Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700019 Review Comments 1997-12-02 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: December 2, 1997 STAFF REPORT VA-97-19 OWNER/APPLICANT: William Robertson, III and Sybil Robertson TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45/31 E ZONING: Rural Areas, RA ACREAGE: 2.041 LOCATION: Northwest side of Rt. 743 approximately 500 feet north of its bridge across the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. REQUEST: The applicants request two variances to allow construction of a garage on an existing foundation. The first variance is for relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires the front yard adjacent to an existing public road to be 75 feet. The second variance is from Section 4.2.1, Building Site Required, which excludes, "Such area as may be located within two hundred horizontal feet of the one-hundred-year flood plain of any public drinking water impoundment...." In order to utilize an existing foundation that is 40 feet from the right-of-way of Rt. 743 and 135 feet from the 100-year flood plain of the reservoir, the front yard must be varied by 35 feet and the building site must be varied by 65 feet. The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship Strict application of ordinances adopted after the lot was created and approved would prevent the building of anything on the lot, whatsoever. As can be established by lot measurements on the plat, no single point on the property is not in violation of one or the other setback. Uniqueness of Hardship The subject lot is "pie-shaped" and rather shallow in comparison to other close-by properties. Other neighborhood properties seem to be more rectangular and regular in shape, allowing more options for additions or additional structures to be built. Impact on Character of the Area If approved, there would be no detriment to adjacent properties. Conversely, building the garage will have a positive effect on all concerned. The appearance of the property will be improved by constructing an attractive garage to house the owners' boat, RV, tractor, tools and other items now visually cluttering the site. Included in the design will be "seepage trenches" to collect run-off and provide protection for the reservoir that the exposed foundation does not currently provide. The construction within the setback will require county engineering approval of the run-off control devices. Page 2, VA 97-19 December 2, 1997 RELEVANT HISTORY: There is no relevant history on this property. STAFF COMMENT: This property was acquired in good faith by the Robertsons in 1992. The parcel is the same size and shape now that it was in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. At 2.041 acres, this is a relatively small, triangular parcel which has its two longest sides restricted by our two largest setbacks. (The 75' front yard is the largest in any residential area and the 200' reservoir setback is the largest of the building site restrictions.) This parcel also has topographic conditions that can be considered in a variance request. The elevation ranges from 440 at a slight ridge on the northern most boundary to approximately 390 at the edge of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir all along the western most boundary. There are also bands of 20% to 25% slopes running from the existing dwelling down to the reservoir. This area along Rt. 743 is basically residential. There is a church across the road, but most properties in the area are 2 to 5 acre lots developed with single family homes, some with garages. The addition of a garage to this property would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. However, as the house on the property was constructed in 1960, the owner already has reasonable use of this property. The applicants have stated that there is no point on the property that is not within at least one of the setbacks. However, staff finds that there is a small triangular area where a garage could be placed. If positioned six feet from the adjacent northern property line, a structure approximately 25' x 30' could fit without encroaching into either zoning setback. (A standard two car garage needs only 21' x 21'.) This is also the highest point of the property. To utilize this area, at least one large tree (three-foot diameter) and several smaller trees (six inches to two feet in diameter) would have to be removed and a pad would have to be graded. The potential for runoff and erosion problems would occur here, however, the Water Resources Manager, David Hirschman, has commented that it would probably be insignificant. The northern property line is also improved with a nicely maintained vertical board fence and the adjacent property has a dwelling approximately 80 feet from that fence. The strict application of the ordinance does not effectively prohibit use of the property, but it may cause more of an environmental impact as well as detriment to the adjoining property. The question is if these potential impacts are unreasonable restrictions. Is it more reasonable to allow use of an existing foundation which will have a lesser environmental and neighborly impact, or to restrict the building site to an area where even minimal grading and site work will create additional impervious area, run-off, and possibly some erosion/siltation of our drinking water impoundment? 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..." t Page 3, VA 97-19 December 2, 1997 STAFF 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. There are no other properties in the same district and vicinity that are so severely impacted by the two setbacks of this case. 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 addition of a garage in an area that is developed residentially will not change the character of the district. Use of the existing foundation will not be a detriment to either the reservoir or the adjacent property to the north. It will allow the owners to store their boat, RV, tractor and large tools out of sight of the public road and of the reservoir while minimizing the environmental impact by not removing trees, not grading and without adding more impervious coverage. However, the granting of this variance would be a convenience for the applicants. They are already enjoying use of the property without variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Although there is public benefit in the potential for improving the aesthetics of the property and for possibly protecting our reservoir by not grading and adding impervious area elsewhere on the property, the fact remains that this is a convenience and not a true hardship. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff would recommend the following condition: This variance is for the garage using the existing foundation as requested on Building Permit 97-1508NNR only. Any further addition or new construction will require a separate variance application.