HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700001 Review Comments 1997-04-01 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: April 1, 1997
STAFF REPORT VA-97-01
OWNER: R. E. Martin as Executor for The Estate of Ethel Martin, Deceased
APPLICANT: The Estate and Robin Ewald, Contract Purchaser
TAX MAP-PARCEL: 29-45
ZONING: Rural Areas, RA
ACREAGE: 90.739
LOCATION: East of Free Union, between State Routes 665 and 601 with its
primary entrance on Rt. 601, approximately 0.25 miles east of its
intersection with Rt. 665.
REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations,
which requires the minimum frontage on existing public roads to be 250 feet. Two
variances of 200 feet each are requested to allow use of two existing "pipestems" to create
two new parcels, each with only 50 feet of state road frontage. The residue will contain
the required 250 feet of frontage.
The applicant's justification includes the following:
Hardship
By virtue of the subject property's topography and the easement taken by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would
require construction of a commercial road which would have a great environmental impact.
Granting the variance will allow the property to be developed naturally, thereby limiting the
environmental impact on the Buck Mountain Reservoir and the Rivanna Reservoir
Watershed.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The subject property is unique in that it was effectively divided by the RWSA easement in
order to protect several bold streams which run through the property. Each division,
created by the easement, has access to state road frontage via the above described
pipestems.
Impact on Character of the Area
The neighborhood is substantially rural residential and granting the variance will not
change the character of the neighborhood. Further, granting the variance will substantially
benefit the adjoining Buck Mountain Reservoir by limiting stream crossings. Finally, one
of the two pipestems is already in use for agricultural purposes.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
There is no history in the files of either the Departments of Building Code and Zoning
Services or Planning and Community Development on this parcel.
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 2
STAFF COMMENT:
This property was acquired in good faith by the Martin family at least 50 years ago. The
parcel is the same size and shape now that it was in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was
adopted. This is a large parcel, 90+ acres, with three points of existing state road
frontage. These separate frontage points were created by various off-conveyances
through the years. In 1984 when the RWSA took land (2.581 acres) and easement areas
(23.418 acres) for the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir, this property was bisected by
a "Y" shaped easement which did, as the application stated, effectively divide the property
into three pieces. This "buffer area" has certain deed restrictions regarding what land uses
are allowed both before and after construction of the impoundment. Driveways in the
buffer areas and bridges across the streams are permitted to be constructed now but will
be limited after dam construction starts. This easement with its buffer area is the
"extraordinary situation or condition of this property" that allows us to consider the variance
under the state code. This parcel also has topographic conditions that can be considered
in a variance request. The elevation ranges from 580 at the Rt. 601 entrance to 470 in the
stream closest to the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir. There are also bands of 20%
and 25% slopes running around the hillsides and near the lower elevations and stream
beds.
Under the Rural Areas zoning district, Sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2, Conventional
Development, eight is the maximum number of lots that can be created from a 90-acre
parcel. This includes 5 small lots with a 2-acre minimum and 3 parcels with a 21-acre
minimum size. A by-right subdivision plat giving each new lot frontage on a new internal
subdivision road could be submitted any time. VDOT has tentatively said that two is the
maximum number of houses or lots that could be served by an entrance at either the Rt.
665 or Rt. 653 pipestem. Therefore, if three or more lots are desired and no variance is
granted, the internal road will have to enter the property at the Rt. 601 frontage. Ethel
Martin's will gives one of her sons five acres adjoining his children's property next to the
Rt. 665 pipestem. Without this variance, that five acre lot will have to be served by a road
from the Rt. 601 entrance. This variance application is only showing 3 large lots, but if
granted, they will have the by-right option of creating a maximum of two lots at each
pipestem. They will also still be able to create 4 lots on an internal road utilizing the Rt.
601 entrance.
The strict application of the ordinance does not effectively prohibit but it does restrict the
use of the property. The question is if it is an unreasonable restriction. Is it more
reasonable to allow three entrances which will have a lesser environmental impact, or to
restrict the parcel to one entrance and to possibly double the road construction as well as
to create at least one additional crossing of the buffer areas that both the RWSA and
Albemarle County are trying to protect from excessive run-off, erosion and siltation of our
drinking water impoundments? The fact that our county has a 20-year history of protecting
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 3
its drinking water impoundments make this case one to consider carefully. Albemarle
County has implemented provisions to protect critical slopes and developed a zoning
district that has residential uses as secondary to agricultural and forestal uses. To this
extent, every "parent parcel" (parcels of record at the adoption of the ordinance) of ten
acres or more is limited in the number of new parcels it can create in an effort to retain as
much acreage as possible for agricultural and forestal land uses. Prior to our current
ordinance, this 90-acre parcel could have been divided into 45 two-acre lots if building
sites, frontage and other ordinance requirements could be met.
The ordinance allows the BZA to grant a variance "as will not be contrary to the public
interest, when owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provision will result
in unnecessary hardship; provided that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done..." The environmental impact of the two alternatives (variance or
no variance) is the hardship in this case, both to the applicant and to the general public.
