The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199600018 Review Comments 1996-12-03 gp _or A1.N,1IIIII '�01 Ai J ® JV COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road,Room 223 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Building Code Information FAX(804)972-4126 Zoning Information (804)296-5832 TtD(804)972-4012 (804)296-5875 November 15, 1996 Stephen K Parks or Bob Fenwick - , 325 Barracks Hill Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Variance Application, VA-96-18 Tax Map 44, Parcel 72 Dear Applicant: For your convenience and to allow you to organize your thoughts prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on Tuesday, December 3, 1996, please find attached the staff report for your case. It will be necessary for someone to be present to speak for the appeal application. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, 4, f $ 4/4 Sprinkle oning Assistant JS/db STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: December 3, 1996 STAFF REPORT VA-96-18 OWNER/APPLICANT: Stephen K. Parks TAX MAP/PARCEL: 44/72 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 6.072 acres LOCATION: The south side of Barracks Hill Road in Ivy Farms Subdivision off St. Rt. 658. REQUEST: The applicant seeks relief from Section 10.2.1(1) which is the by right, permitted uses in the Rural Areas district. It states: Detached single-family dwellings, including guest cottages and rental of the same; provided that yard, area and other requirements of section 10.4 conventional development by right, shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lot subject to section 10 3. The applicant is in the process of building a garage with a second floor apartment that is only 8 feet from his existing dwelling. In order to maintain the required side yards for both the new structure and the exsiting house, a variance of 42 feet is requested to decrease the theoretical two side yard setbacks of 25 feet each from 50 feet to 8 feet so the new structure does not have to be attached to the main dwelling. This is a case where the ordinance will allow the structure (combination of garage and apartment) to be built one of two ways: either, to be attached to the main dwelling, or, to be detached and separated by 50 feet. The main reason for this ordinance provision is so that future division of the property can be accomplished without variance. If we approve the building of dwellings that do not have this separation, we are setting up a situation where it appears that we endorse the variance that would be needed later to divide the property. (It is important to note that if the structure did not contain a dwelling unit, it could be built 8 feet from the house without need of this variance. It is only the dwelling unit that must be separated from the main house.) The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship - The construction is in progress and to move the building to comply with the 50' building separation requirement would produce undue hardship (Note the building permit was issued for an attached structure.) - As the construction progressed it became apparent that a better choice architecturally was not to attach the new structure to the main house with a hallway as originally planned. The attached design took away from the character of that outside area of the main house. STAFF REPORT - VA-96-18 Page 2 - To relocate the garage/apartment is not practical. Due to the location of the existing septic system and reserve, existing property lines, the topography and other features of the property, including streams and lake, another location for the structure is not possible. - Other locations for the structure will obstruct views and otherwise distract from the uniqueness of the property. - Services to the current location such as septic, water, power, phone, cable TV, etc., are provided from the main house. - There are no guest areas available in the house due to the large size of the family. This space is intended primarily for both grandmas when they visit as they currently reside out of state. - In the future when the extra area is not required for guests, the intent is to use the space as an office/study. Uniqueness of Hardship - This is one of two properties in the subdivision that have this zoning provision. (Mr. parks was referring the development rights, but research shows at least 12 lots in Ivy Farms that still contain development rights.) - To the adjacent neighbors, the two structures appear to be attached. The current location provides the allusion of attached from the road and most other viewing angles. Impact on the Character of the District - Attached or detached does not affect the character of the neighborhood. - The authorization of this request will be of no detriment to adjacent property nor will the character of the district be changed by the granting of the variance. STAFF COMMENT: The main dwelling on this parcel was built in 1988. A building permit for an attached garage with an apartment above was issued 8/20/96. Once the construction was under way, the owner decided he preferred the structure to be detached from the main house. Most cases are not as obviously "guest/grandma apartment" oriented. With only 8 feet of separation, particularly in a large lot subdivision like Ivy Farms, it is doubtful that any person would choose to sell—or buy—these dwellings separately. Mr. Parks has stated that the Ivy Farm Statement of Restrictions, Covenants and Conditions restricts the subdivision of any lots by the owner. He has also stated that he is willing to make an "attachment to the title" not to allow for the division of the property. Unfortunately, this case is most unusual and does not meet the criteria for granting the variance. There is no demonstrable hardship. STAFF REPORT - VA-96-18 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff agrees with the applicant on only one of the three criteria for approval. 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. The structure is already built detached from the main dwelling. Connecting it or not will have no effect on the adjacent property nor the character of the district. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; Staff opinion is that the structure can be built exactly as the building permit was issued—for an attached structure—with no hardship. The strict application of the terms of this ordinance does not effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. 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; All properties in the same area and the same zoning district will have to meet the same setbacks. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Prior to a certificate of occupancy, a document shall be put to record prohibiting the division of the property between the two structures. A IVA9618 JS ••♦ ti. } d. • !AL J.' _— ` i a .. . ... .. innill ill. 3 in ailliiit,..amiib.,. p . ski... . •••••......111001111.1141 r. '".A.— — --. • y ' ■ 4. mil.•..} , ; - — _i _ _ \1�1 �V+ • ,1 IC 1 i le tix i 3 :14 ; • • t . -4 i -' t i lb& •• t 1 E 016 w ‘Ipa ION 0 ! ' ♦• 01 ♦ 1 O �f O O D Z G o N m O 0 � D D � rn C) _ 2 C N -n o rn C rn D r o O O rn Q N U) o O ci �D Z v� D rn �o r= oD .,.� r r rn Cl) C. Q) o rX r rn C 0 vc n CA (1) m c� 0 z .p 04 -;s w .P Ln