Loading...
PC Minutes 02 07 2023February 7, 2023 Regular Meeting Pittsylvania County Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 7, 2023 VIRGINIA: The Regular Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission was held on February 7, 2023, in the Board Meeting Room, 39 Bank Street, SE, Chatham, Virginia. Chairman Nathan Harker, called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. The following members were present: Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Nathan Harker Chairman - Staunton River District Present 6:24 PM Colette Henderson Vice Chairman - Banister District Present 6:22 PM Janet Mease Member - Callands-Gretna District Absent Brian K. Horne Member - Dan River District Present 6:24 PM Gary Oakes Member - Tunstall District Present 6:19 PM Richard Waters Member - Chatham-Blairs District Present 6:24 PM Fred Webb Member - Westover District Present 6:21 PM Darrell Dalton Board of Supervisors Rep Present 6:22 PM HEARING OF CITIZENS Mr. Horne informed the board of former Chairman H.F. Haymore losing his brother and wanted to express his condolences to his family. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Mr. Dalton, seconded by Mr. Waters, and by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote, the agenda was approved as presented. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Darrell Dalton, Board of Supervisors Rep SECONDER: Richard Waters, Member - Chatham-Blairs District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. PC Minutes 01 03 2023 Mr. Webb stated that he had abstained from voting on the approval of the minutes in January, but the recorded minutes show he voted. Mrs. Ragsdale stated the minutes would be revised to reflect the change. A motion was made by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mrs. Henderson, and by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote, the minutes were approved with revisions. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Fred Webb, Member - Westover District SECONDER: Colette Henderson, Vice Chairman - Banister District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Mr. Harker commended staff for their effort each month on preparing the board for the upcoming cases. He reminded members of the audience that would be speaking to speak directly into the microphone so their concerns could be heard. He also reminded the audience that the decision reached on any case tonight would also be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Board of Supervisors. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing: Case R-23-001 Riceville Baptist Church; Rezoning from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District (Henderson) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Riceville Baptist Church has petitioned to rezone 4.0 acres located on State Road 640/Riceville Road in the Banister Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District to allow for a cemetery on a joint church property. Mrs. Ragsdale represented the petition. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. A motion was made by Mrs. Henderson, seconded by Mr. Horne to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Colette Henderson, Vice Chairman - Banister District SECONDER: Brian K. Horne, Member - Dan River District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 2. Public Hearing: Case R-23-002 Joseph Hairston; Rezoning from B-2, Business District, General, to A-1, Agricultural District (Oakes) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Joseph Hairston has petitioned to rezone 0.67 acres located on State Road 622/Cascade Road in the Tunstall Election District from B-2, Business District General, to A-1, Agricultural District to allow for two dwellings on the property. Mr. Hairston represented the petition. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Oakes, seconded by Mr. Dalton to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gary Oakes, Member - Tunstall District SECONDER: Darrell Dalton, Board of Supervisors Rep AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 3. Public Hearing: Case R-23-003 Thompson & Wyatt, Inc; Rezoning from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District; to A-1, Agricultural District (Henderson) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Thompson & Wyatt, Inc., has petitioned to rezone 82.278 acres located on State Road 1004/Pritchett Lane in the Banister Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District to allow for the property to be subdivided. Ronald Thompson represented the petition. Thomas Harris came forward with concerns regarding the petition. He wants to know what changes will be allowed to be made with the property if it is rezoned. Mrs. Ragsdale stated that under the A-1 zoning classification there is a list of permitted uses, any agricultural uses would be allowed. Mr. Harris stated that there is only one inlet/outlet for the property, so he opposes the rezoning. Marie Richardson spoke next on behalf of Mr. Thompson. She stated they are dividing the property to make it more sellable in smaller tracts. She said there are houses on both sides of the ingress/egress, so they are unable to meet the required state-maintained road frontage. Mr. Horne asked if the property is rezoned to A-1, would it need to be rezoned to build a residence on. Mrs. Ragsdale stated they would not need to rezone. Mr. Oakes asked if the purchaser would have to apply for a Special Use Permit if they wanted more than one dog and one horse, Mrs. Ragsdale stated that all uses under section 35-178 are permitted by right and any uses under section 35-179 would require a Special Use Permit. A-1, Agricultural District, allows for agricultural uses without a dwelling on the property. Mrs. Ragsdale explained that incidental agricultural uses are permitted on R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, properties but could not occupy more than five (5) acres. Mrs. Henderson said that she had concerns about future uses and asked if there was any other zoning classification that would be better suited for this property. Mrs. Ragsdale stated that due to the road frontage requirement, A- 1, Agricultural District is the best option for this property. Mr. Harker asked Mr. Harris if his questions were answered. Mr. Harris stated that he is concerned about someone using land across the street as a pasture. He stated that the neighbors do not want the property to be used for that purpose. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. A motion was made by Mrs. Henderson, seconded by Mr. Oakes to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Colette Henderson, Vice Chairman - Banister District SECONDER: Gary Oakes, Member - Tunstall District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 4. Public Hearing: Case R-23-004 Danny Daniel; Rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District (Oakes) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Danny Daniel has petitioned to rezone 0.053 acres located on State Road 834/Jones Mill Road in the Tunstall Election District from A-1, Agricultural District, to R- 1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to consolidate with an adjacent property zoned R-1. Mr. Daniel represented the petition. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Oakes, seconded by Mr. Webb to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gary Oakes, Member - Tunstall District SECONDER: Fred Webb, Member - Westover District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 5. Public Hearing: Case R-23-005 Jessica South Perdue; Rezoning from RC-1, Residential Combined Subdivision District (Horne) to A-1, Agricultural District Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Jessica Perdue has petitioned to rezone 6.0 acres located on Chaney Store Road in the Dan River Election District from RC-1, Residential Combined Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District to allow for placement of an accessory structure. Jessica Perdue represented the petition. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Horne, seconded by Mrs. Henderson to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Brian K. Horne, Member - Dan River District SECONDER: Colette Henderson, Vice Chairman - Banister District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 6. Public Hearing: Case R-23-006 Robert and Virginia Mathewson; Rezoning from RPD, Residential Planned Unit Development, to A-1, Agricultural District (Harker) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director o f Community Development reported that Robert Mathewson has petitioned to rezone 21.65 acres located on Robin Ridge Court in the Stanton River Election District from RPD, Residential Planned Development District, to A-1, Agricultural District to consolidate with an adjacent property zoned A-1. Robert Mathewson represented the petition. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Waters, seconded by Mr. Oakes to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Richard Waters, Member - Chatham-Blairs District SECONDER: Gary Oakes, Member - Tunstall District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 7. Public Hearing: Case R-23-007 Triple S Farms of Ringgold, LLC; Rezoning from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to B-2, Business District, General (Horne) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Triple S Farms of Ringgold, LLC, has petitioned to rezone 3.376 acres located on State Road 655/Tom Fork Road in the Dan River Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to B-2, Business District General to allow for a commercial parking facility and the repair of trucks. Jason Swaringen represented the petition. Brenda Cobbs spoke in opposition of the trucking business operating on this property. There was no other opposition to the petition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Horne, seconded by Mr. Dalton to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Brian K. Horne, Member - Dan River District SECONDER: Darrell Dalton, Board of Supervisors Rep AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 8. Public Hearing: Case R-23-008 Triple S Farms of Ringgold, LLC; Rezoning from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District, General (Horne) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Triple S Farms of Ringgold, LLC, has petitioned to rezone 68.76 acres located on State Road 655/Tom Fork Road in the Dan River Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District to allow for agricultural use. Jason Swaringen represented the petition. Charles Slogan spoke in opposition to the trucking business operating on this property due to the increase in traffic. He also wanted to know when the construction would start. Mr. Swaringen stated that he hoped to start construction by June. He stated that he met with VDOT, and they do not have any issues with the business operating from this parcel. Mrs. Henderson asked how many units would the business service. Mr. Swaringen stated that he has 14 units. Mr. Swaringen stated that most of the employees take the trucks to their homes, and they would not be at this property unless they are needing service. He also said that the trucks fuel at a service station he owns on Riverside Drive in Danville, so it is not convenient to bring them all the way out to this property, reducing the in and out traffic at this property. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Mr. Horne pointed out that this case was not about the trucking business, that it had already been approved to be sent to the Board of Supervisors. He said this case is rezoning for agricultural purposes. He said he has lived in the area for 45 years and this land has always been farmed. A motion was made by Mr. Horne, seconded by Mr. Waters to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Brian K. Horne, Member - Dan River District SECONDER: Richard Waters, Member - Chatham-Blairs District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 9. Public Hearing: CaseS-22-024; Special Use Permit for a Marina and a Public Garage (Mease) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that The Dock at SML, LLC, had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 23.25 acres, located in the Callands-Gretna Election District to allow for a marina, and a public garage. Jeff Wilson represented the petition and presented a PowerPoint presentation. He stated they are currently grand fathered in as a legal, non-conforming use since the marina has been in operation since 1966, and the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1991. He stated that staff said a Special Use Permit is required for any modifications or expansions to the marina. Mr. Wilson said is not in agreement with this, stating that under current RPD, Residential Planned Unit Development District, zoning allows accessory use by right. He stated that this case is not about adding more boat slips specifically, it's not about adding boat storage to the site, at its most basic level. He stated that he would like approval of the Special Use Permit with the removal of the first three conditions, as noted by staff. Mr. Wilson stated they have had many discussions with staff, neighboring property owners, engineers, VDOT and lawyers regarding access to the property and maintenance of Locust Lane. He stated they have met with neighboring property owners in person, on site, virtually, through e-mail correspondence, phone calls, and after hearing from the neighbors that they are requesting a new entrance to the site, or they wanted us to maintain Locust Lane, they have proposed and advised that they would do both. He stated they will one, install a new entrance to the site of Smith Mountain Road, as shown in the site diagram and two, they will assist in the maintenance of the private access road, Locust Lane. He said it should be noted that a legal, long- standing, recorded document that addresses access and maintenance of Locust Lane. He said that this access and maintenance agreement from 1986, twenty (20) years after the property was operating as a commercial Marina property, setting precedent that this access was a commercial marina use. Additionally, he stated they see no documentation or information that the neighboring property owners have done any maintenance to the private access drive. Mr. Wilson said they have been asked to come to an agreement with neighboring property owners regarding access to the site and maintenance to Locust Lane, access and maintenance provisions that are already in place. In addition to the new solutions, he said they have offered to install a new entrance to the site off Smith Mountain Road and assist with maintenance of Locust Lane. He said they will install a new entrance but cannot agree to a punitive condition that removes a long-standing