The facts are summarized here:
No Variance
• one new intersection of an internal road with Rt. 601 for two to eight lots
• 0.75 to 1 mile of driveway/road to access the "will lot"
• 2.25 to 3 miles of roads and driveways if all 8 lots created
• potential for major fill areas to construct road to state standard
• road standard for 6 or more lots: 18' travelway plus 4' ditches + drainage structures
• two or more buffer area crossings
With Variance
• one new road intersection with Rt. 601 for one to four lots plus two driveways for
one or two lots each
• total area covered by three road/driveways estimated at half as much as without
variance
• road standard for 5 or fewer lots: 14' travelway plus 4' ditches + drainage structures
• less fill for this road standard and less opportunity for run-off, erosion, and siltation
of reservoirs
• can be conditioned to only one buffer crossing
• can be conditioned to keeping livestock out of streams further protecting reservoirs
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff agrees with the applicant that this request meets all the criteria for approval of a
variance:
1) The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance
would produce undue hardship.
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 4
The exceptional size, shape and topography of this property at the time of the effective
date of the ordinance together with the extraordinary situation of the physical division of
the property by the RWSA easements have produced undue hardship. Both the applicant
and the general public will be better served by the lesser environmental impact of the three
entrances if the applicant agrees to the conditions outlined below.
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.
The RWSA easement does extend throughout this Buck Mountain Creek, Piney Creek and
Burruss Branch area bisecting many properties. However, when compared to the total
number of parcels in the rural areas zoning district, it is a very small percentage. Of those,
probably even fewer would be similarly situated with multiple points of state road frontage
that do not meet the frontage requirements of the ordinance. Therefore, this is not an
issue that could or should be resolved through an ordinance text change but should be
looked at on a case-by-case basis for variance.
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.
A farm entrance already exists at the Rt. 653 pipestem, and a driveway exists at the Rt.
601 entrance so the one "upgrade and one new driveway at the Rt. 665 pipestem probably
will not change the character of the district.. Even if all the allowed eight lots were
developed, the houses would likely not be visible from the roads. Most of the building sites
are internal to the parcel so they would not clutter the rural residential feel of the Free
Union area. Three of the eight lots are required to be a minimum of 21 acres so the
pastures and agricultural uses that are established could continue on at least 63 of the 90
acres. Further, denying the variance may be detrimental to the general public for the
environmental reasons already discussed.
Staff believes that granting this variance is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff would like to ensure
that the environmental benefits discussed in this report are carried out by requiring the
following conditions:
Establishment of Agricultural Best Management Practice by all owners and reviewed and
approved by the Watershed Management Official and the County Engineer. These shall
be incorporated on the entire 90+ acres to protect both water quality and quantity. These
would include:
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 5
1. Subdivision of property shall establish property lines following the streams within
the buffer areas and shall include restrictions in the deeds to prohibit any stream
crossing, even private driveways except the one crossing necessary to access the
building site on the western most side of the property. This one crossing shall
follow the farm use path that currently exists and which crosses the stream at a
point close to TMP 29-45D.
2. In addition to the existing zoning ordinance's restriction on buildings and septic
drainfields, all construction (including accessory structures and farm buildings),
earth-disturbing activities, and improvements shall be prohibited on the existing
25% slopes.
3. If livestock is to be kept on any resultant parcel:
a. Fencing of the buffer areas or at least 100 feet on each side of all the
streams to keep any livestock out of the streams and out of the majority of
the buffer area; and,.
b. Development of alternative water source(s) to keep any livestock out of the
streams.
This item was deferred from the April 1st meeting.
ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR VA 97-01 :
The deferral was to allow clarifications to issues, answers to questions, time for the
Board to consider the information and time for the applicant to determine if they would
make a voluntary offer of decreasing future development rights. In the interim, Mr.
Cogan who was absent from this meeting has reviewed the file and listened to the
audio tape of the meeting. He is in a position to consider the case with the rest of the
Board.
1. Clarifications to issues:
• Frontage requirements - The frontage requirements are as follows:
External public road - 250 feet
Internal public or private road - 150 feet *
* For lots at the end of a cul-de-sac, the frontage requirement may be
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 6
reduced to the width of the cul-de-sac. (Picture a private road
which has a dead-end with a lot at the end.)
• Development rights - How many lots could possibly be created by-right? The
maximum of lots available by-right is eight (8): five(5) lots with a minimum lot
size of two (2) acres and three (3) lots with a minimum size of twenty-one (21)
acres. The actual number is dependent on compliance with the zoning and
subdivision ordinances.
• Subdivision ordinance - In an effort to reduce multiple turning points / entrances,
the subdivision ordinance restricts the number of entrances allowed on property.
However; the subdivision ordinance provides for the Commission to consider a
waiver request to allow additional entrances to property.
2. Questions:
• What are the design aspects of the development if a variance is not granted?:
If the developer decides to build a through road -
There will be one entrance to serve a possible total of eight (8) lots.
There will be a road which is longer, possibly as much as 2-3 miles
longer. *Note that during the public hearing it was questioned as
to whether this is a valid argument because this road may not be
cost-feasible to build.
It appears that there will be at least 3 crossings of the easement area for
a road to serve all lots.
Because the road will serve more lots it will be required to meet a higher
standard for construction: wider, more grading, etc.
• In the event the Board should chose to approve the variance, are the conditions
reasonably related to the variance so that "rational nexus" is met?
At the meeting the applicant objected to any conditions being placed on the
variance. Since the meeting the staff has had further discussion and has found
only the condition relating to the fencing to be of question. Based on the fact
that it is the road and building sites that would vary, not the agricultural use of
the property, staff recommends amendment of the conditions to delete #3. In
addition, RWSA has commented that existing easement language for Best
Management Practices will address some of these concerns. However, all other
conditions can be shown to be directly relevant.
