Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800015 Action Letter 1988-03-10 ��p�F Alg'if 40711 �IRGIt��P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 March 10, 1988 Mr. & Mrs. David L. Hill 4200 Sylvan Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-88-15, Tax Map 33 , Parcel 37J Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hill: This letter is to inform you that on March 8, 1988, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-88-15 was denied. Anyone aggrieved by a decision made by the Board can appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Zoning Administrator CWB,Jr/st cc: VA-88-15 STAFF REPORT - VA-88-15 APPLICANT: David L. Hill TAX MAP/PARCEL: 33/37J ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) ACREAGE: 3 .717 acres LOCATION: Northwood Neighborhood at 4200 Sylvan Lane 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 front 75 feet . . . " The applicant has recently purchased a new, single-family dwelling in the Northwood neighborhood and now seeks a reduction of the front yard setback from the required measurement of seventy-five (75) feet to fifty-six (56) feet. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the dwelling on June 18, 1987. The applicant appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 9, 1988 (VA-88-5) with an identical variance request. That request was denied. The only circumstance which has changed since the previous Board of Zoning Appeals action is that the applicant has discovered that relocating the right-of-way will be a time consuming and cumbersome process. In denying the requested variance on February 9, 1988, the Board of Zoning Appeals believed the right-of-way location was the most appropriate means for the applicant to correct the problem. In fairness to the applicant, the staff will once again demonstrate how Albemarle County employees erred in the planning of the subdivision in general and in the placement of the dwelling unit on the property. The Northwoods neighborhood subdivision was approved by the Albemarle County Planning Department in 1979 . The approved subdivision plat clearly does not provide for adequate front yard setback on lots nine (9) and ten (10) . This setback line is shown on the plat as the "building line. " The primary source of confusion is the actual location of the graveled road surface. If one assumes that the graveled area constitutes the actual right-of-way line, then the front setback of the dwelling is adequate. Unfortunately, the graveled road way does not extend far enough in a westerly direction. The cul-de-sac as built, ends in an area where the cul-de-sac should of just started. To compound the problem, a portion of the cul-de-sac as constructed is located outside of the right-of-way line (on lot #10) . The road was approved and the Road Bond released by the Albemarle County Engineer in 1983 . Such action suggests the Staff Report - VA-88-15 David L. Hill Page 2 approval of the location and construction of the road. Finally, the setbacks were checked by an Albemarle County Inspector prior to the actual pouring of the foundation or footing and were deemed to be adequate. The staff cannot construe the above stated circumstances as a "hardship" when formulating a variance recommendation. It is felt however that the Board of Zoning Appeals may find the above stated information helpful in understanding the predicament of the applicant. The applicant may or may not of had knowledge of a potential setback problem during construction. At no time did an Albemarle County Employee indicate the existence of any potential problem, even though one can readily see that multiple mistakes were made in the planning and development of the subdivision in general. RECOMMENDATION The staff believes a certain degree of responsibility for the applicant's predicament rests with employees of Albemarle County, however, no discernible "hardship" as required by Section 15. 1-495 of the Code of Virginia is evidenced. The application therefore 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 properties in the same zoning district and general vicinity. The requirement the applicant seeks relief from is shared by all properties zoned Rural Areas. 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.