legal access to the site and they ask that it be removed from the recommended approval. He also said that construction entrances are determined and defined at the site plan approval stage. He stated they are simply seeking approval to be a conforming use marina under RPD zoning and, if and when they are able to submit for building permits, they will be working with the county on an appropriate construction site entrance designation. He said they are more than happy to repair any damage to Locust Lane from construction equipment, but the condition that Locust Lane cannot be used as a construction entrance is not in line with their request and they ask that condition number two (2) be removed from the recommended approval of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Wilson also stated that condition requiring the current no-wake buoy be maintained and they must apply for and secure an additional no-wake buoy has nothing to do with Pittsylvania County’s jurisdiction, nor this Special Use Permit application approval. He stated this is a component of operating their Marina with jurisdictional oversight with AEP, TLAC and DWR. He said they have already installed an additional no-wake buoy in the cove at the Marina. Mr. Wilson stated they have gone above and beyond responding to county staff and neighboring property owners and done so on many components that are not even directly related to the Special Use Permit application. They are asking for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of this request with the removal of these three (3) conditions that are not applicable to their property. Several residents signed up to speak opposing this application. Amy Smitherman stated over two years ago a variance was issued in good faith for the marina for less than five (5) acres so the Dock at SML, LLC could deal with AEP, now they are requesting a Special Use Permit for a 12-acre Marina and 11-acres for dry stack boat storage. She stated those two (2) features represent the entire tract. She said last time we were here was April 2021, when the Planning Commission tabled the Special Use Permit application until the May 2021 meeting. She stated the minutes from that meeting state the reason it was tabled was so that the ownership group and the adjacent property owners could meet and discuss concerns and come to an agreement regarding the maintenance of Locust Lane, and were asked to share a sketch of their intended project. She stated that Jeff Wilson was told of the concerns, stating he said they would have gravel put down or fill in the potholes or work with the neighbors of Locust Lane. Ms. Smitherman stated Andy English and Jeff Wilson met with the neighbors in late August 2021, where Jeff Wilson shared they were working with an attorney on a road maintenance agreement. She said he offered to send it to the neighbors to review once the draft was complete. She also said that is the last time that she is aware of anyone in their neighborhood having spoken to either Jeff Wilson or Andy English despite their request. She said at this meeting they also shared a rough draft of their development concept. She stated after the Board tabled that matter for one month to the May meeting, The Dock at SML, LLC, never came back . She said she assumed this table of motion is still in place, but now twenty-two (22) months later, they are here again with an entirely new application for the exact same proposal. She said she feels like they are playing a game and she doesn't know why the County has accepted this application for uses that are not allowed in the RPD zoning. She stated the first thing you do when you buy a lot is ascertain whether you can get water and sewer, you also find out how the property is zoned, these are the basics. RDP is Residential Planned Development Zoning District, The Dock at SML, LLC has owned the property for almost 3 years, they are still fighting or ignoring what is allowed in the RPD zoning. Ms. Smitherman stated now they are seeking a Special Use Permit for a non-conforming use, from what she understands, the non-conforming use cannot be expanded, unless it's bought into compliance with zoning. She said this application does not comply with the RPD zoning district. She said she also understands they haven't worked out how to deal with their sewer yet, stating the sewer issue has not been resolved since porta johns are being used on the property. She said this tells her they are not interested in any residential uses, and they are not doing what they need to do with RPD. Meg Racanelli spoke next, stating they are some of the newer residents of Locust Lane having lived there only 2 1/2 years, so they have been involved with this since it has been going on. She said she likes the marina being there as it brings economy in for the County. She stated her main concerns are the information regarding the application for the garage or the boat storage as well as being against the use, it's a residential neighborhood. She stated she has collected over 200 signatures that she presented to the Board. The petition is in opposition to the large scale of the development and most of all the application that they presented does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. She said she feels that the Special Use Permit should be denied. Mike Racanelli spoke stating the Locust community has taken the time, again and again to entertain this company's request. He said the thought to even allow it to develop in our community impinges and disrupts our community. He said it does not comply with ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. He said this community does not wish to have a company that are less than good neighbors, they have proved that time and time again. He stated that during the busy part of the season, it gets increasingly more dangerous out there, he does not want any more boats. He also said this application does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan, and the members of the community request that the members recommend and deny the Special Use Permit. Ronald Root spoke next and had a letter for the board members, he paraphrased the letter stating there are several problems with this proposal. He stated first of all, the property is zoned RPD, there is no residential package to this plan, secondly the road maintenance, there have been two (2) meetings with the owners that was followed up by an e-mail to him stating they were drafting a road maintenance proposal that has never occurred, and no further conversations regarding road maintenance have taken place. He said there is a long history of this road that has basically been maintained by the neighborhood, and that they have a history of working with the neighbors and keeping the neighborhood in good shape, and that has not been the case with these owners. He said the neighbors have never had a detailed look at the site plan, so the tabling of this earlier proposal did not work. He asked that the board help them collectively stand up and deny or reject this application and proposal until they can work with them, and it's been long, difficult, and painful. Mike Murray stated that he has lived there for five years. He said he has a boat in the marina in a covered lift, so he has a little background on what goes on there. He stated there is not much maintenance that goes on for the roads inside of the marina, not just Locust Lane. He said they stated that would help put rock and gravel on the road in 2021, that's never happened on Locust Lane. He said that even the roads inside of the marina are terrible, there are hills in the marina that you cannot navigate unless you have four-wheel drive because it's so bad. He said boat storage, 100 to 400 boats on a busy weekend where his boat is, you will have a difficult time getting it out. He said right now, he has a hard time because it's so crowded around the marina with people getting gas. He said parking on the weekends will be difficult in the busy season, that he has a difficult time finding a place to park during the winter months. He also said this plan will just not work for the residents, the recommendation should be to deny this proposal, as it is not good for this residential area. Lloyd Ruona stated he lives across the street from the marina. He said the Dock at SML, LLC, is right across the road, and from the plans he has seen, it looks like their parking lot is going to be right across from his house. He said he is concerned about the sounds and the noise. He stated that the neighbors have had very good relationships with the previous owners and do not have any type of relationship with the new owners. He stated he wants to recommend denial. Janice Wiles spoke next, stating they are not against economic development in their area of the lake, they do want The Dock at SML, LLC, to succeed, but as a residential community. She said in the three years as owners of the The Dock at SML, LLC, they have not been a good neighbor, and there have been significant issues with blatant disregard for the no wake zone. She said the manager Chris Baker was observed often leaving with a large wake and even with renters he is instructing. She stated that residents from both sides of the cove have used an air horn, whistled or shouted "No Wake" during these incidents, Mr. Baker responds by going faster and giving the finger to those who are trying to get him to slow down. She said one particular scene unfolded when a resident on Locust Lane, directly across from her lot shouted for Mr. Baker to slow down as he went by their dock. She said Mr. Baker backed up the pontoon boat beside the dock and proceeded to shout foul obscenities, his yelling could be heard throughout the entire cove. She said in this instance the verbal assault continued until Mr. Baker pulled down his pants and mooned the individual who was on the dock with family and friends. She stated that after this incident, all employees of the dock wore t-shirts that displayed "no wake all day" and also tried to sell the t-shirts to raise money for Mr. Baker's attorney costs related to an assault charge against him when he pushed a neighbor of the dock into water. She stated her brother has gone to the dock to ask for the owner's contact information, Mr. Baker told him he was trespassing and if he didn't leave immediately, he would call the police. She said her brother is no longer allowed on the dock property along with five other Locust Lane residents and two from Tanglewood that have been banned by Mr. Baker. She said this is not the atmosphere she desires for the community. She also stated during the summer when the boat traffic is heavy, there are times when the cove is crowded with boats waiting to get gas at the dock, as well as people swimming, kayaking and paddle boarding. She said there is no safe way to introduce hundreds of additional boats to this cove. She also stated they are a residential community with residential zoning, this zoning was in effect long before the Dock at SML, LLC, purchased it. She said this application does not apply to the Zoning Ordinance or the county's Comprehensive Plan, she wants to recommend denial for this case. Debbie Foor stated she has lived on Locust Lane for 21 years, so she has been through more than one ownership of the property. She said the marina can be a great thing to have there, they have always been good neighbors, she was pretty excited when this group purchased it three years ago. She said one of the first things they did was tear down the derelict buildings that needed to come down. She said they did discuss some of their plans but says that has changed course completely from their first meeting. She said she understands that this meeting is about the Special Use Permit so they can start doing some things to the property, but it does include a lot of boat storage, and according to their application of the 23.25 acres which are zoned RPD, 10.52 is a boat storage yard and 12.73 is marina, so there is not really anything there for residential. George Nedriga said they have had a couple of meetings since around August 2021 regarding road maintenance and things of that nature and we still have yet to see a proposal from the Dock regarding road maintenance for Locust Lane. He said they are spending a lot of time planning the development around it and if from what he's seen if it is approved, it's going to be like building a hornet's nest right in the middle of their community, from the vehicular traffic, construction traffic and parking associated with this development. He also said there will be tons of boats going in and out of the cove on top of the number of people that might show up at that facility and it will be a gross imposition of commercial development in this quiet community. He stated that it's already very busy on weekends now when he goes to get fuel and he's glad his kids won't swimming in the waters right off the dock, as this will be a huge safety hazard with the increased traffic. He said to please consider a balance here that will be better for this neighborhood, and he would recommend that the Special Use Permit be denied. Robin Lester spoke next stating she is not in agreement with many of the objections that have been presented, she is in favor of The Dock at SML, LLC, and she wants to see it prosper and to see it renewed. She said she wants the services they are striving to provide the community and vacationers. She said she has taken many walks on the property and said it was run down, dirty and just very unpleasant to the eye to put it nicely. She said she feels this side of the lake has been lacking amenities, and she believes that a nice marina that offers nice docks, cabins, boat rentals, restaurant and a retail business will be a great asset to the community as well as the County. She said they have been rejected very step of the way, she has been to meetings with the meetings with residents of Locust Lane and they were very respectful, and she feels they have their hands full with the residents of Locust Lane. She said she is in complete disbelief of the opposition that the investors and employees have been faced with, she feels that most of the issues they have been faced with that they are unsure of their future due to the uphill battle they've had from day one. She stated they just simply want to upgrade, renew and rebuild. Mr. Harker had Mr. Wilson come back to address comments and concerns regarding the application. He stated most of what has been heard at this meeting is regarding Locust Lane access and maintenance, the other side of the equation of what has been heard tonight is increased boat traffic, wakes in the water, more boats in the water and that the cove hasn't gotten any bigger. Mr. Wilson presented a map showing they will install a new entrance to the site off Smith Mountain Road. He said in regard to the waterfront increased boat traffic, this is an AEP shoreline management plan jurisdiction, there is information in the packet from AEP which further designates this information and the highlights are as follows: Appalachian has reviewed preliminary plans for the development of dock structures along the shoreline and determined that the existing and proposed uses within the project boundary are generally consistent with the shoreline classifications established by SMP. Appalachian notes that commercial uses are already established on upland property and existing dock structures are currently associated with an established commercial use. Appalachian does not object efforts to seek Pittsylvania County's zoning approval, Appalachian already considers the shoreline adjacent to the subject property to be appropriate for high-density commercial uses. Mr. Wilson stated that he will refer back to the most basic request, that they have been asked to talk with neighbors about access and maintenance of Locust Lane, in response to that, they have provided multiple solutions, mainly being they are installing a new access entrance to the property off of Smith Mountain Road. He said hey are more than willing to help neighbors in the maintenance of Locust Lane as needed, but the new access to the property off Smith Mountain Road by default becomes the primary access to the sit e. Mr. Harker asked the Board if they had any questions. Mr. Dalton thanked everyone that spoke tonight on all the concerns and what he is hearing is the biggest concern is the driveway going in off Locust Lane. Mr. Dalton stated he made a site visit and went all the way to the end of that cove. He stated that Locust Lane is the entrance going in there and it is in pretty good shape. He said as you go into the neighborhood it is pretty rough and he knows they do not have anything to do with that, He said he went to the end and turned around, it was pretty much like going down a logging road, gullies washed out and mud holes, but either way a lot of people are saying they want an agreement on that road. He stated that we can't stop fire and rescue and public safety from using that road in emergency situations. He said understands they own the road and they have stated that you are going to put this new entrance in, and he agrees with all of this. He said doesn't like the no wake condition, stating that the Board members or anybody here has nothing to do with Smith Mountain Lake on no wake buoys, that is something the applicant will need to handle with TLAC, then it goes to DWR for final approval. He stated that this Board cannot give approval on any type of buoy. He suggested this condition be removed. He stated that he remembers very busy weekends when the Munson's owned the property and would love for the neighbors and the new owners to come together with any personal issues. He stated it would be great for the community. He said Pittsylvania County owns very little shoreline, most is in Bedford and Franklin counties, Pittsylvania County would love to have some of the revenue generated from this project. He said this is a positive thing, but he also hears the concerns of the neighbors. He said they need to come to an agreement on the entrance and have their road separate. He said emergency vehicles cannot be stopped, make this work and it will be a positive plus for Pittsylvania County. He said he doesn't want revenue that could come to us to go to Bedford or Franklin County, he goes to the lake and enjoys going to this cove to get gas because they are on the Pittsylvania County side, we don't have a lot on our side, so he cannot sit here and promote failure. Mr. Harker had questions for Mr. Wilson regarding the staff recommendations, they are asking for some to be taken out, he wants to make sure he is understanding that correctly. Mr. Wilson says that he is correct. He said they want the first condition, that Smith Mountain Road be used as the sole public access for the property removed. Mr. Harker asked if part of the basis for that is that Locust Lane goes through their property as an easement for the residents of Locust Lane. Mr. Harker said that he has spoken with many of the residents over the last year but especially in the last couple of days. Mr. Harker stated that he had seven e-mails and three letters and a petition, he tends to weigh heavy on what the people that live there say about their experience so far. He stated they were here a little over a year ago, in April of 2021. He said they gave an opportunity to the two parties to sit down and come up with a road maintenance agreement for Locust Lane. Mr. Wilson stated that they did not specifically ask for them to come to some agreement with the neighbors on access and maintenance. Mr. Harker stated that he had a road maintenance agreement between Smith Mountain Dock and Richard Lee Munson, dated September 25, 1986 but he feels that this is the first time most of the residents are hearing of this document, there are no specifics as to what the dues are, a due date, whether there is an acting president or someone enforcing or overseeing the road maintenance agreement, and actually carrying it out and getting the maintenance done. He asked who has been doing the maintenance on Locust Lane. Mr. Wilson said that is a good question, they would like to know that as well. Mr. Harker asked if their company has been doing it. Mr. Wilson said they have not, that they have offered to help. Mr. Harker said that throws up some red flags, as being a developer if you're using that road. Mr. Harker said he lives at the end of an easement road, they have a road maintenance agreement, not an HOA and he says the ball gets dropped all the time on whose job it is to fill the potholes and that kind of thing and that it normally falls on whoever is the most willing. Mr. Harker said he understands that the road is in pretty good shape down to where it accesses the dock business site and from that point on, down Locust Lane, it gets worse and worse, so that tells us two things, most of the traffic would be absorbed on that first part of the road, but it sounds like most of the in and out traffic is by the residents going the length of Locust Lane. He said obviously, the second half of that road is getting the most wear and tear, it is more than likely the residents’ vehicles that are putting the use on that road beyond their business. Mr. Harker asked about condition number 4, remaining in compliance with all Virginia Department of Health regulations. Mr. Harker asked where they stand today with VDH. Mr. Wilson stated that information is in the packet, the CTO, Certificate to Operate from the Department of Health is in there. Mr. Harker said he agreed with Mr. Dalton that he doesn't know how the County could step into that jurisdiction. Mr. Harker stated that it sounds like Mr. Wilson is pretty settled, in other words they're not willing to bend much on this development. Mr. Wilson said he disagrees with that point after follow-up with the neighbors and the meetings they have had with neighbors he would say that Mr. Harker is correct in his assessment of the 1986 maintenance and access agreement, there's no real teeth to that, a component of that is precedent of it being established in 1986. He said it was already a commercial marina in place, and the timing and the uses of that when they met with the neighbors and had follow-up with the neighbors, he has e-mail documentation on the follow-up from those meetings, proposed multiple solutions, so they have been more than flexible. He stated one, a new entrance off Smith Mountain Road, two- they will help maintain Locust Lane, three-this is more of a continual component, they would like to work with the residents to get a new road maintenance in place, but that is a very long-term process since there is no current Property Owners Association or formation of a group to help enact and get the road maintenance agreement in place. He said they have stated in their response in addition to the solutions provided, they feel they have addressed the concerns previously presented. He said they also want to see if a road maintenance agreement specific to Locust Lane can be worked out, while the dock would administer and manage the agreement, they need someone to assist in taking the lead to help coordinate the communication with all involved. He also said they are working with an attorney to put together legal language for such a road maintenance agreement which would be a formal, legal, recorded document that outlines and constitutes maintenance and upkeep to the private drive and what roles and responsible parties would play and pay, this is a very long-winded process that they are more than flexible and open and working with them on. He said in the meantime, they would like to be good neighbors and help maintain it, neighbors have borrowed gravel from their site to fill potholes. He said they cannot be held hostage at this stage to move forward on a road maintenance agreement where they can't require the neighbors to sign and take action on it. They have taken the initiative to put it before them, they need them to help follow up on it and make sure it gets signed. Mr. Harker said that it sounds like an olive branch has been extended to get the road addressed. Mr. Waters asked Mrs. Ragsdale to explain the RPD zoning to everyone and exactly what it states and if they are currently in compliance or not. Mrs. Ragsdale explained that RPD zoning designation is residential planned development district and that means it gives you an opportunity to mix residential and commercial uses within a residential district. She stated you create a development plan and then construct to that. She stated when the property was rezoned to RPD in 2006, a plan was submitted at that time showing residential, and the applicant had submitted a conceptual plan in the packet which you all have showing locations of proposed residential uses. She stated the Comprehensive Plan states traditional neighborhood design which incorporates both commercial and residential uses together is appropriate for the medium to high density residential use should be used in RPD. Mrs. Ragsdale said currently the public garage is a proposed use and is a use allowed by special use permit under RPD as a stand-alone use, a marina is also allowed by special use permit under the RPD as a stand-alone use. She stated the applicant did submit a conceptual plan showing restaurants and some other commercial uses that would also require a special use permit but only once residential was located on the property as those commercial uses are not a stand-alone commercial use that's allowed by RPD. Mr. Oakes asked about the road since the dock owns it and the community and the ones using it would want to help to maintain it he also says that it shouldn't hold up what they want to do with the dock because of the road. He also said as far as the boat storage it's a pretty rolling road and will require some grading, this will take lots of money so that people can enjoy the lake. He stated that he thinks we need to look at having a border from the road, planting trees so the storage sheds aren't visible from the neighborhood. He said he feels this will prosper and we would like to keep the revenue in the county. He also said with the additional traffic, it will be tight in there at times, but he feels this is no reason to shut it down, when someone wants to make the dock better and improve it and make improvements for the community this is a good thing. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Dalton asked Mrs. Ragsdale if any changes to the recommendations need to be put into the motion and change for the record. Mrs. Ragsdale stated that the recommendations to be removed need to be stated. Mr. Dalton made the motion for approval for the case to go before the BZA with the conditions that there is an agreement on the entrance road and the neighbors. He would like for the no wake buoy to be removed as the county does not have anything to do with that, he would also like for the new entrance to be added. For clarification, Mrs. Ragsdale asked if number three was being removed, Mr. Dalton answered yes. Mrs. Ragsdale asked if number one was being removed or modified, Mr. Dalton stated he wanted to modify number one. Mrs. Ragsdale asked what type of agreement specifically, a road maintenance agreement. Mr. Dalton stated the road needs to be useful for public safety, fire and rescue and that can't be eliminated. Mr. Dalton said everything else is clear, they must remain in compliance with the Virginia Department of Health and also with AEP on their regulations. Motion made my Mr. Dalton, seconded by Mr. Oakes. Motion passed by a five (5) to two (2) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 2] MOVER: Darrell Dalton, Board of Supervisors Rep SECONDER: Gary Oakes, Member - Tunstall District AYES: Henderson, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton NAYS: Harker, Horne ABSENT: Mease 10. Public Hearing: CaseS-23-001 Appalachian Power Company; Special Use Permit for Public Utilities (Transmission Line) (Horne) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Appalachian Power Company has petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 0.34 acres, located in the Dan River Election District to allow for public utilities. Jonathan Schultz represented the case. There was no opposition to the case. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Horne, seconded by Mr. Webb to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the special use permit. Motion passed by a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Brian K. Horne, Member - Dan River District SECONDER: Fred Webb, Member - Westover District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Horne, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton ABSENT: Mease 11. Public Hearing: CaseS-23-002 Hillandale Solar, LLC; Special Use Permit for a Utility Scale Solar Energy Facility (Harker) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development reported that Hillandale Solar, LLC, has petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 1,555.39 acres, located on State Road 639/Honeybee Road, State Road 761/Straightstone Road, State Road 603/Watts Road, State Road 668/Cody Road, State Road 669/Melon Road located in the Banister/Staunton River Election District to allow for a utility scale solar facility. Dan Michaud, a project developer of Strata Clean Energy, represented the petition. He stated that Strata has been working on this project for nearly five years and have done lots of community outreach throughout this project process. He presented a PowerPoint presentation. He stated Strata was founded in 2008 and are headquartered in Durham, NC. He said they are a family-owned company with over 400 employees. He