Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199300039 Action Letter 1993-12-15 . . a . �y of Aip,.. \RGiNx- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE • Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 December 15, 1993 Harold Wright Route 9, Box 31 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 93, Parcel 45D and 45F Dear Mr. Wright: This letter is to inform you that on December 14, 1993, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (5:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-39, subject to the following condition: 1. Any addition to the garage which does not meet the current setbacks adjacent to lot 6 shall require an amendment to this variance. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to correct an existing situation in which a garage straddles the property line between lots #4 and #6. Request to reduce the side setback for the garage from 6 to 2 ft. (There currently is not setback). If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, dhAth-L ki9, e � Amelia G. McCulley, A I.C.P. Zoning Administrator AGM/sp cc: Maggie Pugh Inspection Planning STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: December 14, 1993 STAFF REPORT - VA 93-39 OWNER/APPLICANT: Harold C. and Frances S. Wright (Owners of Parcel 45F, Lot 6) and Charles H., Sr. and Maggie E. Pugh (Owners of Parcel 45D, Lot 4) TAX MAP/PARCEL: 93/45F and 45D ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: Parcel 45F (Lot 6) is 1.240 acres; parcel 45D (Lot 4) is 1.065 acres) LOCATION: In Mount Eagle subdivision on the west side of Route 729, approximately 600 feet north of the intersection with Route 53. REQUEST: The applicants request a variance from Section 10.4 of the Rural Areas district and 4.11.2.1 of the General Regulations, to reduce the side setback for an existing garage from 6 to 2 feet, a variance of 4 feet. It will correct an existing situation in which a garage straddles the property line between lots #4 and #6. The garage was built in the 1950's; the exact date of which is not determined. The Mount Eagle subdivision was approved in April, 1972. The original plat for the subdivision created this situation by establishing the side property line between lots 4 avp,f1 6 through the structure. The garage has historically been used as an improvement for the lot § roperty, where a house was built in 19733 Later, the original surveyor completed a revised plat with a January, 1973 approval from the County, to correct the encroachment`?CA recent survey conducted dur t advertisement for sale of lot § shows that the end of the garage still encroaches into lot 6. UNDUE HARDSHIP This situation is a hardship beyond the applicants' control. Until this setback issue is resolved, it will be difficult if not impossible to sell these lots. Others acted in good faith by attempting to correct the problem once discovered, not realizing that a surveying error remained. It is only reasonable that the garage be located on the property of those who have historically assumed ownership of it and paid taxes for it. It is impractical for the structure to be shared. UNIQUENESS The applicants are unaware of similar situations. This certainly is not commonly recurring. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-39 Page 2 CHARACTER OF THE AREA There will be no change physically or otherwise, should this be approved. It will simply allow what has been an assumed situation of ownership to be authorized by variance. Should this not be approved, the conflict over use could negatively impact the upkeep of the structure and therefore, the character of the area. RELEVANT HISTORY: There is no history in Zoning Department files. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs in all respects with the applicants. This, in staff's opinion, is a classic case for the authorization of a variance. These properties were acquired in good faith, and this is an extraordinary condition. This action is more of a correction to allow an existing situation to continue as lawful, than that which allows additional use of land. Mr. Wright consulted staff on several occasions as to the recommended way to redivide. It was staff's suggestion that the redivision be designed such that neither lot would become less conforming to the current ordinance in terms of size or setback. (Note: Neither lot meets the current minimum lot size.) The applicants complied, and the proposed property line allows both houses to continue to meet the side setback requirement and both lots to remain at their current size. Therefore, staff recommends approval for cause: 1. The applicants have provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. It would be impractical and unreasonable to require the strict application of the ordinance because it would result in ownership which splits. 2. The applicants have provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. Staff is not familiar with any case exactly like this. STAFF REPORT - VA-93-39 Page 3 3. The applicants have 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. There will be no change from the current situation. The property most directly impacted (that which comes closest to the garage) is a party to this application for variance. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Any addition to the garage which does not meet the current setbacks on the side adjacent to lot 6 shall require an amendment to this variance.