HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000003 Review Comments 2000-03-07 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: March 7, 2000
STAFF REPORT VA-2000-03
OWNER/APPLICANT: Martha Lee K. Voshell and Margaret K. Colmenares,
owners; Martha Lee K. Voshell, applicant
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 41B / 01-15
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: Approximately 1 acre
LOCATION: Northeast side of the cul-de-sac of Westover Circle in the
Westover Hills subdivision.
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from
Section 4.1.6, which states:
For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued
for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written
approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and
area for both original and future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve
such use. For residential usage, at a minimum, each septic disposal field shall consist
of suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3)
bedroom dwelling as determined by current regulations of the Virginia Department of
Health.
A variance is requested to require only: 100% of the original septic disposal
field, and 50% of the future replacement field for a three bedroom house.
RELEVANT HISTORY: None.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Mrs. Voshell and
Mrs. Colmenares inherited this parcel from their father's estate in 1985. He had owned
the property since at least 1967, which is prior to Albemarle County's first zoning
ordinance. The lot is nonconforming due to its small size of only about one acre and to
the current building site requirement. Section 4.2.2 requires a building site of 30,000
square feet with adequate area for the location of two septic drainfields as approved by
the Virginia Department of Health in accordance with Section 4.1.6.
The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2309 states that the Board of Zoning Appeals can
authorize a variance as follows: "When a property owner can show that his property was
acquired in good faith and where, by reason of the exceptional narrowness,
shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the effective
date of this ordinance, or where, by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or
other extraordinary situation or condition of such piece of property . . . the strict
application of the terms of this ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably
Variance Report, VA 2000-03 2 March 7, 2000
restrict the use of the property or where the board is satisfied, upon the evidence heard
by it, that the granting of such variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship
approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience
sought by the applicant, provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the
intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance." In addition to being smaller than the
minimum allowed in the district, the property is also restricted by topographic conditions.
From the road, the first 75± feet back is an area of about 10 to 15% slope. Beyond that,
the land falls off more severely, probably at least 25% slope, down to a creek at the
bottom. Since the creek is a tributary stream to the South Fork Rivanna River
Reservoir, it carries a setback of 100 feet for both structures and septic systems.
According to the soil scientist who analyzed the site, there are also areas of shallow
soils and eroded swales that are not suitable for septic drainfields.
Development of the lot itself is not part of the variance discussion. The Board can only
consider if allowing the lot to be developed without full septic reserve or with a
smaller house relieves an unreasonable restriction or demonstrable hardship placed
on the land by the zoning ordinance, or if it will change the character of the district or
conflict with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance.
This is a residential subdivision and the owner has had the reasonable expectation of
developing the lot with a dwelling. The owners have stated that they requested a septic
easement from both adjacent lots but the requests were turned down. With this type of
variance request on a small lot, the main concern is the failure of the primary septic
disposal field. Should failure occur, the occupants may continue to use the system for
at least a short time span, either unknowingly, or knowingly out of fear of the expense in
both dollars and additional requirements that might be associated with constructing a
new system only 50% of the former size. In a septic failure, there is concern of the
effects on the other properties within close proximity—effects such as smell and
bacterial pollution on the ground, as well as possibly entering the ground water and area
wells. Similarly within a reservoir watershed (which this lot is), there is concern
regarding runoff and bacterial pollution entering the public water supply if the primary
system fails. Other concerns are that septic failure will cause a dwelling to be found
uninhabitable, create a public nuisance, put pressure on the County for access to public
sewer, or force the County to entertain a request for a high maintenance, alternative
sewage disposal system. (To date, Albemarle has not allowed any system other than
subsurface absorption systems for new construction.) It appears that most of the lots
on this cul-de-sac are less than the 2-acre minimum. Therefore, it is doubtful that they
have space available to grant an easement large enough for a septic drainfield. There
is one large parcel across the creek at the rear, but running pipes to reach a drainfield
across a stream is not permitted in a drinking-water watershed.
Although our ordinance utilizes a three-bedroom house as the standard for septic site
provision, we should consider that this lot is only half the minimum lot size of the current
Rural Areas district. Therefore, it is possible to determine that reasonable use of the
I:IDEP11Building&Zoning1Staff Reports\VA2000-03.doc
Variance Report, VA 2000-03 3 March 7, 2000
property could be a smaller house. Note also that in our ordinance, one-acre lots are
anticipated only in the growth areas where public water and sewer are available.
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:
• Because they are unable to get approved to be built on without a 50% reserved
drainfield.
Staff finds that the small size and topography of this lot do constitute a hardship as
described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. However, it is
staff's position that a two-bedroom house would be reasonable use of the property.
1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
NeD
Uniqueness of Hardship t' �, .y�oljtiAl
The applicant notes: .., ow. IA.
• Houses have been built on both sides of our lot. ,,v),
46,.;17,/r
The houses on either side of this lot were built in 1972, before our current ordinance.
Staff is aware that this general area of the county has many platted lots that do not
conform to the minimum lot size and probably not to the septic provisions.
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.
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
• The variance will not affect adjacent properties as they are already built upon.
Those owners have been contacted and they have declined to give any right of way
[easement]for additional land for a reserved drainfield.
Staff agrees that the reduction of the drainfield requirement will not change the
character of the district unless the primary drainfield fails. Should there be a failure
there is potential for detriment to adjoining wells and the watershed itself.
