Board of Zoning Appeals Agendas and Minutes

AT A REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, HELD IN THE HARDY CASH CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, 22 LINCOLN STREET, AT 5:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, JULY 15, 2013. Present: Chairman Thomas Savage, Vice-Chairman Burnett Peters, Board Members Linda Ellis, John Pope, and Alternate Tim Smith. Also present were Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro, Senior Deputy City Attorney Lesa Yeatts, and Recording Secretary Angela Leflett. Chairman Savage called the meeting to order and asked that the minutes of the July 1, 2013, meeting be considered. A motion was made by Vice- Chairman Peters and seconded by Board Member Ellis that the minutes be approved as written. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellis, Pope, Peters, Savage NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Smith ABSENT: Gentry VA13-00004: Hampton Owners, LLC, 2031 Coliseum Drive, LRSN 13002026, a variance to increase the total number of building facades which can hold wall signage from 2 to 3 to allow a business identification wall sign on a third facade of a proposed restaurant. After all witnesses were sworn in by the court reporter, Zoning Administrator Steve Shapiro stated that the application to increase the total number of building facades which can hold wall signage from 2 to 3 to allow a business identification wall sign on a third facade of a proposed restaurant should be denied due to the inability to meet the required criteria for a hardship as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia. The agents, Mr. Whitley and Mr. Everage, presented their case to the Board. After discussion, a motion was made by Board Member Pope and seconded by Board Member Ellis that a hardship exists due to the “tight” constraints of the site which do not allow a free standing sign and, therefore, the variance should be approved because: 1. The strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship relating to the property; and 2. The hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and Page 1 of 2  3. The authorization of the 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; and 4. Granting of the variance is in harmony with the intended spirit of the ordinance. A roll call vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellis, Pope, Peters, Savage NAYS: Smith ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Gentry There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. ____________________________ Thomas Savage, Chairman Page 2 of 2