Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA198900049 Application 1989-06-19 ., \I I A 9- V9 APPLICATION FOR: (6fAii: , ,y FILE NUMBER (check one) ���I �,_ rlllIlf( ,. (� _ 19 -89 �► 2 VARIANCE U `�, D 1 Q DATE SUBMITTED ❑ SPECIAL USE PERMIT lir 1 5b,6`) REZONING �=L.1..??‘`. FEE PAID (see reverse) ❑ REZO ❑ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT �IRGI1`jZQ' El MOBILE HOME DATE OF PRELIM CONF. ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ACCESSORY TOURIST LODGING STAFF A PRE IM. CONF. OWNER (as currently listed in Real Estat) Day Name 2 c- V4 O pa / & /1 L/2- 1/ Phone (—) Address yf s J.6- , , ( ii,i 7 4 i i. APPLICANT (if different from owner) Day • Name °T G Phone (—) _- Address CONTACT PERSON (if different from above) Day Name 7 Ripe vyi /h✓ JJic�, l;�, Phone ( ) 977-at07 Addresss3-/ P3I `S ' ie 4q5 Brat►"ui Drift iio F-tide. a (O&I Fk4) it011- 0 -g LOCATION: 1P CAL/ .(/arm t , TAX MAP/PARCEL NUMBERS (use revers if needed) 1. lej - - - /��..2 3. - - - 2. _ IDS_ _ _ _ _ _ -,-e - 4- - - - i(o' D (,?5Zac) EXISTING ZONING ?—/ PROFFERED? Yes _ No _ Acreage if different DESIRED ZONING PROFFERED? Yes _ No _ Acreage if different F- EXISTING USE 80,6 j/.� P Ma/D of e%ikit kr,ike r 47/6 e= PROPOSED USE ORDINANCE SECTION(S): 'cf aop , a • I ' -2 / 4' ¢- - / 4- / M' ' L k' DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: , JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST: 'Zo,fcif6-. .l�/0'4// if,,L- C,001/7& 4 S. 5iA l7OPc ?E"-(1tsorts iz e-C' - )i AiarAiim T l bfY emfC !1ItL,Y.) I Are,- Orli,q $ -o P MI 4 Z 1 W s�7"/i.s j #V t--.S // /._Derr , ,,n„v 4v A 5s r 2-7 (o- f, If4' , 7i S- Jgase f,k s it EXd'gs t)/4 G OR Ov CA.d 'l N , C I -71-1e(4 �i, 0 `9 S,1/.D Ser C77cw eStaiA1EA2- • The foregoing information is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have read and understand the provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance applicable to this application. `/4O 0,6V Date l // I , 198_ . / 'Owner, �� ' `�—" :/: 4sed.....„---- • Signed i — I;twner, Contract Purchaser, Agent) II I i VA-89-49. Doug Taylor (owner) Taylor's Auto Body, property known as tax map 61, parcel 168C and 168D, located at 495 4 Brookway Drive off the west side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road East) just north of the City limits, zoned C-1, Commercial. The applicant seeks a variance from Section 6.4 . 1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit expansion and enlargement of a non-conforming use. HD J L., .,L ,,..t,.._ - - --- - Board of Zoning Appeals Date: 7/LL/r/ Action: w,' kfrovin ALji.MMARL COUNTY 777.,• 1..'�,l �-1 l l� +'l%i' . . e�:/ / `.�. 1a ,2S\\• \'2SA — ,4) y ,T . 1 y��,j" 7 ,,,,,/,/, / 1 �tuL.>1 ASV �z! 1N /1t /, ----SEC _ _ � // /�, /' •,�- .=6i-MI a Xz `/ /•1 ,1 tooh� . \ :, 61/ • ' FOUR / '/' 1/ /„ 1 / \ �t / SEASON - '/;,'% //, •; i. '�� 'u i.'� \ lpo r-------: '30 j s. ' '-'. - „ �J /W�� l//l, 410 I • 'xc air r v r/lr 2 23 e:..J• /1 ri/ / caruwErr/ /t,/' •"71 ry \ \ \ �\\:--\ \�-' : __ / • g1111 Ink c t: — xs �' /./ e�a2 / /, / /,4',' ///tr/'' "'• /� �xr• \sEcrnh stA / / / ' /I 1'/ '/ ,tom C\\ �/ •\\ NCNTWELDS ��j1s YlIII / / /// YNNOA i ` is \\ V �\ 127 \ \\ . X,0 l� �r• / l � / 12 ••V :�� ''/ ` ; s- , /).?' � \� �`�/ ,,b; :, ___._ ��`�, '/ / 41A:===---4---=-14; � —.-1\\� Sao -_- , \\\ \. , .!9 � Stc•1•�\� \ SrF .-SEC aiw /G •�� - --II----- \. _Y'/- ,�♦ �. `\� • .2 • /i � � ` i BRANCH LA ND'S __ r!r.r.''' t' ,1J ,.'f., /;`` Q rf s ♦•\ '1y�` \\ \�� \` - - _- ---- / Tyra, 4' 5Yt ,,6, ,,_ 2:2=1, _ „.,,,,,,0‘ - ---,' /0 40 4 •( ,__,:„' •^W /. _- - \ /may © \,i4 _�_" M- 1.0a ,. , r SECTION•I d', ♦ /�l+ \ O -_, -, - .�� \!rnt(4101&_. /./ N / '"•44 'C.-, le 4131.2411rAgS" t60 a \ a CITY N. noj i 62 w7A 0f----- Vl:- -- CHARLOTTESVILLE. — a, / /y A 1B / fimle' a� afill *.' . 3 17 -., 1939i ` f ,V �a nrr ��� 1`•�\.+,\ pi A-89-49 Taylor, Doug �--� Tax Map 61, Parcels 168D & C / _____\, "1004'4123''..‘"--„, s.40. .<::... /. k\: \� • o • -// .• 1 .,\tip\ ;-" % ai�!