HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199800026 Review Comments 1998-10-06 STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: October 6, 1998
STAFF REPORT VA-98-26
OWNER/APPLICANT: Harold Jordan (Mr. and Mrs.)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 70 / 11
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 8.07 acres
LOCATION: On the southwest quadrant of the Route 250/691
intersection.
REQUEST: The applicants request relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk
Regulations, which require a 75-foot front yard adjacent to a public road. They request
a reduction from 75 to 72 feet from the Route 250 right-of-way. This variance is to allow
a swimming pool to be constructed. It results in a total variance of 3 feet.
The area for the pool has been excavated and the project has been delayed pending
the outcome of this variance.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
VA 97-06 Harold Jordan was approved on June 3, 1997. This variance reduced the
front setback from Route 250 for the construction of an addition to an existing dwelling.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION:
This property was acquired by the Jordans in 1989. The original dwelling on the
property was constructed in 1820. There are about 12 homes and businesses within a
two-mile radius on Route 250 that do not meet the 75 foot front setback.
APPLICANTS' JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT:
Hardship
The applicants comment that the variance is necessary for the following reasons:
• A vast portion of our property is very steeply sloped or in a floodplain. As such, the
location of our proposed pool was selected because it was the only relatively flat
land available throughout the entire property on which we could build a pool without
great difficulty.
• Within this limited flat area, we have taken the most common sense approach to
place the pool close to the house and align it directly off the west wing of the house.
Staff Report VA 98-26 Page 2 October 6, 1998
The pool's close proximity to the house will provide the ease of access that will be
important in future years as the degenerative effects of scoliosis evolve.
• Aligning the pool with the house makes for a well designed arrangement of building
parts on the land. To locate the pool other than we have proposed would create
hardship in ease of access and by degrading the design value of the property.
As the Board is aware, staff does not consider pools and similar amenities to be
necessary for reasonable use of property. Therefore, staff does not consider that it is
an undue hardship to not have such. While the property does slope towards the rear of
the lot, staff would not consider it to be the topographical hardship anticipated as
considerations by the Code. Just as the encroachment is minor, it would appear to be a
minor hardship to make the change necessary for the pool to comply with the setback
requirements. One change that could avoid a variance would be to make an irregularly
shaped pool. While staff is not a land appraiser, it would not seem to cause a
detrimental impact on the value of the land to provide another design for the pool or to
shift the location of the pool.
1. The applicants have not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicants note:
• We are unaware of what hardships may have been encountered by other
properties in our area.
Staff is not able to identify unique features of the property which limit the buildable area.
However, while it does happen it is not commonplace to have a small portion of a
structure (a "slice"not the entire side or front) out of compliance with the yard setbacks.
The similar cases which we do see involve one of the faces of a house which is too
close to a property line by 1 or 2 feet, discovered only by later surveys. Those are
typically cases in which the house is completed and it is surveyed for a later sale.
2. The applicants have 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 applicants offer:
• We are in a rural area with great spans of distance and view between properties.
• Our property is located immediately next to route 250 W to the north. The road
bed sits down from our land approximately 20 feet below elevation of where the
pool would be located.
I\COB 11VOL31DEPT1Building&ZonnglReportslva98-26.2.doc11COB_11VOL31DEPT18uilding&ZoninglReportslva98-26 2.doc
Staff Report VA 98-26 Page 3 October 6, 1998
• The small request we are making would not be perceptible, now or in the event of
future adjacent property development, without the aid of very accurate and
explicit surveyors' markings on the property.
The area of encroachment is a right triangle measuring 2'-9"by 16'. Evergreen trees
are located between the proposed pool and the road. Staff concurs that given the small
area of encroachment and the evergreen buffer, there would not be a visual difference
in the impact on the character of the area by granting the variance.
The applicants have 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:
Because this request does not meet two of the criteria for granting a variance, staff is
unable to recommend approval. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause.
However, should the Board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends the
following condition:
1. The variance approval is limited to the proposal in this file. It does not
include allowing a substantially larger area of encroachment.
IICOB 11VOL31DEPT1Building&ZoninglReportslva98-26.2.doc11COB_11VOL31DEPT1Butlding&ZoninglReportslva98-26 2.doc