HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199500019 Review Comments 1995-11-30 STAFF PERSON: Amelia G. McCulley
PUBLIC HEARING: November 30, 1995
STAFF REPORT VA 95-19
OWNER / APPLICANT: Charles C. and Vickie L. Leake
TAX MAP / PARCEL: Tax Map 32D / Block B / Parcel 19
ZONING: R2, Residential
ACREAGE: 20,689 sq ft (about 1/2 acre)
LOCATION: This property is located at 8001 Washington
Court in Jefferson Village. It is in the northeast corner of
the intersection of Washington Court and Colonial Drive.
REQUEST:
The applicants request a variance from Section 14.3, Area and Bulk Regulations of
the Residential R-2 District. This is to allow the front yard setback from
Washington Court to be reduced from 25 to 11 feet, so that an addition to the
house approved in 1994 may remain. It was only recently in the process of
refinancing the house, that the setback error was discovered and the survey was
denied.
(The applicant's full description of the request is attached. Portions are stated in
the proceeding.) In early 1994, the Leakes carefully planned to build a 24 ft by 24
ft attached two-car garage onto the house. Mr. Leake obtained a building permit
on March 18, 1994, to construct the garage. He made a minor modification to the
plans and obtained an additional building permit for this work on June 16, 1994.
This is a case where, as best as can be reconstructed, the County failed to do a
setback inspection during their building inspections. Mr. Leake pulled the setback
from the centerline of the road and left plenty of room to make the setback based
on that. The Leakes received a certificate of occupancy on October 13, 1994.
This $30,000 addition was constructed by Mr. Leake, who is retired. It is not
placed on a poured slab of concrete but is set on poured footings joined with rebar
with the center support beams tied in below the slab.
In order to finance the improvements, the Leakes applied for financing. At the last
minute, the lender received a report from the surveyor indicating the
encroachment. The Leakes were instructed by the Zoning Office to determine
whether VDOT would grant a right of way reduction. On November 1 , 1995,
VDOT rejected their request, leaving them no choice but to request a variance
from the County.
VA-95-19 - Charles C. & Vickie L. Leake
Page Two
The only feasible location for the building addition was on the south side of the
existing structure due to the following:
The north side of the home would have required moving the underground
electrical, cable and water lines which entered the home in that area;
This northern area slopes sharply away from the home;
Exhibit B shows that placement of the garage on the front face of the house
would be unsightly. It would have interfered with an existing wooden deck
and required additional driveway access;
Construction on the other side of the house would have involved access to
the garage through a bedroom.
HARDSHIP
Strict application of the ordinance would require the demolition of their addition.
Even if the Leakes had the necessary financial resources, there is no feasible way
to move the addition 11 ft to accommodate the county setback. Demolition would
cost $12,000-$14,000. This would also require refinishing the walls and new
siding, costing approximately $4,000, for a total of $16,000 to $18,000.
Demolition would significantly impair the attractiveness of the house and reduce
its estimated market value from approximately $120,000 to $90,000.
The result of this financial hardship is that after demolition, the Leakes would be
forced to sell their house. They would have to borrow additional funds to
complete the demolition, which would throw them into a financial crisis.
They could lose as much as $30,000 and would incur the costs of moving and
purchasing a larger home. The enormity of this financial hardship is
unconscionable in light of the Leakes' careful compliance with obtaining building
permits and all necessary inspections from the inception of this project, their
professional construction of the addition, and the approval of neighbors.
UNIQUENESS OF HARDSHIP
This is a corner lot with the full front yard setback on both Washington Court and
Colonial Drive. The roads use a full 50 ft right-of-way.
VA-95-19 - Charles C. & Vickie L. Leake
Page Three
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The authorization of the variance will improve the value of the adjacent property
rather than be of significant detriment. The addition is an architecturally
consistent extension of the Leake's home that has added significantly to its market
value. It was constructed in a professional manner and is attractive from the road.
Each of the neighbors with land adjoining the Leake's property have signed a
statement of approval of the requested variance.
The character of the area will not be affected by granting this variance. There are
several other homes with large numbers of bedrooms and with both attached or
freestanding garages.
RELEVANT HISTORY:
None in Zoning Department files. This subdivision was platted in the late 1960's.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This is an unfortunate case in which the applicants proceeded in good faith
reliance on what was thought to be all the necessary approvals. Apparently the
day they were to sign the final financing papers, the setback error was found.
Despite inspections on 5 separate occasions by the County, the setback
encroachment was not discovered.
This is not a situation remedied by an exchange of property with a neighbor, to
shift the setback line. Washington Court serves 4 houses and is a public road
with a typical 50 ft right-of-way. In order to comply with the ordinance, the entire
addition would likely have to be demolished.
