PLANNING COMMISSION

Wednesday, March 27, 2002

 

Absent: Mr. Giles

 

W.E. SMITH CONDITIONAL/SPECIAL USE PERMITS – This issue was continued from the February meeting to allow Staff to request an opinion from the County Attorney on whether 1) an application for a Permit can be accepted and considered when one of the co-owners has not joined in the application, and 2) an application can be approved over the objection of a co-owner.  In response to question 1, the interpretation was that the County’s ordinance requires only that “a record owner” apply and the application must be considered.  In response to question 2, no Virginia authority could be found making a co-owner’s objection fatal to the application.  Staff presented the relevant question for the Commissioners as consideration of amending the Conditional Use Permit for Mr. Smith to allow the vehicle storage area to be used as an accessory use to his automobile sales business at 10417 Rockfish Valley Highway.  Ms. Russell said that while the applicant should be allowed limited space for storage, she was concerned with the environmental issues and protecting the scenic byway.  She suggested conditions regarding screening and limiting the number of vehicles.  Ms. Proulx noted concern that, although there had been vague comments about environmental inspections, there was nothing in writing.  Mr. Brush stated that he worried that the more they allowed the expansion of the operation, the more they encouraged a commercial operation on the hill and noted specific concerns with increased traffic at the entrance to the repair and paint shop.  Mr. Harvey said that the request doesn’t expand anything but only restricts the number of vehicles stored there.  He noted that the Ordinance allows five inoperable cars by right and the Permit would allow the County to limit the number of total vehicles.  Mr. Boger said that when the repair shop and paint booth were allowed as accessory uses, a storage area for vehicles to be repaired would normally also be considered an accessory use.  Ms. Proulx said that it is not always an accessory use and indicated that part of the problem in this particular case is the number of vehicles being stored.  Ms. Russell suggested limiting the number of inoperable/operable, licensed/unlicensed vehicles and then asking for screening for several locations on the site.  She suggested allowing 30 vehicles with employee vehicles and service vehicles included in that limit.  Mr. Hoffman disagreed, saying that those vehicles are not stored and should not be included in the limit.  Mr. Harvey suggested identifying the area designated for storage of vehicles and asking for screening to help along Rt. 151.  Ms. Proulx said that she was still concerned about environmental issues and Mr. Harvey said that that is a state requirement and not a county issue.  Ms. Russell then offered a motion to recommend approval to amend the Permit to include storage of a limited number of inoperable and/or unlicensed vehicles with the following conditions:

  1. The total number of vehicles parked outside on the upper property in connection with the business shall number no more than 30, including both operable and inoperable, licensed and unlicensed, owned by Mr. Smith or others, employee vehicles, wreckers, RV’s, buses and the like.
  2. All vehicles parked outside on the upper property must be operable or capable of being operable upon reasonable repair with the exception of no more than 5 which may be used for parts.
  3. No vehicles may be parked south of the “shed” or west of the circular driveway.
  4. Vehicles not being actively worked on shall be stored in the designated auto storage area.
  5. Since Rt. 151 is a designated VA Scenic Byway, it is further recommended that a row of white pines 6” in caliper be planted along the top of the hill beginning at the front corner of the “garage” so as to provide dense screen by the opening to the garage.  All plantings must be maintained and replaced when needed with plantings comparable in size to then existing.
  6. The existing “used car lot” shall not be expanded beyond its current borders contrary to any future interpretation of the original Special Use Permit.
  7. Mr. Smith must submit to the Planning Director a finding by the DEQ that his property (recently inspected) meets state environmental standards.
  8. A double row of white pines be planted and maintained along the southwest border of the storage area opposite the two Gumm properties.
  9. It is the understanding of the Commission that the garage, paint booth and auto storage area are permitted as an accessory use to the used car business and are not to be construed to be a “public repair facility”.
  10. The business must comply with all pertinent building codes as specified by the County Code Official in his memo of 11/27/01 as well as hold all relevant business and operating licenses.

