HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199800030 Application 1999-02-08 County of Albemarle
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
VA- DATE:
FEE: $95 . 00 STAFF:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
I!! OWNER (as
currently listed in R
ealEstate) q,�� p
Name f%�//,4 `� ila ��[� Phone (d "7') 777 -O 'ZO
Address /6�� / t1�//� /fVL', eoc' 'rv//ems !/ �ZY77
p- APPLICANT (if different from above)
4.0.) (Name Phone ( )
frI)C ' Address
CONTACT PERSON (if different from above)
Name Phone ( )
Day Phone ( )
Address
LOCATION:
PLEASE PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION OF YOUR REQUEST ON
THE BACK OF THIS SHEET.
OFFICE USE ONLY
TAX MAP , PARCEL ; TM , P ; TM P
ZONED: ORDINANCE SECTION:
Board of Zoning Appeals Date: / /
( ) Special Permit ( ) Variance
( ) Proffers/ _n
B ZA ACTION: C4 _- � � %G C 3` �
/��,
S
VA 98-30 Si ns #2 & 3 - Philli and Katharine Buchanan owners/a licants).
Located in the NE corner of the inters of Rt.T�s is a rehearing and Franklin rof an item previously
92,
zoned Rural Areas and Entrance Corridor.
denied by the BZA. Request is to reduce the side setback from 25 feet to 8 feet to
allow the addition of an attached 3-car garage to the existing dwelling.\glr\
111111111111111111111111
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: k/ CiCIN.ed AK AM
"Er Igor
JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE BASED ON THESE THREE (3) CRITERIA:
1) That the strict application of this ordinance would produce
undue hardship.
O
2) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties
in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.
l)46 J t
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.
/vC U
. ,. . . _ _._
wwir
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
bes of yam- owledge and belief. •
Sig ature Date Receipt# Date
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Applicants: Phil and Kate Buchanan
1636 Franklin Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(804) 977-8220
Date: February 8, 1999
Description of Request:
Phil and Kate Buchanan request a variance from the required 25-foot offset from property
line to build an attached three car garage addition, with 24' by 32' dimensions, to their
house at 1636 Franklin Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia. The closest point from the
attached garage and the neighbor's property line would be eight feet, thus requiring a
variance of 17 feet. The closest point between the attached garage and the neighbor's
house would be more than 80 feet. Please see attached survey plats and photographs.
Justification:
1. That the strict application of this ordinance would produce undue hardship.
Lack of options without a variance: Due to the situation of the Buchanan house on their
lot, existing landscaping, topography of the lot, high bank behind the house, layout of the
driveway, and unique shape of the lot, there is no other possible and practical location on
the property to put a garage(attached or detached). Without a variance, an attached
garage of any size would be prohibited. Even a detached garage of the proposed
dimensions is also not possible without a variance. This is so because in order to detach
the garage, the structure would need to be removed from the house by approximately 7
feet to the north and from the front porch approximately 7 feet to the east. (This is to
allow for space for a breezeway, and entry into the newly constructed doorway). The
detachment would then violate the 6-foot setback required of detached structures. There
is very little physical space in which to try to"squeeze in" a garage and still meet setback
requirements. Even if detachment did not violate setback requirements, moving the
structure away from the house would require the Buchanans to incur the expense of
flattening a portion of a landscaped bank to accommodate the driveway into such a
detached structure.
Reliance at Time of Purchase: The Buchanans purchased their home knowing that they
would need to build a garage, and relied upon the advice of the realtor and the survey
provided to them for closing, which indicated that an attachment would not be
problematic. It was later discovered (after the initial hearing on this matter)that the
placement of the house on the survey was inaccurate and misleading. The Buchanans
would not have purchased the home if they knew they were unable to build this proposed
garage.
Buchanan Variance Request
Page 2 of 3
Safety: An attached garage would allow direct, sheltered and secured entry into the
home, whereas a detached garage would require exit from the detached structure to get
into the house through a narrow walkway. This is unsafe and would create a perfect
hiding place for an intruder. This is an obvious concern when a husband's job requires
extended travel, and a wife and/or children are home alone.
