Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200100007 Action Letter 2001-06-05 <si4.of ALA 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 David & Susan Dallas, Jr. 56 Canterbury Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action Variance Application, VA-2001-007 (Sign #1) Tax Map 076C, Parcel A-27 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Dallas: This letter is to inform you that your variance application, VA-2001-007, 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 25 to 23 feet and to reduce the side yard setback from 15 to 10 feet, to allow the construction of an addition. 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, ti4de John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Cc: File Charles Haugh (va-2001-007 dallas denial.doc) RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE 2001-007 (DAVID AND SUSAN DALLAS) WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board") considered the application for variance filed by David and Susan Dallas (VA-2001- 007), and the matter was duly noticed and heard as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Dallas' sought two variances to allow an attached garage and guest room to be constructed on the property; a variance of 2 feet was requested to allow the structure to be constructed 23 feet from the front property line, and a variance of 5 feet was requested to allow the structure to be constructed 10 feet from the side property line; the Dallas property is within the R-1 Residential zoning district, and the district regulations require a front yard of 25 feet and a side yard of 15 feet; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all of the information in the record, including the written, graphic and verbal information presented by County staff and the Dallas'; 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-2001-007 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 25 feet and a side yard of 15 feet would not produce undue hardship because: 1. The parcel has existing reasonable uses. There is one house on the property. 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 1.061 acres in size, and is rectangular in shape. Although the property has a perennial stream running through it, neither the stream nor any County regulations pertaining to the stream prohibit the reasonable use of the property. By reducing or reconfiguring the footprint of the proposed structure, there is adequate space on the property for the applicants to construct a garage and guest room in the general location they desire without the need for a variance. 3. Although the Dallas' assert that the structure design proposed would be more aesthetically or architecturally, an aesthetic or architectural design preference is not an undue hardship, and a variance would therefore bestow a special privilege or convenience. 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 R-1 Residential zoning district and in the same vicinity. Because there is no undue hardship, there is no undue hardship unique to the parcel. The Dallas' asserted that the stream 1 was unique to their property,but there was no evidence that the stream has prevented a reasonable use of the parcel, or would prevent the Dallas' from constructing a structure having a smaller footprint or a reconfigured footprint in the general location they desired. In addition, it appeared from the record that the stream traversed other properties in the neighborhood as well. I, Sharon Taylor, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy f a 1 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. bnilAnr1 Secretary, Board of Zo ing Appeals Aye Nay Mr. Bailey V Mr. Bass Mr. Cogan V Ms. Kennedy (A b5tht> Mr. Rinehart 2 1 f RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCE 2001-007 (DAVID AND SUSAN DALLAS) WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board") considered the application for variance filed by David and Susan Dallas (VA-2001- 007), and the matter was duly noticed and heard as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Dallas' sought two variances to allow an attached garage and guest room to be constructed on the property; a variance of 2 feet was requested to allow the structure to be constructed 23 feet from the front property line, and a variance of 5 feet was requested to allow the structure to be constructed 10 feet from the side property line; the Dallas property is within the R-1 Residential zoning district, and the district regulations require a front yard of 25 feet and a side yard of 15 feet; and WHEREAS, the Board considered all of the information in the record, including the written, graphic and verbal information presented by County staff and the Dallas'; 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-2001-007 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 25 feet and a side yard of 15 feet would not produce undue hardship because: 1. The parcel has existing reasonable uses. There is one house on the property. 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 1.061 acres in size, and is rectangular in shape. Although the property has a perennial stream running through it, neither the stream nor any County regulations pertaining to the stream prohibit the reasonable use of the property. By reducing or reconfiguring the footprint of the proposed structure, there is adequate space on the property for the applicants to construct a garage and guest room in the general location they desire without the need for a variance. 3. Although the Dallas' assert that the structure design proposed would be more desirable aesthetically or architecturally, an aesthetic or architectural design preference is not an undue hardship. 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 R-1 Residential zoning district and in the same vicinity. Because there is no undue hardship, there is no undue hardship unique to the parcel. The Dallas' asserted that the stream 1 was unique to their property, but there was no evidence that the stream has prevented a reasonable use of the parcel, or would prevent the Dallas' from constructing a structure having a smaller footprint or a reconfigured footprint in the general location they desired. In addition, it appeared from the record that the stream traversed other properties in the neighborhood as well. 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