This review involves several different "layers" of consideration. We have to
understand that this setback error was a mutual mistake which in and of itself
does not qualify as a hardship. One consideration is whether construction could
have occurred elsewhere and complied without need of a variance.
As stated by the applicant, the utility lines are in the way of construction on the
other side of the house. Sloping land in that area presents constraints to
construction. More importantly, there is no area on the lot which allows
construction of an addition without a setback variance.
VA-95-19 - Charles C. & Vickie L. Leake
Page Four
What follows is some questions to answer:
Is a variance the relief necessary? Yes, there is no minor change to the
building which would cure the situation.
Is it practical to amend the ordinance? No, this is not a commonly recurring
problem but a specific case of error. The setback requirement does not
appear excessive. It is the same setback as that found in most residential
districts and the rural areas district for the case of interior roads.
Is there opposition from those who would be impacted by it? No, this
Office has not received any notice of objection. The applicants have
submitted a petition of support.
Staff has briefly reviewed the case of Steele, Et Al. vs. Fluvanna County Board of
Zoning Appeals, Et Al. In that case, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the trial
court, resulting in denial of a variance for setback reduction for an existing house.
That house was built in error in reliance on an incorrect boundary marker. The
differences between this case and that of the Leakes is several:
1 . The Leakes have immediately sought correction of this technical violation.
The Garretts-Steeles waited for 2 years after knowledge of the violation to
seek compliance.
2. The Leakes could not have built in any location which would not have
required variance from the yard setback requirements. In the Fluvanna
case, it would have been possible to build the improvements without
violating the ordinance if the measurements had been made from the actual
lot lines.
3. The Leakes have several constraints to building on the property such that it
would not have been possible to comply with setbacks were the boundaries
properly marked. This is a condition of the property. The Steele case noted
that the location of markers on a piece of property alone, is not considered
a "situation or condition of such piece of property."
In that case however, it was found to be a self-inflicted hardship whether
deliberately or ignorantly incurred. Staff is of the opinion that there are several
distinctions to consider between the two cases. These show justification in favor
of the Leakes case which follows the Code criteria for approval of variances.
VA-95-19 - Charles C. & Vickie L. Leake
Page Five
Staff recommends approval for cause:
1 . The applicant has provided evidence that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship.
There is obvious financial hardship and an impact on numerous things, not the
least of which is convenience to the applicants, in the event this variance is not
granted. The cost of compliance with the setback requirement by demolition of
the addition is a notable portion of the value of the house.
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.
Staff is unaware of similar situations in the area or the same zoning districts.
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.
Granting the variance allows an existing situation to remain. That will not change
the character of the district.
Should the Board find cause to approve this request, staff recommends the
following conditions:
Approval shall be limited to the existing encroachment as approved in building
permit 94-343 AR.
County of Albemarle
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
VA- CI -) CI DATE: //-V/3-
FEE: $95. 00 /1`1%X STAFF:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
OWNER (as currently listed in Real Estate)
'Name Charles C . Leake IV, ,,t L, �c,� Phone (804 )974 —9887
Address 8001 Washington Court , Charlottesville , VA 22901
APPLICANT (if different from above)
Name Phone ( ) -
Address
CONTACT PERSON (if different from above) •
Name Y) Ckr Cz rC-- -C o K< <�_S Phone ( ) -
Day Phone L ) ,,f 1- - im y
Address ,1 FC; CJCC n( t 1- ) uC. C., k0,- 16 ++ C:, 1 IC
LOCATION:
PLEASE PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION OF YOUR REQUEST ON
THE BACK OF THIS SHEET.
OFFICE USE ONLY
TAX MAP 3 , PARCEL � [ ; TM , P ; TM , P
ZONED: ORDINANCE SECTION:
Board of Zoning Appeals Date: // /367±5
_ ( ) Special Permit ( ) Variance
( ) Proffers
BZA ACTION:
VA-95-19 . Charles & Vickie Leake(owners) . Located at 8001
1) pB19 , zoned R-2 .
Washington Court in Jefferson d setback for anMexDsting house from 25
Variance to reduce front y
feet to 14 ft. \qlr\
1 �
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See attached
JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE BASED ON THESE THREE (3) CRITERIA:
1) That the strict application of this ordinance would produce
undue hardship.
See attached
2) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties
in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.
See attached
3) 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.
See attached
The application may be deferred by the staff or the Board of
Zoning Appeals, if sufficient information necessary to this review
has not be submitted by the deadline.
I hereby certify that the information provided on this application
and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
4 c ?
V ? J
Signature `Date Receipt# Date
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST:
Charles and Vicki Leake request the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a
zoning variance of approximately 11' in the 25' county set-back to accommodate an
addition to their home at 8001 Washington Court which was completed on October 13,
1994 As the Board is aware, VDOT has a 25' right of way from the edge of the road
and the County set-back is 25' in addition to VDOT's right of way. Even though the tip
of the addition is located 39.5' from the edge of the road, it encroaches significantly on the
county set-back See Survey by B. Aubrey Huffman& Associates, Exhibit A attached.
In early 1994, the Leakes carefully planned to build a 24' x 24', attached
two-car garage to add to the value of their home in anticipation of selling it They had put
new siding on the house gables and windows, new shutters, doors, planted shrubbery and
renovated the inside of the home. Mr. Leake is retired and he performed the work himself.
Mrs. Leake is a Clerk at the United States Postal Service. Their home contained roughly
2,610 square feet with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, a kitchen, dining room and living room on the
first floor and two family rooms and a laundry in the basement, with an asphalt driveway
approaching from the south.
As the Leakes planned the positioning of their addition, it became apparent
that the only feasible space was on the south side of the existing structure for a number of
reasons. As the Board can see from the floor plan of the home, Exhibit B attached, it
would have been unsightly to place the garage on the front face of the home with access to
the garage through a bedroom. The north side of the home also presented an access
problem and would have required moving the underground electrical, cable and water lines
which entered the home in that area. And, the land sloped sharply away from the home on
the north side, making the building project difficult. Placing the addition at the back of the
home would have presented an awkward appearance, interfered with an existing wooden
deck and required additional driveway access. Thus, the only feasible location was on the
south side of the home.
Mr. Leake obtained a building permit on March 18, 1994, to construct the
garage. See Exhibit C attached. And, he obtained all necessary inspections. See Exhibit
D attached.
Soon after the garage was under construction, the Leakes decided that they
had put so much work into the home that they preferred to stay and enjoy it rather than
selling it. They had become close to their neighbors and enjoyed the location They
needed more space, however, to accommodate an unexpected increase in their family from
5 children to 8 children in the space of one year. Two children from Mr. Leake's previous
marriage came to live with them and they had a new baby on July 2, 1994. The space
over the garage accommodated 4 additional bedrooms nicely and the Leakes obtained an
additional building permit for this work on June 16, 1994. See Exhibit C-1 attached.
The addition was built very professionally. It was not placed on a poured
slab of concrete but set on poured footings joined with rebar with the center support
beams tied in below the slab. The addition also produced a significant improvement in the
appearance of the Leake's home, see Exhibit E attached. This addition alone cost the
Leakes approximately $30,000.00 to construct The Leakes obtained a Certificate of
Occupancy on October 13, 1994, see Exhibit F attached.
In order to finance these extensive improvements, the Leakes had obtained
a $65,000.00 remodeling loan with a 4 year balloon which they intended to pay off when ,
their home sold. However, when they decided to remain in the home themselves, they
realized that they would not be able to generate the income necessary to meet the balloon
payment. They applied for 30 year permanent financing with United Southern Mortgage
Corporation of Roanoke and were prepared to close the loan on Friday, October 27,
1995. At the last minute, the lender received a report from the surveyor indicating that the
addition encroached on the county set-back and refused to close the loan. The Leakes
•
were shocked and immediately called the Zoning Office for guidance. They were
instructed to determine whether VDOT would grant a right of way reduction. On
November 1, 1995, VDOT rejected their request, leaving them no choice but to request a
variance from the County. See Exhibit G attached.
JUSTIFICATION NUMBER 1:
Strict application of the set-back ordinance would produce undue hardship
for the Leakes as it would require the demolition of their addition. Even if the Leakes had
the necessary financial resources, there is no feasible way to move the addition 11' to
accommodate the county set-back. The construction of the garage was purposefully made
permanent and durable.
Since it could not be moved, the addition would have to be demolished to
satisfy the county set-back requirement. The Leake's estimate that demolition would cost
approximately $12,000.00 to $14,000.00. In addition to the damage demolition might
cause to the remaining structure, taking the garage off the house would leave the entire
south face exposed, requiring refinishing of the walls and new siding, costing
approximately $4,000.00. Demolition would significantly impair the attractiveness of the
house to the neighborhood and reduce its estimated market value from approximately
$120,000 00 as it currently stands to $90,000 00 after demolition.
