HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA197200009 Public Notification 1972-07-20 �N. •l k
� OF ALE M
O -�� R
•
Planning Department
JOHN L. HUMPHREY COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING JOSEPH M. GOLDSMITH
COUNTY PLANNER CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
July 20, 1972
Re : Board of Zoning Appeals
•
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
This is to inform you that your application for
VA-72-09 for a variance of 15 feet from the required side yard of 25 feet
for three lots in Royal Acres.
has been scheduled before the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals on July 25, 1972 at 5:30 P . M.
The Public Hearing will be conducted in the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors meeting room, 3rd floor, County Office Build-
ing , Charlottesville , Virginia . It is desirable that you appear
in person at the public hearing .
The Board must be irnished with evice('4kDEi'iat you have
notified , at leas f3 5) days beforeep4t hearing , all the
adjoining an pWeng property oO cst'`bf the date and time of
the heari0)\
Sincerely ,
•
c)
J s ph M. Goldsmith
Z (ing Administrator
JMG: lp
vN1Y OF
o Acp 10101LL 8 eEMq
lel . :.
‘Z 'FN �}
6"
Office of County Attorney HERBERT A.PICKFORD
August 2, 1972 230 COURT SQUARE 296-8191
CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22901
Mr. Savory Amato,
Chairman Albemarle County
Board of Zoning Appeals
Professional Building
Third Street, N.E.
Charlottesville, Virginia
In re: 011ie Fitzgerald v. Board of Zoning Appeals
VA - 72 - 09
Dear Judge:
011ie Fitzgerald, Jr. and his wife appealed the decision of the
Board of Zoning Appeals rendered July 25, 1972, and Judge Berry
issued a writ of certiorari. A hearing was held on the matter
yesterday, August 1, 1972. The substance of the opinion, which
has not been formally entered as yet, is that the lots in question
fall within the provisions of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance,
Section 10-6 and 10-6-1. Under Section 10-6-1 the three lots are
not subject to the A-1 sideline requirements, however, they are
subject to such requirements as the Board of Zoning Appeals may
establish under Section 10-6. The Court held that this was not
a variance since there is no requirement from which to seek a variance.
The requirement must be set by your Board.
With such determination, I requested that the Court remand the matter
to your Board so that it could set forth such requirements as it may
deem appropriate. The Court stated that the setting of any sideline
requirements which would amount to confiscation of the property render-
ing the lots of no use would be considered arbitrary and capricious .
The Court did however decide that inasmuch as lots 3 and 4 of Block A,
Royal Acres , are under co t and the time element :required expedit-
ing the matter, the Court1±fft that a 10 foot sideline for lots 3 and
4 is appropriate, however, sideline requirements for lot X are to be
determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the matter is remanded
to your docket for that purpose without further advp ment of the
case. The Judge further stated that the Board should not feel that