Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP197300244 Action Letter 4-25-73' - - - ~ I" _ _ ~.1_ 47 r ~~ Schvab handed to the Board letters from Dorothy Churchman, Harry Wheeler, Lt. Co!. and Mrs. Charles E. Blue, Col. T. J. and Mrs. Randolph and Thomas B. Blue, all adjoining property owners, all stating they are not opposed to this rezoning. Mr. WOod said that he had viewed this property and had listened to the Planning Commission reports and he felt that the rezoning as requested by the petitioner was best for the area. He then offered motion to approve ZMP-267 as requested by the petitioner and as recommended by the Planning Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. fhacker. r Mr. Fisher agreed withtthe Planning Commission's original recommendation and. felt that it was a reasonable proposal. After a thorough discussion of this matter, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AY!'8: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. (2) SP-243. Inna Melton has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a per- manent mobile home on two acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on east side of Rt. 795 in Slate Hill. Property is desct~bed is County Tax Map 103, Pareel 63-a. Scottsville Magis~ial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition with a 50 foot setback, Health Department approval of a septic tank system and subject to approval by the Planning COmmission and the Board of Supervisors after five. years. Mrs. Melton was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the p;ition. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: . ADS: MIlssrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler alllWood. HAYS: None. (3) SP-2~. Herbert G. Tull, III, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a consulting mechanical engineering facility on 16 acres of land zoned B-1 Business. Property is situated on south side of at. 736, about 1/2 mile west of Ivy. Property is described as County Tax Map 58, Parcel 37, part. thereof. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey stated thattfrom statements supplied by Mr. Tun, this is a light business and manufacturing process involving machine design and the building of said machines. It is not an assembly line operation. Employment is for four people including Mr. Tull. The staff was of the opinion that it fits accordingly as a special use in the B-1 zone as provided for and the staff suggested approval SUbject to the following conditiomB' 1. All activity of design, construction and testing to be done inside the proposed building. 2. No outside storage. 3. Employment to be limited to no ~ore than six, inCluding Mr. Tull. 4. Health Department approval of sanitary facilities. 5. That there be no obnoxious odors or noises emitted beyond the property line. c [ r l_ 6. A detailed site plan be submitted add approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. II II I, 11 , . 4-25-73 48 Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the petition and this was by unanimous vote of those members present. Mr. Tull was present in support of the petition. He asked that the Board consider changing Condition #3 of the Planning Staff's conditions, to allow him twenty employees. Mr. Don Timberlake, representing the Ivy Citizens Association, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bill Dettor spoke in support of the petition. A Mr. Maine, an engineer, stated that this operation is more akin to that of a doctor or lawyer than manufacturing. At this time the public hearing lias closed and the Chairman called on members of the Board for comment: Mr. Wood stated that there is a need for this type of engineering operation and it is not permitted in an M-1 or M-2 zone and not permitted in any other category within the present zoning ordinance. He was in agreement with the Planning Staff that this operation should be in a B-1 zone and he felt this was a reasonable request and should be permitted. Mr. Wood offered motion to approve the request as recommended by the Planning Staff, eliminating condition No.3. Motion was' seconded by Mr. Carwile. Mr. Fisher stated that bhis petition had been the SUbject of discussion in the Ivy area. He was disturbed by Mr. Humphrey's statement that this was the only type of zone under which this operation could exist. since he felt it is in reality a manufacturing operation. He said that Mr. Tull had a legitimate request but he felt that if the Board could not resolve what kind a zone this operation belonged in, then they could not take action on this petition. He said that the Planning Commission did not address themselves to this particular situation. Mr. st. John said that this was not a unique situation where zoning is concerned, however, if this is a legal oocupation, not against any public policy, under the present State lww, the3Board must find someplace in the zoning ordinance for this occupation, whether it is spelled out or not. Mr. Fisher inqu1mH.if he meant that the zoning ordinance had to be amended to incorporate this use. Mr. St. John replied no, Mr. Tull does not have to wait for an amendment to the zoning ordinance, but the Board must,find him a place in the present ordinanee. Otherwise, this is denial of due process. Mr. Thacker felt this type or operation belonged more in an industrial zone than a business zone. Mr. Fisher stated that there are no other businesses in this area and he felt this was a subversion of the planning process. West Mr. Wood sa1dlVir~a'; Pulp and the railroad siding were businesses and the Ivy cODDllunity itself had business. He said that at one time he had shared Mr. Thacker's concern about this being a manufacturing operation, however, now he felt that if the ~ fl u o o LJ " I __1___- 4-25-73 49 r t i Board forced Mr. Tull into an M-1 zone, they would be denying k1m this use in any area because of lack of M-1 zoning in the County. Mr. Thacker did not feel that the Board could control this operation changing from light industrial to manufacturing. Mr. Fisher felt that with condition No. 3 pertaining to employment dropped from' the conditions, this operation could become as great as any light manufacturing operation in the county. He stated that he was in sympathy with Mr. full's request, bowever, he did not feel that this was the right way to go about this and he did not feel that this was the right place for this operation and he felt the Board must provide both. Mr. Wood stated that he felt it would be advantageous to restate condi~ion No. 3 in his motion, with ~wenty employees and all or the conditions or the original tract. Mr. Carwile consented to this change in the motion. Mr. Fisher then offered an amended motion, that the Board defer action on this matter until they have time to study what changes can be made 10 the present zoning ordinance, amend that zoning ordinance as quickly as possible to make this a proper use, by right; in certain zoning categories. This amended motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker. ,Mr. Wood stated that he could not support Mr. Fisher's motion since he telt this is the best property on which to place this operation and he felt that it does fit well into the neighborhood. Mr. Thacker said he could not agree that this was the proper location. Mr. Carwile stated that normally he would y"ld to a request such as Mr. FiSher'S, however, Mr. Tull had written-::to the County in November ot 1972 asking for the proper zoning for this operation and Mr. HUmphrey had written back stating that he was proceeding in the proper way. Unless Mr. St. John felt the County's answer was in error, he felt the Board must vote on this petition this night and not delay Mr. Tull trom finding suitable land in the County on-which to establish his budiness. At this time, the Chairman called for a vote on Mr. Fisher's motion to defer. Vote was as follows: [ [ [ AYES: Mr. Fisher and Mr. Thacker. NAYS I Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. The motion to defer, therefore, was defeated. The Chairman then called for a vote on Mr. WOOd's amended motion. The vote was as follows: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. (Mr. Fisher prefaced hilf vote by saying that he relt this was a mistake, however, he could feel the sense or attitude of the BOard and he would vote aye.) ~ JAYS: Mr. Thacker. ! I' II II , I . . ~"t~ OF ALe~^" CpV . ~J?<.~ COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: fllarch 1, 1978 Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning Linda W. Leake, Deputy ClerkJ~J.; \\~~~~ i\a\\~\\'Ii, ,~ at" tap.,~ 2 Per your request of February 28, 1978, the following conditions are those adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting held on April 25, 1973, for SP-244, Herbert G. Tull, III: 1. All activity of design, construction and testing to be done inside the proposed building. 2. No outside storage. 3. Employment to be limited to no more than twenty, including Mr. Tull. 4. Health Department approval of sanitary facilities. 5. That there be no obnoxious odors or noises emitted beyond the property line. 6. A detailed site plan be submited and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. LWL/