The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA199300041 Action Letter 1994-01-12 l frmeisv- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060 TDD (804) 972-4012 • January 12, 1994 David R. and Karen L. Harding Route 9, Box 250 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Tax Map 92, Parcel 55D3 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Harding: This letter is to inform you that on January 11, 1994, during the meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board (5:0) unanimously approved your request for VA-93-41, subject to the following conditions: 1. No portion of the addition shall lie closer than 18 feet to the property line. 2. This variance is limited to an addition measuring 21 x 16 feet. This variance approval allows relief from Section 10.0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in order to add onto house, applicant request variance to reduce side setback from 25 to 18 feet. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Babette Thorpe Zoning Assistant BT/sp cc: Inspections Department • STAFF PERSON: Babette Thorpe PUBLIC HEARING: 1/11/94 STAFF REPORT - VA-93-41 OWNER/APPLICANT: David R. and Karen L. S. Harding TAX MAP/PARCEL: 92 , Parcel 55D3 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: .920 acre LOCATION: On Crest View Drive off Route 53 about .75 mi. east of intersection of Routes 53 and 795. RE.UEST• 'a•: r � `�; i, � it . •1 O g. •1i' cah equ.-sts 4 l: tiO -_� - o„ • a ec .on , 1' • '01. �lri0.!'e-i t nt o ,�• O • tce. Sec x° •i , 4 . -j13kngs ="r #3�i� .� X•�< �C 'e •) • • r + rp 1 -f= ...t • • • • •�#1�:�•. • t • ' -. • • iii " i . L ,.-t`1,�-T.F`, -.3- p �: . lx „ee a ni- s •e, pr• to ., -$ ex' st •: o.uS- . One of the existing be•rooms would be convered into a study, so the house will remain a three-bedroom house. The applicant's justification includes the following: Hardship Strict application would not allow us to build an addition in line with the present structure. Building an addition within present zoning regulations would require costly adjustments to the existing structure. Uniqueness of Hardship Other properties in this area were built farther away from the property lines and do not have this problem. Character of the Area The proposed addition will not be uncharacteristic of other structures in the neighborhood. The exterior will be built to match the exterior of the existing structure. All of our neighbors have been told about our plans and they have no objections. HISTORY yTh -lots asro -Sate•xa dam he house bu lt in'1960; „• '� ` ` y° ° ', " • • or. .. ncei ;H-r• :.oug fir RECOMMENDATION •% • = �4 _ narrow . 4 .• e a �'r'x'Z j`~ • "�'f.`Y � - •E e• •'d -- G-t •'O�,. -� � .a�• e• 5 a e u" - • "'f s also less than half •te 64i`2 now re:�' 1. o$ _b' Fxareas. e#e na o s a trgrj a R. t _i. igh be n depit app yang 25-fo ' se bac}c-unreasonabl egtid • VA-93-41 Page 2 , _. lak 1- �'J� , cr: ` �`+� i� } t �� .dfr;' 'tr-t :Zt(i�Yr.; � �'{! 1Y _� 4 4 1;616_ K%r c e. e The house is a split-level, . ' o-s ory porch to the rear. If they were to add a room of the dimensions planned without a variance, they would have to move a door, possibly a window and more importantly, a portion of the two-story porch. Redesigning the addtion so that the long side was parallel to the property line would involve altering the roof line. Of course, the addition could be sized down to meet the setback. Because the Hardings could build an addition that met current setbacks, albeit a more costly or smaller addition, their request does not meet the conditions required for approving variances. Staff recommends denial for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The applicants could build an addition that met the current setbacks. 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. Although staff recommends that the variance be denied, the applicant does meet the third criterion for approval : 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 lots in the immediate vicinity were built before the County adopted a zoning ordinance. At least one of the neighboring houses does not appear to meet a 25-foot side setback. It is unlikely that the addition would interfere with the privacy of the Hardings's neighbors. It would lie about 40 feet away from the house on the parcel to the east, and about 120 feet away from the house on the parcel to the west. Because the addition would not extend. beyond the present building line, it should not be noticeable from the road. This Department has received no letters of objection to this request. Should the Board approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. No portion of the addition shall lie closer than 18 feet to the property line. 2 . This variance is limited to an addition measuring 21 x 16 feet.