HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199000059 Action Letter 1990-08-22 f.-.-id
,,,,)
COUNTY OF AI.BE MARI.I
Department of Zoning
401 Mclntini Road
('hitilott&viilr. Virqu,i.i 22901 Ti)')f>
($04) 2% 5S7fi
August 22 , 1990
Mr. & Mrs. George Hamp
48 Canterburg Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-90-59 , Tax Map 76C, Parcel A23
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hamp:
This letter is to inform you that on August 21, 1990, during
the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the
Board granted your request for withdrawal of VA-90-59 .
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
--1Z (--71Amiti
John Grady
Deputy Zoning Administrator
JG/st
cc: VA-90-59
STAFF PERSON: John Grady
PUBLIC HEARING: August 21, 1990
STAFF REPORT - VA-90-59
OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. George Hamp
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 76C/A23
ZONING: R-1, Residential
ACREAGE: 1. 08 acres
LOCATION: Located at 48 Canterbury Road in Bellair
Estates Subdivision.
REQUEST:
The applicant requests relief from Section 4. 11.2 . 1 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which states:
"4 . 11. 2 . 1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
If no utility or drainage easements or other
easements are adversely affected, accessory
structures or portions thereof may be
erected no closer than six (6) feet to adjacent lot
lines in the case of detached structures, or to a
common wall in the case of attached structures;
provided further that no such structure shall be
located within any yard required by Section 4 . 6. 3
(Addition 3-18-81) (Amended 1-1-83)
The applicant requests a 5 foot variance in order to construct a
20 foot by 20 foot carport, 1 foot from a side property line.
Construction materials are to be wood and wrought iron.
The applicant's justification includes the following:
1. The proposed area for the carport is already a paved parking
area.
2 . Because Mr. Hamp is to some degree handicapped the covered
carport would be very beneficial in inclement weather.
3 . The utility easement shown on the plat was secured when the
subdivision was originally developed and no longer serves any
purpose as the existing utilities are located on the rear
property line and the opposite side property line.
Page 2
Staff Report - VA-90-59
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant's assumption that the 10 foot utility easement was
an original development easement when the subdivision was planned,
is probably correct. To reserve utility easements along all
property lines in the preliminary stages of development was a
common practice. This enabled the utility companies and
developers to put in the needed utilities at a later date
hopefully cutting the cost by using those easement areas that
offered best access. Staff has reviewed the subdivision plats for
Bellair Estates and it appears that all lots are subject to the 10
foot utility easement requirement along all property lines.
Although staff is sympathetic to the applicant's position, the
Department does not feel the applicant meets the criteria listed
below to grant a variance and therefore recommends denial for
cause. In additional, staff is concerned about-approval of a
variance that would permit encroachment into an easement for
others. Until the easement is vacated, these utility easement
rights exists, and the owner makes improvements at his own risk.
Staff recommends denial for cause:
1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict
application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship;
2 . The applicant has not 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 not 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.