10/12/2010PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
October 12, 2010
MINUTES
VIRGINIA: The Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Tuesday, October 12, 2010, in the General District Courtroom, Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition, Chatham, Virginia.
Mr. Talbott called the meeting to order at approximately 6:50 p.m. Mr. Easley gave the invocation. Mr. Shelton called the roll.
PRESENT
Kenneth Talbott
R. Allan Easley
Larry Estes
Mrs. Helen Glass
Ronald Merricks
Carroll Yeaman
Odie H. Shelton, Jr.
ABSENT
H. Blair Reynolds
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
By motion of Mr. Easley, seconded by Mr. Estes, and by unanimous vote the Minutes of the August 10, 2010, meeting were approved as presented.
Old Business
Mr. Shelton updated the Board on the proposed changes to the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance and presented several handouts to the Board members, which included definitions of Non-Emergency
Medical Transport, Emergency Medical Transport and Internet Sweepstakes Cafés. There was then a general discussion regarding the Non-Emergency Medical Transport, Emergency Medical Transport
and Internet Sweepstakes Cafés.
New Business
Mr. Shelton reported there will be two (2) Special Use Permit cases, one (1) Variance Permit case and one (1) Sign Permit case for the November cycle.
Mr. Shelton also reported that Mr. Reynolds’, Mr. Easley’s and Mrs. Glass’ terms will be expiring on January 16, 2011. Mr. Easley and Mrs. Glass stated that they would be willing to
serve another five year term. Mr. Shelton will contact Mr. Reynolds regarding his willingness to serve another term.
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 12, 2010
Page 2
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
There was no Chairman’s report.
THE ZONING PRECEPTS WERE READ BY Mr. Talbott to OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING at
approximately 7:05 p.m.
Case S-1, Patricia Ann Barclift, S-10-010 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:07 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported that Patricia Ann Barclift
had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 0.58 acre, located on State Road 1021/Long Short Road, in the Banister Election District (for non-emergency medical transport). Patricia Barclift
was present to represent the petition. She stated that she had nothing to add. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:08
p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole and determined that there were no adverse effects. Upon motion of Mr. Merricks, seconded by Mr. Easley, the following
motion was adopted: Whereas, Patricia Ann Barclift has petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Special Use Permit for non-emergency medical transport and, Whereas, we find no substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance,
I move the Special Use Permit be granted. Motion passed unanimous.
This concludes the Special Use Permit case.
Case V-1, Phillip L. Barnett, V-10-001 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:10 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported that Phillip Barnett had
petitioned for a Variance on 5.16 acres, located on State Road 1081/Meadowridge Court, in the Callands-Gretna Election District to Section 35-231, Maximum Number Of Units Allowed (for
placement of a second dwelling, a single-wide mobile home, to be used for the care of the elderly parents). Phillip Barnett was present to represent the petition. He stated that he
had nothing to add. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:11 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of
the Whole and determined that there were no adverse effects. Upon motion of Mr. Easley, seconded by Mr. Estes, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, Phillip L. Barnett has petitioned
the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Variance to Section 35-231, Maximum Number Of Units Allowed, of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance and, Whereas, the application does fulfill
the minimum requirements for a variance from the provisions of the ordinance and, Whereas, the board finds that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship,
that the hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity, that the authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance and, Whereas, the condition or situation of the property concerned is
not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance, I move the Variance
be granted.
With the following conditions:
(1) The dwelling is to be for the sole use of the parents of Julie Barnett.
(2) The dwelling is to be removed within ninety (90) days of Mrs. Barnett’s parents no longer residing
in the home.
Motion passed unanimous.
Board of Zoning Appeals
October 12, 2010
Page 3
This concludes the Variance case.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:25 p.m.
_____________________________
Kenneth Talbott, Chairman
_____________________________ Kathy H. Belton, Clerk