HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199700009 Review Comments 1997-08-05 STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle
PUBLIC HEARING: August 5, 1997
STAFF REPORT VA-97-09
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ronald M. And Rita J. Lackey
TAX MAP/PARCEL 61 K/8B22
ZONING: Residential, R4
ACREAGE: 10,500 square feet
LOCATION: West side of Middlesex Drive approximately 300 feet south of
its intersection with Ricky Road in the Queen Charlotte
subdivision
REQUEST: The applicant would like to replace a freestanding metal carport with an open
attached carport that will match the house. The applicant requests relief from Section 15.3,
Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a side yard to be 10 feet. A variance of 7 feet is
requested to allow a carport and covered entrance to be constructed 3 feet from the side
property line.
The applicant's justification includes the following:
Hardship
The 80 year old tenant who lives in the house is very feeble and needs to have a better place
to use a walker or wheelchair when necessary. The old metal carport did not allow room for
the car AND a walker or wheelchair, which made it very difficult most of the time for the tenant
to get into and out of the car. It will provide shelter in inclement weather.
Uniqueness of Hardship
The metal carport was too narrow for a walker or wheelchair area. I don't know of any other
home in the neighborhood that needs this type of access.
Impact on Character of the Area
By removing the metal carport and building the attached carport, 18 extra inches will be
gained from the neighbor's property line. The old carport was only 18 inches from the
property line while the proposed carport would be 3 feet from the property line. It would be
an open carport and would not cause any detriment to the adjacent property. It would only
enhance the neighborhood and would not change the character of the district. Many other
homes in the neighborhood have the same type of carport [as the proposed one.]
RELEVANT HISTORY: None.
•
STAFF REPORT - VA-97-09
Page 2
STAFF COMMENT:
The parcel is the same size and shape now that it was in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance
was adopted. There are no exceptional size or shape restrictions nor topographic features
that unreasonably restrict the use of this parcel. Most houses in this section of Queen
Charlotte are similarly sized and situated on their respective lots. The lots are somewhat
narrow and several houses probably do not meet the 10 foot setback. Some, like the one
immediately next door, have the type of attached carport desired by the Lackeys. As noted
by the applicants, there has been a detached carport on this lot for some time. Mr. Lackey
removed it at the same time he applied for the building permit to replace it with the new
carport. He was unaware that Section 6.6.2 states, "Any such [nonconforming] structure
which is substantially destroyed as a result of any act or omission within the control of the
owner thereof shall be deemed to have been abandoned in accordance with section 6.1.3 of
this section." Therefore, when the building permit was being processed and showed a new
structure only 3 feet from the property line, staff had to inform Mr. Lackey that he could not
continue. He would have been allowed to repair and maintain the former nonconforming
carport, but not to remove it and replace it.
Staff can identify no demonstrable hardship in this case. Therefore, granting a variance
would be considered a special privilege and convenience for the applicants. Clearly the
Lackeys have enjoyed this residential property for many years and can still do so in the
future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff agrees that 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. Since most of the houses are close
together, this one probably would not be noticed. In addition, since there has been a carport
within 18 inches of the property line, building a new carport 3 feet from the side property line
would be an improvement over what has been there for many years.
However, staff recommends denial for cause:
1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance
would produce undue hardship.
Staff cannot identify any hardship allowed under the Code of Virginia for granting a variance.
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.
As stated, most of the houses in this subdivision are built close to the side setback line and
share the yard requirement.