The result of this financial hardship would be that, after demolition, the
Leakes would be forced to sell their house. As discussed above, any addition would have
to be located on the south side of the house. If they simply re-built the addition 11' from
its present site, the size of one of the already modest bedrooms would be reduced to 10' x
10' to allow access and the architectural integrity of the home as it now stands would be
significantly impaired. The Leakes would be forced to borrow additional funds to
complete the demolition, which would throw them into a financial crisis. Rather than
rebuilding, they would be forced to sell the home and receive a reduced price from what it
would currently bring. They could lose as much as $30,000.00 on that transaction, and
would incur the costs of moving and purchasing a larger home The enormity of this
financial hardship is unconscionable in light of the Leakes' careful compliance with
obtaining building permits and all necessary inspections from the inception of this project,
their professional construction of the addition, and the approval of neighbors
JUSTIFICATION NUMBER 2:
While many of the neighboring lots have roughly the same narrow shape
and size as the Leake's property, they do not share the undue hardship placed on the
Leakes by strict compliance with the set-back requirement. See Exhibit H attached. On
Washington Court, the Leake's lot #19 faces a sister lot#15 across the road which is very
similar in size and shape. However, the house on that lot faces onto Colonial Drive with
no available land on either side of the house to construct an addition that would not also
interfere with the VDOT right of way as well as the county set-back. To the best of the
Leake's knowledge, none of the other neighboring homes on Washington Court have
encroached on the county set-back.
JUSTIFICATION NUMBER 3:
The authorization of such variance will improve the value of the adjacent
property rather than be of significant detriment. The addition is an architecturally
consistent extension of the Leake's home that has added significantly to its market value.
It was constructed in a professional manner and is attractive from the road.
Each of the neighbors with land adjoining the Leake's property have signed
a statement of approval of the requested variance See Exhibit I attached.
The character of the area will not be affected by granting the Leakes a
variance. The neighborhood consists of single family dwellings with many young families
and couples with grown children. There are at least two other families with a large
number of bedrooms to accommodate a large number of children: There are both attached
and stand-alone garages in the neighborhood as well as much larger houses than the
Leake's with significantly greater living area Thus, the Leake's home is consistent with
others in the neighborhood and enhances the neighborhood.
releakevar
6r 4
• iO-26-1995 11!14AM FROM TO 2963629 P.02
I
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THA ON OCTOBER i9. 1995. I SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON
THIS PLAT AND THAT THE; TITLE L1NFS AND WALLS OF THE RUTI.OTNGS ARE SHOWN HEREON.
NO TITLE REPORT FURNIS ED.
SERVICE UTILITIES ARE NOERGROUND.
PROPERTY IS NOT IN A H 0 DEFINED 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE
BUT IS LOCATED IN FLOC' ZONE "C" AS SHOWN ON A UR {?WA
COMMUNITY PANEL No. 51 006-0125B.
* �—
.... •
/ .....---
nor .1s
so,,, .„.o ff.
7 •
o0.
-
al a *~ .-
' 0 : AR'THUR F EDWARDS z
(I •
• •6 } 14208
°II
0 -' Its 1 ,I.
Sti<44)5U01:
W °.� 4 '
_• c 1 a
. 1 ea a� m
:= N
CI �. N .5. }? o e `6'l r
.
OT 19 :: .; z
M.. t a\ B 1 Washington Ct N
F-
CD
�� elS'S.i ` (n
ti ' %•4.
v
M •.l V
p.s 85.53• *2a .
a8.00. (�.. ... A`�y.8
COL
IAL
�r 0,07.11
r l 00• W/k
•
I
1
PHYSICAL SURVEY SHOWING
LOT 19 - BLOCK B - SECTION 2
+ JEFFERSON VILLAGE
SCALE: 1 " - 40 ' i ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 19, 1995
R. At3REY HUR 4N &ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CIVIL 'NGINEERING LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING
CHARLOTT.ESVILLE, VIRGINIA
. i pq wim, ( is 4.•ra-K-t4
SKL (CH/AREA TABLE A6,JENDUM
No No: 4D-7052
8 Borrowsr/c lsnf
u Leake, Charles C.
8 Properly Address
j. 8001 Washington Court
8 cft
i
county WIG Zip cods
C Charlottesville Albemarle Virginia 22901
t 'ender
United Southern Mortgage
ki FSRst F laa/Z
0
R • 00 3
V �
I Bah 1
M Dirirgxcrn 1 ldt&.
h
E Bed onrn 1 BechernOOr'"
N
eot
T zr
8
Bed.car Bid w i Llvlrgoorn
K Foyer
ii ead Dorn
E
t
0 20
z
N 4.7
.
