HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900089 Action Letter 1989-11-16 i
-0T,i1NTY OF AT BEMARLF
,. i uni
c ,...,.. 229C --..7"_.
.\overt-- 16, -989
._. -.�. 1e . i_ e 6 �i___caine Garrison
C oy
e G `6 Zo'"inc t_jvle.-,ala Action
-ee._. ar es:
_:_t:e- �o inform you that on November 14 , 1989 , during
the meeting of the AThero_ to County Roam of Zoning Appeals, the
Board _,a___mou l- ✓a =oved your Vaguest for VA-89-39 .
This r ors _,e, _ from Section 10 . 4 of the
A1..,am-ar1 County Zoning Ordinance to reduce :he frog t yard setback
for freestanding sign from. 75 feet to 3 feet, a variance of 72
_f ; _ � o any auestvo _s , -e-, ease contact our office.
- terson
-ng A. ministr etor
f-- 9 C C_
Staff Person: John Grady
Public Hearing: November 14, 1989
STAFF REPORT - VA-89-89
APPLICANT: Lynn L. Neville & Christine Garrison
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 87/3B
ACREAGE: 4 acres
ZONING: RA, Rural Areas
LOCATION: Located on the north side of Rt. 692,
approximately 1/10 mile west of its intersection
with Route 29 south
REQUEST:
The applicant requests 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 proposes for a 6 square foot sign to remain located
3 feet from the right-of-way of Route 692 . This location will
require a 72 foot variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant does have somewhat of a topographical hardship
due to a curving section of Route 692 . The curve combined with
a 75 foot setback would offer no visual recognition of a 6 square
foot sign.
Staff is aware that the applicants' request of 6 square feet is
well below the allowable limits of 100 square feet for a business
sign in the Rural Area. However, staff does not feel the
applicant meets criteria of the two sections listed below.
Staff recommends denial for cause:
1) The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict
application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship;
2) The applicant has not provided evidence 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.