Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200018 Action Letter 1992-07-15 ��OAF ALgc,_ , ©gm �'LRGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 July 15, 1992 Delores M. Morris 4325 McClary Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Variance Application, VA-92-18 Tax Map 33 , Parcel 38K Dear Ms. Morris: This letter is to inform you that on July 14, 1992 , during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (4: 1) approved your request for VA-92-18. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side setback from 25 to 16 feet for construction of a kitchen expansion and attached garage. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, :—.4teikkon Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sp'S cc: Inspections Department STAFF PERSON: Amelia M. Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: July 14, 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA 92-18 OWNER/APPLICANT: Delores M. Morris TAX MAP/PARCEL: 33/38K ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2 . 082 Acres LOCATION: In Gilbert Heights subdivision, on the south side of McClary Court, located off the east side of Route 600, 1/4 mile south of the intersection with Route 747. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, which requires that primary structures be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the side property line. The applicant requests a variance to reduce the side setback from 25 to 16 feet for construction of a kitchen expansion and attached garage. The applicant proposes construction of a 2-car garage to provide storage for one vehicle and numerous household and yard items. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. The proposed addition will be designed so as to be compatible with the house in terms of siding, pitch of roof and the like; 2 . The proposed addition is necessary for reasonable use of the property. The garage area is necessary for storage, because there is no basement, no attic, and no crawl space storage. The kitchen addition is necessary because the existing kitchen is so small as to almost practically be unusable. The open stove door virtually touches the cabinets on the other wall; 3 . Adjacent property owners on either side have written letters to support this request; 4. The closest house is at least 200 feet distant; 5. The only practical way to construct this is to attach it to the house, which brings up the setback issue. This is most practical due to the required location of the electric panel box, security purposes, drainage/erosion problems which exist in this area of the yard, and the most compatible design for the addition; Staff Report - VA-92-18 Page 2 6. There are no alternate locations for such construction. The side yard on the other side is limited due to steep slopes. This would not look appropriate if built in front of the house. If built in the rear, it would conflict with the septic field, and would shade the house. RELEVANT HISTORY: The house was built in 1989. There are no prior variances on this property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the applicant in the choice of location for the proposed building addition. However, if either of the two situations were proposed, a variance would not be necessary: a. A detached garage, not joined to the house. In this case, the setback is the same as for all accessory structures, and is 6 feet; b. A one-car garage. In this case the setback for a main structure would be met. Because alternatives exist which would not necessitate a variance, staff cannot support the request. In addition, staff generally does not agree that storage area, garages, swimming pools and the like are necessary for reasonable use of the property. Therefore, 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.