Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900015 Action Letter 1989-04-26 t�or ALfjFli COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 April 26, 1989 James E. & Jennifer R. Rice 122 Blithe Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-89-15, Tax Map 61W2 , Parcel 01-P3 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rice: P ,) ' � l This letter is to inform you that on April 25, 1989, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-89-15 was denied. Anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Board can appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, An rew D. Evans D puty Zoning Administrator ADE/st cc: VA-89-15 r ' 3F"L: ,y. W ,fig .. r.. .... r• • J 'V COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 July 12 , 1989 James E. & Jennifer R. Rice 122 Blithe Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-89-15, Tax Map 61W2 , Parcel 01-P3 Dear Dr. & Mrs. Rice: This letter is to inform you that on July 11, 1989, during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-89-15 was approved. This variance approval allows relief from Section 4 . 11.2 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the setback for an accessory structure from six (6) feet to two (2) feet to allow construction of a deck. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/mlm cc: Inspections Department VA-89-15 REQUEST FOR REHEARING JAMES E. RICE (owner) seeks a variance from Section 4 . 11. 2 . 1 to reduce the setback for an accessory structure from six (6) feet to two (2) feet to allow construction of a deck. Property known as tax map 61W2, Parcel 01-P3, is located in Birnam Wood at 122 Blithe Court, zoned R-10. On April 11, 1989, the Board of Zoning Appeals deferred the application until April 25, 1989. This was to allow the Board to hear all of the cases at once concerning decks at Birnam Wood. On April 25, 1989, the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance. The applicant was not present. On May 24, 1989, the applicant wrote the County Attorney to request that the variance be reheard. On May 25, 1989, the applicant appealed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Circuit Court. The applicant requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals move to rehear his variance for the following reasons: 1. He did not enjoy due process of the law because he was not represented at the hearing; and 2 . He has additional information as supporting evidence. (See attached excerpt from the Board of Zoning Appeals By-Laws) . A motion for rehearing requires concurring affirmative vote of three members. The Board shall set a future date for rehearing with proper notice. OF A prill COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5861 MEMORANDUM TO: Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator FROM: Peter J. Parsons, Civil Engineer �J{� RE: Variance Application VA-89-15 DATE: July 10, 1989 After reviewing the petition for approval of the above referenced variance and the attached letter dated 6-1-89 from George Gercke, and having visited the site, we have the following comments. While it is true that any previous erosion problems appear to have been stabilized at this site by the nonconforming deck( s) , it is important to note that there are many other effective methods to control erosion which would not require a variance of the building setback. Furthermore, we understand that the deck(s) in question are only about 4 to 6 feet beyond the building setback line. We feel that a deck which ended at the setback line, in combination with temporary and permanent erosion control measures, could stabilize to an equivalent degree any erosion problem which might occur. However, if there are no objecting neighbors, the public good might be equally served by granting the variance. If you have any questions, please give me a call. PJP/kms VA9915. r2111111 JUL 11 1989 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT - VA-89-15 APPLICANT: James & Jennifer Rice TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W(2) -01/P3 ZONING: R-10 (Residential) LOCATION: Located in Birnam Wood Subdivision on Blithe Court The applicant seeks relief from Section 4 . 11. 2 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "4. 11. 2 . 1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES If no utility or drainage easements or other easements are adversely affected, accessory structures or portions thereof may be erected no closer than six (6) feet to adjacent lot lines in the case of detached structures, or to a common wall in the case of attached structures; provided further that no such structure shall be located within any yard required by section 4 . 6. 3 . (Addition 3-18-81) (Amended 1-1-83) 4 . 6. 3 LOTS, YARDS ADJACENT TO STREET" The applicant requests relief from the required six (6) foot setback to locate a deck two (2) feet from the property line, a variance of four (4) feet. Via this proposed application, the applicant seeks approval for an already constructed deck within the rear yard area. The residences are attached townhouse/condominium type units with enclosed privacy fences. The following comments are offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals in consideration of the requested application. A) A self imposed hardship is not customarily viewed as an undue hardship. Evidence has not been made available that provides a basis that the strict application would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. B) You must find that a hardship is not shared by other properties in the same vicinity or zoning district. In general most of the adjacent properties have similar size yards with the exception of the "end" housing units, and comparable topography exists on the properties. Staff Report - VA-89-15 James & Jennifer Rice Page 2 No basis has been established that demonstrated that the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. Other cases can not be a basis for the granting of a variance if it does not provide that it is in harmony and in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance.