Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199800005 Correspondence 1998-04-23 AD it i APR 2 3 I998 LEROY R.HAMLETT,JR MICHIE HAMLETT, LOWRY, RASMUSSEN & 1CWE�L P.C.- .-._,� PETER MCINTOSH EDWARD B.LOWRY > ( a� R GA{RETT M.SMITH BRUCE D RASMUSSEN I I`i�',:4�r LIJ.CiE&Z.Cli!MG SE2Vi f?�]]AMC.SCOTT IV RONALD R.TVEEL Attorneys at L Q tfJ lw+ _-.-�-,JEANIFER A JONES GARY W KENDALL ROBERT A.KANTAS JOHN V.LITTLE M BRYAN SLAUGHTER KEVIN W.RYAN 804-977-3390 FACSIMILE: 804-295-0681 DIRECT DIAL: 804-980-9506 ELIZABETH P COUGHTER Of Counsel JAMES P.Cox in E-MAIL:jlittle@mhlrt.com THOMAS J.MICHIE ROBERT W JACKSON April 23, 1998 Board of Zoning Appeals County of Albemarle do Department of Building Code By Hand and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Board of Zoning Appeals Action Variance Application VA-98-05 International Cold Storage,Inc. Tax Map 109. Parcel 33 Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Otto G. Stolz and Jill V. Stolz, an adjacent property owner. On April 7, 1998,the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the variance request of International Cold Storage, Inc. ("ICS") subject to certain conditions. This letter is to request that the Board grant a motion for rehearing of the variance request of ICS pursuant to§7.1.2 of the Board's Bylaws. §7.1.2 of the Bylaws provides: A motion for rehearing may be granted by concurring affirmative vote of three members provided: a) That new evidence can be presented which, in the opinion of the Board, is pertinent to the recorded decision and could not have been presented at the original hearing or b)that, in the opinion of the Board, some condition or situation has changed in such a manner as to have bearing on the decision previously recorded. The Board shall set the date for the rehearing and shall cause notice of such hearing to be executed in such manner as is prescribed for any other appeal. The grounds for rehearing are that(i)the Board's decision was based upon misrepresentations contained in the application(a situation that should have bearing on its decision), and (ii) Mr. and Mrs. Stolz were out of town until the weekend before the hearing and were unable to present new evidence that has since been obtained as to the prior use of the property. 500 COURT SQUARE, SUITE 300 ■ P.O. OX 298 ■ CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-0298 fi 411) Misrepresentations in the Application ICS's application for variance stated that". . . [t]his manufacturing business began in 1975 and has remained the same since the beginning. . . .". The application also stated that ". . . this . . . parcel. . . . has been used in a similar fashion by Wayland Machinery Co. since the 1930's . . . " Staff findings were based on these representations, including a finding that ". . . these buildings have been the same size and shape since before [the County zoning] ordinance." These statements contained in the application were not correct. We disagree that ICS's business has remained the same. The type of units built by ICS has changed significantly since 1975. Instead of fruit handling equipment, ICS now manufactures walk-in coolers. At the hearing, company representatives said that they have doubled production volume at this facility in the last four years. A second shift has been added. When Ms. Stolz bought her property about 10 years ago, there was no manufacturing or permanent storage of large units outside the building facility. Now the first step in manufacturing process takes place outside. It's faulty logic for ICS to say that enclosing this work space will confer a benefit on the neighbors when ICS shouldn't even be doing this in the first place. Neither did Wayland use the property in similar fashion. Wayland made fruit grading equipment until the early 1970's. The size and shape of the buildings have also changed from those use by Wayland and since the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1980. ICS built the concrete slab in the mid-1980's so that units could initially be stored and processed outside. ICS also built a shed to house insulation foam tanks on the back of the building at some point. The parking lot has been enlarged significantly and paved resulting in erosion and runoff from the facility. A house on the property was also torn down(which served as a visual and noise buffer between the facility and the road) so that a septic field could be installed. In short,the size and scope of the use of the property and the nature of the business enterprise have changed significantly. This is a change in character of the 1980 use of the property by ICS. The Board's decision may have been different had it been aware of these misrepresentations at the time of its prior decision. Accordingly,this is a changed situation that should have a bearing on the Board's previous decision. Presentation of New Evidence Mr. and Mrs. Stolz were out of town until the weekend before the hearing on the variance. For this reason,they did not have an opportunity to talk with neighbors or consult with counsel about the prior use of the property. Accordingly,they were unable to present new evidence that has since been obtained as to the prior use of the property that should be pertinent to the Board's decision. 411116 OD We are continuing to review the prior use of this property and reserve the right to present additional information in support of this request. Summary For the foregoing reasons, we would respectfully request that the Board(A)reconsider and vacate its prior decision and(B) grant a rehearing of this variance request. Because Va. Code §15.2-2314 provides that a petition for certiorari must be filed within 30 days of the Board's decision, it is important that the decision be vacated so that Mr. and Mrs. Stolz may avoid the necessity of filing an appeal to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County pending any rehearing on this matter. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please let me know.0V: b yours, ' . Little cc: Ms. Janet D. Sprinkle (by hand) Mr. Ronald Keeler (by hand) Mr. Gifford Childs, International Cold Storage Mr. and Mrs. Otto G. Stolz