HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900038 Action Letter 1989-06-14 •
L
�,1
4
11N:1 P',
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
June 14, 1989
John & Mary Lee Wall
204 Georgetown Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action for VA-89-38
Tax Map 60A, Parcel 03-I5
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Wall:
This letter is to inform you that on June 13 , 1 '�<. .: , ,iu i iuj
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, your application for VA-89-38 was approved.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 15. 3 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required side yard
setback from ten (10) feet to seven (7) feet to construct a room
addition.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Ocrt - Pageta4A.,--
Amelia M. Patterson
Zoning Administrator
AMP/st
cc: VA-89-38
Inspections Department
STAFF REPORT - VA-89-38
OWNER/APPLICANT: John G. and Mary Lee Wall
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60A/03-I5
ZONING: R-4, Residential
LOCATION: The southeast corner of the intersection of
Georgetown Road and Old Forge Road at 204
Georgetown Road in Hessian Hills
Subdivision
REQUEST: The applicant seeks a variance from Section
15. 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, which states:
"15. 3 Area and Bulk Regulations
Yards, minimum
Side 20 feet . . .
(a) Minimum side yards shall be reduced to
not less than ten (10) feet in accordance
with Section 4 . 11. 3 . . . "
a3
The applicant proposes construction of a 10 foot wide by 220 foot
long room addition to the southwest side of the house. A side
setback reduction from ten (10) feet to seven (7) feet is
requested. This room will be utilized as exercise area for the
handicapped wife. The adjacent owners have written to confirm
they have no objection to this request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The area proposed for construction appears to be the most
practical area for addition that involves only the main floor.
Construction to the opposite side of the house would also involve
basement addition and extension into the driveway. However, it
appears that a variance would not be necessary.
The application should be denied for cause:
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that a strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce a clearly
demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation 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 alter the character
of the district.