Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900015 Application 1989-03-03 i 1 ( c 1j OF ALBS, r -� `� 7. FILE NUMBER APPLICATION FOR: _L (,I 9� 3 \ 9 (check one) `IIN ,C, \ � lIANCE C) w, �� DATE SUBMITTED ❑ S• PECIAL USE PERMIT ?` ` "�"°')1 So,0o ❑ REZONING '"P FEE PAID (see reverse) fr ❑ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT IRGI14 ❑ MOBILE HOME DATE OF PRELIM CONF. ❑ H• OME OCCUPATION Jn J ❑ A• CCESSORY TOURIST LODGING STAFF AT PRELIM. CONF. OWNER (as currently listed in Real Estate) Day q 1 3-D Name ,7i77f'.S ycoor �„/.vi r,€ �'f A'ce- Phone (_) r _ y C) Address /2Z 2/ iF- L / APPLICANT (if different from owner) Day • Name -S.R,re- Phone (___) _- Address tee' CONTACT PERSON (if different from above) Day Name Phone (_) -- Address LOCATION: /22 �1 i� 7fvRti aVI,/7/3 i.., ,.e,✓h'rn itiLZ TAX MAP/PARCEL NUMBERS (use reverse if needed) 1. L wZ - 0 L - o ? - p Q-3 Q (2 3. - - - 2. - - - 4. - - - EXISTING ZONING i�- lb PROFFERED? Yes _ No _ Acreage if different DESIRED ZONING R-IO PROFFERED? Yes _ No _ Acreage if different EXISTING USE 5^y/E' FA7,/y 0„„-/,X 7 PROPOSED USE . S.9/r/E' ORDINANCE SECTION(S): 7' //, 2, / ACc E'c t5 e y sSf t' vc,/,�z" DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: L is/I / ✓AtIAm✓« v-fo.r t /4'E-/ A i7//w de.Z erty known as tax map 61W2 , VA-89-15. James E. Rice (owner) , prop parcel 01-P3 , located in Birnam Wood Subdivision at 122 Blithe Court, zoned R-10. The applicant seeks a variance from Section I the 4 . 1 1. 2 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance o redtwo (2) to setback forn accessory constructiontofcaure deckrom (6) feet to allow • The foregoing information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have read and understand the provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinan.We applicable tt 's application. • Signed �1�//4,.-/ , C (✓` - Date , 198 f (Owner, Contract Purchaser, Agent) I( I Fee $ i/ lll... • Date Paid /_/ Received By Notes: 6 Site Review Date: _/ /_ PLANNER: Recommendation: g Planning Commission Date: _/_/ Action: pBoard of Supervisors Date: /_/_ Action: e Board of Zonin Appeals Date: '/ (l / S761 Action: o/0ir. a3 0 / sc le- ,- a-- cr . ,,.� 115 .•sue, �49 P " -s (3/r1 QuIA fil lel Ac+i ; A L.,) r i V e. , , , - s f r- n a m CD') ,...; r 7 ) 0' f:-)r-i ..,' e! — k 1 1 H' I -- S 51650.E- ,N I a* — i 0' a s 1 welt -t - ----___7,__, cv ...._, ,.... , o , < , 0 4,) _ ....._ op 4- g -.1- (r) I:To (1) ot) I c( N 1, -t- — — `'.. VI • le _ i:CI V' ._ --/ _ ____ .___. _.... ___ ___ ...... ___. ....... ... . a) I -i-- ,.. — _ CT q 1 5--c..'.' ' a) • , c) N 0 E 4— 03 0 w.., fll i _-.7 , (....) • • . I ' „, .., ,.., i ..7 co, ' N' , .,- ,.,- .7.• re- 0" 0 rt) 1-.-1-.:-Ln3-___ (\9 • C -4- : 0 I. 12 I I .11p4411Aillir 'cl' s I I .. i -f- 0 . '). c C • .. , co . O It c1/41 4 ,‘,,e' 4- -4...7 ii; 02 q. „-- a ..- i 1 Co -4- ,_ \.. ki, pc 006.1rir • ' V 0 •-• 7 '/ 421 '-'0 r ..-.,.„4- ,:..-' 'fo cli o,.; L,_ r / , .isg II s- c ---- - - ,' 3 i 4- "" ..... OF c 01 . .). ; .8c c 1 . , ..• /- .- ro II' 1 ti as i 5, w 1,': , (k1 0 > 1.. NI r0 d 3 CO hi. fe II 4.2 -.1 > rirewall II T 1 , yp 1 --'y c a I i , ,,-, (r) _ 0 & o ..9RI ni 0 c — + a/ bI I Nt ,,, -3 ° ,..e:' ' --:-/ "....„_, Qv .ri jf- CO 4- . 0 LI: - ...) 3 N i3 ,rn(ii vd - — 0 4- b I c --- 1 . .9 .2. II , 0 I rn >-. e) 3- 0 (I) 0_ c c sr) w Lit 0 ...) V n '3 £ ,..." 11 L-• - 0 • - -- - 4-- . T. II i , Q.) L,..• s) -+. rn , . 0 1. 4_,L. .÷".. ....., b 0 E i0 CC) t i---1--- 0 ID In .. W .... -7- 0 op L .__ ...,_ ,............ ...._ .4 I. . 7 S'E.1.0 i Nimi.row .- ""-- ia 7 --- 0 , ---- ..._.-- ---..... I b ---- ..--- ''N 100 04 h N ( —. • \\,...,......„\ ....--. \\*\ ...-- __-- 0 . hi _ -- --- C) ,ti — N... ___ o ti) E 3 to 4644 . C ... .- ,,, t/44,4 1 i)le ...-, . . . , __ ..: _,.,, -- Tr.r.. ,..../A.;,-,../, ,. i v - :1 1.1 . z k ---------. Mll-------"--7----zzv V — VA-89-15 Rice, James E. or Jennifer _RNAM WOOD Tax Map 61W2-01, Parcel P-3 TOO PG S 392 sLoc.s A r1.04u F SEZTIGNI / , , ....Ks G T VO4t.1 v SECTION 2 , • ' ' G / ® 0' -eCD,',.;- z'',•• • i* / / ' - *' ., ,CI -Ni) '., ' ''": i%V/ // ,c);.!,.. ., -,\,zo-§:f'. / . , , ,, ' -,_. s, (\ ,.>,7 , , ,,,/ ,, sc.,,L, F:a 8,'INA,4 AG10 / / N..,,, :,.... 1-:- 1 ,,;), . \ /.,,,,t1/4,/ L :•:2(„<" 17.!)s ./ \/ w,,, 1 '4 . 'aillow 4,)( 1 / . . , . . ' .. • /A----. i - -.. (--- \ ------,;/ I _ (:) ' i Z7\---, 1 ,, 1 I • I , o' . . . 1 a`.:.1 Vt. 0106,. 4,41epFT.... b.,, ,l *. •i4littc.\. ,.tie,‘ s. 1 INIVre 4kwi*,/ • °N"P'a 'IL aft :::. ".-..• .aliit'.•,Orivt-m-Ii hi< if 4• offh,, ;MVIE-Nall"1":., ..r:4' • ..'/'•,'''.>:"• 41: ^' ,.• ?Pali ife ' t.,/ . „.., ..0 412 '-i;cp 7 .,,, .„........ ,..„0„ _4.81r44"linui ems itt, A„pHD,,e /, HELL 940, ZIO"ElligErli lit 1°1 fit000 IMIZN liirA 14 V55115 •4 ma . I 401 440-44-44.•.5,1.-SA ---"'--7;---:01,-;71.--- WYNRIOGE OW SOON 11177 Lot 172, ?ILA T 171 \\4•11 t•.. 4441 444 444 44 44_1!4/ 44 411 \ lays 414 lee 400 44,•• • 0190 TRUST OUT C 63 TO MINOR TOWNHOUSES wkiTIOV LAND LOTS R ES DEED SOON 604 AMA$A AT 59 (2) 08. 724 PAGE 92-i07 LOTS Al-A10 •, 0 CAME WA GAPOEN 0 oa 820 Pg 74 4 DEED11006 706 PAGE 641-PLA T SST LOTS EN•-OM ‘ all — . ILYA le MU CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT SECT ION 6IW2 IItL 7 ' i INSPECTION REPORT map ./C!/� parcel e//-X%r TO:,_5"- efAi Z % //i/ y SITE: O/R/17,4n/ G�/oYaC PLAN NAME AND NO. : ��` 6Y-/.J PROPERTY OWNER OR CONTRACTOR: L.7J&PIFS X?i OBSERVATIONSS:: (note anyone you spoke /with) A''4' /fi�%rJ y�.3�Ai��1S, ifo/?9.✓r irlivy ,In.oex t Dat and Time ACTION REQUESTED OF OWNER OR CONTRACTOR Date and Time FOLLOW-UP BY INSPECTOR: Comments Date and Time cc: by spec r 8 C \� fD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 CO COUNTti'ATTORNF DAMES BOWLING, IV GEORGE R JOHNST. DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Y May 3 0, 19 8 9 Ms. Sharon Taylor Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Re: Rice v. Board of Zoning Appeals Dear Sharon: ich . and Here is a Petition for Writ °f Certiorari in connectionh withrd n al rof s. Rice have filed against the BZAsimilar to their variance and several other variances exactly theirs. Please put this Petition and Order, in thf e neth S package ck geer .sent out to BZA members, along with a copy recommend that the matter be placed back the on BZA the idoelet of the BZA for reconsideration, but that is up to Sincerely yours, George R. St. John County Attorney GRStJ/tlh Enclosure D \rJ JuN 1 1989 /ALeEnnaR+-��ti��r� April 25, 1989 The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals held a second monthly meeting on Tuesday, April 25, 1989, in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Jacquelyn Huckle, Richard Cogan, William L. Rennolds, Carl Van Fossen; Vice-Chairman, and Max Kennedy; Chairman. Other officials present were: Andrew D. Evans, Deputy Zoning Administrator; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 3 : 00 p.m. He established that a quorum was present. He stated that anyone who was aggrieved by a decision made by the Board could appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty days of the decision. The first application was VA-89-15, James & Jennifer Rice, which was deferred from the previous meeting. Mr. Kennedy stated that the application had been deferred in order to combine that with several other cases. Mr. Evans stated that it could only be combined with one other application because the other person had not made an application. He stated that the Rice and Steigman cases could be heard together. The next application before the Board was VA-89-21, Thomas Johnson. Mr. Evans read the staff report. April 25, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 VA-88-21. Thomas Johnson, property known as tax map 109, parcel 46, located on the east side of Rt. 718, +/- .8 miles north of its intersection with Rt. 29, zoned RA. The applicant seeks a variance from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow the reduction of the side yard measurement from the minimum requirement of twenty-five (25) feet to fifteen (15) feet each to allow construction of a single-family dwelling. (See the attached copy of the staff report. ) Mr. Evans read a letter of opposition into the record from Otto G. Stolz who was an adjacent property owner. He also read a letter from Robert K. O'Leary, Ph.D. , which suggested minimizing the visibility of the new dwelling by restricting the cutting of the existing trees and scrubs, putting in screening between the properties, and using a natural stain for the house siding so that it will blend into the natural beauty of the woods. Thomas Johnson, property owner, was present to speak for the application. He stated that he was going to build his house 800 feet back from the Old Lynchburg Road. Mr. Van Fossen arrived at 3 : 20 p.m. The Chairman invited public comment. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Cogan moved to approve the variance with the condition that the house be built no closer than 500 feet back from Old Lynchburg Road. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. The role was called. Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mrs. Huckle - Aye Mr. Cogan - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Abstain Mr. Kennedy - Aye The variance was approved with the condition that the house be constructed no closer than 500 feet to the road. April 25, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 Mr. Kennedy asked Mr. Van Fossen to take over the meeting as Chairman for VA-89-22 for Kay P. Steigman since he was involved with the case. He left the meeting room. Mr. Evans read the staff report. VA-89-22 . Kay P. Steigman (owner) , property known as tax map 61W2 , parcel O1-P4, located in the Birnam Wood Subdivision at 120 Blithe Court, zoned R-10. The applicant seeks a variance from Section 4. 11.2 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the setback of an accessory structure from the minimum required measurement of six (6) feet to zero (0) feet to allow construction of a deck. (See the attached copy of the staff report. ) Mr. Van Fossen stated just for her information last month Mr. & Mrs. Rice were present and gave their presentation and the board deferred their request since they understood that there were several that shared the same problem. He asked that she present her case. Mrs. Steigman stated she was unable to attend last month's meeting because she was out of town. She stated that last June she moved into this location, but at the time the unit was bought there was no deck at all, and showed the board some pictures of the site. She stated that she hired a builder, had the materials delivered, and applied for a building permit which was the first problem area when they found out there was a setback requirement. She stated that her neighbors on both sides liked the deck plans, and unfortunately she listened to others and because there was a two and a half month wait for this type of meeting and because of some personal problems she was trying to attack at that time, she went ahead and had the deck built and did not apply for the variance at that time. She stated that she would take accountability for the action of instructing the contractor to go ahead and procede with the deck. She stated that after completion of the deck that she ran into the fact of the variance having to be meet. She gave the board some before and after photographs of the land. She stated that Beebe Fulton of Gercke Construction and a previous owner of an adjacent unit, who she happened to know, advised her that the original reason for the construction of the deck was a very serious erosion problem with those particular hill sides to the extent of some flooding damage. April 25, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 Mr. Van Fossen asked if she experienced any erosion problems with hers before the deck was built? Mrs. Steigman stated not coming into the house, but she did have a problem with the dirt being tracked into the house. Mr. Cogan asked what the dimensions of the deck were? Mrs. Huckle stated that it appeared to be about 20' X 20' . Mrs. Steigman stated that she did not bring that information, but that sounded correct. Mr. Evans stated that it was about 22 feet outward to the rear and about 20 feet across. Mr. Rennolds stated that she could have come out 16 feet. Mrs. Steigman stated that they say hindsight is 100 percent. Mr. Rennolds asked who the builder was? Mrs. Steigman stated that the builder was Haven Construction or Christopher Clark, but that she had taken responsibility for the construction. She stated after talking with the Rices that she knew their case was pending. The Chairman invited public comment. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the board. Mrs. Huckle stated that she viewed the property and they looked like wooden fences from the back which you are permitted to put on your back line. She stated that it looks attractive, but it was against the rules. Mr. Rennolds asked what they would do with the rest of them? Mr. Cogan stated that his concern was that the building permit was not issued because of the problem of needing a variance and then they just went ahead with it anyway. He stated that it also could have been built 6 feet shorter and complied. He stated that he could not support this. He made a motion to deny the application. Mrs. Steigman stated that the deck plans were approved by the Gercke Architectural Board. April 25, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 Mr. Rennolds seconded the motion. The role was called. Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mrs. Huckle - No Mr. Cogan - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Aye The application was denied. Mr. Van Fossen stated that the board could not grant one and set a precedent for the other cases. Mrs. Steigman stated that she understood, but built it because there were two already there. Mr. Rennolds stated that the others would have to be dealt with. Mr. Van Fossen stated that the Rices had stated that they could not be present, but their intent was for them to act on it anyway. He asked Mr. Kennedy if he had a conflict on this one too? Mr. Kennedy disqualified himself on VA-89-15. Mr. Van Fossen stated that the staff report had been read previously, and the difference in the circumstances was that this deck was already built when the Rices purchased the property, and in fact there were two decks which were not in compliance. Mr. Rennolds stated that he could still have a deck by taking off four feet. Mr. Van Fossen stated that this deck was not quite as large as the other one. Mr. Cogan stated that he thought they needed to show some consistency. Mr. Rennolds moved that he be made to come into compliance with the Zoning laws. April 25, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals April 25, 1989 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Mr. Van Fossen stated that it had been moved and seconded that VA-89-15 be denied. He asked for the role to be called. Mr. Rennolds - Aye Mrs. Huckle - No Mr. Cogan - Aye Mr. Van Fossen - Aye The variance was denied. April 11, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 11 The next application before the Board was VA-89-;r6, James E. Rice. Mr. Evans: The applicant seeks relief from Section 4. 11. 2 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 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 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 . 4 . 6. 3 states LOTS, YARDS ADJACENT TO STREETS. The applicant requests relief from the required six foot setback to locate a deck two feet from the property line, a variance of four feet. Via this proposed application, the applicant seeks approval for an already constructed deck within the rear yard area. The residences are attached townhouse/condominum 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. No basis has been established that demonstrated that the variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property or that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. Other cases cannot 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. Mr. Kennedy: O. K. , is the applicant here? Mr. Rice: Good afternoon, I am James Rice, James E. Rice and the middle initial is incorrect. To be at a point if we could just discuss the comments in the staff report, the deck was built in August, excuse me, May of 1985. We purchased the home in August of 1988, therefore we were not aware of the violations of the code at the time of purchase. We are also the third property owner. The original property owner who had the deck built was named Steve Soper and to the best of our knowledge he is not located here, but in Detroit, Michigan and we have been unable to contact him. April 11, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 12 Mr. Rice: The deck is a split level deck. It was built, the home was built by Gercke Construction, but the deck was built independent of Gercke Construction. The lower portion of the deck was built by Charlottesville Aquatics in May of 1985. According to the owner of Charlottesville Aquatics they built only the lower portion. It is the upper portion that is in violation of the code, and I have not been able to find out who the contractor was. Evidently it was a private contractor and it was agreed upon by Mr. Soper, not by us certainly and that I believe is a point that needs to be made. It was not a self-imposed hardship. It is our deck but we did not authorize the building of the deck. Also one question we've had that has not been answered, we have contacted our attorney who handled the closing. Since the deck was built, the home has been sold twice and both times a survey was performed on the house and neither time did the survey disclose this flaw. So we just found out about it when we received the letter at the end of February. One other point concerning the comment number A, there are three decks in a row as I understand it all three of those decks ours being the upper deck closest to Birnam Drive there, and all three are in violation of the ordinance. If we were forced to correct our deck we would certainly do it if told to. That would also include all the decks attached down that whole row, so I assume I am no contractor, but it would appear to me if we have to change our deck, every deck in that row is going to have to be changed also and that would contribute to a hardship to the neighbors as they have discussed with me. And one point that I am certainly not an expert to comment on the previous owner, but Mr. Michael Waite that we purchased the home from said that the upper deck was added onto the structure not just to create a nicer deck, but the previous owner or the original owner the Mr. Soper that we discussed had a problem with water drainage and some soil erosion because there is a bank that runs back there. It is not flat it is kind of hill shaped and we are at the top of the hill. And he had a problem with water and mud coming down into his lower section of the deck which does not occur now. I am certainly not qualified to say that that was the reason that the upper deck was built and I am not sure that was the case originally, but that was told to use by the neighbor that lives one door above us and also by the previous owner. Mr. Rennolds: Your upper deck is closest to the house. Mrs. Rice: No, it is farther away. Mr. Rennolds: It is farther away? April 11, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 13 Mr. Rice: Yes. The slope comes down toward our back door. You walk out our back door and you have about 8 or 10 feet there on a flat area and even with the basement and then there are 8 or 10 steps that go up to an upper portion of the deck, and I think that it is probably about 20 feet back there total. Mrs. Huckle: And this keeps the rain from hitting that dirt and eroding it. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Rice: That is what the previous owner told us that it was his understanding of why that person had that deck built when he was buying the house. Now I am not qualified to say that that is the case. I don't think that is the argument. Mr. Kennedy: I am a little familiar with that property. Have you ever seen any black pipes or drainpipes coming out from the decks? Mr. Rice: I know there is a ravine that runs down there where there is some drainage. Mr. Kennedy: I think that under all of those decks there is some drainage pipes. Mr. Rice: We do have some drainage pipes. Mr. Kennedy: It is fair to say that when you come out of your patio or your living room that if the decks were not there you would walk out about 10 to 12 feet and you would go straight up a hill, right. So these decks were built out there and they are built into the side of the hill. There was an erosion problem for the people when the subdivision was put in. There might still be with water coming down the hill and actually heavy rains going into these patios. So some of these decks have drainage pipes running under them. Mr. Van Fossen: What is behind you besides the hill? Is there another section of townhouses behind it? How far back are they? Mr. Rice: They are, I would say at least 30 feet. Mr. Van Fossen: What I was trying to say suppose they put a deck on the back of theirs. April 11, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 14 Mr. Rice: They already have one. Mr. Van Fossen: Do they? Do you come right up to each other? Mr. Rice: From the back gate to our deck to the nearest deck is at least 12 feet I would say, a minimum of 12 feet. Mr. Van Fossen: Why is Mr. & Mrs. Rice being called in and the other condominum owners are not being called? Mr. Evans: One of them is coming the 25th of this month. The third party is not. If I may interject something here. You may want to defer action on this particular variance until you hear the other two. It is a complicated situation and it is not a easy situation. You go out to look at one and make one inspection and then there are two other people that are involved. You go out on one complaint and then you turn your head to the north and look and you see another one and then you turn your head to the right and you see another one so that's essentially how it happened. Mr. Kennedy: Did you actually get a complaint or did somebody get a survey and it was picked up on a survey? Mr. Evans: When he spoke about the two surveys I had no idea on why it did not pick up, but that does not necessarily mean that they did not pick up on it because a lot of times people look at these things and they think because of the common walls everything is common. That property line seems to be common. So if a deck is built against it, that is fine, but it has to meet that setback from the rear and side. Mr. Rice: If the survey would have caught it though, they would have informed us before we purchased the house. Mr. Kennedy: I am asking a question about whether there is any detriment to the neighborhood because of who complained. Did somebody in the neighborhood think there was a detriment because it seems like everybody has a deck. How could one deck be more detrimental to the other person who has a deck. Mr. Rice: At the time we moved into the house a deck was being constructed at the neighbors home next to ours. It was my understanding from talking with that contractor that he built that deck without obtaining a permit and he applied for a permit April 11, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 15 Mr. Rice: and was denied and went ahead and built the deck. Now this was told to us when we went for our first meeting with the Zoning Department. Evidently what happened when the owner wanted the deck, the contractor applied for the permit, the permit was denied, and she said build the deck anyway, and he built the deck, and the Zoning Department came out and checked because there was no follow-up, no second appeal. When they checked they found not only was that deck built and did not comply with the code, but also there were two other decks that were built obviously without permits and in violation of the same code. Mr. Kennedy: So somebody else was trying to build a deck, so that person will be in for a variance too. Mr. Rice: That deck is already built. Mr. Kennedy: The deck is already built? Mr. Rice: Right, it was built this fall. Ours was built, that is the main point that we want to make was that our deck is obviously in violation and was built without a permit, but it was built 3 1/2 years before we ever moved into the neighborhood. That is kind of