B,,i
(„) ki u) 9e- r'
1 4,
6grq e
fTeo nit f ¢•n1ly /Z0 cv+,
., . ,"a., ..e.q• r ..; -+ i ^M• ...:-t >� ''+1 t�' i:dV+v1,^"Wtl'I:r+...a.�y:,va".:+1,�•Y��.+py l:T,•' ..-?}:J`4 •; ,',:y�y.y' . ..
•
Date
L�
BUILDING PERMIT Land Use Yes
��pF nL� /
�A " iC
Ilil�ii " County of Albemarle, Inspections Dept. Permit # / J ) 2`
w®�`� 401 McIntire Rd., Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 Project #
Applicant to complete ,, s Telephone (804) 296-58
numbered spaces-only • `'iiicir. Fax (804) 972-4060
/1t)/L4-(/ -(")_ ±,-cy
1 NAME '/; . CC NAME )6 C�2 rn C.
2 cc tic
ADDRESS p(--) '1 E f 2 s U 0 ADDRESS
tig
3 30 CITY fi -t � 0 Z CITY ` •
t-
4 � 7V - Oge7 0
PHONE V PHONE
5 Architect or Designer Mail Address 9•__County—State R@State__Exempt-
•
of frame Ty•: • Heating/Mechanical
6 9,,„,
Aasonry Wood ❑Steel ❑Other `SO, eGas ❑Electric ❑Heat Pump -�
7 pe of wate supply •Fireplace ❑Wood Stove J
Public ❑PriyBte,DCentral Well ❑Other
8 Type of sewage disposal "�
Public ❑Se e /� / ,5 % 5 /(4
9 Class of work: ❑NEW ( ADDITION ❑ALTERATION ❑REPA►PtI•. t a "1 x . ^
10 Describe work: .._
No.of stories Sq.ft.area ist r ''-1 dfi r o Gr wage Basement Finished area(. Decks Porches'
• Zoning
PROPOSED USE SET BACKS Crawl Space 0 Slab Permit Fee --7.
i
Front 7� 1%Surcharge • K
One Family^�Bedrooms�BathsAsar
Back ?v Value of Work n �`
age_QCarport Kitchen R.Sd. / ��f / Total
Ot er L.Sd. Jr) Type of Use Floor
Const. f? Group H /if Live Load ti�-
Zoning "' Dist. R , L School Dist. / n F� Y.-"* J
�� arcel Size of Bldg No.of Max. /
fax Map (Total)SG rt. I 1 5�7 Stories 2 Occ.Load / Q
Lot 1 L1 Blk. Sec._ Acres
1 !� !!f
Subdivision ',' Fire Fire Sprinklers
Grading4,-, Required area El/o
Plans reviewed by /-. Zoning approved for issuance Building
,�,n•`Q-- -_' 77 Approved for issuance by No of / No.of Strictures
JGt�/ Dwelling Units 1
�1 Ntl 2 9 1994 3 i7F 1 ! 1 _Ili �� ��''-�-`�"� Special Approvals Required Received Not Required
Zoning / / )2 h�9 ".-
NOTICE Health Dept. 1 I
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB- Run Ott Control
ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CON- Service Authority I " / " S-3/lL%
STRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 6
MONTHS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR Planning (
ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AT ANY TIME AFTER Highway Dept. 1 -----*--
WORK IS COMMENCED. .
I HEREBY CE T I READ AND EXAMINED THIS Prel./Final Zoning 1``/
APPLICATION i -• E TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. soil Erosion I k-(.CW crnY)
ALL PROVISIO WIN,Laj • ••.• •DINANCES GOVERNING THIS
TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED Recorded Plat / /
HEREIN OR NOT, THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT
PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING
CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
REAL ESTATE DEPT. APPRAISED VALUE
- SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZE AGENT (DATE LAND $
BUILDINGS
NATURE OF OWNER(IF OWNER (DATE) TOTAL _ $
WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
'�k*`i .- •.Ss• .i ti;twg.-Fi aaii-a r...:w.:.,:.�.. _.. .. r „ «. _ .T.. ...
OF AL(.g�`�',,�C,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering
401,McIntire Road .
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
($04) 296-5861
AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE & APPURTENANT STRUCTURES
Building Permit No. /Z_/- :/'1I
/ 1 �
Subdivision I/ ! i7 0 f • ‘.7
Tax Map Y Parcel
'. I
Lot /!f Block I_, Section �--- -
In lieu of submission of an erosion and sediment control plan for development of a
single family residence and/or appurtenant structure, I agree to comply with the
requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, latest edition,
and install erosion control measures in accordance with the Handbook standards and ..
specifications in order to protect against the transportation -Of soil off of the
property. I further agree to comply with additional requirements determined
necessary by employees of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, representing the
Director of Engineering. Such requirements shall be based on established
conservation standards and shall represent the minimum practices necessary to provide
adequate control of erosion and sedimentation on or resulting from this development.
