The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199800011 Review Comments 1998-05-05 `"7/ cam• G- -4 --' STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: May 5, 1998 STAFF REPORT VA-98-11 OWNER/APPLICANT: John T. and Sandra H. Hoza TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 31A/A5 ZONING: VR, Village Residential ACREAGE: 0.615 LOCATION: Southwest side of Viewmont Road in Earlysville Heights subdivision TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 12.3, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires the side yard in the VR zone to be 15 feet. A variance of 9 feet is requested to allow an addition to an existing house to be six feet from the property line. The addition will contain living space, an attached garage, and an enclosure for an existing stairwell. RELEVANT HISTORY: ZMP 219 rezoned this subdivision from Al, Agricultural to R1, Residential in 1972. At that time the side yard requirement was only 10 feet in the R1 district. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This section of Earlysville Heights was subdivided in 1971. The house was built and the current owner purchased the property in good faith in 1972, before our current Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Mr. and Mrs. Hoza would now like to make an addition to their house which would extend across the rear of the existing structure and out another 31 ± feet, ending approximately six feet from the property line on the northwest side. This addition would add space in the house as well as allow an enclosure to be made around the existing outdoor stairwell to the basement and to attach a two-car garage. In this construction project, they will also be able to correct some serious drainage problems that have worsened over the years. Although the Hozas cannot add the entire addition they would like, they can enclose the stairwell and build a single car garage without variance. The drainage issues that exist could be corrected in the same manner they intend with the two-car garage. These applicants already have reasonable use of their property with their existing dwelling and they can still enlarge without a variance. Under VR zoning, this lot has a 15-foot side yard requirement and a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet. Since the lot is only 26,789.4 square feet, it does not conform to the district. Further, since the house was constructed in 1972, the language of Section 6.4.2, [Nonconforming] Expansion or Enlargement, will apply in this case, thus requiring a side yard of only 10 feet. Therefore, without the variance the addition could extend to within 10 feet of the side property line. Mr. Hoza talked to the adjoining property owner, Staff Report, VA-98-11 Page 2 May 5, 1998 John W. Powell, Jr., who has no objection to this variance (see letter of support), but would not agree to a property exchange. 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 major additional excavation and construction as well as additional materials and equipment would be required, at considerable additional expense, to try to solve-the problems that would be caused by the strict application of the ordinance. These would include: building a separate structure to cover the stairwell and a high retaining wall around it; installing additional drain lines to direct water around the retaining wall to prevent pressure from collapsing the wall; installing a "French well", a sump pump, and drain lines behind and between the structures to capture the water and channel it away; installing a larger stairwell drain and re-routing the drain line to handle the increased water. Installing the new drain would require re-installation and/or relocation of the septic and distribution box lines. Staff can agree that there is an exceptional topographic condition that in combination with the development of the properties on all three sides of this lot does create the drainage problem experienced by the owners. However, the requirements of the ordinance are not preventing the owner from fixing the problems. The ordinance does not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use nor does it restrict the repair of the situation. Staff sees no hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant says: • None of the adjoining properties is experiencing a hardship or any problems in any areas or locations near the proposed construction area on his property. • No problems will be created or experienced by any of the adjoining properties by the granting of this variance and this proposed construction. In this zoning district and this vicinity there are a number of houses that are so close to the property lines that they may not be able to make additions similar to the one requested here. A number of them already have two car garages or carports, but this entire subdivision is zoned VR and must abide by the same requirements. 