HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800042 Action Letter 1988-07-27 o ®tiM
way
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
July 27, 1988
Mr. William Raines
c/o Deborah Raines
Rt. 1, Box 45
Dyke, VA 22935
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-88-42, Tax Map 8, Parcel 33A
Dear Ms. Raines:
This letter is to inform you that on July 26, 1988, during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, your application for VA-88-42 was approved as requested.
This variance approval allows relief from section 10.4
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the
lot area requirement from two (2) acres to one and five-tenths
(1. 5) acres to allow division of the property.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sinccerely,
01,064,
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWBJr/st
cc: VA-88-42
Planning Department
STAFF REPORT - VA-88-42
APPLICANT - William Raines
TAX MAP/PARCEL - 8/33A
ZONING - RA (Rural Areas)
ACREAGE - 3 .1 +/- Acres
LOCATION - Northwest corner of Route 664 and Route 810
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, which states:
"10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations
Minimum Lot Size 2 . 0 Acres . . . "
The applicant proposes to divide his property and seeks a
reduction of the minimum lot size from the required two (2)
acres to one and five-tenths (1. 5) acres. At present two (2)
dwellings exist on the property. Both dwellings are occupied
by members of the applicant's family.
Recommendation
The application should be denied for cause:
1) The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show
that a strict application of the ordinance would produce
a 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 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.