Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700023 Review Comments 1998-02-03 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: February 3,1998 STAFF REPORT VA 97-23 OWNER/APPLICANT: Owensville Pentecostal Church TAX MAP/PARCEL: 43 / 31 , 31A and 31 B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 0.635 ac, 0.215 ac and 0.472 ac LOCATION: On the east side of Route 601 , approximately 1/4 mile from Route 676 TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations for the Rural Areas district. A variance of 38 feet is requested to allow an addition to be constructed 37 feet from the front property line and a variance of 27 feet is requested to allow a setback of 8 feet from the rear property line. The applicant wants this variance to construct an addition for a bathroom and classroom for the Church. The existing Church is about 800 square feet. It has a congregation of about 30 members. The proposed addition is about 300 square feet and will provide indoor potable water and sanitary disposal This proposal also necessitates a special permit which will be reviewed pending the outcome of the variance. The church itself is nonconforming because it was not built with a special permit or a site plan and it does not presently meet setbacks. RELEVANT HISTORY: The existing church was established about thirty years ago. The applicants applied for S.P. 86-66 for the construction of a new church building approximately 32 feet by 70 feet in area. They planned to demolish the existing house and existing church. This petition was indefinitely deferred. VA 86-04 First Free Pentecostal Church was denied on March 18, 1986. This was a request to allow the construction of an addition which would be located within 16 feet of the front property line and 8 feet of the rear property line. Staff recommended these conditions for the variance approval: Health Department approval of the well and septic; V.D.O.T approval of the entrance and Planning Commission approval of a site plan. VA 88-89 Owensville Pentecostal Church was denied on January 10, 1989. This was a request to combine the three subject parcels in order to construct a new church building. (Please note that the ordinance has been amended since that date such that a variance is not required to combine nonconforming parcels.) Staff Report: VA 97-23 Date: February 3, 1998 Page 2 At some point several years ago, the church building was hit by a car and knocked off the foundation. It was rebuilt to the same size. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This property was acquired by the church in 1980. The parcel is the same size and shape now that it was in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. There are exceptional size and shape restrictions that unreasonably restrict the use of this property. The property consists of three parcels which together form a pie shape. The property is of such small size that all parcels together would not satisfy the minimum lot size for a new lot. In addition, the location of the existing physical development of the parcel further restricts the use of this parcel. The area where the church is built is as narrow as 66 feet and is subject to front and rear setbacks which total 110 feet. Therefore, the necessary lot depth which would not necessitate variances is 110 feet (combined setbacks) + 12 feet (building depth) = 122 feet. This qualifies as a demonstrable hardship in most circumstances. However, it is staff's opinion that it is premature to discuss building expansion until feasibility issues such as Health Department approval for the septic and well have been addressed. Therefore, staff recommends deferral until that information is available. Staff has reviewed this request and prepared a report in the event this information is available and the Board chooses to take action. It is also important to justify the proposed location of the building addition versus the other side of the building. If the addition is located on the north side of the church, less of a variance is necessary. As the Board is aware, staff typically views an application in light of what is the least amount of variance necessary to satisfy a hardship. Staff recommends that the Board takes action only after a justification is provided to them by the applicant. Please note that variances are necessary for construction on the other side of the building because the lot depth at that point is about 75 feet. It is possible for the Board to approve a variance for the other side because it involves setbacks of a lesser variance than that which was advertised. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria is as follows: Necessary Finding Number One: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: • This is the only location these facilities can be upgraded. There is no room inside Staff Report: VA 97-23 Date: February 3, 1998 Page 3 the existing building. Staff can identify several hardships unique to this property, as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. The property is: such a small size, an unusual shape and the development is currently located in such a way that it limits the use of the property. The front setback of 75 feet along Route 601 and a rear setback of 35 feet require a total of 110 feet in setbacks. The area in which the church is presently located is about 66 feet in depth, lacking 44 feet in setbacks and the additional depth necessary for