Shelter from the Elements: The proposed garage would be located on the shaded north
side of the house, where snow and ice tend to accumulate and do not melt quickly. In bad
weather, these conditions are hazardous, especially when carrying groceries, children, or
other items.
Cost and Effect on Property Value: Contractors bids for building an attached and a
detached garage are the same, but the increase in property value is less for a detached
garage than an attached. Various realtors have noted that an attached garage adds
between $5,000 and $10,000 to a home's value as opposed to a detached garage. Thus,
the return on investment to build a detached garage is far less favorable, and essentially
would be imposition of a financial hardship. The property value of the neighbor's home
and values in the neighborhood would likewise be more positively affected by an
attached garage rather than a detached.
Recreational Easement: Proximity to the property line is mitigated by a large "recreation
easement" covering property which appears to be part of the Buchanan's yard, which
they mow and maintain, and hold a legal right to use and enjoy. The proposed garage
would be 91 feet from the farthest corner of this recreation easement, and 42 feet between
the garage and the closest point on the recreational easement line. The Buchanans urge
the Zoning Board consider this recreation easement area to be in effect what it is—an
extension of the property line. If the recreational easement line is substituted for the
actual property line, the proposed garage is well within its setback restrictions. A visual
inspection makes it clear that the recreation easement area was landscaped as part of the
Buchanan property yard and that property lines were drawn simply to meet a new
Franklin subdivision's 2 acre minimum lot size requirement.
2. That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning
district and the same vicinity.
The Buchanan house was built prior to the development of the balance of the Franklin
Subdivision. The house is situated at the apex of a very unique triangular lot (see
attached plat), which was designed in order to preserve the 2 acre minimum required of
each lot in the Subdivision. Clearly, the property lines were drawn without consideration
to what had already been landscaped or their effect on future plans to build additions,
including garages, to the home. The other houses in the subdivision are located on more
standard lots which have ample room for additions and attachments. Of 33 homes in the
subdivision, the Buchanan house is one of 3 without at least a 2 car garage.
Buchanan Variance Request
Page 3 of 3
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.
Adjacent property: The adjacent property owners, Claude and Lois Sandy, endorse our
proposal to build an attached garage onto our house. Since the house has no basement,
there are a number of home maintenance and recreational items, such as a riding lawn
mower, garden tools, bicycles, etc., which, for lack of other space, we currently store on
our back porch which faces the Sandys. The Sandys share our desire to store these items
in an enclosed structure so as not to "clutter up" what is otherwise a very attractive house
and porch. Furthermore, the Sandys prefer that the Buchanans build an attached garage,
since a connected garage will be more aesthetically pleasing than two separate structures.
Due to the location of the Sandy home, above and behind the Buchanan home (see
attached photo), their views will not be adversely affected, whereas views might be
obstructed if the garage were placed in a location other than the proposed. A letter from
the Sandys endorsing the Buchanan's proposal is attached.
Character of the district: Granting of a variance will in fact allow the Buchanans to
improve their home in order to fit in more closely with the character of the district in
which the house sits. Of the 33 homes in the Franklin Subdivision, only 3, including the
Buchanan's, currently lack garages. The garage attachment will increase property values
in the neighborhood in general.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF OUR REQUEST.
- Phil and Kate Buchanan
(pA911 );APv'v.S. ...,. " - ,,, . ..
�e
4^P
N f ris
1
�, ►,ayl old ,; ,� .. ��. ,c, ;Will I,
trl " fi IC ") i
...,,, pzet,,,,,
�t: I I I I I I
. /0.0, : . ' " vs"
, .
t Q
r
p,
7e?Poi/
/,. /{� ,trt' �' •,2 .� . . ..- ill",,. .
VIP-P
/dii,r - 1,,,i; .,„, . . .
,, ,,3,,. .,, .
, ...,.., , , . .. .,., ,,, . /:
.,,, . , 4,,„,, . - ,,- . . ... ....„.„..,:.,
il „ I
7J :,. 'A9. 1 r!'4,,'''' '' ."'4',
Y O
gi 9/ ft
1
3
1L �"/ ' ►adald ' )1:91j� 47 Pr►WI �+ �arnn r�' ��, Ll�/�-12if , 71 V/ IV �/
f '9r "w)/a y' p/1'W
^..•.,�.'ti ^ i. •� l4�'_- Y ,�`, -•� -r f. .'..i `�i.' '--- _Y,Lr. - 1 �' / t (7 { I[� ( V✓�
7
7
+ L... L�.,�, --• �`_ _ - - of _ ,� - •.M ' r 1 ��`#i .fir. ."; K' •` � .l ti tF
.n �, 4' _ a• !• ♦S� Alt-;�•4... ,....
