and 100% secondary drainfields. They can, however, meet the state's requirement for 100% primary and 50% reserve drainfields. Typically, with small lots requesting this type of variance, in the event of failure of the primary drainfield there is concern for other properties within close proximity. Or for lots within a reservoir watershed, there is concern regarding runoff and bacterial pollution if the primary system fails. With undeveloped lots, there is concern that building with limited reserve followed by septic failure will cause a dwelling to be found uninhabitable and create a public nuisance or a request for a high maintenance, alternative sewage disposal system. (To date, Albemarle has not allowed any system other than subsurface absorption systems for new construction.) This case is unique regarding these potential problems in that the new dwelling is already fairly well centered within almost six acres and thus does not pose an obvious threat to adjacent properties. It is not in a reservoir watershed, and without a variance, may become a public nuisance now since the County will not grant a certificate of occupancy. In the worst case, it would be required to be razed, adding to the financial hardship of the owner. It bears mentioning that the total drainfield area that has been found is 150% of the three bedroom size. This may be sufficient to provide the primary and 100% reserve for a two bedroom dwelling. In the case of an undeveloped parcel, granting a variance to allow a two bedroom sized primary drainfield with 100% reserve would probably be the staff recommendation. However, in this case where the dwelling already exists with 3 bedrooms plus studio/office space, staff opinion is that requiring a reduction to two bedrooms would set up a continuous monitoring and enforcement problem. RECOMMENDATION: 1) The applicants have provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The Beeghly's have been trying to obtain a new Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit since March of this year and have attempted several alternatives. They have iok STAFF REPORT - VA-96-09 Page 4 already reduced the desired dwelling size from four bedrooms to three. They have also attempted to obtain an easement on the adjacent properties. Likewise, Mr. Beeghly has stated that he tried to purchase land from the adjoining properties. They have only recently, after many hours of perk tests, found sufficient reserve area to meet the State's 50% requirement. Although it cannot be considered alone, the financial loss that would occur, ($200,00 spent on the construction, permits and soil testing) when considered with the stated topographic conditions, creates enough of an undue hardship to warrant the granting of the variance. This is one of many cases where local zoning regulations exceed the State's requirements. With regards to similar situations, there have been other cases where variance to the septic reserve was granted. However, this variance is to be distinguished from the cases where (a) proposed lots (not yet approved) do not have full reserve; (b) alternative, experimental and labor-intensive sewage treatment is required; © there are known septic failures in the area; (d) small lots; and, (e) reservoir.. 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; The shale belt of Esmont is well known to the Health Department and is encountered occasionally by the planners reviewing subdivision plats for individual lots in the area. However, in the immediate area, the sanitarian working with this case has stated that he is not aware of any septic failures. There are several dwellings nearby which do not appear to be having problems with their drainfields. 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. Staff agrees that allowing this house to be occupied will be of no detriment to the adjacent properties and the character of the district. Staff finds that the applicant meets all three criteria for approval and, therefore, recommends approval with the following conditions 1. The house shall contain three or fewer bedrooms unless and until it meets the County's requirements for sewage disposal for more bedrooms. 2. There shall be a note in the chain of title which notifies future owners of the restriction on the number of bedrooms on the property.