The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA198900076 Action Letter 1989-09-14 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depattntent of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 .1596 (804) 296-5875 September 14 , 1989 Mr. Jimmy Walker 1779 Old Brook Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-89-76, Tax Map 46A1, Parcel 01-B2 Dear Mr. Walker: This letter is to inform you that on September 12 , 1989 , during the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-89-76 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, L Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: VA-89-76 Staff Person: John Grady Public Hearing: Sept. 12 , 1989 STAFF REPORT - VA 89-76 OWNER/APPLICANT: James W. Walker TAX MAP/PARCEL: 46A1-01-B2 ZONING: R-2 , Residential ACREAGE: Approx. 1/2 Acre. LOCATION: 1779 Old Brook Rd. in Fieldbrook Subdivision. REQUEST: The applicant requests 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 . " The applicant requests compliance for an existing deck zero (0) feet from the rear property line. This will require a six (6) foot variance. RELEVANT HISTORY: Staff recognizes that each variance is reviewed on its own merits, and is not on its face, precedent-setting. The following history is provided for information: There appears to be two factors that the applicant and builder would like the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider in this request. These are: 1. Confusion on the exact location of the rear property line. Because there is a board fence on Mr. Walker's rear yard, it was assumed that the property line and fence were both the same. An on-site inspection by Mr. Thacker (Zoning Inspector) has shown that the fence on the adjacent property is in fact several feet off the property line in question and Mr. Walker's deck is on the property line. STAFF REPORT - VA-89-76 PAGE 2 2 . The second factor that has led to confusion about this issue is a misunderstanding between the builder and the Inspections Department. A building permit for the pool was issued by the Inspections Department based on a sketch which shows the pool and the deck. The Inspections Department stated that the permit they granted was for a pool only with no additional fees taken for an attached deck. The building permit and the plat of Mr. Walker's property that were forwarded to the Zoning Department to do a preliminary zoning only indicated a pool with no mention of decking. It appears to have been a mutual misunderstanding. RECOMMENDATION Staff cannot support this request due to its failure to fulfill the criteria. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2 . The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3 . The applicant has not provided evidence that the authori- zation of such variance will not be of substantial detri- ment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the vari- ance. ADDENDUM TO VA 89-76 The applicant has provided two additional letters that they feel should justify a rehearing for VA-89-76 (James W. Walker) . Mr. Douglas M. Wickman (Vice President of Haley, Chisholm & Morris Construction Co.) has written that erosion problems may exist from removal of the deck and installation of a retaining wall. Mr. Richard Provost's (Vice President of Archadeck Co.) comments are directed to (1) aesthetic consideration and (2) what constitutes a structure. The additional information does not change the staff's recommendation of denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2. The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3. The applicant has not provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. • 9L-68-VA •4dac suoT.oadsui :oo 4s/dIAIV ao4PagsTuTutpv buzuoZ uosaagq.Pd •N PT TautV ; . 'ATeaaouTS •aoT33o ano gouquoo asPaTd 'suoTq.sanb Aug aiPq noA ;i •aoueTauA 400g (9) xTs P 'auT T Agaadoad auaa auq. utoag ;ea; (0) o.zaz pagpooT aq off. Noap buT4sTxa UP MoTTP 04 aouPuTpaO buTuoz Aguno3 aTauutagTy egg Jo T • Z 'TT • 'v uoT4oas utoag goTTea sEoTTP TeAoaddu aouuTaun situ, •9L-68-VA ao3 gsanbaa buTauagaa anoA panoaddu ATsnoutTuPun pauog oq; 'sTPaddy buzuoZ go papog Aguno3 aTarutegTy au4 go buT;aaut 'auk. buTanp '686T 'VT aaquanoN uo 4uu; noA utaoguT o4 sT aag4aT sins :aaNTuM •aye apaa al-T0 Taoaud 'TK9'b days )(PI '9L-68-VA uoT1oV sTeaddy buzuoZ go pauog :au T06ZZ VA '3TTTnsa4;0TauuD puog xooag PTO 6LLT aax1eM •M sauxPr 686T 'ST aaqutanoN SL8S-963 (1708) 9617-I063Z 2IUtftUA alllAsapol1eyD peoH alliupw IOt Suiuoz }o ;uauilledaa TIHVVflE V AINI11OD