Cochran v. Fairfax County Board Of Zoning Appeals

Facts

Fairfax Case: Bratti owned land containing approximately 20,470 square feet that was zoned R-2, a residential classification permitting two dwelling units per acre, and was improved by a home in which Bratti had resided for eight years. The ordinance required side yard setbacks of at least 15 feet from the property lines. Bratti's existing home fit well within the setbacks. Bratti filed an application with BZA for four variances. He proposed to demolish his existing home and erect a much larger house on the site. It would come within 13 feet of the northerly property line, rather than the 15 feet required by the ordinance, and would be further extended into the setback area by three exterior chimneys which would extend beyond the northerly wall of the house. The proposed house would be 71 feet wide and 76 feet from front to back. The proposed encroachment into the side yard setback would extend the entire 76-foot depth of the house. The proposed house could be built upon the existing lot without by simply moving it two feet to the south, plus the additional distance required by the chimneys. Bratti wanted a 'side-load' garage on the south side of his house, and a reduction of two feet of open space on the south side would make it inconvenient for vehicles to turn into the garage. The present house had a 'front-load' garage which opened directly toward the street. When it was pointed out to Bratti that he could avoid this problem by reconfiguring his proposed house to contain a 'front-load' garage, he responded that such a house would have less 'curb appeal' than the design he proposed. Bratti would lose 152 square feet of living space if he cut 2 feet off the house. Bratti wanted the house put exactly where he designed it because he wanted to use the level area in front of the house as a play area for children and additional parking, and that he was unwilling to encroach upon the level area in the rear because he desired to use it as a large outdoor courtyard which he said was 'the central idea in the house.' The proposed dwelling had two stories. A third story could have been added as a matter of right, without variances. Bratti didn't want to add the 3rd floor because it would be aesthetically undesirable, causing the house to appear to be a 'towering structure' as seen from the street. Over the opposition of a number of neighbors, the BZA granted all four variances. The BZA found that the lot suffers from severe topographical conditions which the applicant has worked hard to accommodate and the requests are modest. The conclusion of law stated: THAT the applicant has satisfied the Board that physical conditions as listed above exist which under a strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship that would deprive the user of all reasonable use of the land and/or buildings involved. The objecting neighbors petitioned the circuit court for certiorari. The Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County obtained leave of court to enter the case as an additional petitioner, opposing the variances. The court, after a hearing, affirmed the decision of the BZA and entered an order dismissing the petition for writ of certiorari. The objecting neighbors and the Board of Supervisors brought this appeal.

Pulaski Case: Nunley owned a corner lot that contained .6248 acres. The lot was bounded by public streets on three sides. A street 40 feet wide ran along the front of the property, and the intersection of that street with a street approximately 30 feet wide formed the southeastern corner of the lot. The 30-foot street ran northward from the intersection, forming the eastern boundary of the lot, and then curved to the west to form the lot's northern boundary. The curvature was gradual, having a radius of 34.53 feet. This curve formed the northeasterly corner of the lot. The property was zoned R-1, a residential classification which contained a special provision relating to corner lots: The side yard on the side facing the side street shall be at least 15 feet from both main and accessory structures. Nunley petitioned the BZA for a variance from the required 15-foot set back to zero feet, in order to construct a garage at the northeast corner of the lot, the northeast corner of which would be placed tangent to the curving property line. There was no existing garage and placing a garage in this location would provide the easiest access to the street. The curve along the 30-foot street lay at a considerable elevation above the floor level of the existing house. The garage could be constructed closer to the house without the need for a variance, but this would require construction of a ramp that would add considerably to the expense of the project. A stone retaining wall, five feet in height, behind the house would be weakened or destroyed if the garage were to be built closer to the house. Neighbors objected, pointing out to the BZA that the construction of the garage because it would create a blind area that would be dangerous for traffic coming around the curve on the 30-foot street. They also complained that it would be an 'eyesore' and would destroy existing vegetation. After four meetings and obtaining an opinion from the town attorney, the BZA eventually granted the Nunleys a modified variance, permitting an accessory structure no closer than five feet from the northern projected boundary and no closer than 15 feet from the eastern projected boundary of the property. The modified variance also provided that construction should not 'alter or destroy the aesthetic looks of existing vegetation bordering the northern projected boundary' of the property. MacNeal, a neighbor who had objected to the variance before the BZA, filed a petition for certiorari in the circuit court. The court, in a letter opinion, affirmed the decision of the BZA and denied the petition for certiorari. Virginia C. MacNeal brought this appeal.

Virginia Beach Case: Pennington owned [a 1.25-acre parcel of land improved by their home, in which they had lived for many years, and a detached garage containing 528 square feet which they had built in 1972. The property was zoned R-10, a single-family residential classification permitting four dwelling units per acre. The ordinance contained a limitation on 'accessory structures' by requiring that they 'do not exceed five hundred (500) square feet of floor area or twenty (20) percent of the floor area of the principal structure, whichever is greater.' The size of the Penningtons' home was such that the 500 square-foot limitation applied to their property. They applied to the BZA for a variance permitting accessory structures containing a total of 816 square feet, in lieu of the 500-square foot limitation. They explained that the purpose of the request was to permit the construction of a storage shed, 12 by 24 feet, adjacent to the garage, and also to bring into conformity the 28 square feet by which the existing garage exceeded the limitation imposed by the zoning ordinance. They could have built the storage shed as an appendage or as an addition to the existing house without the need for any variance, but their representative explained to the BZA that their lot was so large that the shed would be nearly invisible from the street and would have no impact upon neighboring properties. The Penningtons' lot was so large that four dwelling sites could be carved out of it, and that therefore the impact of a small additional outbuilding would be minimal and would not contravene the spirit of the zoning ordinance. He also pointed out that a number of the neighbors were related to the Penningtons and that no neighbors had any objection to their request. The zoning administrator of the City of Virginia Beach opposed the request because the desired storage shed could be built as an appurtenance to the existing house. The zoning administrator had no objection to a variance to the extent of the 28 square feet needed to bring the existing garage into conformity with the zoning ordinance. The BZA granted the variance to bring the garage into conformity, but denied the remainder of the Penningtons' request on the ground that no 'hardship' existed. Penningtons filed a petition for certiorari in the circuit court. They asserted a claim of hardship that had not been presented to the BZA: Mr. Pennington was seriously ill and disabled. His wife had full-time employment, was the 'bread-winner' of the family and was therefore unable to care for him during the day. The Penningtons' daughter, who had recently graduated from college, had returned to live with the Penningtons and assist in the care of her father. The storage shed was needed as a place to store her belongings. The court ruled that a hardship existed, overruled the decision of the BZA and granted the Penningtons' requested variance. The BZA brought this appeal.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.