Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000033 Action Letter 2001-06-05 ts�OAF AL% , A I_I I IIII lb .V, r1RGINV?' 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 June 7, 2001 Thomas H. Harris, Jr. & Theresa 6929 Markwood Road Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Variance Application, VA-2000-33 (Sign #4) Tax Map 008, Parcel 35A Dear Mr. & Mrs. Harris: This letter is to inform you that your variance application, VA-2000-033, was heard by the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals on June 5, 2001 . The Board ruled (3:1) (Kennedy absent) to deny your request to reduce the front yard setback from 75 to 42 feet to allow the construction of a garage. If you are aggrieved by this decision, you have a right to appeal the decision within thirty days in accordance with Section 15.2-2314 of the State Code, or the decision shall be final and unappealable. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty days after the decision by filing with the Circuit Court of Albemarle County a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Janice D. Sprinkle Chief of Zoning Administration Cc: File Charles Haugh (va-2000-33 harris denial.doc) RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE 2000-033 (THOMAS AND THERESA HARRIS) WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board") considered the application for variance filed by Thomas and Theresa Harris (VA-2000- 033), and the matter was duly noticed and heard as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Harris' sought a variance of 33 feet to allow a garage to be constructed 42 feet from the road or front property line; the Harris property is within the Rural Areas zoning district, and the district regulations require a front yard of 75 feet; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all of the information in the record, including the written, graphic and verbal information presented by County staff, the Harris', their attorney, and members of the public who spoke during the public hearing; and WHEREAS,based upon the record and the law applicable to variances, the Board voted three to one to deny the application for variance. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that VA-2000-03 is denied for the reasons set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that strict application of the setback regulations requiring a front yard of 75 feet would not produce undue hardship because: 1. The parcel has existing reasonable uses. There are two houses and a large garage on the parcel. 2. The parcel neither suffers from exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape, nor exceptional topographic conditions or any other extraordinary situation or condition. The parcel is 3.17 acres in size, and is generally rectangular in shape. The topography of the parcel slopes away from the road where the two houses are located, but it levels out quickly. There is adequate space on the property for the applicants to construct an additional garage without the need for a variance from the setback regulations, though it may not be in the precise location they desire. 3. Any economic hardship resulting from the denial of the variance is self-induced, and economic hardship alone is not a justifiable reason to grant a variance. The applicants began construction of the garage within the front yard setback without a building permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bkkrd finds that the granting of the variance would not provide relief from an undue hardship not shared generally by other properties in the same Rural Areas zoning district and in the same vicinity. Because there is no undue hardship, there is no undue hardship unique to the parcel. The applicants presented no evidence on this issue. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that the granting of the variance would be a substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district would be changed. The 3.17 acre parcel already has two dwellings close to the road and a large garage used for commercial purposes. The proposed garage, located within the front yard setback and within the side yard setback(alleged by the adjacent owner to be only 5 1/2 feet from the side yard setback, for which a second variance would be required if found to be true)would result in overdevelopment of the parcel and would be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property on the side on which the garage would be located, and to the district. I, Sharon Taylor, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals by a vote of y- to , as recorded below, at a meeting held on July 10, 2001. 56.w\ Secretary, Board of Zonin ppeals Aye Nay Mr. Bailey I Mr. Bass Mr. Cogan Ms. Kennedy ((W-n-�' Mr. Rinehart _ 2 RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE 2000-033 (THOMAS AND THERESA HARRIS) WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board") considered the application for variance filed by Thomas and Theresa Harris (VA-2000- 033), and the matter was duly noticed and heard as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Harris' sought a variance of 33 feet to allow a garage to be constructed 42 feet from the road or front property line; the Harris property is within the Rural Areas zoning • district, and the district regulations require a front yard of 75 feet; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all of the information in the record, including the written, graphic and verbal information presented by County staff, the Harris', their attorney, and members of the public who spoke during the public hearing; and WHEREAS,based upon the record and the law applicable to variances, the Board voted three to one to deny the application for variance. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that VA-2000-033 is denied for the reasons set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that strict application of the setback regulations requiring a front yard of 75 feet would not produce undue hardship because: 1. The parcel has existing reasonable uses. There are two houses and a large garage on the parcel. 2. The parcel neither suffers from exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape, nor exceptional topographic conditions or any other extraordinary situation or condition. The parcel is 3.17 acres in size, and is generally rectangular in shape. The topography of the parcel slopes away from the road where the two houses are located, but it levels out quickly. There is adequate space on the property for the applicants to construct an additional garage without the need for a variance from the setback regulations, though it may not be in the precise location they desire. 3. Any economic hardship resulting from the denial of the variance is self-induced. The applicants began construction of the garage within the front yard setback without a building permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that the granting of the variance would not provide relief from an undue hardship not shared generally by other properties in the same Rural Areas zoning district and in the same vicinity. Because there is no undue hardship, there is no undue hardship unique to the parcel. The applicants presented no evidence on this issue. Inki tilf9/ 1.0 I bAl flog' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board finds that the granting of the variance would be a substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district would be changed. The 3.17-acre parcel already has two dwellings close to the road and a large garage used for commercial purposes. The proposed garage (already under construction) is located within the front yard setback would result in over-development of this portion of the parcel and would be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property on the side on which the garage would be located, and to the district. I, Sharon Taylor, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a meeting held on July 10, 2001. Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Aye Nay • Mr. Bailey • Mr. Bass Mr. Cogan Ms. Kennedy Mr. Rinehart 2