HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800019 Action Letter 1988-04-06 �C`l L�Lr
8 I 9��
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
April 6, 1988
Dear Applicant:
For your convenience and to allow you to organize your
thoughts prior to the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting
on April 12, 1988, please find attached the staff
report for your case.
Sincerely,
ass& GEC alp141
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB:Jr./st
8 L,.
,a,"
gokie
Jt �IRGIISI /1"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
April 14, 1988
Mr. & Mrs. George F. Hammill
P. 0. Box 173
Keene, VA 22946
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-88-19, Tax Map 121, Parcel 86
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hammill:
This letter is to inform you that on April 12, 1988, during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, your application for VA-88-19 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,
Nadu W is i''",`,i
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB,Jr/st
cc: VA-88-19
STAFF REPORT - VA-88-19
OWNER: George F. Hammill
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 121/86
ACREAGE: 1.17 Acres
ZONING: Rural Areas (RA)
LOCATION: South side of Route 712 , +/- .4 miles
east of its intersection with Rt. 20
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 . . . "
The applicant proposes to construct a breezeway and two (2) car
garage to the north side of his dwelling and seeks a reduction
of the side yard measurement from the minimum requirement of
twenty-five (25) feet to four (4) feet. The vacant adjacent
parcel is also owned by the applicant. In viewing the appli-
cant's property, it appears that the applicant can comply with
the setback requirement by either modifying the design of the
proposed structure or by combining the two (2) parcels.
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 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 authori-
zation of the variance will not be of substantial
detriment to the adjacent properties or that the
character of the district will not be altered.