--' '+- T" � �.- ,r++ '!' 'r�•�'- ,4 t - ' f � Qi-,:1'1��y•'.J r
•
0.
�r"� -_ u v — "" -6 - .'• "` •.,.•.. tea
;kr•
a""; -:4 .›.." - .- . f
�� a. S ,_ ;. e P it 1,•%bfrotf
0 �t1• ss. �. .44-• ff.. i.. ; ti• yz. iF ^ •.r ✓'''�
'i . • `mot`
• , t• r
.- _ _
ffligtiffigelt-
or
• ra1110
'fir'.,, • ' iii .,,
,.___
......
_ . _ _.
•
•
-1061111Q4111p001H
as u
• ;IPA ill ' I ril
PP IL
311011"u
-
. TVvi)
ns ) i M7 9
plyn2priV
D - 12,1?C9 x . arxl°I 4 ou`e 1.9 a
;6 nvn ai rY,n Dna a--� --411 v�.S 45 31- .Ssy25"if ) p 7
Claude A. Sandy
1666 Franklin Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
January 25, 1999
Mr. Max Kennedy, Chairman
Board of Zoning Appeals
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Kennedy-
My wife, Lois, and I are the owners of the property adjoining the property of
Phillip and Kate Buchanan(1636 Franklin Drive), which is the subject of a request for
zoning variance. They have discussed with us their plans to build a three-car garage, its
placement on their property, and their desire that it be attached rather than detached.
It appears that the most feasible location for a garage on their property would be
in the direction of our property and our house If the garage is built attached, as they
prefer, one corner will be within approximately eight feet of our property line It is my
understanding that if it is built detached, it could be within six feet of our property line.
Therefore, if the garage must be built as a detached structure, it will end up being two
feet closer to our property line and our house than if it were attached. Obviously, my
wife and I do not prefer a detached garage six feet from our property line to an attached
garage that is eight feet from our property line. Therefore, we support the Buchanan's
request for an exception to the setback requirement.
If you have questions regarding our statement, please call me at 296-8737.
Sincerely,
(Ja1tJL
Claude A. Sandy
1/CC: Mr. Phillip Buchanan
• THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON JUN E 2 9 , 1 9 9 0 RVEYED TH ,PROPERTY SHOWN ON
• •THIS PLAT AND THAT THE TITLE i AND WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE SH HE 0 -!
-44/ /C/- 0(//
^ T HU R F. E WA
/" 4' i l RDS , C.L. S.
q�/� (/ CERTIFICATE N0. I170
",---
j
o�41f,?JAW pub
11
�oIs
�'' ARTHUR f.
•3 x y EDWA:s L
ti �9 i 1 s ^ �r�`y S
C
i
„ 0 . o �9 0 /ae` 0 4')- o . )C . FFp y O cm
0 ice F` ` �f"�/
4) a
6
ti
A
o,
Q 9.
N/ '
S C O//
0 / P Of
/ o / , • ,cr /9
k'e / 1(
O� n9 U o/ e
w•//
o� / �. °o
o� 3 88 ag8 O E 15a1 c\°ros°�
r /� E
• 1 —/3 2.04 ; ) \' °0 C' � f�,S
/ 1 a1• Sandy
00
0 ��9 , W� 1 ,y_
V P\�\ Ot+ �� V , O T 2
• / •.
aI
(� oa V o pro/ 1 0 `
Q o
• J a Qo u, �a ' Building
_
0 L;n•
� - SolDack
(� 0 oti \0
b �.
0 / sr
y�� l P°y A' Z35.- I v ✓ --
\ 1A ag9 �1Q° rL O\�Guoc J 0YJ�
�� ,,` R/Co e" `a 49 ,4 �\ V50
P 00. 4
6 ,/
9560. 6 . 56(,• P `"
0
/
p' Az:1 9 0o SERVICE U T/L / T/ES ARE UNDERGROUND.
