HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP200900011 Presentation 2010-02-02Notice of Violation Appeal
AP200900011
Robert I. Heide
Manager of Enforcement
February 2, 2010
Description of Property
Tax Map 078, Parcel 57
Located at the end of Fontana Drive
. 253 acre lot
Zoning Districts
Rural Area
R1 Residential
Planned Residential Development
Description of Property, Cont.
Tax Map showing parcel 078 -57 with
three zoning districts.
Background of Appeal —
Time Line
October 22, 2009 — Violation complaint received by staff.
October 27, 2009 — First onsite inspection and photos
showing processing operation.
October 27, November 4 and 6 — Multiple onsite
inspections showing continued processing of stone.
October 30 — Meeting with owner regarding continued
operation. Confirmed off -site use of processed stone.
November 12, 2009 — Notice of Violation mailed.
November 13, 2009 — Appeal filed.
Determination of Violation
Notice of Violation identified:
The crushing and processing of stone for use off-
site.
Violating Sections
10.2
Permitted
Uses in
RA
13.2
Permitted
Uses in
R1
19.3
Permitted
Uses in
PRD
Grounds for ZA Decision
On -site inspections showed a use that was more
akin to Natural Resource Extraction, than land
development.
c or+sTnucnor
imiA
,4
Grounds for ZA Decision, Cont.
Common observations showed large rock being placed on
conveyor, entering the processing equipment, then being
dumped on the ground in the form of gravel.
The processing occurred for most of the day and produced dust,
vibration, and noise.
Shown below is one piece of machinery used during this
process:
Appellant's Justification and Staff
Response
- That the processing of stone is accessory to
the construction activities relating to onsite
development.
Staff permitted the processing of stone for onsite
use prior to the issuance of the NOV.
However, when the amount of processed rock
exceeded the amount necessary for onsite
development, the operation can no longer be
considered accessory to development.
Appellant's Justification and Staff
Response, Cont.
- Expanded justification outlined the removal of
any excess material as accessory to
development.
Staff's position is that there is a distinction or
different use when removing excess material and
processing it onsite for use elsewhere.
The character of this use is very intense and is better
described as Natural Resource Extraction.
The Ordinance does not expressly allow this use in
these districts or as accessory to development.
Appellant's Justification and Staff
Response, Cont.
rp That this activity is customary to
development.
Staff queried multiple development
departments throughout Virginia to aid in
determining if use was customary. Not a
single one would permit this use as
accessory to development.
Nine entities responded to our inquiry. Some
said, as we did, the processing for onsite use
is permitted. All said that the processing for
offsite use constitutes a different and more
intense use.
Conclusion
The language in the zoning ordinance is clear, this type
of use is not permitted in any of the listed zoning
districts.
The described processing and offsite use meets a defined use
category in the zoning ordinance, Natural Resource Extraction,
and it is not permitted in the listed zoning districts.
❑ There is no information confirming that this type of use is
customary to residential land development. Staff requested this
information from the Appellant, but none was given.
Staff recommends affirming the Zoning Administrator's determination.