Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200400018 Review Comments 2004-10-05 i • STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle PUBLIC HEARING: October 5, 2004 STAFF REPORT VA-2004-018 OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Barton D. or Laura V. Weis TAX MAP/PARCEL: 060E1-00-0E-00700 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1.6304 acres LOCATION: On the south side of Oak Circle approximately 1100 feet west of the first (from Rt. 250) intersection with Farmington Drive TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations in the RA, Rural Areas district to reduce the side setback from 25 ft to 15 ft for their residence. The house and detached garage were constructed prior to Albemarle County's first zoning ordinance. In 1988 under the ordinance, an addition was constructed that connected the two structures and converted the garage to living space. Although it appears that the County approved the permits, the former garage portion was still only 15 feet from the property line and should not have been allowed to connect without a variance. The applicants want to remove the connecting addition (between the dwelling and the former garage) and build a new connection. However, since we cannot determine that it is a legally nonconforming structure, removing the connection will make the garage back into an accessory structure—which (at 15 feet from the property line) complies with the accessory setback of six feet. Once that occurs, we cannot allow a new connection to be made without a variance. The variance is for 10 feet. RELEVANT HISTORY: Farmington subdivision was put to record long before zoning was adopted in Albemarle County. The house and detached garage were both constructed in 1947, prior to our first zoning ordinance in 1969. The addition that connects the house and former garage structure was constructed in 1988. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: The Weises purchased the property in June 2004 in good faith. They had no reason to believe that they could not make their planned improvements to the house. Their plan was to remove the connecting addition and to replace it with rooms more in keeping with their family needs. They were unaware of any potential problem until the building permit application was reviewed and denied. This is an unusual case, where the contractor from 1988 states that a County building permit was issued, all necessary inspections were performed, and, no variance was required to attach the main dwelling to the former garage that had been converted to living space. It appears that this is a mutual mistake on the part of the former property VA-2004-018, Weis Page 2 October 5, 2004 owner and the County, who erred in allowing the connection. The regulations governing setbacks for primary and accessory structures in the RA are the same now as in 1988. The accessory structure setback is only six feet, while the primary structure setback is twenty-five feet. In this case, the dwelling and the addition that will connect to the (former) garage structure both meet the twenty-five foot setback. However the garage structure is only 15 feet from the property line and therefore, when it is attached, it makes the entire dwelling one structure that does not meet the primary setback. In looking at the criteria for granting approval of a variance, the following things can be considered. • At 1.6 acres, this property is smaller than the minimum lot size for the RA. The road frontage is only 176 feet wide, so it is also lacking the required lot width of 250 feet. Neither of these circumstances is unique to lots within Farmington. • There are some topographic features that contribute to the current location of the garage structure. The lot slopes, from both Oak Circle and the adjacent property to the west, downward through the house to the rear yard where it finally flattens. The house is built into the slope to the extent that it has three or four stepped down rooflines with two matching stepped down floor elevations from west to east, with the former garage occupying the eastern edge of the property at the same elevation as the road. Approximately ten feet east of the garage structure there is a steep slope between the Weis' lot and the adjoining parcel. The elevation at the east end of the Weis' home is approximately ten feet higher than the west end of the adjoining house. The elevation at the Weis' front door is also approximately ten feet lower than Oak Circle and has a steep slope with a stairway from the road to the driveway that circles in front of the house. • Since the former garage area has been converted to interior living space and connected to the main structure for 16 years, there will be no detriment to the adjacent property by granting the variance. In addition, there will be no change in the character of the district since the connecting addition is behind the portion of the structure that is only 15 feet from the property line. [A condition will be suggested to insure that no further intrusion into the 25-foot setback will be permitted.] The BZA may grant a variance when "the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. . ." Staff is of the opinion that the ordinance does restrict the use of this property, and therefore, a variance of this Zoning Ordinance section may be justified. The question is "what is unreasonable?" Since the single connected structure received County approvals in 1988 and these owners purchased the property in good faith that they would be allowed to remove and replace a portion of it, it does appear reasonable to grant the variance. Although we do not want to make the same mistake again, granting the variance would alleviate the extraordinary situation we have here. Further, although granting the variance may be a convenience to the owners, denying it will neither change the location nor the use of the structure. With the evidence pointing to a mutual error, granting the variance will be an appropriate action. VA-2004-018, Weis Page 3 October 5, 2004 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 following the applicant's comments.) Hardship The applicant explains the hardship as follows: • The interior connection between the main structure and the "accessory building" is a feature of significant value to the applicant and entered into their decision to purchase the home. It provided for increased living space, more rooms available for varied uses, etc. Had these structures not been attached, the home would not have suited their 5 person family. According the Zoning Staff, the interior connection is illegal. Zoning should not have allowed the connection sixteen years ago. Certainly, to require that the applicant remove the attachment now would be a hardship. The County is not requiring such action. By not requiring the detachment, the County is accepting the "accessory building" as, effectively, a non-conforming structure. This still leaves a cloud over the property. Is the applicant subject to a future zoning decision requiring the detachment? The applicant is left in zoning limbo. We cannot improve the property in an otherwise legal manner because of the vague status of the connection. That is the undue hardship. Although staff could argue that there are other remedies for this situation, a variance is currently being sought and has a rational basis for approval. The County's difficulty and perhaps unwillingness to require it to be removed and reconstructed, while it remains in technical violation to the setback requirements, is a hardship. Staff opinion is that the criterion has been met. 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship • The applicant notes that Zoning normally prevents the creation of "nonconforming" structures through their building permit review process. This error is an exception and therefore the hardship situation is unique. Staff agrees with the applicant and finds that this mutual mistake creates a unique situation. 2. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. VA-2004-018, Weis Page 4 October 5, 2004 Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • The granting of the variance will not change the nature of, use of, or character of the "accessory structure" in question. Therefore, there is no impact on the character of the area. As stated in the report, staff opinion is that the variance requested will not negatively impact the character of 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 all of the three criteria for approval have been met, staff recommends approval of this request with one condition. 1. The portion of the house to be demolished and replaced must meet the 25 ft setback. Only the portion of the house that was the original 1940's construction may remain encroaching into that setback. Should the original 1940's construction portion of the house ever be demolished by the owner, it cannot be replaced and reconnected to the main structure unless the reconstructed structure meets the primary structure setback at the time. t. ALBEMARLE COUNTY 60E(3) A, i 4 5 A O 3 6 _ 2A FARMING TON COUNTRY I I TENNIS COURT AREACLUG \ 6 / ( J EN ROAD / 2 Cip 2 I GREEN _. L. J f 3 fire 3 4 SAND GREEN 5 y / 4 6 / 3 LOCATION 59 -59 I — 2 14 7 15 25 E 13 �— 12 I I 16 18 © 24 O 22 1 10 7 a. 21 11 I� 2.0 ® 3 19 9 12 ,, 13 y�M 14 10 �!!w � 5 15 4 IT 16 8 8 6 9 OHIO O C Es, A _ r �, R4i�R04p ; i SCALE IN FEET SAMLER ` 20O 40. GOO UEL MI EN°� DISTRICT`� SECTION 60'E(I) TEE BOXES a GREENS ARE SHOWN FOR FARMINGTON INSERT APPROXIMATE LOCATION PURPOSES ONLY