HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199800017 Review Comments 1998-08-04 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: August 4, 1998
STAFF REPORT VA 98-17
q9j72)L
/;1
OWNER/APPLICANT: Elias and Sandra Awad
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60D / H / 26
ZONING: R2, Residential
ACREAGE: unlisted
LOCATION: In Canterbury Hills at 2508 Woodhurst Road at its
intersection with Franklin Court.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section
4.11.2.1 Accessory Structures which requires a 6 foot setback. A variance of 5 feet is
requested to allow an 11 ft x 21 ft shed to remain as it is 1 foot from the side property line.
The ordinance allows a decrease in side and rear setbacks for accessory structures;
however, they must maintain a 6 foot setback.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
(This is according to the applicant's submittal and may be in his own words.) They have
lived at this house for sixteen years. The applicant built this storage shed during May-
June, 1986. He states that he went to the County Zoning office and was told that no permit
was required. He contacted a surveyor to identify his property lines; contacted various
utilities to locate their lines and contacted the adjacent owner. Based on his review of the
location of the utilities and the topography of the land, he chose to locate the shed where
it is. At some point maybe recently, the shed has been expanded such that it extends
further into the side yard setback.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS:
The lot is located at the intersection of two roads, making it a corner lot of sorts. It is in
somewhat of a pie-shape. The house is located 41 feet from the front property line and is
served by a circular driveway. The house was built over 20 years ago and is a 2-story
brick and frame with basement. The rear of the property is fenced and wooded. The rear
of the property is lower than the front. The Vepco, Sprint and Adelphia underground lines
run from the western side of the rear of the house and run north/south across the rear of
the property.
The applicant explains that drainage from offsite causes erosion and wet conditions on the
Staff Report: VA-98-17
Page 2
other side of the rear of the lot. This and the location of the utilities led him to building
where he did.
Staff did not find erosive and wet conditions which would have precluded building on the
other side (east) of the utilities and would not allow compliance with the setback
requirements. We did not visit during a storm event and could not see the direction of
drainage. However, there are various means for correcting drainage problems. The
topography is such that some leveling would be necessary to construct a shed on the
eastern side; yet, it is not overly steep in that area.
Mr. Awad notes that he communicated with the County to ascertain if a permit is required
for construction of his shed. Staff does not question his honesty. This unfortunately, is not
an uncommon situation. In the past, there had been less clear communication and
coordination with the public that in certain cases the Building Code does not require a
permit but in all cases the Zoning Ordinance does. With the merger of the Department and
more training and communication, this problem has all but been eliminated.
Based on other cases, such as the one from Fluvanna County in which both the County
and the builder erred in determining the property line, the courts have not yielded for
approval based solely on the error. Therefore, we must review this variance as if the shed
is not built.
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:
• The building structure in question was a necessity in 1986 with a small house of
2,000 square feet and 3 children. We needed space for tools, storage, bicycles,
etc. Without this storage area, we would have to leave a number of items out in
the open. We tried it before, but some items got stolen.
• Tearing it down or adjusting it would be prohibitive, given the well-built nature of
the structure. Commercial basement-type blocks were used and the finished
floor is 4-inch concrete with reinforced steel mesh.
Staff Report: VA-98-17
Page 3
The applicant will experience a financial hardship if the shed must be removed or modified
such that it will be able to meet setbacks. While this is difficult to ignore, it does not in and
of itself stand as an undue hardship.
As the Board is aware, staff does not typically find a shed to be necessary for accessory
use to a residence of a reasonable size. Staff cannot identify any hardship as described
under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. There are no physical conditions
which severely limit the use of the property or construction of a shed in a location which
meets setbacks. 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:
• The backyard has a steep downhill slope.
• The location is the lowest in the neighborhood, causing drainage problems.
• The pie-shaped lot makes it difficult to build a shed parallel to the angular line,
resulting in one corner being closer to the line than the other corner.
• Building the shed further away from the line would be on top of the electric, phone,
and cable lines.
• Other properties in the neighborhood do not have such topo and other hardships.
It is staff's opinion that the backyard does not involve steep slopes which cannot be
overcome through construction techniques. The drainage problem was not clearly evident
during the site visit. Some efforts could be made to improve it, including rerouting drainage
away from a shed. It is a common situation that corner lots and lots at the end of a cul-do-
sac are pie-shaped. 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.
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
Staff Report: VA-98_1 7
Page 4
The applicant offers:
• The structure in question is well-built.
• When building it, I made sure I got my adjoining neighbor (Mr.
permission (another neighbor, Mr. Gibson, as witness) that such a structure
not pose a detriment to hisproperty. Rowell's) verbal
this effect. As it is presently located, the structure is well does
Please refer to Mr. Gibson's letter attesting to
Rowell's house. out of the view of Mr.
Because it is not relevant, staff will not comment on how well-built
constructed of siding with a pitched shingled roof and does not look incompatible
neighborhood. Several neighbors have written lettersosupport the structure is. It is
that it has existed for so long and has this supports a consideration.
this request. The fact
for this
However, it is most directly impacting the adjacent owner, who has
it. While there is privacy fencing around the rear yard, the shed
s above it and
essentially directlyupsnot written to support
against it. It is visible from the adjacent deck and some of the
adjacent yard. This minimal setback does not provide the separation
uses and structures that are needed. It gives the appearance
p n/spacing between
The applicant has_n t provided evidence that the uthorizat authorization of suchg.
not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the charactervariance of will
district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. of the
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Because this request does not meet any of the three variance criter
ia, staff recommends
denial for cause.
Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff re
conditions: recommends the following
1. This variance is for the structure requested.
structure or additional structures shall comply with the then existingor
q Any addition or replacement to this
2. Approval of a building ordinance.
3 permit to include compliance with the current Building Code.
An effort must be made to contact the neighbor closest to the shed to
measures can be taken to lessen the impact. Zoning staff will work with theapplicant to
find if any
determine what is reasonable (landscaping, moving the fence, etc.) to
meet this condition.
wt
•
TO CERTIFY THAT ON N E 2 2 , I 9 8 3 JRVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON
AND THAT THE TITLE S AND WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE S N HEREON.
;el CF:erly,S,/
ART H U R F. EDWARDS , C.L S.
CERTIFICATE NO. II TO
PROPERTY IS NOT IN HUD DEFINED FLOOD ZONE
SERVICE UT/LIT/ES ARE UNDERGROUND.
LOT SUBJE CT TO V. T 9 T. R/W O.B. 385 p. 36 3
i^Ors
------� • I.� tS 5/ °56 • /3 W I(°^ 20 ' Drain
. .4O. OOC T . . • . —�-- s/�e�.. Sc m a .n e l , r
\ 1
y/
46 1 •
o ARTtiUA F. SWARDS
to No.
LOT z �,° od 0 T �2 6 1170 •
"� z 4r +0E
0) .I ` TtoC. . o
r EP
' Z ! ' m
-� o
v `� �\ NL O T 2 5
0 38. 5 , ,
\ ,n z STORY f•n c •
RES/DENC,V co•
,r/ B°si m • n' N
I(on 3 B. 5
Sot °c
IC
0•o m`s•
n
T •,tu Aa P A ° l t o, i.
/
o
y
Z . 't o n . -�
...,isr,
•
o, o . *
l
u• � 9
00
Z .If n p = • 320
4.1.3.wR R p •
R _ 19 •
?6.Oo . p p H 0 (Ro , Raw
w 0