the building addition itself. It is imperative that the applicant justify the proposed location or staff recommends that the building addition must be located on the other side of the building. Presently, there are no indoor bathroom facilities. If the Health Department approves this proposal, it would be an undue hardship to deny the provision of potable water and sanitary disposal. In fact, there is provision in the nonconforming regulations of the zoning ordinance which states that "nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to preclude the zoning administrator from authorizing issuance of permits for the installation of potable water supply, toilets and other sanitary facilities ..." If the applicants proposed only the bathrooms and it was justified that setbacks could not be met, the bathroom addition would not require a variance. It is because the classroom is also proposed and there is justification needed for the location of the addition, that this is before the Board. Another criteria which is considered is reasonable use of the property. The existing church is of such a small size that the space for storage, classrooms and the like is not available within the existing building. Staff is of the opinion that it would be an undue hardship to not have some additional area for classroom and storage. Therefore, staff concludes: The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Necessary Finding Number Two: Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: This property was donated many years ago and is now surrounded by "established lots." As stated above, there are many limitations on the use of and development of this property which are not commonly shared. Hence, staff concludes: 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 Report: VA 97-23 Date: February 3, 1998 Page 4 Necessary Finding Number Three: Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: By granting this variance, we would be able to update the health facilities and improve the appearance of the property by demolishing the "outside facility." Staff has received verbal opposition from several neighbors, including from the neighbors directly to the rear. A letter has been received from these concerned neighbors and is attached for the Board to review. Voiced concerns include impact on property values, on Route 601 traffic and so forth. Some of these concerns are more related to review of the special permit and others are directly relevant. The proposed addition is inset from the existing building in the front and in the rear. In other words, it is not as deep as the existing building. Therefore, it is further setback from the front and rear than the existing building. It is difficult to evaluate the impact on the character of the district. Staff recommends that if at all possible, landscape screen should be installed along the rear property line. It will involve further study to determine what evergreen could thrive in a small space such as is available. This landscaping may involve shrubs due to the narrow approximate depth of 8 feet. For this criteria, staff offers the following considerations: Pros • Demolishing the existing outside bathroom facilities should improve the situation of this and surrounding properties. • The proposed addition should be no closer than the existing building. • With Health Department approval, the bathroom facilities may be approved on one or the other side of the building. • With additional interior space, there may be less outdoor activity. The tent revivals and the like have been listed as sources of noise. Cons • The building addition may increase traffic to the site. (Please note that adequacy of the entrance is an issue for the special permit.) The variance issue is one which relates only to what is reasonable use and what distance an addition should be from property lines. Staff Report: VA 97-23 Date: February 3, 1998 Page 5 Therefore, staff agrees: 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Granting this variance would be not be merely a convenience for the applicants. Without indoor plumbing and with a small building, they are not presently enjoying use of the property. Because of this and the fact that all three of the variance criteria may be met, staff recommends approval for cause: Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1 . This variance is for the addition as represented on the application. This is for a bathroom and classroom. Any further addition or new construction will require a separate variance application. 2. Health Department approval of adequacy of well and septic field. 3. Construction of the classroom is subject to approval of a special permit. 4. Zoning staff approval of evergreen landscaping or a 4-6 foot screening fence along the rear property line in the area of the proposed addition. I.\GENERAL\SHARE\BLD&ZON\AMELIA\VA97-23 WPD ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241, 3:00 P.M. TENTITIVE AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 I. Call to Order II Establish a Quorum III Appeal Hearing 1) AP-98-01 The Pavilion at Riverbend, LLC, (Coran Capshaw, owner) Staff Person Jan Sprinkle IV Variance Hearing 1) VA-97-23 Owensville Pentecostal Church - Wilbur Kidd Staff Person Amelia McCulley 2) VA-97-24 Hillcrest Land Trust - Woody Parrish Staff Person: Amelia McCulley V. Old Business Approval of Minutes January 6, 1998 & May 6, 1997 VI New Business VII Adjournment