HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198700057 Action Letter 1987-08-20 IRGi
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
September 30, 1987
Mr. & Mrs. Earl Whitaker
2332 Lonicera Way
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-87-57, Tax Map 20, Parcel 90
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Whitaker:
This letter is to inform you that on September 29, 1987, during
the regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning
Appeals, that the Board ruled to allow your application, VA-87-57,
to be withdrawn.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWB,JR/st
cc: VA-87-57
STAFF REPORT - VA-87-57
APPLICANT: Earl J. & Kathleen Witaker
TAX MAP:/PARCEL: 20/9
ACREAGE: 2.251
ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
LOCATION: Lot number five , located on the corner of
Lonicera Way and Ilex Court in North Pines
Subdivision off Rt 606
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 10. 4 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance. This section states:
"10. 4 Area and Bulk Regulations
Yards, minimum
Front : 75 feet . . . "
The applicant wishes to obtain approval for the location of a
free-standing home occupation sign to be located one (1) foot
from the road right-of-way.
In 1985 , when the applicant obtained a home business license , the
only concerns related to the applicant were a maximum size of
four (4) square feet and traffic visibility.
Upon reviewing the site , if the sign were to be located seventy five
(75) feet from the road right-of-way, it would hardly be visible
from the road.
We find that the applicant has an option to locate some means of
identification less than 144 square inches (example: less than
6" x 24" ) abutting the front property line and would not qualify
for a sign permit or require a variance . The area of less than
144 square inches would not be classified as a sign.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant should be denied for cause:
1) The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show
that a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce
a clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation as
distinguished from a special privilege or convenience.
2) The applicant has not demonstrated that the perceived
hardship is unique to his property in contradistinction to
other properties in the same zoning district and general vicinity .
The requirement the applicant seeks relief from is shared
uniformly by all properties zoned industrial .
3) The applicant has not provided evidence to demonstrate that
the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial
detriment to the adjacent properties or that the character of
the district will be altered. The granting of the applicant ' s
STAFF REPORT - VA-87-57
request will undermine the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in regards
to required setbacks for signs.
In the event the Board of Zoning Appeals should find just cause
to approve the applicant ' s request , the following recommendations
should be considered.
1) that the height of the sign not exceed six (6) feet above
grade
2) that the sign area be reduced to 2. 5 square feet
3 ) that the sign not be illuminated