Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000041 Action Letter 1990-06-20 `1'is�IN\�I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 4596 (804) 296-5875 June 20, 1990 John M. and Barbara A. Ray 103 Juniper Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-41, Tax Map 62C, Parcel A5 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ray: This letter is to inform you that on June 19, 1990 during the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-90-41. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow a detached garage to be located 30 feet from the front property line, a variance of 45 feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely . (re...1-7- 'John Grady Deputy Zoning A ministrator JG/sg cc: VA-90-41 STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: June 19, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-41 OWNER/APPLICANT: John and Barbara Ray TAX MAP/PARCEL: 62C/A5 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 1. 14 acres LOCATION: 103 Juniper Lane in Cedar Hills Subdivision off Route 20 North and adjacent to Key West Subdivision. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: "Area and Bulk Regulations Yards, minimum front. . . 75 feet" The applicant is requesting a 45 foot variance in order to construct a detached garage 30 feet from the front property line. Applicant's justification includes the following: 1. Subdivision was originally approved with a 30 foot front building setback line. 2 . The proposed detached garage will be located no closer than the existing house. 3 . The proposed location provides both the most practical and asthetic area to match the existing house. 4 . The area to the rear of the house is limited because of drain- field area and a substantial sloping of the land away from the house. 5. The proposed location provides for minimum grading and driveway costs. Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-41 RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the applicant that the proposed area for the garage does appear to be the most logical location so as to match the existing house. The applicant also does have some topographical hardship to the rear of the property in that the land substantially slopes downhill away from the house. The proposed addition would not substantially impact the district by not encroaching any farther than the present home. Staff finds this application does meet two of the three variance criteria: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 2 . 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. However, the question arises as to whether the applicant enjoys reasonable use of the property currently. It is staff's opinion that denial of building additon for a garage would not create a demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation. Therefore, staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordiance would produce undue hardship.