PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 19, 2003 7:30pm Present: Mr. Brush, Ms. Proulx, Mr. Hoffman, Ms. Russell, Dr. Walker, Mr. Giles, Mr. Bruguiere Present: Mr. Harvey, Ms. Brennan, Mr. Harris, Mr. Wood (Board of Supervisors meeting adjourned) SITE PLAN/ROSE UNION CHURCH - The applicants submitted a site plan for an addition to be used as a fellowship hall and classrooms. The property is located at the intersection of Rt. 56 and Rt. 674 in Piney River. With no public comment, Commissioners voted 8-0 to approve the site plan. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ORION SPORTING GROUP, LLC - The applicants are requesting two permits - one for a Corporate Training Center and another for a Shotgun Sports Center on property they have purchased at 11801 Norwood Road in Wingina. The property, known as Union Hill, is approximately 465 acres and zoned Agricultural (A-1) with part of the frontage along the James River in the Floodplain Overlay District. The applicants are proposing the following uses for the property: · Trails; · Two seasonal game preserve operations area; · Sporting Clays course; · Formal Shooting fields; · Clubhouse building and parking; · Operations Annex building; · Estate residence; · Guest accommodations & fitness center; · Helipad; · Base Camp (to include recreational activities such as ropes course, kayaking & canoeing, fishing, float trips, etc) Mr. Brush, Chair, asked whether there were any procedural challenges to the application. Mr. Sam Eggleston, III, representing a group of neighboring landowners, presented the following challenges: · Objection to the transfer of the permits referencing Nelson Code 12-3-7 "A Conditional Use Permit or a Special Use Permit shall be valid for only the specific use it covers in the specific location designated." · Noted two permits originally granted in 2001 - one for the Shotgun Sports Center and one for the Corporate Training Facility - with Corporate Training Facility permit void since not used in 12-month period. Reference Nelson Code 12-3-11 "A Special Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit becomes void if the permit is not utilized within twelve (12) months after approval?" · Noted original permits approved for Executive Adventures, Inc. and this application is for Orion Sporting Group, LLC. · Noted application as incomplete and not in compliance with county code, referencing Nelson Code 12-3-3 (a) "An application for a Conditional Use Permit or a Special Use Permit, except as hereinafter set forth, shall be subject to the Site Development Plan provisions under Article 13 of this ordinance?" Article 13-2-1 requires a preliminary schematic master plan to include a general layout design of what is proposed on a scale of not smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet. Noted that no such drawing on file and that consideration of the application would be improper without appropriate documents having been provided. · Noted the Corporate Training Facility and Lodge not covered under Uses Not Provided For in Nelson Code 12-5. Mr. Steve Rainer, representing Orion Sporting Group, LLC, noted objection to Dr. Walker's participation. He noted her affirmative vote for the Executive Adventures project at Oak Ridge where she was not a neighbor and her indication that she would vote against the Orion project at Union Hill where she is a neighbor. Mr. Rainer then responded to Mr. Eggleston's procedural challenges with the following: · Noted agreement that the application should not be for a transfer of permits and stating that the application is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the Union Hill property. · Objected to the interpretation that a site plan is required prior to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Noting the approval has historically and by ordinance been given contingent on approval of a site plan to follow, referencing Nelson Code 12-3-2 listing what constitutes a complete application for a permit. Contended that 12-3-3 (a) leaves no doubt that before the applicant could build at Union Hill, they would have to do a site plan and go through the approval process. . Noted the approval of a permit for the Corporate Training Facility at Oak Ridge under Nelson Code 12-5. Dr. Walker stated that on the opinion of the County Attorney, she does not have a conflict of interest and would respectfully decline the request that she not participate. Mr. Boger reported that the Center proposal complies with the County's Comprehensive Plan and that it would comply with the Economic Development Goals, Natural and Scenic Resources Goals, Recreation Goals and Rural Conservation Goals. Staff noted the following Planning Concerns: · Noise - noting the problem being the repetitive nature of the noise rather than the decibel level. Staff reported that although the noise might not be in violation of the County Ordinances, it would be a nuisance to the residential uses in that area of the county. · Traffic - noting the primary route to the facility would be from James River Road (Rt. 56) via Norwood Road (Rt. 647) as a narrow secondary road with curves and rises. Staff suggested that if the application were approved, that the Board of Supervisors request a reduction in the speed limit to 45 mph or lower. · Environmental - noting that the applicants are aware of the historical significance of the site. Staff reported that Orion has set aside funding to help maintain the Cabell Cemetery located on the property and hopefully to restore the servant/slave cemetery also on the property. Mr. Boger reported that unless it can be shown that the project would violate the county's Zoning Ordinance, he could not recommend denial of the permits. Mr. Morris Peterson and Mr. James Slaughter, representing Orion, gave an overview of their company and their plans for the Union Hill property. Mr. Peterson noted that the group had begun limited operations at Oak Ridge in the Fall of 2001 and implemented approximately 40% of their plan at that location before their company growth conflicted with the historic restoration efforts at Oak Ridge. Mr. Slaughter said that the application for a permit covered the same areas of operation as at Oak Ridge with the exception of plans for 70+ acres along the river for game bird hunting in season and recreational activities such as canoeing and kayaking. Mr. Peterson said that no shooting zone on the Union Hill property would compromise any adjacent properties and that a management strategy has been developed for dealing with lead shot on the property. He said that the proposed helipad would be used infrequently but would be a benefit to the local Sheriff's Office, fire & rescue and search teams. Mr. Peterson said that there would be no 60-foot towers to light the fields and that the only discussion had been of possible ground lighting or lighting on poles of no higher than 25 feet. Noting that the business had stopped operations at Oak Ridge in 2003, Mr. Peterson asked for approval of the permit due to substantial financial loss due to delays in restarting the business and to prevent job loss or layoff of the three employees. Ms. Proulx asked whether Orion would consider dropping the shooting field below the level of most of the houses in the area and Mr. Peterson said that they could consider that. Mr. Giles asked whether there were any designated wetlands on the property and was told that there were not. Dr. Walker asked what the hours of operation would be and whether there would be shooting seven days per week. Mr. Peterson said that they would operate seven days per week from 9-5 plus some nights until 9 or 10pm. Dr. Walker asked whether they had operated at night at Oak Ridge and was told that they had not. She asked what the lighting needs would be for night operations. Mr. Peterson said lighting would probably be for four of the fields and that a lighting plan would be provided. Mr. Bruguiere said that while he did not want to tie the hands of business, operating 8-5 would go a long way to being a good neighbor. He suggested that Orion might want to think about that suggestion for a compromise. Dr. Walker asked about how many shots would be fired per day. Mr. Peterson said that typically there would be four squads firing at 25 targets each over a 15-minute period. He said that on Saturdays there would be an average of 25-30 shooters firing at 100 clays each over a period of approximately four hours. During Public Comment, Mr. Jim Raup spoke on behalf of the residents of Wingina. He expressed concern about the number of shots per day and whether this project is appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Raup noted the first goal of the County's Comprehensive Plan to "Enhance the quality of life for Nelson County residents by maintaining and encouraging a diverse and vibrant local economy in designated development areas and compatible with the county's size and rural character." He said that it was unclear from the Comp Plan where one would put Orion, as it was a unique business. Mr. Raup also noted the principle under Development Areas to "Promote orderly expansion in designated development areas that is consistent with the pattern and character of existing development." He said that Orion's plans are not compatible with the rural character of Wingina. He noted Orion's own stated requirements during the 2001 application process including seclusion and several hundred acres of buffering, pointing out that those things do not exist on the Union Hill property. Mr. Raup said that Orion had put the county in a big mess by purchasing the property without a permit to operate their business and without adequate time for county officials to consider the proposal. He noted the following citizen concerns: · Noise problems from shotgun blasts and helicopters; · Safety cannot be guaranteed as the land parcel is too narrow; · Property values would go down; · Not compatible with the quiet residential neighborhood; · Tourism along the river would suffer. Mr. Cleve Johnson, an adjoining landowner also speaking on behalf of the residents, noted that the group opposing the project included all eight adjoining landowners plus ten families within one mile of the Union Hill property. He reminded the Commissioners that the project is not a by right use and that they were not required to approve the permit. He noted Nelson Code 12-3-6 "In the governing body's consideration to grant, deny or grant conditionally a Conditional Use Permit or Special Use Permit, the governing body shall consider the following guidelines and standards: (a) The use shall not tend to change the character and established pattern of development of the area or community in which it proposes to locate; (b) The use shall be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the zoning district and shall not affect adversely the use of neighboring property." Mr. Johnson said that the surrounding property values would plummet while Orion actually generates very little tax or revenue for the county - $3,264 in 2002. Mr. Rand Cabell, an acoustics engineer with NASA whose family owns adjoining property, said that he believed that the noise levels would actually violate the county's noise ordinance. He explained the method used by Orion to test the sound levels and said that an "impulse" or "peak" weightings level test would have been more accurate. Ms. Kathleen Creed reviewed several physicians' statements about the detrimental health effects of repeated gunshots, including effects on the endocrine and cardiovascular systems. Mr. Randolph Cabell, President of the Cabell Foundation, gave a history of the area including the Union Hill cemetery on the Orion property. He stated that the project was inconsistent with the historical character of the area. Ms. Esther Lee expressed concern that the project would take away the peaceful quality of life in the area. She said that the interests of business should not override the interests of the residents and that life would be irrevocably altered. Ms. Mandy Dolan spoke on behalf of the Appomattox 4-H Shooting Club, who had trained at the Oak Ridge facility, and noted their support for Orion's project. Ms. Cherise Truesdale and Ms. Dolores Truesdale also spoke in favor of the proposal, noting the safety of gun ranges. Mr. Andrew Gantt whose property is less than one mile from the site expressed concern about safety, especially for the neighborhood children and animals. He said that he considers his property an area of conservation and asked what would happen to their neighborhood if Orion got their permit. Ms. Jane Robertson Carter, an adjoining landowner, opposed the project saying that it would reduce the property values of her ancestral home. Mr. Curtis Truesdale said that Mr. Peterson of Orion is a minority person bringing business to the county to bring jobs and expressed support for the project. Ms. Elizabeth MacIntosh, an adjoining landowner, expressed concern with the noise pollution, threat to property values, destruction of the Comp Plan and the county's willingness to partner with an unknown new corporation that had demonstrated no interest in its neighbors. She said that Orion's mistake is not the county's emergency. Mr. John Heilmann said that the granting of a special permit would contradict the Comp Plan and breach the Zoning Ordinance regarding agricultural land. He said that too many aspects of what is being applied for are unclear and that no permit should go forward until much firmer plans are submitted. Mr. Mike Tapager said that the decision should be an easy one as we have someone who wants to put their land to good use. He noted that the previous owner had transferred the property rights to Orion and that using the strict interpretation of property rights professed by the Farm Bureau Board, there should be no restrictions on that use. He said that some of the most strident defenders of strict property rights are protesting this proposed use but that unfortunately their former neighbor had maximized his profit at the expense of their quality of life. Mr. Tapager said that it is not as simple as a business transferring their operation from one location in the county to another, that it is a zoning matter and not a business or political issue. He noted that the present zoning ordinance charges the county to consider the proposed application for a permit against the standards of 12-3-6 (quoted earlier in this report). He suggested that the Commission keep in mind that what is an appropriate use on one piece of land in a particular zoning district is not always translatable to another piece. He noted that the whole function of a special or conditional use permit is to mitigate problems at the boundaries of different districts and properties within districts. Mr. Tapager also said that Virginia is a caveat emptor state, or one that puts the burden of due diligence on the buyer and that the argument that the buyer made a mistake in closing on the property prematurely should not influence the county's decision. He said that one bad decision should not force the county into making another. He said that this is not a simple case and said that he would trust that the Commission would decide the issue on the proper standard, that of the zoning ordinance. Following the Public Hearing, Mr. Bruguiere suggested tabling any further discussion until the Planning Commission's December meeting. Ms. Proulx said that she would like clarification on whether the application is a request to transfer permits or an application for new permits. She said that she would also like additional information on the questions raised about the sound test, specifically information presented by someone other than an interested party. Mr. Brush said that he would like time to digest the information presented and consider the issue. Dr. Walker said that she would like clarification as to whether Orion would consider the compromise on the times of operation as presented by Mr. Bruguiere. She said that she would also like clarification on the lighting plan being considered by the applicant. Mr. Hoffman said that he was ready to vote on the permit as the decision all came down to personalities in the end. Mr. Boger questioned whether the legal 60-day time limit to consider the application would allow the Commissioners to table a decision until their December 17 meeting. Commissioners asked the applicant whether they would waive that time limit and Mr. Rainer said that they would not. Mr. Boger, after consulting the calendar, said that the Commission could table it until their next meeting. Dr. Walker said that time should not be the consideration and that the Planning Commission is not in the business of business. She said that it is not the first time someone has done something and then asked the county to rush the approval. Commissioners voted 7-1 (Mr. Hoffman voting no) to continue consideration of the application until their December 17 meeting.