HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198700061 Action Letter 1987-09-20 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
September 30, 1987
Ms. Patricia McGuire
Rt. 5, Box 247
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-87-61, Tax Map 44, Parcel 12L
Dear Ms. McGuire:
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-87-61 was approved.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side yard set-
back from twenty-five (25) feet to fourteen (14) feet to allow
an addition to a dwelling.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
ekcsitledW. &49
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB,JR/st
cc: Inspections Department
STAFF REPORT - VA-87-61
APPLICANT: Patricia McGuire
TAX MAP/PARCEL : 44/12L
ACREAGE: Not Listed
ZONING : RA (Rural Areas)
LOCATION: West side of State Route 660 , 1/10 mile
north of the intersection with Rt . 676
The applicant requests a variance from Section 10 . 4 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance . This section states :
"10 . 4 Area and Bulk Regulations
Yards , minimum:
Side : 25 feet . . . . "
A detached garage is presently under construction on the
applicant ' s property . The concrete slab has been poured making
the connection from the house to the garage .
The applicant wishes to connect the garage with the house
forming a covered breezeway, thus requiring a side setback
variance for the main building of eleven (11) feet . Construc-
tion on the garage was started , then the patio or terrace area
formed and concrete poured , at which time the owner requested
the contractor to attach the garage to the house .
The staff cannot make a favorable recommendation based on
the criteria for granting variances .
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-
ledge 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
atrial . �, �q L A, o:&c
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 .