Planning: December 4, 2006 Meeting Minutes

December 4, 2006 Meeting Minutes

Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting Minutes
December 4, 2006

Members Present: John Bradshaw, Kim Cash, Linda Russell, Gifford Childs, Goffrey Miles

Members Absent: Ron Moyer, Alternate

Staff Present:   Betty Fortune

Staff Absent:   Fred M. Boger

Call to Order:   Mr. Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Board of Supervisors meeting room of the County Courthouse.

Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the November 6, 2006 BZA meeting were reviewed. There were no changes. Ms. Cash made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, Mr. Miles provided the second, and motion passed 5-0.

Variance #2006-010 – Gene A. Allen

Mr. Bradshaw announced that Mr. Gene A. Allen has requested that Variance #2006-010 be removed from tonight’s agenda and postponed until January, 2007. Ms. Russell made a motion to postpone a decision on Variance #2006-010 until January 8, 2007. Ms. Cash provided the second and motion passed 5-0.

Variance #2006-011 – Kimberly Catalano

In Mr. Boger’s absence, Mr. Bradshaw reported that Ms. Catalano is requesting a variance to Section 12-11-32, Home Occupation Signs, in order to install a “Cottle Multi Media” sign which is 18.7 sq. ft. per side instead of the permitted 2 sq. ft. The property is located at 14020 James River Road (Rt. 56 E), Tax Map #58-4-3. VDOT has stated that the sign must be 50 ft. from the center of the road, making a 2 sq. ft. sign unreadable from the road. Ms. Catalano feels this is a hardship because she cannot effectively show the location of her home business for clients. (Mr. Boger was unable to attend the meeting but had reported to the BZA that he felt the variance was justified.)

Ms. Catalano stated that her main concern is for those traveling Rt. 56 where the speed limit is 55 MPH, there is a curve close to the property, and a 2 sq. ft. sign would be extremely hard to see. Those who may slow down to read the sign in order to enter the property would be in danger of being hit by other travelers. She verified that the sign is 50 ft. from the center of the road. Clients would be visiting the property by appointment only. Most of the applicant’s business is off-site at the homes/businesses of their clients. There would be limited deliveries by UPS, FedEx, etc.

The public hearing was opened, there were no comments, and public hearing was closed.

Ms. Russell stated that the philosophy of home occupations is that low-key business is being conducted. In reviewing the mock-up of the signs and the lighted posts holding the signs, Ms. Russell stated that the zoning ordinance does not specify illuminated signs. The size of the sign and the lighted posts are too large and bright, in her opinion, and she is unable to support the application. She suggested a mailbox-type sign as an alternative.

Ms. Cash agreed that the lighting is too intense for this location. She questioned the hardship in this case since most of the business is conducted away from home at the client’s residence or business. She stated that 2 sq. ft. does seem to be too small for this location.   Mr. Miles said he thought the mailbox-type sign could impede vision and would be unsafe.

Ms. Catalano said she is not trying to direct clients to the location of the business; rather, the sign is advertisement for the business. It’s dark in the area, the driveway is on a curve, and further obstructions (drainage ditch, etc.) could cause drivers to drive off the road.

Mr. Bradshaw said that a citizen had pointed out that some of the signs in Nelson County make it appear to be New York City. Mr. Bradshaw suggested that the sign could be smaller and the lighting modified.

Mr. Childs complimented Ms. Catalano on the beautiful sign, but stated that he didn’t feel it was appropriate for the area and that no evidence of hardship exists in this case. He said it would be beneficial to have a conforming sign.

Ms. Catalano stated that she understands that the flair of the sign may not be conforming to the surrounding area and that lighting may need to be modified. A “conforming” sign; however, doesn’t promote business, stifles the company’s style, and takes their individuality away. She feels they can be expressive without being offensive. She again expressed concern for the safety of those who may be driving while looking for the sign.

Ms. Cash said she was not willing to approve a sign of this size for advertising a home occupation business.

In the case of Kimberly Catalano, Variance #2006-011, Ms. Russell made a motion to deny the request for a 18.7 sq. ft. sign at 14020 James River Road because a hardship has not been shown. Ms. Cash provided the second, and motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Bradshaw voting no. Mr. Bradshaw advised the applicant that she has the option of appealing the decision to Circuit Court. The applicant said that she would not be doing that.

Adjournment

At 8:15 P. M. the meeting was adjourned by consensus of members.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty M. Fortune
Planning Secretary