HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900028 Public Notification 1989-03-22 �'�RGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
March 22, 1989
Jeff Smith
Concept Builders
1929 Commonwealth Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Smith:
This letter is to inform you that your variance application, VA-89-28,
will be heard during the public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals on
April 25, 1989, at 3:00 p.m. , Second Floor, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
It will be necessary for someone to be present to speak for the
variance application. If you have any questions, please contact our
office.
Sincerely,
a , w• a ...,,�
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB:cah
COUNTY OF AI.13LMAIM:
D(Tt. of I'Luntinq t Community Dovelo ii vet
101 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Vif!3nii.t 220(11 (!.`>c)(t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Andy Evans, Acting Zoning Administrator
FROM: Ronald S . Keeler, Chief of Planning 400,
April 3 , 1989
RE: Variances - April , 1989
The following are comments as to the general nature of various
petitions as opposed to analyses of individual circumstances:
VA-89-16 Purcell and Daughters Land and Development Corporation;
VA-89-17 Alton Morris; VA-89-23 Sherman W. Brock: These variance
petitions seek to reduce required public road frontage to allow
division of these properties . The subdivision ordinance provides
for subdivision on internal private (easement) roads to
accommodate such situations . Each applicant should be required
to demonstrate that the property cannot be subdivided in
compliance with these provisions . The Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors set frontage in the RA, Rural Areas zone at
250 feet to reduce the number of entrances onto public roads as a
matter of safety. If these variances are granted, joint
entrances should be required in order to serve this public
purpose.
VA-89-26 James W. Calhoun. VA-89-28 Concept Builders : These
variance petitions seek to reduce a yard requirement "to allow
construction of a single-family dwelling. " Both of these are new
subdivisions and any hardship as to building locat ion was created
by the subdivider and should, therefore, be viewed as
self-imposed. The problem is that at time of subdivision lots
are represented to the Planning Commission as developable in
accord with both the subdivision and zoning ordinances . An
applicant should, therefore, be required to demonstrate some
change in physical circumstance of the new lot which would
justify granting of the variance. Any such request for
properties subdivided since adoption of the current zoning
ordinance should be reviewed in this fashion.