HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198700071 Action Letter 1987-10-20 CtY
riff
RGINI-
COUNTYY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
November 11, 1987
Farmington Country Club
1 Country Club Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
ATTENTION: J. W. Brackens
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-87-71, Tax Map 60E1, Parcels H2A & N1
Dear Mr. Brackens:
This letter is to inform you that on November 11, 1987, during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, the Board ruled to allow your application to be with-
drawn without prejudice.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Olasee• W. a ...-y�
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB:JR/st
cc: VA-87-71
David J. Gibson
''
STAFF REPORT: VA-87-71
OWNER: Farmington Country Club
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60E1/H2A & N-1
ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
LOCATION: Tennis Road
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance , which states:
"10. 4 Area and Bulk Regulations
yards, minimum
side 25 feet
rear 35 feet . . . "
The applicant proposes to construct an indoor tennis facility and two
(2) platform tennis courts and seeks a reduction of the side yard
measurement from the minimum requirement of twenty-five (25) feet to
zero (0) feet and to reduce the rear yard measurement from the minimum
requirement of thirty-five (35) feet to zero (0) feet . All proposed
improvements are to be located on the same properties with the
existing Farmington Country Club recreational facilities.
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 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.