The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVA200300009 Correspondence 2003-06-25 Jun-25-03 03:59pm From-LECLAIR RYAN 4342960905 T-691 P 001/002 F-492 RICeiMOND OFFICE. LECLAIR RYAN TELEPHONE (8041 783-2003 A PROFESSIONAL(CORPORATION I NNSBROOK OFFICE: ATTORNEYS AT LAW TARA ROWAN BOYD TELEPHONE. (B04)270-0070 BLACKSBURG OFFICE: 123 EAST MAIN STREET, 81m FLOOR EMAIL:TEOYD@LECLAIRRYAN.COM TELEPHONE: (540)961-2762 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902 Direct Dial, (434)245-3429 NORFQLR OFFICE: TELEPHONE:(434)245-3444 TELEPHONE; (757)624-1454 FACSIMILE: (434)296.0905 ALEXANDRIA OFFICE: TELEPHONE: (703)684-8007 WASHINGTON DC OFFICE: TELEPHONE, (202)659.4140 ROANQGE OFFICE; June 25, 2003 TELEPHONE: (5401777-6900 BY FACSIMILE Ms. Amelia G. McCulley Zoning Administrator County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Variance for Colonial Auto Center Wall Sign (Staff Report VA-2003-009) Dear Ms. McCulley: I am writing to note an omission in the above-referenced staff report and provide some supplemental discussion of the applicant's variance request. VA- 1 The staff report notes that the applicant's property is not "of unusual size, shape or 7/ 6, 3 topography," and thus fails to satisfy the Virginia Code's variance criteria. But the Code actually lists several separate and independent grounds for obtaining a variance. The broade 'of �14 °) these permits a variance to be granted where, "by reason of... [an] other extraordinary situation,"the granting of a variance would"alleviate a clearly-demonstrable hardship Sloe approaching confiscation." Va. Code Aim. § 15.2-2309(2). This separate basis for ariance was explored by the Virginia Supreme Court in Azalea Corporation v. Richmond. n Azalea, the Court held that a variance from a municipal ordinance barring access to the applicant's property should be granted because the ordinance created (1) "an exceptional situation peculiar to [the applicant] alone, and a literal interpretation of the zoning ordinance ... actually prohibits and unnecessarily restricts the use of all its property," and (2) a"demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation." Azalea's approach applies to Colonial Auto Center's variance request. As the/staff report notes, Colonial's co-location of multiple franchises,manufacturers and buildings on a single parcel is exceptional when compared with other car dealerships. Literal application of the sign ordinance to Colonial Auto's unique situation unnecessarily restricts its use of the property as a Nissan car dealership. In assessing the use restriction imposed by the ordinance in question, the Azalea court weighed the economic impact on the applicant of the lack of access. For Colonial, the economic impact of the lack of sign area is the absence of all signage for the Jun-25-03 04:00pm From-LECLAIR RYAN 4342960905 T-691 P 002/002 F-492 Ms. Amelia G. McCulley Page 2 June 25,2003 Nissan dealership. Because car dealerships rely heavily on signs to attract customers, and are further required by the car manufacturers to display certain signs, a prohibition on any sign severely harms business. Colonial purchased the parcel before the ordinance in question was enacted, and certainly would not have developed the property as it did had it anticipated the particular hardship it would suffer under the sign ordinance. The loss of business due to the absent sign is a tangible hardship that, in Colonial's unique situation, indeed approaches confiscation. Absent a variance, Colonial could theoretically bring all of its nonconforming wall signs into compliance with the ordinance in order to have a wall sign for its Nissan dealership. But this is simply not an economically feasible option, as it would require removal of 136 square feet of existing wall sigznage and reallocation of the remaining permitted sign area among the several dealerships on the site. This process would demand not only substantial financial investment for the fabrication of all new signs but the cooperation of each of the manufacturers whose signs would be reduced. In short, both options permitted to Colonial Auto under the sign ordinance— doing without a Nissan sign and reallocating its conforming sign area to provide a Nissan sign— impose substantial economic hardship on the applicant. In Azalea, the Court concluded that a refusal to grant the variance "would be of little or no gain to the public when compared to the unreasonably restricted use of the property imposed upon [the applicant]." The case at hand presents an identical tradeoff. We respectfully submit that the applicant here qualifies for a variance under the statutory grounds explored in Azalea, and request that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the requested variance. P Yn4Afilfi2- ry truly 41014 Pljetj Tara Rowan Boyd C.c.: Ms. Debra Hurt cifivi 1LMr. H. Carter Myers (� LOA Steven W. Blaine, Esq. 0° //fO . 9 Z, 72o ,!!,r- t60,j, S 6� w a� at cq 714-a-c Z00 6 F /)�� v pet, 0149-d- J2cLA S e Uk' 6rii �% V.