HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199900024 Review Comments 1999-10-05 •
STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: October 5, 1999
STAFF REPORT VA-99-24
OWNER/APPLICANTS: Daniel Hassell and Rachel Horsley
TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 101/1
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 1.841 acres
LOCATION: at 2351 Dudley Mt. Road, on the east side of Rt. 706 about
1/3 mile north of the intersection with Rt. 708.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from
Section 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations, to reduce the side setback from 25 feet to 15
feet. They are proposing an addition across the back of the house which will align with
the side of the house. The addition and interior alterations to the existing space will
provide a den, foyer, laundry room, closet and increased master bedroom. The addition
will not extend as far into the side setback as the greenhouse (sunroom) presently does:
6 feet versus 15 feet. The proposed addition extends the rear of the house which in this
area is presently a deck.
RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff did not find record of when the lot was created or the
original house was constructed. Based on the size of the lot, the lot is likely to predate
zoning in Albemarle. VA 84-51 was approved on July 10, 1984. This was a variance to
reduce the side setback from 25 feet to 6 feet for the addition of an attached
greenhouse.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: The house presently
consists of about 1,200 finished square feet. There appear to be one or more additions
to tho original house. The lot is rectangular in shape. The house is setback 122 feet
from the front property line. The property is relatively level.
There is a stand of bamboo growing along the side property line in the area proposed
for building addition. No other house is visible from this specific location.
STAFF ANALYSIS: It is apparent that the applicants have continually improved the
property over the years and staff can appreciate why this addition would be desirable.
The applicants have utilized the services of an architect. The plans probably reflect
VA 99-24 • 2 October 5, 1999
Board of Zoning Ai.v,als
Amelia McCulley
what is functional as well as cost-effective. However, staff is of the opinion that the
applicants presently enjoy reasonable use of the property. In addition, it appears to be
possible although perhaps not desirable, to redesign so as to avoid a variance.
Therefore staff recommends denial. There are several factors favorable to this request.
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 existing house is 15 ft from the property line at this time. Making an addition in
the back is not feasible without encroaching on setbacks.
• The addition does not reduce the existing setback further.
Staff recognizes that the proposed addition does not further intrude upon the setbacks.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed addition is not necessary for reasonable use of
the property, that it is not an undue hardship. Reasonable use is presently enjoyed and
other property to the side and rear remains for additional use.
It appears that addition to the house could be made to the other side and/or partially
along the rear, so as to avoid a variance. This would be likely to be more costly and
may not convert the existing space nor tie into the interior plumbing, electrical and other
lines as well.
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant states:
• Based on observations, it appears that the other residences in this area are located
at least the minimum distance from their property line required by code.
Staff has not done an extensive survey, but this does appear to be unique with respect
to side setbacks. This is the result of development which predates zoning regulations
for setback.
I IDEP7113ullding&Zoning Sla//Roporislvn99-24.doc
VA 99-24 3 October 5, 1999
Board of Zoning Appeals
Amelia McCulley
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:
• We feel that since we are not reducing the existing side yard setback with this
addition, it will not cause any detriment to the adjacent property and that the
character of the district will not be changed.
If the following conditions are present: the addition is constructed so as to not further
encroach into the side setback than the greenhouse presently does; it visually ties into
the existing house; and there have been no known concerns raised by the impacted
adjoining property, staff is of the opinion that this addition/renovation will improve the
property. This will not negatively impact the character of the area.
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:
Because this request does not satisfy criterion #1 and there is no apparent undue
hardship, staff recommends denial for cause. Should the Board find that a hardship
does exist, staff recommends approval subject to the following:
Approval of this variance is limited to an addition substantially in accord with that
proposed with building permit #99-1577 AR.
I:IDEPT\Building&ZoninglStaff Reportslva99-24.doc