As a minimum, all denuded areas on the site shall be stabilized within seven (7) days
of final grading with permanent vegetation or a protective ground cover suitable for
the time of year. Temporary soil stabilization shall be applied within seven (7)
days to denuded areas that may not be at final grade but will remain dormant
(undisturbed) for longer than 30 days.
I further understand that failure to comply with such requirements within three
working days following notice by the representatives of Albemarle County could result
in a citation for violation, and will require the submission and approval of an
erosion control plan and posting of a performance bond as provided in Sections 7-4
and 7-5 of the Albemarle County Erosion and Sediment, Control Ordinance.
Signature of f Landowner / Date
OR
Signature of Authorized Agent Date
APPROVED BY \✓ G < tom\ Date ` 1 V1k1
Comments from Plan Approving Authority:
Copies: White - Engineerin Yellow - Inspections
Pink - Landowner: �,\-\\', h.\,1L
•
07/01/93
Date 1 d ! (.r ' V i '` '/7
� v BUILDING PERMIT Land Use Yes No
o�A� 9.�- 933I
A li '-p County of Albemarle, Inspections Dept. Permit #
A.,-,_
® �' 401 McIntire Rd., Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4596 Project # 9y_Do95 .
Applicant to completes !"
t Telephone (804) 296-5832 '
numbered spaces only fr/Hct.wP Fax (804) 972-4060
NAME C 1CI JI .t LcLk- NAME
2 cc W ADDRESS St' () f t� 6�.V ADDRESS
3 Z p CIT� lCU , V A �� /6/ cc
=0 CITY
4 PHONE a7�1 qqf ` 1 .--s
C.) PHONE �
5 Architect or Designer Mail Address . State Reg.—County—State_Exempt
6 Type of frame Type of Heating/Mechanical
❑Masonry ood OSteel ❑Other ❑Oil ❑Gas ❑Electric eat mp
7 Ta�pyof water supply ❑Fireplace ❑Wood Stove
I PPublic ❑Private ❑Central Well ❑Other ``t,,CC
8 Tyf sewage disposal
'Public OSeptic
NI
9 Class of work: ❑NEW ❑ADDITION dirATERATION ❑REPAIR ❑Other
10 Describe work: n ()oh p tp ,/ (2,,vroc..___ Li --5ectrQQrn5
No of stories Sq.ft.area 1st floor 2ndfio r Garage BaseniLnt Finished area Decks Porches
Zoning
PROPOSED USE SKI- BACKS Crawl Space 0 Slab 0 Permit Fee &l�
rl Front \ 00 1%Surcharge t g
One Fam'ly - Bedroom�� Baths Back \\ Value of Work a.,1 ,l Total 1 l t
Garage C) Carport 6 Kitchen R.Sd. i U
L.Sd. Type of Use Floor
Other „,t Canal Group Live Load
Zoning g-' Dist. Qi V School Dist.
Tax M Parcel / Size of Bldg. No.of Max
_� �0/9 (Total)Sq Ft Stories ; Occ Load
Lot , Blk.6 Sec. 1 Acres
Subdivision �� -.eel-, t / Fire Fire Sprinklers
`;� 1�`�C1 Grading Required Dyes-.ONo
Plans reviewed by Zoning approved for issuance Building
Approved for issuance by No of No.of Structures
4•11 //�� / !�(_., ( Dwelling Units
7/1�l t.�,/ ~ _ Special Approvals Required Received Not Required
—I f r Zoning ✓ lrrb,// ,./
NOTICE Health Dept. I N.
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB- Run Off Control
ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CON- Service Authority y,
STRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 6 planning
MONTHS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ✓
ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AT ANY TIME AFTER Highway Dept
WORK IS COMMENCED.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS Prel./Final Zoning
APPLICATION AND • BE TRUE AND CORRECT. Soil Erosion IVALL PROVISIONS 0 • a�j •NCES GOVERNING THIS
tilitai
TYPE OF WORK WI I . ^ TH WHETHER SPECIFIED Recorded Plat /
HEREIN OR NOT, THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT Y
PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING
CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
REAL ESTATE DEPT APPRAISED VALUE
IGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE LAND $
BUILDINGS
I NATURE OF OWNER(IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) TOTAL $
WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
RI- Owner i,aJ` 4/:( /4 ,
0 Contractor:
1 • 2 .`OF AL@i ii 11 l'' '' ' KC-'. —. --A
9 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS
A 296-5832
, 1-5(1(-1 Obi 5i� j-;its
Date: Bldg. Permit No `� - •
!r Permit No .