►� — — - / \ \' a y \y/_SI -le.L.,A,,,,4 • , /, . 1,--L___,,,,,„ _.....„„ ___ 1 116,/ //j' ..NN\ u��� iT — , ,\ "A" " MT 77 1. - JACK JOUETT, RIVANNA AND SECTION 61, CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS LAW OFFICES OF J. BENJAMIN DICK 421 PARK STREET,SUITE 2 April 1] 2] , 19 8 9 GENERAL f RACI ICE CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA. 22901 p (FF04)911 6601 Andrew Evans Acting Zoning Administrator County Office Building MHO VELIVERFID 301 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Doug Taylor Body Shop Dear Mr. Evans: This letter seeks a decision by your office regarding an expansion of his existing business . Due to the history of this lot, we seek a correct avenue of approach as to zoning questions . For the reason that Mr. Taylor is in desparate need of expansion due to increase of business volume, we ask for a prompt decision. On behalf of my client, I make the following presentation. ALTERNATIVE ONE A. The existing use and proposed expansion required a building permit and amended site plan administratively . The property originially was zoned B-1 under the old zoning ordinance. Interpretations of that ordinance and the existing ordinance ' s provision "Automobile, Truck Repair Shop" (C-1 , 22 . 2 . 1 (b) 22 Albemarle County_ Zoning Ordinance, enacted 6/3/81 ) allowed Mr. Taylor ' s shop which includes body shop repairs to exist. This was true even over the objections of adjoining neighbors. More than one zoning administrator dealt with this business . The site plan of this business shows not only the lots upon which the business is run, it also shows a lot upon which routine parking of vehicles repaired or to be repaired has occurred. Additionally, this particular lot being owned by Mr. Taylor, he has from time to time rented or leased the lot for parking. In every way Mr. Taylor has vested rights under Virginia Code §15 . 1-492 which cannot be impaired by the government or its regulations . Morever, he can expand under this statute provided he is continuing' the same use and has not abandoned the use for more than two years if deemed to be a non-conforming use. He can enlarge or structurally alter within the confines of the existing lot if it is deemed non-conforming which classification was raised in informal discussion with Charles Burgess , • • Andrew Evans April 21, 1989 Page Two former Zoning Administrator. Any expansion must occur with that classification by conforming "to each regulation" of that district. The district is C-1. All that Mr. Taylor does regarding "regulations" conform with C-1 district regulations even if he is deemed a "non-conforming" use now that the governing body has legislated a definition of "body shop" and declared its zoning district to be in the industrial zones. Regardless, the use by Mr. Taylor cannot be impaired by making him non-conforming by any reasoning and then denying him his right to expand his building. We submit first 1 ) that Mr. Taylor ' s business is a proper use within the C-1 zone by prior interpretations of "Automobile and Truck Repair Shop" and that he can expand his business still meeting the regulations of that district for parking. lie needs only a building permit and if necessary, an administrative amendment to his existing site plan; 2 ) if deemed a "non-conforming use" , the proper reading of Va. Code §15 . 1-492 would require only of him that he meet the C-1 district regulations which he can do. In that instance, he only needs an administrative site plan and a building permit to proceed. ALTERNATIVE TWO (As Proposed by Mr. Burgess) B. Mr. Taylor ' s business , Mr. Burgess suggested, is demmed a non-conforming use and must apply for a variance to be exempt from section 6 . 4 . 1 of the ordinance and regulations of the district now allowing body shops, viz. , heavy industry HI regulations . We submit this analysis of the ordinance by Charles Burgess, former Zoning Administrator, when informally explained to us, is incorrect. When reading Va. Code §15 . 