HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200300014 Review Comments 2003-12-02 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: December 2, 2003
STAFF REPORT VA-2003-014
OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Karl or Joyce Mason
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32F/1-B-1
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 40,353 square feet
LOCATION: 101 Terrybrook Drive, approximately 600 feet from its
intersection with Proffit Road, Rt. 649
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request relief from
Section 10.4 which requires a side setback of 25 feet in the RA district. The applicants
want to reduce the setback to 17 feet, a variance of eight feet. The purpose is to
convert an existing deck to an enclosed family room.
RELEVANT HISTORY: The property was rezoned to RS-1, Residential Suburban, by
property owner petition as part of the Terrybrook Subdivision in 1972. The dwelling was
constructed in 1972 when the side setback was only twenty feet. One corner of the rear
of the house is only 23.98 feet from the side property line.
The Masons purchased the property in October 1978. The dwelling became legally
nonconforming in 1980 when the current zoning of RA, Rural Areas, was applied. Mr.
Mason states that the deck was constructed in 1986 under the proper County permits.
At that time, the side setback was the same as now—twenty-five feet. Since we have
purged our files, we have no evidence to support or differ from his position. However,
since the deck is only 17.5 feet from the property line, it is not nonconforming. To be
converted to a family room, a variance is required.
In addition, now that the department has been made aware of this encroachment, it will
be necessary to pursue it as a violation if no variance is granted. If the variance for the
enclosure of the deck is not granted, to simply remedy the violation, the deck must be:
1 . removed altogether,
2. reconstructed to meet setbacks, or
3. granted a variance to allow it to remain and to clear the Mason's title to the
property.
Staff has added language throughout this report to suggest a lesser variance than the
one for which the Mason's applied. The lesser variance is number three above.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: At 40,353 square feet,
this parcel is less than half of the RA district's minimum lot size of two acres and
therefore nonconforming in size. It is also triangularly shaped with the longest side
VA 2003-014, Mason Page 2 December 2, 2003
being the road frontage. Since the parcel fronts on an internal subdivision road, the
setback is the same on all three sides—twenty-five feet. There is no issue with the
topographic features of the property.
Adding to the living space within the dwelling by enclosing the deck is decidedly the
easiest and least expensive method of expanding. However, there is room on all three
other sides of the structure to make additions without varying the setback. An addition
could be made on the rear of the structure, provided that it would be no closer to the
property line than the one corner already is-23.98 feet from the property line.
It is staff opinion that the owners already enjoy reasonable use of their property.
Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the initial request does not meet the criteria for a
finding of undue hardship. However, there are other factors the Board may wish to
consider.
The deck has existed for 17 years and may have been approved in error by the County.
There is also a letter from the only adjacent property owner who is effected by either the
deck or its conversion to an enclosed family room. Mr. Bill Rupp (TM-P 32F-1 B2)
expressed support of the variance, provided that the existing footprint not change. Staff
has addressed this concern by suggesting conditions if the Board finds for approval of
either variance discussed.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: (Staff comments are
written in italics and follow the applicant's comments.)
Hardship
The applicant notes that there is a hardship because:
• The owners require more living space;
• This is the least expensive method of providing the additional space;
• Any other addition would be many thousands of additional dollars; and,
• Any other addition would not be as satisfactory.
Staff agrees that it would be easiest and least expensive to convert the existing deck to
more living space. However since there is already reasonable use of the property, there
is no hardship and granting the variance would be a convenience to the owners.
However, when considering the deck as it is, staff finds it a hardship to require removal
or reconstruction of a deck that was built with County permits and approvals and has
been in use for 17 years.
VA 2003-014, Mason Page 3 December 2, 2003
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship as related to enclosing the deck.
There is evidence that an undue hardship would occur if the deck had to be
removed or reconstructed. [Lesser variance]
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
• This property is triangular in space and as such the required 25-foot setback
produces a great deal of unusable space. On one side the calculation is 927.65
square feet.
Since staff cannot make a finding of hardship on the enclosure issue, there is nothing to
be unique. However, staff does find a unique hardship in a 17-year old deck that
received County permits but does not meet the required setbacks. Without a variance
being granted, the deck is in violation.
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.
However, staff has noted evidence that there is a unique hardship in the
existence of the deck itself that is not shared by other RA properties.
