Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP197500468 Action Letter 5-2tJ-75 (Night) $\,-'1la8 119 60,000 square feet if public water and sewer are not available. Mr. Tucker said if the entire parcel, or any portion, is rezoned and Mr. Seale wants to subdivide, he would have to request a waiver of the 60,000 sq. ft. requirement. ..., I ! Mr. Fisher said the Board has a recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission for denial of this request. However, since Mr. Seale may have a legitimate problem, he would like to make a review of the site before voting. Mr. Henley said he felt the staff and Commission should look at the problem from purely a planning point of view and they have done that. It is now up to the Board to try to solve the problem. This is the third time he has had to vote for a similar request and although it is contrary to what he wants to do, there is a problem and there is only one way to solve it. Mr. Wood agreed. He said the request seems to be the only answer. He would like to see the property rezoned to R-l so Mr. Seale can use his property. Mr. Henley asked if this zoning would allow Mr. Seale to build one house and no more. Mr. Tucker said he will still have a 60,000 square f'oot problem. If he wants to sell the property or even subdivide to give his son a piece of' the property, he can meet that. But, if he wants to sell off the rental units, he would need a waiver of that requirement. He could meet the zoning requirements of' one dwelling unit on 20,000 square f'eet. Mr. Henley said the Board would understand the problem if they could see the property. The two acres are up hill and there is no way this acreage can be used to help the houses presently on the property. Mr. Thacker said in eff'ect the Board would not be doing anybhing since the two acres cannot be used to enhance the three existing houses. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive Plan recommends a much lower density. Mr. Henley then of'f'ered motion to approve ZMP-32l. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the f'ollowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. No.5.' SP-468. James Armstrong. To locate a garage on 0.39 acre zoned A-I Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 715 in Esmont. Property is further described as County Tax Map 128B, Parcel 31. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said this property is located within a rural village with residential, commercial and public land uses found within the immediate area. The post office, a warehouse, and a vacant store are located on the west side of Route 715. Single-family development is found throughout the village. A special permit to locate a public garage on this parcel was approved by the Board of Supervisors on,November 22, 1972. The applicant is requesting a change in the conditions imposed on that permit (SP-2ll). The two conditions from which relief is asked are: (1) Not more than six vehicles which are in Mr. Armstrong's care for repair, maintenance or restoration be garaged over- night on the property at anyone time; and (2) any vehicles which are on site for repair, mainten- ance or restoration be located in a specifically designated parking area approved by the planning staff and this area be screened from pUblic view as approved by the planning staff. Mr. Tucker said from field inspection, the staff noted that approximately six dwellings are visible from the garage. Three of these dwellings are partially buffered by a 10 to 15 foot bank at the rear of the garage and hardwoods on the north and south sides of the property. The applicant is presently proposing an addition to the garage which will house four vehicles for repair. The garage can presently house only one vehicle. The applicant has recently landscaped the property with laurels, dogwoods and azaleas. Evergreens were not planted because of the damage caused by sap dropping from these trees onto cars. Mr. Tucker said while the staff contends that this type of use is incompatible with the area, the applicant has made an attempt to meet the conditions placed upon him by the Board of Supervisors. The staff feels that in view of the addition proposed, which will house up to five vehicles, the condition of six vehicles left outside of the building overnight is reasonable. The Planning Commission recommends approval of sp-468 with the following conditions substituted for conditions # 1 and #2 on the original special permit: (1) Not more than six vehicles, which are in Mr. Armstrong's care for repair, maintenance or restoration be left outside of the structure overnight at anyone time. (2) Existing landscaping be maintained. The Planning Commission also recommends adding the following condition to any approval: (3) Site 'plan approval of proposed new addition. Mr. Tucker presented letters from Messrs. Andrew J. Boatwright, Hunter P. Tapscott, William P. Heath, and Fred Beauchamp in opposition to approval of this permit. ,'He said a petition was also presented from the applicant asking that the foregoing conditions be removed from the permit approval. Mr. Fisher asked if the new condition would add to the six vehicles which could be left outside overnight, any cars that might be stored inside. Mr. Tucker said yes, he may be able to store five additional carS inside. Mr. Fisher said the other condition regarding screening approved by the Planning Staff suggests that existing landscaping be maintained. Mr. Tucker said the landscaping has just been completed. Mr. Fisher said he had driven by this location this afternoon and could not see any landscaping. Mr. Tucker said it is not evergreen screening. Mr. Thacker asked if the Planning Staff had been requested to approve screening other than evergreens. Mr. Tucker said he was aware of no such request. Mr. Thacker said bef'ore he opened the flOOr f'or public discussion, he would remind those present to keep their comments within the realm of' zoning matters. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Jr. was present to represent Mr. Armstrong. He objected to the two conditions set out above and also another condition on the original permit that a $300 bond be posted. He also objected to a site plan,being required. Mr. Dorrier said this garage is operated by Mr. Armstrong and his f'amily. They have no plans to hire others to expand the business. Mr. Armstrong has spent $2000-$3000 in improvements and in planning for an annex to the building. This ~~~~~~~~~nal;~ ~~: ~i~: ,of. ~ ~ulp wood yard, a railroad station, a flour mill, an ice plant and a 120 5P-li~ ~ 5-28-75 (Night) a general store, an auctioneering activity and another general store about one block away. Mr. Dorrier said there are no junk vehicles on this location. Mr. Armstrong has attempted to stay within the six car limit imposed by the Board, but there are times when he cannot. His business has increased to where he cannot operate his shop with this present restriction. The requirement for some:type of fencing is also objected to because it would shield his shop from public view. Mr. Armst~ong feels his business must be visible. The cost of screening would be prohibitive and would allow vandalism to occur at night when no one is at the garage. Mr. Armstrong and his wife have made an attempt to beautif'y the area by planting dogwoods, redbuds, rose bushes, laurel trees, ( azaleas, flowers and a garden. They have moved old railroads ties which were on the site when they I moved in. This garage provides income for the community and tax revenue for the County. A petition was presented with approximately 200 signatures supporting this request. The people who live adjacent, with one exception, support Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Dorrler said there are objections ~rorn people who l live further away but he asked that the Board take into consideration the fact that the people who live adjacent to this property support the request. Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Armstrong's service center should not be singled out for discriminatory treatment. He contended that no other garage in the County has such restrictions placed upon it'. He felt these restrictions violate Mr. Armstrong's rights. Mr. Dorrier contended that the Board granted the permit and in good faith Mr. Armstrong has tried to live up to the conditions placed upon same. He then showed to the Board several photographs of the location of this request. Mr. Dorrier ended by stating that this is a small businessman and he felt the county should do everything possible to help him stay in business. Mrs. Margaret Payne said she lives directly across the road from this parcel. There is not much noise. Occasionally a sanding machine can be heard, but this is not a loud noise. Mr. Walsh said he lives close also. Since Mr. Armstrong began his business on this location he has conducted his business in an orderly manner. Mr. Armstrong works hard and has a wife and five children to support. Mr. Dorrier said he had several people present who would speak to Mr. Armstrong's mechanical ability. Mr. Thacker reminded Mr. Dorrier that any conversation relating to Mr. Armstrong's " abilities is not a matter to be included in a zoning hearing. Mr. Bill Rucker spoke next. He said he lives four houses away. He felt the limit of six cars and screening are unreasonable. He said the garage is neat and attractive. He felt the six car limit would hamper Mr. Armstrong since he works on antique cars and occasionally will have some antIque cars, which are being restored, stored on the lot. Mr. David Wood was present to represent Mr. Matthew Murray, Mr. & Mrs. Turnbull, Mr. and Mrs. Ward Jones, Mrs. B. M. Little, Mr. Wesley Peterson, Mrs. Hunter Tapscott, Mrs. Dorothy Boatwright, Mr. W. P.Heath, and Mr. T. R. Steger, all in opposition to the application. Mr. Wood said approval of this application, or simIlar applications, will destroy the rural atmosphere of Esmont. This garage is on a 0.39 acre plot, The lot is irregular and the useful part of the lot is less than 1/3 of an acre. This application was presented for a public hearing before. It was approved with certain restrictions with which Mr. Armstrong has not complied. Mr. Wood had a listing of the vehicles stored on the lot for the most of the 1973 year and up through June 26, 1974. Mr. Wood read several examples showing that more than six vehicles were stored on the property at one time. He said this was an example of the way the applicant felt about the County's restrictions. Mr. Wood said no screening existed on the property until just before this application was f'iled and really cannot be considered screening; only. planting. All except Mr. Jones and Mr. Steger are residents of the village ,proper. He said the 200 people signing the applicant's petition do not live in Esmont and several live in other counties. They have no vested interest because they do not own property within the village. Mr. Wood felt this property should not be operated as a garage at nights or on Sunday. He said this causes a nuisance. Mr. Wood said Mrs. Payne, who spoke first, works and is not at home during the day. The two people most affected by this use are Mrs. Tapscott and Mrs. Boatright, both elderly ladies who are not able to appear tonight. Mr. Wood ended by asking that the Board reject the applicant's request. Mr. Dorrier said he understood Mrs. Boatwright had no objection to the shop itself. The shop is in compliance with the County's master plan. Mr. Steger, represented by Mr. Wood, is not a resident of Esmont, but owns rental units in the community. Mr. Armstrong said the original prOVision was for screening of the parking area and not the entire site. He said he had not been able to reach an agreement with the planning, staff on a designated area. Valarie Cox said she lives in Esmont,and finds the garage an improvement over previous uses. Dan Childress said he lives about one and one-half miles away. He said the noise is nothing compared to a timbering operation which took place in the area several years ago. He said he works a swing shift and he has not heard all the noise talked about. Mr. John Arbaugh said this has been a place of business for years. The noise is much less than previous uses. He felt the six car restriction should be lifted. Mrs. Armstrong said the pictures shown by Mr. Dorrier will show that the houses of the people in opposition cannot be seen from this location. Mr. Daniel Van Clief said he is interested in the business part of the community although he does not live in Esmont village. He said this was not a trial for Mr. Armstrong tonight but the question to be addressed is whether the restrictions placed on the original permit were valid and whether those persons present have forgotten the humanities. He personnally objected to the state- ment that the land is too small and wi1lc,not hold the number of cars requested. If' Mr. Armstrong mUat stay within the property lines, the number of cars will be limited by those lines. He asked that the Board combine the humanities with the restrictions and determine if the restrictions are valid. Mr. David Wood said Mrs. Tapscott and Mrs. Boatwright had both called and asked him to re- present them. He said Mr. Van Clief is just like a lot of those speaking. He does not live in the immediate neighborhood and has no standing in the matter. At this point, Mr. Thacker closed the public hearing. He noted for the record several of the letters received in opposition; Mr. Hunter P. Tapscott Mr. S. J. Boatwright, Jr., Mr. Albert R. Turnbull, Mr. Fred Beauchamp and Mr. Andrew J. Boatwright. Mr Henley said he noted that the addition to the garage will hold five vehicles which will allow Mr. ~rmstrong to have 11 vehicles and this seems to be a reasonable number. He felt the Board .. -. _..:l --- ...--......-........................................--.........:. C;l"''''oClollllln'1nO' R~v1nq ~-2tJ-75 (Night) h ,_ __ 1 ,~" 5f' ~ L{(o g 121 -.. I Mr. Fisher said when he looked at the site today, he took along the conditions imposed on the original permit. The Board specifically stated that this vse should be screened from public view, with screening approved by the Flanning Staff. Although low bushes have been planted, it is not screened from pUblic view in any way. It has been two and one-half years since this permit was approved. In November, 1972, when this permit was heard, there was a public outcry against approval of the request. The Board against the recommendation of the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission tried to give Mr. Armstrong the opportunity to operate a garage and protect the community at the same time. Mr. Fisher said he interpreted Condition #1 to mean that the vehicles had to be garaged inside overnight and the area be screened. He did not feel the Board would have approved the petition with lesser restrictions. If the applicant had made an attempt to meet the conditions within a reasonable time period and could not do it, he had recourse to come to the Board of Super- visors to have those conditions lifted. Mr. Fisher did not feel that two and one-half years is a reasonable time period and did not f'eel there has been an honest attempt to meet the Board's conditions. He f'elt the people in the community should be protected by screening as the Board originally specified. Mr. Thacker said it is not true that if the Board does not approve this request they are denying Mr. Armstrong the right to use his property. This is not a use allowed by right in the A-I zone as spelled out in the County's ordinance. This is a privilege granted by special permit. He agreed with Mr. Fisher that two and one-half years is more than adequate time to either comply with conditions or apply for relief from the conditions. Mr. Thacker said he felt the limit of six cars was established for a specific reason. He noted that on April 7, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. there were 11 vehicles parked on the site. On May 19, 1975, at 9:30 P.M. there were nine vehicles plus one tractor. At 5:20 P.M., this date, there were six cars, one trailer, and three lawnmowers. Mr. Thacker said he felt there has been no attempt to comply with the conditions. He felt the conditions were placed in good faith in an attempt to reach a compromise to allow a use by the applicant and in an attempt to appease the residents of the area. He felt the County staff has been remiss in not revoking the permit. Mr. Lloyd Wood agreed with Mr. Henley that a limit of six cars outside of the building is probably enough. He thought the screening might be detrimental to this operation. The third condition, recommended by the Planning Commission, about site plan approval seems unrealistic knowing the situation which exists. This is not a new structure, but renovation of an existing structure. Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve SP-468 with substitute conditions # 1 and #2 as recommended by the Planning commission and all conditons on the original permit to remain in effect. Mr. Henley gave second to the motion. He said he could see that occasionally Mr. Armstrong w?uld have more than six cars on the property, but did not see this as a problem. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the applicant has demonstrated his best efforts to comply with the conditions of the original permit. To return to the Board after two and one-half years to have the conditions changed seems to be encouraging other applicants or permit holders not to comply with conditions imposed by this Board. Mr. Henley said this is only 1/3 of an acre and does not seem to be a large operation. He felt red tape should be cut out.and did.'oot feel 1/3 of an acre could be screened effectively. Mr. Thacker reminded ,the Board that the conditons were placed on the special permit in good faith' and accepted by the applicant before he began any business activity on the site. He agreed with ~r. Fisher that two and one-half years is an inordinately long time without making an attempt to comply with the conditions and he would not support approval of this petition. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, and Wood. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Thacker. ABSENt: Mr. Wheeler. At 9:10 P;M. the Board took a recess and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. at which time they continued with public hearings on zoning matters: No. 7.i sp-471. Nancy Caperton. .cultUIlal. Property is situated on with ~tate Route 743. Property is Jouet~ Magisterial District. t. Tucker said this property is located on the east side of Route 676, just across the bridge and a Jacent to the Charlottesville Reservoir. This area is semi-rural in character and is located on th' fringe. of the urban area. The property slopes down toward the reservoir with the main buildi~g situated in the northwest portion of:the'property. Large parcels of three acres and upward predo~nate the area. It is an area which presently maintains a density of one dwelling unit per ten acres. The applicant wishes to renovate an existing stable into a two-family dwelling. The stablel is presently located approximately 200 feet from the water's edge of the reservoir. The Comprepensive Plan indicates that areas adjacent to water impoundments should be protected and recomm~nd8 acdensity of one dwelling unit per five acres. The staff felt that in view of the densit~es existing in the area and the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, to allow a two- family, dwelling in this area would change the character and established pattern of development which presently exists. The staff recommended denial but gave the following conditions which should be attached to any approval'given by the Board: To locate a two-family dwelling on 4.674 acres zoned A-I Agri- the east side of State Route 676 just north of its intersection further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 6D(1). Jack (i) County Building of'ficial approval. (~) Health Department final approval of septic system. (3) Provision of a minimum of four off~street parking spaces. (4) Any other structures planned to be rented will require an additional special use permit. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission also recommends denial of the petition. Mr. Carwile asked if this is the only building on the tract. Mr. Tucker said no. There are two sm~ll cottages which are not habitable. These are in addition to the residence and the stable. Mrs. Caperton was present in support of the request. She said the Planning Commission denied her request because they did not want to establish a precedent for duplexes on the Reservoir. She said t~ere are already several dUplexes located in the area and the precedent has already been set. This is an existing structure. Mrs. Caperton said she understands the present zoning laws would allow ~er to have one rental unit at this spot without any approvals. There will be the same number of peo~le living in the dwelling whether it is a duplex or a single-family rental unit. A repre- sentative of' the Health nAnA-r+:mpnr h~c:! ,....,,:oU-1.c.'...CIrol'~ +"'...... ....._....................~ ~_...:I ---I _, ....."1.