Greene County July Planning Commission Meeting

Kara L. Reese, Greene County Field Officer

July 16, 2008

 

Executive Summary:

RZ#08-002 Rezoning request from A-1 to B-3 on 2.03 acres near Blue Ridge Trailers along Seminole Trail – Approved

RZ#08-001 Rezoning request from R-1 to B-3 approximately 16.16 acres located on Seminole Trail and Cedar Grove Road – Disapproved

OR#08-002 Inoperative Vehicle Ordinance – Approved

Capital Improvements Plan – Approved

 

Call to order 7:31 pm

 

1. Public Hearing on Martin Investments, LLC’s request to rezone from A-1 to B-3 approximately 2.03 acres located on Seminole Trail.

 

Staff Report:

This is a request to rezone one lot located along Seminole Trail located adjacent to Blue Ridge Trailer Sales. The two lots occupied by Blue Ridge Trailers are already zones B-3. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial growth. Currently, city water and sewer do not extend this far. The proffers for this lot will be taken together with the two other parcels on which Blue Ridge Trailers sits. The heavy uses in B-3 are proffered out. Previously the two lots on which Blue Ridge sits had a restriction that they could not be used for anything other than trailer sales until 2010. This restriction will be lifted.

 

Applicant:

Applicant did not have much to say. In response to Commission’s questions, he indicated that he does not have a current buyer for these properties, but given current economic conditions would like to add as much value to his land as possible. Rezoning and lifting prior restrictions will make the land more desirable. He also noted that one portion of the current Blue Ridge site is too narrow for construction of any other business. The rezoning will permit construction that complies with setback requirements and other county ordinances.

 

Comment from the Planning Commission:

N. Slezak was concerned about whether the neighbors objected. Applicant was unaware of any objection.

D. Lamb expressed concern about the jump from A-1 zoning to B-3 zoning.

 

Vote:

N.Slezak. Moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request withproffers dated May 14, 2008. The motion was approved 4 to 1 with Lamb dissenting.

 

2. Public Hearing regarding revisions to the Inoperative Vehicle Ordinance.

 

Staff:

This ordinance is a reworking of provisions already scattered throughout the code. This ordinance will allow all the provisions to be found in one place and make them more easily enforceable. Some on the language in the ordinance was clarified as well. The new ordinance makes penalties civil instead of criminal.

 

Public Comment – None

 

Planning Commission Comments:

N. Slezak wanted confirmation that this ordinance was comparable to other localities and state guidelines. He also thought that some of the legal jargon in the ordinance was unnecessary and too complex for the ordinary citizen to understand.

 

D. Lamb felt that this might be interfering with citizens’ rights a little too much and observed that one man’s junk is another man’s treasure.

 

Vote:

P. Woodfolk moved to approve the ordinance. The ordinance was approved by unanimous vote.

 

 

3. Capital Improvements Plan –Approved without much discussion and no public comment.

 

4. W. Copley McLean Trust request to rezone from R-1 to B-3 16.16 acres located at Seminole Trail and Cedar Grove.

 

Staff:

This is the request to rezone property located catty corner from Sheetz. The decision was deferred at the May meeting so that the developer could meet with concerned citizens.

 

Applicant:

M. Barnes, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He noted that there had been two meetings with citizens: one at the Ruckersville Citizens Council and on at the elementary school. They were able to make some progress, but had not reached complete agreement with the residents of Enderly Acres. With respect to buffers, the applicant had agreed to increased buffers and a security fence. The applicant would also place signs at the neighborhood entrance indicating the drive was private and had no outlet. There were also some questions regarding the developer’s right to Heatherton Road. The applicant clarified that they now control the parcels on which Heatherton Road is located.

 

Public Comment:

            Four residents of Enderly Acres spoke against the project. Their primary concern was that there would be 24 hour businesses go into the development which would result in a hangout crowd and increased noise. They were also concerned that there would be increased noise from deliveries being made by semis just 25 feet from their homes. Residents also presented a petition with 107 signatures of individuals opposed to the development. Residents indicated that they might be more receptive to the B-1 designation.

 

A. Wilkinson addressed concerns that the plan needed more work. She felt that businesses should eventually occupy this space, but that they need to be the right kind of business. She was also concerned about the additional traffic issues that the development would cause.

 

Three residents of Willow Creek spoke about their concern with increased traffic on 607. They felt that the entrance to the development is too close to the light and will cause traffic back ups.

 

Planning Commissioner’s Comments:

P. Woodfolkfelt that there was still a lot that needs to be worked on with this project. The developer and citizens need to reach a compromise. The issue of security was an understandable one and that she wouldn’t’ want to live next to at 24 hour business either. She further expressed concerns that homeowners’ would have a difficult time selling their homes after the development was completed.

 

N. Slezakwas concerned about the B-3 designation. He would rather see the applicant work out a plan with residents that incorporated B-1. He was concerned that B-3 would be “an open check-book” to the developer.

 

J. Frydl observed that the development is located at a major intersection that has been designated by the comprehensive plan for commercial development. He also felt that many concerns could be addressed in later hearings. Further, the development would benefit the county as a whole.

 

A. Herring wanted clarification that the developer had rights to use Heatherton Road.

 

Vote. A Herring moved to recommend disapproval of the request to rezone the parcels.

The motion to reject the plan passed 3 to 2, with D. Lamb and J. Frydl voting against the motion and in favor of the development.

 

5. Minutes of May Meeting – Approved

 

6. Other Matters –

Staff will be meeting with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission on Tuesday. They expect to develop a timeline for revisions to the Comprehensive plan.

 

Meeting adjourned at 9:36 pm

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: