The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA201700004 Other 2018-03-27STAFF REVIEWER: Francis H MacCall PUBLIC HEARING: February 6, 2018 STAFF REPORT: VA2017-00004 James L & Darlene B Burchfiel - Setback Variance OWNER / APPLICANT: James L & Darlene B Burchfiel PARCEL ID: 05500-00-00-084EO ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 5.43 Acres LOCATION: 801 Half Mile Branch Road, about 0.6 miles south of the intersection with Jarman's Gap Road (Route 691) (Attachment A) TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from the provisions in Zoning Ordinance Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations for the Rural Areas District. The applicant proposes to reduce the rear setback from 35 feet to 23 feet, to allow for the construction of an enclosed/screened porch. (Attachment D) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Parcel 84E is a legal lot of record consisting of 5.43 acres. In 2002, a boundary line adjustment plat created the parcel. The existing dwelling unit improvements meet all applicable setbacks. RELEVANT HISTORY: In November of 2002, a subdivision application for a boundary line adjustment reduced the subject Parcel 84E to the current 5.43 acres. (Attachment B) In March of 2008, the owners applied for a building permit to construct one dwelling unit, and in May of 2008, the County issued the permit. In February of 2009, the County issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling unit. At that time, all improvements met the County setbacks for the Rural Areas zoning district, including the open porch/deck area. QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: Under Virginia Code § 15.2-2309(2), the Board of Zoning Appeals may "grant upon... original application in specific cases a variance as defined in § 15.2-2201, provided that the burden of proof shall be on the applicant for a variance to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his application meets the standard for a variance as defined in § 15.2-2201 and the criteria set out in this section. " VA2017-00004 February 6, 2018 Virginia Code § 15.2-2201 defines a variance as a "reasonable deviation from those provisions regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, height, area, bulb or location of a building or structure when the strict application of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property, and such need for a variance would not be shared generally by other properties, and provided such variance is not contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. It shall not include a change in use, which change shall be accomplished by a rezoning or by a conditional zoning. " County Code §18-34.4 provides the applicable variance standards: "The board shall grant a variance if the evidence shows: (i) that strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property; or (ii) that granting the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance; and all of the following: 1. Good faith acquisition and hardship not self-inflicted. The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith, and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance. 2. No substantial detriment. Granting the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area. 3. Condition of situation not general or recurring The condition or situation 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. 4. Use variance prohibited. Granting the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on the property or a change in the zoning classification of the property. 5. Special use permit or special exception not available. The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special use permit or special exception authorized by this chapter when the application is filed. " STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has evaluated this application against the above variance standards: Standard: The strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property; Staff: Strict application of the 35' rear setback does not unreasonably restrict the use of the property. The applicant has built and used a 3,605-square foot dwelling on the property for almost nine years within existing setbacks. The applicant still can build an enclosed screen porch and/or