HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000004 Action Letter 1990-02-15 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dcpdftnicilt /.Un n ki
10 I Minti );Id
Chdrh,Itcsville, Vin;Hiri 2201
(W I) :'')() `);;i ,
February 15 , 1990
Gary D. & Toni B. Hoerman
Rt. 7 , Box 220
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-90-04 , Tax Map 63 , Parcel 3
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hoerman:
This letter is to inform you that on February 13 , 1990, during
the meeting or the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the
Board unanimously approved your request for VA-90-04 .
This variance approval allows relief from Section 10. 4 of be
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for a reduction in the front
yard setback from 75 feet to 25 feet to allow the construction of
a deck and kitchen addition, a variance of 50 feet.
Should you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Amelia M. PatterSA' ''
Zoning Administrator
AMP/st
cc: VA-90-04
Inspections Department
STAFF REPORT - VA-90-04
OWNER/APPLICANT: Gary D. & Toni Hoerman
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 63/3
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
ACREAGE: 2 . 3 acres
LOCATION: On the southwest side of Route 610,
approximately 500 feet east of Route 20
North
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 requests a front yard setback of 25 feet, a variance
of 50 feet, to allow construction of a deck and kitchen addition
to an existing dwelling. The existing dwelling is approximately
25 feet from the right-of-way of Route 610. A building permit is
pending this variance.
The applicant's justification includes:
1. At the time of purchase the Zoning Ordinance would have
allowed additions and deck.
2 . Under current regulations no expansion would be allowed
to the front or rear of the house without a variance.
3 . The most practical location for the kitchen addition
would be to the rear of the house to match up to the
existing kitchen area.
4 . The building addition will not be any closer to the
property line than the existing structure.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed area for the new addition does appear to be the most
logical location so as to match up well to the existing structure.
It is staff's opinion that the applicant does possess undue
hardship that is not shared generally, and is not of substantial
detriment. The proposed addition would not substantially impact
the district, by not encroaching further than the present
structure. No other structures on adjacent property are in close
proximity to the proposed addition.
Staff Report - VA-90-04
Gary D. & Toni Hoerman
Page 2
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.