The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200000008 Review Comments 2000-04-04 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: April 4, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-2000-08 OWNER/APPLICANT: Amy Ellertson, owner/ Willie Mae Perkins T/A Permit Me, applicant TAX MAP/PARCEL: 16/39 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4.116 LOCATION: 5321 Wesley Chapel Road is on the east side of Rt 671 approximately 0.25 miles north of its intersection with Rt. 668 TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a front setback of 75 feet on a thoroughfare state road. A variance of 25 feet is requested to allow the addition of a den on the side of an existing dwelling. The front corner of the addition will be 50 feet from the front property line. RELEVANT HISTORY: None PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Ms. Ellertson purchased this property including the existing house in 1986. The lot conforms to our ordinance requirements for RA property. It is somewhat square in shape, averaging approximately 400 feet deep and 400 feet wide. There are no topographic or other features that would qualify it for a variance under the State Code. The dwelling is a manmade improvement that was built in 1942, long before our zoning ordinance was adopted. STAFF ANALYSIS: Although this property does not meet the Code criteria for approval of a variance, it is exactly the recurring variance request that we are trying to remedy with an amendment to the ordinance. The current draft of the nonconforming section of the ordinance is scheduled for a worksession with the Planning Commission on March 28th. Since there has been no Commission or Board of Supervisors review of this draft, staff cannot predict how it will be adopted. However, if adopted as drafted, this addition could be made without variance since the addition is at least 25 feet from the right-of-way and will be no closer to the r/w than the existing dwelling. The parcel is in an area of large farms and estate properties where most of the houses within a half-mile radius are set back farther back than 75 feet and are out of sight of the road. Within that radius, only a church and a few homes to the south of this parcel do not appear to meet the setback. Variance Report, VA 2000-00 2 April 4, 2000 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: • The original dwelling was built in 1942 when there was no zoning setback. • The proposed addition will be farther from the road than the existing dwelling. Although sympathetic, staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • If other structures were built after zoning, they meet the setbacks, but the older structures do not meet setbacks either. Staff cannot find a hardship under the Code in this case, but finds that the situation is shared so frequently that we are attempting to change the ordinance. 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 addition will be further from the road than the dwelling so it will not be detrimental to the district. Staff agrees that the proposed addition 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 three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, if the Board of Zoning Appeals finds cause to approve the request, staff recommends the following condition: The variance is for the addition proposed in BP 2000-00267AR only. Any future additions must meet the ordinance requirements at the time of application. c:\WINDOWSIDESKTOPIVA2000-08 doc STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: April 4, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-2000-08 OWNER/APPLICANT: Amy Ellertson, owner/ Willie Mae Perkins T/A Permit Me, applicant TAX MAP/PARCEL: 16/39 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 4.116 LOCATION: 5321 Wesley Chapel Road is on the east side of Rt 671 approximately 0.25 miles north of its intersection with Rt. 668 TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a front setback of 75 feet on a thoroughfare state road. A variance of 32 feet is requested to allow the additions of a den on the side and a sunroom on the rear of an existing dwelling. The front corner of the closest addition will be 43 feet from the front property line. Only a small portion of the rear addition falls in the 75-foot setback. RELEVANT HISTORY: None PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: 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: • The original dwelling was built in 1942 when there was no zoning setback. • The proposed addition will be farther from the road than the existing dwelling. Staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. There are not unique conditions that currently limit the use of the property. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Variance Report, VA 99- 2 1999 Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • If other structures were built after zoning, they meet the setbacks, but the older structures do not meet setbacks either. Staff blah, blah, blah 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 addition will be further from the road than the dwelling so it will not be detrimental to the district. Staff agrees that the proposed additions will not change the character of the district. The den on the side will be farther back than the existing dwelling and the sunroom on the rear will hardly be noticeable from the road or adjacent properties. 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: C:IMy DocumentsIJAN'S\Variance Reports\VA2000-08 doc / cn N00'00'53"W 29 8 •33 •63.96 FRAME34 63 BARN 3 • IRON A SET i a / EXHIBITS o , , T.M.. f 6 3 9 PRES/ N05 32 24 W — � aO 139.77 4 4. 116 AC. N D.B. 980-24 — 1 -emu o� / Q� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE D.B. 891-700 PLAT t• o WELL DONNIE R. & C 63 D.B. 921 - 2', •3 ( HOUSE Q ib 4 FRAME D.B. 763 - -1 POWER 59.6 Vir 1 y STORY SHED�."` • 2 ca POLE d' 95. BLOCKtri _J . / / M _ :-A f % GRAVEL � TE � DRIVE cr a O/y • /° ' w II �. w �0 0 U 2S p �° N07 44 51.,W / : 0 L. 445.34 4/83o NOTE sp.s ,11, THIS PROPER" / 4 THE 100 YEAF 34.38 4s9 •38 TO THE FFLOC) i----.1 :. IRON CO : o SET