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. A:IVA98-11 doc Staff Report, VA-98-11 Page 3 May 5, 1998 Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • Approval of this request will not cause any problems to occur on any of the adjoining properties, or adversely affect them in any way. • Character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. Staff agrees that the proposed addition with the variance will not change the character of the district. The adjoining property is already developed with a dwelling approximately 54 feet from the side property line. This separation will allow sufficient light, air and landscaping so the properties will not appear crowded. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since two of the three criteria for variance have not been met, staff recommends denial. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following aLoocelmOblj condition: p/Yt 1. The variance is for the addition requested in this file only. Any future additionsjwilljb require amendment to this variance. I S A IVA98-11 doc 611_ A_yi-Abt .10 .4,44("1.0 - cAAA /6 ft) 1-4A 57'oet )14 1.0 rO, tAdi 21,e)j- 4J0/beilktieJe W/Y/ A:1-Z 674,Led A)/Vail;(a7K{_e_ cy alf-4-74Ls- 7‘ 75;1)6 "-reAe(4-`Zr- -714.g , a 4 v cd4 e&44I 0/1-e_ wrIA4A-e- A.e ;14, _ /Iry IA)/ k 12 [44-e-i .s- - al v 6-a%-d7 / of L‘2-e -41-" (A)/(2-6 -- );g4Let,i/1-60 P (.0-4)/6/ ovil 71,0-2/J j9e(AA lait-a / C11 GVhtl P'e4t4`- I LAL CO-41;-OlZta 1?1,f4te v4_ 4. di-wei_ -litA)tf e,0,4;414;frv( 1-. A; ( )ct._ p-L6-4- pt U OtA , 5 AA 5 _" 91,( rti o -)11Ant arr%'v'e '44 e 4-01, 3 y 2N ohyN /, D,Z/9 - 973-86/ 7 VIEWMONT ROAD (50' ) s3002' E - - _ tt.0' VFACO !�/M.0•2__ td` - O 275.0'• TOsRIMEt RD R/M O.B. 446 i lI 30' BLOG. LINE �� I f t A • I " :1 w a�1,oN J I \ . Pox 1 I sEP� L „l A .at .. — H / Ro m '7 %y`, �?► I.1 OVERHANG -43 r 'E o h%o uS� _� BALCONY t►�I --- - • o2µ pus N E NE N 50.4 1c s LOT 6 ,,,I S-� LOT 4 TM 31 A 0 + SPLIT FOYER 56 I = TM 3 l A N BRICK i FRAM vJRTER A. uuRIT R DRAINAGE ,,;' -t�ra1NAC�E III a D — p,Qo ,, LOT L/NC BLOCK A 1 TM .31A 1 O WEL Z' I f UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN 6' OF ALL BOUNDARY LINES D.B.450Pg.374 T - L ron I 154.0 '• S i9°4330. E -- • I 46 wAlTk l�R F a1 rvfAG,F RoM PR-0pEt2ry LING To HoLST ON/ _ L-OT 34 iron -- TiV\ 31 PHYSICAL SURVEY OF LOT OF LOT 5 , BLOCK A, SECTION ONE o' ` Pf41 "EARLYSVILLE HEIGHTS" 4 EXISTING ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA c '_f PI No. I MPRoV EME NTS 54 <7 3 fa) 655 A1\1D SPEClA ._ �� 4 :; s ;h), 7�3 sc THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON SEPTEMBER 15 , 1972 SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT AND T.._ "1TLE LINES AND WALLS OF THE B ING ARE SHOWN HEREON.e T,17//v 7TT0Z/ WILLIAM E. ROUDABUEH. JR. CERTIFIED L OR r 9 Z3- a -S O/ CERTIFICATE NO.655a.RVE 7Eb VIEWMONT ROAD (50 ' ) S Wm' E 11. Q4 VEPC`___ Y 275.0'5.0' TOPSF� T RDp R/ -- � _Wp • �� ° .% ___________I—_____ — V.LIT. R/w o.8. yy6 i — - -- _ . I P9' 346 I i 30' BLDG. LINE i 1 I I GJ�� I co I b , I I _ , elfi y I.1 OVERHANG Fo o kOLISF a l/ ros I ofl LOT 6 is 50.4 1 a - LOT 4 1 5141 1- . SPLIT FOYER 3, F120M -o - i z _, ""/moo _� N BRICK I ralRw�i-� d FRAME �=RoM pRO(�S -Ty L1NE I LINS GgriA-.1 --- 50/ to OF�DITioN 7>96',- — TO PROpE72.7), L,,y& I ' ARI% I • I LOT 5 1 I BLOCK A I -r-rn 3I A I ��OWELL TD PR°PCRTy LINE UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN 6' OF I f ALL BOUNDARY LINES D.B.450P , ,__ t< _ 9 374 Iron — I S 19°43 30„ E ' ! J • �01\sE: O oposED . l�oT 34TM 31 M.M,PR os z t s 1�0' leOm P 2opel ry LINE Iron - - - . PHYSICAL SURVEY OF ,1,p1,TH op 1/ 1 'T C. PI rY'v A CC-('TT(11�I fled .`.� j'1