Time: 2,',)t -4-q
�;� Type of Inspection. �"'�{L--
b1 Approved 0 Re e^tec,
COMMENTS
•
NOTE: First inspection
no charge.second reinspection
$20.00 fee.
Inspector
By: - -
_ - - -
RI- Owner:
„ - Contractor:
o r
/7 •/ u
itf
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS
296-5832
/ I I" /
Date: / //131dd. Permit No.- tl,/ Permit No.:
1,7 7 7
Time: / /- 1 4-- Type of Inspection. / 7
,01\pproved 0 Rejected
7/
COMMEI(tTS:
7
f
NOTE: First inspection
no charge,second reinspection
$20 00 fee.
Inspector
By: a
. .
�
(
�
�
�
�
�
[
i
�
�
>
�
Rl- Owner:
1 2 OF AZ
11;(:1-1tiln G 114-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS
296-5832
Date: No Permit No.:
Tyl:�6-cif Inspection.
c�4ppoved 0 Rejected
�
i NOTE: First inspection
� no charge, secvnunmnvne000n
$onno,n�� '
` Unw�ecton''
By:
`
~ � �-��
/
` ' - .�'[ / {-'
~
---- ---` ---'---`------- — —
, .
. .. .... . .... .. . ...____ ,.. __.. . .. , • .. . ..
, . .
RI- ' Owner:
0 0
1 2 " OF Al.A, Contractor:
-t
))er 4c• '1,11"...:4';'
\q 11 Q 4. • it" ..IV
A M ••,
670 /AG iti..
) r .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
---/ ..)--e DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS --
296-5832
Date: 4b))9Wdg. Permit NO.41./
Time: V• . r.s.> Type of Inspection. -4;,... v-
0 Approved 4:2dRelected
COMMENTS.
c
, .
I.
•
, L
c--
..
NOTE:Forst inspection
no charge,second reinspection
S20.00 fee.
Inspector
00/9
By: - ).--
,---/--
. .
.(/
,bz....
-�. .�.� -. 4 _ __ -._ -_ -_ -r 0 - _ __
^ai»9ozn: ,,.-: :3T 'i
n-. 7'^'91 L.1C.Z92.egl6rt 041
9..?.`Q0C.'Y
Exhibit E
'Charles and Vickie Le-ice' s Home Photos Taken No .ber 6, 1995
I
k r ♦', p"a.l` f ' i'
F:"1"let.::-*C.
,fir-, ' .s- '...„ `»' •+-
' i k . 't#'.,. , --... - . , Ji. ,,e‘.. ....
a I} l it
a4., : `l I III • _ . a �' a
46- \ ram. . .
I
.,Sze \w�� ,3,„ . , 1-,�,a� � k. �kt..k, 0...,,-,-- o -
•
_. ,
__.:.,_ ..,I4 , .
_., ,440,.. , .
. adi
, . _ •
it 1 1 :
.. , .
0 t '
II1
;,.....1
..,
i
, 1 I ..._
1 ;_
...,,,_ aR
. .....
, ,ii 1
ellit
-�1' Isii.t le �'
_
vN11( OF ALBEA,
G0
Inspections Department
401 MCINTIRE ROAD ROOM 2-2
CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA 22901-4596
1804/296-5832
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PERMIT
This is to Certify that the 2nd story living addition over existing garage erected on
Tax Map No 32D Parcel 19 Lot No —19 Blk. B Sect 2 Phase
Legal Description 032D0-00-0B-019D0
Subdivision ,Te f f ersnn Vi l 1 agp Street/Route No _8 0 01- Washington Court -_
Owner Charles Leake _ Type of Const. _5B Fire Grading
Building Permit # 94 933—AR_ Use Group --R4 Zone R2 . - District -_ RiV___________ T
Special Conditions _
Any change of use voids this Certificate of Occupancy
Date November 6 , 1995
B IL IN OF ICIAL
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
,o"r�1 u `' o,Ij
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA•
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P O.BOX 2013
DAVID R. GEHR CHARLOTTESVILLE,22902-2013 A.G.TUCKER
COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER
November 1, 1995
Washington Court
Jefferson Village
Albemarle County
Ms. Vickie L. Leake
8001 Washington Court
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Ms. Leake:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your request for a right of way
reduction on Washington Court, however we must deny this request because we feel
the right of way is necessary for the integrity of the road.
I suggest a variance with the County since this will not impact VDOT right of
way.
If I can be of further assistance to you, please let me know.