 

Following Mr. Drumheller’s second, Mr. Hoffman disagreed with including employee vehicles in the limit, noting that you cannot restrict the number of employees.  Mr. Harvey suggested designating the storage area size and not setting a number of vehicles.  He also suggested that the condition should state that all vehicles must be stored in the storage area if not being worked on.  Mr. Harvey then suggested tabling further discussion until the end of the meeting to allow Commissioners to move forward with the remaining agenda.

 

1972 SINGLEWIDE FOR RALPH SNEAD – Staff noted that while the Commissioners had recently recommending denying a Conditional Use Permit on a manufactured home built before 1974 as designated by Code, Mr. Snead’s application should be considered as an exception.  Mr. Boger said that the applicant is required to move the home from Eades Lane as the owner of the land has placed the property on the market.  Mr. Snead proposed moving the home to property he owns on Stagebridge Road and connecting it to two rooms of an existing cottage.  Mr. Boger noted that the home is currently the primary residence for the applicants and will continue to be the primary residence after the move.  He noted his recommendation for approval based on a unique hardship case.  During the Public Hearing, Mr. Snead’s son, Donnie Snead, confirmed the home as his parents’ primary residence and said that the move was the only option for his parents because of their age and health issues.  Dr. Walker said that she had made the motion to deny the last applicant noting that it did not present an emergency or compelling need but that she would be happy to consider this application.  Ms. Proulx agreed and noted that the home is not being brought into the county but is already here as an owner-occupied residence.  Commissioners voted 8-0 on Ms. Proulx’s motion to recommend approval due to hardship with the condition that the residence be owner occupied.

 

BEAUTY SALON/MS. KATHY MILLER – Ms. Miller is requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a beauty salon at 910 Beech Grove Road.  In September 2001, a Special Use Permit was approved to allow an antique, craft or gift shop with several conditions.  Normally a beauty salon is a use permitted by right as a home occupation in Agricultural (A-1).  However, a local resident will operate the beauty salon so the owner will not reside at the location.  With no public comment, Commissioners voted 8-0 to recommend approval with the same 11 stipulations as noted in the 2001 Permit.

 

SECOND MANUFACTURED HOME/MARY E. THOMPSON – Ms. Thompson’s application requests a Conditional Use Permit to place a second manufactured home on her property at 42 Dickie Road in Massies Mill.  The property is approximately 3 acres and zoned Agricultural (A-1).  Staff noted two existing homes on the property, one traditionally built home and one singlewide.  The applicant explained that family members would occupy each of the three homes.  With no public comment, Commissioners voted 8-0 to recommend approval with two conditions:

  1. The Health Department approve the septic system.
  2. The number of dwellings on the property is limited to three unless more acreage is acquired.

 

DELI/NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL STORE ON RT. 151 – Applicants Mike and Sally Donovan had applied for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a deli-type restaurant, offices and Special Use Permit for a neighborhood retail store at the intersection of Rt. 151 and Blundell Hollow Road.  Staff noted concerns related to increased traffic at the intersection and the opinion that the proposed 6,000 square foot building would result in a change to the rural residential character of the area.  In addition, Staff noted that with the exception of the office and deli, the proposed use of the building was not clearly defined.  The applicant, Ms. Donovan, stated that she apologized for any misconceptions and that their intention had been to start a family business.  She said that they had not wanted to compete with other area businesses or disrupt the area.  She said that they had looked at the Zoning Ordinance and thought that the things that required Permits were allowed but obviously not wanted.  She said that she did not know about the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Donovan said that she was glad to see so many people concerned about the area, but said that she was unhappy that they hadn’t been informed of the concerns in advance.  She then withdrew their proposal.

