HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900088 Action Letter 1989-11-17 .^\ E
.t0-' ;N:cititro
\'O , (`77- -_7 , 7 8 9
751 Exxon Court
VT,. 22907
T 7 cJ_
. 1.-c0- Tax Map 6CA, ?arce' C9 -4
This to inform you that cn November 14 , -989 , during
the recular meeting of the Albemarle County Board cf Zoning
s you-- a;-•,..l _cc r__on -For VA-29-0 c was approved..
This valiance amm oval allows relief from Sections 10 . 4 of the
Albemarle rlounty Zoninc Ordinance to reduce the minimum lot size
cf one lot to 1 . 84 acres, a variance of 0 . 16 acres. This property
subdivision into
f yo .e 'an. gue tion lease contact ,r f f c
-_ 1. 1__.�'J .� G.._ �� .,Ls�.__ _as ,, plea o�._ o��l�e.
-Are-Ha. C. "ato r s n.
i.:...D/s ._
Planning Depa-tm,mnt
STAFF PERSON: Amelia M. Patterson
PUBLIC HEARING: November 14, 1989
STAFF REPORT - VA 89-88
OWNER/APPLICANT: Benjamin H. Word, Jr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60A-9-4
ZONING: RA-Rural Area
ACREAGE: 3 .84
LOCATION: On the west side of Rt. 656 (Georgetown Road) ,
just south of Old Forge Road.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, which states:
"Minimum lot size 2 . 0 acres . . . "
The applicant requests a variance to reduce the minimum lot size
of one (1) lot to 1.84 acres, a variance of 0. 16 acres. This
property is proposed for subdivision into two (2) lots. It is
presently improved with one (1) single family dwelling. At the
time of adoption of this zoning ordinance, the property consisted
of the required acreage. In August of 1982 , the Virginia
Department of Transportation condemned 0. 18 acres. By this act,
the property acreage was reduced below the minimum 4 . 0 acres
necessary for construction of a second dwelling and/or subdivision
into two lots. This created a hardship for the owner, who had
future plans for development, and was compensated for the land and
not for the loss of a right to build or subdivide.
RECOMMENDATION
A subdivision plat has not yet been prepared and reviewed. This
situation of dedication to public use affecting the developability
of property is not uncommon. This case differs from VA-89-48,
Cora Kirby, who by virtue of dedication of land, did not have any
reasonable use of her property without variance.
However, there are several relevant points to consider:
1. The applicant was not compensated for the loss of one (1)
development right; therefore, the condemnation imposed some
hardship;
2 . Surrounding lots (Hessian Hills) are developed with a 0.7 acre
average lot size; therefore, the proposed lot size is not out
of character with the area;
Page 2
Staff Report - VA 89-88
3 . The property had sufficient acreage at the date of adoption of
the zoning ordinance.
4. To reduce the non-conformity of the resulting lots, the
applicant proposes one (1) lot to meet the minimum lot area
and only one (1) to require variance.
If the Board of Zoning Appeals should chose to approve this
request for cause, staff would advise that a distinction be made
from cases in which the hardship is a diminution in value, most
appropriately compensated at time of dedication.