HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198700029 Action Letter 1987-05-14 Ay41.111.m"N
( •
•
1.‘?'
Y OF ALB
y oe ace
c•
�'RGRApr
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING
401 MCINTIRE ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA. 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
May 14, 1987
Mr. & Mrs. Walter Jaeger
Rt 1, Box 145
Barboursville, Va. 22923
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-87-29, Tax Map 34, Parcel 52
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Jaeger:
This letter is to inform you that on May 12 , 1987, during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, your application for VA-87-29 was approved.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side
yard from the required twenty-five (25) feet to twenty (20) feet
to allow an addition to a craft shop.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
e W. LA
Charles W. Burgess
Zoning Administrator
CWB/mlm
cc: VA-87-29
Inspections Dept .
ammmommer
f
STAFF REPORT - VA-87-29
APPLICANT: Walter Jaeger
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 34/52
ACREAGE : 23 . 09 acres
ZONING : RA (Rural Areas)
LOCATION : South side of Rt . 641 , + . 75 miles east of its
intersection with Rt . 644 .
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 10 .4 of the Albe-
marle County Zoning Ordinance . This section states :
"10 . 4 Area and Bulk Regulations
Yards , minimum
Side 25 feet . . . . "
The applicant proposes to construct an addition to a non-con-
forming structure and seeks a reduction of the required side yard
measurement from twenty-five (25) feet to twenty (20) feet . At
the closest point , the existing structure is located approximately
nine (9) feet from the side property line . The proposed addition
measures forty (40) feet by sixty (60) feet and is to be utilized
for the expansion of a craft shop . The applicant ' s property mea-
sures approximately ninety-three (93) feet in width where the pro-
posed structure is to be situated . The structure as proposed
would be connected to the existing non-conforming structure . If
the structure were relocated twenty (20) feet in a southerly direc-
tion, the need for a variance could be avoided due to the shape of
the property .
In viewing the applicant ' s plat , it appears that there is
adequate land area for the applicant to construct the addition
without benefit of a variance .
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
hardship approaching confiscation as distinguished
from a special privilege or convenience .
2) The applicant has not demonstrated that the perceived
hardship is unique to his property in contradistinction
to other properties in the same zoning district and
general vicinity.
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 be altered .