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
• The adjacent property will not be affected as the footprint of the house and deck will
not change. The proposed enclosing of the deck is simply changing an outside
room to an inside room and living space.
Staff is of the opinion that either leaving the deck as is, or granting the variance
requested will not negatively impact the character of the area. In addition, the one
property that could be impacted supports the variance.
3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of either
possible 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.
VA 2003-014, Mason Page 4 December 2, 2003
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since two of the three criteria for approval of the
initial request have not been met, staff cannot recommend approval. However,
should the Board find cause to approve, staff recommends the following condition:
The variance applies to the deck and the area below the deck only. These areas
may be enclosed and made into interior living space, provided that the footprint
does not change. In addition, no features except eaves permitted under section
4.11.1 may be permitted to be closer than 21' to the entire side property line
effected by this variance.
Since staff finds that all three criteria have been met for the lesser variance and thus
recommends approval. Should the Board find that it cannot approve the initial request,
staff recommends approval of a variance that would allow the existing deck to remain
with the following condition:
No enclosure of the deck or the area below may be permitted.
STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: December 2, 2003
STAFF REPORT VA-2003-014
OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Karl or Joyce Mason
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32F/1-B-1
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 40,353 square feet
LOCATION: 101 Terrybrook Drive, approximately 600 feet from its
intersection with Proffit Road, Rt. 649
TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request relief from
Section 10.4 which requires a side setback of 25 feet in the RA district. The applicants
want to reduce the setback to 17 feet, a variance of eight feet. The purpose is to
convert an existing deck to an enclosed family room.
RELEVANT HISTORY: The property was rezoned to RS-1 , Residential Suburban, by
property owner petition as part of the Terrybrook Subdivision in 1972. The dwelling was
constructed in 1972 when the side setback was only twenty feet. One corner of the rear
of the house is only 23.98 feet from the side property line.
The Masons purchased the property in October 1978. The dwelling became legally t mt12)y� i5
nonconforming in 1980 when the current zoning of RA, Rural Areas, was applied. Mr. N' j
Mason states that the deck was constructed in 1986 under the proper County permits. Al ) j<;
At that time, the side setback was the same as now—twenty-five feet. Since we have
purged our files, we have no evidence to support or differ from his position. However, . "-
since the deck is only 17.5 feet from the property line, it is not nonconforming. To be
converted to a family room, a variance is required.
In addition, now that the department has been made aware of this encroachment, it will
be necessary to pursue it as a violation if no variance is granted. If the variance for the
enclosure of the deck is not granted, to simply remedy the violation, the deck must be:
1. removed altogether,
2. reconstructed to meet setbacks, or Adt-
3. granted a variance to allow it to remain/and to clear the Mason's title to the
property.
Staff has added language throughout this report to suggest a lesser variance than the
one for which the Mason's applied. The lesser variance is number three above.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: At 40,353 square feet,
this parcel is less than half of the RA district's minimum lot size of two acres and
therefore nonconforming in size. It is also triangularly shaped with the longest side
VA 2003-014, Mason Page 2 December 2, 2003
being the road frontage. Since the parcel fronts on an internal subdivision road, the
setback is the same on all three sides—twenty-five feet. There is no issue with the
topographic features of the property.
Adding to the living space within the dwelling by enclosing the deck is decidedly the
easiest and least expensive method of expanding. However, there is room on all three
other sides of the structure to make additions without varying the setback. An addition
could be made on the rear of the structure, provided that it would be no closer to the
property line than the one corner already is-23.98 feet from the property line.
It is staff opinion that the owners already enjoy reasonable use of their property.
Therefore, it is staffs opinion that the initial request does not meet the criteria for a
finding of undue hardship. However, there are other factors the Board may wish to
consider.
•
The deck has existed for 17 years and may have been approved in error by the County.
There is also a letter from the only adjacent property owner who is effected by either the
deck or its conversion to an enclosed family room. Mr. Bill Rupp (TM-P 32F-1 B2)
expressed support of the variance, provided that the existing footprint not change. Staff
has addressed this concern by suggesting conditions if the Board finds for approval of
either variance discussed.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance
criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: (Staff comments are
written in italics and follow the applicant's comments.)
Hardship
The applicant notes that there is a hardship because:
• The owners require more living space;
• This is the least expensive method of providing the additional space;
• Any other addition would be many thousands of additional dollars; and,
• Any other addition would not be as satisfactory.
