Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA197100024 Application 1971-11-11 • A App ��cc. o tc fcw Vrhc • • TO: THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA The undersigned applicants(is) (are) the owner.. of the following described property: Sections Two and Three, Georgetown Square Apartments A PLAT OF Ti'iIS PROPERTY MUST BE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THIS APPLICATION. See plat and site plan of William S. Rouda- bush, Jr. on file with your office. GIVE LOCATION BY REFERENCE TO NEAREST ROAD INTERSECTION. Fronting on the northerly side of State Route 656 (Georgetown Road) DIMENSIONS ,OF SITE MUST BE GIVEN. See Roudabush plat and site plan on file with your office. • In Jack Jouett Magisterial District • The petitioners-_request__that the said Board Both grant: ( 1 ) A variance `from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance for the rear-yard setback line from 25 feet to 10 feet for the proposed buildings situated near the southeastern boundary line of said ,prQpPrty and identified on the arrompanying plat as R1 , R9 , and B3. (2 ) A special exception to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to pArmiJ- thA cn.nsi-rilri-.ion of thn aforesai c propo.Pd bui l dings as located on the accompanying plat. _ The appiicants_make__this request because: • (1) A special condition exists because of the exceptional shape of this property for multi-family development. - The applicants proposed Bevel opnent offers a ronstruct.i on i gn_ nc1_ji.#:_i lization of the open areas which suitably complies with the spirit of the Ordinance; wl-Ee- as a strict application of its terms would unreasonably restrict the 11AP Of the property. (2 ) The special exreptinn would not affPr•t the health . safety, and welfare of nrr•upants of adjoining properties. or impair the adequate -s -pply of li and air, or j�ncreaae coiirJe' tion or .ti p hazards, Yr dittt_intsh proNerty va ues; .an wou be i keeping with tie genera spirit of the Ordinance and in furtherance of substantial justice. • The persons_-and (his) (her) (their) alidresses owning and/or occupying adjacent pro- perty to the property sought to be affected (are) (is): (Give names of all owners adjacent, across tli: read or hi•'?h hay and facing the prc;)ai'ty and any owners across any railr0ad riy it- of-wayfrom such prof erty. In the event the prop. rty affected is situated at or within 100 feet of the into,section of any two or mere roads or or within one hundred feet of the intersection of the rights-of-way of any two railroads, give names of prop;;rty owners at all cornets of any such intersection). Nam t Tact hailii i Address u 11 ary . }well_ C _ 2 501 Barracks toaa 6OA-16 _ Charlottesville, Virginia 6 OA-2 4 22901 Daniel V. Flynn 6OA-21 Route 5 Virginia Eton Flynn _r Charlottesville, Virginia Georgianna Wright 6OA-22 Georgetown Road _ Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Lewis Burkett. Jr. _60A-23 105Zeorgetown Road _ Gladine Burkett 6OA-23A Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 • I/we lic'ch,' depose and say Uiat all of the above statements and the statements ccatainerl ,x in and exhibits ,,,:a tr�ns ::d are true. N.Q3 emb r 11, 19_71_ Randolph D. Wade Vivian W. Wade A pp►i y ni -Lw.-X Richard H. Barrick, .their Attorney Mailing address_71 3 Surrey Road * Charlottesville, Virginia Telephone Number_295 7146 SubscriL'd aria sworn to before tic this _day or'.&C/ 1971 • cor^:e ssio:r e,:i:,ies G ' /l I92 • Not ary�iko,,- ... _ - The per!.-o;r_ __ancr (hir.) (h:'r) (their) ,,iitiress.e..a ni„rt and/or occupying adjacent pro- F:'ty 10 tli, ii'r%tl.'rt.' scu :it to l):. (a e) (is): (Civa {n-'mes of all o tnei`. adjacent, across the rea,1 or iiigho. v and facing the ne)"'rty and any o;'nars acro " any railroad riOt- ot-'.'ayfront r it!.:h p or~city. 1n the event tiu' p:op,rriy affectM is situated at or within 100 feet of the nnt€r`•:'Ction of any t Oo or more or hin'hways, at or within one hundred feet of the interser:tico:-i of the rio;it,-of-;;ay of any tv,e railroads, give names of l:roperty owners at li colliers of any such inteio:'ction). q.,I t ,,:ct f � rlit �; Address • Henry�L. Bel1 6 2_501_Sarracks 60A-16 Charlottesville, Virginia __ — — -_ 6 0A_2 4 22901 Daniel V. Fly_nn 60A-21 Route 5, Virginia Eton. Flynn Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Georgianna Wright 60A-22 Georgetown Road • Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 • Lewis Burkett,_,�r_i_ 60A-23 105 Georgetown Road__ _ GladineBurkett 60A-23A Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 • herchy d.'.;;c;` e and say Cat all of tiro above statements and the statements container! in any Eli:hiofr e' true. Randolph D. Wade _S_eptember 10, 1971 Vivian W. Wade AppliBcXt Richard H. Barrack, their A aAttorney Bailin ; address2l3._..Surrey Road ...Chariotte.aville_,_ Virginia Telep!I t 1_gtb September i,,,,,o n to (ivfo:(2 ii:o tl:is Uay of / ljty con mksion c'i,pires_Feb.—11 1'3 75. } /' / ( _'� V/7 _ 'i i P w if o ri a s, b i.!I?{; ll �ui1 i� �:.d t,Fri`~��.:7 TO: THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF ALBE MIARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA The undersigned a;,plicents?Q) (are) the owner_sof the follming described property: • Sections Two and Three, Georgetown Square Apartments A PLAT Of- T NIS PROi'E! ";Y MUST BE ATTACHED IIERETO AND MADE A PART OF "NIS APPLICATION. See Plat and site plan of William S. Roudabush, Jr. attached GIVE LOCATION BY REITRE NCE TO NEAREST ROAD INTERSECTION. Fronting on the northerly side of State Route 656 (Georgetown Road) DIMENSIO`:S OF.SI T E: MUST BE GIVEN. Fronting 458 ' on State Route 656; 322 ' on north; 409 ' on west; 327 ' on southwest; 375 ' on southeast. In CharlottesvillgMaoiterial District • • • The petitioner_s-rcst_that the said Board doth grant: 'decision of the Administrator in his �rpre- tation�£.. he ear-yard--s ck -requiremenb-fox—R=3 Dist-ricts (set forth in,6-5-2 and 16-94-2) as applied to proposed ,buildings_sitn t& Mar fhe_.sou the aGtern--.b r�z-1 na-of-,said Bl. B.2 , _pxQpexty and-i-denti-fied on•--the-accompanying �- and B3.! The applicants_-_mf'e_this reuu st because: _they believe the Administrator is in error in his inter_pre— ay ion. _-- --- - The person_aand (his) (her) (their) addiess_e_aiwning awl'or occupying adjacent pro- perty to the irw.rty f;n":t1c;lit to 1):' ZitiC!CIC(: G! C') (is): (Give liamrs of all ownels adjacent, across the road or highv.,ay awl facing the proparty and any owners across any railroad right- of-way from FliCh p opei ty. hi the event the frop,Ity affected is situated at or within 100 feet of the interft,ctien of any two or more roads or at or within one hundred feet of the intersectioa of the rigl-its-of-way of any two railroads, give names of property owners at all corners of any such intersection). LT.6,11-tyTT. Bell 6Mt_.7_cigract 2501 Barracks Mai "dress 60A-16 Charlottesville, Virginia 60A-24 22901 Daniel V. Flypn 60A-21 Route 5, Virginia Eton Flynn Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Georgianna Wright 60A-22 Georgetown Road. Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Lewis Burkett, Jr. 60A-23 105 Georgetown Road eladine__Burkett 60A-23A Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 • • i/v..e hereby cc and say that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any exhibis transmitted ai7! true. • Randolph D. Wade September 10_, - 1971 Vivian W. Wade Appli *BczY.nt Richard H.H. Barrick, fhiii-Wttorney Mailino address 21Surryaod c'harlottesvi..11e Telephoa Number...2_9_1 7146 • 101th September Subscribed and sworn to befcrc ue thise___Oay of / 19_71_ dy commissioa expires_Fet2, 11_1.975. APPRAISAL QUALIFICATIONS James A. Nunnally Educational Background and Training 1959 Graduate, Smithdeal-Massey Business College- Accounting and Business Administration 1964 American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers- Appraisal Course I 1967 Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Course in Principles and Techniques of Residential Appraising Virginia Association of Assessing Officers Real Estate Appraisal Institute at the University of Virginia 1963-1967. Courses in Principles and Methods of Appraising and Real Estate Assessment Procedures Instructor in appraisal classes at the University of Virginia for the Virginia Association of Real Estate Assessing Officers , Chairman for the 1968 Institute Professional Experience 1959-1963 Chesterfield County, Virginia - Real Estate Appraisals and Assessing; Income Tax Consultant; Tangible Personal Property Appraisals and Assessment 1963-1968 Charlottesville, Virginia - Deputy Assessor of Real Estate; also fee appraisals and individual tax accounts Present Partnership conducting general appraising of all types specializing in Central Virginia area; Firm, Wright & Nunnally Real Estate Consultants and Appraisers; Partner, Carroll Wright, M.A.I. President, Blue Ridge Investments , Incorporated dealing in buying, selling and developing real estate Member, Real Estate Board of Equalization, Albemarle County, Virginia Other Fee appraisals in the Counties of Chesterfield, Albemarle, Louisa, Greene, Nelson, Augusta, Fluvanna, and Rockingham, and Cities of Hopewell, Charlottesville, Waynesboro, Staunton, Harrisonburg, and Fredericksburg, Virginia. Appraisal clients include the following: Mortgage Investment Corporation, First Mortgage Corporation, Virginia Telephone and Telegraph Company, Virginia Department of Highways , Humble Oil Company, Charlottesville Savings and Loan Association, O'Neill Realty and Mortgage Corporation, Veterans Administration, Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, University of Virginia, International Business Machines Corporation, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, National Bank & Trust Company, First Virginia Bank-Monticello National, First & Merchants National Bank, Capital Savings and Loan Association, Sperry Marine Credit Union, and numerous individuals and companies involved in highway condemnation work. Appraisal assignments have included extensive research and statistical studies in single- and multi-family residential properties , apartment projects , nursing homes , commercial and industrial properties , and rural and farm properties. Qualified as an expert in the Circuit Court of Albemarle and Chesterfield Counties , and the Corporation Court of the City of Charlottesville. Memberships International Association of Assessing Officers Virginia Association of Assessing Officers Ecv6L- Tazv/V � 67./7R-9EN ( 3 EGw,o /4S) TCN/7 v2r ,'z. 1121 u✓✓/r J (ZL4^) gL1(35;;-'-- 3GF1),'9c/rf --_ _ 1 i :..)/V/'" :re"- ✓t:.k-dOM) /✓'7 Z '3 3,c) 1 � v/ 26' n _ Go/7 #3(3 ikv) 1//v/j- 2 8EDI L / - 11N/; 7 3 (z C1) G/N/T' #4/(75(9 jr). L/N/T /(z3R vl/✓/T Zrzee) 1 — .4/9YD(T FAIrMLY k"-Ai4L D/STR G 7/v/t/ ©,.^ ..Z ,4NZ 3 lac-L-L'o /19 ///✓i7S - ivow/r ,C/K Ta GET GLO1F 70 .20 //✓✓/73/4C�1E — 460 /-fE 6E/'✓EF9L L/,f4:/(J/ — ,y'LLQ.%>/ /%D/'-" TA/'//./ >:t%�:a/✓ G�/5!��('j Pv�i �f 1-✓6 v7 S/ .2 7Z STO.F',/E TO men 4 /% , s ??/�'T/9Tc J 8/ .± ''4 //✓, LoI^t; t 7 ,S/✓eue FOOL � Grote n'o4'$ /.v G4YA.417 . s . J I— Z: 1' z ' t- i 0 0 4 kl ft ,r 1 ,- J I\ I- P - I- 't- to -.1 ,...., --......„.... ..,"'". ----.. • ii :I ii- ,41 1 ' i 1 t• i t ;•:1 !: , . ', j r -' --' I11 ` s-) . 3(....,,,-, ' tt.< : : I i I t' .?. • 4. ' I:I I i I i'...1.4 I '.; 1 I .... „ . 14....z• _ I: ' i :0 111 0 .• 4 .,4 AT ••••\ ; ,• •? I• t-"--- ...--"\r,............7,,ri '1,, .a----N7.,..,1--..-li .•-....1ori-..1 jc,.:.. .t.-- r\ II --1 ,./ •7 1,, $r.....-- - t-—--- . 'v...,.......,.,.....,,,,,,.......-4.... . - —- r- , I . EN 1—-. 13 , r , , . .. J,, . , , ._, ,:l . : ,.., .. ..->' I: 11 I ! .1 , 1 [ I. 5 t ;... L.L.:-__ ....1-p_l_.,_1;_it 11-..b - t 1 I• 1 q F - LI' VL -1 tl- I Li , I !! XI 1 _ El 44 I — +11. fI ---- - ' I ti- II . _ i \ I i I I I I I I '. -V.L'_-.7"3:...7.F I I r----- .. I I <)7t1 .,-,, W; '-:c I,I 1 L_ R 1--- -,4 ..r., -‘, .c., IC t-! ii . ! - \ -- `-11- > _.... ! ; 11 , it .., ,i ;1 ,,, ,.. , ,, i ,.... HI ,:.: , , ft I I, c'N.,,,s. '(-- F:. -------- sl . _ I- KY-r- 1 ;:_--7.--1--_,_-_-.-. .. _-_-----,\ \ I_...:.'....t'.71-r_"2_:._':,.L2,,_,.:_t.. 'i 1 I ‘)'I ' --9 I / V ,. I i - q I k/ t 1..I L.1.-1( 'I i....,_ _\ 11 s - .• --'••,'I II ........\ !' :.1 1 I I 0 I. ' _ I 1 - ' -','1 C? , -'• ---- . t I-•••`-' I, I I. z;6' t- L tl t'•, t L._ . • , . j --i•,..at,,,/..---.... _t_ ' f 1 • I, il h •, 1 -1 — "-1 __. „.... , ....... __ . . 1 I 1 ,1,,j 1-_1 i .:- , . / ,.. W tl 1 :1 or iliii I:1:( I' t..!) _ia I t 1 I .. _ ______=1 t...:-...-,_ _ , ' -0 i---' Th i I - ' _____ I t I) I. I ri ,; ItI ; )1rAiLO. 1 -) ',' i:.', i---,, y .,_ ,i/ ; /1, -1 ------• --II -----'1- iN •l' •l __ .._/ •, ,.....L. . 1 " I 1 , 1 I •; , , •I ti I . 0 ________ I 1"---1! '' • I i 1 th 1 i,, ,... Ti __ v. I '' •,I I - - L i, i. : p i t lu -... :: J I 1 F 1 i_-__-_- --- - ' 11 .•___•__.._ ______ i. 11:-'..77'... 777-1-7,:-.---2":=:--- -: ----7--- 1„....•.\`..V...1"5-_,......'....,.,.."-i.. ..',f...::"L.L. _ .- VIRGINIA : IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY HENRY H. BELL and ) VERLEASE JACKSON BELL ) `' I � Petitioners, ) '1�\, \ h ) y r \ v. ) P?TTTIoN FOR WRIT OF ) CERTIORARI BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ) COUNTY CP ALBiRLE ) ) Respondent. ) TO THE HONORABLE DAVID F. BERRY, JUDGE: In accordance with Section 11-7-1 of Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully report to this Court: 1. At a regular meeting of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held on October 12, 1971, .:R ndoiph D. Wade and Vivian W. Wade, his wife, appealed a decision of the Zpning Administrator by interpretation of rear:-yard setback requirement within the R-3 Residential Zone. The Zoning Administrator having interpreted Section 6-5-2 of the Zoning Ordinance as requiring a 25 foot setback from property lines of the rear of any building to be located within the boundaries of a individual property. 2. The Zoning Board Appeals made no decision on October 12, 1971, however, the application for interpretation was taken under. advisement. 3. At its meeting on November 9, 1971, by a vote of 3 to 1, the Board of Zoning Appeals reversed the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 4. The Petitioners, voperty owners adjoining the property of Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade are aggrieved by the Board 's deci.z;ion. WHEREFORE, the Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully request the Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and for such other general relief as may be applicable. Respectfully submitted, HENRY H. BELL and VERI.EaSE JACKSON BELL By Counsel McGUIRE, WOODS & BATTLE Court Square 8u\ilding Ch rlo t vle Vi r .in .a J i-il4_ i BY (1 Y -11 William A. Perkins, Jr. Of Counsel for Petitioners 1�( OF ALBzMq _ ` ` vN o ( { c 8 /k \ /M i•- 7\7"-fiqt.lk:v/i <r Office of County Attorney HERBERT A.PICKFORD 230 COURT SQUARE 296-8191 CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22901 February 25, 1972 Savory Amato, Esq. Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Professional Building Charlottesville, Virginia In re: Appeal of decision of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals - request of Randolph D. Wade and Vivian W. Wade - VA-71-21+ Dear Judge Amato: The above matter was heard by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, on appeal from the Zoning Board decision. On said appeal Mr. W. A. Perkins, Jr. filed a motion questioning the jurisdiction of the toning Board to have heard the case in the first instance citing the Virginia Supreme Court case of ,fake Geoyse Corporat .op v. Standin,, 211 Va. 733. You will recall that we had previous discussion concerning the effect of this case which requires that an application for an appeal go first to the Zoning Administrator and if denied ty him. then, and only then, can it go to the Board. of Zoning Appeals, since the Board does not have original jurisdiction under the statute or- the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 12-2-2. No where in the record of the present case was there any indication of a denial of the request for a variance by the :toning Administrator and, accordingly, the Court was forced to treat the request for a variance as having come before the Zoning Board as a matter of first instance. Accordingly, the Board was found to have been without jurisdiction and the decision of the Board in the matter voided. Judge Berry stated that the particular case, namely: 211 Va. for Va. 733 requires strict interpretation of the law and that this is an appropriate time for procedures of the process of securing a variance be clarified. Judge Berry finds that the forms on which application for a variance is presently made are unsatisfactory, in that they indicate a request of the Zoning Board of Appeals ti- the variance in first instance. He states that the form should be revised to provide that petition is an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Administrator denying the variance and further provision should be made on the form indicating the action of the Zoning Administrator. I write you this letter as Chairman of the Zoning Board and I 'm sending a copy to the Zoning Administrator with the hope that these Savory Amato, Esq. February 25, 1972 Page 2 procedures can be clarified. With personal regards, I am Siqcerwl •6 Herbert A. Pickrbrd HAP: cc: Mr. Joseph Goldsmith Zoning Adrinistrator February 8 , 1972 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals , held on Tuesday , February 8 , 1972 at 5 : 30 P . M. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room. The following members were present : Messrs : Amato , Pickford , Heath , Bain , and Brown . The Chairman established that. a quorum was present . Minutes of the January 25 , 1972 , meeting were approved subject to changing the wording from the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room to the Planning Department . 1 . VA-72-29 . (VA-72-01 ) R .N . Wilder for the Gallery Mall . Applicant requests the Board of Zoning Appeals -to grant a variance of 25 feet from the minimum setback of 30 feet for a business sign in a B-1 Business zone . Property is located on the south side of Route 250 West , o . 4 mile west of the Charlottesville City limits and is described as County Tax Map 60 , Parcel 39 . Jack Jouett_ Magisterial District . Mr. Wilder presented his facts to the Board . He stated that the main reason for the request was the fact that trees obscured vision of the sign where it would be located ( 30 feet from the right-of-way ) and that if it were located that distance back it would be in the middle of his proposed parking and driving area for the Gallery Mall . Mr . Bruce Brown , representing "Citizens for Albemarle" disputed the fact that trees blocked the vision of persons viewing the sign from all directions . Mr Wilder stated that proceeding east on 250 toward Charlottesville trees were in its path somewhat. He explained that the sign would be lighted internally . Mrs . Marian Nolan , representing the Ednam Forest Home Owners Association said that allowing this sign would clutter the scenic entrance to the city from this direction and that if the variance were granted that a "Bill Board Jungle may be attracted . " Mr. Amato speaking for the Board , said that he felt that all persons needed a better understanding of the problem. He suggested a trip to the site to view the actual proposed location of the sign . It was decided that on Tuesday , . February 15 , 1972 , at 4 : 30 P . M. ) a field trip to the site would be held . All persons interested were invited to attend. Directly after this meeting , a special meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals would be held to decide the fate of the variance request. 2 . VA-71 -02 . Claude Cotten . Applicant requests the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance of ten feet from the minimum required setb ack of 30 feet for a corner lot in an R-1 Residential zone . Property is located at the inter- section of Brookmere Road and Idlewood Drive , and is des- cribed as County Tax Map 45C , Lot 84 , Block C , Section 1 . Charlottesville . Magisterial District . Mr. Cotten spoke to the Board and explained the situation as it stood on this lot in relation to the other lots in the Woodbrook Subdivision . Originally , all corner lots were designed to allow a 20 foot side yard on the street side . However, this lot did not have a house built on it prior to the effective date of the ordi - nance . Due to the Zoning Ordinance it is now required to have a greater side yard than all other lots . He explained that the house was being cantered slightly toward the corner to allow some privacy to the owner. Mr . Fredrich Kain who lives on lot three ( 3) was concerned that other lots in and around this area would require a variance . Mr. Cotten explained that this was the only lot left in this situ- ation . Mr. Kain also brought up the fact of the sewerage lagoon and its oder. Mr. Amato stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals was not qualified to answer questions on this subject and that its job was to determine if they should grant a variance . Mr. W .T . Harold , who lives directly across the street from this lot , reiterated Mr. Kain ' s remarks on the sewerage situation . He stated that his understanding was that no more homes could be added until this situation was corrected . Mr. Cotten said that no more lots could be added to the subdivision . Mr. Harold stated that the County had overloaded the lagoon by adding a school . Mrs . B . Winston McGee , who lives across the street from this area , questioned whether or not persons involved in the Ling property had been notified . This was clarified by the Zoning administrator, and it was noted that they had been notified . Mr. Cotten stated that he was aware of the problem with sew erage in the Woodbrook area . Mr. Harold thought that the Board should act on this situation . Mr. McGee then spoke and voiced opposition to the variance and said that if the variance were granted , this house on this lot would be an eyesore . Mr. Harold again spoke stating that the aesthetic value will not be enhanced by building a home on this lot . Mr. Amato then asked if anyone else desired to speak on the requested variance . No one did . Mr. Pickford then made the motion to grant the variance as requested . His reasoning was as follows : The course of the sub- division was established on the original plat in 1962 . In allowing this house to be built it would be in keeping with the existing neighborhood . If the house were only allowed within the confines of the Zoning Ordinance , then it would be possible for a house of substandard nature to be constructed in this neighborhood . to deny this variance would be a hardship on Mr. Cotten . It was seconded by Mr. Bain . Mr. Amato stated that he did not think that to grant this variance would be a detriment to the neighborhood . Vote as follows : Pickford - yes Bain - yes Amato - yes Heath - yes Brown - yes Mr. Amato then requested the Zoning Administrator to check on : 1 . The wording of the variance granted to the Daley Craig Corp . on the entrance sign to Berkeley/Four Seasons , and to bring this information to the next meeting . 2 . To check on the possibility of the Board employing legal counsel to represent them on the Wade hearing in Circuit Court (VA-71 -24) . 3 . To check on their paychecks . The Board was short-changed one meeting this time . The meeting was then adjourned . Secretary 4 WINGFIELD Fr BARRICK ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22901 E.C.WINGFIELD 416 PARK STREET RICHARD H.BARRICK January 31, 1972 Mr. Joseph M. Goldsmith, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade Application No. VA-71-24 Dear Joe: I am enclosing the original and one copy of the transcript of the proceedings at the special meeting held on January 25th. By this post I am also sending Bill Perkins a copy. Sincerely yours, Richard H. Barrick RHB:efc Encl. Transcript of hearing before Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County, Virginia, held in the County Office Building on January 25, 1972 , commenc- ing at 5:30 P. M. , in the matter of the application of Randolph D. Wade and Vivian W. Wade, VA-71-24. Present: Savory E. Amato, Edward H. Bain, Harry J. Brown, William P. Heath and Herbert A. Pickford, members of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals; Joseph M. Goldsmith, Zoning Adminis- trator and Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Henry H. Bell and Verlease Jackson Bell, adjoining property owners, and William A. Perkins, Jr. , their attorney; Randolph D. Wade, James A. Nunnally; and Richard H. Barrick, attorney for Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade. Savory E. Amata, Chairman of the Board, administered the oath to all witnesses. Mr. Barrick : For the record, Mr. Chairman, would you like to have the Secretary read the application? Mr. Amato: Yes, I think that would be advisable. Mr. Goldsmith: Have the record show that Mr. Richard Barrick, it appears, is representing the Petitioner, and that Mr. William A. Perkins, Jr. , rep- resents the opponents. Mr. Perkins: I represent Mr. and Mrs. Henry Bell who are neighbors of this property and who received notice of this hearing. Mr. Goldsmith: Mr. Chairman, this is variance Va-71-24 Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade. This is a petition requesting, (1) a variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance for a rear yard setback line from 25 feet to 10 feet for the proposed buildings situated near the southeastern boundary line of said property and identified on the accompanying plat as B-1, B-2 and B-3 and that is the plat you have before you; (2 ) a special exception to the regulations of the zoning ordinance to permit the construction of the aforesaid proposed buildings as located on the accompanying plat. The ap- plicant make this request because (1) a special condition exists because of the exceptional shape of this property for multi-family development. The applicants proposed development offers a construction design and utili- zation of the open areas which suitably complies with the spirit of the ordinance whereas a strict application of its terms would unreasonably re- strict the use of this property; (2 ) a special exception would not affect the health, safety and welfare and occupants of the adjoining properties or impair the adequate supply of light and air or increase congestion or fire hazards or diminish property values and would be in keeping with the ger- eral spirit of the ordinance and in furtherance of substantial justice. This is submitted by Mr. Richard H. Barrick. This was submitted on November 11, 1971 for Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade. Signed by Evelyn Cheape, Notary Public on February llth, no-her commission expires February 11, 1975. 2 . Mr. Amato: Now what is the requested variance? Mr. Goldsmith: The requested variance, Mr. Chairman, is that the rear yard setback as defined in the zoning ordinance for R-3, Residential District, they wish a variance of 15 feet from this setback be granted to allow the rear of these buildings to be situated 10 feet from those property lines as described adjacent to B-1, B-2 and B-3 sections shown on that map. Mr. Amato: Then of course the law requires 25 foot setback and they want a variance of 15 feet so as to set the buildings 10 feet from the line. Mr. Goldsmith: That ' s correct. Mr. Barrick: The property line, this line here, would be perhaps 14 feet here and here it would be a variance of exactly 15 feet, you see. Mr. Pic kfor5:That property line is the center of a road that has been closed is that correct? Mr. Barrick: It is the center of a road that was never opened, Mr. Pickford. It used to be the old roadbed for Georgetown Road, as I understand it, way back when they used horses and buggies, but it has long since been rerouted along this way and both Mr. Bell and Mr. Wade claim title to the center of the road. Mr. Amato: So, apparently it was never dedicated? Mr. Barrick: No sir, it was never dedicated. Mr. Amato: Which would be the center of the road? Mr. Barrick: The common property line. Mr. Amato: We were confused as to what this line was originally. Mr. Barrick: That is the edge of the road on Mr. Bell ' s side and that is the edge of the road on. . . . Mr. Amato: . . .edge of the road on Mr. Wade ' s side? Mr. Barrick: Yes sir. But it is a very old road and hasn 't been used this century as far as--- Mr. Bell: I was just going to say, it is all grass as I have been using it for jobs--there is no road-there is grass all over in there and I don ' t want you to have the impression that it is an abandoned road because it-- Mr. Amato: Mr. Perkins, there is no question of the fact that both owners claim to the center of what that road originally was. Mr. Perkins : I think that probably depicts the boundary lines and the only issue, as I see it, is that they are requesting to have a rear yard of 10 feet wide against my property owners. 