• R PROPERTY IS NOT IN HUD DEFINED /00
/ YEAR FLOOD ZONE.
PHYSICAL SURVEY SHOWING
L 0 T I
F R A N K L I N
Scale . I ' : 100 ALBEMARLE C O U N T Y , VIRGIN IA JUNE . 29 , 1990
B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
315962 • •
•
•
v ARTHUR f EDWARDS
1420E
42,
r
r
i
GOT, ii / — 11411144444
,yi2,,o9•9B"F
a, .'
ati /RaW LfEr
0\ •
V O pB'00 32 E
,eEceE.9ripv i S 99 �7'
20 9, 9�s �s.F
99"� I
O. GOT / 'er • n/B9�G e5'
a
S�• o
00 ie i vE
( •X
101
EigLc / "FNT /4"47 95'f/OGt//NG
/eEC,e ,9T/ON E/9SE/yEN7- LDe.97E0 ON COT 2
To BENEf'/T LOT /, Fiei9it/KL/N csu8.0/1//s/ON
SCALE: ///- /D0 ' i9L8E/4-7,9.E'LE COUNTY , V/RG/N/A (TUG)' /2 /,?O
B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
' r-0,7 ',e• 6
t . .
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON C74.2` - 7e5E�' pP /993 , I Sun,'EYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON
THIS PLAT AND THAT THE TITLE LINES AND WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE SHOWN HEREO .
/'/PDfiF/PTy /,J /c/OT/il/ T/S/E ,4!a•.O. OEF/',V Q /Gl /9.- � ���
,<<� ra /E Bal -'5 eve''T7 ,iv .—LDO 9 ro ye c-"
/95 S,9'Oh/At/ on/ /'Oiy'JUN/Tj' ' 14'FL �4P�U/f ' f0/ff/,y�Gl!'
/N/o. LS/opp 6 - 025e,s,Q.
��4' \�LAITN�N o
a
M ` .
A/a7E.' AA/)"- //O4-,SE em4-//e7 0•../ 7-#7//-5 `-per
G c7T 5 ./.4 L cc�. ./7--4 //v ..y.PE F -E,,,pC jM S: 4
O,<=P ,='EG✓C/P, c./.4.-/C E 5S 4d c/.vT/C< 7',_/F
•c cy- ,- ' 7-5 -4 e,g E•M-9,<�F co u/ / >-'5 4RTHI I r Fr wApns• i420P •
•
• '-'E c.? c.-//- -4--> E••-•-/7-S f'o.E=" '5 Fi--✓G-, :.
/ 5,0 co '5 e ,--"O.=. ---'c "3 E/c•PC... .._.,---,S
v., r' lilzv‘t:,i44.
/ .
Add
. LP .l0 0
n i
2S2 00
,U r
kiX '%ram
�. \� 0
. 11P
„ car2
�, P
l Li
r•'-o
1 0 /� E I ,
��� I I
~ / rrf 1 I
I
//3?09 i> 141k
/ m I \
i9s�iYi9Lr ") \
/ ,4i"/�A/ iN T o �✓ 1 1
o
6y b
\.., \ \
FEE-/yF�/T^� \ a ,
o v \ /SrSPH/9LT
WI
�_S o/f///f Ay
4, 96 6 s.F �}- \ \
••
.'V89'e '41" \` �\\
1\ 'IL 7,S- ..e c.
\ \
% 1
(s ,PT ZD 1
�� 1 1
41:
�� '',30'2 7,/ I.
___S"nK
F/1 AN/rl//‘/ O/?/1/E (.so' .p/w.)
/°// Y.S/C/y L LS(// '✓&--y ($/-7/OG✓//VG
LOT Z
f/Qi9N/rL /A/
02i96 E:/ 60' /4 L.567`1g LE CO1n/7 )/, V/4G/N//1 L7EC. 22, /773
B. AUBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
,7477)7 3/ 1'6 c ,..75 //8- 6,
-, v ; . -7.
Virginia al Rtie Phillip Hoge Buchanan, Esq.
