The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200000004 Review Comments 2000-04-04 STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: April 4, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-2000-04 OWNER/APPLICANT: Covenant Church of God /Harold L. Bare, Sr. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/156 ZONING: R-4, Residential Pending request to rezone property to CO, Commercial Office (ZMA-2000-01) ACREAGE: Approximately 0.60 LOCATION: Parcel is located north of the Covenant Church property on the northeast side of Rio Road just south of the intersection with the Southern Railroad. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 21 .7.2, which states: in part, MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural areas district. A variance of 25' is requested to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot storage building twenty five (25) feet from the R-4 zoning district. RELEVANT HISTORY: None PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: The first site development plan for Covenant Church of God was approved by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1979. Since then, the church has expanded to a total holding of 7.483 acres. ZMA 90-28, ZMA 93-04 and ZMA 94-08 each rezoned a portion of the church's existing property from R-4 to CO. Covenant Church acquired Parcel 156 on April 9, 1999. A request to rezone that parcel from R-4 to CO is pending. Extensive filling and grading has occurred on this parcel and on an adjacent area of church property since the church acquired the parcel. There is a site plan amendment (SDP 2000-27) currently under review. That plan will address, among other things, the grading and drainage in this area. 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 restrict the use of the property or where the board is satisfied, upon the evidence heard Variance Report, VA 2000-04 2 April 4, 2000 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." STAFF ANALYSIS: Parcel 156 was acquired and added to the church property in April of 1999. Covenant Church of God is assumed to be knowledgeable of zoning regulations for commercial land adjacent to R-4 because the church has rezoned other property from R-4 to CO. In the past this parcel contained a house which has since burned down. There is no reason to believe that this parcel, when acquired by the church, could not contain the proposed storage building and gazebo. Much of the area of the parcel that might be said to contain exceptional topography is that way now because of grading and filling that has occurred since the applicant gained control of the property. The fill on the parcel may have decreased the desirable building area on the parcel. However, if that is considered a hardship, it is self-imposed. It is staffs opinion that the granting of this variance would not alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation and that the granting of the variance could not be distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the three variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant addressed the first criteria, that the strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship, with the statement, "Would necessitate location of storage building in a conspicuous public area." Staff disagrees with this assessment. The pending site development plan proposes a six foot wooden fence adjacent to the railroad right of way. The parcel is bound on the east by Parcel 154, an undeveloped 14.88 acre parcel zoned R-4. Parcel 156 is located behind the church and is more than 650 feet from Rio Road. No part of the parcel is in a conspicuous public area. And, in addition to the proposed fence, further screening could be accomplished. Further, it is staff's opinion that no hardship exists because the building could be located outside of the required commercial yard setback on this parcel or elsewhere on the church property. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant addressed the second criteria, that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, with the statement, "No similar situation in our area." Variance Report, VA 2000-04 3 April 4, 2000 It is staff's opinion that this situation is not unique. All commercial properties including the other Covenant Church of God property that has been rezoned to CO are required to maintain a 50 foot structure setback from residential properties. This includes the commercial zoning across the railroad which adjoins Northfields subdivision. 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 addressed the third criteria, 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, with the statement, "Property has 3 sides- (1) Covenant Church (2) Railroad tracks (3) Robert Hauser (@ 200 feet of forest)." Staff agrees that authorization of this variance would not result in a substantial negative impact on the district. The portion of R-4 land in the vicinity of the proposed storage building is quite steep. It is unlikely that dwellings would be constructed in that immediate area; rather it is anticipated that future development would occur closer to the crest of that hill. The character of the district will not be changed if the storage building is constructed 25' versus 50' from the R-4 zoning 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 has been met, staff cannot recommend approval of the reduction of the commercial fifty foot required yard adjacent to a residential district. Should the Board find cause to approve the reduction of the yard, staff recommends the following condition: 1 . This variance allows the 30' x 50' building to be located as shown on SDP 2000- 27. No additional encroachment of the fifty foot yard adjacent to the R-4 district is permitted. I\BZA\VA-00-04 MDCIM11000LYMP\ •' ' ' i 1 , • ... . . ..,..,.. ... et,7 ',1110t, qk - , ' s fr ' , •0 OA- 1.°;41g, , v •$14:L'.li.:. ;P 7, '4 ' •••••%1•14, 4.4 it*, .4:.`';' •C..-' ' ‘., ' .--- ,4 it';',I, ,,'•• '! •11%otiv, ; -- EsitArt• ;„2,4•i.i,• 04.; , ,, 14.-• I , 1,, ,,,l' . , . , • !,, 11 ,' ., . -i i ' •P" -., ,.'. '4,6 •Nk ,- , 0, • .,4 ' E.ii. : . ' .'s ,Ide." 0. ...p. =1:..1. , • • 1\,......,,e0/ , • ‘' ‘ ' :„.‘,'*/\ ,i., ' , • f\ I , ' ,' 'i r.'- ' '' ' ,' - 4 , i ,,,g 0111 ...; jp12..41S,4•, ' ...4.4'' • s4.1 4., 1 Nk..4 4 g. ,er-gid ww,it,. .• .10‘, , . y .-.- • •A, --,, jiga'.,' er '.:: ''‘ • .t-ini 'ir,' ,ip,I.WIMP' 111 '. 't ' .;-0,..s. - • I. ....,.. '',... •,,. . , , 4 . , •• . , ,,.... • 1 ,, . / ••f k . . . , -. • ... . ,n -1) Pe, ?ftSt)Ciare_ci GAS_ "V , ,,.. ,,,,,,, 4 •; ',-7`;'irfi,,,\ ‘ ; If 9.- • , a , '''.' - •,' ,, -, 1 4‘j , . ' ' ....' , .- ' ' .' !-, '' • ' • , , "), .„ . '/ r `-:: !•,' `'‘V "---''c -- ' ' - ' ,.. . -4-,' A., - ,'‘,,'; '4)chAll r_. •• - - "' - - Pla e rtn, \ \ i ' iII - . ,, ., . .,„. ,. ,...,-,),,., %,..,4,,ii• T. •. -, ,... . .k,,,, ------ i 1 * .1 ik'''., ;z ..---'- . ,.. ‹ .J.* :.4,.:"-` ! r ..---411:* '-.. \ 1 '.-:.' ' • - ‘\'',,4 '''',.,\.*:- •4 — ,`"•.' 44 .*. --....-•,, ' •:*..,'4:1-r''4.' ' ,...,....4•-' ' 'T 4•111 •,'- r -....1,‘..,„..4...j,•• '.''..4?;-.'.:;''''.".....s.." ':-- . ..- ' .::.•' .- .... ',...r., ,. ,i,'., ... .,.....- - ,_ ..,-- ' -. - .,.-v.14.--'- -- #r. •-• — . ..,--,.... ...,...,i„..- : . . .. . •,,, i _ •.:. - . . _ — -....- • ._ . ..,.. • ..,, ....„ .... ... Page 1