HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900082 Action Letter 1989-10-11 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
October 11, 1989
Peter Eades
2554 Holkham Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-89-82, Tax Map 60G, Parcel 10
Dear Mr. Eades:
This letter is to inform you that on October 10, 1989, during the meeting of
the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-89-82 was
approved. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum front yard requirement of
75 feet to 55 feet, a variance of 20 feet.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
L-7A-a-dLI
John Grady
Deputy Zoning Administrator
JG/wje
cc: Inspections Department
Allen Howell
VA-89-82
STAFF REPORT - VA-89-82
OWNER/APPLICANT: Allan P. and Susan Howell
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 60G/10
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 4.76 acres
LOCATION: 1480 Stable Lane in Inglecress Subdivision
off south side of Rt. 601
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance. This section states:
"Area and Bulk Regulations . . .
Yards, minimum
Front 75 feet . . . "
The applicant is requesting a 20 foot variance for a single-family
residence to be located 55 feet from a private road easement
(Stable Lane) in Inglecress Subdivision. The house is presently
built.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
All final inspections were approved on this dwelling on November
30, 1988, and a certificate of occupancy was issued on December 2,
1988. The dwelling has been occupied since early December, 1988
by the applicants. The error in the setback was not found until
September 19, 1989, when the applicant requested a building permit
for a pool. They submitted a physical survey of the property to
the Zoning Department to approve the location of the pool. At
this time, the Zoning Department notified Mr. Howell that a
setback violation existed on his property and would need to be
corrected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The error in this case stems from the fact that several
individuals did not take into consideration the width (50 feet) of
the access easement.
Two items that typically create confusion for both contractors and
inspectors are:
1. Plats that show private roads and do not further mention
the dimensions of easements.
2 . Plats that indicate the property lines going to the center of
roads, confusing the issue of where to start measuring a
setback distance.
Staff Report - VA-89-82
Allan P. and Susan Howell
Page 2
Although staff is sympathetic to the applicant's position, the
Department does not feel the applicant meets all of the criteria
listed below to grant a variance. The options of relocating the
house or relocating the easement would create a certain hardship.
However, it would be self-imposed to some extent.
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 of the variance.