HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900009 Action Letter 1992-03-12 �yOF ALgc,,y
��RGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5875
March 12, 1992
Reynovia Land Trust
c/o George H. Gilliam, Trustee
P. O. Box 2737
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Action
VA-89-09 Reynovia Land Trust
Tax Map 90, Parcel 36A
Dear Mr. Gilliam:
This letter is to inform you that on March 10, 1992, during the
meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board
unanimously (5:0) approved your request for VA-89-09.
This variance approval allows relief from Section 3 .0 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow the subdivision sign to
be permanently lit.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
OArALhiVRAkk./
Amelia M. Patterso
Zoning Administrator
AMP/sPAT
� -
STAFF REPORT - VA-89-9
APPLICANT: Reynovia Land Trust
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 90/36A
ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
LOCATION: West side of Route 742 , . 7 miles north of its
intersection with Route 20.
The applicant seeks a variance from Section 3 . 0 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance. This section contains the definitions of
the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant specifically seeks a variance
from the definition of a subdivision sign, which states:
"3 . 0 Definitions . . .
Sign Subdivision: A sign, not illuminated, 60 square feet
or less in aggregate area, identifying a subdivision and
located therecn at teh entrances to such subdivision. Said
sign shall not be greater in height than 6 feet and setback
from any right-of-way for proper sight distance. "
The applicant was granted a variance by the Board of Zoning
Appeals (VA 86-52) on January 13 , 1987 , which allowed for a
subdivision sign to be illuminated by an external light source.
The variance was granted for a period of two (2) years. The
applicant now seeks an additional variance to allow for the
continued illumination of the subdivision sign from an external
light source.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the request be denied for cause:
1) The applicant has not shown that a strict application of the
Zoning Ordinance would cause 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 not generally shared by other properties in the
general vicinity or same zoning district.
3) The applicant has not shown that the granting of the variance
request would not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
properties or that the character of the district would not be
altered.