The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200000009 Review Comments 2000-04-04 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: April 4, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-00-09 OWNER/APPLICANTS: Frances G. and T. Michael Umstadter, owners / Kim and Michael Unstadter, applicants TAX/MAP/PARCEL: 7 / 30 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 5.0 acres LOCATION: On the south side of Rt. 687, approximately '/2 mile east of the intersection with Rt. 810, just south of Boonesville (2985 Shiffletts Mill Road) TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request a variance from Section 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations, minimum front yard setback existing public road: 75 feet. They request a variance of 6 feet to reduce the front setback from 75 to 69 feet from Rt. 687. The applicants propose construction of a 2-story addition which will contain 2 bedrooms, bathroom and foyer. The house presently consists of one-story and is less than 1 ,000 square feet of finished area. RELEVANT HISTORY: Based on the County Real Estate records, this house was originally built in 1932. These records show that the property sold in 1993. The applicants submitted a building permit for the addition in January and it is pending this approval. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: 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 ... or where, by reason or exceptional topographic conditions or ... condition of such piece of property, or of the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property ... provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance. The acreage of this property includes a small portion of the property which is on the other side of Route 687 and is adjacent to Buck Mountain Creek. The floodplain VA 00-09 2 April 4,2000 Umstadter extends some distance onto the uphill (southern) major portion of property. The southern portion of the property on which the home is located, is significantly above the grade of the state road and it continues to rise towards the rear of the property. The only level area of the land is immediately surrounding the home. A drainfield easement and a cemetery reservation are located on this parcel. The drainfield serving the home is located in front of the home and it is served by a spring to the rear of the property. STAFF ANALYSIS: The existing home has one bedroom and one bath. It is well below the average home size. The existing location of the home, septic field and spring, and the topography of the property, limit the available area for an addition. There are unique characteristics of the property which create a hardship for additional construction. There are no apparent detrimental impacts caused by this proposal. (This proposal would be permitted under the amendments staff has drafted for the nonconformities section of the ordinance. In conclusion, staff recommends approval. 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 setback ordinance would produce undue hardship on our growing family. Our existing home is less than 1 ,000 square feet and has only one bedroom and one bath. • Due to the mountainous terrain encroaching on the south side of our home, it would be extremely difficult and financially prohibitive to build an addition on the south. • Building to the east of the home would require relocation of the driveway and electric, water and drainage lines. • Building to the north would require relocation of the septic system and would also bring us closer to the public road. • Building to the west is the only logical placement of our addition for the above-listed reasons. Failure to receive the requested variance would unreasonably restrict our use of our property. • Furthermore, we purchased our property six and three quarter years ago with the intention of adding on to the home, not realizing that our plans would not meet the setback requirement. Our yard and the level of the home compared to the roadway are drastically different, with the roadway sitting approximately twelve to fifteen feet below the yard. Visually, this marked difference in levels gave us no reason to suspect that meeting the setback requirement would be an issue. C:IMy Documents\BZAlva00-09.doc VA 00-09 3 April 4, 2000 Umstadter Staff opinion is that the constraints of the topography and the location of the existing improvements, create a hardship for construction of an addition which would be practical and could meet setbacks. It is our further opinion that it would constitute an undue hardship if some reasonable area of addition were not permitted. 