Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/16/2007 - Agenda4 ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING — MAY 16, 2007 BZA Members Mr. Kevin Barnes, Chairman Present: Mr. Richard Jones Mr. Eric Thomas Mr. Eldon Karr Mr. Carlton Wright Staff Present: Mr. John Murphy, Secretary Mr. Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning Mr. Bill Richardson Ms. Becky Mahoney Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Mr. Barnes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Wright moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PETITION 1. The petition of William C. Catron for the request of a variance to Section 30- 41- 3(B)2a., Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, in order to reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 4 feet for the construction of an attached carport, located at 4554 Girard Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. William Catron, 4554 Girard Drive, explained he would like to build an awning over his driveway. He stated he suffered a stroke and subsequent injuries making him unsteady when trying to enter and exit his vehicle during inclement weather. He stated he purchased his home in 1998 prior to the decline of his health. 1 Mr. Dewey Parker, 4548 Girard Drive, stated Mr. Catron has improved the property since he purchased it in 1998. He stated his property adjoins the petitioner's property. He stated he understands his problem and does not object to the request. Mr. Karr made the motion to approve the variance. His motion was based on the findings that the property was acquired in good faith, a strict application of the County's Zoning Ordinance would unreasonably restrict the use of the property by the owner, the property has exceptional topographic conditions consisting of a steep slope, such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the character of the district will not be changed by granting the variance. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried with the following vote: AYES: Thomas, Wright, Jones, Karr, Barnes NAYS: ABSTAIN: 2. The petition of CBS Outdoor for an administrative appeal of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of Sections 30- 93- 14(A)2.b and 30-93 - 14(A)2c3 and 30- 93- 14(A)2c5 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance which led to the denial of a sign permit for the installation of tri- vision sign faces on a non - conforming, off - premise sign located at 4183 Electric Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Mr. Mike Pace, Esquire, Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, spoke representing the petitioner. He introduced Mr. Whitt Ellerman, Esquire, and Mr. Skeet Long. He described the proposed change would be to the face of the sign and not to enlarge or change the setback. Mr. Skeet Long, real estate manager for CBS, stated the sign would attract customers. He stated the new sign would be a tri- vision sign with no change to the structure or size of the sign. Mr. Pace stated the Zoning Administrator's decision was based on the present sign which does not meet the current standards. He stated the current sign is a legal non - conforming use. He discussed the 1981 issuance of the sign permit. He stated the county height and setback restrictions were enacted in 1990. He reviewed various code - sections. 2 He stated the size and setback will remain the same. He stated the sign use has been uninterrupted since 1981. He stated the size of the face of the sign would be changed. Mr. Thomas asked if the proposed sign would be equal to current sign. Mr. Pace stated it is the same use, not a major improvement. Mr. Karr stated it would increase the intensity of use. Mr. Pace referred to Supreme Court cases regarding signage. Mr. Karr stated the change would increase the face from 2 to 6 sign faces. Mr. Pace reiterated the use is the same. Mr. Karr stated the sign would no longer be a flat panel sign. He stated the board has to consider the entire Zoning Ordinance and its intent. Mr. Pace stated the head of the sign can be changed by- right. He stated the cost is irrelevant. Mr. Barnes inquired about significantly changing the sign. Mr. Pace stated there is not a reference in the ordinance indicating this would be a substantial change. Mr. Murphy referred to portions of his staff report which addressed portions of the staff report regarding this non- conforming sign. Mr. Thomas inquired about restrictions of tri- vision signage. Mr. Murphy discussed the restrictions set out in the ordinance. Mr. Pace stated the sign is a legal non - conforming use and current design standards cannot be applied since there is no substantial change. Mr. Jones referred to the tri- vision regulations within the ordinance. Mr. Pace stated if the sign was pre - existing, the regulations cannot be applied. Mr. Barnes inquired about the non -- conforming use. Mr. Pace stated the sign size will not increase. Mr. Karr stated in its current state the sign is non- conforming. Mr. Pace referred to the ordinance. Mr. Obenshain referred to various portions of the law regarding an increase of the intensity of use. He stated the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the ordinance was reasonable and rational. Mr. Barnes reminded the board of the guidelines regarding the Administrative Appeal process. Mr. Jones reiterated his concern regarding the tri- vision portion of the ordinance. Mr. Pace stated the tri- vision sign does not change the use. Mr. Karr stated he disagrees that changing to a tri-vision sign is exempt. Mr. Pace stated the tri- vision portion of the ordinance does not apply to the current legal use for non- conforming signs since the sign existed prior to the development of the current ordinance. Mr. Wright made a motion to uphold the Zoning Administrator's opinion: 1. The Zoning Administrator properly applied Section 30- 93- 14(A)2b in the denial of this office - premise, sign permit request. 2. The Zoning Administrator did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in his interpretation and application of the 15' side setback V a determination, thus causing the denial of the subject sign permit application. 3. The interpretations and decisions that led the Zoning Administrator to deny the sign permit are valid and thus the sign permit denial is upheld. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried with the following vote: AYES: Thomas, Wright, Jones, Karr, Barnes NAYS: ABSTAIN: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jones moved to approve the January 17, 2007 minutes as amended. Mr. Karr seconded the motion, which carried with the following vote: AYES: Thomas, Wright, Jones, Karr, Barnes NAYS: None ABSENT: None COMMENTS Mr. Murphy stated a BZA meeting will be held June 20, 2007 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: I -,- � x V John Murphy, Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals 51