what separates us and we just happen to be the first ones here before your committee. Mr. Van Fossen: Mr. Chairman, I think that it might be proper to defer this until we hear all of the complaints at one time. Mr. Rennolds: It will give us a chance to go out there and look. Mr. Kennedy: We have heard from Mr. Rice. Do we want to have Mr. Rice come back? Would you mind coming back? We could adjourn this to that time. Mr. Rice: We are both dentists and we would have to shut down our practice when we come here, and this is the second afternoon. We have employees that are being paid this afternoon and we want to do whatever is possible to help you out, but it is a inconvenience for us. Mr. Kennedy: It is kind of up to you. We could rest on what you have said here. I think you have heard all of the facts and we will ask for anybody that has been inconvenienced that is in opposition and if you want to come back next time you can, but if you don't want to it doesn't make any difference. I think the Board is inclined to defer all of these to hear them at one time. April 11, 1989 Minutes of Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals Page 16 Mr. Rice: That would be fine. We've stated about all there is, all we know. We have tried to research it and have made several phone calls. The main point that we wanted to make was that the deck was built before we were there, but we will do whatever you want us to do. Mr. Rennolds: I don't see where it is necessary for him to come back. Mr. Kennedy: I was saying that he could come back if he wants to, but I am leaving it open but it is not necessary. I was just saying that we are going to make a decision whether you are here or not next time, if the Board is inclined to adjourn this particular hearing to next time. But I think we will go on, and if you have anything else to add go ahead, but if not do you have anybody else that wants to speak. Mr. Rice: No, thank-you. Mrs. Rice: Thank-you, no. Mr. Kennedy: O. K. Is anybody here in opposition? All right, do I hear a motion? Mr. Cogan: I move for deferral. Mr. Van Fossen: Seconded. Mr. Kennedy: It has been moved and seconded that this case be deferred to be heard with the next case at the next meeting on the 25th at 3 : 00. All in favor say aye. Mr. Rennolds: Aye Mrs. Buckle: Aye Mr. Cogan: Aye Mr. Van Fossen: Aye Mr. Kennedy: Aye Mr. Kennedy: All opposed? No Opposition. Mr. Kennedy: Alright that is deferred to be heard. Thank-you, sir. GEkc),...G CONSIRUCIION (804) 973-7923 1 June 1989 Dr. James Rice 122 Blythe Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Jim: As you requested, I took a look at the deck in your back yard at 122 Blythe Court, in Birnam Wood. My observation, as an experienced builder, is that it is an attractive structure that enhances the appearance of the entire townhouse block and serves an important function in stabilizing the steep bank at the rear of your (and adjacent townhouses') property. Previous problems with flooding and bank erosion there have not recurred since the structure was built. My opinion is that the deck helps protect the rear of the building from storm water runoff-induced erosion problems. cir�o/ y�- George Ge cke Vice President GJG/rek 3056 BERKMAR DRIVE • P. O. BOX 7213 • CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22906 ., • ... co r n .0,41 ry) i ) Y i V. t1/4, ] 5I° �a0' E. -�' I • • r� a• I0' S L. 0 ~ — _ t Lvn.il ; cv II CO >,- r... 2, r r +-V. fnC° 0 �' �- -- " .Z.4.. ,..t [--- ---*-- •...,• .- 41:11 co ,.., .. 1. ,,... 0 I ti7°00' E I - -4-- -- c .ten (\c` i , • 4) 1 N 0 E r il_ ‘ 1114)111P< 0 • n , • 0 RI I OA 0, c� i .0 v . (....) 11 + N t i I t1� • �, G t - f - 11 l ;t, C O � � c. 4- 1. ii 1 . C.) 'I,/ : x -- --- m r a' W �' P o wall v i-- • to `�. Ott N n r / f)IIIk a. : >-, 4) ct 4 c n C U) • .eE£+_ . 3 0...) a atl • at S ¢! GJ ig / v ir N .,......9 , ,1( o Q �- -• i! N S r II 0 N Hip.. M►I p w N 0 ° 0 L. v :� 04 i-4- 77 i II 0 ) a ,� a a�c!1 r • • • S7 ao j - � ea'/ ,.... , it) Ow.," 00 , ::. w> alc ._c-_, to- : -0- ma,'..„_ ,. , ...7.s.c7 (.1, • (------r) i C) . ... -1_ iL. V