3. The Board's Further Consideration:
• Is this an extraordinary situation or is it a special privilege?
STAFF REPORT -VA-97-01
Page 7
r
• What creates the uniqueness and extraordinary situation?
Staff found this to be a unique and extraordinary situation based on the
combination of the following:
The property is of a large size and an unusual shape, including the fact
that there are 3 separate segments of external road frontage.
Of the 3 places of road frontage, only one (1) frontage has adequate sight
distance for a road to serve more than two (2) lots.
The topography of the property is steep: it changes by as much as 100
feet from one area to the next.
A stream crosses the property lengthwise from one end to the other. This
requires crossing it three (3) or more times to reach building
sites.
This area does not only drain into the watershed; it involves easement
area which will be near the water surface from the proposed Buck
Mountain reservoir.
4. The Applicant's Comments and Proposal:
• With regards to the tentative proposal to dissolve two (2) lot rights, staff is
unsure of the applicant's intentions at this point. The County Attorney's office
has determined that this is permitted, provided that it is voluntary on the part of
the applicant.
• With regards to the objections to the conditions, the applicant has not officially
submitted anything to speak to this at the time of this writing.
In addition, the Board was looking for an amendment to the language in the event of
approval of this variance. This has been prepared by the County Attorney's office with
consideration of the options for the Board.
In summary, Zoning staff recommends:
Revise condition #1 to read:
1. Any subdivision of the property shall be in general accord with the original
display map noted as such and initialed JDS, 5/6/97 and mindful of the
restrictions regarding crossing the RWSA easements (regardless of the number
of lots created.) Zoning staff approval of the lot configuration to allow
reasonable distribution of land and development rights as well as the deed
restrictions. The deed restrictions shall include prohibiting stream crossings for
roads or driveways but excepting: 1) crossings for agricultural purposes; and,
2) the one crossing necessary to access the building site(s) on the western most
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 8
side of the property. This one residential crossing shall follow the farm use path
that currently exists and which crosses the stream at a point close to TMP29-
45D.
2. In addition to the existing zoning ordinance's restriction on buildings and septic
drain fields, all construction (including accessory structures and farm buildings),
earth-disturbing activities, and improvements shall be prohibited on the existing
25% slopes.
JJA- cJ
a - a fa-' -
`7L/A R !%�%Z A I
a /1L ottii ,ti .rc h-{7
/ / ry
STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: April 1, 1997
STAFF REPORT VA-97-01
OWNER: R. E. Martin as Executor for The Estate of Ethel Martin, Deceased
APPLICANT: The Estate and Robin Ewald, Contract Purchaser
TAX MAP-PARCEL: 29-45
ZONING: Rural Areas, RA
ACREAGE: 90.739
LOCATION: East of Free Union, between State Routes 665 and 601 with its
primary entrance on Rt. 601, approximately 0.25 miles east of its
intersection with Rt. 665.
REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations,
which requires the minimum frontage on existing public roads to be 250 feet. Two
variances of 200 feet each are requested to allow use of two existing "pipestems" to create
two new parcels, each with only 50 feet of state road frontage. The residue will contain
the required 250 feet of frontage.
The applicant's justification includes the following:
Hardship
By virtue of the subject property's topography and the easement taken by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance would
require construction of a commercial road which would have a great environmental impact.
Granting the variance will allow the property to be developed naturally, thereby limiting the
environmental impact on the Buck Mountain Reservoir and the Rivanna Reservoir
Watershed.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The subject property is unique in that it was effectively divided by the RWSA easement in
order to protect several bold streams which run through the property. Each division,
created by the easement, has access to state road frontage via the above described
pipestems.
Impact on Character of the Area
The neighborhood is substantially rural residential and granting the variance will not
change the character of the neighborhood. Further, granting the variance will substantially
benefit the adjoining Buck Mountain Reservoir by limiting stream crossings. Finally, one
of the two pipestems is already in use for agricultural purposes.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
There is no history in the files of either the Departments of Building Code and Zoning
Services or Planning and Community Development on this parcel.
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 2
STAFF COMMENT:
This property was acquired in good faith by the Martin family at least 50 years ago. The
parcel is the same size and shape now that it was in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was
adopted. This is a large parcel, 90+ acres, with three points of existing state road
frontage. These separate frontage points were created by various off-conveyances
through the years. In 1984 when the RWSA took land (2.581 acres) and easement areas
(23.418 acres) for the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir, this property was bisected by
a "Y" shaped easement which did, as the application stated, effectively divide the property
into three pieces. This "buffer area" has certain deed restrictions regarding what land uses
are allowed both before and after construction of the impoundment. Driveways in the
buffer areas and bridges across the streams are permitted to be constructed now but will
be limited after dam construction starts. This easement with its buffer area is the
"extraordinary situation or condition of this property" that allows us to consider the variance
under the state code. This parcel also has topographic conditions that can be considered
in a variance request. The elevation ranges from 580 at the Rt. 601 entrance to 470 in the
stream closest to the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir. There are also bands of 20%
and 25% slopes running around the hillsides and near the lower elevations and stream
beds.
Under the Rural Areas zoning district, Sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2, Conventional
Development, eight is the maximum number of lots that can be created from a 90-acre
parcel. This includes 5 small lots with a 2-acre minimum and 3 parcels with a 21-acre
minimum size. A by-right subdivision plat giving each new lot frontage on a new internal
subdivision road could be submitted any time. VDOT has tentatively said that two is the
maximum number of houses or lots that could be served by an entrance at either the Rt.
665 or Rt. 653 pipestem. Therefore, if three or more lots are desired and no variance is
granted, the internal road will have to enter the property at the Rt. 601 frontage. Ethel
Martin's will gives one of her sons five acres adjoining his children's property next to the
Rt. 665 pipestem. Without this variance, that five acre lot will have to be served by a road
from the Rt. 601 entrance. This variance application is only showing 3 large lots, but if
granted, they will have the by-right option of creating a maximum of two lots at each
pipestem. They will also still be able to create 4 lots on an internal road utilizing the Rt.
601 entrance.
The strict application of the ordinance does not effectively prohibit but it does restrict the
use of the property. The question is if it is an unreasonable restriction. Is it more
reasonable to allow three entrances which will have a lesser environmental impact, or to
restrict the parcel to one entrance and to possibly double the road construction as well as
to create at least one additional crossing of the buffer areas that both the RWSA and
Albemarle County are trying to protect from excessive run-off, erosion and siltation of our
drinking water impoundments? The fact that our county has a 20-year history of protecting
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 3
its drinking water impoundments make this case one to consider carefully. Albemarle
County has implemented provisions to protect critical slopes and developed a zoning
district that has residential uses as secondary to agricultural and forestal uses. To this
extent, every "parent parcel" (parcels of record at the adoption of the ordinance) of ten
acres or more is limited in the number of new parcels it can create in an effort to retain as
much acreage as possible for agricultural and forestal land uses. Prior to our current
ordinance, this 90-acre parcel could have been divided into 45 two-acre lots if buildin
sites"frontage and other ordinance requirements could_be., net.
The ordinance allows the BZA to grant a variance "as will not be contrary to the public
interest, when owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provision will result
in unnecessary hardship; provided that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done..." The environmental impact of the two alternatives (variance or
no variance) is the hardship in this case, both to the applicant and to the general public.
The facts are summarized here:
No Variance
• one new intersection of an internal road with Rt. 601 for two to eight lots
• 0.75 to 1 mile of driveway/road to access the "will lot"
• 2.25 to 3 miles of roads and driveways if all 8 lots created
• potential for major fill areas construct road to state standard
• road standard for-6-Or more lots: 18' travelway plus 4' ditches + drainage structures
• two or more buffer area crossings
With Variance
• one new road intersection with Rt. 601 for one to four lots plus two driveways for
one or two lots each
• total area covered by three road/driveways estimated at half as much as without
variance
• road standard for 5 or fewer lots: 14' travelway plus 4' ditches + drainage structures
• less fill for this road standard and less opportunity for run-off, erosion, and siltation
of reservoirs
• can be conditioned to only one buffer crossing
• can be conditioned to keeping livestock out of streams further protecting reservoirs
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff agrees with the applicant that this request meets all the criteria for approval of a
variance:
1) The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance
would produce undue hardship.
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 4
The exceptional size, shape and topography of this property at the time of the effective
date of the ordinance together with the extraordinary situation of the physical division of
the property by the RWSA easements have produced undue hardship. Both the applicant
and the general public will be better served by the lesser environmental impact of the three
entrances if the applicant agrees to the conditions outlined below.
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.
The RWSA easement does extend throughout this Buck Mountain Creek, Piney Creek and
Burruss Branch area bisecting many properties. However, when compared to the total
number of parcels in the rural areas zoning district, it is a very small percentage. Of those,
probably even fewer would be similarly situated with multiple points of state road frontage
that do not meet the frontage requirements of the ordinance. Therefore, this is not an
issue that could or should be resolved through an ordinance text change but should be
looked at on a case-by-case basis for variance.
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.
A farm entrance already exists at the Rt. 653 pipestem, and a driveway exists at the Rt.
601 entrance so the one "upgrade and one new driveway at the Rt. 665 pipestem probably
will not change the character of the district.. Even if all the allowed eight lots were
developed, the houses would likely not be visible from the roads. Most of the building sites
are internal to the parcel so they would not clutter the rural residential feel of the Free
Union area. Three of the eight lots are required to be a minimum of 21 acres so the
pastures and agricultural uses that are established could continue on at least 63 of the 90
acres. Further, denying the variance may be detrimental to the general public for the
environmental reasons already discussed.
Staff believes that granting this variance is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff would like to ensure
that the environmental benefits discussed in this report are carried out by requiring the
following conditions:
Establishment of Agricultural Best Management Practice by all owners and reviewed and
approved by the Watershed Management Official and the County Engineer. These shall
be incorporated on the entire 90+ acres to protect both water quality and quantity. These
would include:
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-01
Page 5
1. Subdivision of property shall establish property lines following the streams within
the buffer areas and shall include restrictions in the deeds to prohibit any stream
crossing, even private driveways except the one c%-siny-n essary to access the
building site on the western most side of the property. This one crossing shall
follow the farm use path that currently exists and which crosses the stream at a
point close to TMP 29-45D. --- --�-- - 1
2. In addition to the existing zoning ordinance's restriction on buildings and septic
drainfields, all construction -(including accessory structures and farm buildings),
earth-disturbing activities, and improvements shall be prohibited on the existing
25% slopes.
3. If livestock is to be kept on any resultant parcel:
Fencing of the buffer areas or at least 100 feet on each side of all the
streams to keep any livestock out of the streams and out of the majority of
the buffer area; and,.
b. Development of alternative water source(s) to keep any livestock out of the
streams.