11 Tech ::.,,.:.,.:::::x.,,..,,..,.:::::::::::.,.::.,.:::.,.::.,.::.,.:::::::::::.,.::::..:.:::::::::.,.:.,..,.:::::.,,,..........Banior..Di.reetor..of.D.evelopiment
$ 7 2 1RGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Office of University Development
AND STATE UNIVERSITY 201 Pack Budding
Blacksburg,Virginia 24061-0336
Phone:(540)231-2801 or(800)533-1144
Charlottesville,Virginia office:(877)269-7510
FAX(540)231-2802/e-mail.trustme(0)vt.edu
County of Albemarle December 8, 1998
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road, Room 223
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Attn: Max Kennedy, Chairman of the Board —rehearing request for December 15, 1998.
MOTION FOR REHEARING—Board of Zoning Appeals Action— VA-98-30 —Tax Map 62,
Parcel 92—original hearing on December 1, 1998 at 4 p.m. —garage addition to home of Phillip
and Katharine Buchanan located at 1636 Franklin Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
I appreciate the time you and Jan Sprinkle took to speak with me today. As we discussed,
on December 1, 1998, the Board of Zoning Appeals denied our unopposed request for a variance
which would allow us to build an attached three-car garage onto our house (which would be
approximately 21-22 feet from the neighbor's property line at one corner of the garage). As noted
by some Board members at the December 1 hearing, we could build a detached three-car garage
within 6 feet of our neighbors' property. From a current and future property owners' perspective,
the detached garage option is far less beneficial for us and our neighbors (Claude and Lois
Sandy). We need this structure for three cars, and, since our home (purchased by us in August
1998) has no basement, we desperately need it for storage. The purpose of this Motion for
Rehearing is to offer evidence that was not previously submitted, in an effort to convince Board
members that a rehearing is justified and that a variance should be approved in this case.
Since I understand that some Board members felt we had failed to address the"hardship"
requirement for allowance of a variance, I will try to address that test in each of my responses.
Obviously, some arguments will be stronger than others will. The only legal definition I could find
for"hardship" was in Black's Law Dictionary (6`I' Edition) - "As defined in zoning statutes as
grounds for variance, it refers to fact that zoning ordinance or restriction as applied to a particular
property is unduly oppressive, arbitrary or confiscatory" Further, the legal definition has
traditionally included "financial hardship" in zoning ordinance cases.
New Evidence in Support of Variance Requested —
(1) Minimal Exception Requested - The only portion of the attached garage which will be within
25 feet of our neighbor's property is one corner, which will be approximately 21-22 feet from
the neighbor's property line. Moreover, the affected property line lies in an area which appears
to be part of our yard (a large level area adjoining both lots) on which we hold a"recreational
easement"(see attached plat). We mow and maintain this area and it benefits both our lot and
our neighbors' lot by providing a"play area." One purpose of zoning offset requirements is to
reduce interference with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. By denying our
request to attach this garage to our house, thereby requiring that we build a detached garage
to meet (only some of) the same needs, you are reducing the use and enjoyment of our
neighbors' property(as well as our own).
Hardship—The"balancing" of harms in this instance should measure the impact of what is
being requested versus the effect if the variance is not granted. In this case the variance
requested is for a minimal variation to the offset requirements, for one corner of a structure,
not an entire wall. It is not economically feasible for my neighbor and Ito swap or sell
property to offset this minor change, due to subdivision requirements (2 acre minimum),
septic fields and the costs of surveying, drafting of deeds, re-recording various legal
documents, etc. Such a suggestion would be neither reasonable nor fair to the landowners.
(2) Damage to Recreational Area- The only available space to locate a detached garage would
have to be much closer to 6 feet from my neighbors' property and would consume a
substantial portion of our yard and the recreational area(about the only level ground on my
lot or my neighbors' lot). The topography would require additional landscaping and would
likely result in water problems during heavy rains due to a bank adjacent to the recreational
area. The attached garage would parallel our existing porch and would have a minimal effect
on the open recreation area between our neighbors' property and ours. It would be far enough
removed from the bank that risk of water damage from that source should be minimal.
