Loading...
10032023 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, October 3, 2023 - 7:00 PM Board Meeting Room 39 Bank Street, SE, Chatham,Virginia 24531 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MOMENT OF SILENCE The Board observed a moment of silence. 4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Board recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 5. HEARING OF THE CITIZENS Each person addressing the Board under Hearing of the Citizens shall be a resident or land owner of the County, or the registered agent of such resident or land owner. Each person shall step up, give his/her name and district in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the Chairman, shall limit his/her address to three (3) minutes. No person shall be permitted to address the Board more than once during Hearing of the Citizens. All remarks shall be addressed to the Board as a body and not to any individual member thereof. Hearing of the Citizens shall last for a maximum of forty-five (45) minutes. Any individual that is signed up to speak during said section who does not get the opportunity to do so because of the aforementioned time limit, shall be given speaking priority at the next Board meeting. Absent Chairman’s approval, no person shall be able to speak who has not signed up. HEARING OF THE CITIZENS Several residents spoke during Hearing of the Citizens. First to speak was Kim Greer. She feels that residents' voices should be heard. She asked the board to stand for what is right when voting on the Special Use Permit for Southside Investments, LLC. Next to speak was Jane Kendrick. She has studied the Planning Commissions objective and responsibility and that they have to consider the negative impacts on communities. She says this country was founded by brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in and that is what they have done. She said the room was full at the Board of Supervisors meeting when they approved the rezoning case for Southside Investments, LLC, the citizens made intelligent, pointed arguments and they were disregarded. She says you cannot ask citizens to come to these meetings until there is a response to what citizens are saying. She is asking the board to listen and consider what people are bringing forth to them. David Willis was the last to speak. He says that people are outraged and that this development is not wanted. He is sad that people's voices are not being heard. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mrs. Mease and by a six (6) to zero (0) vote, the agenda was approved as presented. RESULT: Approve MOVER: Fred Webb SECONDER: Janet Mease AYES: Colette Henderson, Gary Oakes, Janet Mease, Nathan Harker, Fred Webb, Justin Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Mrs. Mease, seconded by Mrs. Henderson and by a six (6) to zero (0) vote, the minutes were approved as presented. a. September Board Meeting Minutes Approval (Staff Contact: Robin Vaughan) a. September Board Meeting Minutes Approval RESULT: Approve MOVER: Janet Mease SECONDER: Colette Henderson AYES: Colette Henderson, Gary Oakes, Janet Mease, Nathan Harker, Fred Webb, Justin Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 8. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Mr. Harker gave thanks and compliments to the staff. He has been approached several times in the past months about building permits or just getting a question answered about rezoning, they say they always get the help they need, so he thanked staff for being helpful. 9. PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Article V, Division 7 of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance, we the Planning Commission have been empowered to hear and decide specific applications in support of said ordinance and to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Zoning Appeals. 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 regarding zoning cases will be limited to (3) three minutes. PUBLIC HEARING a. Public Hearing: Case R-23-026 Board of Supervisors Pittsylvania County, Virginia; Rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District, to M-2, Industrial District, Heavy Industry. (Waters) (Staff Contact: Emily Ragsdale) a. Public Hearing: Case R-23-026 Board of Supervisors Pittsylvania County, Virginia; Rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District, to M-2, Industrial District, Heavy Industry. (Waters) Mr. Harker read the zoning precepts and opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that The Board Of Supervisors Pittsylvania County, Virginia had petitioned to rezone 32.26 acres from A-1, Agricultural District, to M-2, Industrial District, Heavy Industry to allow for a public facility (correctional facility). Dave Arnold represented the petition and presented a PowerPoint presentation. Mrs. Mease asked about security since there is a school nearby, and she had been approached by residents. Mr. Arnold says that security is greatly enhanced from decades ago. He said there will be no guard towers clearly visible, and they will rely heavily on security. He stated that recreational areas are going to be secure, and they will be located at the back of the facility. Sheriff Taylor said this jail will have the latest technology and will be much more secure than what the county has today. He also said the current jail sits in a heavily populated, high traffic area, and they have experienced very few issues over the years. Mrs. Henderson asked about the projection of new hires for the project. Sheriff Taylor stated it will be based on one Deputy per three beds, and if overpopulation occurs they will get one emergency custody position for one Deputy per five additional bed spaces. Mr. Brown read a letter of recommendation during Mr. Waters absence since this case is in his district. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mr. Oakes to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a six (6) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: Approve MOVER: Fred Webb SECONDER: Gary Oakes AYES: Colette Henderson, Gary Oakes, Janet Mease, Nathan Harker, Fred Webb, Justin Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: None b. Public Hearing: Case R-23-027 Connie Sue Gardner Horsley; Rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District, and R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District. (Oakes) (Staff Contact: Emily Ragsdale) b. Public Hearing: Case R-23-027 Connie Sue Gardner Horsley; Rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District, and R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District. (Oakes) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that Connie Sue Garder Horsley had petitioned to rezone 43.00 acres from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District, to A-1, Agricultural District, to allow for the placement of a double wide mobile home. Alexus Broadnax represented the petition. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Oakes, seconded by Mrs. Mease to recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the rezoning request. Motion passed by a six (6) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: Approve MOVER: Gary Oakes SECONDER: Janet Mease AYES: Colette Henderson, Gary Oakes, Janet Mease, Nathan Harker, Fred Webb, Justin Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: None c. Public Hearing: Case S-23-012 Southside Investing, LLC; Special Use Permit for commercial uses such as a grocery anchored shopping center, restaurants, offices, assisted living/dementia care facility, and a hotel for service to the residents of the planned area and its adjacent communities in accordance with Pittsylvania County Code § 35-295 (Oakes) (Staff Contact: Emily Ragsdale) c. Public Hearing: Case S-23-012 Southside Investing, LLC; Special Use Permit for commercial uses such as a grocery anchored shopping center, restaurants, offices, assisted living/dementia care facility, and a hotel for service to the residents of the planned area and its adjacent communities in accordance with Pittsylvania County Code § 35-295 (Oakes) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that Southside Investing, LLC, had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 313.72 acres to allow for commercial uses (grocery anchored shopping center, restaurants, offices, assisted living/dementia care facility, and a hotel for service to the residents and the planned area and its adjacent communities). Tom Gallagher was present to represent the petition. He said that from a mixed use standpoint, these type SUPs are critical for development and for the county. He stated the project will take approximately ten (10) years to complete and will be built in stages. He also said the design and permitting process will take twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months. Several residents spoke in opposition to the petition. Michael Kendrick spoke first. He said residents were led to believe that nothing would move forward with this project until a highway study was done and DEQ, and all of a sudden a couple weeks ago he sees in the paper that they are moving forward with the Special Use Permit. He asked that the board hold off on granting the Special Use Permit until the studies are complete. Kim Greer spoke next. She said that most of the adjacent property owners are not there tonight as they are simply tired of the fight. She said they were told in September that they could speak out against the case, so that is why they are here. She said she was respectfully asking that the request by Southside Investing, LLC, not be approved at this time. She said she lives on Martin Drive and has always been concerned about the traffic and she would like to know what VDOT has to say before Southside gets the green light to start building the homes, businesses and the hotel. She does not want a hotel in her rural neighborhood. Jane Kendrick was next to speak. She said the Planning Commission website says any negative impact can be mitigated, and they cannot ensure with a vote to approve a special use permit, there will be no negative impacts nor can they say with 100% certainty that there is plan by Southside or the Planning Commission or anyone else to mitigate those negative circumstances, because there are no studies. She asked that they vote on this at a future date. David Willis spoke next. He said that this area floods every time we get a heavy rain and an environmental study needs to be done before a city is built there. He asked that they hold off on voting until the studies have been done. Kenneth Wood was last to speak. He said he was late getting involved in this and he has been very open-minded. He has attended some of the meetings, he understands how important this is to the county. He said that the board shouldn't go against the people and should find out what the constituents want. He said he went out and knocked on doors and listened to people and he came here open- minded, but he has yet to talk to one person that said, yes we want this in our community. He said they should listen to the people before they vote. He said he understands the county needs it, but he's going to say that the people have spoken. Mr. Gallagher came back to answer questions and address concerns. He stated that from a timing standpoint, the approval is needed to move forward with the grocery store and the hotel operators to get them on board as soon as possible. He said the Traffic Impact Analysis from VDOT is not complete, but when complete they will control the process in terms of how this builds out and when. He said they cannot obtain any permits without VDOT signing off on it. He also said that DEQ and environmental studies are not typically done before projects are approved with DEQ. He stated they are proceeding at their own risk. Mr. Harker asked if Mrs. Ragsdale could read aloud each of the conditions that staff has recommended. He says that one, four, five and six should answer most of the questions of the residents that spoke tonight. Mrs. Ragsdale summarized the conditions for the board. Mr. Oakes said that the board does listen and he has talked to numerous people and most of them don't care, but a lot of people are against it. He said more people have told him that they are for it, than against it. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Oakes, seconded by Mr. Brown to recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the Special Use Permit with the conditions recommended by staff. 1. Prior to the approval of the first subdivision plat, the Applicant will submit to the County a traffic impact analysis performed in accordance with the Virginia Administrative Code (24 VAC 30-155). The traffic impact analysis shall (i) identify any traffic issues associated with access from the Property to the existing transportation network, (ii) outline solutions to potential problems, (iii) address the sufficiency of the future transportation network within a radius to be determined by VDOT, in the vicinity of the Property, and (iv) present improvements and anticipated timelines for improvements to be incorporated into the development of the Property. The scope of the analysis will be mutually agreed upon with the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”). The Applicant shall perform any transportation improvements as required by VDOT, in accordance with the deadlines established in any permits, to mitigate for impacts to the public transportation system which will occur because of this Project. All required permits will be obtained from VDOT prior to construction. For all improvements to the existing transportation system and for all proposed streets that VDOT will be asked to maintain, the Applicant will arrange for a firm not otherwise related to the Applicant or contractor to provide inspection services for construction. Inspection and testing methodology and frequency shall be accomplished in accordance with the VDOT Materials Division's Manual of Instructions and the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications. A report shall be submitted to VDOT summarizing the inspections steps taken, certifying the results of the inspection, and testing as accurate, and confirming that the streets or improvements were built to the approved specifications and pavement design, and signed and stamped by a professional engineer licensed to practice as such in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 2. The Applicant will maintain a setback of not less than one hundred feet (100’) on the exterior lots of the Property. 3.On the site development plan or subdivision plat for each phase of the Property, the Applicant will identify tree save areas and will maintain at a minimum a thirty foot (30’) vegetative buffer on the perimeter of the Property that adjoins property that is not included in the rezoning application. If the Applicant is required to disturb areas within the minimum thirty foot (30’) vegetative buffer to construct any improvements, then the Applicant will install supplemental plantings consisting of staggered rows of planted trees and large shrubs that are intended for screening. At least fifty percent (50%) of the trees and/or shrubs used in the staggered rows shall be evergreen in nature. All planted vegetation shall be of varieties native or adaptable to the region that are expected to reach a minimum height of at least to fifteen (15) feet (or minimum of 10 feet if specifically designed for screening) in height at maturity and will be no less than six (6) feet at the time of planting. 4.Prior to construction, an approved erosion and sediment control plan will be implemented for the entire Project, and an erosion and sediment control bond will be provided. 5.Prior to construction, a Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit from the Virginia DEQ will be obtained for the Project, including an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 6.Prior to construction, the Applicant shall prepare and submit to the Zoning Administrator a construction management plan to address traffic control methods, site access, fencing, lighting, mitigation of construction operations, hours of construction activity, and clearly defined construction phases and proposed safety precautions for publicly accessible areas during construction. 7.All parking requirements of the Pittsylvania County Code §35-80 - 35-85 shall be met and shown on all submitted site plans for each use. 8.Gravel parking lots shall not be permitted. 9.All signage shall meet the requirements of Pittsylvania County Code § 35-95 -35-101. 