other structures off another side of the dwelling or elsewhere on the property. Or 2 VA2017-00004 February 6, 2018 Standard: Granting the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition relating to the property or improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance; Staff: No physical condition of the property creates a hardship that restricts the utilization of the property. See above. And The property interest for which the variance is being requested was acquired in good faith, and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance. Staff: This application meets this standard. The property was acquired in good faith, and no hardship was created by the location of the dwelling unit. 2. Granting the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area. Staff: This application meets this standard. 3. The condition or situation 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: This application meets this standard. 4. Granting the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on the property or a change in the zoning classification of the property. Staff: This application meets this standard. 5. The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special use permit or special exception authorized by this chapter when the application is filed. Staff: Though this application meets this standard, there is a remedy available by an administrative review and approval of a boundary line adjustment plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because the zoning ordinance does not unreasonably restrict the use of the property and no physical condition of the property creates a hardship, this application does not meet the standards for variance approval. Therefore, staff must recommend denial of this variance application. The applicant may still pursue a boundary line adjustment with the adjacent lot to allow the proposed porch to meet the 35' rear setback. 9 VA2017-00004 February 6, 2018 Staff offers the following alternate motions for the Board's consideration: If the Board chooses to deny this variance (staff's recommendation): I move to deny variance application VA2017-00004 Burchfiel Renovation. If the Board finds legal grounds to grant this variance: I move to -grant variance application VA2017-00004 Burchfiel Renovation. Attachments: A. Location & Zoning Map B. Recorded Plat C. Golf course approval of the proposed design D. Written description of the variance and graphic of the proposed addition 0 VA2017-00004 Burchfiel Renovation LOCATION/ZONING \ 55-80A1 Legend \` (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) ROSF�A NDFgRM 55-82A � aP Un—cu , 55-82 837 + ■ E°" RE�A�„o�,rM�MsM 55-80 _- 55-84B 825 soPa T _ � � ■ Mo�i,emxo waM qsWG 6637 a 55-81 1684 5496 l —� ---� 5494 � 790 ` 788 I ( 55-86 55-103F cn � C rn v 1 t -2 801 / 55-87 55-88A6 55-84E �S�e�PRMS'�N 55-87A .� 55 -84F 1 687178 ; . .. 55-87B 55-88A TS2-0170-00079 ? - _ -00005 ' ' 6897 55-84F ZMA-2008 ♦ " o / / 55A-1 735 7 ZMA-2014-00004 ZMA-2015-000p 55-88A1 55-88 716 ■ LT'6905 55-88D 694 A01 � 00 . 692 0" Z 55-84 y5 400 ft 2 551L88A2 55-88B 653 cb Geographic Dataces 61,715 SA-3Aj 5c,.g8P4 � 5S5 69'13 55A7155A-5/- 5A —albemarle.org (434) 296-58324 Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources January 16, 2018 I.R.F. = Iron Rod Found. Brick Wall TMP 55-84E 5.43 Ac. N2°38'00"E 100.67' N6°59'50"E 74.59' N 10* 40' 52 "E 75.71' N 12`07'06"E 62.21' NI n°5n'n8„E 111.14' N 6° 27' 43"E 32.38' N 19°43'28"E 111.65' T1 I IX Foundation Tax Map 55 Located on TMP 55-84B S66° 75 29 3 03, \-16.97' F � N � d- 3- o 00 co00 Q0 N m a) N� i Q � 35.3, N \ Gravel tPropOane o Tank N z 1 R,F. -� House Detail Scale: 1 " = 50' 7G Z� Propae Tank 0o"50. N87°01'37"W TMP 55-84 Survey of -84E S.R. 684 White Hall District Albemarle County, Virginia Surveyor's Statement: On Dec. 9, 2008 1 made a field survey as per record description of the property shown on thi plat. To the best of my knowledge and belief tt is a true and accurate plat. L.S II 0 Date: Dec. 9, 2008 200 0 200 100 100 400 Scale: 1 " = 200' . � K Y INCORPORATED LAND SURVEYORS LAND PLANNERS P.O. Box 522 Nell�Z4) ford, VA 22958 971-8339 AT / 08-054.DWG 08-054-00 z z c WAN PLAT NORTH 4 D.B. Isgl_82 k > S68'14'19"E 127.55, \ S60'26'56"E 91.4 7' , - T.M. 55 - 62A PETERS, i REBECCA S. GOLD /? D.B. 1798-388 ph s -63 D.B. 1266-80, 62 PLAT p D.B. 1021-189, 193 PLAT an S01.58'39"W 6 691.97, 9aA`2� 9 - O'O yro� i4. LPG pp, RESIDUE ptiy^ Peep T.M. 55-84E try �p pti h T.M. 55 - 82 yh bh. PETER S, d REBECCA S. GOLD O.H. 1798-388 T.M. 55 �a '00 0 14h h .hiy ryo 4io to D.B. 1331-744 PLAT 648 h 'ti 0 ^3 ry NZ pO 1 ,o° W O O oil �� O��°j o rye' p !