HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900091 Action Letter 1989-11-16 r
..c,. r .',i(>:'.' ZOn.
'\, C:it.'.Iry Roar
22')., A- .9?0
2c)(3-: `i 5
'^ 7, 333
Steve Nicholas or Dorothy
Nt. 3 , 7e,x 203
Charlottesville, VA 2290_
?e. Scarf of Zoning Ai oeels Action
75. 33 coax ?%lgyp 33 , P el 7 G
fear __r . :x Sirs . Nicholas:
to -' =orm you that on November 14 , 1939 , during
th Albemarle County Scarf of Zoning Appeals, the
=c__. �n�_,_ ously L Ycvew your re guest for VA-89-91 .
variance allows relief from Section 10 . 4 of the
County Zoning Orr Tnancereducethe e�„ �,, LL _ to _ uc rear ` ara setback
from :;3 feet to 22 feet to allow a porch to remain as
bur u , _y . Hance of -3
7f you have any cue's'�_on_s, please contact our office.
Sincere_
Patterson
Z oni J �`dmin_s tra for
A_ P/s t
ramp. /3 s-3J-C1`
[ 7
�_�'J ve�..l..��i1i✓ -leear.i.ie 11:
PUBLIC HEARING: 11/14/89
STAFF REPORT - VA-89-91 STAFF: Kathy Dodson
OWNER/APPLICANT: Steve or Dorothy Nicholas
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 33/1G
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 0.930
LOCATION: East Side of Route 29N, approximately
1 mile south of Rt. 641
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the rear yard setback require-
ment from 35 feet to 22 feet to allow a screened porch to
remain as built. This addition is along the rear of the building.
This section states:
"10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations
. . . Yards Minimum:
. . . Rear 35 feet . . . "
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:
On February 11, 1986, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a
variance on this property to allow an addition to a single
family dwelling to be 18 feet from the right-of-way, a variance
of 57 feet.
The dwelling was built in 1961, prior to the adoption of a
zoning ordinance and is therefore, nonconforming. The property
consists of only 0.930 acres. Immediately to the rear of the
dwelling is a well which serves the property and the septic is
located to the south of the structure. The rear of the
property has a sharp drop into a stream bed along which the
rear of the property runs creating an odd configuration of the
rear property line.
On August 30, 1989, the applicant made application for a
building permit for a screened porch. At the date of
application, the screened porch was under construction.
A preliminary inspection by a member of the zoning department
confirmed that the addition would not meet the required rear
yard setback.
STAFF REPORT - VA-89-91
Steve or Dorothy Nicholas
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has demonstrated that because of the size and
topography of the property, the location of the well and
septic, and the odd configuration of the rear property line,
the perceived hardship is unique to this property in contra-
distinction to other properties in the same zoning district. It
appears that the applicant could not build in any direction
without a variance approval.
The application should be denied for cause:
(1) The applicant has not demonstrated that the strict appli-
cation of the zoning ordiance would produce a clearly
demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation as
distinguished from a special privilege or convenience.
(2) The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to
show that the authorization of the 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.