The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199900022 Review Comments 1999-10-05 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: October 5, 1999 STAFF REPORT VA-99-22 OWNER/APPLICANTS: Ivy Creek Methodist Church, owner/ CFW-Intelos, applicant TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 44/12H ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: Lease area of 400 square feet within a 1.340 acre parcel LOCATION: 674 Woodland Road is on the north side of Rt 676 aproximately 4/10 mile southwest of its intersection with Rt. 660. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 25-foot side yard setback and a 35-foot rear setback. In order to install a 95 foot wooden pole for a telecommunications facility, a side setback reduction from 25 to 2 feet and a rear setback reduction from 35 to 10 feet are needed. {Section 4.10.3.1 requires that the underlying zoning district setbacks notwithstanding, the tower must ho setback a distance equal to the height. Although tho Board of Zoning appeals can reduce the minimum primary structure setbacks required under Section 10.4, the additional setback required based on the height of the tower under Section 4.10.3.1 must be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission. In this case, it would be 95 feet because the proposed pole is 95 feet tall. Should the PC fail to approve a reduction, the applicant could then choose to request a variance from that section. This is not before the BZA presently.} RELEVANT HISTORY: None. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This request is not the same as the previous requests where the proposed tower site meets the Planning Commission's tower policy but must be sited within the setback from a public road to meet the requirement for location among trees. In this case, the tower will be more than 150 feet from the road, but will be located in a portion of a parcel that is only 30 feet wide. This is a rather odd-shaped parcel that has a rectangular front portion, approximately 180 ft wide by 280 ft deep. It has a "leg" that adds another long thin rectangle, 30 feet deep by 360 feet wide, that runs behind another parcel owned by the church. (It is similar to a flag and flagpole in shape.) The tower is proposed at the eastern-most end of the "leg." Within this area the tower and its appurtenances will be only two feet from a side property line (which is really toward the front) and ten feet from VA 99-22 2 September 7, 1999 Board of Zoning Appeals Amelia McCulley a rear property line. With just our 35-foot rear setback, the whole 30 foot x 360 foot portion of this parcel is within the rear setback and could not be used for any primary structures without variance. (This type of tower is classified as a primary structure and must meet the full setback since it is not accessory to any existing use on the property and could be the only use on a parcel.) STAFF ANALYSIS: The property is developed with a single-family dwelling used as the parsonage for the church. It is located on the larger rectangle, adjacent to the church. Part of the church cemetery is located on this narrow leg proposed for the tower. The access easement for the tower runs through the adjacent parcel that contains the church building and most of the cemetery. With these existing improvements, reasonable use has already been established on this parcel. 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: • Strict application of this ordinance would place the site in a highly visible area on the property because of the limited tree cover that would be provided. • The fenced area that we are proposing to locate in is currently being used as a cemetery. As such, the rest of the open area is currently being occupied by permanent tenants. Staff has held the opinion that the county generally supports this particular type of tower and may need to make modifications to allow them to be constructed in the specific places that meet the PC's policy. However, the ordinance has not yet been amended, and it is still necessary to make site-specific findings to support this variance. The size and shape of this parcel could qualify it for variance if it were undeveloped; however, reasonable use exists on the main portion of the parcel. Therefore, staff can find no undue hardship in this case. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. 1.•1DEPT'Buildinp&Zoning\Staff Roportslva99-222.doc VA 99-22 3 September 7, 1999 Board()I'Zoning, Appeals Amelia McCulley Uniqueness of Hardship • The applicant comments that this hardship is not shared because this installation is the first of its kind in the area. • Due to the height of the pole, such hardship is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district and vicinity. • The County has recommended to CFW that we locate these telephones pole sites in trees to aid in screening. • Typically trees are usually only found along the property line of a developed piece of land. Landowners usually clear the middle of the property and leave the trees that we use along the property lines. Therefore, we are forced to place these sites within the vicinity of the property lines. Staff finds that it is somewhat unique because of the odd-shape of the parcel and the location of existing improvements on the church property. Even combining the two parcels owned by the church would not solve the problem since the rear 35-foot yard would not be changed. Staff is not aware of other parcels in this vicinity that are similarly situated. 2. Evidence has been provided 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 applicant offers: • Locating the telephone pole next to trees aids in reducing the overall visibility of the site, thereby negating any detriment to adjacent property. • Installation of telephone pole sites does not change the character of the district because these types of poles are commonplace. Staff opinion follows that of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in that this `telephone pole"style tower can be located in among trees and not negatively affect the character of the district. The visual impact of the pole and other considerations will be handled through the special use process. 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. l:ko i'7llloony&Znnlnplskill I'ulu)irmvn;)U VA 99-22 4 September 7, 1999 Board of Zoning Appeals Amelia McCulley STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since staff takes the position that an additional primary use is not necessary for reasonable use of the property, we can find no undue hardship for this particular property and we recommend denial. If the Board decides to support this request because the use is necessary and this is an appropriate location for it, we can support the criterion relating to hardship due to the size and shape of the parcel and recommend approval. We recommend that approval be limited to the current application. Approval of this variance is limited to the proposal at this time: a 95 foot tall monopole. I'IDEPT\Building&ZoninglStalt Roportslva99-222.doc 1. GWlvt�: TRUSTEES OF THE IVY CREEK METHODIST 3. THIS PARCEL IS NOT IN A S 88'CW \`�Qo F.E.M.A. FLOOD HAZARD �.r FG % IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONE "A" OR "B" g TAX PARCEL 44-12H D.B. 383 PG. 493, & •a6�i,L TAX PARCEL 44-14 D.B. 173 PG. 375 4. LEASE PARCEL DERIVED FROM AFIELD \p 52 �,B z ZONED RA SURVEY AND DEEDS AND PLATS OF LEASE PARCEL 5� zo RECORD AS FOUND AMONG THE LAND N 87'35'1 E RECORDS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, 400 SQ. FT. 20.00' o` - 2. OTHER EASEMENTS, IF ANY, NOT SHOWN. SITE # CV201 z `q in o "" NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. VIRGINIA IN: a H 4 CHURCH PROPERTY ,vi.� o < tDEED BOOK 383 AT PAGE 493 ROUTE 676 g: gMARY 4-12 E DEED BOOK 173 AT PAGE 375 _v% TM 44-12 in D.B. 1276, PG. 421 ON'' 49a, PG. 720 - ?-. \� S gT35'14� w N 8735'14' (�d S 88'0819 W Q J�O D.B. 1 20.00' 10.00. , 10.00' \ - I ilit ' As 1 N 8735'14* E 14-4by f \\ \T,,, \ N 32'45'05' W \ s s. \ 1 2.6.77' \ _\ \ I If; x 15' INGRESS EGRESS J', MARY RIVIERE DETAIL 1 1 I TRUSTEES OF THE EASEMENT '� TM 44-12 NOT TO SCALE \ 1 Y CREEK METHODIST i D.B. 1276, PG. 421 I IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY �� '�� D.B. 1494, PG. 720 TRUSTEES OF THE 7\ 1 IVY CREEK METHODIST f' TAX PARCEL 44-14 i ' >��- _ — ` — J! IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY D.B. 173 PG. 375 /1 iA 674 WOODLAND ROAD �_ S 85___43 r E tr aTAX PARCEL 44-12H \z‘o `— s0_6a, — — a,, D.B. 383 PG. 493, Sc i / 8\i w c2PC) -- • O '�'� Fv+� _ _ —o IRON PIN SET r , £1 r ` r � `1�'04r Ems'+ rr N 79 ` —f — — — PROPERTY LINE CONSTRUCTED r — FROM PHYSICAL EVIDENT J r ! r � �7 6 _, vtir a�, RCV �j GTTrr o T� .E RI D � , _ EscRip rD ROA- — PR 1 DLA ' H SURVEY OF A L- , - 30 0 0 �PtiT F �� LEASE PARCEL & INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT Imo. cC ` F U G No(ie-A FOR CFW WIRELESS pfliivik t 2 9 `� � c�"2 5 9 t 7�a 3- o, ON THE LAND OF Patton Harris Rust&Associa tes.pcVA " IVY CREEK METHODIST CHURCH Engineers,Suraeyora,Planaers,landacape Architects 116 N Yam street --, IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VI R G I N I A Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 544-828-2616 Offices- JACK JOUETT DISTRICT - .RD�C it;; DBrid ewaterVa. 2ALBEMARLE COUNTY VRGINIl1S Virginia Beach.Va - - ------- -------- Chantilly.VA. C2 23 25 ; 40 _36 ! s'31.49" i 8'56 SCALE 1" = 6C DATE. JULY 23, >`-i+9 .._ i-1R&A 10419-12G ALBEMARLE COUNTY 43 e %.# 1 IV1� T AND . RIO DISTRICTS "MOORMAN'S RIVER AGRIGI♦LTURALBFORESTAL (STRICT �P i