45471.;c4.4),.) )10 60-1 /41-t-C
7.4„;
d 4-- A-14— )
6 c.,r_e, '' `4` ,1-
44.
,s w -6 --
' / % '
�-- SEE 1�-3504 i 33 Lo TEL. 804-293-3195
�� § FAX 804-293-4202 r;
I 33
33E
31A 33E1 ROGER W. RAY & ASSOC., INC.
LAND SURVEYORS • LAND PLANNERS
171 7-2B ALLIED STREET • CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903
33
318 33AI ROGER W. RAY J ANDREW GRAFF
33F LAND SURVEYOR LAND SURVEYOR
33F1
\\\\\\\� �r�a,ewsq ou ___________ c‘
r ..r..
'
i j a,....,„
I'
� 31VtM
13s<
_� \ PE$ 4AI i 36
•
1 3IG �"
\ 34p I `
\ 39 / art:' 350 • _;.
4E 40
,\ 36 3 r 1 35H1
•
W�u- 00 -1 r
3'Q \ 38nor 40C i� R\ 6651/hA t ®� � �''" 40 y 35C7 2 8 31c1111111‘"45111 .
/ ® PRopp r�a0ai ►` /
—I— 6 \ 21 20 v ® ,i - -PARe-Eh 1 / a 9 A 35G,
• REE UNION �4111,4 ' �'
45 D �tt �IIII'' 4 9 350
25 Ise /r fi.. '��I 35fr
35-i' ill .
_ _ - . •♦ 4A ,04� II 49A1
,O . ♦ ♦ ' 1E51fl P
--/'
15 C +•
—4 0111111"111'"I I�/` 4 5 \
\ l 45A
\ +veN .` �RoPoSap `' /
,...,,....\_.
♦ ♦ 10,41 rfr 9A3
,� ♦ ` 80 1 4942
4
♦ 8 e l 7'4e. �.,, ahP / 4 �
•
1 AP 77.4....k_lprz.. .5j6•
6'
•t SIA •
:III‘ 3� I ✓
�`sr
11 041 44101t6,
►
#Z' ; 5 0 A ,
♦ ec 55 y sae '•
� /
,( 54 r Sf-t-T/,,, r -,ol 30
$CLOACITIS, Public Hearing April 1, 1997
. . .The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals will conduct a public
hearing on the following variance request on Tuesday, April 1, 1997 at
3:00 PM, in Meeting Room 241, 2nd Fl, County Office Building, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, VA: \qlr\
1) VA-97-01 Randolph E. Martin, Executor of the Ethel Martin Estate,
Owner, Robin Ewald, contract purchaser. Located E of Free Union between
Rts 601/665 with its primary entrance on Rt 601, +/- 1/4 mi E of its
inters w/ Rt 664, TM29,P 45, zoned Rural Areas. Applicants request two
variances, both to decrease the frontage requirement from 250 ft to 50 ft
to allow two new parcels to be created using existing pipestems.
. . .All applications are available for review in the Albemarle County
Building Code & Zoning Services Department, Room # 223 , County Office
Building prior to the public hearings. Reasonable accommodations will be
provided to persons with disabilities. Requests should be made to 296-
5832 . \glr\
Bill to:
Albemarle County Zoning Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Account Number A1319
Date: March 13 , 1997
Dates Run: March 17 & March 24 , 1997
*
*
*
K 1 VHININH HU 111LIK 1 I it J r ax;t5U4-Ln-t5257t5 rear LU "y( y:1` F.U 1/I_)4
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY sr
O. 9ox le • CM*RLOYTEBVILLE, VIRGINIA 229,02.O0IU • (BOA) V77-211170 Sit
April 21, 1995
Mr. Joseph T. Samuels,Jr.
707 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Samuels:
In response to your questions regarding the Martin Estate, County Tax Map parcel 29-45,
I would offer the following replies:
•
a. Driveways may be constructed within the easement areas.
b. Bridges may be constructed across the streams.
c. I am not aware of RWSA limitations on the number of crossings and/or bridges,but
the ultimate answer would have to be decided on a site specific basis.
d. Ponds may be constructed within the easement areas.
e. The reservoir pool is planned for elevation 464. It appears the impoundment will not
flood any of parcel B, but may be within 100'1 along the stream.
The Land Use Table recorded and made part of the deed addresses some of the above
issues. Construction within the easement areas requiring RWSA approval or inspection will
probably be made a part of the overall Albemarle County building/development approval
process.
I hope this information adds some clarity to the issues. Please call if I may be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Pr
Eugene K. Potter
Acting Executive Director
EKP/sg
cc w/enc: Jo Higgins, Alb. Co. Eng.
file: Martin, Ethel B.
SERVING CHARLOTTESVILLE&ALBEMARLE COVNTY
K I VHNNH HU I HUK 1 I 1 t Mar 2U 'y( 9:1 S F.U1/U4
3r' RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
I. O. BOX 18 • CM4RLOTTE®VILLE. VIRGINIA 2 2 6102-001 6 • (604) 977-2970
O,1tSV6
Land Use Controls For the Buck Mountain Future
Supplemental Reservoir Site
Land use controls have been established both for leased RWSA land
and for easements acquired by RWSA from adjacent property owners.