also said they have successfully constructed over 280 projects with over $3.5 billion invested. Mr. Michaud stated they have built twelve (12) projects in Virginia for Dominion Power that range in size from 15 megawatts to 200 megawatts. He also stated they operate and maintain 35 facilities under contract for Dominion. He said this project is twelve (12) parcels of land that total just over 1,500 acres. He stated they are proposing solar panels on about 450 acres and the rest of the land will serve as landscape buffers. He said project information was sent out to adjacent property owners, and they were invited to an open house that was hosted at the Hurt Motley Community Center on August 4, 2022. He said a second letter was sent out January 6, 2023, with more information about the project. He said they answered questions regarding panel installation and where that was relative to adjacent property. Mr. Michaud stated this project would generate revenue directly to the County via a siting agreement, increase property taxes, would create approximately 350 construction jobs, and create significant opportunities for local businesses. He stated this project would also be an opportunity for landowners to earn an income with relatively passive use of the land once the project is operating. He stated they have entered into a siting agreement with the County that was approved by the Board of Supervisors and the County will be paid nearly 9 million dollars during the life of the project with a substantial amount of the payment to be paid out by the first year of operations. Mr. Michaud stated that per the site plan map, they have plenty of land to ensure that setbacks and vegetative screening are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He said this is a very well-hidden site and most properties have mature timber that is 25 feet or higher and they will work with landowners to preserve these areas for screening so they can minimize planting new, smaller buffers, but rather preserve the existing buffer and clear inside for the solar panels. He also said panels will be set 150 feet from property lines, 250 feet from any residential property lines and have a 100-foot vegetative buffer. He stated the substation that they will connect to the transmission line is located directly below the transmission line, so there will not a need for any additional overhead transmission lines to be built to interconnect this project to the transmission grid. Mr. Dalton asked about the erosion and sediment control, and if the retention ponds would stay in place after the project is complete. Mr. Michaud stated the ponds will remain in place. Mr. Waters asked if they are currently working on any facilities in the County, and if so, where are they. Mr. Michaud says they did not develop the Sycamore project, but they are the construction contractor. Several residents spoke regarding the project. Charles Bates spoke, stating this is a Ruth Goldberg scam all the way from the White House all the way down to Pittsylvania County He stated the Board does not realize how much power it takes to generate this project with the material that's actually being made. He said as a forester and wild-life biologist, we are losing habitat, and forest land. He said right now it takes ten (10) acres, four (4) days of sunshine to produce one (1) megawatt from one of these panels. He said we're getting stuck looking at the ugliness of these things around our County. He has been flying over this county for 50 years and the reflection is ugly, driving down the road it's ugly, and he is not in favor of any projects, not just this one in this county. He said he does not think it will benefit this county whatsoever, it's not a benefit to this country. Jeff Daum spoke next, and he stated he objects to the construction traffic. He said would like to know which direction the construction traffic will be coming from, if it will come off 40 or it it's coming from Straightstone Road. He said there is a small bridge on 639 that goes over Buffalo Creek that will not handle heavy traffic. He also was concerned about runoff in Straightstone Creek and out of Buffalo Creek, stating Buffalo Creek runs through his property and he does not want the impact of that on the wildlife. Skylar Zunk spoke in favor of the project; he is a co-founder of a non-profit called Energy Right with co-founder Blake Cox. Being the largest county in the state, he thanked Pittsylvania County for all that has been done putting solar energy on the grid and powering more homes and businesses than any other locality. Marcus Gray spoke next in support of this project. He stated having additional projects here in Pittsylvania County provides this immense opportunity for furthering agriculture. He stated that it may not be traditional uses here in the county, but there are new opportunities where we can build a brighter future for Ag and create business sustainability for agricultural producers into the 21st century. He said the average number of sheep in the Commonwealth per farm is normally 25-30 animals and they are currently grazing over 2,000 acres of solar in Southside Virginia and currently have 430 ewes. He said that as projects are developed, over time they get better for sheep as vegetation matures and ground coverage gets better, and they can use the animals to actually promote that condition. He said they have been able to grow their business here in Southside Virginia, but there are opportunities to continue to grow with the amount of acres that have already been approved in the county. William Case spoke next, stating that his home is right in the middle. He said he has been doing research on solar panels and by the year 2050, there will be 78 million tons of scrap, he thought we were going green, this is destruction of habitat, if you come to his place, you will see the destruction. He said he is angry because the last time he was here, he wasn't heard, and he made sure he was heard this time. Joel Cathey spoke next, stating he lives in Charlotte County, but he owns part of the land that is under consideration for this project. He said he supports this project and says that Charlotte County has a fair amount of solar. He said the property taxes were reduced because of the benefits that came into the county from solar. He stated that solar doesn't send kids to school or have fire trucks come out, it doesn't create trash that has to be picked up, so it's a good opportunity for the county to get revenue without having to have services for backing it up. Jessica Taylor spoke next, stating she lives 45 minutes from where she works. She said she likes living in the country, she enjoys the view on the drive home, she could easily live 10 minutes from work and live in the city, but she likes living in the country. She said she sees deer, bears, turkeys, bald eagles near her home. She also stated there is a bald eagle habitat at the river where they will be installing solar panels, and she doesn't know if that's a big deal or a consideration. She said that the small landowners who do not have land to lease do not want to look out their window to see solar panels. She stated she knows they will have buffers and be 250 feet off of property lines, but they will still see them in every direction, and she doesn't live in the country to look out of her window to see solar panels. She said she feels the long-term effects of this have yet to be