The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200000016 Action Letter 2000-08-25 ��F ALL, 8 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road,Room 227 Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 FAX(804)972-4126 TELEPHONE(804)296-5832 TTD(804)972-4012 MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Board of Zoning Appeals FROM: John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration DATE: August 25, 2000 RE: VA-2000-16 Request for Rehearing Roger and Sue Belew have requested a rehearing of VA-2000-16. The variance would allow construction of a porch on the front of their dwelling. Staff determined that the criteria for approval were not met and recommended denial. On July 18, 2000 the Board ruled 3:2 to deny the request to reduce the front yard setback from 75 feet to 32 feet. That ruling was based, in part, on staff opinion that the applicant could build a porch on the side of the dwelling or could cover the rear deck without the necessity of a variance. The applicant has presented new information that addresses these alternative locations. Staff opinion is that the information is relevant to the issue of alternative locations for a porch. Never the less, staff will not revise the recommendation for denial. If the Board approves the request for a rehearing, VA-2000-16 will then be readvertised and presented for action on October 3, 2000. A1 • • • August 22,2000 Board of Zoning Appeals Ref: Variance#: 2000-016 In reference to the above variance#,I would like to request a rehearing based on new and more complete information. I am attaching drawings of the proposed porch to hopefully clarify exactly what I would like to build and its relation to the set back from the center line of Route 795(Blenheim Rd).The extreme edge of the existing sidewalk is presently set back 52' 10"from the center line of State Route 795. The proposed 8' x 20'porch with steps exiting at left elevation would be set back 54'from the center line of State Route 795 With the proposed porch,we are providing additional set back of 1' 2"from the existing stoop/sidewalk. We feel this not only provides greater access for any future road development,it also provides a greater margin of safety to individuals,as they will not be in as close proximity to the road when exiting the porch. The proposed porch will not only add a safety factor,but will also enhance the appearance of the home,and the community and will provide us with a more usable area. The Zoning Staff made a proposal of an optional location of the porch at the left elevation. We do not feel this option is viable due to the increased cost this would impose and the diminishment of usable yard space.There would need to be the removal of a window,in addition to the cost of labor and material to install a new door,relocation of an electrical panel box and a dryer vent. Electrical service and phone service cables would have to be relocated due to excavating for footings. Some of the siding would need to be removed,so that the roof could be properly attached(flashing)to prevent water entry. If the porch were located in this location,it would diminish usable yard space between the house and the garage to 7'. This additional material and labor would greatly increase the cost of building a porch as well as take away usable yard space. An option was proposed by the Zoning Staff to cover the rear deck,rather than build a front porch In order to do this would require additional labor and materials to provide required support for attaching a roof. The footing would have to be redone as it was not sized for carrying the additional weight for the roof support. This would require additional cost for materials and labor. Due to the fact that existing rear deck is only 6"from the edge of left elevation of dwelling,it would be difficult to put a roof with valleys over the deck and provide space to put adequate guttering. Also, plumbing vent pipes would have to be raised and incorporated into the roof at an additional cost. Because the size of the deck( 12'X 16' )is larger than the proposed front porch,there would be an additional cost for materials and labor. In summary,we feel that a hardship was imposed by the county,because at the time the home was built it met set back requirements that would have been sufficient to have built the proposed porch. We feel that the proposed porch will provide more set back than the existing stoop. The options suggested would be more costly and difficult to do. All surrounding neighbors have approved and welcomed the proposed addition. The Zoning Staff also said there would be no detrement to the community with this addition We respectfully request that you consider rehearing our request for this variance based on the above facts. Sincerely, 00) Rodger D.Belew Sue H.Belew Attachments: Drawings of proposed porch Photographs (7) 9- 8''' -t Lef t G/,_a t-ron l 61't tRt. 7ff \ Left L--levciiar �? " rt Rr 7 - I I f I F ti v Rgt View R/R� Vie. EXis tit) y Stoop M-oposec/ Porch ROcicyt,)-- / 95— scw le : ` = /o„ Not io scale . ------------_, 'FA" iiiii 1,, kiiiii . . ______ , • . ,_, ---.,-,.,.. . .. ,.7: ..At - - -.:........ ,. -. -. , , -..,i:. „.- -'-_,%141 ,ut:Atijr0... -,-.1,`;- - '. ..v..7w...,..._!L, .. -, -_, r_.' P.', toikl• 3sV..0.,14 's.. � 'F• y -"it -4i ''tom •=. i • 1. Front of residence as viewed from left elevation showing existing stoop, ` �.'l~ 4 -1 ,�tr i )1:-.,. 0 '•+" t r Y steps and sidewalk. �` � t ,1.1. ' `z' ti 4pc,iniW4 1, vicii* Tape line on sidewalk shows extreme edge of proposed porch. - •� �� `lrr ,i?�: .`� :: %{_ , k b : '°--. New steps would exit porch at lower left corner of picture (left elevation -try �_•-'2V"�t 'J+7� Y..e 1 � AK , ,Aifi. 10 - moor Ili 1 •. " 2. Front of residence as viewed from plan view. i Proposed porch provides additional set back of 1' 2" from T the existing stoop/sidewalk, as indicated by tape line. ItiltiNt- • y ., F� 1IIT - -_ *.-"•''' - '---------------:1t _ --' 3. Left elevation showing window that would need to be removed and reframed for new door. Electric panel box and dryer vent would u ,, „,. 'j` , , need relocating. Underground phone and electric service cables would `y '' is ` .-- need to be relocated due to excavating for footings. -- •.-.7.,-4,„..4'•7 0.11, ill 4. - - ''''‘ ':- -4,4;4, .'•44k.-- -;-ii,/. 4-:'. - .. ms:+•. `.M1f=' 0 ". '. z%'; r• �y R'!, i 4 ".T, - 4. Left elevation shows area in gable where siding would need to be — - 1: removed to properly attach porch. This view also shows house/ _ — - garage relationship which would be diminished using his location. � ii- i- ,pciiktfillj Ili‘ill 1 4 mi!l// -- _. ~ e. .. to ■III alb - ' -, 1 1 Mali , ,.�.. .- - ,4*ki II * ipiiiiisefrol 5. View from rear of residence shows deck supports that would need to �-.� be removed in order to replace footings to carryadditional weight of roof -�>; '��. '*�~ — �..� •�} .�,..� .ate . � P 9 1 .-.c �'' ,., Vent pipes needing reworking can also be seen in this view, Gutter _ '�� problem due to valley coming to edge of roof can be determined by - \- . .. = • �� photo. 7' • „riii. •tea;. • 4 1- �,, 7. _ =w:= ,- " ` - �.. _ - [64. 6. View of deck from left elevation shows another view of deck suppc„ „ - 1. I , that would need to be removed and footings reworked. ti __ _ _ lel like liii 14/ L ' la t • i � `- 7 �► sii imp .. / t 7.ir- P.' • 7 -7-i---4--4-4, 4'4'4'+'1 VW'n, ,4.4.-•;c4'PO ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ V illb - ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ► ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 44 . i1si16n9; .lid , �, VV _ .4i mop Immismi r ��'""` 7. beck from another angle at rear of dwelling. • 'fit•. . ,.. :.f .` `,• .f ter• 1.". —'~ �. {-' 414-A • •1,4 .i_ r ?-.c Yam '