Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200800001 Review Comments 2008-02-05 STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: February 5, 2008 STAFF REPORT VA-2008-001 (Sign #73) OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Charles Roumeliotes or Katherine Kroloff TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 45C, Section 1, Block J, Parcel 11 ZONING: R-2, Residential ACREAGE: 0.342 (14,917 square feet square feet) LOCATION: 316 Brentwood Road in Woodbrook Subdivision TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicants request relief from Section 14.3, Area and Bulk Regulations in the R-2 district, to reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 6.64 feet, a variance of 3.36 feet. The applicants propose an enclosure of an existing covered porch located 6.64 feet from the side property line. RELEVANT HISTORY: The Woodbrook subdivision was developed in the mid 1960s, thus pre-dating the first county Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1969. The first zoning ordinance enacted in 1969 established a side setback in the R-1 district of 10 feet. The zoning ordinance adopted in 1980 designated the Woodbrook development as R-2 and included the provision to allow covered porches to encroach up to 4 feet into a yard. County real estate records show this dwelling was constructed in 1965. The original construction included a screened porch in this location. The 1980 ordinance established the zoning of this development as R-2 with 10-foot side setbacks. The porch actually meets the ordinance setback provision for a 4 foot encroachment. However, this provision does not include the 4 foot encroachment for a room (enclosure of the porch). Building permit # 2007-2616-AR was issued in error on November 29, 2007. County staff did not identify the issue that the addition would not conform to the primary setback. The distance from the structure to the property line was not shown with the Woodbrook subdivision plat that was submitted with the building permit application. The work on the permit was described as, "enclose existing screened porch / new footings / new posts/ sun room / den." On December 11, 2007 the building inspector recognized the setback problem in the field and rejected the framing inspection. The applicants were informed of this situation and have applied for the variance to address the setback issue. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: VA 2008-001 Page 2 February 5, 2008 This property is improved with a dwelling that included the covered porch when it was built in 1965. The covered porch is located 6.64 feet from the side property line. The main portion of the dwelling conforms to the 10-foot primary side setback. The original covered porch conforms to the existing ordinance because section 4.11 .1 allows certain features, including covered porches, to encroach up to 4 feet into primary setbacks. This effectively establishes a 6-foot side setback for the porch. The need for the variance is prompted by the enclosure of the porch. Once the covered porch is converted to a conditioned room addition it became part of the main structure that is subject to the side setback of 10 feet for primary structures in the R-2 district. 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 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." Staff opinion is that the strict application of the ordinance would disallow the option to enclose the porch. This limits but does not prevent the use of the property. Staff finds that the restoration of the open, covered porch does not represent a "clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation" because the applicants enjoy reasonable use of the property as a single family residence. If a variance is not granted, the owners will have to remove the walls that have been installed and restore the open porch or decrease the depth of the addition from 10 feet to 6.64 feet. We do acknowledge that the owner proceeded in good faith reliance on the building permit that was issued for this project. That said, the problem could have been identified sooner had the inspection been called for prior to commencement of construction. Staff is unable to identify any material negative impact to adjoining property or to the district. Therefore, staff finds the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance. This hardship is shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and particularly by parcels in Woodbrook that were developed prior to the establishment of zoning. , VA 2008-001 Page 3 February 5, 2008 The general character of this area will not be changed by allowing this addition to be constructed. The building pattern in Woodbrook was set prior to the establishment of required setbacks. This 1,254 square foot ranch style dwelling with a covered porch on a 70-foot wide lot is typical of the Woodbrook development. Staff opinion is that granting the variance to allow this addition will not change the character of the district. 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 and follow the applicant's comments.) Hardship The applicant notes that the variance is necessary because: • "If the room size were to be required to be smaller and meet current zoning altered. Refurbishing and enclosing an already existing screened in porch is both environmentally sensitive, cost effective and will not affect the neighbors' lighting or views." Staff acknowledges that the enclosure of the porch is a practical, economical way to add space to the relatively small dwelling that will have negligible impact on the adjoining property. However, we do not find that the standard for a finding of hardship has been met in this application. 1. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. It is not approaching confiscation, as the property can continue to be used as zoned and expansion can occur, although not exactly in the manner proposed. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: • The property was built in 1966, before the requirements for current setbacks. In fact, both sides of the property as originally allowed to be built are not in compliance with zoning setbacks. On one side of the property the house is 18 feet from a garage and the existing porch that is being refurbished, is seven feet from the property line. Most properties on the Brentwood Road cul-de-sac are narrow and long and many of the cul- de-sac's existing structures are not in compliance with the 10 foot setback requirement. The neighbor bordering the screened in porch was granted a variance when building his screened in porch, roofed porch in 1979 and is 6 feet from his property line. r VA 2008-001 Page 4 February 5, 2008 Staff agrees that this is somewhat unique in that the development pattern in Woodbrook was established prior to the establishment of setbacks. This problem could have been avoided by minor adjustments to the design and/or location of the dwelling on the parcel at the time it was designed and constructed. Staff has verified that VA-78-52 was approved to allow a porch to be built 5 feet from the side property of Lot 10 on Brentwood Road. The neighbors'porch on Parcel 10 is on the other side of the dwelling from that of the applicant. 2. The applicant has provided evidence that the property is somewhat unique because the dwelling was constructed prior to the establishment of setback requirements. However, the applicant has not demonstrated that their "hardship" situation is not shared generally by other properties in the R-2 zoning district. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: • The remodel to enclose an already existing screened in porch will not change the footprint of the property. The current screened in porch was in disrepair and the new work adds strength to the building and long term enjoyment. Enclosing the screened in porch adds to the overall beautification of the house and neighborhood. The remodel is hardly noticeable from the street and all the improvements are tastefully done, adhering to the character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the variance requested will not negatively impact the character of the area. The enclosure of an existing porch will have little or no impact on the adjoining neighbor, the character of the Woodbrook development or on the R-2 district. 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 two of the three criteria for approval have not been adequately met, staff recommends denial of this request. Should the Board find cause to approve this variance request, staff recommends the following condition: 1. The variance is granted only for the enclosure of the existing porch measuring 15 feet by 10 feet as described in this application. Any further additions must meet the applicable set backs at the time of the application.