Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200800004 Review Comments 2008-05-06STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: May 6, 2008 STAFF REPORT VA -2008-004 OWNERS / APPLICANTS: Bryan or Marcey Hammon TAX MAP / PARCEL: 39 / 21Z3 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 5.434 Acres LOCATION: 2075 Avalon Way in Emerald Ridge subdivision. (Lot 29) TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants requests relief from Section 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations in order to construct an attached garage addition to an existing house. This is a reduction in the front yard setback from a private road off Avalon Way, from 25 to 15 feet, for a total variance of 10 feet. The applicants propose to construct a 26 ft x 24 ft attached garage on the north side of the house. It will be constructed with brick to match the house with doors on the front. RELEVANT HISTORY: This single-family detached home was completed in 2003. Emerald Ridge subdivision was approved by special use permit. Staff is not aware of any conditions of that approval relevant to this variance request. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: One of the powers and duties of the Board of Zoning Appeals (granted in Section 34.2 of the zoning ordinance) allows that a variance may be authorized as follows: "... in specific cases such variance from the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provision will result in unnecessary hardship; provided that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, as follows. When a property owner can show that his property was acquired in good faith and where, by reason of... exceptional topographic conditions. or other extraordinary situation ... the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or where the board is VA -2008-004 2 May 6, 2008 satisfied, upon the evidence heard by it, that the granting of such variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant, provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance." This lot is not unusually small: it consists of over 5 acres. It is not odd -shaped: it is somewhat rectangular in shape. The western and shorter boundary and the primary frontage of the lot is on Avalon Way, a private road serving 7-9 parcels. The northern boundary of the lot is on a smaller private road serving 1 or 2 parcels, including the subject property. A building setback of 25 feet from the edge of the access easements is required from each of these two roads. Saddle Hollow Creek bisects the property (running north/south) and has an accompanying 100 foot conservation and septic setback. (The BZA is advised that the plat which was submitted mistakenly shows a 75 foot setback from Avalon Way where only a 25 foot setback is required.) The special permit approval for Emerald Ridge includes conditions limiting stream crossings. This is likely why the house is constructed between the access road and the creek, eliminating the need to cross the creek. The presence of the creek on this property could be considered a topographic constraint. The proposed location for the garage is the most logical one in terms of the grade and existing use of the property. The existing driveway extends to the northern side of the house, making a garage in that location more practical. The property slopes down on the other/southern side of the house (not proposed for the garage). This is not a critical slope but is one which would involve some minor grading to accommodate a garage on that side of the house. Staff has not typically taken the position that the construction of a garage is necessary for reasonable residential use of a property. There are a substantial number of homes, including homes in the Rural Areas, without a garage. In addition, it is possible to construct a garage on the other side of the house, without the need of a setback variance. Therefore, staff is unable to make a finding of undue hardship. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship Staff comments are written in italics and follow the applicant's comments. The applicant notes that the variance is necessary: VA -2008-004 3 May 6, 2008 There is only one logical place to build the garage given the slope of the land. We have a steep slope to our yard and the left side of the house is the only flat place to build the garage. The lot is very heavily wooded with very rocky terrain. The garage is necessary to protect our vehicles. Staff agrees that the proposed location of the garage is most logical. However, staff does not find that a garage is necessary for reasonable residential use of the property. In addition, it is possible to construct a garage on the other side of the house without the need for a variance. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: Approval has been obtained from neighbor with easement and from neighborhood association. The position of our house limits the placement of the garage. In other words, we are closer to (the) adjacent lot than other properties in Emerald Ridge. Because staff is unable to find evidence of an undue hardship, we are unable to find uniqueness of hardship. Staff will note that the presence of a stream which bisects the property presents a limitation to the building site on this property. While this is not unique only to this property, it is a topographic constraint that is not shared generally by other properties. 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: See comment under "uniqueness of hardship." The neighbor's house is not even visible from our house. Her driveway would not be affected by the construction of the garage. Staff concurs with the applicant that the proposed garage will not be substantially detrimental to either adjacent property or to the district. VA -2008-004 4 May 6, 2008 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 has been met, staff must recommend denial of this variance request. Should the Board find cause to approve it, staff recommends the following condition: 1. The garage addition may not be larger than the proposed size: 26 feet by 24 feet.