Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000032 Action Letter 1990-06-14 �_liI"II( t -110. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 June 14 , 1990 Timothy J. & Deborah A. Ritchey Rt 1, Box 470 Barboursville, VA 22923 • RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-32 , Tax Map 35, Parcel 23B Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ritchey: This letter is to inform you that on June 12 , 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously accepted your withdrawal request. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/srp cc: VA-90-32 CORRECTED COPY Staff Person: Kathy B. Dodson Public Hearing: May 8, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-32 OWNER/APPLICANT: Timothy J. and Deborah A. Ritchey TAX MAP/PARCEL: 35/23B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: . 902 acres LOCATION: East Side of Route 641, +/- 2 miles south of Route 20 North REQUEST The applicant requests relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow storage building/garage addition to be 27 feet from the right-of-way of Route 641, a variance of of 48 feet. This section states: "10. 4 Area and Bulk Regulations Yards Minimum: Front . . . 75 feet" The applicant proposes to build a 24' x 24' detached storage building/garage and plans to later attach this structure to the main house by means of a breezeway. The applicant's justification includes: (1) The building/addition cannot be placed on the opposite side of the house because of the required 25' setback. (2) The building cannot be placed behind the dwelling because of the septic tank and drainfield. (3) The location requested is the most logical and most cosmetic. (4) The proposed structure would be parallel with the existing structure. (5) The lot is limited in size. RECOMMENDATION The house was built prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. Section 6. 5 of the ordinance requires that this lot meet current ordinance requirements. Because of the location of the existing dwelling and the septic tank/drainfield area to the rear of the site, there is no area in which an addition can be put which would not necessitate a variance. a Staff Report - VA-90-32 Page 2 Even if the structure were to remain detached, it would still be required to meet the 75' setback. To meet this requirement, for a detached structure, the existing fenced area (pasture with animals) would have to be relocated. This proposal would not be feasible and would not meet the needs of the applicant. Staff concurs that the applicant has chosen the most logical area for construction. Both an attached and detached structure would be limited by the constraints outlined on a lot of such exceptional small size. The application should be approved 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. Staff Person: Kathy B. Dodson Public Hearing: May 8, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-32 OWNER/APPLICANT: Timothy J. and Deborah A. Ritchey TAX MAP/PARCEL: 35/23B ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: . 902 acres LOCATION: East Side of Route 641, +/- 2 miles south of Route 20 North REQUEST The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This section states: "10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations Yards Minimum: Front . . . 75 feet" The applicant proposes to build a 24' x 24' detached storage building/garage and plans to later attach this structure to the main house by means of a breezeway. The applicant's justification includes: (1) The building/addition cannot be placed on the opposite side of the house because of the required 25' setback. (2) The building cannot be placed behind the dwelling because of the septic tank and drainfield. (3) The location requested is the most logical and most cosmetic. (4) The proposed structure would be parallel with the existing structure. (5) The lot is limited in size. RECOMMENDATION The house was built prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. Section 6. 5 of the ordinance requires that this lot meet current ordinance requirements. Because of the location of the existing dwelling and the septic tank/drainfield area to the rear of the site, there is no area in which an addition can be put which would not necessitate a variance. Even if the structure were to remain detached, it would still be required to meet the 75' setback. To meet this requirement, for a detached structure, the existing fenced area (pasture with animals) would have to be relocated. This proposal would not be feasible and would not meet the needs of the applicant. STAFF REPORT - VA-90-32 Page 2 Staff concurs that the applicant has chosen the most logical area for construction. Both an attached and detached structure would be limited by the constraints outlined on a lot of such exceptional small size. The application should be approved 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.