The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199800030 Review Comments 1999-03-02 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: March 2, 1999 STAFF REPORT VA-98-30, REHEARING OWNER/APPLICANT: Phillip and Katharine Buchanan TAX MAP/PARCEL: 62/92 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas & EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: 2.014 LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 20N & Franklin Dr. NOTE: Rehearing changes from original report are in bold italics. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 25-foot side yard for primary structures in the RA district. A variance of 17(originally 5) feet is requested to allow the addition of an attached garage to be 8 (originally 20) feet from the side property line. RELEVANT HISTORY: There is no relevant history in the files of planning or zoning. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This lot was created by subdivision plat in 1979 and although it had a boundary adjustment in 1983, it is almost the size and shape now that it was in 1980 when the County Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The 2.014 acres makes this a small, but conforming lot. There are some critical slopes between the existing driveway and both Rt. 20 and Franklin Drive which restrict the use of this property. The entire parcel is sloped with the highest point at the northeast corner. The existing house was built in 1983 and just purchased in August 1998 by Mr. and Mrs. Buchanan. They would like to construct an attached 3-car garage (24'x 32') on the northeast corner of the house. The main reason that the ordinance has different setbacks for attached and detached accessory structures is that attached structures are often converted to living space and therefore, need to meet primary setbacks. There is sufficient area on this lot to construct the three car garage in a detached arrangement 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: • The ordinance will allow a detached garage only six feet from the property line, but requires an attached garage to be 25 feet. Staff Report VA 98-30, Rehea, Page 2 March 2, 1999 • The topography of the lot will allow no other way to build an attached two car garage. • The neighbors are disinclined to sell this or swap this area, and may be prevented from doing so by the combination of reserve septic field requirements and the recorded recreational easement. Staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. There is already reasonable use of the property with the single family dwelling and no garage. Note however, that there is enough room to build an attached single car garage (11'x 20') and possibly a two car garage without a variance, or up to three car garage if detached. (An attached two car garage at 22'x 20' would require a variance of 9 feet.) 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes. • The house is in the only buildable area which is also the narrowest portion. • Other lots have the same hilly terrain, but only this one abuts Rt. 20 and therefore has two 75-foot setbacks from two state roads which eliminates a large portion of the lot from building. • The side of the property closest to the proposed garage is encumbered with a recreational easement for the benefit of this property. This easement both ensures that there will be no other building in that part of either lot, for any fire concerns, but also that the encroachment is on a line that is really part of their own yard in use, maintenance, etc. • The distance between our house and the neighbors' at this point is 104 feet. Staff agrees that this is an unusual situation with the recreational easement encumbering the neighbors'land for the enjoyment of this lot. The neighbor has also expressed no objection to the variance. However, every lot in the subdivision must maintain the same setbacks and this is not a unique situation. There is other area in which the applicant can build. 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. Staff does not see that a recreational easement on the adjoining property changes the situation from that experienced by all other properties in the same district. It simply means that neither property owner can build in the easement area. IICOB_I\VOL31DEPT\Budding&ZoninglReports\VA98-30R doc Staff Report VA 98-30, Rehearii Page 3 March 2, 1999 Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers • This garage will add to the value of both this, and the neighborhood • The style will match the house in roof pitch, windows, siding, etc. • The garage will act as a visual buffer between the homes, adding to privacy for both. • Although the garage will look great, because of the height of the rear of the lot, this will not be visible from the street. Staff agrees that the addition of the attached garage will not change the character of the district. 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 only one of the criteria for approval has been met, staff recommends denial. However, should the board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends the following condition: 1 . The variance is for an attached garage, not wider than 32 feet, and no closer than 8 feet (originally 20) feet from the property line. \\COB I\VOL31DEPT\Building&ZoninglReports\VA98-30R doc ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241, 2:00 P.M. DRAFT AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1999 Call to Order I I. Establish a Quorum III. Variance Public Hearings VA-98-32 Charles Dunnivan, et al Estate Staff Person: Amelia McCulley VA-99-01 Carlton and Nancy Luck Staff Person Amelia McCulley VA-99-02 Rio Associates Limited Partnership (owner) lnterspace (applicant) Staff Person Jan Sprinkle VA-99-03 Donald E. Seal (owner) Virginia Oil Company (applicant) Staff Person Jan Sprinkle IV. Old Business V. New Business VA-98-30 Phillip & Katharine Buchanan Applicant Request for Rehearing VI. Adjournment C•\i.\zoning\bzal\agenda for Dec 1 mcctng.doc