��' pp Op 39 �'�• ti' �! 5 5 ; L O •1� S66.15'29" E I.S. .h M / / y / \`', h/ h spry. Op 'Oh pOo 2 N� Z aZ6 2� �s �.-_o__coc-c---=v_:___ ..l TM 55 - 64 �.. GRAVEL ROAD 30' PRESCRIPTIVE STATE ROUpE_ 43 q�9E EASEMENT ^� HALF MILE BRANCH ROAD v J 694 3 7 O � m W O ,W O O�O N tV 2 O ry h p O . O� P fu 2 2to 0 2 :� :V 2 2 g m ? 2 202 m ADJACENT OWNERS T.M. 55 - 103G T.M. 55A - II THOMAS J. ! LUCY GOEKE DORIS A. DURRETT D.B. 1660-49 D.B. 886-75 D.B. 701-401 PLAT D.B. 411-17 PLAT T.M. 55 - 103D T.M. 55A - IIA THOMAS J. 6 LUCY GOEKE GEORGE F. d EVELYN HARRIS D.B. 1660-49 D.B. 1314-67 D.B. 620 - 120 PLAT O.B. 411 - 17 PLAT T.M. 55 - 103E T.M. 55 - 848 THOMAS J. 6 LUCY GOEKE QUALITY FAMILY LAND TRUST D.B. 1660 - 49 D.B. 1552 - 695 D.B. 620 - 120 PLAT D.B. 450-651 PLAT T.M. 55 - 103E DEBORAH MESLAR-LITTLE D.B. 1721 - 656 D.B. 1463-II1 PLAT �p , S. DALEY CRAIG, JR. , DOROTHY D. 00 CRAIG, DAVID F. RIDDICK AND LUCI y'E a I.S. C. RIDDICK j52 00 N87.01'37"W D.B. 1641 - 87 S3 qT 2� 00 326.52' D.B. 1641 -82 PLAT %50ANJ �AI0o'E v \ \ T.M. 55 - 88 RONALD D. L \\ \ / - JACQUELINE M. WASHINGTON 40" WV D.B. 1256 - 216, 219 PLAT � OAK T.M. 55A - It T.M.ULIA J. HARRIS E .M. 554 - 4 8 5 W.B. 99-46C GEORGE F. 8 EVELYN C. D.B. 317-162 HARRIS D.B. 129 - 76 PL D.B. 825 - 131 Via email: Burchfiel@embargmail.com October 18, 2017 OLD TRAIL Mr. & Mrs. James Burchfiel 801 Half Mile Branch Road V I L L A G E Crozet, VA 22932 RE: Architectural Review Board ARB Submission 801 Half Mile Branch Road Crozet, VA 22932 Single Family Detached Residence Dear Mr. & Mrs. Burchfiel, The following is in regards to the review of Architectural Review Board Application on the above referenced property. The Old Trail Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed your application and has issued the following decision. Your application is approved to proceed. Prior to final completion of the work please notify us for a final inspection. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Warm Regards /eBrockman ntain Properties, LLC, Executive Vice President Development 0 STRATFORD C 0 M PANIF'S November 29, 2017 The Stratford Companies PO BOX 310 Harrisonburg, VA 22803 540-421-7518 To Whom It May Concern: The Stratford Companies is submitting this letter of intent on behalf of James and Darlene Burchfiel (owners) to apply for a rear setback variance from 35'-0" to 23'-0" for the house located at 801 Half Mile Branch Rd, Crozet, VA. The Burchfiel's intend to screen in their existing patio for outdoor dining and entertaining. As the house is built, there is an existing brick patio on the rear side of the house that sits within the rear setback. It was the Burchfiel's original intent when building the house that they would 'finish' the patio by screening in a portion adjacent to their living area in order to provide protection from the sun. The Burchfiel's have presented the conceptual architectural plans (see attached plans) for the screen patio to the adjoining Old Trail Architectural Review Board and have received approval (see attached letter) for the size, location and architectural integrity of the proposal. The hardship is created by the unique combination of a very long and narrow piece of land (see attached foundation survey) which fronts along Half Mile Branch Road with a required 75' front setback in combination with the presence of significant mature hardwood trees running through the middle of the property. Preserving the exisitng grove of mature hardwood trees aligns with the stated goals and design standards outlined in Chapter 18, Section 10.3.3.2(f) "Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and scenic settings deemed to be of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such features are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel;... " of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The drip line of the existing trees can be seen just to the left of the driveway on the attached photograph. The roof line of the home can be seen in the top right corner of the page. Half Mile Branch Road runs between the two black board fences visible on the left side of the photograph. The rear property line against Old Trail Village aligns with the black board fence visible to the right of the driveway on the attached photograph. We appreciate your time in reviewing this case. Please do not hesitae to contact me with any questions and/or comments. Sincerely, �� -,�2 ZL+-- Matthew Robertson, President The Stratford Companies, Inc. Francis MacCall From: Sarah Oates <sarahmae@thestratfordcompanies.