The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200700007 Review Comments 2007-07-10STAFF PERSON: William D. Fritz, AICP PUBLIC HEARING: July 10, 2007 VA 2007 — 07 Jason I Eckford, Jr. or Ellen U Eckford & Lindsay L Eckford Owner/Applicant: Jason I Eckford, Jr. or Ellen U Eckford & Lindsay L Eckford Tax Map/Parcel Number: 062DO-02-0E-00100 Zoning: R6, Residential Acreage: 0.06 acres or 2,500 square feet Location: 726 Exton Court in the Riverrun Development Technical Request and Explanation: The applicant requests relief from Section 16.3, Area and Bulk Regulations in the R6 Zoning District. The requested variance is to allow a proposed porch addition to be located 8 feet from the rear property line instead of 20 feet, a variance of 12 feet. The rear setback for this zoning district is 20 feet. The ordinance allows certain architectural features, including porches, to extend 4 feet into the setback. The existing dwelling is located nearly on the setback line (attachment A). Therefore, without a variance, a porch extending 4 feet from the dwelling could be constructed. This would allow the porch to be 16 feet from the rear property line. The applicant is proposing to build a 12 foot porch, resulting in a porch 8 feet from the property line. Relevant History: The site plan authorizing the construction of this unit was approved on May 24, 1983. The plat creating this parcel was signed on March 2, 1984. The lot is shown on the plat included as Attachment B. Property Description and Qualifying Conditions: The Zoning Ordinance in Section 34.2 establishes the review criteria for a variance. Staff will provide comment on the criteria for granting a variance. The ordinance states: When a property owner can show that his property was acquired in good faith and where, by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the effective date of this ordinance, or where, by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or condition of such piece of property, or of the use or development of property immediately adjacent thereto, 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 VA 2007-07 Jason I Eckford, Jr or Ellen U Eckford & Lindsay L Eckford July 10, 2007 Page 2 of 4 or convenience sought by the applicant, provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance. The applicant acquired this land in good faith and is the original owner of the unit. This parcel was created after the adoption of the ordinance and conforms in all respects to the ordinance. The use on adjacent properties is residential and of the same character. The property is developed and therefore has a reasonable use. A porch is a convenience and not a necessary feature of a townhouse. Approval of this variance would be a special privilege or convenience and would not alleviate any undue hardship. Specifically the ordinance establishes the review criteria to address the above. No such variance shall be authorized by the board of zoning appeals unless it finds: (a) that the strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship; (b) that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and (c) 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 will analyze each provision of the ordinance and provide comment. The applicant's justification is also included. Staff comments are in italics. Hardship The strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship The applicant has stated: Other properties in vicinity have porches 8-12 feet off house. For 22 years I've wanted a porch and some of my neighbors have them. I'm at the bottom of a hill with runoff and a steep bank. At my age, 54, the heat affects me. I have older pets who need protection, I have high blood pressure. I desire the serenity and enjoyment of a porch. I want to spend time outdoors with protection from the sun. I spend most of the summer indoors now. Other units in the development do have porches. However, these porches appear to comply with the required setbacks (one has a variance which will be discussed later). While staff is sensitive to the applicant's situation and desires we find that a porch is a convenience but not a necessary feature to allow use of the property The townhouse has existed for about 20 years without this porch.. Staff opinion is that denial of this variance request would not produce an undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship Such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity VA 2007-07 Jason I Eckford, Jr or Ellen U Eckford & Lindsay L Eckford July 10, 2007 Page 3 of 4 The applicant has stated: 700 Exton (addition), 748 Exton Court, 750 Exton Court, 752 Exton Ct., 754 Exton, 756 Exton, 758, Exton, 745 Exton Ct„ 747 Exton Ct., 749 Exton Court as well as many porches within the vicinity of River Run. Attachment C shows the location of these units. Staff has researched variances within the River Run development and found three variances: VA 2001-11, was approved, for 1461 Glenside Green. This variance authorized an existing deck to remain and be expanded laterally. The deck in that case extended 6 feet into the setback. VA 2002 -10 (1288 Chatham Ridge to reduce the setback to 16 feet) and VA 2002-11 (1280 Chatham Ridge to reduce the setback to 18 feet) were both denied. The River Run development is a townhouse development. The townhouse under review is located in a block with five units. None of the units in this block or the adjacent block have porches. Other units in the development do have porches which appear to meet the setback requirements. This is due to different lot size and placement of the unit on the lot. Staff cannot identify any unique features of this property that are not shared by many other units in the River Run development. Impact on Adjacent Property and District 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. The applicant has stated: An attractive porch should not be a detriment to other properties but would enhance property value. The materials used will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Staff has recommended that the applicant contact the homeowners association for River Run. The County has also notified the homeowners association of this request. As of the writing of this report, staff has received no comment from the homeowners association. The topography involved in the 20 foot setback area is flat. The land starts to slope upward at the property line and is part of the common area. A porch on this unit would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property but would be out of character with the other units in this and the adjacent block. VA 2007-07 Jason I Eckford, Jr or Ellen U Eckford & Lindsay L Eckford July 10, 2007 Page 4 of 4 Summary and Staff Recommendation: Of the three criteria for granting a variance, staff finds that this request does not meet any of the criteria. A further provision for the granting of a variance is: No variance shall be authorized unless the board of zoning appeals finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance. Staff opinion is that the condition or situation of the property is of so general or recurring nature as to make amendment of the ordinance practicable. Therefore, the Board may not grant a variance even if it finds that the criteria for granting a variance has been met. Staff recommends denial of this application. Attachments Attachment A — Physical survey showing the existing structure and proposed porch. Attachment B — Plat showing property (Block E, Parcel 1) Attachment C — Map showing addresses in River Run Attachment D — Sketch of proposed porch Attachment E — Photographs of property VA-2007-007 P a arG � � e n s ani 'rJai4s �+ -"-e ATTACHMI-NT A 00 h This C =e �,Rria�ec' e3a done t>. 'Yea, oC ) r✓i aps c +ry F"e�at Er^;erQc`3 _+ 4-1 Of -- RE AGES` G 1 C, i, r28 '3Z Plain -3. C_rfie. Easexneni A o c` ��, ry !� � S%��' l "t�" ` C$ 0 pt� j _-t i ' tc a t om.," ut v av ofLot ` OTTYY'0 A � �� I�1ajk eiocy. �`— Area — E `SON COURT � Section Two "Th x )or-Ep L-WE 3,, cr5 t 4R�4c5E� i'otr.GN P AT SHOWING S VA -2007-001 EXTON COURT °° 4r �� ATTACH4LENT B F P F SECTION TWO �Mca a aY BLOCKS 6 E IVERRUN�E SCALE 20 w W QtDID f O ETAI[LS C h cc COMMON z _ a S7go'F o 4 g'I j Q AREA a2' — (� fA cl 4`4r) h>�a00 _ wevF:w cA I j �4do E � 5' V &i4T t2 4 i°n QCs "S� =�--coni"'- Jt a 1 Yr O jam„__ X24 2G K o &.2G' I 4fe 06�' Q i� // o'r � t- cAf 4 0 1 ,ta SHEET THREE OF FIVE 75R '3 pi O�L 7 55: WV'751 A79 50 759 757 7A60�3, ?W5 782,7]8 7w7so EXTON CV 786 Y- _44 744' 75b',7 A �W (2, 764 74ff 738 130 1307 f-313 1,3— '23 VA -2007-007 ATTACIIMENTC VA4.E Y e CtE A-tL6JU ---4) ; ,z - VA -2007-007 ATTAClimF, 'r I) n U jSeW C. h6tE s W LA? Si DIN4G rR y 0 4 rUJ e CtE A-tL6JU ---4) ; ,z - VA -2007-007 ATTAClimF, 'r I) n U jSeW C. h6tE s W LA? Si DIN4G VA -2007-007 ATTACHMENI'D E)C.(S-rmJ6 L jj�,;- OF N 6Fw pouse < -sc� n fogr--4 u) E �ava� Lu EE < View Ca 94a 1 CC 4 T ,S ,sOIL . Ao +f.. ;, - _ < -' =sem °' '��`• � --.�,. i #,.._ .�^R f" •fes 44is .�i� 3 A•1 �. f � r4� � � . ygf �1 • rs �Sr- - _ _� Ac.. -� �, ..� _ � •°,' �k ,ter' �.-•. ti. i n. 4OW '. ... n-7 -, .,m - ON, `'G • ��F ! art .,i� �, ATL_ .4. "IVA 7 � h i �� AY(r."� �7'AT. +. �c� VrL1�� .yy�. {{ '�'3� 1�y�` ��►�� F a 1fi . ` { - - L V•` •" d4f`�'+ �� . f' _ ...� ' 1 'r'; y _'w �` }�"?.sl�l yr"eG•'i-, �' [ h 0 F.�'Mi' :� i � ' ' t 4. 5i !, At; t 1 t .�l h l � Y,, tiA�f r� •p:,fy0.kgq� - ^ t ° r. p;a � {11 r}, ,� � .l : t� ,� Mka�� { , I .,,� -� t- y '� � t JF,�, F- � °r '��'�'tia�'•� woo f' a � - �y �� —fin .y. s. �• INV r. ........... .1 A pm WOtl�lil WT, �1 iti _ _ FES ;, - 1fp�� iq L, � ; ! + : 1, �� ,k•, 14 E Tj1 'I. i ii r i r .•�A . 3 � k v L' ' aw VA -2007-007 PHOTOS OF THE NEIGHBORS 1 j � J� ,rte. � _ •`.-ra•, • � J •�T I y- f'.'.16. 1 j � m ^' r 1 rJq �i- t } I W �71 . . . . . . . . I 'Nls� Il- 11.1 A 8*4