1:1DEPT\Building 8 Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-03.doc
Variance Report, VA 2000-03 4 March 7, 2000
3. The applicant has not 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 has been met, staff cannot recommend approval of the
reduction of the reserve drainfield area to 50%.
However, staff can recommend approval of a reduction, from three to two, of the
number of bedrooms required under Section 4.1.6. This would then allow a full septic
reserve in the area noted in the soils report. This reduction would allow reasonable use
of the property while better protecting the public health and welfare, as well as be in
harmony with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance. Should the Board find cause to
approve the reduction to two bedrooms, staff recommends the following conditions:
1 ..
1. This variance is granted to allow the location and area for both original and 100% �I " "
future replacement septic disposal fields adequate to serve a two bedroom house.
5
2. The Health Depa
rtment shall be consulted for methods to maintain and protect the
septic field.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall cause to be recorded a
notice in the chain of title which informs future owners that this variance limits the
house to two bedrooms unless and until the County's requirement for sewage
disposal for more bedrooms is met.
1011411
1.1DEPT1Building&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-03.doc
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
401 MCINTIRE ROAD
MEETING ROOM #241, 2:00 P.M.
DRAFT AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000
I. Call to Order
II. Establish a Quorum
III. Deferred Appeal Hearing
AP-99-03 Pantops, L.C. (owner), Gage T/A Pegasus Motorcar Company, L.C.
(appellant)
Staff Person: Amelia McCulley
IV. Variance Hearing
• VA-2000-003 Martha Lee K. Voshell and Margaret K. Colmenares (owners)
Staff Person: Jan Sprinkle
V. Old Business
• Approval of Minutes: February 2, 2000
VI. New Business
VII. Adjournment
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
27
.E$
°arm on s
41A 41AI 41 ,0 46
0
� 41 H 4 I C
' 37 D
ve
Ri Vet-i 37 3 7C ,��` _ 37D1 41A2 � ♦ 45
34
42 Al } �
0 3./ 39F
OD_ 1�� � � ;;� 42A it ■ ``\
3 \ 38 41A4 41A3
/ 36 � , , � '
A 4 34 43
31 308 �,� 42
2 38A'
33 ,33� CV 36A 31 30 30A ,� rin'l,1O CO41G ��,-
/,1
�4 A ' 43A
41D 41F i .'
4B WHITE 31A 22A 2 2 D
I' 3 25 29 2 2 E 41E / 44A2 44
HALL
4A 24 23 '2 79 80
43A3/43A2
8l �♦
2 2 F / �• I� ,
SEE 62 83 88 ` 52 52E ��• 4 4 A( 44A 47B
1 40-26B 23 D 27 78 • 47E
O 23C1 28 10
2 2 22 G 77 87 52 • •� 4T10
Rt . 84
2 2 C • 47
23 C
� 86 �
5A T 5 95 1 50 ♦ -j G
' 23A 22I 76 �/` A
5
1
_ ,♦ 49
49
22 B 58
56A
21 A l 57 \ ; 49 F 49 DO
SEE 21 2 2 H `, 49G
40- 39
49H
21B �
i 56C 50B /
vr
20G 560 6p,r_ - 49J 8
21c 568 -� s9 50A ' � \ 49K
20 A'
2 0 H - _f s4O . a9 Ag P. Age%
'
594 49B � 48A
,
2 0-1 60 E 62
5
6 6 3
ZpG _. � 'A lira 1� � AO6 8 i
—. 69
0� `� ♦ 65AI 65D
/0/lu
7 ■ /42
/ 65A2/ ♦ `j / 0 /"-, ♦ 6 5 E
♦ / '/�,' 67A /65A
/ 0
_ 70 ■ \� ■ 67
8 A ■ ■ ''
SEE 74 ■ it■ ■ ,% _ ♦ 6581 r�U
V 6 7 B /
6' 8A2 ♦ �� SECT ON 4 B
cP 19 ♦ ♦ i
gB 8 O
89
BAI ♦ j /
Cs
•
IL
18 66 IL IL
ec eD Bronch ♦ /
• ♦ ♦i
7 C 66A
�- - 66B
9E 1 7B
`1
9D
' 17A ./
9G 9 F 9 C ♦I�
16A ♦♦1AV Asp 72 B 72 •
9 �C1
I 16
p 9H 1 ,
9A ♦ •• �,
R T, 81 I � � ♦ • � ' •
1♦ •■� 15 A •
♦ • 01,
{n ♦ 15 ■ \�
♦ �■ . • _\
10 1♦
14 B ♦ ♦ ♦ ..41
Q\ / - 1 ♦ /
�O 14B it ♦4,W41V4 •
\ / /2A ��♦ • 72C
•
/ Ilk �
'�, • Ar
\ 13 •
41
57 r,rEXHI B I TS
SCALE IN FEET WH.1TEJiALLwy-r,-D1 IC T i Y PRESENTED TO
SECTION
�41-A
/La e/,
Albemarle
600 0 600 1200 1800 p�p0
II 1
ECTION
t,
uj
do
41
♦♦♦ MOORMAN S RIVER AGRICULTURA4a FORESTAL DISTRICTII ��
_ 1
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
I
OI WESTOVER HILLS
D.
B
43 6
pg
4 7
D.
B.
475
pg.
235
D.
B.
5 12
pg.
39
8