Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200400006 Correspondence 2004-06-01 VOLE D/ C SWOO �.,�.,C 98 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD•ESMONT,VIRGINIA 22937 TELEPHONE: (434)2 O54 • FACSIMILE: (434)286-6106 THIS INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND INTENDED ONLY FOR THE ADDRESSEE. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR DUPLICATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE IN ERROR, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY. To: ZONNG BOARD. ATTN; JAN SPRINKLE DELIVER ASAP DLEI FROM: PAULA BEAZLEY DATE: 6/1/04 RE: VARIANCE VA-2004-006 PAGES(INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 3 IF You Do NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL(434) 286-6800 COMMENTS: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO THE ABOVE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE. FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY THANK You J ul'I ul 'U'i ell•JCrl'I J rHULH I IU L L r 1IYHIYl,1HL LHW P.2 COLESWOOD LLC 6198 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD•ESMONT. VIRGINIA 22937 --tea Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration June 1, 2004 County of Albemarle Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road. Room 227 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: VA-2004-006 —Dorothy Monroe (Owner)/ Kevin Quick (applicant) Sign 8 — Tax Map 121, Parcel 95 Dear Ms. Sprinkle: This letter is to register our opposition to Variance 2004-006, made by the above captioned applicant in connection with the above captioned parcel. The granting of this application is within the Board of Zoning Appeals discretion and neither the owner nor applicant is entitled to the variance as a matter of right. I apologize for not writing sooner, but have just become aware of this variance request. We respectfully request that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny this variance because the application is not justified on any of the following grounds, as detailed more fully below: 1) That strict application would produce undue hardship, 2) That the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district/vicinity; and 3) That the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the easement. Strict Application will not produce undue hardship: The parcel in question is a nonconforming lot within a rural area and there are no good reasons for granting this variance. The property owner of this nonconforming lot is not requesting the variance to build a home in which he/she will live. The owner has received two offers to purchase the property from adjacent farm owners and therefore denial of this application will not render the property unmarketable. Rather, the neighborhood would be substantially benefited if this parcel remained in agricultural use; as is the land surrounding the parcel. The parcel is more than 1/3 the size of any other building site in this rural area and therefore granting a permit for the speculative building of a home on this site will be highly detrimental to the rural and scenic neighborhood in which the parcel is located. As long as other opportunities and alternatives exist with respect to this parcel, there is no justification for approving a variance for a nonconforming use parcel that in many other respects should not be built upon as proposed. JUN U1 'U4 J PAULA PIERCE FINANCIAL LAW P.3 The hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district/vicinity. As stated above, while it is true this parcel is considerably smaller than any other parcel in the surrounding area, that factor in and of itself does not justify granting the variance, particularly because the parcel is a nonconforming lot. Building on a parcel of this size is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan for this rural area and is inconsistent with the agricultural and forestal character of the lands surrounding this parcel. In addition, as stated more fully below, granting of this variance will substantial detriment all the adjacent properties as well as nonadjacent properties, not only because of the nonconforming use, but also because of the dangerous condition that will be created by permitting access to the property on an already extremely dangerous S curve in the road and by the impact it is certain to have on the wells of adjacent property owners. That the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the easement. Applicant is unable to show that authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property owners and in fact, not only have all adjacent property owners opposed the application on these grounds, but authorization of the variance for a nonconforming lot in an agricultural/forested land neighborhood will detriment not only adjacent property owners, but the entire neighborhood in the following manner and therefore should be denied for the following reasons: 1) Approval of the variance to permit building will substantially detriment the surrounding farms and be detrimental to the rural characterization of the area. The road on which this parcel is located is rural, scenic, narrow and winding, with mature tree canopy, 2) The only access to the property is by the road described in 41 above which has a double S blind curve all along the road frontage of this property. If a driveway is created into this property, it will create an extremely dangerous situation and be hazardous to not only all adjacent property owners, but also to other persons traveling along this road, 3) There is no reason to grant the variance as the owner will not suffer any undue hardship if the variance is denied, 4) Five different property owners, either adjacent or in the immediate vicinity have had to re-drill for wells and therefore it is unlikely a well can be dug on the property to support such a building, but if it is, it will detriment adjacent owners by diminishing their well capacity, 5) There is a substantial likelihood that the septic system proposed in the application will fail and/or the soil is insufficient and in that event, all the adjacent properties will be negatively impacted T•a -ou foj►r consideration. 7/ 4-44r By Facsine `�1 7/'77