HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198700030 Action Letter 1987-05-15 4111111110.
0
OF AL�,fVArki -
r
4P* 4WW
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
May 15 , 1987
Mr. & Mrs. Ronnie Dodson
Rt 1, Box 377
Crozet , Va. 2293.2
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-87-30, Tax Map 71, Parcel 11A
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Dodson :
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-87-30 was approved subject to
Mrs. Kirby ' s occupancy.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 4.13. 1. 2
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow atravel trailer
to be used as a temporary residence.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely ,
eisaided a144.9ed4
Charles W. Burgess
Zoning Administrator
CWBimlm
cc: VA-87-30
I
STAFF REPORT - VA-87-30
OWNER: Ronnie Dodson
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 71/11A
ACREAGE : 7 .04 acres
ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
LOCATION: North side of Rt . 689 , at its intersection
with Rt . 688 .
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 4 . 13 . 1 . 2 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance . This section states :
"4 . 13 . 1 Parking, Storage , or Use of Major Recreational
Equipment in Residential Districts
4 . 13 . 1 . 2 No major recreational equipment shall be used
for living, sleeping, or other occupancy when parked or
stored on a residential lot . . .
The applicant proposes to use a travel trailer as a temporary
residence . The applicant states that the travel trailer would
be occupied by an immediate family member . The need for the
variance is a direct result of the poor health of the applicant ' s
mother . The family member occupying the trailer would assist
the applicant in attending to the needs of the ailing mother .
RECOMMENDATION
The staff is sympathetic to the applicant ' s situation .
Unfortunately, there is no basis for a favorable recommendation .
The staff therefore recommends that the application 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 demonstrable hardship approaching con-
fiscation 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 not be altered .