Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900083 Action Letter 1989-10-19 1 ��:1°ilia '•= COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning_ 401 McIntire Road ('llarll,i�es�illy, Vnginia 22901 4596 (804) 296-5875 October 19, 1989 Anthony T. Davis 1936 Arlington Blvd. , #208 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Luther and Rosa Waytes 1930 Owensville Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-89-83 , Tax Map 42 , Parcels 67 & 67A Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is to inform you that on October 17, 1989, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-89-83 was denied. Anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Board can appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: VA-89-83 • . . . . . . .,,, ____,„ Hifi J v NorL ,,,,,,,,, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road ('h,irloltewillc, Virginia 22001 4596 (804) 20(6 5875 October 19 , 1989 Anthony T. Davis 1936 Arlington Blvd. , #208 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Luther and Rosa Waytes 1930 Owensville Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-89-83 , Tax Map 42, Parcels 67 & 67A Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is to inform you that on October 17, 1989, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, your application for VA-89-83 was denied. Anyone aggrieved by a decision of the Board can appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within thirty (30) days of the decision. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, \.., V, ,l' 1 r i , -, Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: VA-89-83 STAFF PERSON: AMP PUBLIC HEARING: October 17, 1989 STAFF REPORT - VA-89-83 OWNER/APPLICANT: Luther and Rosa Waytes and Anthony T. Davis TAX MAP/PARCEL: 42/67 and 67A ZONING: RA, Rural Area ACREAGE: 8.314 acres & 2.0 acres LOCATION: West side of Rt. 676, approximately 0.8 mile north of its intersection with Rt. 677. REQUEST: The applicants request relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations Minimum Frontage Existing Public Roads, 250 feet . . ." The applicants seek variances from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the road frontage (for two lots presently platted with a joint access easement) , from the minimum of two hundred fifty (250) feet to 210 feet for 67A and 196 feet for parcel 67. These lots were approved in a subdivision plat signed December 16, 1988. Due to a lack of required frontage, they were shown to be served by one entrance with a joint 30 foot access easement. However, the owner of parcel 67A installed a second entrance. He was notified of violation of the approved subdivision plat by the Planning Dept. and now seeks a remedy. 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: VA-88-59 Luther Waytes was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 11, 1988. The proposal at that time created one (1) lot with the required road frontage, and the second lot with 145 feet of frontage. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff does not support this request. Frontage requirements serve several purposes. Approval of this variance would allow one (1) additional entrance. It is a general goal to reduce side friction on public roads by consolidating entrances. Zoning staff is not aware of new information which justifies a variance at this time. The hardship of closing one entrance and realigning the driveway would be self-imposed. Staff Report - VA-89-83 Luther and Rosa Waytes and Anthony T. Davis Page 2 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.