Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000002 Action Letter 1990-01-26 ��eW,vt14,3r 4> I IIII yP ���1tGtN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 January 26, 1990 Rinehart Construction Ltd. 1110 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-02 , Tax Map 59C2 , Parcel 02-01 Dear Mr. Rinehart: This letter is to inform you that on January 25, 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-90-02 . This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for a reduction in the front setback in order to construct a new home 53 feet from the right-of-way of Kingston Road, a variance of 22 feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, 6A-\e2,%e.-th l Amelia M. Pat rson Zoning Administrator AMP/st cc: VA-90-02 Inspections Department STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: January 25, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA 90-02 OWNER/APPLICANT: Rinehart Construction Ltd. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 59C2/02-01 ZONING: RA, Rural Area ACREAGE: 2 . 07 Acres LOCATION: Located on the southeast corner of Emerson Drive and Kingston Road in West Leigh Subdivision REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations: Yards minimum: Front 75 feet" The applicant requests a front setback variance off feet to allow a proposed single family home to be located -51- feet from the right-of-way of Kingston Road. S / The applicant's justification includes: 1. The expense of relocating the concrete footings and block foundation that have been completed. 2 . An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on September 21, 1988 which voided the previous interpretation of the Zoning Administrator in May of 1988. 3 . The applicant's desire to stay as far away from the 100 year flood plain as possible. 4 . The 1962 subdivision plat of West Leigh indicates a 55 foot building setback from the center of the road. 5. There are more than a dozen homes located on Kingston Road and Emerson Drive that do not meet the current setback requirements of 75 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 August 9, 1988 a 7 foot variance was granted to allow a single family dwelling to be located 48 feet from the property line on Emerson Drive. Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-02 RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Rinehart proceeded with the development of this lot based on a determination that was given by a previous Zoning Administrator (Charles W. Burgess, Jr. ) , that the building setback line should be 55 feet from the center of the road or 30 feet from the current right-of-way. This determination was made in May of 1988 in accordance with the administrative practice used at that time, to determine the setback on lots created prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1968. To further support this determination, the 1962 subdivision plat of West Leigh shows a building setback minimum of 55 feet from the center of the road. However, due to the fact that over a year had passed since the determination, the applicant should have confirmed that it remained valid. The problem arises in this case from the fact that on September 21, 1988 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to require lots such as this, created prior to 1968, to conform to the current yard setback regulations. It states: "Except as otherwise provided in section 30. 5, scenic areas overlay district, in the case of any subdivision approved and defined as such pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle after December 22, 1969, and prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which was of record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall apply to all lots within such subdivision. In all other cases, the rear, side and front yard and setback regulations of this ordinance shall apply. " (Addition 4-15-81) (Amended 9-21-88) Staff agrees with the applicant that it would be an undue hardship to relocate the existing foundation, and that granting this variance will not change the character of the district; also because of the low topography and the 100 year flood plan, the logical building site is forced away from the stream towards the road. This property does have a hardship that is not shared by other properties in the same district. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2 . The applicant has 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 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.