Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200700007 Correspondence 2008-01-14 ..(E --.--.0Y-AT-q, 'ArT-N-4, .. ....._1- ',IT'D s =owe Jk IRGI',A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road - North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 January 14, 2008 Lindsay L. Eckford 726 Exton Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: VA-2007-007 - Jason or Ellen Eckford, & Lindsay L Eckford (Owners/Applicants) Tax Map 62D, Section 2, Block E, Parcel 1 Dear Ms. Eckford: Per your request, attached is a copy of the Board of Zoning Appeals minutes for the July 10, 2007 Meeting. The minutes were approved by the Board on January 8, 2008. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 296-5832, ext. 3277. Sincerely, ( )__1,_ b na D. Kilmer Planning Assistant Attachment: Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes - July 10, 2007 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD— LANE AUDITORIUM TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2007 —2:00 P.M. LOCATION: Auditorium, Second Floor County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia BOARD MEMBERS: David Bass, Chairman Richard Cogan, Vice-Chairman (absent) Randy Rinehart, Secretary Max C. Kennedy George Bailey DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY: Greg Kamptner STAFF MEMBERS: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator William D. Fritz, Deputy Zoning Administrator Ana Kilmer, Recording Secretary 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Board Chairman David Bass. 2. Establish a Quorum A quorum was established and the meeting proceeded. 3. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda Mr. Bass reviewed the procedures for appealing a decision, noting that an applicant may appeal — if he or she feels aggrieved by a decision — to the Circuit Court within 30 days from the date of BZA action. 4. Variance Hearings VA 2007-007 Jason or Ellen Eckford & Lindsay Eckford (owners/applicants) Staff: William D. Fritz Mr. Fritz reported that this is a variance request to allow a porch addition to be located eight feet from the rear property line instead of 20 feet — a variance of 12 feet. He presented a map that shows the location of the property and its proximity to River Run. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 2 July 10, 2007 Mr. Fritz explained that the back of the property is wooded and it's a townhouse development, with the rear setback being 20 feet; porches can extend four feet into the setback, and the existing dwelling is located almost on the property line. He said that the entrance to the house is on the side, and the dotted line shown is the setback, with the rear and side of the house being almost entirely on the setback. Mr. Fritz noted that the site plan authorizing the construction of this phase of River Run was approved in May 1983, and a year later the plat that created the property was approved. He said that this parcel was created after the adoption of the current ordinance, and conforms in all respects to the ordinance. Mr. Fritz said that staff finds the applicant does have reasonable use of the property, and a porch is a convenience, not a necessary feature of a townhouse; approval would be a special privilege that would not alleviate any undue hardship as the townhouse has existed for 20 years without the porch. He noted that there are other units in the development that have porches, but they all seem to comply with the ordinance. While the applicant has presented examples of other homes in the development with porches, staff finds that these dwellings are sited differently on their parcels with reasonable distance from setback lines. Mr. Fritz said that none of the units in the existing block have porches or decks, so staff doesn't find that it's a unique situation. Regarding impact on the character of the district, Mr. Fritz said that the County hasn't received anything from the homeowners' association, but the porch would be built in a flat area. He stated that staff finds it would have minimal impact to the area, but would be out of character with the other homes on the block. Mr. Fritz stated that staff finds this to be a fairly common situation and the best approach would be a text amendment that addresses this issue at large, not just for this specific application. Mr. Bailey asked if there have been any complaints in the neighborhood about the application. Mr. Fritz replied that he has not received anything to be presented to the BZA from neighbors or the homeowners association. Mr. Bass asked if Glenside Green is located in River Run. Mr. Fritz explained that Glenside Green is located toward the back of the development. He said he doesn't recall if that deck was conforming or non-conforming, but in that application they were making the deck wider, not deeper. Mr. Bass asked for the applicant to address the Board. The applicant. Jason Eckford. addressed the Board, stating that he is a lifetime resident of Charlottesville. He said he was president of the Ednam Forest Homeowners Association for a number of years, and also served on their Architectural Review Board. Mr. Eckford explained that his daughter resides in the condominium and has been thinking about this deck for many years, but she only recently has had the money to Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 3 July 10, 2007 build it. He said that he can't see how it would negatively affect anyone, and it's a question of "quality of her life." Mr. Bailey asked if there have been any complaints from neighbors about plans for this porch. Mr. Eckford replied that he doesn't live there, but he thinks that someone will complain to his daughter. Mr. Fritz distributed information that the applicant had given him about the proposed deck. Ms. Lindsay Eckford addressed the Board, stating that she has lived at 726 Exton Court for 22 years, noting that there are porches visible from her home. She said that she spends a lot of time outside gardening and reading; her health is not as good now and she feels the sun is hotter. Ms. Eckford stated that if she had an enclosed porch it would help her get some fresh air and have a place to keep her cats. Maybe it will be easier to find someone to take care of the house if she goes on vacation. She said that she could build a small four-foot long porch now, but she is very tall and she would like the porch to be bigger so she can sit outside, adding