HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200100007 Application 2001-05-07 County of Albemarle
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
�� (804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4060
VA- 9p
w t- 909 DATE: 5 3-- 61
FEE: $95. 00 pci
STAFF:
VARIANCE APPLICATION
S ice* I
OWNER (as currently listed in Real Estate) LaL 8o' 95./ _ 51/47
Name 1)4 I. L\i1/ S; 4(dam iJ.. 2h. //a s Phone (eo`/) //7 - 3696
Address 56 C.a nit o' k ry eocat at-14r/c/feSv,//e Z.Z 473
APPLICANT (if different from above)
Name Phone ( )
Address
CONTACT PERSON (if different from above)
Name Phone ( )
Day Phone ( )
Address
LOCATION: 5C-
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: /3 ,3
Board of Zoning Appeals Date: C, /05/ 01 '1 "�tia_ VC (lc(
( ) Special Permit ( ) Variance
( ) Proffers
5,6 TA
BZA ACTION: D EN El) - I _
t€So1u41dh lektj i k Vet ri as ce- Q.epTed 7I to 01 b..( vdte e f 9- C)
.1 fro/O,
VA 2001-007 (Sign #1) - David and Susan Dallas, Jr. (owners/applicants).
Located at 56 Canterbury Rd in the Bellair Subdivision. TM 76C/ParcelA-27,
zoned R-1, Residential. Requests a reduction of front yard setback from 25 ft to
23 ft and a reduction of side yard setback from 15 ft to 10 ft, to allow the
construction of an addition.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: ji, a:14:d<l .� .c 1 -cI
JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE BASED ON THESE THREE (3) CRITERIA:
1) That the strict application of this ordinance would produce
undue hardship.
-5e4. ai4.414.4 / 1
2) That such hardship is not shared generally by other properties
in the same zoning district and the same vicinity.
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. / j
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
best of my know edge and belief.
Signatur Dat Receipt# Date
401 EAST MARKET STREET
SUITE 101
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-5264
DAVID L. DALLAS, JR.
May 7,2001
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Board of Zoning Appeals
Administrator
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: Variance Request of David L. Dallas,Jr. and
Susan W. Dallas, Owners of 56 Canterbury Road
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a Variance Application seeking relief from the side and
front property line setback requirements for an attached garage/guest room
addition to our home at 56 Canterbury Road in the Bellair Subdivision of
Albemarle County. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of$95.00 to
satisfy the filing fee.
Essentially,we ask your consent to relatively minor variances that
will greatly improve the continuity of design and functionality of the
proposed addition, while causing no hardship on the community, our
neighbors, utility providers or emergency response personnel.
Specifically, we seek permission to build an attached structure extending
to a 10 foot side property line setback and a 23 foot front property line
setback.
We very much hope the Board will grant our request, and we will
be pleased to answer any questions the Board my have about it or our
Application. Please do not hesitate to call me at my office ((804) 951-
5707) or home(804) 977-3886 if you have any questions prior to the
hearing.
Sincerely,
tiv-tVcal42,--- •
David L. Dallas, Jr.
DLDJr:dba
Enclosures
VARIANCE APPLICATION
ANSWER SHEET
OF
DAVID L. DALLAS,JR. AND SUSAN W. DALLAS
56 CANTERBURY ROAD
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
We wish to build an attached garage and guest room addition to our three bedroom house
in the only area on our lot that will reasonably accommodate such addition. Because our house
was built in 1962, at the very front of the lot to least interfere with the creek and flood plain
behind it, there is an obvious,but limited area in which to build a garage on the side of the house.
In order for the structure to be functional and aesthetically pleasing with the rest of the house and
driveway, we wish to build an attached structure 10 feet from the side property line and 23 feet
from the front property line. Please see the drawing attached as Exhibit A for the proposed wall
limits of the addition and the site pictures attached as Exhibit B.
JUSTIFICATION CRITERIA
1. No other adequate place on the lot exists to build a garage,because of the stream
and flood plain traversing our back yard. We bought the house in August 2000 based on(i)our
understanding that a garage and guest room could be built and(ii) a recent Plat(attached as
Exhibit C)that shows 10 foot building setbacks from the side line and 30 foot building setbacks
from the roadway in the front,both of which are adequate to accommodate the proposed
structure,but neither of which seem to be applicable. We would not have bought the house
without an ability to add a garage and guest room. We could build a detached garage 10 feet
from the side property line without a variance,but that would create an aesthetically awkward
relationship to the house that can be remedied with a covered breezeway, the roof of which is
connected to the house and garage. This solution, however logical, makes the garage "attached"
and thus subject to an unacceptable 15 foot side setback. It is unacceptable, because the utility of
the garage and driveway would be substantially diminished, and it creates an awkward placement
of the garage on the pre-existing elevated driveway pad. It is also logical and aesthetically
appropriate to align the front of the garage with the front line of the house, which at its closest
point is 24 feet from the front property line and more than 40 feet from the road according to the
Plat. Because the front line of the house is not exactly parallel with the front property line a
variance permitting a 23 foot front property line setback is required to maintain the line of the
house. Requiring a 25 foot front property line setback would also push the proposed structure
closer to the stream.
