Loading...
01-15-2013 Special Call MeetingSpecial Call Meeting January 15, 2013 Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Tuesday, January 15, 2013 Special Call Meeting VIRGINIA: The Special Call Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors was held on Tuesday, January 15, 2013 in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Addition in Chatham, Virginia. Marshall A. Ecker, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The following members were present: Marshall Ecker Staunton River District Brenda H. Bowman Chatham-Blairs District Coy E. Harville Westover District James Snead Dan River District Jessie L. Barksdale Banister District Jerry A. Hagerman Callands-Gretna District Tim Barber Tunstall District Mr. William D. Sleeper, County Administrator, Mr. Greg L. Sides, Assistant County Administrator, Mr. J. Vaden Hunt, County Attorney, and Ms. Rebecca Flippen, Deputy Clerk to the Board, were also present. Mr. Barksdale led the Pledge of Allegiance. Public Hearings Rezoning Cases Case 1: James & Areta Gibson - Callands-Gretna District; R-13-001 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:04pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development, explained that James and Areta Gibson had petitioned to rezone the B-2, Business District portion of 12.57 acres (approximately 1.32 acres), located on RT 40/East Gretna Road in the Callands-Gretna Election District to R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District (to make the parcel one zoning designation to allow for expansion of an existing substation for Dominion Virginia Power). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Mr. Emmett Toms, Agent for Dominion Virginia Power, was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Ecker closed the hearing at 7:06pm. Motion was made by Mr. Hagerman, seconded by Mr. Barber, to approve granting Mr. and Ms. Gibson’s request to rezoning Case R-13-001 from B-2 to R-1. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Hagerman’s motion to rezone Case R-13-001 from B-2 to R-1 was unanimously approved by the Board. Case 2: Carson Lester – Chatham-Blairs District; R-13-002 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:07pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development, explained that Carson Lester had petitioned to rezone 10.24 acres (8.87 acres from A-1, Agricultural District and 1.37 acres from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District) to M-2, Industrial District, Heavy Industry, located off SR 744/Lester Lane, in the Chatham-Blairs Elections District (for a salvage yard/salvage license). Mr. Lester had also petitioned to rezone 0.91 acre, located on SR 1085/Carson Lester Lane, in the Chatham-Blairs Election District from A-1, Agricultural District to M-1, Industrial District, Light Industry (to combine with GPIN #2412-73-5819 to make the zoning consistent). Special Call Meeting January 15, 2013 The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request provided the easement map is recorded up approval by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Shelby Cody was present to represent the case. Mr. Jean Vernon, a resident of Danville, Virginia, and an adjacent property owner to the above referenced property owned by Carson Lester. Ms. Vernon stated that her property was located at the top of the mountain, behind Mr. Lester’s and looking down on the property. She stated that she and Mr. Lester were friends, that she had spent $7,000 graveling the access road to her property that Mr. Lester had put in, and that he had not said anything to her about a salvage yard. Ms. Vernon pointed out that the proposed salvage yard would be 10 acres-equivalent to 10 football fields and would be the biggest salvage yard in Pittsylvania County, and could accommodate over 2,000 automobiles. Ms. Vernon questioned whether R&L Smith Road could accommodate traffic for that large of a salvage yard. Ms. Vernon stated that she was told the cars would be moved in and out in a matter of days, so she questions what a salvage yard that large would be needed if the turn-around period was so short. She suspects something besides a holding area is being done. Ms. Vernon stated environmental concerns of runoff from vehicle fluids into the nearby streams and ponds, and had contacted the Department of Environmental Quality with her concerns and was told Mr. Lester had a storm water permit. Ms. Vernon asked if the Board would postpone granting Mr. Lester’s request until more investigation on his intents for the property and consequences to the environment if the salvage yard were put into place without property plans of action to prevent runoff contamination from auto fluids. And, as far as zoning and beautification was concerned, she would think a salvage yard was far from beautifying the County. The next person to speak was Mr. Mitch Guill, of the Chatham-Blairs District, another adjacent landowner to Mr. Lester, and had no problem with the petitioner’s request to rezone the property. Ms. Cody presented a photo of the property, which has been a salvage yard for 37 years and is not something new. Mr. Lester intents to only use the 10 acres for a salvage yard, and not the entire property. Storm water has been tested on a consistent, periodic basis and has always passed. Mr. Harville stated that the problem he had was that all the cars there in the past had been crushed and moved. Mr. Harville stated that it could end up being 10 acres of junk cars, and as there’s no proffer being offered on the future use of the property, it could legally be sold down the road. Mr. Hagerman questioned on what happened if there was a spillage and had cleanup concerns. Ms. Cody stated the State had given them books with the proper procedures, with the step by step process they must take in case of a spillage, and they had heavy duty equipment on the property to help with clean up as well. Mr. Sides pointed out this hearing was for rezoning only and that if it is rezoned at this meeting, the petitioner would still have to go through the process of obtaining a Special Use Permit and environmental questions brought up tonight would be discuss again before granting that permit. No one else signed up and Mr. Ecker closed the hearing at 7:21pm. Motion came from Ms. Bowman, seconded by Hagerman, to approve Mr. Lester’s request rezone Case 2 from A-1 and R-1 to M-2. Mr. Harville stated he was voting against this based concerns he had on the frequent turnaround of the cars, that would create traffic not intended for that area, of concerns about it becoming the largest salvage yard in the County, and would prefer it remained as it was, with the Grandfather Clause it currently has that prevents the salvage yard from increasing. Ms. Bowman stated her reasons for supporting Mr. Lester’s request to rezone were as follows. She personally visited the property with Mr. Richard Motley, Chatham-Blairs District representative on the Planning Commission, and then went back to visit with Ms. Vernon on her property located behind Mr. Lester’s property. Ms. Vernon has approximately 60 acres located at the top of mountain. Ms. Bowman stated that they stood up, looking down on Mr. Lester’s property, which totals approximately 300 acres, nearly the entire mountain except for the property owned by Ms. Vernon, Mr. Quill, and another owner who was not at the public hearing. Ms. Bowman stated that Mr. Vernon had cleaned up his entire property, and reduced down to the 10 acres in question at this hearing to be used for quick turn-around of salvage cars. Ms. Bowman stated Special Call Meeting January 15, 2013 that the only reason any of that could be seen now was due to the lack of foliage this time of year. Once spring arrives and the trees re-leaf, none of Mr. Lester’s property would be visible to Ms. Vernon. Fencing and trees are around the property in questions and Ms. Bowman has been told this area would be just for the rollbacks to come in and out with the cars. No other adjacent property owners were in opposition with the rezoning request. She understands Ms. Vernon’s concerns, but Ms. Vernon doesn’t leave there and Ms. Bowman feels comfortable in the rezoning. Mr. Harville stated that his only concern is that this request is coming without a property and once it’s rezoned and if the Special Use Permit is granting, there’s nothing to stop it from being sold to anyone else who could turn it into the largest salvage yard in the County. Mr. Barber stated that Mr. Lester used to be partners with someone who sold to CoPart, which is very similar. Mr. Barber stated that most cars involved in accidents have lost their fluids before reaching the salvage yards. Furthermore, Mr. Barber stated that the Board approved Hancock & Sons on Irish Road for a salvage yard, which has been fenced and well kept up. Mr. Barber said that when Mr. Lester began the amphitheater, it was a big controversy, but since it’s not been a problem for the community. The salvage yard on the picture is larger than the 10 acres he wants to use and therefore, has no problem with rezoning the property. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Harville-No; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Ms. Bowman’s motion to approve rezoning Case R-13-002 was approved by a 6-1 majority vote of the Board, with Mr. Harville opposing. Case 3: Edward Dalton – Dan River District; R-13-003 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:31pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development stated the Edward Dalton had petitioned to rezone a total of 19.66 acres, two parcels of land, located on SR 360/Old Richmond Road and SR 713/Oak Grove Road, in the Dan River Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District (to make the zoning consistent with the adjacent parcels of land zoned A-1). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Mr. Dalton was present to represent the case and no one signed up to speak. Mr. Ecker closed the hearing at 7:32pm. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Harville, to approve rezoning Case R-13-003 from R-1 to A-1 to make it consistent with the surrounding property. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Snead’s motion to approve rezoning Case R-13-003 from R-1 to A-1 was unanimously approved by the Board. Case 4: Nicholas J. Baker and Others – Tunstall District; R-13-004 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:33pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development stated that Nicholas J. Baker and Others had petitioned to rezone a total of 37.50 acres, four parcels of land, located on SR 703/Irish Road, in the Tunstall Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District (to make the zoning consistent with the adjacent parcels zoned A-1). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioners’ request. Mr. Tom Baker was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Ecker closed the public hearing at 7:34pm. Motion was made by Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Harville, to grant the petitioners’ request to rezone Case R-13-004 from R-1 to A-1, making in consistent with the surround adjacent parcels zoned A-1. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Barber’s motion to rezone Case R-13- 004 from R-1 to A-1 was unanimously approved. Special Call Meeting January 15, 2013 Case 5: Michael Shelton – Banister District; R-13-005 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:35pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development explained that Michael Shelton had petitioned to rezone 13.24 acres, located on U.S. Highway 29 North in the Banister Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision to B-2, Business District, General (for future sale of the property). The Planning Commission, with opposition, recommended the petitioner’s request be granted with a proffer stating the following conditions: (1) All old junk cars and car parts be removed from the property: (2) The old house located on the property be demolished and cleaned up. The petitioner had submitted a proffer state the above-referenced conditions as requested by the Planning Commission. Mr. Shelton was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Ecker closed the public hearing at 7:36pm. Motion was made by Mr. Barksdale, seconded by Mr. Snead, to rezone Case R-13-005 from R-1 to B-2. Mr. Barksdale stated that the Shelton had already met the requirements of the proffer and provided a confirmation letter from R.G. Jones and Sons excavation confirming the work had been done. In addition, Mr. Barksdale said, the Sheltons had also taken down two trees in consideration of the neighbors, although that wasn’t a requirement of the proffer. Mr. Harville also complimented the Sheltons on the expedience of meeting the proffer requirements. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Barksdale-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Barksdale’s motion to rezone Case R-13-005 was unanimously approved. Case 6: Robert Clinton Nuckles, Jr. – Dan River District: R-13-006 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:39pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development stated that Robert Clinton Nuckles, Jr. had petitioned to rezone 0.45 of an acre (part of 1.27 acres), located on SR 729/Kentuck Road, in the Dan River Election District from B-2, Business District, General to A-1, Agricultural (to combine with the adjacent parcel of land zoned A-1 to construct a single-family dwelling). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Mr. Nuckles was present to present the case. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Ecker closed the public hearing at 7:40pm. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Barber, to rezone Case R-13-006 from B-2 to A-1, in order to make it consist with the A-1 zoning of surrounding properties. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Snead’s motion to rezone Case R-13-006 was unanimously approved by the Board. Case 7: Industrial Development Authority – Dan River District; R-13-007 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:41pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development stated that the Industrial Development Authority of Pittsylvania County, VA, had petitioned to rezone 2.99 acres , located on SR 733/Barker Road, in the Dan River Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision to M-1, Industrial District, Light Industry (for industrial development). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Mr. Sides or Mr. Sleeper offered to answer any questions on the behalf of the Industrial Development Authority. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Ecker closed the public hearing at 7:42pm. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, to approve rezoning Case R-13-007 from R-1 to M-1. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Barber-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Snead’s motion to rezone Case R-13-007 was unanimously approved by the Board. Special Call Meeting January 15, 2013 Case 8: Jack Pruitt – Dan River District; R-13-008 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:44pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development stated that Jack Pruitt had petitioned to rezone 0.827 of an acre (part of 1.22 acres) located on U.S. Highway 58 East/South Boston Highway, in the Dan River Election District from RC-1, Residential Combined Subdivision District to B-2, Business District, General (to be combined with an adjacent parcel of land zoned B-2 and for future lease of the property for truck sales). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Mr. Pruitt was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Ecker closed the hearing at 7:45pm. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, to rezone Case R-13-008 from RC-1 to B-2. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Snead’s motion to rezone Case R-13-008 from RC-1 to B-2 was unanimously approved by the Board. Case 9: R-13-009 - Withdrawn Case 10: Dry Creek Properties, LLC – Chatham-Blairs District: R-13-010 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:46pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development stated that Dry Creek Properties, LLC had petitioned to rezone 5.102 acres (part of 135.50 acres) located on U.S. Highway 29, in the Chatham-Blairs Election District from A-1, Agricultural District to B-2, Business District, General, (to make the zoning consistent with the adjoining parcels of land zoned B-2 and future sale of the property). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the property. Mr. Ramsey Yeatts was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Ecker closed the hearing at 7:47pm. Motion was made by Ms. Bowman, seconded by Mr. Barber, to approve rezoning Case R-13-010 from A-1 to B-2 in order to make the zoning consistent with the adjacent properties. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Snead - Yes; Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; Mr. Harville- Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Ms. Bowman’s motion to approve rezoning Case R13-010 from A-1 to B-2 was unanimously approved by the Board. Case 11: Pauline M. Holland and Others – Tunstall District; R-13-011 Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:50pm. Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development stated that Pauline M. Holland and Others had petitioned to rezone 4.34 acres, located on SR 750/Whitmell School Road in the Tunstall Election District from B-2, Business District, General to R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District (to make the zoning consistent with the adjacent parcels of land zoned R-1). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioners’ request. Mr. Ramsey Yeatts was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Ecker closed the public hearing at 7:49pm. Motion was made by Mr. Barber, seconded by Ms. Bowman, to approve rezoning Case R-13-011 from B-2 to R-1, in order to make the zoning of the property consisting with the adjacent properties. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Barksdale-Yes; Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Barber’s motion to rezone Case R-13-011 from B-2 to R-1 was unanimously approved by the Board. This concluded the rezoning cases. Special Call Meeting January 15, 2013 Public Hearing Pursuant to §15.2-2272(2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia held a public hearing to receive citizen input on the proposed vacation of the following portions of the Mountain Vista Estate Sudivision by Thomas and Jane McLean: Tract A, GPIN #1551-98-9619, 74.22 acres Lot 3, GPIN #1561-19-1451, 17.09 acres; Lot 5, GPIN #1561-28-2624, 7.66 acres; Lot 6, GPIN #1561-09-1994, 43.30 acres; and “Residue”, GPIN #1561-08-8027, 20.25 acres. Mr. Ecker opened the public hearing at 7:52pm. Mr. Seth Elmore, attorney for Thomas and Jane McLean, was present to represent the case. Mr. Elmore state that the Mr. and Mrs. McLean owned Mountain Vista Estate Subdivision located at the intersection of SR 626/Smith Mountain Road and SR 779/Liberty Road, in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. In 2007, the McLeans had sold 4 lots of Mountain Vista Estates to private individuals. In November 2012, the McLeans formally requested via letter to vacate the following properties; Tract A, GPIN #1551-98-9619, 74.22 acres; Lot 3, GPIN #1561-19-1451, 17.09 acres; Lot 5, GPIN #1561-28- 2624, 7.66 acres; Lot 6, GPIN #1561-09-1994, 43.30 acres; and “Residue”, GPIN #1561-08- 8027, 20.25 acres. Mr. Elmore stated this was what was left of their original farm and the subdivision did not develop, that no irrepairable harm would be done to the other landowners who bought lots. It is the intent of the McLeans to re-enter Land Use once the subdivision has been vacated. Mr. Sleeper stated that since lots had been sold, it would be required by State statute that if the Board agreed to vacate the subdivision, it would be necessary to do so by an Ordinance of Vacation, which the County Attorney has prepared, and that if it was approved, this would be the first subdivision of this kind to be vacated in Pittsylvania County. Mr. Sides stated that vacating a subdivision is not a process the County takes lightly and that there is a process that must be gone through. There must be approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Health Department’s approval, and the approval of the County’s Subdivision Agent. In this particular case, there was no new road that was built as part of the subdivision, so all of the lots front on an existing state road. The lots that were sold all have state road frontage. The property in case is completely undeveloped at this point other than the existing residences. It is a very heavily wooded area with rough terrain and Mr. Sides believed that under this particular set of circumstances it was understandable that this case may be one the Board may agree to vacation. Mr. Sides confirmed that owners of the lots that were sold had been contacted concerning this public hearing by certified mail. Mr. Ecker closed the public hearing at 8:00pm. Motion was made by Mr. Hagerman, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, to approve an Ordinance of Vacation of a Subdivision Plat for Mountain Vista Estates, with the typographical corrections. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Hagerman-Yes; Ms. Bowman-Yes; Mr. Barber- Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Barksdale-Yes; and Mr. Ecker-Yes. Mr. Hagerman’s motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Mr. Vaden Hunt, County Attorney, stated for the recorded that under State Code, this ordinance must be held from recording for thirty (30) days to allow someone to object to the vacation. If som eone does object, they have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court. If no one objects during the thirty (30) day period, then the County will file this Ordinance of Vacation in Circuit Court. Special Call Meeting January 15, 2013 Special Call Meeting January 15, 2013 Adjournment Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Barber, to adjourn, which was unanimously approved by the Board. The meeting adjourned at 8:06pm.