HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800059 Action Letter 1988-10-12 11ry;1"11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI.F
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 29(, 5875
October 12, 1988
Mr. Edward D. Campbell, III
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-88-59, Tax Map 42, Parcel 67
Dear Mr. Campbell :
This letter is to inform you that on October 11 , 1988, during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals,
your application for VA-88-59 was denied.
Anyone aggrieved by a decision made by the Board can appeal the
decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty
days of the decision.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
e4Aemu
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWBJr/st
cc: VA-88-59
Luther Waytes
STAFF REPORT - VA-88-59
APPLICANT: Luther Waytes
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 42/67
ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
ACREAGE: 10.4 acres
LOCATION: West side of Rt. 676, + -
intersection with Rt. 677 .8 miles north of its
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, which states:
"10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations
Minimum Frontage Existing
Public Roads 250 feet . . . . "
The applicant proposes to divide his property and seeks a
reduction of the minimum frontage from the minimum requirement of
two hundred fifty (250) feet to one hundred forty-five (145) feet.
The applicant proposes to create a two (2) acre parcel having a
road frontage of two hundred fifty (250) feet. The residue parcel
containing eight and four tenths (8.4) acres would have road
frontage of one hundred forty-five (145) feet. A dwelling
presently exists on the property and would be located on the
residue parcel after the division is made.
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 not shared by other properties in the same
zoning district and the same vicinity.
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.