seen, exactly what this is going to do to the land around us. She said she knows it will generate profit and revenue for the county and the landowners that are choosing to lease their land out for this reason, but for the people that are stuck in these small land owner spots, she has lived there since 2010 and feels if she tried to sell her home that she would not get what her home is worth due to panels being visible in all four directions. She stated there is no other commercial uses in the area, it is very rural and no other pull to get people to the area, other than it being in the country. She said this is going to affect her negatively when she tries to sell her home. She said the Board is there for the people of the County and to look at environmental impact on the citizens, and she would like for the special use permit to be denied. Thomas Case spoke saying he will be surrounded by solar panels and would not like for the application to be considered. Jimmy Blanks spoke next stating he is a contributing landowner for this project and is all for it. He said he also has adjoining land that will be affected by this project. He said he thinks it will be good for the County, he says taxes are too high now and anything that we can do to keep them from going up again, he's all for it. He also said that if you look at a map of Pittsylvania County, that most of this land is considered marginal for growing pine trees and is not good for anything else. Judy King spoke next stating she lives on White's Road that will be connecting to the project and she has children that like to hunt and fish and says this is going to make a big impact on hunting and riding four-wheelers and things like that. She said she thinks economically it is a good thing for the County but to look at it and what your children will be left with, it's very sad and she is not in favor of it. Ginger Shotwell said she has lived on her farm for 50 years and she hates to see what it will do to the farms around her, she thought agricultural zoning was to protect agricultural land in our County, we are losing so much agricultural land in the state. Mike Morano spoke next in opposition, stating he moved here from New England 10 years ago and he has watched the way this has grown. He said it has destroyed one of the reasons he is here, he used to fly small airplanes and when he flew over this section of the country 20 years ago, he looked down and said what a pretty place, he compared it to Western Kentucky. He said he is an aerospace engineer and the benefits of it, they're short three percent. He said in twenty-five (25) years, you'll see deserted solar farms with technology changing. Mr. Harker called Mr. Michaud back to address any questions or concerns. Mr. Michaud addressed comments regarding subsidies or tax credits coming from Washington, stating all energy sources are direct beneficiaries of tax credits if it's fossil fuels or coal. He said typically, those tax credits are when those fuels are produced, so it's not quite accurate to say that solar projects are only economic because of tax credits, there are tax credits across all energy. He said as far as the prices go, Dominion's last approved rate increase from the state Corporation Commission was seeking approval for adding fourteen dollars per month to the Virginia rate payers electric bills because of higher gas prices that's fourteen dollars per month, but the last round of procurement was approximately 800 megawatts of solar and that was expected to increase electric bills by 30-38 cents per month so the more we bring renewables into the energy mix we will see the benefits on our bill. He also said that as far as wildlife goes, they are proposing to fence off 450 of solar panels within 1,555 acres of parcels strung together the fences are designed to allow for wildlife corridors so wildlife is able to pass through the acreage of the outside fence line. He stated that the traffic management plan is scrutinized by the planning department prior to approving the site plan so they work to find the most optimal routes to minimize impact on the community. He also stated that the industry has come a long way in Virginia and they have learned and in particular the solar ordinance here has become more stringent for good reason. He stated he knows the Climax project has been controversial and everyone has learned a great deal from that. He said they avoid sensitive habitat so when they start to develop these projects, they have wildlife scientists and experts review their areas for sensitive habitat if anything is found, it adjusts their construction schedule. Mr. Michaud stated that the Northern long-eared bat was recently added to the list of endangered species and if you have bat habitat on your site, you can only clear trees during certain periods of the year to avoid their hibernation. He also addressed comments concerning the view shed, stating they have a view shed analysis that shows the view impacts of the facility with and without screening so they have the benefit of very mature timber on most of the parcels, so they will not need to plant screening in most locations, only where there is no screening will plant on the properties that require it. Sam Sink addressed runoff issues and how it will be kept out of Straightstone Creek and erosion and sediment control issues, stating designs in regard to storm water are taken very seriously. He said Strata starts every site with an evaluation, they do not just take information from other developers, they do the work themselves and hire consultants with very specific scopes of work that know their product and construction techniques to understand the geology and hydrology and every aspect of the site that makes it unique. He said they have built on many different types of land, they have had projects on historic agriculture that was row crops, timberland, both in the lowlands of eastern Virginia and in some of the highlands in areas with a lot more topography and areas with different types of watersheds. He stated they take all of that information early on and develop plans that are very specific to the site with a focus on drainage areas and how the run-off will be controlled and try to minimize the amount of runoff that will go to any specific stormwater measure. He said generally speaking, they take about twenty (20) acres as a maximum that they would treat with any single pond. He also stated that the ponds will remain on site during the life of the project. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. A motion was made by Mrs. Henderson, seconded by Mr. Oakes to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the special use permit with conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed by a six (6) to one (1) vote. RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 1] MOVER: Colette Henderson, Vice Chairman - Banister District SECONDER: Gary Oakes, Member - Tunstall District AYES: Harker, Henderson, Oakes, Waters, Webb, Dalton NAYS: Horne ABSENT: Mease OLD BUSINESS Mrs. Ragsdale reminded the board if the next bi-monthly zoning ordinance update meeting on Thursday March 9, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. NEW BUSINESS There will be one special use permit case for the month or March. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. ___________________________ Mr. Nathan Harker-Chairman ___________________________ Robin S. Vaughan-Clerk