Staff agrees that it would be easiest and least expensive to convert the existing deck to
more living space. However since there is already reasonable use of the property, there
is no hardship and granting the variance would be a convenience to the owners.
However, when considering the deck as it is, staff finds it a hardship to require removal
or reconstruction of a deck that was built with County permits and approvals and has
been in use for 17 years.
vH 2UU:3-014, Mason Page 3 December 2, 2003
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship as related to enclosing the deck.
There is evidence that an undue hardship would occur if the deck had to be
removed or reconstructed. [Lesser variance]
Uniqueness of Hardship
The applicant notes:
• This property is triangular in space and as such the required 25-foot setback
produces a great deal of unusable space. On one side the calculation is 927.65
square feet.
Since staff cannot make a finding of hardship on the enclosure issue, there is nothing to
be unique. However, staff does find a unique hardship in a 17-year old deck that
received County permits but does not meet the required setbacks. Without a variance
being granted, the deck is in violation.
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.
However, staff has noted evidence that there is a unique hardship in the
existence of the deck itself that is not shared by other RA properties.
Impact on Character of the Area
The applicant offers:
• The adjacent property will not be affected as the footprint of the house and deck will
not change. The proposed enclosing of the deck is simply changing an outside
room to an inside room and living space.
Staff is of the opinion that either leaving the deck as is, or granting the variance
requested will not negatively impact the character of the area. In addition, the one
property that could be impacted supports the variance.
3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of either
possible 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.
VA 2003-014, Mason Page 4 December 2, 2003
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since two of the three criteria for approval of the
initial request have not been met, staff cannot recommend approval. However,
should the Board find cause to approve, staff recommends the following condition:
The variance applies to the deck and the area below the deck only. These areas
may be enclosed and made into interior living space, provided that the footprint
does not change. In addition, no features except eaves permitted under section
4.11.1 may be permitted to be closer than4,' to the entire side property line
effected by this variance. /7'
Since staff finds that all three criteria have been met for the lesser variance and thus
recommends approval. Should the Board find that it cannot approve the initial request,
staff recommends approval of a variance that would allow the existing deck to remain
with the following condition:
No enclosure of the deck or the area below ay be permitted.
THE PRC, PERTY SHOWN ON THIS PL..AT AND THE TITLE LINES
Di' TH1. r .,...DIN(.; ARE SHOWN HEREON . at W. S. it
CE
54- 1 7'
50 4- 1 7.
1 LOT 2 4
1t /lab
i
- --•
t t‘
)'
/
.c.1)4.:,
ftlotioftaiss, ,
CI) .
("1 I
_ ®
rv"
. “..., /
. cr)
L 0 T I \ 1 '' - I i • ' , ,
(4.
. .,
cr, s I s T 3RY BRiCK
tf) ....,. - ... W
11 aASEmENT ,r
, 1
. it gm 0.11
ca /
... i
o / , . ..,
— — 3
4§
_ . •
L ---L
,-
I ., \ 1 ' II
/ 1
-,: , i ,•s-,
I I i
, -5) ' •,,IY.)
'• ,r: „
/
/ •
I ,
1 I
tA, ...
re) ,c \ . •
Pr i „ . I I I \,
." 4("/
a: ti- i / / ,
\(.) 7
1- 0:" i I „ \v, 7,
k 10 "
i V.
C ! - I I \ ./ .
N / i
c?)\) '/ 10
i I .
/ 1Z 1 /
1 i '
(r)Q1
/
I w V
- 1 > / • ""/
,..;
(-)6
0) 1 0 . i Z
r() . / N° 44
,
, 0
4k\'
cst .
i i c50 0 c,
•
I )/
- i A
-.6 /
, ...
v 1 c)
-lq)
/ I i
v i /
/
i
4
(I-
( cu
,... 6)
4- tk
47,
'I qi
,
PHYSICAL SURVEY OF
I CIT 1 DI nrie D crrT-rnm nkr
A�n )13
00051-
o^o o N
1s,F • . ' ,J- itl k 1 .tip _ r - .,.���
1 , ` fir►,.
400
i .� t f
�..�. ice , .`� .0. .g. ..pti., .,4 ' ,i ,
' ...• ! ,TIC M.•:?-- `?r7Gi
Nketft
+ 0.
.fit. a;• z.
•
:w ,,1
di
. ... , ' ...,�.�* '�► al .. �.
•
•
.„0„,4541$4woialtei ....
t
' _ r ' ..
11‘
•44
4etimpl.
axe• .r y'. f ,
•
•
11/26/03
/0 ifT 7J Do wok/ PpeoPITY 4. /N1 ,3ETAc/k N
PARCl s 3 / �- e z b /N,� /6 TRH/G/eT' 13�4CK �eo-.K
A4,4K/K(R , TN,ev ali/ TREE-3 ,zei¢/' (QZ t FcET/
°St-°4
$ -Z kA-•sn /s
f-/'o OSL
I. I
:fit/.N -♦ ?• -- 1 �-
.. ,' IA.
* }. r jam. i1 r f`,r,l, T _ 4.
<' ►. + I * ! / ' :._ ' y •.
t R 4. i� t l't • � i �..f. it i. ••`r,. / '�_ ' +sY' t_
- ,,. • , • -' 1 i ';''' i,I.„ f
0...,. .0. i., , _ar'-' N i: . . .•-': •''..-'... 4 . ../i' • 4.4't(tt;'e ----
C •• .. r
"mitrr- " •••
1 - _ `` :t.•`*:.ii •, . ' IS C "•, .,� ."PaN r y�•
•
•
. a
11/26/03
reotit R ,e., ,LB t,K/'J rAl a-R.D /ZeLy ,8,e6,--Ae 77,e ,
/.../N / 5 5 rgA/e hi r T7��O d4il ?Re Pc.,e7-' M,¢,e.,eL, -c
a4t,e) 77P--ttS To Zo.4-D. (2.. 5-5- , 7 ,¢IT)
iAlen. - •
,.'" 'Alt*, ....,* ' . ".-if• AM •.• ':0 . JOT. 61".4 „Oil Illik AW:51.;-‘ ."
O''': ''''.. 1fai,: ;
tea/► • 1. 1
4 :3;`„
spa .. / :s.SYl
a rt.
f
1 �_ .. „ , 'w. 4iiiii 1,11 , 1 ...itt......
-•%et -' • Tr••
,...
•
,,,.
i .
• ,.... _.,,..„
, ... ...41.01- -',":Xi-'-'lb t'4.- ' h. 7 4.• 4
•
r j • M •- l 1• µ• . t`-. ` 11
` — • � • i• w � -lt. -4.1 -c . .i.v '7 YS, ' _ �� i �` , Va (i Ya • I ` j` - 1• s . { r"�!'�r ��.t•
t`11E _
i r } _�►:. ". _ _ :_ _ � Ike'� . Y � a ...,“ Y 1X • _ . a*.-1. y ,tit ��, •r�ra-r IS.. •i 1.
^ - t - .• t..-.4 fit. '4i�L".i r. • y- �' d►?. ��„.
' •a•.►�' •► i ♦ • • ' Z -`.. a};ate.• -4I-
�r .lit �, -
11/26/03
:T • , ,
•
1 + �Y.7\v� c'1�0 \��i i yj`• �:,,i �Y 1 2 i s� iY '�-i'r•
1t4 a, A.�, mil,�y,� 5e Y�r _ �f .N,1 i _1ii• _
019.
�j',r � t`t 1 , r}till•1s • fie'"'• --- .
i I .
I leW ;.: .:. . , ,
•
is
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
J'
•
11/26/03
THIS IS 10 CERTIFY T'IAT ON OCTOBER 12, 1978
I SURVEYED THE PR(;PERTY SHOWN ON THIS PLAT AND THE TITLE LINES Cr
AND V:AL!S OF TH' ' M. S. RDBDABISI, A. %
t DING ARE SHOWN HEREON p i
V CERT NO.
54-17-3 (a) 655
c, 54-17-3 (b) 78 a
�9 �e
LOT Z r��/tO LAMP Fop,`
I
%.. 4,
5.z s o v ION' ,`= g /
LOT I c
e .Il ., c XU
- I S T.RT BRICK ,p _ - \�\,wi
r if � W/BASEMENT p '—\'. j \ .I
0 k 101 N.
Y
I m
V) n i -.-— _ 446 3
1 , E
m \ I I' I ; . H oi`Q 1
I 1 1 9 ,,Q A
w E, \ ,\ A
°� / P•
�> I 1 / / Q‘C.V/
N I I / 1 eJ/ .
Z I I / //g0 pN
I I / h
Ir
-COI d r 00 •
CT Io / Ao4
cn
a 1 I S Qo 0P
I m
1 t
t� I 00+ .
I I -
t I ct
/ I 1 ,(E�
1 I t
J I
I
�Q
PHYSICAL SURVEY OF
LOT 1 BLOCK B SECTION ONE
TERRYBROOK
ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VIRGINIA
i
F I C
m.b
OIN
P•
4 \ 7\Wit LRAM Ste. ROUDABUSH,. II�C.. "- ..,04.
:.
! 'r•"R `CeR►TJEIFsD..t ND SURVEYC 2 '-\ 1� �,wa�" , ''`
*krw..- . --'g CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA
DATE- October 13, 1978 SCALE: 1"-. 50'
I T 26 FILE NO 5284
qyr
:ty
I.pAy
T9ir
COMMONWE4.1LTH of VIRQINIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferfon HeaiTth District ALBEMARLE
State Department of Health COUNTY
TTESVILLE
_ FLUVANNA COUNTY (PALMYFlA)
1138 Rcr;e Hill Drve GREENE COUNTY ISrANARDSVILLE)
Office of Environmental Health LOUISA COUNTY (LOUISA)
Phone (804) 972-6259 P. O. Box 754b NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
FAX (804) 972-4310 Charlottesvilki, Virginis 22906
November 2c`l, 2003
Ms. Jan Sprinkle
Mr. John Grady
County of Albemarle
Department of Building Codes and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Rc: Moon Property, Rt. 800,
Albemarle County, Virginia
Dear Ms. Sprinkle &Mr.Grady:
•
This is to confirm our visit to the above referenced prope•ty on Wednesday,
November 19, 2003 to preliminarily review the existing Grater supply and sewage
disposal system. Presently there is a mobile home on the property and the remains of
a previous store building. The owners propose-:o re-construct the store and use the
mobile home or remove the mobile home and have a small apartment over the store.
Although there are three wells on the property, only one well is proposed for use.
The well to be used is a drilled well in a well using pit with a sanitary seal. My
recommendation is that this well be finished of,'.'above ground with a pitless adaptor
and the proposed store building to be located at least 10' i i-om the well, with the
provision that the building is not to be chemically termite treated_ This well, provided
there are satisfactory water sample results, could be utilized for a convienencc,
grocery retail type of store(with no seating prcvided)red ulated by the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and apartment or mobile home. As discussed in the field,
the well could not be approved for any kind of food preparation requiring a Health
Department.permit.
An additional point that we did not discuss in the field that needs to be brought to the
owners attention is that while food preparation in grocery or convenience stores, in
some cases, can be done under the Department of Agricul ure regulatory program and
exempt from Health Department regulation, this exemption does not apply to
facilities not covered under the Department of A'.gricultur_regulatory program, i.e_
antique store). Such facilities with even limited food preparation would need to meet
Health Department requirements, including app:oval of th c water supply to serve the
public_
There also exists on this property an underground storage tank which is to be
removed. The tank is located within today's rnsquired so back of 100' to the well and
documentation should be provided regarding the absence or presence of any leakage
of the tank. Testing of the well for petroleum products sr.ould also be done.
The other two wells on the property are to be abandoned and well abandonment
permits are to be obtained from the Health Dep 3rtrnent prior to abandonment.
As discussed, this abandonment should be done by a licensed well drilling contractor.
The existing sewage disposal system(septic tark and distribution box) will need to
be uncovered for inspection in accordance with the policy agreement between the
Health Department and Albemarle County for file review of existing sewage disposal
system.
Please contact me if I may provide further information concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Smythers
Environmental Specialist
cc: Brenda Moon
8781 HowardsviIle Turnpike
Schuyler, Va. 22969
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
12
10 13
6
9 14
g 15 22
2
a; 23 4
7 16 21
x 1
6 20 26 25
13
8 P�
19 J
6� 27 12
5
4 17 28 37 11
18 36
3 GP 5� 29 O 10
2 30 35
O 9
O B
1 31
O34 A
' 33 7
32
6
G
P\N F\ 4 5
O
3 A
F
I
2
ROUTE 649
VAAW03 imp /A+
TERRYBROOK
OI D.B. 544 Pp. 210-212
SCALE IN FEET RIVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 32F
2�0 0 200 400 600 800