Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800053 Action Letter 1988-08-10 4 - « ,,,.*I, r �SY; wr saw.ck.,.,..•,a�..o.. �4OV AL6�* chi ' „tt I G1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 August 10, 1988 Dr. & Mrs. Eric McKenzie 2224-B Commonwealth Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-88-53, Tax Map 59C1, Parcel 02-26 Dear Mr. & Mrs. McKenzie: This letter is to inform you that on August 9, 1988, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board granted your variance request for VA-88-53 . This variance approval allows relief from Section 6. 5. 01 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow a single-family dwelling to be located forty-eight (48) feet from the front property line, a variance of seven (7) feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, ". avoilLrovit Charles W. Burgess, Jr. Zoning Administrator CWBJr/st cc: VA-88-53 Building Permit #88-191NR STAFF REPORT - VA-88-53 Applicant - Dr. Eric McKenzie Tax Map/Parcel - 59C1/02-26 Acreage - 2.885 Acres Zoning - Rural Areas (RA) Location - Located in the West Leigh Subdivision at 26 Emerson Drive. The applicant seeks a variance from Section 6.5.01 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "6.5 NONCONFORMING LOTS Any lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance which is less in area and/or width than the minimum required by this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the uses permitted for a lot having the minimum area and/or width so required; provided that the rear, side and front yard and setback requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained; and provided further that no such use shall be permitted which is determined by the zoning administrator to constitute a danger to the public health, safety and general welfare. " "6.5. 01 In the case of any subdivision which was approved pursuant to Chapter 18 of the County Code prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which was of record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall apply to all lots within such subdivision. " The applicant obtained a building permit (#88-191NR) in February, 1988 for the construction of a new single family residence on the above referenced property. In that the West Leigh Subdivision was approved prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance, dwelling setbacks of the previous Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to. The property was zoned R-1 (Residential) under the previous Zoning Ordinance and is required to maintain the following setbacks: Front 30 feet Side 10 feet Rear 35 feet The new dwelling is presently located forty-eight (48) feet from the front property. The problem is that Emerson Drive is a fifty (50) foot right-of-way and that twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the right-of-way is on the applicant's property. The front setback must therefore be measured from the right-of-way line, not Staff Report - VA-88-53 Page 2 from the front property line. The applicant therefore seeks a variance to reduce the minimum front yard measurement from thirty (30) feet to twenty-three (23) feet. On April 12, 1988, an Albemarle County Inspector inspected the footing for the new dwelling, but did not detect the error. The contractor relied on the expertise of the inspector to determine where the dwelling could be located so as to comply with all zoning requirements. The property does possess some topographical variation (slope) which makes finding a suitable building site difficult on this property. It is unclear whether or not the structure could have been located at another location on the property without benefit of a variance. In that this issue has not been clarified the staff cannot conclude that the applicant has demonstrated that the topography of the property has created a hardship in the reasonable use of the property. If the hardship were evidenced the staff would recommend approval of the variance request. In light of the hardship not being evidenced, the staff must recommend denial of the applicant's request. 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 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 in the West Leigh Subdivision. 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 not be altered.