1-492 and the regulations of the non-conforming article 6. 0 of the Zoning Ordinance as a whole, they are not contradictory. Article 6, section 6 . 4 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance by its language reaches the same result as the Va. Code section that for enlargement or expansion of a non-conforming building, the building shall conform to the provisions " relating to the district" in which the same is situated. This is only logical so as to make buildings comport with buildings which conform to the regulations of the district in which both the non-conforming building and conforming building are located. . • Andrew Evans April 21, 1989 Page Three For example, height restrictions would have to be met so that the building housing the non-conforming use cannot be 10 stories high when only two story buildings are allowed in the district in which the buildings are located. Only if the building is to expand onto a new lot would the non-conforming use expansion be prohibited. CONCLUSION I therefore submit in conclusion that Mr. Doug Taylor needs only a building permit and if necessary an amended site plan approval administratively to note his parking plan as suggested in Alternative One. We further believe the Zoning Administrator shall act lawfully and properly to so rule. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions . We request a decision as soon as it is convenient in view of Mr. Taylor's pressing need to respond to his growing business during the building construction season. I remain, Respectfully, J. BENJAMIN DICK OF COUNSEL cc: Doug Taylor • JBD/ash • 4 . 12 " OFF- 'i-,_;T PARKING AND LOADING 0lREf1ENTS 1 - *'! 4 . 12. 1 PURPOSE The purpose of these regulations is to set forth off-street • parking and loading requirements for permitted uses : • (1) in accordance with the intensity of such use; (2 ) to provide adequate parking for the travelling public ; and (3) to reduce traffic hazards and conflicts . 4 . 12. 2 APPLICATION Off-street parking and loading requirements shall apply to all uses and structures established prior to or after the effective date of .this ordinance except as otherwise provided herein. Off-street parking and Loading spaces shall be provided In accordance with the provisions of this section at the time of erection, alteration, enlargement or change in use of any structure . Any use for which pat'lc inl'; mi(I/ol' .Icy;lcl i 11 • :sly;tce was approved and provided prior to the effective '.late o1' this ordinance shall be considered in conformance to this opc.1 i i nice pre- vided the intensity of ;such it;;c coma i.;u; unchanged . lilic; c , in the opinion or the .:onil:; ' admilt.i ::tr:ttor , a Mange u ge ill such use and/or structure o,!cs;; Ion:.; t.ho Flu, .i Pot' acidic; ionu i parking and/or luudint; space , or such change would i-►-:ysical alter parking and/or load_it :'1 ;ice 5vsi lsh'ie , such use shall comp/'; with these provisions . 4 . 12 . 3 LOCATLOW OF 1'AR1iIN 4 . 12 . 3. 1 Off-street l:rarl(ing spaces s►iuiI he provided on the same ti. lot with the use to which it is ;ilrirur'ttenant except; as hereinafter l,ruvided. 4 . 12 3. 2 Where practical difficulties llt•evi•Itt. location ; ; required in section 4 . 12 . 3. 1 or where the public safety or the public convenience would t f: better served by the 1oc:ct.ion thereof other than on the some lot , the commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest , pro- vided that, such space shall he Located on land in the same ownership as that of the land en which is located the use to which such space is appurtenant or , in the case of cooperative provision of parking rpace , in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the combination . -_;4- (;;upp . #1 , 3.16-61 ) 6.0 NONCONFORNITIES 6. 1 CONTINUATION 6 .1.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure in existence on the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district it which the same is situated, may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this section. (Amended 9-21-88 ) 6. 1.2 No change in title to any property subject to the provision: of this section, including but not limited to the demise, renewal, expiration, termination or modification of any leasehold interest, shall impair the nonconforming status of such property. 6.1. 3 Any such use, activity or structure which is discontinued for more than two ( 2) years shall be deemed abandoned and shall thereafter conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated. 6. 1. 4 Whenever any such use, activity or structure is changed to conforming or a more restricted nonconforming use, activity or structure, the original use shall be deemed abandoned. 6 . 2 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE On any building devoted in whole or in part to any noncon- forming use, work may be done on ordinary repairs or on repair or replacement of nonpearing walls , fixtures, wiring or plumbing, to such extent that the structure is kept in a usable condition. Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemec to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe con- dition of any structure or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with promoting public safety upon order of such official. 6. 3 CHANGES IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Whenever the boundaries of a district are changed, any uses of land or buildings which become nonconforming as a result of such change shall become subject to the provisions of this section. 6. 4 EXPANSION OR ENLARGEMENT 6. 4 .1 The use of any building or structure shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in which the same is situated whenever such building or struc- ture is enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered. -78- ( Supp. #43 , 9-21-88) or' Nir LAW OFFICES OF 1010 J. BENJAMIN DICK 4?1 PARK STREET,SUITE 2 Cf NI`RAI PRACTICE CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA 22901 Ittu41 U//I,h1/ June 12, 1989 Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator, Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 (Hand-delivered) Re: Doug Taylor Body Shop Dear Mrs. Patterson: Please referenced the above file for our meeting scheduled tomorrow at 11: 00 a.m. If he can be available, it would be helpful if the County Attorney could be present as these matters do embrace legal issues. Our effort is to seek a correct legal interpretation without the burden of going through an expensive appeal or variance process that has been advised by the former zoning administrator for whom we have a great respect. In other words , we are seeking for this county businessman and citizen zoning office assistance consistent with the ordinance as we are not of the present opinion that the present zoning office decision is correct or that the former zoning administrator consulted with legal counsel. Mr. Taylor and this counsel wish to address the expansion of his existing building, an on-going business in the C-1 zone. This business was allowed in the existing district by a ruling of a past zoning administrator. Mr. Taylor has spent considerable money and time to make a successful business. This sort of business is now also allowed in the LI zoning district. Does that cut off the previous ruling that allowed him in the C-1 district? Does it cut off his right to expand within the confines of his existing lot if that be true particularly when all that will change will be the position of parking which parking has historically occurred on an adjoining lot, will meet his needs, and in my opinion, would require only an amended site plan perhaps that can be administratively approved to officially allow the parking. Certainly the state statutes and the zoning ordinance did not intend for non-conforming uses, if it is one, to not expand their facilities when such expansion of facility does not change the use and is not an intensification of use. Amelia M. Patterson Zoning Administrator, Albemarle County June 12, 1989 Page - two It is the humble legal opinion of this counsel that Mr. Taylor needs only a building permit and an amended site plan as stated above. (Please see my letter of April 21, 1989. ) As the new zoning administrator, we would like to present our point of view and get your independent ruling on this matter before proceeding further. I remain, Respectfully, 7 • ' J. BENJAMIN DICK Of Counsel cc: George R. St. John, Esq. County Attorney (w/ correspondence) Doug Taylor JBD/hth tFagu � � JUN 12 1989 AL;�SRAAFttE COUNTY ZONING OOARTME►ST LAW OFFICES OF J. BENJAMIN DICK lf 21 PARK STREET,SUITE 2 GENERAL PRACTICE CHARLOFTESVILLE.VA 22901 (804)977-6607 June 13, 1989 Amelia Patterson Zoning Administrator for Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms . Patterson: Mr. Doug Taylor and myself thank you for meeting with us. We ask for your independent evaluation of Mr. Taylor' s position that he is entitled to the issuance of a building permit subject to an Administrative or Planning Commission approved site plan. You indicated that you will allow us your decision by this Friday. The former zoning administrator took the position that due to a legislative change in the zoning ordinance, Mr. Taylor' s use has become "non-conforming. " I disagree with that legal conclusion, but if it is to be the County' s zoning office ' s position (as we believe he is a conforming use) , then Va. Code §15. 1-492 provides protection for Mr. Taylor' s vested rights. I suggested to assist you and the County Attorney that I would forward the pertinent part out of a well known Virginia Supreme Court case on non-conforming uses. Knowlton v. Browning-Ferris 220 Va. 571 ( 1979 ) . In it, [Note 3 ] , the Virginia Supreme Court cites the treatise of Anderson which you have and gives you references . Mr. Taylor seeks to increase his work area of his business that just a little over six months ago was a permitted use by right. Va . Code §15. 1-492 prohibits by taking away any authorization to impair "any vested right. " In intepreting ccnii code ;c,citori, citing Anderson at §6 . 42 (See also §6 . 30) , the Virginia Supreme Court held that "a mere increase in volume, intensity, or frequency of use [which] many courts have held permissible. " The Virginia test adds as "the degree of revelance of any such increase depends in each case upon the quantum of the increase and its effect upon the purposes and policies the zoning ordinance was designed to promote. " This use is not in the residential district. It is in a commercial district that allows a multitude of commercial enterprises, viz. , automobile service stations, health spas, beauty shops, funeral homes, dry cleaners, eating establishments, automobile, truck repair shop, motor vehicle sales and rental. A141119 I j '' 4 ' . • ' It ititar 4 611114"' 040st, 4•-•A4Ativ, Ai ' 4: ''% ' 4-1,":' . / ems' o' /Y Amelia Patterson Zoning Administrator June 13 , 1989 Page - two Therefore, his business is certainly consistent with the purposes and policies of the ordinance and the zoning district. It is therefore well within the law that Mr. Taylor can increase the volume of his business . His proposed expansion and enlargement is not "impermissible" because 1 ) there is no change in use 2 ) a mere increase in volume, intensity, or frequency of use many courts have held permissible 3 ) Va. Code §15. 1-492 protects Mr. Taylor ' s vested right 4 ) the expansion or enlargement does not effect the purposes or policies of the zoning ordinance. By copy of this letter to Mr. St. John, it will be completely unfair and untenable to force Mr. Taylor through an expensive administrative hearing procees when that process should not even apply. The government and its agencies have an affirmative duty to afford Mr. Taylor's vested rights protection as mandated by the General Assembly' s §15. 1-492. We again request a favorable decision from this zoning administrator because the law is clearly in favor of Mr. Taylor and his existing business . I remain, Respectfully, J. BENJAMIN DICK Of Counsel cc: George R. St . John, Coun'v Attc~'!ev Doug Taylor JBD/hth p4* .�"� , 1. JUN 13 198y ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING DEPARTMENT y..: "" .' .4 .IA Ot 6. RAJi` ,solo .4. + , '. ? Y.47 t ., ' , ,1 _ i' '..t a G1'r.a -,h, d 4 '' �. — y • r, HIL w Y ..! -, :' "x a _ !' , 5-.6 Knowlton v. Browning-Ferris, 220 Va. 571. t n Opinion. A� Y � ;t 47,k-, r, cipal use." 1 R. Anderson, supra § 6.30 and cases cited therein; see 't.i�F ', also 3 A. Rathkopf, supra at 58-22 (4th cd. 1960). Consequently, in I> : ,lt, : ,i af t enterprisep ,,"` sii: , ; f order to establish the current trash collection as a ro s = j , , " . ; 4 tected nonconforming use, defendants must rely not upon trash collec- �� A. , ; t' : '' i+��'1 tion merely incidental to hog raising but upon the general trucking �x,M yY, , 1R1s1' business. s. ,--, $ t , y, � { [3] Code § 15.1-492 authorizes localities to adopt zoning or i- r{ •sYk' r 4, „: '-,':;',I,I1, nances which provide that a nonconforming use will be protected "so a = f �� qq} t!l long as the then existing or a more restricted use continues and such r � ',y ¢ l i� use is not discontinued for more than two years". Except for a change tifs �f��i from a nonconforming use to a "more restricted use", the statute I; 11 t 11* -j� i»„ /111 !1 clearly envisions the protection of the use " `existing on the effective 4s �: , fF �, m „., ,a f,i , I J date of the zoning restriction' ". C. & C. Incorporated v. Semple, rya • ' ,. . ,< n ,1,, ;; I supra, 207 Va. at 439 n. 1, 150, S.E.2d at 537 n. 1. In accord with this thrust of the enabling statute, the County's ordinance provides that, '-.1� , '41 17I;'I a 4 .k`z,� s ',,,4,, z,� '11,, with certain exceptions not relevant here, "[a]ny nonconforming use�' i;fi a t, �,��. ;�, ���> �4� 1 �4k , � � 1 . . .may be continued but shall not be enlarged or extended". Fairfax *r , 1 1, § c v� . t{" ,''` I;i County Ordinance § 30-4.2 ( l 96.5), formerly 8.2 ( 1 )59). 1;. ,g ;� '' �A h. . ,I Recognizing that a nonconforming use need not remain static, we .; k• ',t ,I consider whether the character of the nonconforming use in existence ,*k �< t , '+,i,;i ' when the zoning restriction was imposed has been continued or � �5n a ' ��;��` ` ,l� '' x� ,1; � changed. The record shows that the "then existing" Use Was a general `° , r ' Si.\,1 i" trucking business engaged in hauling random cargoes, that this -� ' , ,., •;•. , '. business was discontinued in 1962, and that the former business was twit,,. +1?t,, ,01-*` , 'r''l,';"'`. then converted into a specialized commercial enterprise engaged in 4, ,, + , t ; ;0,, r 1 the collection and disposition of trash. We conclude that the present ,y,, k 3 x t, u t ,` , 1'1 J , ;,t i - ,w 4 id use bears little resemblance to and is different in character from t.'1 , , .r j, the "then existing" use. t the parties Fi,; ,, 4' . ', [4] It should be observed that here, as in the lower court, , e , •13�*fitr ` i» { '1 I , i,' focused principally upon the question whether the current use con- :70' [ ' 4 _ ; i stitutes an impermissible enlargement or extension of the former use, , ; 1; ". r �1.I ` X'" :il'1! see generally 1 R. Anderson, .supra § 6.42, or a mere increase in 3t"`" � . , l: l ,{� volume, intensity, or frequency of use which many courts have held ' ..,4 r{ Pt t'' .y ,,1 I +permissible, id. § 6.47; 3 A. Rathkopf, supra at 60-1. We believe that, $ , '1; � , ',: ,,1 under the ordinance as under the statute, whether a nonconforming it in size r scope is y one ce rele- A y ."',-,`O ' ',i ' ! use vanthas to the keydeter ninat determination ofwhethermthelcharacterrof thenuse has 4 " ' i t 7 -t , ,� , l' 1'II ` t f. }�, • f.( °I• be i changed. i' ,,< ', ; ;!1,1 11 The degree of relevance of any such increase depends in each case � s ',�,,)a r 11 upon the quantum of the increase and its effect upon the purposes and ��l�'� ',.',1,,�` 7� �l� �- �"''.