Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198700055 Action Letter 1987-08-11 ice ? �IRGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 September 30, 1987 Mr. & Mrs. Harvey Hoke Rt. 1. Box 332 Keswick, VA 22947 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-87-55, Tax Map 81, Parcel 6A Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hoke: This letter is to inform you that on September 29, 1987, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-87-55 was approved. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side yard setback from twenty-five (25) feet to fifteen (15) feet to allow an addition to a dwelling. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Cs444e1 W. BiageAS Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Zoning Administrator CWB,JR/st cc: Inspections Department STAFF REPORT - VA-87-55 APPLICANT: Harvey & Frances Hoke TAX MAP/PARCEL: 81/6A ACREAGE : 2 . 31 ZONING : RA (Rural Areas) LOCATION: East side of Rt . 648 , 6/10 mile from its intersection with Rt . 22 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 a two (2) room addition to an existing residence and seeks a reduction of the side yard requirements from twenty-five (25) feet to fifteen (15) feet . A fourteen (14) by thirty-six (36) foot addition is planned to be added to the north side of the residence , which now exists at the northwest corner section of the property. Wooded area adjoins the property on the north side , and another single-family residence is located to the south of the applicant ' s property. The only hardship that exists is the present physical loca- tion of the residence . About any size addition added to the north side of the house would require a variance . The staff cannot find cause to recommend approval , although it should not be of any detriment to the adjacent properties . 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 approach- ing confiscation as distinguished from a special privi- lege 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. The requirement the applicant seeks relief from is shared uniformly by all properties zoned rural areas . Page 2 Staff Report - VA-87-55 Harvey & Frances Hoke 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 . The granting of the applicant ' s request will undermine the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the re- quired setbacks for residences .