Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199800015 Review Comments 1998-07-07 Staff Report: VA 98-15 Page 1 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: July 7,1998 STAFF REPORT VA 98-15 OWNER/APPLICANT: Diana R. Mays and Charles E. Via TAX MAP/PARCEL: 102 / 20 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 22.92 acres LOCATION: On the west side of Route 20 South, approximately 2 miles north of the Route 708 / 20 intersection. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations. A variance of 15 feet is requested to allow an addition to a house to be constructed 60 feet from the front property line at Route 20, instead of the 75 foot setback required. The applicant wants this variance to construct an addition to the house which will include a 2-car garage, mudroom and laundry room. RELEVANT HISTORY: An application for a mobile home, S.P. 84-60 was made on this property. 98-694 AR is the building permit which is pending for this proposed addition. At the time of building permit application, the need for variance was discovered. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Based on information that staff has, this property was acquired by the present owners in 1995. The parcel is the same size and shape now that it was when it was acquired. There are neither exceptional size nor shape restrictions nor topographic features which are unique and which unreasonably restrict the use of this parcel. The parcel is of sufficient size to undertake an addition. It is this particular design and the specific desires of the owners that causes the need for the variance request. It appears that there are several options for the addition which would not involve a variance: a single-car garage could be built or the addition could be shifted further away from Route 20. Shifting the addition would involve some interior redesign to the existing house due to conflicts with windows, etc. In summary, there is no demonstrable hardship in this case; therefore, granting a variance would be a special privilege and convenience for the applicants. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria is as follows: Necessary Finding Number One: Hardship Staff Report: VA 98-15 Page 2 The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: • This is the only way to connect to the house due to the drainfields on the other side. • This house is historical and the proposed design is being used to maintain the historical look of the house. • Staff does not question the constraint of building on the other side due to the location of the drainfields there. As a result, the focus of the review will be on construction on the side as proposed. • Staff does not have information about an historical standard to which this is being built. However, with that information in hand we would still question if a 2-car gar.ge was necessary for reasonable use of the property. Staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. There are no physical conditions which currently limit the use of the property. Therefore, staff concludes: The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Necessary Finding Number Two: Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • This new structure will be well above the road. The only view of it will be 150 to 200 yards down Route 20. • It is staff's opinion that this property is not of unusual size, shape, topography or that it is constrained due to existing development, such that the owners are uniquely restricted from enjoying reasonable use. • Many roads are built using cut on one side and fill on the other. The result is that the land rises above the road on one side and drops away from the road on the other. Because Route 20 is a primary route and is wide, this grade difference is more pronounced. This situation too, is not necessarily unique. This situation is not a unique hardship. Hence, staff concludes: 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. Necessary Finding Number Three: Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • This addition should enhance the appearance of the property. • It should be noted that this property lies above Route 20 and that the addition will Staff Report: VA 98-15 Page 3 be attractive and not harmful to other property. • The addition will be about 80 feet or so from the edge of pavement for Route 20. This distance combined with a grade difference, results in limited visibility of the addition. Staff agrees that the proposed addition will not change the character of the district. 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 a convenience for the applicants. They are already enjoying use of the property without variance. In addition, it appears that they could construct an addition without a variance if they used a different design or decreased the garage size. Because of this and the fact that two of the three variance criteria are not met, staff recommends denial for cause. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: This variance is for the structure requested on Building Permit 98-694 AR only. Any further addition or new construction will require a separate variance application. A:\VA98-15.WPD