 

ANTIQUE SHOP/MR. NICHOLAS R. NUZZI, JR. – The applicant requests a Special Use Permit for an antique shop on property at the intersection of Rt. 151 and Chapel Hollow Road.  Mr. Mark Begeman, representing the applicant, presented plans for remodeling the house on the property to operate as a Bed & Breakfast, a small cottage to be used as a guest cottage and rebuilding the barn to operate as an antique shop.  According to Mr. Begeman, the barn will be rebuilt on the same footprint as the original barn with the addition of two wings.  He said that the barn would be 60 x 30 with two 15 x 40 wings – approximately 4,000 square feet with living quarters for Mr. Nuzzi on the second floor.  During the Public Hearing, Ms. Cindy Chandler who lives across Rt. 151 from the property asked the Commissioners to consider the total impact of the project for the future.  She said that the plans looked wonderful, but expressed concern that the County could just keep adding businesses.  She noted that she is not opposed to the project, but is concerned with the overall future.  Ms. Karen Karteiser expressed concerns with increased traffic and the proposed parking along Rt. 709.  She asked how large a business the antique shop would be and asked if the proposal fit with the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Dave McGann said that it looked like a good proposal but expressed concern with parking along Rt. 709 and noted that the antique business was now proposed as larger than the original application.  Ms. Proulx asked exactly where the antique business would be as the original application proposed locating in the small cottage.  Mr. Begeman said that the plan had changed to utilize the barn instead of the cottage.  Ms. Russell noted her wholehearted support for the concept, but also expressed concern that the barn could be quite large.  She also said that she was worried about the parking and the possibility of vehicles backing into Rt. 709.  Mr. Begeman said that the plan calls for parking for the antique shop behind the barn and five parking spaces for overnight guests off Rt. 709, noting that a representative of VDOT had approved the plan.  Dr. Walker said that the proposal seemed to be reversed, that the antique business would be larger than the Bed & Breakfast and that the larger business could have a different impact on the community.  Mr. Begeman said that the house would be 3-4,000 square feet and the barn 4-5,000 square feet with approximately 2,500 square feet of store space plus living quarters overhead.  Mr. Hoffman said that the traffic generated by an antique shop of that size would be less than would be generated by a grocery or retail store of the same size.  Mr. Harvey noted that the applicant plans to put buildings back that were originally there and Mr. Brush said that the proposal promotes tourism, which should be supported.  Dr. Walker said that she would like to see some restrictions that protect the neighbors while allowing Mr. Nuzzi to operate his business.  At the suggestion of other Commissioners, Ms. Proulx’s motion to recommend approval of an antique store on the bottom floor of the barn to be restored was amended to include a maximum square footage of 3,600 for the store.  Mr. Brush said that the property is only 3.2 acres and that selling antiques requires a large building.  Mr. Bruguiere (West District Supervisor) asked to comment and noted that everybody says they want tourism but the Commissioners were trying to restrict the square footage of the building.  He said the applicant should be allowed to just operate his business since the county needed every business.  Dr. Walker said that she has seen antique stores ranging in size from very small to acres and noted that there is an impact on neighbors.  She said that she is not trying to restrict any one person, but rather felt that the Commissioners should be consistent and set some conditions to make it fair.  She said that any number of cars could have an impact.  Commissioners voted 8-0 on Ms. Proulx’s motion to recommend approval with a maximum of 3,600 square feet for the store.

 

FINAL REVIEW SUBDIVISON PLAT/HICKOK – The applicants are requesting an exemption to Sections 4-4C & 4-4D “Individual Wells” and “Individual Septic Systems” to reduce the required two-acre lot size to 1.03 acres.  Staff noted no major problems with the request provided the Commissioners did not find that granting the exception would set a precedent for future requests.  Mr. Boger did note however, that he had received calls citing the concern with setting a precedent.  Ms. Proulx expressed concern with granting an exception without a good reason.  Mr. Brush said that the property would be for a young couple with a new home and that larger lots were required in this area in order to provide for water and sewer.  On Mr. Harvey’s motion to recommend approval, Commissioners voted 5-3 (Mr. Brush, Mr. Drumheller and Ms. Proulx voting no).

 

W.E. SMITH CONDITIONAL/SPECIAL USE PERMITS, Continued – Ms. Russell amended her previous motion, changing the following:

1.      The total number of vehicles that may be parked outside on the upper property in connection with this business shall number no more than 20.  This includes both operable and inoperable, licensed and unlicensed, owned by Mr. Smith  or others.

(Deleting reference to employee and service vehicles.)

 

     Commissioners voted 6-2 (Mr. Harvey and Dr. Walker voting no).