Leaseholders and owners of property under RWSA easement should
note that the land use controls are in addition to restrictions
on use already established by various County of Albemarle
ordinances. The controls on the easement areas become somewhat
more restrictive once the reservoir project is under
construction . A table of land use controls is attached. Tne
table is designed to answer most questions, but matters beyond
its scope will be handled by RWSA staff or the Board of Directors
as appropriate.
Before construction, land use controls are less restrictive in
the Future reservoir pool area than in the surrounding RWSA land
and easement areas. The differences for the future pool area,
however, are limited to 1 ) allowing row crops and 2) allowing
forestry practices more extensive than selective cutting . Feed
lots, permanent construction, and new septic fields or systems
are not permitted in either area. The agricultural uses of
pasture, hay land, and livestock watering are permitted, but use
of agricultural chemicals is limited to Best Management
practices. Fencing is permitted. Provision of access, including
roads and bridges, is subject to Best Management Practices and
RWSA approval, as well as any required County of Albemarle and
other permits. Wells are permitted.
After construction, land use controls apply only to the easement
areas, as RWSA at this point does not plan to lease any land
beyond the start of dam construction . In general , some
agricultural activities permitted before construction become
limited to Best Management Practices. Temporary structures are
not permitted beyond this point (fences are permitted however)
and provisions for access must conform to available BMP ' s and
RWSA review. Wells are permitted.
SERVING CHARLOTTESVILLE&AL®EMARLE COUNTY
V 1 VHNNH HJ I HUK 1 I 1 tJ r ax;25U4-2 J-2R5725 rear lU "y( y:14 V.US/U4
LAND USE TABLE
BUCK MOUNTAIN WATERSHED
For Leased RWSA Land and RWSA Easement Areas
X - Not Permitted
P - Permitted
L - Limited 1 BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION
k ¢ Easement Areas
Agricultural Practices'
Row Crops P X X
Pasture P P L
Hayland P P L
Livestock Access P P L
Feed lots X X X
Use of Pesticides
Fertilizers, and
other chemicals , L L L
Forestry Activitie82 P L L
Permanent Structural
Improvements X X X
Temporary Structural
Improvements P P X
New Septic Fields/
Systems X X X
Access P P L
Wells P P P
( 1 ) Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP) as described in
Manuals or other documents by the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service and Soils Conservation Service are
required. Access road and bridge construction shall also
follow established BMP' s and are subject to RWSA approval
before construction and inspection during and after
construction.
(2 ) All Forestry activities shall utilize Approved Forestry
BMP' s. Activities shall be limited to selective cutting
designed to promote the welfare of the remaining trees.
31G
33q 1
•[ ! 35OI
39 44/411p
� �: 35M3640 3 ' 35H1
•oo . n�
®��r k38
• 404.1
35•C
®v �1 49 N
49a 35c1
�NV� 45 D - - 3 5G
49
S. P?op 35
44A • 4941 35J
a
c•
/ 43c1 4 9 A 31 C--.....—
.-f i 4 Y
4.A,
440..4 ft
...is__.7 i
0-----____ 80_ AIN
49A2
I
A.
8 8 •'.+e 0.•,� IX 1. 0 4 9C
. •
J � • todkis, /.
• •
/- 50 A
'4-----Ccr 15 6
55
' � 548 '� /
8G �` 54 3
j 4
0 558 '
4
0 60 ♦ i 62
/ 8 ♦ , ~`
♦ 1
♦
♦ 1 Z �y�\
64 \ �t
._Y. - ;' . Q.
~ r-i /
/ 1
• 65 67C , : 0
8F / 1/4
% 8J • . �/� 63 A
/ - 67A
.70 /
67F
•
0 67P •
a` 67H
.70 111. 414,41,
13
67I 67M v
' 67
Kj ;!N
86 /69 \ ,1// ten. / eS4 Vi" 63
JL / /
1 1 ' SEE 17-35D4 /33'1' �o TEL 804-293-3195 4 -''
/ 3-1��� 33E 33 ' FAX 804-293-4202
• 31A 33E1 ROGER W. RAY & ASSOC., INC.
LAND SURVEYORS • LAND PLANNERS
1717-2B ALLIED STREET • CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22903
•
33
3341 ROGER W. RAY J. ANDREW GRAFF
318 33F LAND SURVEYOR LAND SURVEYOR
k DENore5 , W5/9 F¢SE `c�T- 33F1 _ c
\ i i e 1
i I 1
i r
'Ar 31 - � I }Sc
1 48 • \
/ 36 •
\
•
3 I G / / 1 i
101.1° \ •
33q
3 9 / i 350 • '"�
op
/ 3 5 M
40 \ / 36 3 - / 35HI r
4 E :3°4
hl
31C •„in,
\ \ OC •� 1. 665
A \
�_ 3 e a31C ®4 EP
uNiced -44-4iiri‘ -�i`�Oai �135C /'
11. aEE 4S D 0 ' 4935GIse �� ��I i 35
4 ' I35J♦ �II 49A1ate♦ .►. ♦ ,•• lik
f �` i
444*
44e
\ 15C ` 4iHiiii
II1IIIIII�I 4 S / --,f-' i 1 /
A
.�— ••
m6 �=--
• • �� A 4943
,tea • • _ • 80 9)0
IP
0 4942
• 8 8 47.4e R•je phP , 4
/ •
. ,,e_..55' '141k 0
II 1 .i.r.) • e 111
a 1 5IA ' •
as ecill"'
5 r;''`s� 4. 504
55/ �+. 25 4 8 •� /
'1
•._ 8 G i ., tic. 54 r Sr-,---r.,-,, 1 f GI . 3 0
25 MAR '97 19:18 GECC GCF BUS DEV P.1/2
r
FAX TRANSMISSION
SAgar Street 4th Floor
Landau WC2N 4NR England
Tot+44 171 853 1130
Fa..+44 171 853 1737
Date: March 25,1997
To: Board of Zoning Appeals Fax No.: 001-804-9724126
From: David H.Good
No. of pages (including cover sheet): 2
If you have any difficulty receiving this transmission,
please ring +44 171 853-1730.
Message:
25 MAR '97 19:18 GECC GCF BUS DEV P.2/2
s
14 Cheltenham Terrace
London SW3 4RD England
Tel.: +44-171-730-8591 (h)/853-1730 (o)
Fax:+44-171-565-0771 (h)/853-1737(o)
25 March, 1997
VIA FAX J04-972-412�
Board of Zoning Appeals
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road,Room 223
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Re: VA-97-01,Estate of Ethel Martin
Tax Map 29,Parcel 45--Request for Zoning Variances
Dear Sirs:
I am the owner of the property described as Parcel 44B on Tax Map 29. 1 understand that
for technical reasons(the existence of a driveway-wide strip adjacent to my property)I may not be
deemed to be `affected"by the above request for a zoning variance Nevertheless,I believe that 1
may be affected by the proposal. Accordingly,I have submitted this letter for your consideration,
as I will not be able to attend next week's hearing.
1 am concerned that approval of the requested variances may permit a subdivision of Parcel
45 in such a way as to provide multiple points of entry to Parcel 45 along the western edge of the
parcel. As I understand the situation,access to the piece of Parcel 45 that lies immediately adjacent
to Parcels 45D and 40, and north of the RWSA easement might be permitted along the existing
driveway that is adjacent to the southern corner of my property along Rte.601. This could result in
significantly increased traffic along that side of my property.
Therefore, while I am not opposed in principle to the granting of the variance, I feel that it
is extremely important that steps be taken to ensure that(i)notwithstanding any future subdivision
of Parcel 45,the part of Parcel 45 fronting along Rte.601 between parcels 44B and 45C does not
become overburdened with traffic and roads and(2)that access to Parcel 45, including particularly
the part of parcel 45 that is north of the RWSA easement and immediately east of parcel 45D, is not
funnelled into a narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to my property,notwithstanding the
prior existence of the driveway that currently provides access to parcel 45D.
Again,please accept my apologies for not being able to present my views in person,and
thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
David H. Good
1 believe that some years ago I gave a consent for the construction of a driveway and the siting of a trailer on
parcel 45D. I certainly do not believe that such consent would have extended to use by anyone other than the
occupier of the trailer on Parcel 45D,and my consent would have been given on such basis. Accordingly,I
would be opposed to a result in which traffic for various parts of parcel 45 was directed along or adjacent to
the existing driveway adjacent to my property.
�F pF ALBSg. ,
ofI IIII y�
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road,Room 223
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Building Code Information FAX(804)972-4126 Zoning Information
(804)296-5832 TTD(804)972-4012 (804)296-5875
March 24, 1997
Dear Applicant:
For your convenience and to allow you to organize your thoughts prior to the Board of Zoning
Appeals meeting on Tuesday, April 1, 1997, please find attached the staff report for your case.
Sincerely yours,
le?A't-- SPAL*11--LC_
Jan Sprinkle
Zoning Assistant
JS/st
Enclosure
m
w
SCALE IN FEET
0 00 Is" aRea KQo
�i
AL, EMARL,E COUNTY
Y` 17
43
WHITE HALL 1►ND
JACK JOUET7 DISTRICTS.
SECTION
2 9-�
570
Qw
-eLI"
o i r/ ti 77
/ I
°o (� y � r
r y ':� �� � � _/ ,' '/ �- _ \ , \ \_ \� •off •\\ .1, � 1\ �� �.
-160
540
!� O� cr � ,V , Soo ;- '' l• • � , �O 9 , � � � �� � •��P v _ - - _
(_ /GG••
/ PA EL CAr
K o ---- -- -
530
20-1
-`. IJ7r,. \ � � � it \ \V _\ '/ ,' ,// �•" �; �/' � � �� \
- ` 1-10
Cj
IX
ioQh
%
¢n
ir O \ %/ '-. } —_ _ _,--.--------_._���'r----�'- ''y.��! � \.�.,. ��a►_ \ ,,� ,\ `,\ o Oc,, ,�, , I, Ur �' J° / t s•.
i / i�--- - - �% - `� \\ +� ` �" O /,(31
is o "
to
oz
cp
550
10
\ A A\ ♦� � � � � /' � _ V - � 1 v � Q� ��� it � � � �--��
co go>A
O
101
vo
PARCE B
/� � '� r v� _dam--- 1 \ � / I / �0 I C� 1 � � • � � ' j 1 , / �. � � / �p . 1
'''-;-. � I � � I ; ,` �'�� , r` --� •Q �/�O �yJJ l ��' \ / � jl r / �, /� /� �/ _,r 1 " / 1 � _ , _ Y
MAP
TOPOGRAPHIC
;`,� r \ ,�� \\ \ \ 1 AND PROPOSED DIVISION JOY
4� \, \ \ \ \ CEDAR HILL FARM
' 4 uILLOCATED AT FREE UNION SERVIeFs
'\ ,t• WHITE HALL DISTRICT
I�p oy o �y �r ,.�,,, �j / f `�'' ,:.., „� �,�,�.• ' ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1 i . .� / ,✓ ,
� SCALE: 1" 100' DATE: MARCH 03 1991
\ r. •�,. 4Ji \ I r `� NO TES:
` .�• ^` fr f \ 11 I TOPOGRAPHIC DATA SHOWN HEREON WAS T-' .LN �
r:.
FROM MAPS SECURED FROM RIVANNA WATFR AN" lAo"or
((i � r, ROBIN E Wnt I+
SEWER AUTHORITY
-n ��•� � � 1 l / �'I - -.:. •. ��,,•.....•..,' .---•---_. 0�' � ��%� / �; \ 2 =//- Hc�c;t►� w h,\Y ,t a�;;;��� ;r,�
DENOTE. S RW SA EASEMENT. 1 f 1 "H AL t It. P S THI t
CH'AH1.uTTCS\ILLS VIRGUA JC3 IhJ5
:Tr%' — '
9t,1 j I 206ZZ n 3_1_11AS3110_18VH0
1338iS 031-1-1V 8Z-ZIZI
0f4i '�OSSV T AV8 M 83006
t 01VM3 N1808
80-1
L661 `20 H08VVY :31VG ,001 = ..I :3-1dOS
dIN1081A `AiNnOO 3-18VV438_1d
10181SIO -11VH 311HM
NOINn 338J ld 031VOO-1
INHVJ 1-11H 8V(130
NOISIA10 a3SOdO8d GNd
ddW 01Hd` 890d01
c
0
o
o
Ogg
0 h"
31IN,- -
I `
x
,
-
' pis dx
,
a
h C'��%+oy
Ile
a — —
fo 1 '
D XL
- -
/
,
_ D. \,
-13 `d d
S' \ °flip may �a
01
OSS
Sa / i 6+ IA"'
o
�.
ILI
si
- Ng
MY
PI
rpm
va-
_ x
PI
' y
Im
i
\ i
"wf
miff-mv Afitti 11 IL
MOM ��� ��� �►'i ,
�W,
a I[
� •a
�� E ";, /' / \�� \ \ ,� �•\ \\ :� \ dip
�s.F "� � i � �O � � Oil i ���.� \ i I . � I I I y�' � � � J ' � �//O �O /'- � � O� ,7• V "� �,
_ •--- .....-' `. � _ � ,... � `� \\� i - _ ��, i , � , ! ' . � i � �� /� � � • � •a�''/ � psi ,��5, ,
7
7- t3k
60
?y
4
`S% ♦ p'
540
sso
A EL C I K V 1 r y� ',� / _�.� \ \! ��_. - _ -.. r 1 i / ' \ � � O• �, � ` \ \ \ \,\�x � -- -.� _ � % \ 70.*j �•---
vPIle
1 _
IP
\ 1 1 \ .r y+17 r
�I \
- 520-
1 \ /
510
IN 1:1,Vo
'SRO
(id
flo
.• � I � C '� f, I � _ _ - _� '�1 � � � , \� A __ _ � � / r /• / ice- O � � •O � / hit• ','J
,
(ai! /O / 0� .y�.0' �11 l!'1t� �� ;g ` •^ - _ _ _ '`--- �•.r — -.r _ .�, �\ \ \ \-.l 1 _�/ %. � / / r / / '� �\ � /-. Or ! U
I
' � . / / , / .- _ _- _ � ` ` � _` � \ / % sir•• �"' • I /
_
:,; r � , , gip,. .. I / ��- .. — _------- -_ ''�_--..�/i— _ -_--�.\ \ * ,,` � _ (�► ��;�M'.. ',' I � , -i -
Q/
'po
n
•� % ,' ,` ` 0 � Ali // / /�"�/ � , � � _i __ __. -. \ \� \ \ '� ^ 1 1• \ \ � ' �i � tl v
IN
\ A 1 \ C E L A \� _1-'�_ \\ {\/+; /_
54
"
<ti
- _
\ _
S \ Ilk `, \ O / Q / i ,' � � : :'• _ - __ - _ - -+>..►_..�.,. _ _ � _ � / ,O \ . k ' t; .< k � \ _ ---- `~ \ \ `` .per � ;�
crab
•
1-560
TO
30
\ :�'V � ' \ \ ' I I I / .` t r _`��\. \ _ . ti ...r� , c . r,; r % � 1 / I l /; / _ _� � _ / � /.•/� j �i'
/ 570
oo
\ s Q
•E \ \ a9 \ I •D 'rY ' 0 / / / / / V
Al
�-
ID
_ I ip
TOPOG APHIC MAP
�--�- / ' �r - 1 AND PROPOSED DIVISION
CEDAR HILL FARM
LOCATED AT FREE UNION
4, t WHITE HALL DISTRICT
o II
�-Z�- ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: MARCH 03, 1997
X
NOTES:
/0001
I TOPOGRAPHIC DATA SHOWN HEREON WAS TAKEN -a' FOR
IN
FROM MAPS SECURED FROM RIVANNA WA ROBIN EWALD
���% - �• TER l�ND
SEWER AUTHORITY,
`\ / Q ' \ . %' 1,1� / a a ROGER W. RAY & ASSOC., INC.
S�. ra/ 0 2. Z2�1 DENOTES RWSA EASEMENT. 1717-28 ALLIED STREET