HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900079 Action Letter 1989-09-21 ��OG AL@�tl
o�II 1 ,r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
September 21, 1989
Jerry 0. Jordan
Rt. 1, Box 201
Schuyler, VA 22969
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-89-79, Tax Map 119, Parcel 51F
Dear Mr. Jordan:
This letter is to inform you that on September 19, 1989, during
the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your
application for VA-89-79 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,
rn ,
Amelia M. Patterson
Zoning Administrator
AMP/st
cc: VA-89-79
Amelia Patterson
Page 2
September 11, 1989
VA-89-79 Jerry O. Jordan: This property has been subject to
two prior divisions and therefore any resulting hardship is
self-imposed. Since the rear portion of the proposed division
would be served by easement through Lot 11 the spirit of the
ordinance could be satisfied if both Lot 11 and residue Lot
12 use the same entrance.
RSK/jcw
f• fl
'•r�R E
y SEP 11 1989
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
zcrNa',• G OERARTMEN-r
STAFF PERSON: Amelia M. Patterson
PUBLIC HEARING: September 19, 1989
STAFF REPORT - VA-89-79
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jerry O. Jordan
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 119/51F
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 7 . 07 acres
LOCATION: On the south side of Route 630, approximat-
ely 1/4 mile west of the intersection of
Route 717 and Route 719
REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section
4. 6. 1. 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, which states:
"Minimum lot width shall be measured at the
building setback line and shall be at least
the same width as the frontage required for
the district in which such lot is located.
Lot width shall not be reduced under
section 4 . 6. 1. 1. (Amended 7-20-88) "
Lot width is based on frontage, as stated
in Section 10. 4
"Area and Bulk Regulations
. . . Minimum frontage existing public
roads 250 feet . . . "
The applicant requests a reduction of lot width to 170 feet, a
variance of 80 feet, for a proposed subdivision. He has
contracted to sell the proposed 2-acre lot, and the buyer is not
interested in modification. The proposed subdivision design is
based on a previously approved subdivision, which was not recorded
and expired.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recognizes the fact that it is somewhat complicated to re-
design the lot once it is under contract, however, we would gener-
ally recommend that contracts be signed only after proposed sub-
divisions are received by the County for approval. Staff is aware
of several alternative subdivision designs which would avoid the
cause for a variance. These include:
Page 2
Staff Report - VA 89-79
1. Relocate the property line between the proposed 2-acre lot and
the parcel adjacent to the west owned by same, to "widen" the
proposed lot and "narrow" the adjacent parcel;
2 . Redesign the proposed lots to include some of the rear 5 acres
in the front lot;
3 . Create a joint access easement with:
a. the proposed 2-acre and proposed 5-acre lots, or with
b. the proposed 2-acre lot and adjacent parcel to the east,
owned by the contract purchaser. (A joint access ease-
ment reduces the lot width requirement to that of an in-
ternal road, 150 feet. )
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 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. Staff would note,
however, that there are several lots across Route 630 which
pre-exist this Zoning Ordinance and do not have the required
lot width.