HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198700082 Action Letter 1988-01-13 `IHGisI•
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
January 13, 1988
Mary Jane Divine
Rt. 2, Box 54
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-87-82 , Tax Map 58, Parcel 52A
Dear Ms. Divine:
This letter is to inform you that on January 12 , 1988, during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, that your application for VA-87-82 was approved.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 6. 5 . 01
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side
yard setback from twenty-five (25) feet to twelve (12) feet
to allow construction of an addition to a dwelling.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB,Jr/st
cc: VA-87-82
Inspections Department
STAFF REPORT - VA-87-82
APPLICANT: Mary Jane Divine
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 58/52A
ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
ACREAGE: 1. 144 acres
LOCATION: East side of Route 676, approximately 1/8 mile
north of the intersection with Route 250 west
The applicant requests a variance from Section 6. 5. 01 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This section states:
"6. 5 Non-conforming lots
6. 5. 01 In the case of any subdivision which was approved
pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code
prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which was
of record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear
side, and front yard setback regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall
apply to all lots within such subdivision. "
The applicant wishes to construct a two (2) story addition to the
existing single family residence. There is also a one story
cottage located on the northwest corner of the applicant's lot.
Private septic and well serve both dwelling units on the property.
Virginia Power maintains an easement right-of-way to the rear of
the main structure which would restrict the applicant from
constructing an addition to that portion of the residence.
RECOMMENDATION
The application should be denied for cause:
1) The applicant has not provided evidence that a strict
application of the 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 pro-
perties in the same zoning district and general vicinity.
3) The applicant has not demonstrated 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.