Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199800009 Review Comments 1998-06-02 2u5,1144.1_ /?iffi-d--10 6/9- - n,ut-e - 0)A- STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: May 5, 1998 STAFF REPORT VA-98-09 OWNER/APPLICANT: Pamela B. Humphries TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 27/22 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 6.456 LOCATION: South side of Rt. 674 approximately 0.3 miles east of its intersection with Rt. 810 near Doylesville TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant would like to add a second dwelling to her property in a location where there is an existing barn. To make room, she proposes to move the barn slightly to the east and then construct the new house where the barn was. To accomplish this she needs relief from both Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75-foot front yard for all structures; and, Section 4.2.1, Building Site Required, which does not allow any structures to be located within 100 horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream to any public drinking water impoundment. The following table shows the five variances needed, as well as which structure and which setback: Required Requested Required Requested Requested Setback setback setback from setback from setback from ' from R/W from R/W all streams rear stream side stream For New 75' 43'(variance 100' 66'(variance 80'(variance House of 32') of 34') of 20') For Relocated 75' 65(variance 100' 34'(variance 100' Barn of 10') of 66') RELEVANT HISTORY: None PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This property has limitations only in the area that the applicant wants to build. It is staff's opinion that this small part of the parcel is already overdeveloped. In an area of approximately 1.5 acres, (defined by the state road, two streams and an adjacent property) there is already a single family dwelling, an old garage that has been converted to Ms. Humphries' work shop, a barn and at least one shed. The remainder of the property is on the west side of the stream and could easily be developed without variances. There are approximately four acres of hillside in moderate, 10 to 15 percent slopes. When looking at the entire 6.5 acre parcel, there is neither narrowness, shallowness, size, shape, nor topographic conditions that prohibit or even restrict the use. It is Ms. Humphries' desire to make special arrangements for her elderly mother to be close to the existing house where Ms. Humphries lives, to be in a somewhat level area and to have easy access to the state road that brings this request to the Board. VA-98-09 Page 2 May 5, 1998 If a variance were granted, there would be one dwelling 54 feet from the right-of-way, one dwelling 43 feet from the right-of-way, and a barn 65 feet from the right-of-way. If and when the Virginia Department of Transportation decides to improve the road, all of these structures would either have to be purchased with public money or become even closer to the road, possibly creating an unsafe situation for small children and domestic animals. The ordinance tries to protect against this unwise use of our physical and financial resources by maintaining the 75-foot setback on thoroughfare roads in the rural areas. Often, variances are requested and granted for additions to existing dwellings where the structure existed before the regulation. However, in the case of new construction, it is staffs opinion that even more caution should be exercised. There are many alternatives to the choices represented by this application. The area of this parcel that is not encumbered by the yard requirements and the building site stream setbacks could easily be leveled sufficiently to accommodate a site for two houses. Although this would involve constructing a driveway across a stream and on a hillside, this is common practice in this mountainous area of the county. The house sites themselves would be far enough from the streams that there would be little to no impact. Both the northwest and southeast sides of the existing house also have areas out of all setbacks where an addition could be made without variance. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary because: • Mother is 80 years old and has failing sight and limited mobility. • To build where requested will allow easy, level access by her to main house and easy access for Jaunt and ambulance. • The rear four acres of the property is across the stream and is steep uphill, making building there totally unsuitable and inaccessible by mother. • The requested building site will situate the house on a flat portion of the lot. Although sympathetic to her desire to help her mother, staff opinion is that there is plenty of room on this parcel to build two more homes without variances. Staff cannot identify any hardship that is related to any condition of the property itself as required under the Code of Virginia for granting a variance. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. IICOB_11VOL31GENERALISHAREIBLD&ZONISHARONIVA98-09.doc VA-98-09 Page 3 May 5, 1998 Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • Neighbors' properties are flat for several hundred feet from the road and do not have a stream running close to or across these flat areas. There are no unique conditions that currently limit the use of the 6.5 acre parcel. The front yard requirements for the RA district and the building site provisions apply to all properties in this general area. There are many other properties in this general area that have slopes and streams. 2. The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • The requested variance will situate house on the lot so that at least 300 feet will be clear to the western boundary of the property. • The neighbors' house across the road is behind their horse pasture. • The eastern side neighbors will not see the new house. • The rear, or southern property adjacent to mine is undeveloped and unoccupied, and will be separated by at least two acres of land. Staff cannot agree that the addition of another dwelling in this 1.5± acre area, and so close to the state road, will not change the character of the district. Although it will most likely be as neat and attractive as the existing development, the rural areas district has a minimum requirement of 2 acres per dwelling. Adding one more structure so close to the existing structures in this small area defined by natural features would not be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance. 3. The applicant has not 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: Since none of the three criteria for a variance have been met, staff recommends denial. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The variance is for the relocation of the barn and construction of a new dwelling in general accord with the description in this file. Any change in these plans that would further encroach into either setback would require amendment to this variance. 2. Any future new construction beyond these plans that encroaches into any setback would require amendment to this variance. IICOB 11VOL31GENERALISHAREIBLD&ZONISHARONIVA98-09 doc