Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700020 Review Comments 1997-12-02 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: December 2, 1997 STAFF REPORT VA 97-20 OWNER/APPLICANT: Ethel Mary Conley Estate / Roy L. And Carroll R. Conley TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A1/1/24C ZONING: R2, Residential ACREAGE: 0.869 acres LOCATION: This parcel has frontage on Railroad Avenue (Rt. 788) and on St. George Avenue (Rt. 1202). It is located approximately 0.5 mile from Rt. 240 in Crozet. REQUEST: The applicants request a variance in the maximum density to allow 0.869 acres with three existing dwellings to subdivide into two parcels. Section 14.3, Area and Bulk Regulations for the R2 District, requires a minimum of 0.5 acres per dwelling. The lot proposed with two dwellings requires a minimum of 1.0 acre and consists of 0.48 acres, requiring a variance of 0.52 acres. The other proposed lot with one existing dwelling requires a minimum 0.5 acres and consists of 0.39 acres, requiring a variance of 0.11 acres. This property was left to both sons, at the death of both parents. Roy Conley, son of Ethel Conley, is hoping to purchase the family property where he has lived much of his life. He hopes to keep the family home to preserve for his own family. In order to secure financing, he is forced to subdivide. The dwellings were built on the property by the father, for his wife, Ethel Conley, and each son. The property was purchased in good faith that this would be done. Hardship Roy Conley worked side by side with his father to build the property as it is today. He lived most of the years at the property looking after his mother, after his father's death in 1971. Mr. Conley has contacted several lending institutions and is unable to purchase a homeowners' mortgage due to the special circumstances of the property. He needs a clear deed on one-half of the property. Page 2 Roy L. & Carroll R. Conley STAFF REPORT VA-97-20 Uniqueness of Hardship At the time of purchase, zoning didn't restrict the total dwellings on a certain size lot. Zoning has changed over the years from 1965 since Mr. Junie Conley's purchase. If changed, the property lines would measure with existing property owned by others. This is the only property running from St. George Avenue to Railroad Avenue. Impact on the Character of the Area The only effect that would take place to other property owners would be an increase of value to existing properties. Each dwelling would remain the same, and the look of the neighborhood would not change as it has since 1971. The sole purpose is to meet the requirements of the financial institutions and meet the legal zoning requirements from 1965 to present. A property line on paper is the only effect. RELEVANT HISTORY: There is no history on this property in zoning files. STAFF COMMENT: This property was acquired in good faith by Mr. Conley, Sr, for his family. There are several conditions existing which the Code has us consider for a variance. These conditions at the time of the effective date of this ordinance include: the size of the property, the existing development and the layout of that development. The lot existed at its present size when the current ordinance and the R2 zoning were adopted. The two houses and one mobile home existed at that time. The property has road frontages on each end and is developed such that it appears to be two separate lots. The lots are proposed with slightly more area in the lot containing the brick home and mobile home. The proposed lot line follows the way the land is enjoyed, with the line directly beyond the rock retaining wall. The existing one story brick and frame house does not meet side setback; however, that structure is legally nonconforming in terms of setback. All structures comply with setbacks from the new property line. Page 3 Roy L. & Carroll R. Conley STAFF REPORT VA-97-20 All homes on this property are served by public water and sewer. In cases in which there are undersized lots, we review the proposal for concerns such as the availability of suitable soils for septic fields. That is not an issue here. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because the necessary financing is critical, it is likely that Roy Conley would not be able to own his family home without the variance. This would be more than an economic hardship which is beyond the purview of the Board, it would likely be a confiscation of his ownership rights by the will. 1) The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. It would be an undue hardship if Roy Conley could not obtain ownership. 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. Staff is not aware of any properties in the same zoning district and same vicinity which share these characteristics: The property was improved prior to zoning to provide a home for the children on the family land. The land has road frontage on two different roads, one at each end. The land is developed in terms of house placement, driveways, etc., such that it functions as two separate lots. These lots function essentially as they are proposed with the subdivision. 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. There will be no change in the use of the property or in its physical characteristics, if the variance is granted. It will continue as it has been used. Should the Board find cause to approve this variance, staff recommends the following condition: 1. The variance is granted for a subdivision in substantial accord with the plat by S.L. Key which was submitted with the variance application.