3. Mr. Amato: We wanted to see where the lines run. Mr. Perkins: The requirement is a 25 foot setback. Mr. Pickford: We are not concerned with a setback in the roadway? Mr. Amato: No. Mr. Pickford: The road has been closed or never opened? Mr. Amato: Right. Mr. Perkins In other words, if the surveyor had not shown the road on there, we would have been better off and it would have been less confusing. It doesn't mean a thing. Mr. Amato: All right. Mr. Barrick: Gentlemen, you have heard this case before and I don ' t want to belabor you too much with a repetition of-- e Mr. Amato: Mr. Brown wasn 't here. Mr. Barrick : Mr. Brown was not here and let me try to summarize our posi- tion for Mr. Brown ' s sake and for the recollection of the other members of the Board. These are the only 3 buildings in question. Their location is the only thing questioned by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Wade has laid out this unusual piece of land so that the recreational area for the occu- pants of all the buildings will be in this area here, shown on the drawing as a playground, swimming pool, bath house, lounge, deckchairs area, pump- ing station, but this is the recreational area that has been specifically designed for use by the tenants. These buildings, B-1, B-2 and B-3 are designed so that the walls facing Mr. Bell ' s property will contain only windows. They will have doors, no exitways of any means. There will be no patios. There will be no garbage disposals or any other facilities on this side of these buildings. They are in fact, from the standpoint of design, just like the side of a normal building, with windows only. The question arises, because Mr. Wade has designed these struc- tures with a front door on the side opposite the wall facing the Bells ' property, Thus according to the interpretation of the Circuit Court, the wall facing the Bells ' property is a rear wall and under the zoning ordi- nance, supposed to setback 25 feet. However, the obvious spirit and intent and purpose of the County Zoning Ordinance and any ordinance which requires a 25 foot rear yard set- back as opposed to a 10 foot, in your case, side yard setback is to give additional room for what you normally find in a back yard--play areas, 4. garbage disposals, patios, garages, things of that nature which the munici- palities do not want thrown up against an adjoining property owner and right- fully so. But where a proposal comes along which does not plan to utilize this space for anything, I think it is appropriate for you gentlemen to con- sider a variance. If, for example, Mr. Wade had constructed these buildings and put the front door here with the same construction on this wall as he prposes now and put the front door there, we would not have this case. Because we would have the side wall just as we have it now and it would be setback 10 feet. Now, let me get back to our application, if I may. We have asked for two things. We have asked for a special exception and/or a variance. I have done some fairly exhaustive research on the question of special ex- ceptions since I filed Mr. Wade ' s application and although there are more and more cases in which the Courts have recognized special exceptions in high density areas where apartment projects are moving into a residential, formerly residential or agricultural area, most cases that I have found restrict a special exception to the use of land rather than the location of a building on a piece of land. There have been some cases where the Court allowed a special exception for a lot area requirement, or the Court permitted a special exception for a height requirement. But I must say, that generally it does relate to use rather than location of buildings and for that reason, i would like to more or less abandon that request and approach you gentlemen on the basis of a variance. I think you could grant a special exception but as I say in the cases I have read, most of them deal with use rather than location. Now, as to a variance, Section 12-2-2 of the Ordinance reads that the Board of Zoning Appeals is authorized to grant a variance when owing to special conditions a literal enforcement would result in an unnecessary hardship--where the property owner can show good faith in the acquisition of the land and exceptional shape or topographic conditions, and where a strict application would unreasonably restrict the use of his property. Section 12-2-3 further says that a variance shall not be authorized unless the Board finds that a strict application would produce an undue hardship, again just a repetition of the previous condition; that the hardship is not shared generally by others in the same district or vicinity, and that the variance will not result in substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed. Now, we have to fit our situation into this ordinance before the Board can give us the relief we have requested. First of all, we have to demonstrate a special condition. That is not difficult at all. We have an unusual, an extremely unusual, piece of land to develop for multi-family occupancy. When you start putting rectangular or square buildings on a piece of property that isn 't rectangular or square, you have a special con- dition and we certainly have it here. Then, you have to be satisfied that a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. There is a case which 5. I would like to cite to you gentlemen. i am not going into a great deal of time. The Board of Zoning Appeals v. Fowler, 201 Va. 942 . This is a Virginia case decided in 1960 from an appeal of the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Alexandria. The facts in this case re- lated to a block within the City that was hodge-podge in development which contained business as well as residential zoning classifications. One part of the block was developed and used for nice residential properties. The complaining party in this case owned a nice home which adjoined a piece of land owned by a dairy which was zoned for commercial use. Now the dairy wanted to develop its piece of land by putting a warehouse on it and mov- ing right up to the property line; right up to this lady ' s property line, with no setback at all, both on their rear line and on their side line. The case says their reason for wanting to develop that way was because of the demands of the dairy in the use of the land. The fact that this would be the most advantageous and practical use and development of the land. The lady objected. She wanted them to set back the 5 feet. Her property was zoned residential as I said, and the dairy ' s industrial. They had a provision in their ordinance similar to ours that axe two zones abut. You have to set back in the less restricted zone by the setback required in the more restricted zone. Our Supreme Court of Appeals granted the dairy the right to put its building right up to the propery line both on the back and on the side yard. It said in its decision that in considering this we must realize the overall zoning laws are of a non-specific and general nature. They are not perfect and can hardly be made perfect, thus the necessity for the creation of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The very purpose of these Boards is within the confines of the law to vary specific terms of zoning ordinances to the end that the intent of the zoning law may be effectuated, keeping in mind the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public as the basis for the enactment of such laws. The plain intent of the purpose of the ordinance is to permit, through the Board of Zoning Appeals, the amiliora- tion of the rigors of necessarily general statutes by eliminating the necessity for a slavish adherence to the precise letter of the ordinance where in a given case little or no good on the one side and undue hardship on the other would result from a literal enforcement. It went on to say that in granting this variance, no worthwhile purpose would be accomplished from the standpoint of the adjoining property owner. it says there is no substantial proof in the record that the building would adversely affect Mrs. Fowler ' s property and it further went on to say, as far as the un- necessary hardship, the fact that the dairy could not use 5 feet on the back and 72 on the side of valuable land constituted an unnecessary hard- ship to it. And it was on this basis that the Court made the decision. Now, of course, the facts are distinguishable to some extent. I think it is about as close as you can come in zoning cases because you don 't find many that reach a Court of record. But I cited it for the pro- position that Virginia recognizes that the complete waste of valuable and expensive land constitutes an unnecessary hardship which the Board of Zon- ing Appeals should recognize in granting a variance. 6. I can stipulate this into the record and Mr. Wade you can cor- rect me if I am wrong. As I understand it, if Mr. Wade had to setback 25 feet from this line, he could not put the same number of units on this piece of property because of the necessary parking space which is required for each unit. He has done some figuring and believes if he were required to set off 25 feet, he would lost 10 units. Now, his proposed development is well within the maximum density provided by the zoning ordinance. The total number of square feet within this project would permit him under the area requirements of our ordinance, to construct 189 units on that piece of land. His proposal as presented to you is for 108. Furthermore, this piece of land right here contains approximately 3 .2 acres. If he had to maintain a 25 foot setback here in addition to the setbacks required and the setback along the street, the setbacks themselves would take approximately 1 acre of this land; better than one-fourth, pro- bably about 30 percent of the land. Mr. Pickford: What is the total acreage there? Mr. Wade: The total of both tracts is about 4 3/4 acres, I believe. Mr. Nunnally: 4. 55 acres. Mr. Barrick: The provisions of our ordinance go further to say that the property owner must have acquired his property in good faith. There is no question about that. That applies to a situation where you buy a piece of property knowing a violation exists and then come to the Board and ask it to correct something which you knew at thsinception was a defect, more or less, in the property. And where tlewproperty either has exceptional shape or exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situations. Now it only has to fit one of those and there is no question but that it fits the exceptional shape criteria. Now the ordinance says that you cannot grant a variance, unless or, if the result will create a substantial--(Mr. Bain, I have been summariz- ing 12-2-2 and 12-2-3, do you know where i am?) A variance cannot be gran- ted if the result would mean a substantial detriment to the adjacent proper- ty owner or the character of the district would be changed. Now the charac- ter of the district--I think you can take judicial notice of the fact that up and down this road in this vicinity it is developed for multifamily so we are not changing the character of the district. As to any substantial detriment to Mr. and Mrs. Bell ' s property as a result of the variance, I have asked Mr. Nunnally to look into the mat- ter. I think you are all acquainted with Mr. Nunnally. Does anyone not know Mr. Nunnally or his qualifications? I 'd like to ask him if, at my suggestion and request, he did review this-- Mr. Perkins: The defendant in this matter--will we have a chance-- Mr. Barrick: Yes sir. As soon as I finish my case. 7. Mr. Perkins: Oh, we don 't have any opening. I thought you were opening at this point but I guess you aren 't. Mr. Barrick: I was just putting on my case. Mr Perkins: A little bit later I will reply to him. I guess I had better take some notes as there are some things I feel I disagree with you or with what you have said. I thought I was going to be able to answer your opening statement. Is that the way we will proceed, Judge? I don 't say anything until he concludes? Mr. Amato: Well, we are not-- Mr. Perkins : it doesn 't matter to me-- Mr. Amato: We don 't observe any strict formalities. My thought was that Mr. Barrick was putting his case on and after he finishes, we are going to give you an oportunity to make a statement and put on your evidence and make a closing. Mr. Perkins Will it be all right if I make a telephone call. I thought this thing wouldn 't last long, that we would only be here about 45 minutes so will it be all right if I make a call. Mr. Amato: Go right ahead, we will hold up. Mr. Barrick: Mr. Nunnally, at my request, did you view Mr. Bell ' s proper- ty and review the proposed development of Mr. and Mrs. Wade ' s property? Mr. Nunnally: Yes. Mr. Barrick: Do you have an opinion as to whether the location of these 3 proposed buildings 10 feet from the common property line between the Wades and the Bells, would have any substantial detriment to the value of Mr. and Mrs. Bell ' s property? Mr. Nunnally: First, let me go back and say this. The complete area at Barracks Road is zoned R-3 from Barracks Road back to where the George- town Vetinary Hospital is. And within that area, across the street from Mr. Bell ' s property and other property in that area and to the rear of it, you have got approximately 600 to 700 apartments already built with other property under construction at this point and in analyzing the neighbor- hood and studying what Mr. Wade is doing there, I feel from an appraiser ' s standpoint, the project Mr. Wade has on the drawing board now, has no ad- verse affect to the neighborhood or to any adjoining property owner as the marketability of that neighborhood is established as R-3 apartment development thing and as Mr. Barrick has brought out before, Mr. Wade could change his plans and go to a high rise type of development and create a much more undesirable situation than a low density. The highest density in the County is approximately 35 units per acre and I think Mr. Wade ' s is a low density of between 15 and 16 units to an acre which allows for a large amount of green space and this type of thing. 