Yours truly,
9
t"
•
4tt�
. W. Mills
Assistant Resident Engineer
HWM/ldw
cc: K. W. Staton
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
4 4-7. • "�. 20,000 .SO FT , 32 . p•aogol'-4r 2/,12 �i
O`� 354!04'-0 'E 170 84' R• Rr, p!` Fr
o11t'E CiJ 197.9fa' •. Q g 24 '$ ► 40 44�' o°
e b»» 0-49t101-47 . s :::
3 a _• ��pp M ARC=42.92 8S9 90 FT w C ry$54•-04'-p�"1M 2'���'�D : 44a °9'' _ - - 4 ----"-n•- ,tir` ::.24,39O SO. FT. 4Rp+el �• s R= ..,� _ +
I!;: - r 0 0 w 19,986 SQ Fr ; - 33 • ' •4 , 44 • se Oof•' - 8r' . .,....•.. ;, �• .;•• __
• P. , t� o 23 ,yc ,��, +'`4 $ _ .p ►saOC H fra7C»t
oV w '97.O.' Z - __ g _ .t' � ' 36 p,e. E6R-471 (PLAT)
- ss.00r `. ;.: i? �'• . .. Is .. tom.. ;l : '. `?'. -•:,,•,• s.1 ;,-
A•pO�9�.'pp�4' Is' 5544.04.. "! 19• ., . p' ,' . a : 30,621 SO FT. 4 �'..
- ARC•IOl.00' ,, b , 20,665 SO FT o 0
d A.Ir-5•'-71' •Lt • , �e� .'f 1 - e• 4
__ ARC_•.4opa' �•� �' ��e _ 44.,E a S4 •
- �C 4 -
' 1 46'� I�
-01 _ -!Oa 9'4' k.; 30— !• 1s5.14' • • S4 • 1 • - - • -
. S P� .' a .a6.Ip E -�i0 ey6o-E2.-=ZnE DiO.fO'
+ �•F4,' •� O R1j.�y . •�•a. •• • tS i
aa01M 3T•17° 0i I.\' Qv 4' 22,173 SO FT c ti• ' _ � . -
c
•
7 :p4.00' 1 2
Mc .. • : *�,��g�a�• ° 22,503 SO FT N 2
• 'O _ "„ IS S..35 SO FT - • i\i - 6., n • 23,156 SQ FT
a
.-or w RteJ41 * / a2,ICto * 4
a t Nit
pages 4 ` `� 9• ••11,, a . X ,� b\ 22,43893 FT
a . e404-5'-00" - _ d4 �' `I'° •, •`O• •�`' tfa 4 e e •.R a ' ,m
Epp, . \' •
b r ♦ p�
` Fs-{:' s ,ka a� :'• - • = �?;� •g1 e k • lS��s o
)4Q w, - '$0•
Jr r � a '• .� d` ;ov �lb•- 1 OO.-^••• " _:.:p is' y _. O•a _,
S �F • ° O + `" ' a r
,`_!a E' , QL,� ' M0 Q •. �. 09, •
�►� 4b' 10 oA �. • " ' Ou w «f
IP • 4 .. ,' %'' * •' 4• •I' a`ac , vQ i o•
,�o� tlp� t • • %�'&• tip0, s C 22,708 SO FT c, ib• a
tlic:
- - -.-, •• , 4. 4 /- • 4 400.9%/e. ' -r. .' ' A -- '-A • ' -
129 : 'ro?� CP 1 •ys C1 �• a :'' " r •$.. A
' p'•'0 • ' • e 7f *' 0O •
P,G� i b • Q4 O'' V.) ', O� tit A a ApC•tfJO •,�+� +
•
3 p - A • ' 6. • - 9p
, 0%
3 :. • ,
' �• , , , ."�. .�s tea. a 6�• q,♦°` go' o «>' of N W �`• � � 15
t I in CO
SRO• ♦ Aif►�.. • • O•
.�• • in_ ? ,Ju
HMO • VQ
Sr 6, ' ?•.. . _. :_{ v.' ,*`' - • _ •' .: - .,• .,,\ nr •/ 1,94 It•llt-4 -OM - •‘�. :!�^1ct .R.. _ fs4. 't-y •,s
Its -
We the undersigned residents of Washington Court wish to voice our
approval of the request of our neighbors, Charles and Vickie Leake,
for a reduction of the required county setback of 25 ft to 14 ft for
the front corner of their new addition constructed in 1994 and approved
by Albemarle County at that time on the cul de sac of Washington Court.
m111.1 ,1,.,„1/11 ,
2- 0 0.s- (Ariival,,,:,k,i-o-v
71U41 /_1_4-
�'*