Loading...
BZA Packet 05 09 2022 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REGULAR MEETING Monday, May 9, 2022 – 6:00 PM Board Meeting Room 39 Bank Street, SE, Chatham, Virginia 24531 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MOMENT OF SILENCE IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. BZA Minutes 04_11_2022 VII. OLD BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT X. PUBLIC HEARING Regular Meeting - May 9, 2022 Pursuant to Article V, Division 7 of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance, we the Board of Zoning Appeals have been empowered to hear and decide specific applications and appeals in support of said ordinance. In accomplishing this important task we are charged with promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Pittsylvania County. We must insure that all our decisions and recommendations be directed to these goals and that each be consistent with the environment, the comprehensive plan and in the best interest of Pittsylvania County, its citizens and its posterity. Anyone here to speak to the board, other than the applicant, regarding zoning cases will be limited to (3) three minutes. 1. Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast; Special Use Permit for a Permanent Sawmill 2. Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan; Special Use Permit for a Double-Wide Mobile Home XI. ADJOURNMENT Board of Zoning Appeals STAFF SUMMARY Case: BZA Minutes 04_11_2022 District: Zoning Request: Agenda Date: May 09, 2022 Meeting History: 6.1 Packet Pg. 3 April 11, 2022 Regular Meeting Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting April 11, 2022 VIRGINIA: The Regular Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals was held on April 11, 2022, in the Board Meeting Room, 39 Bank Street, SE, Chatham, Virginia. Chairman R. Allan Easley, called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. The following members were present: Attendee Name Title Status Arrived R. Allan Easley Chairman Present 5:22 PM Ronald E. Merricks Vice-Chairman Present 5:25 PM Ryland Brumfield Board Member Present 5:22 PM Joseph A. Craddock Board Member Present 5:23 PM Ann Deering Board Member Present 5:23 PM Hershel Stone Board Member Present 5:27 PM Carroll Yeaman Board Member Present 5:27 PM APPROVAL OF AGENDA Upon motion of Mr. Stone, seconded by Mr. Yeaman, and by a unanimous vote, the agenda was approved as presented. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Hershel Stone, Board Member SECONDER: Carroll Yeaman, Board Member AYES: Easley, Merricks, Brumfield, Craddock, Deering, Stone, Yeaman APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. BZA Minutes 02 07 2022 Upon motion of Mr. Yeaman, seconded by Mr. Merricks, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes were approved as presented. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Carroll Yeaman, Board Member SECONDER: Ronald E. Merricks, Vice-Chairman AYES: Easley, Merricks, Brumfield, Craddock, Dee ring, Stone, Yeaman OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Ragsdale stated there will be three (3) Special Use cases for the month of May. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT There was no Chairman's Report. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: BZA Minutes 04_11_2022 (3140 : BZA Minutes 04_11_2022) PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case S-22-003 Firefly Solar, LLC; Special Use Permit for a Utility Scale Solar Energy Facility Mr. Easley opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that Firefly Energy, LLC., petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 3,791.95 acres, (19 parcels of land) located off State Road 58/South Boston Highway, State Road 713/Rock Springs Road, State Road 712/White Ridge Road, State Road 62/Milton Highway, State Road 899/Cardwell Lane, State Road 656/Kerns Church Road, and State Road 970/Pounds Road, in the Dan River Election District. Jayce Walker, Development Manager with Firefly Energy, LLC., was present to represent the petition. Mr. Walker stated that 1,375 acres will be used for the project, and it will generate $12.25 million for the county. He stated that this use will generate more tax revenue than the properties in their current use. Mr. Merricks asked about tillable land. Mr. Walker stated that he did not have that number but said that most of the land is in timber at the moment and very little is being used for agricultural purposes at this time. Mr. Merricks asked who will own the project. Mr. Walker stated that Firefly Energy, LLC owns the project, but it will transfer ownership to AEP. Mr. Easley asked about the connection between Recurrent Energy and Firefly LLC. Mr. Walker stated that Firefly is a business that operates under Recurrent Energy so ownership can be transferred easily. Mr. Easley opened the floor for discussion with residents that had signed up to speak. First to speak was John Walters. He stated that only large landowners will make money from this project and very little energy will be consumed by Pittsylvania County. He also stated that AEP does not supply energy to the Ringgold area and City of Danville does not purchase power from AEP. Ronda Guthrie from Halifax County spoke next, stating that she lives in the middle of a solar farm and says it makes noise like swarms of bees. She stated that she is 800 feet from the property with a tree buffer. Larry Burnette spoke next. He stated that he has lived in this community his entire life, and this will help with taxpayers and large companies that require energy. Melvin McAnn spoke next in favor of the project. Next, Josh Burnette spoke, stating that he has heard pros and cons on this project - adding jobs, reducing carbon footprint, and the cons seem to be aesthetically displeasing. Skylar Zunk spoke next on behalf of the Virginia Land and Liberty Coalition, a project of conservatives for clean energy. He sated they ardently support private property rights and an individual's right to do on their property what they please while respecting all neighbors without adverse effects. Denise Sheffield spoke next, stating that she strongly opposes the solar farm coming so close to her home. Raymond Sheffield spoke next, stating that he is against the project being so close to his home. He said that he found out about the project within 9 months of purchasing their home. He also played audio of a solar farm that is in operation to demonstrate the noise allegedly produced. Amanda Cox with AEP spoke next in support of the project. She stated that AEP will purchase the project from Firefly, LLC, upon completion. She said AEP currently serves about 2,000 customers in Pittsylvania County and several Industries. She also stated that they are building transmission service in the station to Berry Hill Mega Site, so they are very invested in our community. She also stated that development prospects consistently ask about renewable energy and this project will be very important to Berry Hill. She said that AEP is transitioning to low carbon solutions like many others while helping support local communities with increased tax base and job creation. She stated that AEP is a strong community partner and they have been around for over a hundred years. William Powell spoke next saying that the power on the grid will go north, south, east, or west, going to the point of least resistance. He said that the property owners have the right to do what they want with their land. Chuck Angier spoke next, stating that 15,000 acres of Pittsylvania County farmland, with the 6.1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: BZA Minutes 04_11_2022 (3140 : BZA Minutes 04_11_2022) exception of one golf course, have been converted over to solar usage. He stated he is all for solar, but the County really needs to think about what's happening to the farmland. Mr. Easley stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals does not set the ordinances for Pittsylvania County, that is the job of the Board of Supervisors. He stated that the duty of the Board of Zoning Appeals is to look after the Ordinance as best as they can. Mr. Easley said that any concerns could be taken up with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Walker came back to thank everyone that spoke and to answer any questions. He stated that Firefly Solar LLC, requested a waiver for training for battery energy storage because there is no battery storage at this site. He also stated that the Ordinance once required setbacks of 35 feet, 15 feet of which had to be comprised of a vegetative buffer. The County then shut down solar development with a radius type moratorium but then reopened under the requirement that setback would be 150, or 200 feet from property lines with residences on them. He stated that throughout the perimeter of their site, they are either set back 150 feet from the property line or 200 feet where a residence is on the neighboring property. He stated the setbacks had been adjusted near the Sheffield's property from 200 feet to 410 feet to the nearest solar panel. He also stated that the nearest inverter had been moved further away to over 800 feet and the collection line had been moved to the other side of the project to conserve as much timber as possible on the eastern side of the project. He also stated that Firefly Solar LLC offered to bring out a visual consultant to conduct an analysis to show what would be visible from the Sheffield's property. He also stated that the amount of farmland on this project is very minimal compared to a typical solar facility. Mr. Walker stated that in this case it is a vast majority of commercial timber, so it's not removing very much prime farmland from production whatsoever. A noise study was submitted that was conducted on the Water Strider facility as part of their application stating that by the time the noise that is generated by the inverters reaches the fence line of the project, it is below ambient noise levels and that's typically around 45 decibels. He stated that the study found that by the time you're at the fence line the noise emitted by the inverter is less than 40 decibels, so that is less that of the ambient noise in the area. Mr. Brumfield asked if Firefly Energy LLC has met with Mr. Walters who lives across the road and Mr. Walker said that they have. Mr. Walker stated that Larry Burnette actually increased the setback ahead of time for his neighbors in the area. There are two examples on Cardwell Lane: one is a large pasture that makes great sense for a solar facility, but Mr. Burnette withdrew that parcel all together from the project to protect the view shed of Ms. Bass who is across the street and the primary access route that was moved to the north of Cardwell Lane to cut down on noise and traffic during the construction period. Mr. Easley asked how many vehicles would be coming and going on a daily basis once the project is complete. Mr. Walker stated that would be determined by AEP in their maintenance agreement, but that there are usually 3-5 full-time operations and maintenance employees and light duty trucks that will visit the site to maintain vegetation. Mr. Stone asked for an example of 45 decibels or 40 decibels. Mr. Walker said that he was not a noise expert, but ambient noise is much less that a lawn mower or any sort of farm equipment that you would hear in a rural setting. Mr. Stone also asked about Ms. Guthrie stating that during construction it was a nightmare and there were flat tires and damage to properties. Mr. Walker said that they are expecting very high quality from their contractors, so he hopes that these things do not happen. Mr. Stone also said that Mrs. Sheffield quoted there was a seven percent property value loss and asked if he had any studies on that to determine how it affects the property values. Mr. Walker said they included a property value assessment in their permit application that does find no impact one way or the other on property values. Mr. Stone also asked about Dominion being fined, Mr. Walker said he could not speak very directly to the fines, he has spoken with a gentlemen that developed the solar project in Louisa County (Belcher Solar). He 6.1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: BZA Minutes 04_11_2022 (3140 : BZA Minutes 04_11_2022) believes this was the one referenced and there was a situation where they experienced unexpected storm water runoff that occurred. He stated that a storm water permit is secured to avoid that type of situation. Mr. Walker stated that they certainly do their best and to try to avoid any kinds of incidents like that. Mr. Easley closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole. Whereas Firefly Solar, LLC, has petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Special Use permit for a Utility Scale Solar Energy Facility. Staff and Planning Commission have both approved of this project with 19 conditions. Mr. Merricks said we are obligated to issue the Special Use Permit unless the conditions cannot be met. Condition 2 was amended to exclude “utility poles and associated aboveground wiring.” Mr. Easley read the positive motion and the 19 conditions. A motion was made by Mr. Merricks and seconded by Mr. Brumfield, to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the Special Use Permit. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ronald E. Merricks, Vice-Chairman SECONDER: Ryland Brumfield, Board Member AYES: Easley, Merricks, Brumfield, Craddock, Deering, Stone, Yeaman ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: BZA Minutes 04_11_2022 (3140 : BZA Minutes 04_11_2022) Board of Zoning Appeals STAFF SUMMARY Case: Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast District: Banister Election District Zoning Request: SUP Agenda Date: May 09, 2022 Meeting History: SUBJECT Requested by Aquillas Kanagy & Jacob Mast for a Special Use Permit for a Permanent Sawmill. The property is 351.38 acres, located on State Road 678/Corner Road, in the Banister Election District and shown on the Tap Maps as GPIN # 2499-15-7036. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast are requesting a Special Use Permit for a Permanent Sawmill. Pittsylvania County Code (“PCC”) § 35-179 requires a Special Use Permit for a Permanent Sawmill under the A-1 zoning classification. The applicants have stated that this will be primarily for their personal use. If a Special Use Permit for a Permanent Sawmill is granted, all applicable Zoning and Building Code regulations would govern the development of the property. Additionally, PCC § 35-126 states “no structure and no storage of lumber, logs, chips or timber shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line.” The included site plan shows that the proposed sawmill will meet this requirement. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use as Agricultural and Rural Residential. ZONING OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Mostly surrounded by A-1, Agricultural District. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Included in the packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of Case S-22-004. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of Case S-22-004 as submitted. 2. Recommend denial of Case S-22-004 as submitted. ATTACHMENTS: 10.1 Packet Pg. 8 A. Application B. Map C. Letter of Intent D. Executive Summary E. Petition F. Sign Affidavit G. Adjacent Parcel Owners PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On April 5, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended by an 8 to 0 vote, with opposition, that the petitioners’ request be granted as submitted. 10.1 Packet Pg. 9 10.1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast App (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) 10.1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast App (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) 10.1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast App (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) 10.1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast App (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) 10.1.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast App (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) 10.1.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast App (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) 10.1.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast Concept (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) 10.1.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast Concept (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) 10.1.c Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: S-22-004 Kanagy-Mast Map (3138 : Case S-22-004 Aquillas Kanagy and Jacob Mast) Board of Zoning Appeals STAFF SUMMARY Case: Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan District: Tunstall District Election District Zoning Request: SUP Agenda Date: May 09, 2022 Meeting History: SUBJECT Requested by Michael Mollohan, for a Special Use Permit for a Double-Wide Mobile Home. The property is 0.90 acres, located on Drucker Court in the Tunstall Election District and shown on the Tax Map as GPIN # 1462-67-6364. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Michael Mollohan is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for the placement of a double- wide mobile home on his property to be used as a personal residence. Pittsylvania County Code § 35-223 requires a Special Use Permit for mobile homes under the R-1 zoning classification. The property is currently vacant. There are other double-wide mobile homes in the general area. If a Special Use Permit is granted, all applicable setback requirements and Building Code regulations would have to be met before the mobile home could be placed on the property. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use as Agricultural and Rural Residential. ZONING OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Mostly surrounded by A-1, Agricultural District, and R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of Case S-22-006 as submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of Case S-22-006 as submitted. 2. Recommend denial of Case S-22-006 as submitted. ATTACHMENTS: A. Application 10.2 Packet Pg. 19 B. Map C. Letter of Intent D. Executive Summary E. Petition F. Sign Affidavit G. Adjacent Parcel Owners PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS On April 5, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended by an 8 to 0 vote, with no opposition, that the petitioner’s request be granted as submitted. 10.2 Packet Pg. 20 10.2.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan App (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan) 10.2.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: S-22-006 Mollohan Map (3139 : Case S-22-006 Michael Mollohan)