Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06 BOS Staff ReportCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #11-06 Dawson & Robann Riggleman Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: November 28, 2006 Staff Contact: Eric R. Lawrence This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/15/06 Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 12/13/06 Pending LOCATION: This subject property is located at 120 Longcroft Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-44 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT` USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential South: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential East: M-1 Land Use: Light Industry West: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Reestablishing a Discontinued Legally Nonconforming Use ( to enable horses on the property) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Planning & Zoning: The applicants seek to enable the ability to keep horses on their 8.86 acre property. The subject property is located at 120 Longcroft Road, and is zoned RP (Residential Performance). The applicants reside on the property. Horses are not permitted in the RP Zoning District. As such, the applicants have sought to reestablish the legally nonconforming use (the agricultural rights for the property) based on historical knowledge, CUP #11-06 Dawson and Robann Riggleman November 28, 2006 Page 2 providing a notarized affidavit that the property had historically been a farm with animals. Article XX of the Zoning Ordinance addresses Nonconforming Uses. More specifically, Chapter 165-150 establishes the process by which a legally nonconforming use may be reestablished. The applicants have requested that their agricultural rights (specifically rights to maintain horses on their property) be reestablished as a legal nonconforming use. Section 165-150 of the County Code states: Any use that was legally nonconforming under the provisions of this article and that was discontinued due to abandonment may be reestablished by obtaining a conditional use permit. Such conditional use permit shall be granted only for a use that is of equal of lesser nonconformity than the original use in relation to intensity, type of use, dimensional requirements or other requirements. Such request to reestablish an abandoned use shall be considered following the procedures for conditional use permits in the chapter. Property’s Zoning History The original Zoning Map for Frederick County (U.S.G.S. Quadrant) depicts the vicinity of the subject property as the R1 (Residential Limited) Zoning District. This area was reclassified as RP (Residential Performance) District on September 28, 1983 when this zoning district replaced the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts. Horses were not permitted in either the RP or the R1 Zoning Districts. Recent Actions by the Applicant In 2000, the applicants contacted the County, spoke with various departments, and determined that horses were permitted on the property. The building official documented the proposed agricultural improvement and authorized the construction of a stable with electric service. Staff would note that no zoning approval is associated with the building official determination that an agricultural use is appropriate; the decision is based solely on building code compliance. Proceeding with the understanding that the horses were appropriate, the applicants have improved their property to accommodate their horses: stable has been built, fields have been fenced, and a riding ring is under construction. In the summer of 2006, the planning staff received a complaint regarding horses on the applicant’s property. Upon inspection of the property, horses were observed, and the applicant was notified that the zoning applicable to the property prohibited the horses. In response to the violation, the applicants contacted staff and advised of the actions which led them to believe the horses were permitted. The applicant further advised that having lived in the vicinity of the property since 1959, the property has had animals on the property as evidenced by a barn and various sheds. The property has been in the immediate family since 1979. CUP #11-06 Dawson and Robann Riggleman November 28, 2006 Page 3 Proposed Uses on Property The applicants are seeking the Conditional Use Permit for a horse operation consisting of five horses or ponies that will take place on a property identified as 120 Longcroft Road. They have already established various fenced fields, constructed stables, and are in the midst of constructing a riding ring. Surrounding Land Uses Similar to other areas within the County’s Urban Development Area (UDA), the properties surrounding the applicants' property have transitioned from agricultural uses to suburban residential developments. In fact, the applicant’s property shares property boundary lines with the Red Fox Run and the Bufflick Heights residential subdivisions, both single family detached residential developments. The applicants’ property also shares a property boundary line with an undeveloped five acre parcel zoned RP (Residential Performance), the Airport Business Center (zoned M1), and Bufflick Creek. It is noted that the applicants have solicited and secured the support to maintain horses on their property from sixteen (16) of the adjoining property owners. The petitions are included in the CUP file for reference. Potential Impacts Recognizing the existing land uses in the vicinity of the applicants’ property, efforts should be extended to minimize the impacts horses may place on the existing adjacent residences. The initial complaint in regards to the horses was based on excessive manure odor and insects (mostly flies). Therefore, it may be appropriate to establish minimum setbacks and expectations that the horses are rotated amongst the fenced areas in an effort to minimize these foreseeable impacts. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/15/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. No more than a total of five horses or ponies shall be on the property at any given time. 2. The horses and/or ponies shall be rotated between fenced areas in an effort to minimize odor and insect impacts on the adjacent residences. 3. Horse and/or pony manure shall not be stockpiled nor spread within 40 feet of any property boundary line. 4. Any modification or expansion of this use will require a new conditional use permit. CUP #11-06 Dawson and Robann Riggleman November 28, 2006 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/15/06 MEETING: Four citizens spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. Three of the citizens were adjoining property owners and they spoke in support of the CUP application; one read a letter of support from an adjoining property owner who was unable to attend the meeting. The adjoining property owners said they had not experienced any problems with odors or flies coming from the horses, even during hot summer days; they commented that the barn and property were kept in excellent condition, as well as the horses. They said they enjoyed looking at the horses and that the Rigglemans were good neighbors; they did not want to see the horses go. The other citizen who spoke provided some history of the site; he said his father built homes in Bufflick Heights. He said this particular property was not intended to be developed; it was considered to be a buffer for Bufflick Heights. He said the Rigglemans purchased the house and land in 1983 with the intent of leaving the land vacant and using it for horses. A member of the Commission thought approving this might set a precedent for other properties to re- establish a previous use; he thought the argument could be used for any residential property in the County because every property was more than likely initially used as a farm. The staff’s belief was that this was a unique situation because of the family knowledge on the history of the property. Staff also noted that a CUP was a legislative action; therefore, the Board of Supervisors would ultimately make the determination of whether the use was appropriate or not. Commissioners asked how the CUP would be handled, if there were any future complaints. Staff noted that they would only come back before the Commission if the staff and property owner could not resolve a complaint. Staff believed the issues surrounding the previous complaint, odor and flies, stemmed from the horses continuously being corralled at one location. Staff said the idea of circulating the horses around the different fields so they are not standing adjacent to a particular property where all the manure can build up, should alleviate the issues. Staff noted that the complainants seemed to be comfortable with this concept. Commission members wanted to restrict the property to “equine only” in order to exclude other types of farm animals being kept on the property. The applicants’ attorney said the Rigglemans were comfortable with all of the conditions recommended for the CUP, in addition to limiting animals to equine only. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the CUP with the conditions recommended by the staff, plus an additional condition, restricting animals to equine only, as follows: 1. No more than a total of five equine shall be on the property at any one time. CUP #11-06 Dawson and Robann Riggleman November 28, 2006 Page 5 2. The equine shall be rotated between fenced areas in an effort to minimize odor and insect impacts on the adjacent residences. 3. Equine manure shall not be stockpiled nor spread within 40 feet of any property boundary line. 4. Any modification or expansion of this use will require a new conditional use permit. 5. Only equine shall be permitted on the property. Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this Conditional Use Permit application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors.