HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200500006 Review Comments 2005-12-20 `y0F.ateE:t
.... r
L ® 7�
PIRGN'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Members, Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator
Division: Zoning and Current Development
Date: December 20, 2005
Subject: VA 2005-006 Harlin & Betty Sykes Addendum
As the Board will recall, this variance was deferred from December 6th to allow further information to
be submitted. This information was to include further details and a more accurate location for the
electrical power lines, the existing house and proposed addition. Staff met the applicant onsite on
December 16th and has further information and a revised drawing for the Board. Staff
recommendation has not changed as a result of this new information and we continue to recommend
denial.
As a result of measurements taken at the site, we found that the distances (existing and proposed)
differed significantly from what was presented to the BZA. The legal ad has been revised and a new
letter has been sent to the adjacent owners, reflecting the corrected distances. The existing house is
located 59 feet from the right-of-way (not 80 feet as previously listed) and the proposed addition would
be located 44 feet from the right-of-way (not 65 feet as previously listed). Therefore, the requested
variance is 31 feet (75-44= 31) not 10 feet as previously reported.
The revised drawing is provided for the Board's information. You will note that because the power line
is located so close to the east side of the existing house, an addition to the side is best built on the
west side of the house as proposed. The Board may also note that due to the curvature of Rt. 795,
the west side of the house is the closest point to the road. The location of the septic tank and
drainfield to the rear of the property prevents the addition from being built onto the rear of the existing
house.
When the existing house was built (1974), the front setback requirement was only 30 feet. As the
Board may recall from other cases, the nonconforming regulations of the Zoning Ordinance {§ 6.3 A
(4)}allow an addition to a house which is nonconforming to front setback, provided the extension is no
closer to a public street than the existing nonconforming dwelling. Therefore, if the applicant
maintained a 59 foot setback (or more) for the addition, no variance would be necessary.
The applicant has stated that he does not want to build the addition flush with the existing house
because it wouldn't look right. Staff agrees that a building frontage of a total of 70 feet (40 feet
existing and 30 feet proposed) is not as attractive as when there is an inset (one portion of the building
is jogged in front of/ behind the other). However, staff does not understand why the addition couldn't
be built a few feet behind the existing house (still creating an offset) rather than in front of the existing
house. This type of design is not uncommon and should achieve a similar goal; however, the
applicant does not agree. The applicant has stated this if the Board is not able to grant the full
variance (with the proposed 12 foot extension in front of the existing house), that he is willing to limit
his request to an 8 foot extension.
Cc: Harlin and Betty Sykes