The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200000027 Review Comments 2000-10-03 STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: October 3, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-2000-027 OWNER/CO-APPLICANT: William G. III & Heather Thomas TAX MAP/PARCEL: 22/11 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas & Flood Hazard Overlay District ACREAGE: 41 .208 OWNER/CO-APPLICANT: Robert C. IV & Debbie H. Blosser TAX MAP/PARCEL: 22/11 F ZONING: RA, Rural Areas & Flood Hazard Overlay District ACREAGE: 7.298 LOCATION: These two parcels are located on the South side of Route 641 approximately 0.5 miles west of its intersection with Route 644 TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from Section 10.3.1 to permit an increase in the aggregate acreage allowed for development right lots from 31 to 37 acres. This will allow the transfer of 5 +/- acres from Thomas (Parcel 11) to Blosser (Parcel 11 F). Section 10.3.1 provides in part: "Regulations in section 10.5 governing development by right shall apply to the division of a parcel into five (5) or fewer lots of less than twenty-one (21) acres in area and to the location of five (5) or fewer dwelling units on any parcel in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance (reference 1.3). The aggregate acreage devoted to such lots or development shall not exceed thirty one (31) acres..." The thirty-one aggregate acre rule was adopted on November 8, 1989. The purpose of the regulation was to establish development patterns in the rural areas that confine new development lots to 31 acres per parent parcel. This results in the preservation of larger tracts of land because it limits the land that is available for residential development. RELEVANT HISTORY: Parcel 11 on Tax Map 22 was subdivided on January 6, 1995 resulting in four parcels. The development rights were allocated as follows. Lot A (11 D) may be divided into 2 parcels of less than 21 acres. Lots B (11 E) and D (11 F) may not be divided into parcels of less than 21 acres. Lot C (11) may be divided into 2 parcels, one of which may not exceed 2 acres. I IDEP71Budding&ZoninglStaff Reports\VA 2000-27 doc Variance Report, VA 2000 , 2 October 3, 2000 The aggregate acreage devoted to the development lots created by this division plus the potential 2 acre lot from Parcel 11 total 31 .00 acres. Lot 11 D- 12.687 Lot 11 E- 9.015 Lot 11- 2.00 (Future) Lot 11 F- 7298 31 .000 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Parcel 11, owned by the Thomases contains a dwelling and other improvements. Parcel 11 F, owned by the Blossers, is presently used for horses. This parcel does contain a lawful building site. It is staff opinion that both owners now enjoy reasonable use of their property and that no undue hardship is identified. 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: (From the viewpoint of the purchaser) The ongoing creation of our farm began at ground zero. We have been personally involved in the clearing and grading, seeding and fertilizing and construction of all structures and fences. We have reached a point where we must have more land to continue on with our plans. Our only alternative to purchasing land from Mr. Thomas would be to sell our farm and start over. Because of the sweat equity we have invested in our property and the values of comparables in Albemarle County, we could never afford to sell and then purchase again in Albemarle County. Our hope would be to purchase the land from Mr. Thomas and continue on with our endeavor. Staff cannot identify any hardship as described in the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. Since reasonable use already exists, there is no undue hardship 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant did not address this issue. Staff finds this situation is not unique. All divisions of land in the rural area district since November 8, 1989 have been subject to the 31 aggregate acreage requirement. Variance Report, VA 2000 , 3 October 3, 2000 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 transfer of the subject portion of Parcel 11 will not be of any detriment to surrounding properties. It will in simplest form transfer from one farm to another. As we invest more time and effort in our farm over the years, the property should become more defined and improve in its aesthetic value. The rural flavor of our area will only be enhanced." Staff agrees that this request will not change the character of the district. The land the applicants seek to transfer cannot support residential development because it is located in the flood plain of Preddy Creek. The land will continue to be used for agricultural purposes consistent with the intent of the rural area district. The transfer will not change the development pattern in 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: Since only one of the three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, if the Board finds cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: 1. This approval is limited to the area on Tax Map 22, Parcel 11 described in this report located to the west of Preddy Creek. ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241, 2:00 P.M. DRAFT AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2000 I. Call to Order II. Establish a Quorum III. Variance Hearings A. VA-2000-027 William G. Thomas, III (owner)/Robert & Debbie Blosser, IV (applicants) Staff Person: John Shepherd B. VA-2000-027 Kenneth & Louise Greer (owners/applicants) Staff Person: Jan Sprinkle IV. Old Business V. New Business ■ Approval of Minutes — VI. Adjournment P ,bn c a:cel 11 IL- i 1/4_6, ie ccr\5‘01-eres:P cvc a Varlanc=e- a N-'cl C S 6pti o� C)/ ./ O s a 4 ,� / / Ilitto: %.011'4°4°'-----.... \ / J \ 9ff \ O \\ \ \ •fir,• \ \ \ \ 1~ Y V \ \ 1 m CZ., (pu. Os \N r i t wt H Alt Of •t ut - • .. . W AtBt LE COU4TY I I 21 E X 11 Y, 2� 1 T S PRESENTED "TO -on VA, 2060 23 CQI 8 14 8B 15A 2A �i A fv--f A 1 7 12B 15B 15 12C 27 e&4 29 4 AR 12D 30 M 29 j. / ISC 33 26 31 4 A3 4 A 4A4 6 ha I 33A 32 18A2 4A5 35 A, 34 4A6 108 10 IOA 6 - 38 IIE 2FITS, 18B 4A] 39 .6 5 C 37 ISA B 50 JoeIOFII 18 IIA .4 1 12 40 1p dry )A 41 -e 44 22 4 SEE 34A S EE 50A 22 52 10 22 ;3 2 -49 :2 481 5 SSA f 53A' leg 53 7 !jo 125 12 E, I127 'A 134 135 y 136 50 49 133 538 ' 168 137 137 0 57 11B N �Y F s �XHIB .T 5 / pOUN� of P,' -641 - ST l � � I 3 F 3 Ab0� / 7. Z 98 2.600 g .ots t2. 68