8. And it is my personal opinion that the aspects of this to Mr. Bell ' s property and other property will have no adverse affects to the neighborhood or any damage to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Barrick: Have you prepared a written summary of your findings, Mr. Nunnally? Mr. Nunnally: Yes. Mr. Barrick: I would like to have a copy, do you have one? Mr. Nunnally: Yes, I have several. Mr. Barrick: Would you give a copy to Mr. Perkins, please. Mr. Amato, I would like to introduce this as an exhibit with this application. I don't want to belabor that matter, but-- Mr. Amato: Do you think it would be better to leave this rather than pass it to each member-- Mr. Barrick: I think what Mr. Nunnally testified to is the substance of his report. I would propose that if any of you gentlemen have any ques- tions to ask Mr. Nunnally as to the reasons for his opinion, why, go ahead and do so. I don 't intend to ask him any further questions. Mr. Amato Mr. Nunnally, you say that the apartment land sales in this area have ranged from $22 ,000 to $30, 000 per acre for the past several years. What would this property-- Mr. Nunnally: This particular piece? Mr. Amato Yes sir. Mr. Nunnally: $25, 000 an acre. Thereabouts--give or take $100 either way. Mr. Perkins: I object to this because he is making implications in here as to his opinion as to the effect of the law as to setback and he is indicat- ing in here and I am certainly objecting to portions of this that say that moreoever if the 25 setback is imposed on Mr. Wade ' s project, it implies that a similar setback to any future development of Mr. Bell ' s property. I think that what might be done to Mr. Bell ' s property in the future is not germaine to this particular case and for him to make the assumptions that there would have to be a different setback or what the setbacks would be on Bells property for a future project is improper. Mr. Amato: Well, I think we will just admit the report and let the members see it if they would like. Mr. Barrick: Gentlemen, in conclusion-- 9. Mr. Amato: Let ' s see, though, if we are going to do this, let us do it a little more--Mr. Perkins, would you care to ask questions--- Mr. Perkins : I have a couple of questions. Mr. Nunnally, you stated in here that you based your opinions on the fact that this property is all zoned R-3 and would not have any adverse affect on the Bell property as zoned in R-3 . And you have indicated there is a value of $22 , 000 to $30, 000 per acre. Mr. Nunnally: No. I didn 't indicate the value of his property. I said the sales in the area, in the past, have indicated a value of $22 , 000 to $30, 000 an acre. Mr. Perkins: I see. So you are not saying that his property is worth that? Mr. Nunnally: No. Mr. Perkins: Did you attempt to appraise his property in an "as is" con- dition? Mr. Nunnally: No. Mr. Perkins: How is his property now developed? Mr. Nunnally: As residential. Mr. Perkins: Does he have a residence on it? Mr. Nunnally: Yes. Mr. Perkins: Would you say that that is a nice residence? Is it a modern residence or a poor residence or a good residence, or how would you classify it? Mr. Nunnally: I would say it is above average without having seen the in- side of it. From the outside, i would say it is above average. It is in conformity with the neighborhood. Mr. Perkins : Is it true, Mr. Nunnally, that if a highrise, you mentioned a highrise could be built--isn 't it true that a highrise would have to be-- would have to have as peculiar setbacks for it, that the sideyards increase so far as the height of the building is concerned? Mr. Nunnally: Oh yes. The density would also be increased. Mr. Perkins: it gets that much further away from the boundaries, is that correct? Mr. Nunnally: Yes. Mr. Perkins : And the ordinance, and you understand it, says that a highrise has to have additonal space on its sidelines, correct? 10. Mr. Perkins : Now for residential purposes, isn 't it true that the further away from the residence the apartment buildings are, the better off they are? Mr. Nunnally: No necessarily. Mr. Perkins : Do you feel it is better for them--the closer they are, it would be better? Mr. Nunnally: Well, for example in this case here, if you set back 100 feet or 200 feet with a highrise building, the balance of that land could be used for a swimming pool which would be just as close to the side lines as these buildings are. Mr. Perkins: But that would not be a wall that close to the property, would it? Mr. Nunnally: Well, it could be a wall; it could be a serpentine wall or it could be some other kind of a wall. Mr. Perkins : But it would not be a wall of a building? Mr. Nunnally: No, it would not be a wall of a building. Mr. Perkins: It would not be a wall of a building with windows in it that peer over into your property in that close a proximity? Mr. Nunnally: It could, a poolhouse might be there. Mr. Perkins: You say that 10 feet here would be all right and that this-- as a matter of fact, you indicate that it is a 10 foot wide strip and it is beneficial to have only 10 feet rather than 25 because it would be that much less area to have clutter on, is that correct? Mr. Nunnally: That ' s right. Mr. Perkins : Well, by that reason, would you say it would be better to have no side yard? Mr. Nunnally: No, not exactly. Uh, what---- Mr. Perkins: How much side yard do you think is proper, Mr. Nunnally; any side yard or rear yard? Mr. Nunnally: I think there should be a setback requirement. My personal opinion in this particular situation is that, that is a side yard. Mr. Perkins: But it is a rear yard and the Court has so interpreted it. Mr. Nunnally: Right. 11. Mr. Perkins : As a rear yard, do you feel rear yards should only be 10 feet wide? Mr. Nunnally: Not if the rear of the building has exits to it. Mr. Perkins: Is the rear of a building any different if it doesn ' t have exists, really? Mr. Nunnally: A whole lot different. You have back doors to the building, with trash cans setting out there, bicycles, toys, clotheslines and factors like that make a whole lot of difference. Mr. Perkins: You, of course, have been employed by Mr. Wade to give this opinion, have you not? Mr. Nunnally: Right. Mr. Perkins: And you have been employed to do a good many appraisals for Mr. Wade in the past, have you not? Mr. Nunnally: No. Mr. Perkins : In regard to loans he has had--never done appraisals or your office has never done appraisals? Mr. Nunnally: I have never done an appraisal for Mr. Wade personally other than this particular situation. Mr. Perkins : Your office then; you are with a partnership. Mr. Nunnally: My office has never. We have done them for mortgage companies that have placed mortgages on Mr. Wade ' s properties but not for Mr. Wade. Mr. Barrick: Mr. Chairman, I feel that Mr. Perkins ' questions were pertinent as far as cross-examination or rebuttal but I don 't think it went to the issue of whether or not Mr. Nunnally' s report and his expert opinion should be received by this Court. Mr. Amato: Well, as I indicated--- At this point several people spoke at once and no one was understandable. Mr. Amato: Well, let ' s go on with this. Mr. Barrick: I had not quite finished. One last observation, gentlemen. If you see fit to grant the variance that Mr. and Mrs. Wade have requested, the Courts have, on numerous occasions, stated that a Board of Zoning Ap- peals may place whatever reasonable conditions upon the granting of the variance which it considers proper to do. I certainly think that if you did grant this variance, you should place a special condition upon granting it to the effect that the walls of these buildings contain no doors or outside 12 . exits, or that there be no patios, no garbage disposals or anything else of a similar nature within the area between the buildings themselves and the land. In effect, it would merely be a buffer zone as is required by the sideyard setback of 10 feet. That concludes my remarks. Mr. Wade: If I may, I have one point that I would like to make. In conjunc- tion with the question of hardship, there is one factor that does enter into the use of this land that hasn 't been mentioned, I don 't believe, and that is the State Highway Department has requested and we have been more or less--- suggested that we wouldn 't get the Planning Commission approval if we didn 't set back behind the propced right of way that the State Highway has set forth and when this is to be used and when they will in fact buy it from me to be so used, nobody knows. But I have complied with their future right of way and I have set 30 feet behind that. It is better than 30 feet, it is 35 feet and that is along the entire front of the property. Mr. Amato: That is along this line here? Mr. Wade: No, on Georgetown Road. In other words, --it ' s on this one right here, let me show it to you. At any rate, these buildings are set back from the existing property line-- Mr. Amato What use are you making of this property here? Mr. Wade : I am not being able to make any use of it. In other words, I am having to inventory for the State Highway Department for some future date. So therefore I have set back 35 additional feet for this purpose and so that right there has presented some degree of hardship in utilization of land that I had purchased for this purpose. Mr. Amato: That deals with this right here? Mr. Wade: That ' s right. Mr. Amato: And that ' s why you didn ' t go back closer to the road there? Mr. Wade: Yes sir. Mr. Amato: Mr. Barrick, is that all? Mr. Barrick : Yes sir. Mr. Amato : Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins : i think first I would like to answer some of the things that were brought up here that I think are not germaine and I would like to ask Mr. Nunnally one additonal question here that I think perhaps---Mr. Nunnally, You haven 't studied these plans he has here for these, to any great extent, what his intended use is-how the buildings are located, have you? Mr. Nunnally: Yes. 13. • Mr. Perkins: You have studied it? Mr. Nunnally: I have a copy of it. Mr. Perkins: You have a copy of it? Mr. Nunnally: Right. Mr. Perkins: Do you know if it is possible to get 108 units on that lot, hav- ing a 25 foot setback? Mr. Nunnally: I have not worked the relationship to using the same plan and pulling it back with what the loss factor would be in the apartment ratio and various things of this manner as to whether he is actually going to lose 10 units, 5 units or 6. Mr. Perkins : So you don 't know how many he may lose? Mr. Nunnally: No. Mr. Perkins: Well, that ' s all I wanted to ask you. One thing here, Mr. Barrick indicated this was a lot with a peculiar shape and he works on the basis that this is a peculiar shaped lot. It is peculiar in shape because of Mr. Wade having put together several other lots that come together and then have a configuration that is somewhat peculiar. Now, if anybody wants to come before this Bar, and this is part by way of argument but by opening statement also--part of this property was not really peculiarly shaped to begin with. It was a reasonable--almost a rectangle but it had a larger rear side to begin with. He added on to that, that was tle'portion over on this end--he added onto that other parts of the lot and comes up with a configura- tion that may be said to be somewhat peculhr. I don 't know that it is really peculiar; it has additional sides on it and is a lot that if you count the sides, I think there are 6 or 7 sides to it because there is one little short side back here. It is not a rectangular lot but no lot need be rectangular. If an owner wants to go out and get 2 or 3 lots and put them together provided they are not in a subdivision and all have rectangles and then come before you and say we have a peculiarly shaped lot. Now, gentlemen, this idea of what our zoning ordinance says. It has setbacks for purposes. It has rear yard setbacks and those rear yard set- backs are for the protection of the neighbors within the community. Now the rules are there. Here in this particular thing, I am sure that these build- ings--all I can see is that there are many other plans that it could be put to that would not put this lot or this building on the asking of a 10 foot variance. Finally, Mr. Barrick, and I listened to him for 25 minutes pleading all these different things and talking to you before he really got to the gut of the situation and the gut of the situation was that here is a developer who has bought this land and wants to put 10 more buildings on it, 10 more units on it, and to say to heck with the neighbor and to heck with the zon- ing ordinance and come within 10 foot of a line. 14. Now, Mr. Bell, I would like to ask you this. Do you and Mrs. Bell--do you consider--how long have you lived there? Mrs. Bell: About-- Mr. Bell: 11 years. Mrs. Bell: Uh huh. Mr. Perkins: Is this your residence? Mr. Bell: Oh yes. Mr. Perkins : And we have reserved the right to put some photographs of the residence in the record if it is necessary for it to be done further so that those photographs can show what the place is and what the residence is. Have you dealt in--had any experience in buying and selling land around Charlottes- ville? Mr. Bell: Yes. Mr. Perkins: You have? How long have you been buying and selling land in the area? Mr. Bell: In Charlottesville? Mr. Perkins: Yes. Mr. Bell: Oh about 10 years--10 or 12 years. Mr. Perkins : And did your father before you deal in real estate from time to time in this area? Mr. Bell: Yes. Mr. Perkins : And as such and as owner of this property do you consider that the erection of a building along this line, a large building-I don't know how high it is, I assume it is at least 2 stories high, 10 feet from your line would be detrimental to the value of your property? Mr. Bell: Most certainly. Mr. Perkins: It would be detrimental; you believe that? Mr. Bell: I do. I wouldn ' t be here if I didn 't. Mr. Perkins: How is it landscaped out there now. Is there a yard? Mr. Bell: Yard, grass-- Mr. Perans: Do you know how far your house is from this boundary line? 15. Mr. Bell: Uh, I guess about 25 feet--25 or 30 feet. Mr. Perkins: So it is reasonably close to it? Mr. Bell : It is fairly close to it--very close. Mr. Perkins: All right. I think that is all I wanted to put in as evidence from the point of view of Mr. Bell. Now, let me come back to the statement that Mr. Barrick made in the beginning. He said, gentlemen, if we put the front door up here then we could have this as it but the difficulty is if he puts the front door there, that ' s not what he has got. The front doors are here. If he put the front door there he wouldn ' t have a building that was a 100 odd feet long. Mr. Amato: I don 't think that Mr. Perkins presented his plat on the record because the tape was ccrcwec4- up. meoe Mr. Perkins: This is a plat of the Bell property and we reserve the right to give the dimensions of the house and its location on the lot. Mr. Barrick: Well, if you are going to present the location on the-- Mr. Perkins: We reserve the right to do that. Mr. Barrick: Well, if the Board wants it, they can ask for it. Mr. Amato: All right. Mr. Barrick: I have no questions for Mr. Bell. Mr. Amato: All right, Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins : I was mentioning, I believe, that this building--the argument that the front of the building could have been up here and thus this made the side yard to me is somewhat fallacitious because that is not the fact. That is comparing apples and oranges; we don 't have the question of whether this is the front door or this is the side-that is just not here. And also we wouldn 't have a building that was 100 odd feet long in an extreme situation like this going down because nobody is gonna build a building with a hall on it that long on a two-storey building. That is just impractical and implausi- ble. Now, Mr. Wade has presented, as far as I can gather, a situation in which; well, lets see-are you through your case? Mr. Barrick: Yes. Mr. Perkins: Are you completely through so that you don ' t answer me at all? Do we answer, or what? Mr. Amato: We are just going to allow you fellows to answer each other and to-- Mr. Perkins : All right. Here we have a situation in which he has indicated 16. he may have to have 8 or 10 units less if he doesn ' t pull this over here this close. I don 't know that it is true. Mr. Nunnally says he has not made a study. It appears to me that there are all sorts of possibilities and to say that it is impossible to do it without have this and therefore we have a great economic hardship here, seems to me to be pushing the issue pretty hard. I do know that these laws that we have are designed for the pro- tection of the citizens in Albemarle County and if because a person chooses to make a variance and comes before you gentlemen requesting these variances re- gardless of the facts that they have; if you all want to get into a position that each time a person comes up with a lot, with a building that has no back doors on it, therefore it only has to have 10 feet as a rear yard, then the ordinance should say this. That if the building has no rear doors and no en- trance to the rear of the building, it only has to have a 10 foot rear yard rather than a 25 foot. If this is the sort of thing we are going to get into-- now gentlemen, I just personally feel that if you want to get into that sort of a situation that you are changing, that you are legislating the ordinance. It is a different ordiance from that which we have and it seems to me that the ordinance is quite clear that there is to be a 25 foot rear yard. The evidence that you have is certainly such--even though it is meagre--is con- flicting as to the economical effect on the Bell property. I do note and I did note in the statements made by Mr. Nunnally that he judged all the pro- perty out there was R-3 and therefore, the idea of adding a 10 foot side yard was not detrimental to R-3 zoning. I didn' t quite get the fact that it was not detrimental to a resi- dential property such as Mr. Bell has here. He did not attempt to appraise the property as to its as is value so therefore he does not give you any opin- ion as to whether there was or was not actual damage to this property by virtuE of this particular location here as the property exists. The record doesn ' t have that. Mr. Nunnally comes up short of that and evades that question very easily by saying, adroitly, I should say, not easily, but adroitly, by indi- cating that everything out there is R-3 and therefore throwing this density in there is not harmful. They come up again with the highrise situation I mentioned before. They have set back the 25 feet on the other side of this lot. They have not asked for exceptions over there. But Mr. Bell is chosen as-is among the chosen few in the whole thing-they recognize the 25 foot elsewhere but on this side where Mr. Bell is, they want to push a wall and if you look at the build- ings. Here is a building that is an extensively long building which buts up right close to the property line and is being asked for this exceptional; for this exceptional variance. This is the one type building that would seem to me that Mr. Bell or the neighbor or whoever is there, would need the protection of as much more yard or rear yard as possible to be able to be provided for him. I could possibly see uh if it were broken up into less of a mass of building to be thrown in there close to that property line; the rear of a mass of a building as big as this thing is, perhaps more possibility for the con- sideration of a variance if he could not get his lots, his buildings on there. For Mr. Wade to come forward alone and through this matter, rather Mr. Barrick to come forward and say they figure that under this plan they would have to 17. drop 8 or 10 units and therefore a variance is requested because of the shape of the lot. It seems to ine to be stretching the point right much for an economic advantage to a builder--to a developer to the detriment of a property owner who objects strenously to this type of a variance being provided. Now this property owner has been put to the trouble of not only defense of this hearing but defense of ether hearings that have been here to go all the way up to the Circuit Court on it. Certainly, as he has said, he would not be here if he did not feel it was being to the detriment of his property. He has been serious about this matter, quite serious about it, and has requested the consideration of this Board of Zoning Appeals in denying the application which he has fought vigorously all the way feeling that it was to the detriment of his property and certainly I think his consideration on that is evidence in that regard bears great weight. In other words, his witness to the fact and his witness by his activities bears as much weight as his testimony to the fact. I believe that is all. Mr. Barrick: Just one observation, gentlemen. Mr. Perkins has been talking about detriment. Mr. Bell has been talking about detriment. Of course any development of the Wade property into multifamily units is going to result in some detriment to an adjoining property owner who has an above average resi- dence on it. There is no question about that. However, it is all zoned for multifamily dwellings and the zoning ordinance says ' substantial detriment ' . It must not be a substantial detriment to an adjaininj property owner. Anything short of a Farmington house with a swimming pool here would probably be some detriment to Mr. Bell. But the evidence is that it is not a substantial detri- ment nor does Mr. Bell ' s evidence conflict with that. Mr. Perkins : May I amend my remarks to include the word substantial prior to detriment throughout all the remarks that I have just made in order to answer the objection made by Mr. Barrick. Please consider them so amended for the purposes of the record or what have you. Mr. Amato: Now, you gentlement think you have presented everything that is necssary in your client ' s interest? Mr. Barrick: Yes sir. Mr. Perkins: The photographs will be the only thing else that will be coming in, I think, so you can see the location. Mr. Amato: The situation is pretty clear. You all know the location of the property and the places there. Mr. Goldsmith, let me ask you one question. Mr. Goldsmith: Yes sir. Mr. Amato: Do I understand correctly that you could construct more than a 2 story apartment on this property? Mr. Goldsmith: Not within 10 feet of-- Mr. Amato: No, I say, could you construct more than a 2 story building on this property? 18. Mr. Goldsmith: If I can borrow the zoning ordinance, I can give you the exact wording. Mr. Amato: The reason I said that is it would seem to me the higher the building would be, the more detriment it would be. Mr. Perkins: That ' s the point I was trying to make. Mr. Goldsmith: Mr. Chairman, for the record, page 22 , Section 6-6-1 of the County Zoning Ordinance, Coverage and Density Regulations says: There shall be no height limit for permitted buildings provided that any such building over 35 feet in height with their assessory buildings may cover not more than 25 percent of the gross lot area exclusive of required off-street parking areas and there shall be provided not more than, blah, blah,--- Mr. Amato: The taller the building gets the less land you can use. Mr. Goldsmith: That ' s correct. Mr. Amato: Any other questions from the members of the Board? Mr. Perkins: I might point out in that regard, of course the Board all knows, you are sitting right now about 35 feet above floor level, or street level, and this would mean that allowing this here would mean that you could put a building up this high on the--just as high as this on this within the 10 foot- with only 10 foot back. Mr. Amato: The reason I asked the question was not to open arguments on it but the fact that it looks like to me the taller building would hurt Mr. Bell more than this type of building would. Mr. Perkins: I don 't know how tall you would want it- 2 stories-I think it is around 30 odd feet. Mr. Wade: Somewhere in the range of 25 feet. Mr. Amato: I meant a 3 story apartment. Mr. Wade: Well, this is a 2 story apartment here. Mr. Amato: But a 3 story apartment house would affect the adjoining property more. Mr. Wade: Oh yes. The level of this property is, I have no grading before me, but my guess would be in the range of 12 to 20 feet below--it slopes down from this point. Mr. Bell sets here and along in here I would say it must reach 12 feet at a minimum below the grade of his house. Mr. Barrick: If the Board saw fit to grant a variance, it could also include as a special condition the maximum height of any structure within that area. 19. Mr. Perkins : Then you would go down to one story because this is the sort Of thing we have got to--that is sort of a problem, it gets down to height. We would like to be heard on the amount of height so far as the property owner is concerned. Mr. Amato: When the variance was requested I understood it was a 2 story apartment and that is what we have spoken-- Mr. Barrick: Yes sir. Mr. Amato A townhouse type of property? Mr. Nunnally: Yes, the bedrooms are on the second floor and the living quar- ters are on the first floor. If you went to any other type of a building in that particular location with a 25 foot setback, you 'd have to do to a garden type apartment where all the living areas and bedroom areas would have to be on one floor. Mr. Amato: All right gentlemen, you all ready for the disposition of the matte. Would you want to discuss it cut the presence of the parties or are you pre- pared to do it now? Mr.Bain I am ready. Mr. Amato: What is your pleasure? I tell you, this Board, I suppose we have made as many errors as any other Board. My experience has been that we have tried to hear these cases with an idea as citizens of this community that we don 't want to create any hardship on-any undue hardship on the owners-and we don 't want to hurt other people--the other citizens, the adjoining property owners. My personal thought is that land as valuable as $22 , 000 to $30,000, it cost $25, 000 in this case;-they have got to allow the Highway Department a certain amount of land on this roadway--and the elevation on this side here is lower so that it won 't-I don ' t see, I think it would be a great hardship to--on that type of land to reduce the size of the buildings and lose the in- come when I don ' t think it would create much detriment to the, or any detri- ment to speak of, to the adjoining property. That ' s my personal thought. I don't speak for the entire Board, of course. Mr. Pickford: I move we grant the variance. Mr. Amato: It has been moved by Mr. Pickford. Is there a second? Mr. Heath I second it. Mr. Amato: It has been moved and seconded by Mr. Heath that the variance be granted. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion will in- dicate by saying Aye. Mr. Amato Aye. Mr. Heath Aye. Mr. Pickford : Aye 20. Mr. Amato: And the opposed? Mr. Bain: No. Mr. Brown: No. Mr. Amato: For the record, will you call the roll? Mr. Goldsmith: Mr. Heath? Mr. Heath: Aye. Mr. Goldsmith: Mr. Pickford? Mr. Pickford: Aye. Mr. Goldsmith: Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: No. Mr. Goldsmith: Mr. Bain? Mr. Bain: No. Mr. Goldsmith: Mr. Amato? Mr. Amato: Aye. Mr. Goldsmith: Three to two in favor of the motion that we grant the variance. Mr. Amato: The motion is carried. The foregoing record consisting of 20 pages is hereby certified as true and correct. 644 Y / I Secr tart', Board Zoning Appeals of Alb arle County LAW OFFICES JOHN M. BATTLE WOODS & BATTLE WILLIAM H.KING Mc GuIRE, W.GIBSON ALEXANDER WA REAL,JR. JOHN HBATTLE, P. O. Box 1191 JOHN S.BATTLE.JR. FICHDIOND,VI$O INIA OFFICE CARLE E.DAVIS RICHARD L.WILLIAMS ROBERT H.PATTERSON,JR. COURT SQUARE BUILDING R068 BIIILDINO WILLIAM A.PERKINS.JR. ROBERT L.BURRUS,JR. WILLARD I.WALKER FRED S.LANDESS C$ABLO TTEBVI LLE,VI$OINIA 22902 TELEPHONE 643-8341 EDWARD R.SLAUGHTER,JR. ROBERT E.STROUD THOMAS L.NEWTON,JR. TELEPHONE (703) 296-5121 HENRY H.MCVEY,IQ THOMAS S.WORD,JR. C.VENABLE MINOR, COUNSELGORDON H.ROSSER,JR CHARLES C.WEBB JOHN M.OAKEY,JR. EN H.SLAUGHTER L January 4, 1972 ALEXANDERRONSMITH R.GORDON SMITH LL MURRAY M.MCGUIRE JOSEWILLIPH R.WOOL,JR JOSEPH JOHN C.WOOL,S,112 . JOHN W.BATES,D3 W.ALLAN PERKINS (iaoa“peo, GARY C.M<GEE JAMES L.SANDERLIN LUCIUS H.BRACEY,JR. WILLIAM S.D.WOODS (1923-497i; WILLIAM H.KING,JR. ROSEWELL PAGE,La J.ROBERT BRAME,La O.RANDOLPH ROLLINS WILLIAM F.GIEG WILLIAM S.KERR MARSHALL H. EARL,JR. W.BIRCH DOUGLASS,III CHARLES R.SWARTZ WILLIAM L.TAYLOR WILLIAM J.STRICKLAND LESLIE A.GRANDIS J.WALLER HARRISON RALPH L.FEIL LARRY H.SPILLMAN MURRAY H.WRIGHT ALFRED L SHILLING ROBERT E.PAYNE ANNE MARIE WHITTEMORE J.WARREN W000,III GILBERT E.SCHILL,JR. Savory E. Amato, Esquire, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County Professional Building East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Judge : I acknowledge receipt of copy of Dick Barrick' s letter to you of January 3 , 1972. I am sending a copy of this letter to Joe Goldsmith and suggesting that he advise the adjoining pro- perty owners of the date for a continued hearing. You may re- call there were several parties interested in the matter and I would not like to assume that all would agree to a date satis- factory to me and my principal clients, Mr. and Mrs. Bell. With best regards , I am Yours sincerely, William A. Perkins , Jr. WAPJr/al cc : Mr. Joseph M. Goldsmith, Zoning Administrator Richard H. Barrick, Esquire Henry H. Bell WRIGHT & NUNNALLY �p��vvta Red& te Z� la/lart.4 �4�c�aZiefid 810 East High Street Lj Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 1 Box 1486 Carroll Wright M.A.I. (314) Area Code 703 James A. Nunnally Phone 296-7121 January 18, 1972 Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County Charlottesville, Virginia RE: Georgetown Square Apartments Sections Two and Three Georgetown Road R. D. Wade, Owner Gentlemen: Pursuant to a request from Mr. R. D. Wade for my opinion as an appraiser, I wish to offer for your consideration a brief summary of my thoughts concerning the location of his proposed development of Sections Two and Three of Georgetown Square Apartments and the Application for a Variance or Special Exception now pending before you. The project will be located on a tract of land containing approximately 4. 