Loading...
05SR0171-Sept21.pdf 6) March 15,2005 CPC April 27, 2005 BS July 27,2005 BS September 21, 2005 BS STAFF'S REQUEST ANAL YSIS AND RECOMMENDA nON 05SR0171 Timothy J. Hauler Matoaca Magisterial District 61 00 Woodpecker Road REQUEST: (AMENDED) Renewal of Conditional Use (Case 03AN0226) to operate a bed and breakfast and special events business incidental to a dwelling unit on 14.5 acres plus Conditional Use to operate, a special events business and have alcohol sales on an adjacent 1.6 acre parcel. PROPOSED LAND USE: Continued operation of a bed and breakfast facility and a special events business, as well as residential use is planned. The applicant has requested a deferral to November 22, 2005. Since the Commission's consideration of this case, the application has been amended. The applicant has filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding a decision by the Director of Planning that additional property would need to be included in the request and a Conditional Use obtained for sale of alcohol in proximity to a public school. Depending upon the outcome of the appeal, an amended application mayor may not be necessary. If an amended application is necessary, the request must be remanded to the Planning Commission. CASE HISTORY Applicant (3/15/05): The applicant requested that Condition 3 be modified. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service Planning Commission Meeting (3/15/05): The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was opposition present. A request was made for the Commission to defer the request to allow time for the applicant and area residents to develop a list of standards to restrict the intensity of the uses and to limit the Conditional Use for a time period to allow reevaluation of the appropriateness of the use in the future. Mr. Bass suggested imposition of additional conditions. On motion ofMr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission recommended approval subject to the conditions on pages 2 and 3. AYES: Unanimous. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (4/27/05): On their motion, the Board deferred this case to July 27,2005. Staff (4/28/05): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than May 16,2005, for consideration at the Board's July 27,2005, public hearing. Applicant and Staff (6/1/05): A meeting was held to discuss the operation. Applicant and Staff (7/7/05): A meeting was held to discuss the operation and possible amendment of the application. The applicant submitted a request for the Board to defer this case to January 25, 2006. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (7/27/05): At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to September 21, 2005. 2 05SR0171-SEPT21-BOS Staff (7/28/05): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should be submitted no later than August 1,2005, for consideration at the Board's September public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $130.00 deferral fee must be paid. Applicant (8/1/05): The request was amended, as stated herein and the deferral fee was paid. Applicant (9/7/05): A deferral was requested to the Board's November public hearing. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, September 21,2005, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 3 05SR0171-SEPT21-BOS --'----<___"__~__.,.~".~._, "_.,_·......_·__..w_"."»·~.~,__·_~O__........,,~_~,..~..'"'._______.___,._____,___... <:( ~ / eX) eX) I a:: eX) eX) I a:: .. , ã) Q) u.. 0 - 0 0 f'... - ~ Q: c w c z w· ~~ 0 ~~ .... z . ~w=! 0 <:( fRlXU 0 WJjffiJ 0 o ~~:::::::: ~ BRENDA L. STEWART 5911 Woodpecker Road Chestetfield, VA 23838 Phone/Fax: (804) 590-2309 E-mail: bl-stewart@comcast.net September 21, 2005 CASE 05SR0171(TIMOTHY J. HAULER), RENEWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE (CASE 03AN0226) AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION (02AN0207) PATRICIA T. AND TIMOTHY J. HAULER I am sorry to hear of the applicant's recent illness and on behalf of the neighborhood I express our best wishes for a speedy recovery. Because the applicant is represented here tonight by legal counsel, I believe it is appropriate to address certain issues and establish certain facts before the Board votes on the third deferral since April 27th of this year. I must give a little history in my attempt to help you separate the portions of this request that are properly a part of the case to be deferred from those portions that should be separate cases and should not be included in the case the applicant is seeking to defer. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a Special Exception to operate a bed and breakfast and special events business from the home on 6100 Woodpecker Road on April 3,2002, for a period not to exceed three years, or April 3,2005, so the applicant has been operating on an expired permit for almost six months. The Staff's Request Analysis and Recommendation prepared for tonight's meeting states that the applicant has requested a deferral to November 220d and that the applicant has filed an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding a decision by the Director of Planning that additional property would need to be included in the request and a Conditional Use obtained for sale of alcohol in proximity to a public school. We point out that the initial decision by the Director of Planning informing the applicant that "a conditional use permit from the Board of SupeNisors would be necessary for the sale and consumption of alcohol at 6200 Woodpecker Road" was communicated to the applicant in a letter dated October 3, 2002, so there have been almost three years in which that decision could have been appealed. Notwithstanding this advice from the Director of Planning in 2002, the applicant has operated his business using land not zoned for the business and serving alcohol without first obtaining the required conditional use permit. The Director of Planning, among other county officials, has previously been provided appropriate supporting evidence to establish this fact. Not only is 6200 Woodpecker Road clearly used in the business, but it appears that portions of 6330, 6044 and 6040 are being used as well. Regarding the appeal which appears to be the basis for further deferring this case, I point out that Section 15.2-2301 of the Code of Virginia provides for the petition for review of a decision of the zoning administrator and requires the 2 appeal to be filed within thirty days from the date of the decision being appealed. It also requires the appeal to specify the grounds upon which the petitioner is aggrieved. Section 15.2-2311 covering appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals also requires that the appeal be taken within 30 days and specify the grounds thereof. The Special Exception & Variance Application form used to take appeal applications