Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199200022 Action Letter 1992-07-15 Hof A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 July 15, 1992 Bill Tucker Attorney 307 West Rio Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Robert T. , Jr. and Cathy H. Mares Tax Map 45, Parcel 36B Dear Mr. Tucker: This letter is to inform you that on July 14, 1992, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board unanimously (5: 0) approved your request for VA-92-22 , subject to the following condition: (1) Approval shall be limited to the work within building permit #88-1487 AR. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side setback from 25 to 17 feet to allow an attached garage to remain as built. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, alt\(\121:11.1-Y1 'Ct7CCitAr1^------ Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator AMP/sg/5T cc: Robert and Cathy Mares TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45/36B ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2 . 001 acres LOCATION: At 730 Lochridge Lane, in Lochridge subdivision off the east side of Rt. 743, approximately 1 mile north of the intersection with Rt. 676. REOUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to allow an attached garage to remain as built. This is a variance to reduce the side setback from 25 to 17 feet. HISTORY: The current owners, the Mares purchased this property in May, 1992 . Although at that time the garage violated the setback requirement, it was not discovered until after closing on the purchase. The previous owners, the Deluces purchased the property in April, 1987. In October, 1988, they were issued a building permit (#88- 1487 AR) to complete a master bedroom and study addition to the house. This addition attached the previously detached garage to the house, and changed the setback requirement from 6 to 25 feet from the side property line. The building permit application showed a distance of 30 feet from the side property line. Apparently the routine preliminary inspection by the County did not discover the discrepancy. The contractor did not apply for a final inspection and the structure has no certificate of occupancy. The violation/error was determined during the final inspection requested by the current owners. They were seeking the proper certificate. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. The current owners obtained the property in good faith, and have essentially inherited a problem. They have proceeded towards the necessary inspection and certificate, which disclosed the violation; and they have proceeded towards the necessary variance to correct it. 2. The violation results from shared errors, on the part of the property owner/contractor and the County. 3. With the addition built, it would produce an undue hardship (financially, aesthetically and practically) to require its removal. 8 4. This is a unique situation not shared generally by other properties in this district or vicinity. 5. This encroachment into the side setback will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the character of the district. The residence on the lot adjoining to the south (lot 3) is located on the other side of the lot. In addition, the location of both the house and garage has not changed. A 2 story addition of 10 x 24 feet has been constructed to provide a playroom and closet, and a bath. RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. The building addition was designed and built so as to be compatible with both the house and the garage. It is significant in terms of precedence, that a) the building exists in violation as a mutual mistake, and that b) the current owners have proceeded in good faith. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. • It would present an undue financial and practical hardship to require that either the addition be removed, or that the garage be shortened. 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. This is a unique situation, not shared generally. 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. The situation would remain as it now stands. The adjacent property should not be negatively impacted. The properties are well wooded, and the other house is not visible. The visual impact from the road should be negligible. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Approval shall be limited to the work within building permit (#88-1487 AR) . " Bill Tucker, Attorney, was present to speak for the appication. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Board. 9 STAFF PERSON: Amelia M. Patterson PUBLIC HEARING: July 14, 1992 STAFF REPORT - VA 92-22 OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert and Cathy Mares (presently) ; and Donald and Mary Deluce (previously) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 45/36B ZONING: Rural Areas ACREAGE: 2 . 001 acres LOCATION: At 730 Lochridge Lane, in Lochridge subdivision off the east side of Rt. 743, approximately 1 mile north of the intersection with Rt. 676. REQUEST: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to allow an attached garage to remain as built. This is a variance to reduce the side setback from 25 to 17 feet. HISTORY: The current owners, the Mares purchased this property in May, 1992 . Although at that time the garage violated the setback requirement, it was not discovered until after closing on the purchase. The previous owners, the Deluces purchased the property in April, 1987 . In October, 1988, they were issued a building permit (#88- 1487 AR) to complete a master bedroom and study addition to the house. This addition attached the previously detached garage to the house, and changed the setback requirement from 6 to 25 feet from the side property line. The building permit application showed a distance of 30 feet from the side property line. Apparently the routine preliminary inspection by the County did not discover the discrepancy. The contractor did not apply for a final inspection and the structure has no certificate of occupancy. The violation/error was determined during the final inspection requested by the current owners. They were seeking the proper certificate. The applicant's justification includes the following: 1. The current owners obtained the property in good faith, and have essentially inherited a problem. They have proceeded towards the necessary inspection and certificate, which disclosed the violation; and they have proceeded towards the necessary variance to correct it. Staff Report 'A-92-22 Robert Mares Page 2 2. The violation results from shared errors, on the part of the property owner/contractor and the County. 3 . With the addition built, it would produce an undue hardship (financially, aesthetically and practically) to require its removal. 4. This is a unique situation not shared generally by other properties in this district or vicinity. 5. This encroachment into the side setback will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the character of the district. The residence on the lot adjoining to the south (lot 3) is located on the other side of the lot. In addition, the location of both the house and garage has not changed. A 2 story addition of 10 x 24 feet has been constructed to provide a playroom and closet, and a bath. RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the applicant's justification. The building addition was designed and built so as to be compatible with both the house and the garage. It is significant in terms of precedence, that a) the building exists in violation as a mutual mistake, and that b) the current owners have proceeded in good faith. Staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. It would present an undue financial and practical hardship to require that either the addition be removed, or that the garage be shortened. 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. This is a unique situation, not shared generally. 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. The situation would remain as it now stands. The adjacent property should not be negatively impacted. The properties are well wooded, and the other house is not visible. The visual impact from the road should be negligible. Staff Report - .A-92-22 Robert Mares Page 3 Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Approval shall be limited to the work within building permit (#88-1487 AR) .