55 acres on the northwest side of Georgetown Road just off Barracks Road. The character of this neighborhood has experienced an extreme change in recent years from residential to apartment development as evidenced by the construction of the Hessian Hills project with 184 units, Old Salem apartments located to the rear of the subject and containing 368 units , Mr. Wade 's con- struction of 34 units last year across Georgetown Road, and the forthcoming construction of 108 units by Mr. Wade on the subject parcel. Apartment land sales in the area have ranged from $22 ,000 per acre to $30 ,000 per acre within the past few years . The parcel adjoining the subject on the southwestern boundary owned by Henry H. Bell contains approximately 2 .59 acres. There would seemingly be no question that Mr. Bell enjoys ownership of this parcel with the knowledge that without any personal effort this activity has established apartment development as the highest and best use of his land, thereby increasing his property value. APPRAISALS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FINANCING INVESTMENT Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County -2- January 18, 1972 It is understood that the question at hand is not whether Mr. Wade will be permitted to construct his proposed development, but specifically the situation concerns the boundary line which joins the subject and Mr. Bell 's property and the location of the buildings at that point. It is my considered opinion that Mr. Wade 's present site plan to construct on the 10-foot setback offers a particular enhancement to the adjacent property since he proposes that the 10-foot wide strip be set in grass area only, and that the portion of the buildings facing Mr. Bell' s property be bare-faced with no entrances, no patios , nor any facility for trash disposal. His proposal specifically eliminates all facilities for any activity or the usual toys , trash cans , etc. , to which one would be exposed if this were on open area. This arrangement would seem to be particularly attractive to the adjacent property not only for Mr. Bell's present enjoyment as an adjacent resident but for the enhancement it provides for any future development he would consider for his property. Moreover, if the 25-foot setback is imposed on Mr. Wade' s project it might also imply a similar setback to any future development of Mr. Bell' s property. If so, this would impose a damage factor on his own property value for several reasons . A prudent investor looks first to the number of units which can be placed on a property rather than the total square footage or acreage of a parcel. By decreasing the total square feet of his land which could be developed, he is reducing the unit density and the allowance for income production. The increased setback also reduces the flexibility for unit placement on his parcel, which is also usually an attractive consideration to a developer. I can find no evidence that the granting of a Variance or Special Exception as requested would cause any adverse effects to the neighborhood or to the adjacent property owner, nor that Mr. Wade 's proposal would impose any hardship nor be detrimental to Mr. Bell personally nor to his present or future use of his property. V Ty truly yours, edit/ t/ames A. Nunnally JAN:dbw N11 OF ALBEA,, Planning Department JOHN L. HUMPHREY COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING JOSEPH M. GOLDSMITH COUNTY PLANNER CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Memo to : Charles Haugh From : Joseph Gol dsmi tfy O J Subject : Subpoena for Board of Zoning Appeals Date : December 6 , 1971 Attached is a copy of a Subpoena in Chancery served on me as Zoning Administrator and Secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Board of Zoning Appeals . This was done by Mr . William A . Perkins , Jr. who is asking the Circuit Court to review the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals after it overturned the decision of the Zoning Administrator in reference to VA-71 -15 . (See attached copies of Variance request) . When you think we should get together on this case please call me . • • L.ontutotfuealtiu zf Pirzittia • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SUBPOENA. IN CHANCERY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COpNTY • The party upon whom this writ and the attached paper are served is hereby notified that unless within twenty-one (21) days after such service, response is made by filing in the Clerk's Office of this court a pleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges may be taken as admitted and the court may enter a decree against such party, without further notice, either by default or after hearing evidence. • Appearance in person is not required by this subpoena. Done in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this "3() day ofilov_ , 19_11 Q121, 1,2%e CLEF" William A. Perkins Jr. , P. q. • court Square Lldg. Charlottesville, Va. (OFFICE ADDRESS) WINGFIELD, BARRICK r ST.JOHN ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA E.C.WINGFIELD 416 PARK STREET RICHARD H.BARRICK GEORGE R.ST JOHN November 11, 1971 Dr. David V. Flynn Mr. Lewis Burkett, Jr. Mrs. Virginia Eton Flynn Mrs. Gladine Burkett Route 5 105 Georgetown Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Charlottesville, Virginia Mrs. Georgianna Wright Georgetown Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Randolph D. wade and Vivian W. Wade, the owners of a tract or parcel of land frontong on the westerly side of State Route 656 (Georgetown Road) in Albemarle County, Virginia, which they propose to develop into multi-family dwelling units. Their proposed site plan shows the location of 3 multiple-family build- ings approximately 10 feet from the common boundary line with Mr. Henry H. Bell. According to the Zoning Administrator, this is in violation of the Ordinance, and Mr. and Mrs. Wade have accordingly filed their application with the Board of Zoning Appeals, request- ing the following: 1. A variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance for the rear-yard setback line of the proposed buildings. 2. A special exception to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of the buildings at their proposed locations. Copies of Mr. and Mrs. Wade's application, as well as the site plan of the proposed development are on file with Mr. Humphrey's office. We are required by the Ordinance to give you this notice by Registered Mail of the hearing set on the Wade's application for December 14, 1971, at 5:30 P. M. in the Board Rocca, Albemarle County Office Building. Very truly yours, RHB:efc Richard H. Barrick Registered Mail - Return Receipt requested cc: Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County WINGFIELD, BARRICK & ST.JOHN ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA E.C.WINGFIELD 416 PARK STREET RICHARD H.BARRICK GEORGE R.ST.JOHN November 24, 1971 Mr. Lewis Burkett, Jr. Mrs. Gladine Burkett 105 Georgetown Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Burkett: I sent you a registered letter under date of November llth, 1971, on behalf of Randolph D.Wade and Vivian W. Wade, the owners of a tract or parcel of land fronting on the westerly side of State Route 656 (Georgetown Road) in Albemarle County, Virginia, in which I notified you of their pending appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but I have not received the postal receipt indicating a delivery of this letter. Accordingly, I wish to advise you again that Mr. and Mrs. Wade have plans to develop this property into multi-family dwelling units, and their proposed site plan shows the location of 3 multiple-family building approximately 10 feet from the common boundary line with Mr. Henry H. Bell. According to the Zoning Ad- ministrator, this is in violation of the Ordinance, and Mr. and Mrs. Wade have accordingly filed their application with the Board of Zoning Appeals, requesting the following: 1. A variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance for the rear-yard setback line of the proposed buildings. 2. A special exception to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of the buildings at their proposed locations. Copies of Mr. and Mrs. Wade 's application, as well as the site plan of the proposed development are on file with Mr. Humphrey's office. We are required by the Ordinance to give you this notice by Registered Mail of the hearing set on the Wade 's application for WINGFIELD, BARRICIC & ST.JOHN Mr. Lewis Burkett, Jr. Mrs. Gladine Burkett Page Two November 24, 1971 December 14, 1971, at 5:30 P.M. in the Board Room, Albemarle County Office Building. Very truly yours, ‘14- Richard H. Barrick RHB/bm Registered Mail - Return Receipt Requested cc: Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County WINGFIELD Fr BARRICK ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22901 E.C.WINGFIELD 416 PARK STREET RICHARD H.BARRICK November 11, 1971 Mr. John H. Humphrey, Administrator Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Re: Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade Application for a variance or spe- cial exception for property fronting on the northerly side of Georgetown Road Dear John: I hand you herewith the original and one copy of the Wade ' s application and our check in the amount of $20. 00 for the filing fee. Would please make sure you advertise this hearing for both a variance and special exception so we won ' t have to go through a re-advertisement as we did before. Sincerely yours, Richard H. Barrick RHB:efc Encls. WINGFIELD, BARRICK For ST.JOHN ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA E.C.WINGFIELD 416 PARK STREET RICHA .D H.BARRICK GEORGE R.ST.JOHN November 11, 1,71 Mr. Henry H. Bell 2 5r 1, Barracks Road "harlottesville, Virginia rear Mr. Bell: I understand you contemplate an appeal of the decision of November 9th of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County reversing the Administrator's interpretation of the required set- back line for the Wade ' s 3 multiple-family dwellings which will back on your common boundary lire. In order to have all the issues- reolved by the circuit court at one hearing, Mr. and Mrs. Randolph wade have refiled their e;. and application with the Board of 'zoning Appeals requesti.n l the folloui;ng: 1. A variance from the terms of the '?oning Ordinance for the rear-yard setback line of the proposed buildings. 2. A special eception to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of the buildings at their proposed locations. Copies of Mr. and Mrs. Wade 's application, as well as the site plan of the proposed development are on file with Mr. Humphrey' s office. We are required by the Ordinance to give you this notice by Registered Mail of the hearing set on the Wade 's application for December 14, 1971, at 5:30 P. M. in the Board Room, Albemarle county Office Building, Very truly your:, ',ichard H. Garrick, Attorney for RRB:etc Mr. and Mrs. Randolph D. Wade Registered Mail -Return Receipt requested cc: William A. Perkins, Jr. , Esquire Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County WINGFIELD, BARRICK Fd ST.JOHN ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA E.C.WINGFIELD 416 PARK STREET RICHARD H.BARRICK GEORGE R.ST..JOHN November 11, 1971 ;:lr. javid V. Flynn Mr. Lewis Burkett, Jr. Mrs. Virginia Fton Flynn Mrs. Gladine Burkett Route 5 105 Georgetown Road CharLotteavilsf., Virginia 22901 Charlottesville, Virginia Mrs. Georgianna Wright Georgetown Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Ladies and Gent ollien: We represent ::1anc;oioh Wade and Vivian W. Wade, the owners of a tract or parcel of land frontong on the westerly side of state route 656 (Georgetown :toad) in Albemarle '.'ounty, Virginia, rahic::h they propose to deveL.op into multi-family dwelling units. Their proposed site plan =;Yhow: the location of multiple-family build- ing approximately 10 feet from the cowman boundary line with Mr. Henry H. sell. According to the Zoning Administrator, this ie in violation of the Ordinance, and Mr. and Mr6. Wade have accordingly filed their application with the Board of Zoning Appeals, request- ing the following: 1. A variance froii the terms of the Zoning Ordinance for the rear-yard Eetback lino of the proposed buildings. 2 . A special exeotion to the regulations of the Zoning ordinance to permit the construction of the buildings at their proposed locations. Copies of Mr. and Mrs. Wade's application, as well as the site plan of the proposed development are on file with Mr. Humphrey' s office. We are required by the Ordinance to give you this notice by Registered Mail of the hearing set on the Wade's application for December 14, 1971, at 5:30 P. M. in the Board Room, Albemarle county Office Building. Very truly yours, RFIB:efc Richard B. Barrick Registered Mail - Return Receipt requested cc: secretary, Hoard of zoning Appeals of Albemarle county Page 73 October 12 , 1971 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals , held on Tuesday , October 12 , 1971 , at 5 : 30 P. M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room , with the following members present : Messrs : Savory Amato , Chairman , Herbert Pickford , Vice-Chairman , E . H. Bain , and W. P. Heath . Mr . Harry Brown was absent due to an accident and is now in Martha Jeffer- son Hospital . The Chairman established a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 14 , 1971 meeting were read and approved as submitted . 1 . VA-71 -09. John B . Sims . Applicant requests a variance of 2 . 7 feet and 1 . 6 feet respectively , from the corners of this lot from the minimum front setback of 30 feet for a dwelling . Property is described as Tax Map 61M , Block 7 , Section 2 , Lot 6 , Berkeley Subdivision . Charlottesville Magisterial District. Applicant was not present. This variance was forwarded to the end of the docket. 2 . VA-71 -14 . Francis Nardi . Applicant requests a variance of 4 feet from the minimum side yard requirement of 10 feet in an R-1 Residential zone . Property is described as County Tax Map 60A , Lot 14 , Block D , Section 2 , and is located in the Hessian Hills Subdivision off Barracks Road. Jack Jouett Magisterial District . The staff informed the Board that Mr. Nardi ' s application was re-advertised to reflect a difference in the variance requested , from the original two feet to four feet. This was to allow a minimum side yard requirement of six feet , rather than the required ten feet in a R-1 Residential zone . The Board had previously discussed this request and saw no need to further discuss the subject . Mr. Nardi had nothing new to ' add , other than to reiterate that the major cause for this request was the topography of the land . Mr. Herbert Pickford Page 74 moved that this request be granted as submitted . This was seconded by Mr. Bain and Mr. Heath and carried unanimously . 3. VA-71 -15 . Randolph D. & Vivian W . Wade . Applicants request that the decision of the Zoning Administrator be reviewed in his interpretation of rear-yard setback require- ments for R-3 Residential zones . Property is located on Barracks Road and is described as County Tax Map 60A , Parcel 17 . Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The staff presented its report to the Board on this request. The Zoning Administrator explained the main reason for this request was that the counsel for Mr. Wade requested a review of the decision of the Administrator in his interpretation of the rear yard setback requirements for a R-3 Residential zone . (Please note that it was stated as R-2 in a letter from Mr. Richard Barrick , dated September 14 , 1971 , to the property owners . ) A zoning map was presented in evidence by the staff showing the location of this property in relation to adjoining properties . . Mr. Barrick , speaking on behalf of the Wades , reaffirmed their 1 position . He noted that even though the ordinance stated in Section 6-5-2 , Page 22 , that each main structure should have a rear yard of 25 feet or more , that this was in direct conflict with Section 16-94-2 , Page 70 which states that the rear of a building is an open , unoccupied space on the ii same lot as a building between the rear line of the building (ex- cluding steps ) and the rear line of the lot and extending the full width of the lot . He stated that it was quite obvious that the te rear of the building in this case should be designated as the side of the building . Mr. Wade , speaking 9p g on his own behalf submitted evidence to the Board that these buildings in question would not have a rear, so to speak , but would have 3 sides and 1 front . Page 75 He made mention of the fact that if these buildings were put ten feet from the property line that the side of the building facing that property line would have no windows or doors , and there would be no play areas , trash containers , or accessory storage uses provided there . Speaking for those citizens in opposition was Mr. Bill Perkins , attorney for Mr . Henry H . Bell and others . Mr. Perkins in his opening remarks agreed with the decision of the Zonin g Administrator and his interpretation of the ordinance . He stated that no building in reality has a front and sides but no rear . He brought out the point that Section 6-5-2 , pretaining to rear setbacks , was entirely applicable in this case ; and that the rear property lines were actually determined by the position in which the building is chosen to be placed by the developer. Mr. Perkins stated that this was even more substantiated by the fact that this particular lot had six different rear lines that could each be determined as a rear property line . He said that since Mr. Wade had chosen to back this particular building up to this partic- ular property line that it should conform to the 25 foot setback requirement. This pertinent discussion continued for a goodly time with the following results , Mr. Amato , on behalf of the Board , said that since VA-71 -16* concerned a request for a variance of 15 feet if VA-71 -15 were not approved , that it was his feeling that the Board should consider these two requests jointly. This was the 1 consenus of the members present. A motion was made by Mr. Pickford that the Board take both variance 15 and 16 under advisement and i ) return with a decision at the November 9 , 1971 meeting . This was seconded by Mr. Heath and carried unanimously. Page 76 L *4., VA-71 -16 . Randolph D. & Vivian W . Wade . Applicants request a variance of 15 feet from the minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet as required in a R-3 Residential zone. Property is located on Barracks Road and is described as County Tax Map 60A , Parcel 17 , Jack Jouett Magisterial District. 5. VA-71 -17. Randolph D . & Vivian . W . Wade . Applicants request a variance of 4 . 12 feet from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet in an R-3 Residential zone . Property is located on the west side of Surrey Road south of Bennington Road and is described as County Tax Map 61D , Lot 14A , Block A , Section 4 of the Canterbury Hills Subdivision , Jack Jouett Magisterial District . The staff made its report on the variance request. Mr. Barrick , who also represented the ;Wades in this application explained the problem of the house being built ;, too close to the property line . The members of the Board discussed this briefly and accepted a motion by Mr. Pickford to approve this request . It was seconded by Mr. Bain and carried unanimously . 6 . VA-71 - 18 . Randolph D. & Vivian W . Wade . Applicants request a variance of 1 foot from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet in an R-3 Residential zone . Property is located on the east side of Smithfield Road southeast of Chaucer Road and is described as County Tax Map 60D , Lot 29 , Block A , Section 4 , Canterbury Hills Subdivision . Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The staff made its report and explained to the Board the plight of the builder in this situation also. Mr. Barrick again representing Mr. Wade , explained the reasons for this request. The Board , in a very brief discussion , found this request also to be in order. Mr. Bain moved that it be approved as submitted . It was seconded by Mr . Heath and carried unanimously. The Chairman again called for anyone from the public to be heard on the J . B . Sims request , VA-71 -09 . No one was present. Mr. Pickford moved that this request be dismissed without pre- judice . This was seconded by Mr. Bain . Motion carried unanimously. Page 77 There being no more public hearings , the Board conducted 10 a short private session on VA-71 - 15 and VA-71 -16 . It was decided that the Board would meet for luncheon on October 19 , 1971 at 12 : 30 P .M. at the Monticello . Hotel to discuss the decision that it would make on these requests . The Zoning Adminis- trator was asked to make proper arrangements . It was also noted that Mr. Brown , who is in the hospital , would appreciate members of the Board paying him a visit . There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned . Secretary Page 78 November 9 , 1971 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals , held on Tuesday , November 9 , 1971 , at 5 : 30 P . M. , in the Board of Supervisors meeting room, with the following mem- bers present : Messrs : Amato , Pickford , Bain , and Heath . Mr. Brown , who is still in Martha Jefferson Hospital , was absent . The Chairman established a quorum was present. The minutes of the October 12 , 1971 , meeting were read and approved as submitted. VA-71 -19 . Claude W . Cotton . Applicant requests a variance of 20 feet beyond the maximum permitted hieght of a sign of 30 feet to allow a sign 50 feet in height ; and a variance of 20 feet from the minimum setback of 30 feet for a sign . These requests are for a sign in a B-1 Business zone and located on property described as County Tax Map 45C , Parcel lA on Route 29 North at Woodbrook Drive. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Cotton spoke first , giving his reason for requesting a variance of height and setback . He stated that visibility was limited for both northbound and southbound traffic and stated that he considered this to be a true hardship . He also stated that a barrier of trees has been maintained around the Woodbrook Subdivision in order to protect those residents from the sight pollution of this type sign . Mr. Amato then asked for comments from citizens on this matter. Mr. Ray Smith of Woodbrook Subdivision spoke against. He said that this sign would be visible from most residential areas in Woodbrook and he could see no reason why a sign of this size and height would be required . He commented that no signs in this immediate area , from Route 631 to Woodbrook) were any higher than the maximum allowed of 30 feet. He also noted that this sign , which is planned to be 50 feet in height is higher than any structure in Woodbrook . Page 79 • Speaking next was Mr. Tom Daughtery of Texaco , who spoke in support and was representing Texaco ' s District Sales Manager. , He stated that a 50-foot sign was not high at all considering the immediate need . He said that business would be hurt if the module sign was not permitted. He explained that this would be an illum- inated sign (self contained lighting ) and that it would be so aligned to the Woodbrook Subdivision that it would be in a perpen- dicular line . Mr. John Topper of Woodbrook Subdivision spoke against . He stated that he owns the house closest to this proposed sign , and that the illumination would be too much for him to put up with . He also stated that this would destroy his privacy as a resident of Woodbrook . Mr. William Perkins , loc al attorney , spoke against. Mr. Perkins stated that the Supervisors of Albemarle County had just recently passed a sign ordinance . He said that if this sign is approved "flood gates are open to others " Mr. Perkins also stated that Texaco was not fulfilling their responsibility to the community , and that the applicant and Texaco knew that Albemarle County had a sign ordinance to restrict these signs , and that "this sign if approved , would be an utter breach of the faith of the citizens of the County . " The staff was then asked its opinion of the request. The staff stated that the sign would not be ,compatible with the existing residential subdivision . Allowing this proposal would be an erosion of the sign ordinance and that no signs of this height are in this entire area . Page 80 The public hearing was then closed . The Board took up discus- sion of this matter. Mr. Amato said that he just could not see that this request was necessary , 50 feet for a sign of this nature was too high . Mr. Pickford stated that he could see no clear hardship in this case . Mr. Pickford then moved to deny the request for both height and setback . Mr. Heath seconded the motion . The vote was as follows : Heath - yes ; Pickford - yes ; Bain - yes ; Amato - no . Mr. Amato stated that his reason was) not for denying the request for a setback , but only for height . The motion carr ied . The request was denied . At this time , the Chairman called for old business . VA-71 -15 . Randolph D. & Vivian W. Wade . Applicants request that the decision of the Zoning Administrator be reviewed in his interpretation of rear yard setback requirements for R-3 Residential zones . Property is located on Barracks Road and is described as County Tax Map 60A , Parcel 17. Jack Jouett Magisterial District . Mr. Amato announced that the Board of Zoning Appeals was pre- pared to make a decision on the request . He stated that the Board had considered this thoroughly and had met the week before at a special closed meeting to consider this request. Mr. Pickford stated that he had reviewed the Subdivision Ordinance and in view of what it states , that if two or more ordinances are to be used for one item , that the most restrictive section or ordinance applies . He said that depending on the manner in which you interpret the Zoning Ordinance , anyone can turn a home or building to any direc- tion on any particular piece of property . He stated , "The Zoning Ordinance should be amended . " With no further discussion , Mr. Pickford moved that the Board should overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator as he ruled on this variance request . This motion was seconded by Mr. Page 81 Heath . The vote was as follows : Heath - yes ; Amato - yes ; Pickford - yes ; Bain - no . VA-71 -16 . Randolph D. & Vivian W. Wade . Applicants request a variance of 15 feet from the minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet as required in a R-.3 Residential zone . Property is II located on Barracks Road and is described as County Tax Map 60A , Parcel 17. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Amato suggested that the Board allow the applicant to withdraw this request for a variance of the setback requirement without prejudice . The applicant ' s counsel , Mr. Barrick , agreed . VA-71 -20 . William E. Bell . Applicant requests a variance of 10 feet from the minimum rear yard requirement of 50 feet and a 7 foot variance from the minimum front setback require- ment of 30 feet . Property is zoned B-1 Business and abuts R-3 Residential zoning. Property is described as County Tax Map 60F , Parcel 1 , and is located on Hydraulic Road at the entrance to Georgetown Green . Charlottesville Magisterial District . Mr. Bell and Mr. Max Evans , Landscape Planner, explained their reasons for needing this request. They explained that the Highway Department would be requiring , in the future , additional right- ` of-way in the front of their lot . When this is done , it would require that the building be set back farther in order to have adequate parking in the front and rear. Mr. Evans stated that if the building were the full 30 feet back from the nearest highway right-of-way line , that ample parking and turning space in the rear of their proposed building would not be sufficient . Due to the narrowness of this lot he had requested a variance on both sides so that they could make the best use of all space around the two buildings . ' Mr. Amato said that as far as he was concerned he did not know when the Highway Department would widen or do any work to improve Hydraulic Road . / Mr. Pickford made a motion to approve this request . It was seconded by Mr. Bain and carried . unanimously . 0. Page 82 VA-71 -21 . Special Exception . Alberene Stone - A Division of Georgia Marble Company . Applicant requests a special exception for three subdivisions - Quality Row , Stump Town , and Goldmine ; to allow lots smaller than the minimum required lot size of 2. 0 acres in an A-1 Agriculture zone . These lots range from 0 . 47 acres to 1 . 86 acres , and are located as follows : Quality Row on Route 719 , described as Tax Map 111 , portion of parcel 8; Stump Town on Route 792 , described as Tax Map 111 , portion of parcel 8; Goldmine off Routes 800 & 808 , described as Tax Map 126 , parcel 31 . The staff gave its report along with location maps . Thomas Michie , attorney for Alberene Stone , explained the situation as it pretains to these three subdivisions . He stated that these build- ings were constructed some 60 to 70 years ago on state secondary roads with some being located on _private roads at the end of these state roads . Mr. Michie said that some lots in Stump Town do not touch state road rights-of-way . He also mentioned the fact that the plats he had submitted were as accurate as possible . He said that if this Special Exception were to be granted that certified plats would be drawn up immediately , placing 50-foot rights-of-way in front of those houses were private roads now exist. Speaking first were Mr. and Mrs . John Morris , residents of Quality Row .. They stated that they had been living there for 60 years and that they would appreciate the Board approving this variance .to allow them to buy their lot . Julia Jones , an adjoining property owner , said that she was only there to observe this meeting . There were some 15 to 20 residents of these three subdivisions present. Mr. Amato stated that he would approve this Special Exception , if a condition were set that would require any building that was substantially destroyed by fire flood or similiar disaster to be re-- built up to standard in so far as the water and septic systems are Page 83 concerned . This was agreed upon by the applicant . Mr. Heath moved to grant this request as stated with the following conditions : 1 . That all roads other than state roads have a 50-foot right- of-way ; 2 . That running water and septic systems be added if up to 75% of any building is destroyed (see Section 10-7-1 , Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance) ; 3. THESE CONDITIONS WILL BE STIPULATED ON SUBDIVISION PLATS BEING DRAWN UP . This motion was seconded by Mr. Bain . The motion was carried unanimously . There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned . Secretary Page 84 December 14 , 1971 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals , held on Tuesday , December 14 , 1971 , at 5 : 30 P . M. , in the Board of Supervisors meeting room , with the following mem- bers present : Messrs : Savory Amato , Chairman ; Herbert Pickford , Vice-Chairman ; E . H . Bain ; and W. P . Heath ; and Harry Brown . The Chairman established a quorum was present . The minutes of the November 9 , 1971 meeting were read and approved as submitted . 