HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198700026 Action Letter 1987-04-14 ��OFALI �� 1, 9�/
. F
n w�
`IkGINP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
July 15 , 1987
Mr . & Mrs . Stuart Garrison
Rt . 2 , Box 435
Crozet , VA 22932
Re : Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-87-26 , Tax Map 15 , Parcel 24A
Dear Mr . & Mrs . Garrison :
This letter is to inform you that on July 14 , 1987 , during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals , that the Board ruled to allow your application , VA-87-26 ,
to be withdrawn .
If you have any questions , please contact our office .
Sincerely ,
e4 fit/. Bwiete44
Charles W. Burgess , Jr .
Zoning Administrator
CWB , jr/st
cc : VA-87-26
STAFF REPORT - VA-87-26
OWNER: Stuart Garrison
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 15/24A
ACREAGE : 2 . 42 acres
ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
LOCATION : South side of Rt . 810 , + 1 mile east of its
intersection with Rt . 629 .
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 4 . 6 . 1 of the Albe-
marle County Zoning Ordinance . This section states :
"4 . 6 . 1 Minimum Lot Width Measurements
Minimum lot width shall be measured at the building setback
line and shall be at least the same width as frontage re-
quired for the district in which such lot is located . "
The applicant is in the process of subdividing his property
and seeks a variance to reduce the lot width from the required
250 feet to 180 feet . In viewing the applicant ' s proposed plat ,
there appears to be no reason why additional property cannot be
added to the parcel so as to satisfy all requirements of the Albe-
marle County Zoning Ordinance . The residue shown on the appli-
cant ' s plat indicates that 20 . 85 acres remains on parcel 24A
after the subdivision .
RECOMMENDATION
The application should be denied for cause :
1) The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence
to show that a strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would produce a clearly demonstrable hard-
ship approaching confiscation as distinguished from
a special privilege or convenience .
2) The applicant has not demonstrated that his perceived
hardship is unique to his property in contradistinction
to other properties in the same zoning district .
3) The applicant has not provided evidence to demonstrate
that the authorization of the variance will not be of
substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or that
the character of the district will not be altered .