HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800024 Affidavit 1988-05-12�d
4
Fs:..3•a.n.x,�+siigcw.sMa..�w.'�-M++wC"'�++eruW�s-��.`hY�.
May 12, 1988
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
William & Barbara Hussey
P. O. Box 35
Earlysville, VA 22936
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-88-24, Tax Map 8, Parcel 51
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hussey:
This letter is to inform you that on May 10, 1988, during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, your application for VA-88-24 was granted with the
condition that there be no further development on the two
parcels.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the public
road frontage from the minimum requirement of two hundred -fifty
(250) feet to one hundred ninety (190) feet for both of the
proposed parcels to allow subdivision of the property.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
OVA
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB:JR/st
cc: VA-88-24
Planning Department
STAFF REPORT - VA-88-24
OWNER: William Hussey
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 8/51
ACREAGE: 24.7 Acres
ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
LOCATION: West side of Route 664, +/- .5 miles south
of its intersection with Route 671
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, which states:
1110.4 Area and Bulk Regulations
Minimum frontage existing public road 250 feet. . ."
The applicant proposes to subdivide the property and seeks a
reduction of the public road frontage requirement from the
minimum measurement of two hundred (250) feet to one hundred
ninety (190) feet for both of the proposed parcels. At present
two (2) dwellings exist on the property. The proposed subdivision
would allow the dwellings to exist on separate parcels containing
nine (9) acres and fifteen and seven -tenths (15.7) acres.
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 con-
fiscation 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 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.