Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800046 Action Letter 1988-07-28 ��nVre 1Lg�, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 July 28, 1988 Mr. M. E. Gibson, Jr. 105-109 E. High Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-88-46, Tax Map 61, Parcel 129C Dear Mr. Gibson: This letter is to inform you that on July 26, 1988, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board granted your variance request, VA-88-46, subject to the following condition: 1) That the old tower be taken down. This variance approval allows relief from Section 4 . 10. 3 .2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the setback for a new tower from the minimum requirement of two-hundred sixty-five (265) feet to eighty (80) feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. �� �� Sincerely,�� Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Zoning Administrator CWBJr/st cc: VA-88-46 Inspections Dept. Reading File Planning Department STAFF REPORT - VA-88-46 APPLICANT - Central Telephone Company of Virginia TAX MAP/PARCEL - 61/129C ZONING - CO (Commercial Office) ACREAGE - 1. 366 Acres LOCATION - South side of Route 631, +/- .2 miles east of its intersection with Route 29 The applicant seeks a variance from Section 4 .10. 3 .1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance which states: "4.10 Height of Building and Other Structures 4.10. 3 . 1 Exceptions - Excluded from Application The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower; provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no such structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. The height limitation shall not apply to any of the above designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements. " The applicant presently has a one hundred fifty (150) foot trans- mission tower located on the property. The tower was constructed on the property in 1966 and is located approximately thirty-eight (38) feet from the closest property line. The applicant now desires to remove the existing tower and to replace it with a two hundred sixty-five (265) foot tower. The new tower will be at a different location on the property than the existing tower but will still only be approximately eighty (80) feet from the closest property line. The applicant therefore seeks a variance from the required setback for the tower from two hundred sixty-five (265) feet to eighty (80) feet. The applicant cites the size of the property as a hardship in constructing the new tower. The applicant is unable to further utilize the property without benefit of a variance. If the variance is not granted, the applicant will be forced to purchase property at some other location in order to construct the tower. Staff Report - VA-88-46 Page 2 The applicant states that the hardship is not generally shared by other properties. It is true that the setback requirement is shared by all commercial properties, but the unique character is the applicant is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide cellular telephone service in Albe- marle County. The applicant states that the granting of the variance will not be of detriment to the adjacent properties nor will the character of the district be altered. In that a tower is already located on the property, the construction of a replacement tower will not adversely effect the adjacent properties nor will it alter the existing usage of the property. Recommendation The application should be approved for cause: 1) The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to show that a strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce a demonstrable hardship approaching con- fiscation as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that the perceived hardship is unique to his property in contradistinction to other properties in the same zoning district and general vicinity. 3) The applicant has provided evidence to demonstrate that the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties and that the character of the district will not be altered.