requires the applicant to "Explain fully the ... reason for this request." Just below the signature block on that form the following statement appears: "Incomplete applications will not be accepted." The applicant filed the appeal form on August 1, 2005, appealing a decision on the zoning certificate dated July 8, 2005. That August 1st application gave no reason for the appeal. The entry under the instruction to "Explain fully the... reason for this request" consisted of three words: "special events business." Bye-mail dated September 9,2005, the Director of Planning advised me: "The county attorney has finallv responded. The iudge's appeal application is incomplete and will need to include specific information describing the nature and basis of the appeaL" The citizens are asking why you would defer a case for an additional two months to get the results of an appeal that was not complete and thus, not timely filed. Returning to the amendments to the case, we observe that on the same day the applicant filed his appeal, he also filed an amendment to the renewal case. We know that because we were so informed by the Director of Planning. We would not be able to discern that from the documents in the Planning Department file because the amendment was not filed on a separate signed and dated form but merely added to the original renewal application. I remind you that this case was initiated as a RENEWAL of the original case covering 6100 Woodpecker Road. Planning Department staff told citizens meeting with the Director of Planning on August 1 st that the applicant was advised on the day of the April 2005 Board of Supervisors' meeting that the case had to be amended to include the land at 6200 Woodpecker Road. The applicant did not act until August 1 st to comply with that advice. The Case History entry for April 28, 2005, states: "The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than May 16,2005, for consideration at the Board's July 27,2005, public hearing. "We question why the Planning Department allowed amendment of the renewaJ case on August 1, 2005, to add property at 6200 Woodpecker Road after the hearing by the Planning Commission and following initial presentation of the renewal case to the Board of Supervisors. It appears that a separate case should have been opened and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and consideration of the enlargement of the business. Regarding the amendment itself, contrary to clear instructions on the Rezoning and Conditional Use Application form telling the applicant what to enclose and that "IF ONL Y A PART OF A PARCEL IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE APPLlCA TlON, THE GIS MAP MUST CLEARL Y DELINE A TE WHA T PART OF THE PARCEL IS INCLUDED IN APPLlCA TlON AND A SURVEY PLA T 3 PROVIDED FOR THA T PART OF THE PARCEL," no such survey plat was provided with the application. That would seem to make the amended application incomplete. The same form also states "INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED." If the required data have not been provided, it would appear the application is incomplete. If the application is incomplete, then why has that amended application been accepted to be acted upon by the Board of Supervisors-especially when it has not first been considered by the Planning Commission? The term, "renewal" would not seem to include significant enlargement of the business. You need to be aware that the applicant recorded a new survey of the originally zoned property at 6100 Woodpecker Road on July 22,2002. That survey modified the parcel line of that property with the result that 6100 Woodpecker Road became more than 500 linear feet from the Matoaca High School property, leaving a portion of the originally zoned lot at 6200 Woodpecker Road. As stated earlier, the applicant was advised in a letter dated October 3, 2002. from the Director of Planning that use of the property at 6200 Woodpecker Road required additional approval from the Board of Supervisors. These cases usually first go to the Planning Commission. We ask that the portion of Case 05SR0171 pertaininQ to enlargement of the business by adding property at 6200 Woodpecker Road be severed from this case and forwarded to the Planning Commission to get it in the proper channels before further deferring case 05SR0171. It would seem that combining this addition at 6200 Woodpecker with the request for a conditional use permit to serve alcohol on that same property as one case is appropriate unless that action violates some legal or procedural requirement. County procedures call for conditional use cases to be heard by the Planning Commission BEFORE they come to the Board of Supervisors. It seems that someone is allowing an exception in this case to permit amending a renewal case already before the Board to add a request for a conditional use permit when that request has never been before the Planning Commission. The citizens would like to know why this is so. We believe that the proper process requires filing of a separate application for the conditional use permit required by Section 19-227 of the Chesterfield Code. Our belief is buttressed by an April 11 , 2003, article in the Times Dispatch regarding the potential change to the zoning ordinance that quoted Planning Director Thomas E. Jacobson as saying that "the law could be tweaked so that more intense uses would require a conditional use permit, forcing it to be heard by the Planning Commission and the supervisors instead of the appeals board." The amended procedures require the approval of the subject conditional use permit by the Board of Supervisors, not the Board of Zoning Appeals. We ask that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit related to serving alcohol within 500 feet of a public school be severed from this renewal case and forwarded to the PlanninQ Commission to 'Jet it in the prooer channels before further deferring case 05SR0171. 4 In summary, we believe that to maintain discipline in the system and to provide for consistent application of the zoning ordinance, the Board must act first to sever the amendments from the renewal application and then to consider them in a separate case. We also believe that it is not appropriate to defer a case for two months on the basis of an incomplete and therefore, invalid, appeal application. We ask that you defer the renewal case only until your next meeting to provide time to sort out all the issues we have presented this evening. The other case that should be created to deal with enlarging the business property and the conditional use permit to serve alcohol in proximity to a public school should be forwarded first to the Planning Commission to comply with Chesterfield County procedures and ordinances. We also remind you of the noise issues we raised at the August meeting. Those issues continue.