•,Iy '' policies the zoning ordinance was designed to promote. Here, the ;` `.;i t,• • -k , •,1i magnitude of the change in the size and scope of the use and the effects i ,,, 4:,,,,,i;:tv.,- -„ ;toli.',5.':',,..44.,,,,,,:; ..- ..., .. ,, . , . „:,..c., .ti ......, ,:-t,,,,,... ,i; ,,,,,, ,,,T t t „, . . . .., , . . , , „. , , , ,, , ., 4 1 . qtp--,,, ,t I 4, y' ` , il,�.,n s , ,i ;:f..„'i ;..7 „ foiNV, i ,,,. ;IP ,t, ' .. , yy • r 4 ' W jj , , , , - }. F l . Y r ' .` ? CS a Ham .5 - +d'� k q y ,,`fi: :+ ir'a . A E t ''''^'$ t-e t r `”`r."' A.; a'[ e... '�k: 6,4 4 , fit. 4 ._ig t" , l t:� 3" ,y V -. • ' } •w f x �f r S 4 R • • • k � < ' -I , 'I i Knowlton v. Browning,-Ferris, 220 Va. 571. 577 Opinion. 1l �c of that increase upon zoning objectives reinforce 9ur conclusion herein; see that the character of defendants'land use has chan ed.sThe "then exist- '{ '' 4 g i,�;" � s:;. quently, in ing" use, which utilized four small trucks that were parked on unim- I as a pro- proved land and repaired and maintained in the shade of a tree, has " p" , , ash collec- become a use employing a fleet of 18 large trash compactors whose rl rl trucking repair and maintenance require a spacious garage erected on the site and two gasoline tanks installed underground. There was testimony t ruing ordi- � b I that tire increased traffic posed a child safety hazard and disrupted the Itected "so " f � serene environment of the residential community. and such [51 Our conclusion about the changed character of the land use does a change not terminate our inquiry, for the Zells attack the validity of the he statute ordinance. e effective First, they argue that Code § 15.1-492 requires ordinances to Semple, I protect not only the "then existing" use but also a "more restricted" '.: :cord with ' . i use and that the County's ordinance is void because it contains no vides that, express provision to that effect. Equating "more restricted" with "lessti, rming use intense, less objectionable", the Zells say the trash collection enter- __l ". Fairfax prise is not as objectionable as the hog raising operation and, therefore, 1' '•: ',,,',''',,,,,,.',,,,,,I! • is protected as a "more restricted" use. Even if the Zells' definition . static, we N of "more restricted" use is correct, their argument is flawed. As we existence have said, the hog raising operation was a permitted use rather than a tinned or nonconforming use. Since Code § 15.1-492 contemplates the protect- a general tion of a use "more restricted" than the nonconforming use existing on that this the effective date of a zoning restriction, the hog raising operation may ;iness was not serve as the standard for determining whether the current use is raedin �` igaged "more restricted". The proper standard is the general trucking business. e present Clearly, the trash collection enterprise defendants are now operating :ter from is not "more restricted" than the small general trucking business in i r which the Zells engaged before. Thus, the alleged omission in the ie parties ordinance in no way affects defendants, and they consequently lack use con- standing to make this attack on the ordinance. See County of Fairfax v. „' -tiler use, 4 Parker, 186 Va. 675, 680, 44 S.E.2d 9, 11 (1947);see also Stanley v. crease in City of Norfolk, 218 Va. 504, 237 S.E.2d 799 (1977). =` lave held The Zells next complain that, while the statute authorizes ordinances it,' ; ieve that, that provide for the loss of a nonconforming use upon discontinuance ° j e., . nforming �i b for two years, the County's ordinance fixed the term at six months. � . nee rele- Since this provision of the ordinance has never been applied to J ,� '�r`. use has j defendants, they nrry not challenge it. 1[ 'i'.; We hold the chancellor erred in ruling that defendants' evidence si e; ach case cstahlished that the trash collection enterprise was a lawful non- ,' oses and conforming use. For the errors noted, we will reverse the judgment for ,; 1 fare the t,.e... .i...,,.. ...,,! «.,..,...,,1 tl.,, i'.r vntry of -t rt�rrPP in arcnr[1anCP_,,,,,, I' F