HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP200800001 Correspondence 2015-03-08pF arg�
c cy r
Lrf2C;l1�ZA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
To: Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals
CC: James N. Deinlein, Esquire, Greg Kamptner, Esquire, Andy Herrick, Esquire,
Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development,
Rob Heidi, Manager of Zoning Enforcement, Ana Kilmer,
From: Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning
Date: 3/8/2015
Re: Crown Automotive BZA Appeal — AP2008 -001- Request for Deferral
We are in receipt of a letter, dated October 1, 2008, from Mr. James N. Deinlein, Esquire, attorney for
the appellants in the Crown Automotive case, asking for a deferral of this hearing for an additional
three months. We strongly object to this deferral, since the approval of any site plan for
development of this property will not moot the fact that the site has continued to operate in violation
of the zoning ordinance since being cited as a use not permitted on February 29, 2008. After filing
an appeal on March 31, 2008, the appellants requested that the appeal be heard at the June 3,
2008 BZA meeting. At that meeting, they requested deferral until the October 7, 2008 BZA
meeting. This has resulted in the site continuing to be occupied with vehicles in a stand alone
parking situation for over seven months. They could have abated this violation at any time.
The Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure state:
"In considering a request for a deferral of a hearing of an appeal or an application for a
variance pertaining to a zoning violation, the BZA should consider the reasons for the deferral if the
request is submitted by the appellant or applicant, the recommendation of staff, and the comments
of any member of the public. In making its decision to grant or deny a request, the BZA should
consider the following factors: (1) whether the deferral would promote fairness in the process; (2)
whether the deferral would be solely for the convenience or personal benefit of the appellant or
applicant; (3) whether the deferral would delay the enforcement or abatement of a violation that is
adversely affecting an abutting property, a neighbor, the neighborhood or the public; and (4)
whether the deferral would allow the appellant or applicant to resolve the underlying issues so that
BZA action might be unnecessary."
Staff is of the opinion that this is "solely for the convenience of the appellant' and should not be
granted. Please conduct the hearing on the violation at hand. The removal of the vehicles has not
been carried out and is not predicated on the site plan approval and commencement of any
construction.