Loading...
06/14/2011PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING June 14, 2011 MINUTES VIRGINIA: The Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, in the General District Courtroom, Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition, Chatham, Virginia. Mr. Talbott called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 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 H. Blair Reynolds Odie H. Shelton, Jr. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES By motion of Mr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. Estes, and by unanimous vote the Minutes of the May 10, 2011, meeting were approved as presented. Old Business There was no old business. New Business Mr. Shelton reported there were no cases for the July 2011 cycle. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT There was no Chairman’s report. THE ZONING PRECEPTS WERE READ BY Mr. Talbott to OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING at approximately 7:01 p.m. Case S-1, Mark Pickrel, S-11-007 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:02 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported Mark Pickrel had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 2.09 acres, located on State Road 662/Dodson Road, in the Dan River Election District for meat processing – not a slaughter house. Mr. Shelton further reported the Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Mr. Pickrel was present to represent the petition. Mr. Pickrel stated he had nothing to add. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:03 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole and determined there were no adverse effects. During the discussion it was stated this was a good location for the facility and there was a facility like this in the Keeling community. Upon motion of Mr. Merricks, seconded by Mr. Easley, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, Mark R. Pickrel has petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Special Use Permit for meat processing – not a slaughter house and, Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 June 14, 2011 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. Case S-2, James & Gale Mitchell, S-11-008 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:05 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported James and Gale Mitchell had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on .86 of an acre, located on State Road 640/Wards Road, in the Staunton River Election District for non-emergency medical transport. Mr. Shelton further reported the Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Mr. Mitchell was present to represent the petition. Mr. Mitchell stated he had nothing to add. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:06 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole and determined there were no adverse effects. During the discussion it was stated the Mitchells had been in business for some time and were just coming before the Board to be in compliance. Upon motion of Mr. Easley, seconded by Ms. Glass, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, James I. Mitchell, Sr., and Gale H. Mitchell have 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 Cases. Case V-1, V-11-002, Martha Harville Clark and Others – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:07 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported Martha Harville Clark and Others had petitioned for a Variance on 1.27 acres, more or less, located on State Road 750/Mount Cross Road, in the Westover Election District to Section 35-222, Permitted Uses, of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance for placement of a single-wide mobile home to be used for the care of their elderly mother. Mr. Shelton further reported the Planning Commission, with opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Mr. Shelton stated that the single-wide mobile home will belong to James Edward Harville and he would like to live there to take care of his elderly mother and the mobile home would be removed from the property when Mr. Harville no longer resides in the mobile home. Mr. Shelton further stated he had talked with the Harville family and if this did not satisfy the neighborhood or if they prefer a special use or something they would like withdrawal without any time limitation to repetition. Mr. James Edward Harville was present to represent the petition. Several questions were asked of the applicant regarding who would be living in the mobile home and was it to be placed there for the care of Essie Harville. The applicant was also asked if a condition was placed on the Variance that the home would have to be removed when Essie Harville no longer resided on the property, would that be acceptable. Mr. Harville stated it would not because of the expense of placing the home. Howard Smart, Kathy Hilton, Andrew Hilton, Carolyn Gibson, Peggy Harville, George Stanhope, Barbara Hudson, Nancy Smith, Karen Maute and Michael Pearson spoke in opposition to the petition. Some of their concerns were devaluation of property due to the placement of the home. They also discussed the existing mobile homes in the area. It was also stated that a Variance was not the proper petition for this case and did not fit the application. Mr. Harville stated he did not have a rebuttal but had possibly filed the wrong application. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:37 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole. Some of the issues discussed were consistency in making the decision and removal and occupancy of the mobile home. The following motion was drafted: Whereas, Martha Harville Clark, and others, James Edward Harville, and others, Coy Emmett Harville, and others, Madeline Harville Morris, and others, and Earl Ricky Harville, and others, have petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Variance to Section 35-222, Permitted Uses, and Whereas, the application does not fulfill the minimum requirements for a Variance from the provisions of the ordinance and Whereas, the application does not fulfill the requirements of a variance without conditions and, Whereas the Board finds that the authorization of the Variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property as a permanent detriment and that the character of the district will not be permanently changed by the granting of the Variance and, Whereas, the conditions or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or recurring a nature as to make reasonable practicable the formulation of a general Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 June 14, 2011 regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the Ordinance. I move the Variance be adopted with the following conditions: The mobile home shall be removed within 90 days of Ms. Essie Harville vacating 1365 Mt. Cross Road. The mobile home is for the exclusive use of James E. Harville. Mr. Talbott then asked Mr. Harville if these conditions were acceptable and he stated they were not. The motion died from lack of a second. Upon motion of Mr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. Estes, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, Martha Harville Clark, and others, James Edward Harville, and others, Coy Emmett Harville, and others, Madeline Harville Morris, and others, and Earl Ricky Harville, and others, have petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Variance to Section 35-222, Permitted Uses, and Whereas, the application does not fulfill the minimum requirements for a variance from the provisions of the ordinance and, Whereas strict application of the ordinance would not impose a hardship approaching confiscation, I move the Variance be denied. Motion passed unanimous. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m. _____________________________ Kenneth Talbott, Chairman _____________________________ Hannah Orgain, Clerk