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 5:07 PM To: Francis MacCall Cc: Amelia McCulley; Carla Harris - CDD Subject: Re: VA-20170004 Burchfiel Renovation Attachments: letter of permission.pdf; 801 taxes paid.png Francis - Please see attached for authorization letter from the Burchfiels & receipt of taxes paid for the year. ■ The strict application of the terms of the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. The ordinance restricts the homeowner from properly covering the existing patio to provide shelter from the elements. ■ Granting the variance would alleviate a hardship due to either a physical condition relating to the property or due to improvements thereon at the time of the effective date of the ordinance (this date is 12/10/1980). The property's narrow (frontirear) shape along with established trees demand the existing house site; the variance would alleviate the hardship of house location/screened patio location. ■ The property was acquired in good faith, and any hardship was not created by the applicant for the variance. The hardship was created by the location of existing patio; determined by house location; determined by existing mature vegetation & lot shape. ■ Granting the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that geographical area. The property backs up to a golf course & is not close to any existing structures, etc. The golf course has approved the proposed design (see attached letter in application). ■ The condition or situation 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. The situation of the property & house site within the property are not within 1,000'+/- of any other residences. ■ Granting the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise permitted on the property or a change in the zoning classification of the property. The variance would allow standard usage of the property within the residential zoning category. ■ The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available through a special use permit or special exception authorized by this chapter when the application is filed. The special exception & special use permit options have been exhausted with the county (phone conversation) & this proposal does not fit within either scenario. - ;,� � ••r'.i•.. rC :'�— _ y, �..•arr�rV! �"ji`�'tr _?-."j� MA i! -r Y r r .ram 1 1 i- i ,, 1 st FLOOR acnl cvn• _ � _n EXISTING / PROPOSED 2 SCALE: 118• = 1'-0• w THE BURCHFIEL RENOVATION 801 HALF MILE BRANCH RD CROZET VA 22932 0 T H E STRATFORD C 0 M P A N I E S 61 SOUTH MAIN ST. HARRISONBURG, VA 22801 'ornpany Information: Contact: MATTHEW ROBERTSON (540) 421-7518 mrobertson@thestratfordcompanies.com Class A Contractor # 2705-106037A Certified Landscape Architect #0406-000897 I REV. DATE COMMENTS I 29NOV2017 BZAAPPLICATION ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS, AND PUNS INDICATED OR REPRESENTED BY THE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF - STRATFORD COMPANIES. INC. ANDARE CREATED ANO DEVELOPED FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIC PROJECT. NONE OF THE IDEA, DESIGNS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON. FIRM OR CORPORATION FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE STRATFORD COMPANIES, INC. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAIL PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS CONRUCTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND SIULL NOTIFY THE STRATFORD COMPANIES OFANY VARIATION FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES OETNEEN ANY ELECTRONIC FILES AND THE ORIGINAL, THE SEALED ORIGINAL SHPll GOVERN COPYRIGHT. 2017 SHEET TITLE 1st FLOOR PLAN A-102