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant comments that the variance in necessary: • There are no other homes on Shiffletts Mill Road (Rt. 687) of similar square footage that are as close to the road as ours, with the exception of one mobile home that is a rental property. Staff finds that the combination of factors in this case constitute a unique hardship. 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: • The authorization of this variance request would not be detrimental to adjacent properties or to the character of the neighborhood. In fact, the authorization of this request and subsequent completion of our proposed addition would only enhance the neighborhood and its character. • We have contacted our adjoining neighbors regarding our plans and none have reservations or objections. In fact, we have attached a letter from Mr. Walter Ralls, whose property borders ours on the west and on the south, who supports our plans and our request for a variance. • In addition, our plans call for the addition to be consistent with the existing style of the home and will complement the topography. • Lastly, we have received an opinion from the Assistant Resident Engineer of the local office of the Virginia Department of Transportation, Mr. H.W. Mills, that it is unlikely that Shiffletts Mill Road (Rt. 687) will be widened or paved in the near future C.\My Documents\BZAlva00-09.doc VA 00-09 4 April 4, 2000 Umstadter due to the low traffic count of thirty vehicles per day. It is the opinion of Mr. Mills that our proposed addition would not interfere with such widening or paving. Given the difference in grade between the road and the proposed area of addition, it should not be clearly visible. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal should not negatively impact the adjacent property or the character of this 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 the application satisfies all three criteria, staff recommends approval. Should the Board chose to approve it, staff recommends the following condition: This approval is limited to building permit 2000-142 AR. Any further addition shall comply with the ordinance at the time or shall require amendment of the variance. C:IMy Documents\BZAlva00-09.doc 2565 S1,ffie WI;( t - Cy -2._ ,Vet -2_ic7 3-)-.. Note Property line runs along or near I hereby certify that on July 17. 19% / surveyed centerline of creek from Pont 'a �K the property shown hereon and the title lines to Point 5' GR� and buildings are es shown on this plat. oU�TA1N �B• Survey prepared for Frances C. Umstadter and K M I T. Michael Umstadter tO 687 25.00 ironThis Survey was prepared in conjunction with an Owner's Rod Policy CCase No. BR-26822) prepared by Lawyer's Title �'(�(, set Insurance Company and dated June 30. 1993. �� a �>aX Q Property subject to a 75' front yard. a 25' side yard. ° , and a 35' rear yard CPlat3. II (wain&pits t. ,BOO �, x ion Q; r 5 .Rt to m Property subject to a drainfield easement recorded et Rod4ktj o ;,. ee!-age .7. 6QJ D.B. 1063. Page 447. and a cemeteryreservation with Set ��, `.�..._. F ri ht of in teas and a ___-- �� d-P.^e lD o� ti J 3� ack,c\ x'�xned ` h as described in Will Book 41. Page 342. ri C11- -• p�in/i .. .p 1 Story Spring D Cdrr�n, p Residence x (. e AWe N " ...••- i V RodUti. ,Dog Pen '�'N y ,'YH'OF Set i,a_ Rat. fig• + Q a G' - Dog Pen encroaches 8.8' ��' r . 3.. wee *� } ,fir n Y7" - DogPen encroachesI,// �'�- p mod/x � 13.0' m �/ r7 Q E" - Fence encroaches 28.0' �c a aucBEs� Pri j c z y4�^ p F' - Fence encroaches 18_S" ' n � ��No ea / k • a o ��0 7•17 96 Jar 1 e~D 2 R n N 60 3� } + °u --- - Plat showing a Physical Survey of'• - - Se t W 364,13 lice L.O/ _ --- - - tax trap 7. Parcel 308 Iron ` RSet As shown on a plat recorded in Deed 1 Walter G. Reds Rod <;�� Book 1203. Page 729 in the Clerk's Office Deed Book 1203, Pg. 727 set , \ of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Virginia i Whitehall Na is terial Dis tric t LOT 2 N 69 52 26 W \\ LiNE BEARING DISTANCE Albemarle County. Virginia Frances G. Umstadter .. 37.71 Li N 33 53 00' £ 39.70 Scaled" 100. July 17. 1996 T. Michael Umstadter Tax Map 7. Parcel 30A i-/ L2 N 6107 39' £ 15.61 Deed Book 1321. Pg. 543 Walter G. Reds L3 N 41'48 33' £ 43.31 Deed Book 1203. Pg. 729 Mat.) Deed Book 1203. Pg. 727 L4 N 38 2075' E 47.69 KIRK HUGHES AND A550C/A TE5 2985 5hlff/etts MN Road L5 N 46 00'11' £ 73.27 Land Surveyors and Planners 5.000 Acres LG N 650054' £ 177.01 220 East High Street Tax Map 7. Parcel 30 L7 N G8'15'30" E 65.61 Charlottesville. Va 22902 L8 N 75'14 03' £ 106.64 Phone C804. 296-6942 L9 5 625077- £ 8939 Drawing No. 46G8-01.dwg KHi: kt;'f:B9-e/ Otop f"Q, fie-¢ „a:1 fi ry I j. '�4 M 4 yy tt x •