1 . VA-71 -20. William E . Bell . Applicant requests a variance of 10 feet from the minimum rear yard requirement of 50 feet , and a 7 foot variance from the minimum front. setback require- ment of 30 feet. Property is zoned B-1 Business and abuts R-3 Residential zoning . Property is described as County Tax Map 60F , Parcel 1 , and is located on Hydraulic Road at the entrance to Georgetown Green . Charlottesville Magisterial District . The staff again gave a brief summation of the request and explained the reason for needing a rehearing . It was noted that all property owners had not been notfied by certified mail prior to the first hearing in November. This rehearing was then scheduled in order to make the approval of the Board legally correct . The only person who spoke was Mr. A. L . Scott , whose questions were only to clarify positions . It was moved by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Pickford to approve the variance as requested . The vote was unanimous . 2 . VA-71 -23 . H . H . Maxmore & Co . by H . H . Tiffany . Applicant requests a variance of 4 1 /2 feet from the minimum setback of 30 feet in an A-1 Agriculture zone . Property is located on the east side of Route 691 , 0 . 3 mile north of its inter- section with Route 690 and the Breenwood Post Office ; and is described as County Tax Map 54 , Parcel 52B-4 . White Hall Magisterial District. The staff gave its report explaining the reasons for Mr. Tiffany ' s requesting a variance be granted in regard to setback . Mr. Tom Shumate spoke and explained why the house was built in the location Page 85 it was . Mr. J . P . Haden , contractor , accepted responsibility along with Mr. Shumate for the mistake . It seems that road , curvature at the lot location caused a misalignment of the front setback . On a motion by Mr. Bain and second by Mr. Brown , the variance was granted as requested .. The motion carried unanimously . 3. VA-71 -24 . Randolph D. and Vivian W . Wade . Applicants ' request a variance of 15 feet from the minimum rear yard setback in an R-3 Residential zone . Applicant also requests a special exception to the regulations of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of build- F,....%, ings according to the variance requested . Property is located on Route 656 (G eorgetown g n Road) 0 . 1 mile north of its inter- section with Route 654 (Barracks Road) and is described as 1 County Tax Map 60-A , Parcel 17. Jack Jouett Magisterial District . IThe staff explained to the Board that an order had been entered i ;` by Judge Berry to hear information pretaining to this variance request , and VA-71 -15 , an appeal of the decision of the Zoning I j Administrator. (See minutes of October 12 and November 9 , 1971 ) . The staff noted that at its previous meeting the Board had ruled i in favor of R. D . and Vivian W. Wade and had overturned a decision of the Zoning Administrator in reference to rear yard setback require- ' ments in R-3 Residential zoning . This decision of the Board is t 1 being appealed by Mr. William A. Perkins , on behalf of Henry H . t and Verlease J . Bell . It was the opinion of the staff that since the Board ' s rulingto overturn the decision of the Zoning g Administrator had been challenged , that no further activity or action should be taken until Judge David Berry had a chance to review the case . t The Board then heard from the public. Mr. Perkins , speaking on behalf of the Bells explained why he 'agreed with the staff and requested the Board not to hear this variance request . Mr. Richard Barrick , attorney for the Wades , informed the Board that he had reviewed the entire process and explained that he had t . been allowed to withdraw his prior request , VA-71 -16 without Page 86 prejudice . Mr. Barrick stated that .in his opinion , "The Board of Zoning Appeals is a quasi -judicial body which can grant relief to an applicant on the grounds that a good case is submitted to you as a Board. " Mr. Amato questioned the consistency of this request if the judge rules the Board was proper _ in . granting a variance . Mr. Amato also said in general terms that if the judge rules against the Board of Zoning Appeals , the Board would have acted before the judge could take action . Both sides again gave opinions and explanations to support their requests . Mr. Barrick said .that .a quick decision would be needed , R. D. Wade had to move men from one project to the next and time wasted was wasted money . Mr. Amato then said that he felt the Board should hold this matter in abeyance until Judge Berry had acted on the first request . . Mr. Bain then moved that the Board hold . VA-t1 -24 in abeyance until Judge Berry could rule on the original request VA-71 -15 . This was seconded by Mr. Heath . The motion carried unanimously . There being no further business the meeting was adjourned . Secretary . FClarification of R. D. and Vivian W . Wade ' s requests . * R. D. and Vivian W . Wade requested . the Board of Zoning Appeals to overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator in regard to iwp the rear yard setback requirements in an R-3 Residential zone . At the same time this request was filed (VA-71 -15) another application i was made for a variance ( VA-71 -16) in the rear yard setback require- C ment , in case the Board upheld the decison of the Zoning Administrator. When the Board ruled in favor of the Wades in VA-71 -15 , a Q petition was filed in Circuit Court by Mr. William Perkins , Jr. to overturn the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals . Simultaneously , the Wades filed a second application for a variance in the rear yard Page 87 requirement for an R-3 Residential zone (VA-71 -24) , to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals before Judge Berry had an opportunity to rule on the decision of the Board on VA-71 -15 . ' The Board of Zoning Appeals ruled that this latest request VA-71 -24 should be held in abeyance until the Circuit Court has made a ruling on the prey ious decision . Lame: . I t.X.rti OF ;v,. osZ.7. Planning Department JOHN L HUMPHREY COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING JOSEPH M. GOLDSMITH COUNTY PLANNER CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Date : Re : Board of Zoning Appeals Dear Mr. and Mrs . Wade This is to inform you that your application for a _See_ilLQ . has been scheduled before the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday October 12 at 5 : 30 P . M. The Public hearing will be conducted in the Albemarle County_ Board of Supervisors meeting room , 2nd floor , County Office Building , Charlottesville , Virginia . It is desirable that you appear in person at the public hearing . The Board must be furnished with evidence that you have notified , at least 5 days before the hearing , at least 5 persons in the vicinity , at least 2 of which are adjoining property owners , of the date and time of the hearing . Sincerely ,/ -),Ry =6�, 11 f r� . Jqseph M . Goldsmith; Zoning Administrator JMG/rht VA-71 -15 Review of Zoning Administrators interpretation of rear-yard setback for R-3 zone . VA-71 - 16 Variance of 15 feet from minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet as required in R-3 zone . VA- 71 -17 Variance of 4 . 12 feet from minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in R- 3 zone . VA-71 -18 Variance of 1 foot from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 30 feet in R-3 zone . JOHN S BATTLE WILLIAM 5 0 WOODS WILLIAM H KING ALEXANDER W_NEAL,JR. LAW OFFICES W.GIBSON HARRIS JOHN 5- BATTLE,JR. CARL£ E DAVIS MC QUIRE, WOODS 8: BATTLE WILLIAM C.BATTLE RICHARD L.WILLIAMS ROBERT H.PATTERSON.JR. P. O. Box 119I WILLIAM A PERKINS,JR. RICIIMOND,VIR GI NIA OFFICE ROBERT L.BURRUS,JR. WILLARD I.WALKER COURT SQUARE BUILDING FRED S.LANOESS ROSE BUILDS NO EDWARD SLAUGHTER,JR. ROBERT E..STROUD CHARLOTTESVILLE.VIRGINIA 22902 THOMAS L.NEWTON,JR. TELEPHONE 643-8341 HENRY H.M/rVEY,III THOMAS S.WORD.JR. TELEPHONE (7O3) 296-5121 GORDON H.ROSSER.JR. CHARLES C.WEBB JOHN M OAKEY.JR FR EUF RICK L.RUSSELL C.VENABLE MINOR, COUNSEL ALEXANDER H.SLAUGHTER R.GORDON SMITH WILLIAM R.WADDELL September 17 , 1971 JOSEPH C.WOOL,JR. JOHN W BATES,III --- MURRAY M. M.GUIRE Oeor-io.c) GARY C.McGEE JAMES L.SANDERLIN LUCIUS H.BPACEY.JR. W.AL LAN PERKINS (�co�-Iveol WILLIAM H.KING.JR. ROSEWELL PAGE,III J-ROBERT BRAME,III O.RANDOLPH ROLLINS RICHARD A.MINARDI,JR. WILLIAM F.GIEG WILLIAM S.KERR MARSHALL H. EARL.JR. W.BIRCH DOUGLASS,In CHARLES R.SWARTZ WILLIAM L.TAYLOR WILLIAM J.STRICKI.AND LESLIE A .PA NDIS • �IJ J.WALLER HARRISON RALPH L.FELL ROBERT P HODOUS LARRY H.SPILLMAN '�', ,, MURRAY H WRIGHT ROBERT E.PAYNE 1/4.\ Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Sir : Mr. Henry H. Bell has requested this office to represent his interests in opposition to the application for review or in the alternative variance or special exception relating to property situate on Georgetown Road. Please note this representation. Very t ru ly,,yottrs,. 22 , illiam A. Pei°kihs , Jr.� WA PJr/a p cc : Henry H. Bell 9r WINGFIELD Co, BARRICK ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22901 E.C.WINGFIELD 416 PARK STREET RICHARD H.BARRICK September 21, 1971 Mr. John L. Humphrey Administrator, Board of Zoning Appeals, Albemarle County County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Re: Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade Applications VA-71-15 and VA- 71-16 Dear John: I am enclosing receipts signed by Henry H. Bell, Dr. Daniel Flynn, Georgianna Wright and Mrs. Gladine Burkett, forwarded to me by the Postmaster, evidencing their receipt of my letter of September 14, a copy of which was mailed to you. Would you please put these receipts with the papers in the above-referenced Petitions to the Zoning Board scheduled for hearing on October 12th. Sincerely yours, 1J Nr. D u.,t�.►,�1„ Richard H. Barrick RHB: efc Encls. WINGFIELD Fv BARRICK ATTORNEYS A I' LAM CHARLOTTESVII LE,VIRGINIA 22901 E t 416 PAR-. ST Kr El R AR PUCK September 14, 1971 Mr. Henry H. Bell Mrs. Georgianna Wright 2501 Barracks Road Georgetown Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dr. David V. Flynn Mr. Lewis Burkett, Jr. Mrs. Virginia Eton Flynn Mrs . Gladine Burkett Route 5 • 105 Georgetown Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Randolph D. Wade and Vivian W. Wade, the owners of a tract or parcel of land fronting on the westerly side of State Route 656 (Georgetown Road) in Albemarle County, Virginia, which they propose to develop into multi-family dwelling units. They have presented a site plan to Mr. John L. Humphrey, Administrator of the Board of Zoning Ap- peals, showing the location of three multi-family buildings approximately 1.0 fe-ot from the common boundary line with Mr. Henry H. Bell. Mr. Hum- phrey has rejected this site plan because the three buildings mentioned are in violation of his interpretation of the rear-yard minimum setback line of 25 feet for R-3 Districts. Mr. and Mrs. Wade have appealed Mr. Humphrey' s decision to the Board of. Zoning Appeals, requesting the following: 1. A review of the decision of the Administrator in his, in- terpretation of the rear-yard setback requirement for R-2 Dis- tricts. 2 . A variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance for the rear-yard setback line of the proposed buildings. 3. A special exception to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of the buildings at their proposed locations. Copies of Mr. and Mrs. Wade ' s applications, as well as a site plan of the proposed development, are on file with Mr. Humphrey ' s office. WINGFIELD & BARRICK Mr. Henry H. Bell and others I'age 2 September 14, 1971 The Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County has set October 12 , 1971, at 5: 30 P. M. in the Board Room, Albemarle County Office Building, to hear evidence and argument in support of, or in opposition to, Mr. .and Mrs. Wade ' s applications. If you wish to be heard on this matter, please plan to attend this meeting. Very truly yours, Richard H. Barrick, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Randolph D. Wade RHB :efc Registered Mail , Return Receipt requested cc : Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals of Albemarle County Tommunturatitimumof Puptut IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE SUBPOENA IN CHANCERY The party upon whom this writ and the attached paper are served is hereby notified that unless within twenty-one (21) days after such service, response is made by filing in the Clerk's Office of this court a pleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges may be taken as admitted and the court may enter a decree against such party, without further notice, either by default or after hearing evidence. Appearance in person is not required by this subpoena. Done in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this 3 day of February , 19 7? 7C�GJ 44/Z. , CLERK. William A. Perkins, Jr. , p. q. (OFFICE ADDRESS) r +r u i'i1CV lni . { .✓3Sis1"ll+. {,..ijt ~�t.'if,,:i ){iot {ice.. /"L+}- _L:.;Y 4 .. ^i ........I .e .... VIRGINIA : IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY JOA ✓c:s ,.pit •.... 00 HENRY H. BELL and ) ac,�:; .. : 1... .L. VERLEASE JACKSON BELL ) Petitioners , ) f! ) v. PETITION FOTR;. WRIT OF ) CERTIORARI BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ) ) Respondent. ) TO THE HONORABLE DAVID F. BERRY, JUDGE: In accordance with Section 11-7-1 of Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance , the Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully reports to this Cour : 1. At a regular meeting of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held on October 12, 1971, Randolph D. Wade and Vivian W. Wade, his wife, appealed a decision of the Zoning Administrator for variance of rear-yard setback requirement with the R-3 Residential Zone. 2 . The Zoning Board of Appeals made no decision on October 12 , 1971, however, the application for variance was continued. 3. At its meeting on January 25, 1972 , the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variance from the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 4. The Petitioners, property owners adjoining the property of Randolph D. and Vivian W. Wade are aggrieved by the Board 's decision. WHEREFORE, the Petitioners , by counsel, respectfully request the Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and for such other general relief as may be applicable. Respectfully submitted, HENRY H. BELL and VERLEASE JACKSON BELL By Counsel I Cl McGUIRE, WOODS & BATTLE ' Court Square Building Charlot esvifIe , Vzrg-,'_nia . - > ! ~ j�By - > r William A. Perkins , J . Of Counsel for Petitioners I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of February, 1972, a true copy of the foregoing was mailed to Chairmen Richard H. Barrick, 416 Park Street, Charlottesville, Virginia, Judge Savory E. Amato, Professional Building, Charlottesville, Virginia and Secretary of Board of Zoning Appeals, Joseph M. Goldsmith, 1410 Gordon Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia. William A. P-rkins , Jr. L -2-