that she had originally asked for a 12-foot porch. Ms. Eckford stated that her neighbor doesn't agree with that plan, so she would be willing to build an eight-foot deck. I have seen many neighbors that have decks, I was not aware that they met all the setback limits. Ms. Hannelore Asmussen addressed the Board, stating that she is a neighbor, and presented a letter to the Board. She said that a 12-foot deck would take all of her privacy away, and she would like Ms. Eckford to build a deck that stays alongside the house. Ms. Asmussen said that a large deck would be an open room with light and noise, and she really objects to that. Her extension is totally out of character. She added that she would like to stay on good terms with her neighbor, and she should stay within building guidelines. Ms. Asmussen clarified which townhouse was hers. Mr. Kennedy asked if the covenants for the homeowners have restrictions on setback, and asked if they had approved it yet. Ms. Asmussen replied that she presented a letter to the Homeowners Association and they said to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and also send them a letter for review. Mr. Niels Asmussen addressed the Board, my mother lives at 724 Exton Ct., stating that he visits his mother often and has lived there in the past. He said that he is opposed to the variance. He indicate that they spend a lot of time sitting on the back porch and a large extension on Ms. Eckford's home would negatively affect that experience. It will affect the quality of her life. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Asmussen how far is the house from the applicant's home? Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 4 July 10, 2007 Mr. Fritz clarified that the distance between the two houses is 32-35 feet from corner to corner. Ms. Asmussen said that her drawings show there is about 20 feet between the homes. Ms. Eckford stated that it is 30 feet between the structures. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Bass asked Mr. Fritz if a patio is permitted without a variance. Mr. Fritz replied that it has no setback requirements, nor does a deck without elevation. He also confirmed that a retractable awning is permitted without a variance, but screening it in with a permanent roof constitutes a structure that needs a variance. Mr. Rinehart said that he cannot find hardship here and agrees with the staff report findings. MOTION: Mr. Rinehart moved to deny VA 2007-007. Mr. Bass seconded the motion. Mr. Kennedy stated that this is a "close case" because the deck is going to look out into a common area, but this is not a clear case of hardship. "It does border on being a convenience." He added that the applicant can have some kind of outdoor space without a variance. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the existing patio is about eight feet long, and the porch proposal adds about four feet to it, with the same 8-10 foot width. Mr. Bailey asked how staff would view a 10-foot porch. Mr. Fritz replied that they wouldn't support it, as not all units in the development are built right on the setback line. He said that the only variance granted in this development was for a deck already built in violation, so the BZA at that time let it remain. Mr. Fritz said that there were two other decks that had to be removed in 2002 for violation; BZA didn't grant a variance so applicants had to make their decks shorter. Mr. Bass commented that his concern is that there is a neighbor who would be impacted by this, and he doesn't see a hardship here. Mr. Rinehart said that he is sympathetic to the applicant, but there will be a deluge of screened porch requests if they grant this, and she can build another type of patio. Mr. Fritz stated that the screened porch he sees in the photographs is on a house that has more setback room and bigger lot. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 5 July 10, 2007 Mr. Kennedy commented that he would like to vote for this, but there is just not a hardship here. Mr. Bailey said that Mr. Eckford has made a good case and he sees no problem with it. The motion to deny the variance passed 3-1 , with Mr. Bailey dissenting. Approval of Minutes — March 6, 2007 Mr. Bass commented that the minutes were very well prepared. MOTION: Mr. Bailey moved for approval of the minutes of March 6, 2007. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (3-0); Mr. Kennedy abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting. Old Business Update from County Attorney on Appeals Mr. Kamptner said that the County has not been served in the Morningside case, and the Barry Schmidt appeal has been briefed in the Virginia Supreme Court, but his attorney has not presented yet. Mr. Kamptner clarified that the Circuit Court upheld the County's position in that case. Mr. Bass asked about the Morningside Special Use Permit and he asked if Mr. Kamptner could explain the criteria for approving off-site signs. Mr. Kamptner said that the BZA was considering a special use permit in the Morningside case, so the court is looking at impact on the district, impact on adjacent properties and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan in making their determination. Ms. McCulley commented that these are typically cases where an onsite sign cannot be visible from the road where you have to make the turn, and that's been most of the situation usually — an onsite free standing or wall sign is just not visible from the main road. Mr. Kamptner said that the hardship for these types of permits is different than the undue hardship considered in a variance application. New Business Mr. Fritz said that John Shepherd's replacement has been hired. His name is Ron Higgins, formerly with the City of Charlottesville. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 6 July 10, 2007 Ms. McCulley stated that the August meeting would likely be cancelled because the variance requests weren't submitted on time, so they will be heard in September. Mr. Rinehart asked about Mr. Van der Linde's situation. Ms. McCulley said that she had to present him with a violation, because there are several things he was supposed to do that he didn't. MOTION: Mr. Rinehart moved for adjournment. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:48 p.m. (Recorded by Ana Kilmer and transcribed by Elisabeth Golden) Respectfu miffed, Randolph R. Rinehart, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals