HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198800061 Action Letter 1988-09-15 STAFF REPORT - VA-88-61
APPLICANT: William E.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/120E Shuilling
ZONING: HC (Highway Commercial)
ACREAGE: 2 .2 acres
LOCATION: West side of Route 29, + -
.2 miles
south of its intersection with Rt. 631
The applicant proposes to add a three (3)
foot sign to the existing freestanding businessbsignagee (12)
advertising the automotive dealership known as Brown Oldsmobile
Honda. The proposed signage of 36 square
will increase
aggregate area of freestanding signs totwoeet hundred twenty-twohe
(222) square feet. The County Zoning Ordinance
freestanding business signs on HC (Highway Commercial) p opr
under Section 4 . 15. 3 . 7, which states: property
"4 . 15 Signs
4 . 15. 3 . 7 Highway Commercial (HC) ;
Business signs, free-standing or Projecting:
Provided (a) if illuminated, no moving,
blinking, color changing or exposed, bare, orhing,flas
undercovered neon illumination or lighting; (b) the
aggregate area of such signs shall not exceed one
hundred (100) square feet . , . "
The dealership was granted a variance (Case #77-38) on June 15,
1977, which allows an increase of freestanding signage from 100
square feet to 186 square feet.
The Board of Zoning Appeals on their July 26, 1988 meeting
reviewed, and denied the very same request, less the comment to
proffer their application with the condition that it be limited to
a 18 month time period.
The staff is of the opinion that the Board should not consider the
applicant's request until the customary six month time frame has
passed, since the request is exactly the same as their
prior
request, with the exception of the applicant's voluntary condition
regarding a time period, otherwise:
CORRECTED COPY
Staff Report VA-88-61
William E. Schuilling
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
The application 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 con-
fiscation 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.
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.
STAFF REPORT - VA-88-61
APPLICANT: William E. Shuilling
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/120E
ZONING: HC (Highway Commercial)
ACREAGE: 2 .2 acres
LOCATION: West side of Route 29, +
south of its intersection with Rt. 631
The applicant proposes to add a three (3)
foot sign to the existing freestanding businessbsignagee (12)
advertising the automotive dealership known as Brown Oldsmobile
Honda. The proposed signage of 36 square feet will increase the
aggregate area of freestanding signs to two hundred twenty-two
(222) square feet. The County Zoning Ordinance
freestanding business signs on HC (Highway P opr
under Section 4. 15. 3. 7, which states: Commercial) Property
"4. 15 Signs
4. 15. 3 . 7 Highway Commercial
Business signs, free-standing.or Projecting:
Provided (a) if illuminated, no moving,
blinking, color changing or exposed, bare, as or
fl
undercovered neon illumination or lighting; (b) the
aggregate area of such signs shall not exceed
hundred (100) square feet . . . "
The dealership was granted a variance (Case #77-38) on June 15,
1977, which allows an increase of freestanding signage from 100
square feet to 186 square feet.
The Board of Zoning Appeals on their July 26,
reviewed, and denied the very same request, less$8 theeetcomment to
proffer their application with the condition that it be limited to
a 18 month time period.
The staff is of the opinion that the Board should not consider the
applicant's request until the customary six month time frame has
passed, since the request is exactly the same as their prior
request, with the exception of the applicant's voluntary condition
regarding a time period, otherwise:
Staff Report VA-88-61
William E. Schuilling
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
The application 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 con-
fiscation 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 . mho y
rs�_sha e u ttc_nt_--
��_.,.,�...,u�,,a_,�.�„a from
3) The applicant has not provided
to
that the authorization ofthe variance ewilldnotnberofe
substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or that
the character of the district will be altered.
r,
�oHALB�
° iiit
cj
�IRGtN»
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
September 15, 1988
Mr. William E. Schuilling
c/o Mr. Paul M. Wright
1590 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-88-61, Tax Map 61, Parcel 120E
Dear Mr. Wright:
This letter is to inform you that on September 13, 1988, the Board
of Zoning Appeals ruled not to hear your variance application,
VA-88-61, until the six (6) month period.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,4r W. a0.40, 4-0
41,44
Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
CWBJr/st
cc: VA-88-61