The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200200008 Review Comments 2002-05-14 STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: May 14, 2002 STAFF REPORT VA-2002-008 APPLICANT: John Achlin and William Whitehurst (Owners) TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 127, Parcel 12A ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1 .0372 acres LOCATION: West side of Route 717 approximately 1/10 mile north of the intersection with Route 6. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from Section 6.3.3 which requires a variance for any enlargement of a structure located less than 25 feet from a public street right-of-way. This variance is necessary to permit the replacement of an enclosed porch with an open porch on the front of the dwelling located 14 feet from the public street right-of-way, a variance of 11 feet. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This 1 .0372 acre parcel is improved by a dwelling. It is staff opinion that the owners now enjoy reasonable use of the property and that approval of this request would be a convenience to them. Therefore the hardship criterion is not met. However, there are additional factors the Board may wish to consider. The building line of the main structure on this property is located 20 feet from the right- of-way for Route 717. The existing, enclosed porch extends 6 feet from the dwelling and is located 14 feet from the right-of-way. The nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance was amended on June 14, 2000 to allow structures that are nonconforming to front yard setbacks to be enlarged or extended under certain conditions; namely that such an enlargement must be no closer to the street than the nonconforming structure and the enlargement must be a minimum of 25 feet from the right-of-way. The applicants propose the replacement of the existing, enclosed entry porch with an open covered porch that will not project more than 6 feet from the main structure. This porch could continue to exist as a legal nonconforming structure. However, the variance • is necessary to replace it because the porch loses its nonconforming status when the existing porch is demolished. The sketch plan submitted with the application shows a proposed new entrance porch located on the south side of the building. This porch will not require a variance because it will be located more than 25 feet from the right-of-way. This sketch also shows the parking area will be moved from the front of the building to the side. The relocation of the main entrance and parking will shift the impacts of the parked vehicles, the moving I:IDEP1lBuilding&Zoningl2002 staff reports1VA-2002-8 Whitehurst.doc vehicles and the typical activities associated with the entrance of a dwelling farther from the right-of-way of State Route 717. It is staff's opinion that the proposed open porch better conforms to the intent of the ordinance than the existing enclosed porch. It is also staff's opinion that the relocation of the main entrance and parking to the side of the building is supportive of the purpose of setbacks from streets. 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: • The strict application of this ordinance will prevent me from moving the main entrance to the side of the existing house and further away from the state road. Moving the main entrance will reduce pedestrian traffic and any obstructions associated with it in the area between the existing porch and the state road. Reducing the pedestrian traffic and / or any obstructions associated with them will help create a safer situation for those traveling on Old Sand Road as well as the occupants of the house and their guests. Please see attached drawings. Staff agrees that moving the parking from the front to the side of the building results in the benefits identified by the applicant. However, it is staff opinion that the applicant now has reasonable use of the property and that the criteria for a finding of hardship set forth in Section 34.2 are not met in this request. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • The building was originally used as a church and according to the previous owner, was converted to a 3 bedroom dwelling in the 1970s. I haven't done extensive research, but the house seems to be closer to the road than most houses in the area. Please see the attached pictures. Since staff is unable to determine that a hardship exists, staff is unable to find that the hardship is unique. I:I DEPT\Building&Zoningl2002 staff reportsWA-2002-8 Whitehurst.doc 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: • Permitting the variance will benefit adjacent property owners as they are likely to experience fewer obstacles close to the road. Also, the appearance of the house will be improved and the property's value will go up. And, if the character of the district is changed by the granting of this variance, it will be changed for the better! Staff agrees with the applicant's justification. 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 for approval have been met, staff can not recommend approval of this request. Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1 . This variance is for the reconstruction of the existing porch as described in this file only. The existing front entry shall be modified so that it projects no more than 6 feet from the main structure and it shall not be enclosed. Any future additions, replacements or enclosure will be subject to the setback and yard regulations at the time of application. 2. A new parking area for at least two vehicles must be provided behind the building line of the main part of-the--main part of the structure. 3. The existing parking area shall be blocked by a means proposed by the applicant and approved by Zoning staff in consultation with VDOT. I:IDEPT1Building&Zoningl2002 staff reportslVA-2002-8 Whitehurst.doc • • , VA 7002 teir oo 8 11. . 'P,zrifi• #4 11,'.'",-..- • * '. ' " ' ow In --'-"- -. ii----...„---- :'• I9 • -' s Ij(' a� ti�rr ems•:a y • St '.y s. :04 + _ • .,..... - .. , • • \ .1: 1 M r t f t -1-- , -` + s ., _ _ 0 . . .. 0 - ? oo2 '' 43 e ,,, . 1 \ t J I _. 'M 1 � ,,,, II-9 4 imior, ,in".— -- ----....'. ' -72. ., } NIP' Qe y ` `:_._ Fr_- x' ' l i It'::,--- ' ,. -- _ — ors - 1 rK I $ • . 0 IvigIT f w r w z �l • >i• ! 2 A 5-•. / a i * rs A% Io 0 � i r N f '; i o ,' 71* I t 1 0 -On Val As/ 0CP TAQcCL.. AA �. 1 9 Li rc‘q :1- (l -, F. -9" (IN a ?� I -. ( s 210 -o -TI el. ....'.1b enzi -7151.1.... f') ,r 03 Do d t ,.. ._.,, & p L ,1 T 1; 43, Sc cT r V 1 0 'p J" _ T el i -off r, . --- r r-:,),, ,, ,,,.„,„ i, ` ,, , . r v, P vt . , ;, c-t di 7/,72. 1 cd -.- p cie (T. la c'7 I -wc\ ‘ - ? -,, E/ -9 cn 1 c a ri. Y I - g .p. a i . 16 rT 0 t`r 1 , 1 $ gE 1- & f: yr c l' c .i-t 1 . atm 6 --.. I _ / hi