10.Lighting shall meet the following requirements: A. Site and area lighting. Light levels shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at any point along the property perimeter or perimeters adjacent to residential zones and uses, except for light levels of up to 2.0 footcandles along the perimeter of property adjacent to commercial or industrial zones or uses. B. Pole-Mounted Fixtures. Pole-mounted light fixtures used for site and area lighting must be subject to the following design guidelines: i. Pole-mounted lighting with a pole height of 15 feet or less must not exceed 15.0 foot-candles. The light must be so shaded, shielded or directed that the light intensity or brightness will not be unreasonably objectionable to surrounding areas. ii. Pole-mounted lighting with a pole height of greater than 15 feet and not exceeding 35 feet in height must be a down-type, mounted horizontally and angled perpendicular to the ground. iii. Building mounted lighting fixtures must not exceed 15.0 foot-candles and must not exceed 35 feet mounting height. The light must be shaded, shielded, or directed so that the light intensity or brightness will not cause glare or exceed site and area lighting limits at the property perimeter. C. Landscape Light Fixtures. Landscape light fixtures, including ground lighting for signs, flag poles and statues, must be equipped with shields or shutters to eliminate glare. The light must be so shaded, shielded or directed that the light intensity or brightness will not negatively impact surrounding areas. D. Blinking, Flashing and Temporary Lighting. Lights must not blink, flash, oscillate, or flutter including changes in light intensity, brightness or color. E. Site Lighting Plan. A site lighting plan shall be submitted including the following information: i. Locations of all exterior light fixtures. ii. Details for illumination devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors and other devices (e.g., fixture type, mounting height, output). iii. Photometric data of illumination cast on horizontal surfaces. Vertical photometric data must be provided in either a grid or contour line format measuring footcandles on the ground. Motion passed by a six (6) to zero (0) vote. RESULT: Approve MOVER: Gary Oakes SECONDER: Justin Brown AYES: Colette Henderson, Gary Oakes, Janet Mease, Nathan Harker, Fred Webb, Justin Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: None d. Public Hearing: Case S-23-015 Crown Castle; Special Use Permit for the placement of a cell tower in accordance with Pittsylvania County Code § 35-295. (Webb) (Staff Contact: Emily Ragsdale) d. Public Hearing: Case S-23-015 Crown Castle; Special Use Permit for the placement of a cell tower in accordance with Pittsylvania County Code § 35-295. (Webb) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that Crown Castle had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 289.47 acres, to allow for the placement of a cell tower. Jonathan Yates represented the petition. There was no opposition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mrs. Mease, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the Special Use Permit. RESULT: Approve MOVER: Fred Webb SECONDER: Janet Mease AYES: Colette Henderson, Gary Oakes, Janet Mease, Nathan Harker, Fred Webb, Justin Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: None e. Public Hearing: Case S-23-016 Arcola Towers; Special Use Permit for the placement of a cell tower in accordance with Pittsylvania County Code § 35-179 (Henderson) (Staff Contact: Emily Ragsdale) e. Public Hearing: Case S-23-016 Arcola Towers; Special Use Permit for the placement of a cell tower in accordance with Pittsylvania County Code § 35-179 (Henderson) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that Arcola Towers had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 120.31 acres, to allow for the placement of a cell tower. Jonathan Yates represented the petition. There was no opposition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. A motion was made by Mrs. Henderson, seconded by Mrs. Mease, that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the Special Use Permit. RESULT: Approve MOVER: Colette Henderson SECONDER: Janet Mease AYES: Colette Henderson, Gary Oakes, Janet Mease, Nathan Harker, Fred Webb, Justin Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: None f. Public Hearing: Case Z-23-001 Atkinsons, LLC; Requesting a sign permit for an off-site, illuminated 10’ x 30’ (300 square feet), double- sided (total of four (4) panels) sign in accordance with Pittsylvania County Code § 35-100 (Waters) (Staff Contact: Emily Ragsdale) f. Public Hearing: Case Z-23-001 Atkinsons, LLC; Requesting a sign permit for an off-site, illuminated 10’ x 30’ (300 square feet), double-sided (total of four (4) panels) sign in accordance with Pittsylvania County Code § 35- 100 (Waters) Mr. Harker opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Mrs. Ragsdale, Director of Community Development, reported that Atkinsons, LLC, has petitioned for a sign permit on 1.83 acres to allow for an off-site advertisement sign. Joann Atkinson represented the petition. There was no opposition. Mr. Harker closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Webb, seconded by Mr. Brown to recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant the sign permit. RESULT: Approve MOVER: Fred Webb SECONDER: Justin Brown AYES: Colette Henderson, Gary Oakes, Janet Mease, Nathan Harker, Fred Webb, Justin Brown NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 10. OLD BUSINESS Mrs. Ragsdale reminded the board that Zoning Ordinance update meeting will be held October 11, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. 11. NEW BUSINESS There was no business. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.