2. Other properties are not traversed by the creek in such a fashion as to severely
limit their ability to accommodate additional construction. We do not know of a house in the
immediate vicinity of ours that does not have a garage and/or carport. Moreover, given current
construction practices and the fact that the neighborhood now enjoys a public water supply,there
is some question whether the original R-1 designation is appropriate. Were our district not
•
designated R-1, we understand it would be common administrative practice to reduce the side
setback requirement from 15 feet to 10 feet.
3. The adjacent property will not be detrimented because there is a large area that
includes a gravel utility road between Mr. Stewart's house and our property line. Emergency
and utility vehicles can easily access all sides of both residences. Water is available from the
creek and a hydrant at the front of the yard of my opposite side neighbor. Our addition will
increase the value of our property and thus tend to increase the value of the properties of both
immediate neighbors. Mr. Stewart consents to the requested variance - see his letter attached as
Exhibit D.
0711389.01
2
1.) Survey prepared for: David L. Dallas, Jr. and Susan W. Dallas
it
2.) Lot 27 may be subject to the following easements as shown hereon:
;urve ) Virginia Electric and Power Co. - D.B. 337, Pg. 576
'Plat Iron Rod Set Permanent Utilities and/or Sewage easement within ten feet of front, rear and side
-_— property lines - D.B. 306, Pg. 543
nt 7.1' encroachment P P Y
7 - at fence corner 10' Utility easement along rear property line - D.B. 309, Pg. 573 plat
chain-link fence
encroaches
cD
in
Surveyor's Certificate:
The undersigned, being a registered land surveyor of the State of Virginia (Reg. No. 1458)
does hereby certify to David L. Dallas, Jr. and Susan W. Dallas as follows:
'
1.) This plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the
I "Minimum Standards and Procedures for Surveys Determining Location of Physical
Improvements" adopted by the State of Virginia.
o_
2.) The undersigned has received and examined a copy of the commitment for title
0 insurance prepared by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Commitment No. GOO 0599 with
r- effective date of August 8, 2000, and each instrument listed therein. The location of each
by 0 easement, right of way, and other survey matters affecting title listed in said report, to the
a Lot 26 extent it can be located, has been shown hereon with appropriate recording references.
_c N
co 0 3.) Thisplat correctlyshows the general location of all buildings, structures and other
o improvements, if any, situated on the property shown hereon.
Frio —
3 o 0 4.) Except as shown hereon, there are no visible easements, discrepancies, conflicts, fences,
streams, rivers, roads, or rights of way of which the undersigned has been advised.
— . rn
—_______ 5.) Property lies within Flood Zone "C", not a H.U.D. defined 100 year flood plain.
,TH OF P•
R�efero p\d� j r Plat Showing Physical Survey of:
-story s -509, I ,� Lot 27, Block A, Section One,
sidence �r6- UG.V. 'KIRK" HUGHES9 » »
#56 NO. 1458 Bel lair Estates
F. 40.2' _ 8/16 f c0 4 Samuel Miller Magisterial District
)o gfyD o Albemarle County, Virginia
limney 10' Utility Easement SURvE August 16, 2000
/ 30' BSL (from roadway)
40 0 40 80 120 Feet
r I---� i--� I I I 1
o Olron Rod Found Iron Rod Found Scale: 1 "=40'
4.00' o N 21'46'00" E 157.94' -
i - Kirk Hughes & Associates
)' R/W) 0.7± miles to Land Surveyors & Planners
U.S. Route 250 220 East High Street
r�,.--1. 44,....,:ii- v:-..:..:.. nnnnn
111
EXHIBIT D
Neil M. Stewart
58 Canterbury Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22903
May 3, 2001
Board of Zoning Administration
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Variance Application of 56 Canterbury Road
Gentlemen:
I am the owner and resident of 58 Canterbury Road. I understand that my neighbors,
Dave and Susan Dallas, are planning to build a garage and guest room addition to the side of
their home that is closest to my property. I also understand that they are seeking a variance to
the property line setback requirements for attached structures and wish permission to utilize a 10-
foot side setback and 23-foot front property line setback. Dave Dallas has discussed his plans
with me, and I have no objection to the Dallas' utilizing a 10-foot side setback or a 23-foot front
setback for their proposed garage and guest room addition.
Sincerely yours, l'yaorftib•.—
ej
Neil M. Stewart
0710952.01