Hardship —But for a 3-4 foot corner of the proposed garage, we would not have to ask for a
variance. The majority the back wall of the attached garage will not be within 25 feet of my
neighbors' property line (without considering the additional "buffer" of the recreational
easement area). As compared to an attached garage, the detached garage would obviously be
detrimental and costly to both my neighbors' property and my property - in terms of view,
functionality, damage to the recreational area, landscaping and expenses necessary to build,
safety to the homeowners.
(3) Safety and Shelter— An attached garage allows direct entry into our home. This is one of the
primary reasons we want a garage. In addition to the obvious shelter from wind, rain, snow
and cold which an attached garage offers, it is generally deemed safer for the occupants of the
home. Please take notice that most people attach garages to their homes, for obvious reasons.
Hardship - As a husband who travels on business a great deal, I do not like the fact that my
wife currently has to get out of her car, walk to a door, get it unlocked and then carry her
belongings into our house. Obviously, if we built a detached garage, we would be right back
before your Board asking for a variance in order to build a walkway to the house (an
expensive addition, to connect a less useful, detached structure to our house). A covered
walkway may offer some shelter from the elements but offers no personal protection. Please
don't put us in that position.
(4) Property Values— Although attached and detached garages cost the same amount, various
realtors have noted that an attached garage adds $5,000-$10,000 to a home's value as
opposed to a detached garage. Likewise, my neighbors' property value would not be helped
by a detached garage located closer to their line and destroying much of the open area.
Hardship—No one ever gave me a dime in this world so I tend to watch my money. Since
what we want (an attached garage) costs the same as a detached garage, your denial of our
request will effectively result in a loss of value to our home While we can spend the same
A Land-Grant University-The Commonwealth Is Our Campus
An Equal Uppornunry/Af rmahve Action Institution
money to build a detached garage, which will meet some of our needs, you will be taking
some value away from us. Financial hardship resulting from your decision should also be
weighed into your judgement.
Closing Statement - I am only asking that you be fair to us and our neighbors in this case.
It would be easy to sit back and say that we have a legal option to build a detached garage and
use that as an excuse to not grant a variance which is better for the landowners involved than the
legal option (we also have an option to not build a garage at all but that doesn't help us either).
Forgive me, but that it not what serving on a County Board of Zoning Appeals is supposed to be
about. Boards such as yours were created to consider the fairness and reasonableness of requests
for exceptions to zoning guidelines. Your duty is not fulfilled by simply applying the"letter of the
law." If it were, we would not need a panel of our fellow citizens to sit on a zoning board because
there could be no variances to zoning ordinances. The letter of the law would be final, no mercy
for the just. Your duty to me and to other citizens is to make reasonable decisions and
reasonable exceptions to zoning laws, as the facts of each case dictate. In this case, we are asking
that you balance the hardship of our legal option (a detached three car garage) against our
variance request (for an attached three car garage which will have one corner within 25 feet of a
neighboring property line). Your position has no small amount of power, and with that goes the
duty to exercise it fairly and conscientiously.
When we bought the house in August 1998, we understood that a three-car garage could
be easily added to the house because we only needed a 6-foot offset. No one mentioned that this
was the offset for a detached garage and that an attached garage required 25 feet. I know that
reasonable minds may differ and that zoning laws are to protect all landowners I am asking your
Board to simply be reasonable and allow us to build an attached structure that will be far more
useful to us and have far less detrimental impact than our current, legal, option, both for us and
for our neighbors.
I apologize for our inexperience in these matters. We have never had to seek a zoning
variance before and evidently failed to fully explain our rationale for the request at the December
1 hearing, nor were we aware of the burden we faced in the hearing. I could not attend that
meeting due to work and naively thought that an unopposed motion for a minor variance would
likely be granted.
We hope that you and other Board members will put yourselves in our shoes and
reconsider our variance request. Ask yourselves what you would consider reasonable given this
home and our circumstances. Please feel free to visit our property and let us show you exactly
where the attached garage would be located (currently staked off adjacent to our house), as
opposed to a detached structure. A view may be worth a thousand of my words.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. With Best Regards, I am
Sinc urs,
Phillip Hoge Buchan , Esq.
Virginia Bar Number 29700
Cc: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration, Albemarle County, Virginia
John Binder, Contractor, Sycamore Homes, Ivy, Virginia
Claude and Lois Sandy, 1666 Franklin Drive,Charlottesville, Virginia 22911