A L B E M A R L E
COUNTY
as
.a
2 -:-�-
:,�ti � 1,
1V<
x!"1V\
♦Y\ N�a - "Yp=
�4`A�,i
�\N
Y
Y<
II Y'I♦♦tea p°"�A,t
= M\\ A+ Ya
a�Ia °y
PRD
'Y. 0t 0M
Lei
`s: ', : .,
p Y e s � Er1 ` I " A � Y r _ 1 ` > /14•
s ''' x a
raw
.�,� 1
}4
a .� ♦ 'e ,
� ♦ { a �Y+ _ b. _ + 6 1
X Y
. I n U . � Y " " ♦ Y N /♦yir1 ♦ p (}p 4 , Y \ � ♦> { yf > a ♦ x a!<
Y^
{°
`4r>��ill}+f"Y ♦/Y•a, iy,Y Y f1s �\\ o�•
N":
ra
,�>a •
!
a°
Yrlq
+ ..✓..�-✓
�
, Y♦P �
_ {A.�
>' �_�a'N {
a♦ eY N p " ♦p �' ♦ ♦ ` � z+
," ;.p ♦.••' ,a
by r ° { ` > ° ., at a
r-�,"'"
PRD
a• . A { /
°
z{ YI Y Y O a ♦ e e a
p \I"
p `,e ,` -: p , < ` > ♦ ♦Y ,' } p„ I Ya b < ♦♦ r 4 u W
Ia
ri � i •Yra! r\� -iIp t} b11 -! s, i0 YI,f •I abaa
+
>��Y' \\�9a =;s '}+..Y' !.� Ay sN1 "r.q .(
sxY
1 � _
a/♦e
♦>`tl
�C�'t8A` x,,♦■Fs+� {{ h}♦,, 4,Ile as as}as`• li� L
Q I { .,, a :+} N =y♦+" N , =
O
�G,EW 00
DRIVE
j 2 k . p ♦ , y t
'e' +'>' �"I"pn •Y Na fr<+a <+M _ sYblbY � !n � I_ �f't G I � Ir- _ 'y V\� /�
r Y _ 1 � { '♦Y I <I p1 a = a CY a ° a+ , • ' +a N . 1 �< V N .Iz I • ' e / `, ..� '.
iAj
0 N
O /
PRD r
a11Y•...... - O ,
.1 +
J ,l Cis
Y o ♦ N = � ,
IL Is
4�
Aix` n AN♦
A e H t\1 ! X vY n t 7T O
O= i f ' _ = s a ! t <'H t (� �•' X r n ` w i /'4 = U � OP
♦�a.
-"A
(� ♦\n A lA,��aYarxYY �= i+a-, 4/• �• rt�al6'° tl Il',
Y{ v
�,1<°A " �y . - o ,eau -' •Ub.
_ > " i 1� " 4 � C s �♦>tl � x+ - � °{ � x „p p� Y ` • p ' > '� p a
_ I Y .. 4�1� fo l aces 4 ��.z 0 ♦ H N ,' !! \ >rY � I I rp-. 4. � ��
_ . � - �I'd N ♦ G m' :,,.b Y.+ ♦ M p ^ p 9 X b p > II �\
' I YI r� ', �� � O • .yes = � > ' + � y " � " !, ' ♦ •p bx "
A 0
19
a 1 ♦ a X _• R ` 2 `\
J
THE MEADOWS -SECTION I — D.B.337 Pgs.515
ASSESSED
IN 2 THE MEADOWS -SECTION 2 D.P.339 Pg. 58Z
Ch VILLE
3 THE MEADOWS -SECTION 3 - D.B. 34 3 Pg. 146
f
4 NORTHERLY D.B. 345 Pg. 372
5 OAK TERRACE D. B. 363 Pg, 9c_
SEE REVISED PLAT LOTS 1,2,3,4R5 BL.0 5 LTS.3 648L.D D.B.38
6 BARTERBROCK--SECTION I D.B373 Pg.99(S,
(S)
BARTERBROOK-SECTION 2 D.B.39f Pg.543A
8 QUEEN CHARLOTTE DrB. 395 4 6(T
LOTS 112p3 D. B. 403=33 (V)
C9
�IO GEORGETOWN LANE D B 809 pg. 351
rl
4.I,-A
ro
�'. _vti
y
REV. 11 / 1 / 61
5C4i.E IN FEET
Z o 0 -0G 400 600 BvJ
JACK JOUST T
DISTRICT
SECTION