The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199000043 Action Letter 1990-06-20 L COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning ,I()1 McIntire ROdld Charlottesville, Virginia 2290 14596 (804) 296-5875 June 20, 1990 Fred A. and Cindy R. Newsom 621 Montei Drive Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-43 , Tax Map 30, Parcel 25V Dear Mr. and Mrs. Newsom This letter is to inform you that on June 19, 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-90-43 . This variance approval allows relief from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front setback from 75 feet to 61 feet from Montei Drive. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, John Grady Deputy Zoning Administrator JG/srg cc: William D. Tucker VA-90-43 87-404.NR STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: June 19, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-43 OWNER/APPLICANT: Fred A. and Cindy R. Newsom TAX MAP/PARCEL: 30/25V ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2 . 1 acres LOCATION: Located at 621 Montei Drive in Fairgrove subdivision off Route 662 . 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 requests a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from the easement of Montei Drive from 75 feet to 61 feet to allow a single family residence to remain as built, a variance of 14 feet. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. The current owner was unaware that a setback violation existed. 2 . The setback violation exists because of an error by the original builder and the Inspections Department of Albemarle County. 3 . The current owner had considered putting their home on the market but could not do so with the setback violation. 4. If the error had been detected in the preliminary stages of development the builder probably would have requested a variance at that time as the property falls off very sharply behind the current location of the house. RECOMMENDATION The error in this case appears to be an honest mistake by both the builder and Inspector from the Inspections Department. The building inspector thought he needed only half (25 feet) of the 50 feet radius and 75 feet for the front setback to locate the house from the property line. Mr. Nichols measured a distance of 100 feet plus from the center of the cul-de-sac to the footings and felt the house exceeded the setback requirement. However, it should have been measured the full 50 feet radius plus 75 feet setback, to total 125 feet. Staff concurs with the applicant that the existing location does appear to be the most practical as the area to the rear of the house does fall off rather sharply. Page 2 Staff Report - VA-90-43 Staff must also consider the economic hardships that the current owner now faces. 1. Move the existing house, or 2 . Try to acquire additional land from an adjoining property owner to change the front property line location, existing easement dedications, and possibly move the existing road. As these alternatives do not appear practical or necessary, 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. STAFF PERSON: PUBLIC HEARING: STAFF REPORT - VA 10-�3 OWNER/APPLICANT: Fem. A• 4 C'm.� -• tQL.4.o sem ' TAX MAP/PARCEL:, 30z 3 ZONING: �, ACREAGE: ? • I LOCATION: D -. .. , cJr (�Z i M 0„)4TI ¢;4 t� ��d �a-i•tt7r4s t. S• �' r 1.�'� vi5io� o • . REQUEST: I The applicant requests relief from Section t0. �- of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states: 142R-At f I 5 , Vh ( 76- 1 � t f( we.S 0— �oh'+�.i 4�,•.�C t 1-0 �e,1 i4u1k - S�`�o ( - f"'(pry^ ,(,.1�„ q-pl.5'a�"'`a.� .�. S' 4 • i o (4 I 4 kti(o 4 o- ��+5�4. T.kr-: I N-6 id s QyiO�C�i.e S `iJ�SlC..�C-t'10y,,,) 'Vs-) 1 � COW (( I11 c„1`.�y� �1 0 J^"1-r.� W0-5 Wr�O-,W uv i.-ac^�- o► s4.4,4 b4.4 i0 411 4:'%0') -8-•1(1'.4" • r( 5 CO 6 v �k - V i 0[a o -`1Si 5t 5 L '-�'$) aw 4-1LK o • y ,a i�a�R( b u=t 1 L� or,d. II -c. I a Sp�++c...s 4-. TLev-tX T 0�,� h d e.o 4-41 r 0-"i^ Nd L —e. wi vhan. ti'� Lo tou\ YJG cle, se. a sa4/V4 L Y(o\A 0#J . . * 4 11,a 'A-II-AA A- k� -�-Q r.� £a 4-€4�� 11 e^se. I:w. w 4tin RELEVANT HISTORY: 0V-e 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: F 0 Page 2 Staff Report - VA RECOMMENDATION e C2 J 5 cosy typo o -� -Fc� e �,v �o•v-�s s--0fl«, [off bw,1 -el ci \-,,,L �.�. f^' • s �'`� 1-•• � (' � ��--�z. �✓� t� .J r2. v�.,o(S m Ra s�-t a- d istk)-c2 0_c- 100 pIA-s ftte-n., 4 'ASS P-14 RA z•A-41-04T—Le !xirf ,, I 4}� COS G+t.�• d W 1 L- 1�11 Ay p -iTh-„ - r ""xt 3 n p P/t} �-;u �. c�o4,St l �} W -4- 4- wt o`-.# p"o-t-Cr;c;r�1 Jrs +1/4 a_ A rtt. . 6114- Yvt W S f .4 ( g o c.o..)3 ir 'y_. 7Lfi ,ie o n.YlYw+ 4— k kx.1-1 /p S 14_44 It. ow„/ w 4-1/r6-4.-s . e �ess? 1 ky,6�.4-• -'mil J-} , ✓Lm I� . i%)X-C-4-5 5 4-0-t.) 4-1( At.)--e-erYk) 5 ,alt-p//),t)VA-1 f°N— , Staff recommends for cause: 1. The applicant h/ ` provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship; 2 . The applicant provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; 3 . The applicant 114-S 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. 4 a