The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199000045 Action Letter 1990-07-11 e,„:11,11„ /;., 4 J COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-45% (804) 296 5875 July 11, 1990 Thomas P. Nottingham Rt. 4 Box 171 A Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action VA-90-45, Tax Map 47, Parcel 10A Dear Mr. Nottingham: This letter is to inform you that on July 10, 1990, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously approved your request for VA-90-45. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard setback from 75 feet to 71 feet from Route 649, to allow an existing house to remain as built. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, —1:CL John W. Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator JWG/dlp cc: VA-90-45 STAFF PERSON: John Grady PUBLIC HEARING: July 10, 1990 STAFF REPORT - VA-90-45 OWNER/APPLICANT: Thomas or Lois Nottingham TAX MAP/PARCEL: 47/10A ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2 . 181 acres LOCATION: Located on the northeast side of Route 649 approximately 1 mile south of its intersection with Route 643 . 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 right-of-way of Route 649 from 75 feet to 71 feet to allow a single family residence to remain as built, a variance of 4 feet. The house was built in 1977. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. The current owner was unaware that a setback violation existed until trying to secure a home equity loan. 2 . The setback violation exists because of an error by the original builder and the Inspections Department of Albemarle County. 3 . The applicant would like the error corrected in case anthing should happen to him, so that his wife and family would not encounter any problems with financing or selling the property. RECOMMENDATION The error in this case appears to be an inadvertent mistake by both the builder and the Zoning Department that may have resulted from miscalculation. It is staff's opinion that the error was an honest mistake that may have resulted because of the slight curvature of the front property line along Route 649. VA-90-45 Staff Report Page 2 Staff must also consider the economic and other hardships that would result if this request is denied: 1. Move the existing house, or 2 . Try to acquire additional land previously dedicated as right-of-way to the Commonwealth of Virginia to change the front property line location. This alternative does not appear possible because the Highway Department says the existing right-of-way is minimum. The house has existed in this location for 13 years. This Department has not received complaint from neighbors regarding this noncompliance with setback. These factors are unique, and suggest that the character of the district would not be changed nor adjacent property negatively impacted. Because these alternatives do not appear practical or necessary, staff recommends approval for cause. 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. { Amelia Patterson Page 2 June 22 , 1990 VA-90-34 Earlysville Family Health Center: This property is situated in a PUD. While the sign regulations of a PUD may or may not be viewed as adequate, the Board of Supervisors expressed concern that in the Four Seasons PUD multiple sign variances were granted over the years. In this case, the commercial area consists of multiple lots and it may be appropriate for the BZA to consider the future implications of granting individual variances. /A-90-45 Thomas P. or Lois H. Nottingham_ Several variances of this nature have been entertained in the past and appear to result from inadequate or inaccurate inspection as to setback and yard requirements. Electronic devices are available at modest cost which can accurately measure distance and require no judgement for usage. County acquisition of such equipment could avoid future exposure of the public to the uncertainty of variance as well as reduce costs to every party involved. VA-90-46 Virginia Land Trust: The applicant proposes location of a three bedroom dwelling on a site which does not meet County requirements for location of a three bedroom dwelling. Reasonable usage of the land can be achieved by location of a smaller dwelling. For areas not served by central or public utilities, it is the County' s policy that development not exceed the support ability of the land. There are many properties which cannot support a three bedroom dwelling on well and septic system "in the same zoning district" and there may be other properties in "the same vicinity" (Section 34.2) . VA-90-47 County of Albemarle School Board: I believe that for each public school developed or expanded since adoption of this ordinance in 1980, the School Board has sought variance. It would appear that if the School Board does not agree with zoning regulation, an amendment would be appropriate. This was suggested several years ago. I do not think that "government" schools can be continually granted variance, and then "government" regulation can be successfully asserted against private schools of similar character. VA-90-48 Alma Ball, Etal: I have read the justification for this request together with measures proposed by the applicant and I would recommend that the applicant's proposal be viewed as consistent with the intent of the RA zone as well as specific language of Section 10. 3 . 1. In this particular case I DO NOT BELIEVE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. RSK/jcw Amelia Patterson ' Page 2 June 22 , 1990 . VA-90-34 Earlvsville Family Health Center: This property is situated in a PUD. While the sign regulations of a PUD may or may not be viewed as adequate, the Board of Supervisors expressed concern that in the Four Seasons PUD multiple sign variances were granted over the years. In this case, the commercial area consists of multiple lots and it may be appropriate for the BZA to consider the future implications Io granting individual variances. A-90-45 Thomas P. or Lois H. Nottingham: Several variances of this nature have been entertained in the past and appear to result from inadequate or inaccurate inspection as to setback and yard requirements. Electronic devices are available at modest cost which can accurately measure distance and require no judgement for usage. County acquisition of such equipment could avoid future exposure of the public to the uncertainty of variance as well as reduce costs to every party involved. VA-90-46 Virginia Land Trust: The applicant proposes location of a three bedroom dwelling on a site which does not meet County requirements for location of a three bedroom dwelling. Reasonable usage of the land can be achieved by location of a smaller dwelling. For areas not served by central or public utilities, it is the County' s policy that development not exceed the support ability of the land. There are many properties which cannot support a three bedroom dwelling on well and septic system "in the same zoning district" and there may be other properties in "the same vicinity" (Section 34 .2) . VA-90-47 County of Albemarle School Board: I believe that for each public school developed or expanded since adoption of this ordinance in 1980, the School Board has sought variance. It would appear that if the School Board does not agree with zoning regulation, an amendment would be appropriate. This was suggested several years ago. I do not think that "government" schools can be continually granted variance, and then "government" regulation can be successfully asserted against private schools of similar character. VA-90-48 Alma Ball, Etal: I have read the justification for this request together with measures proposed by the applicant and I would recommend that the applicant's proposal be viewed as consistent with the intent of the RA zone as well as specific language of Section 10. 3 . 1. In this particular case I DO NOT BELIEVE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. RSK/jcw