Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-04 BOS Staff ReportCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #07-04 r ROY R. MESSICK, JR. Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Meeting Prepared: June 2, 2004 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Planner I 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: 05/19/04 Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 06/09/04 PendingI -t. LOCATION: This subject property is located at 686 Marple Road (Route 654). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro PROPERTY ID NUMBER:41-A-163B PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: Re-establishing a legally non -conforming use. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Health Department: Health Department has no comment. Planning and Zoning_: In accordance with Section 165-150 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, a legally non -conforming use that has been discontinued due to abandonment may be re-established by obtaining a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This proposed use is to re-establish a hog pen, that was in operation prior to April 26, 1995, when Frederick County adopted a hog -farming ordinance. This ordinance has setbacks for hog operations of two hundred (200) feet from an adjoining property used for human habitation. Page 2 CUP 407-04 - Roy R. Messick, Jr. June 2, 2004 The applicant has applied to re-establish this hog pen; however, the proposed use cannot meet the current requirements of the ordinance. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 05-19-04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND 06-09-04 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The Planning Commission found this use appropriate with the following conditions recommended by staff: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hog pen shall be fifteen (15) feet from property lines. 3. No more than twenty-five (25) hogs allowed. 4. Any change of use or modification will require a new Conditional Use Permit. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 05/19/04 MEETING: Mr. Messick stated that in 1975 he constructed a wooden structure on his property to contain hogs as part of the family farm. By approximately 1997-1998, the wooden structure had deteriorated and because of other financial obligations, he did not replace the structure or the hogs. Last year, he built a fully -enclosed concrete structure with the intention of raising hogs. He did not know an ordinance requiring setbacks was in place; he said a county inspector visited the site to inspect the structure. Commission members inquired how far the pen was from the property line and if there was a location on the property where the 200 -foot setbacks could be met. Mr. Messick said that because of the terrain and nature of the property, any other location would not be conducive for him to take care of his animals. He said the pen was 27 feet from the property line at its closest point. He planned on having two -to -three hogs and possibly, if a litter was produced, there would be eight additional animals for a short time. Mr. Messick assured the Commission that the hogs were for family use only. Three adjoining property owners came forward to speak in opposition to granting a waiver of the 200' setback requirement. They preferred that Mr. Messick move the hog pen to another place on his 11 -acre property. They were concerned that hog waste would contaminate their water supply; they spoke of health risks associated with the run-off from manure piles; the close proximity of residences; the odor; and possible negative impact on property values. Board Liaison, Gary Dove, commented that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) had drafted a new hog ordinance last year. He said the ordinance was Page 3 CUP #07-04 - Roy R. Messick, Jr. June 2, 2004 recommended for approval by the Planning Commission; however, the Board of Supervisors denied the amendment because a representative from the Farm Bureau, Mr. Paul Anderson, believed the ordinance should not be restricted to just one type of farm animal. Mr. Dove noted that Mr. Messick worked about four months with the DRRS in helping to formulate the amendment. Commission members pointed out that this property was within an agricultural area and under the Right -to -Farm Act, Mr. Messick is permitted to raise hogs on his property; however, the issue remains that Mr. Messick cannot meet the 200 -foot setback on both sides on his 211 -foot -wide parcel. Additionally, the question of whether to re-establish the non -conforming use issue needed to be resolved. They also pointed out that Mr. Messick was not proposing a hog operation, but simply wanted to raise the hogs for his own use. Other members said they would be more comfortable with the conditional use permit if the number of hogs allowed was reduced and the distance from the property lines increased to 25 feet. Still other Commissioners did not believe they could support the request because of the neighbors' objections. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions as recommended by the staff, as follows: All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hog pen shall be fifteen (15) feet from property lines. 3. No more than twenty-five (25) hogs allowed. 4. Any change of use or modification will require a new Conditional Use Permit. The majority vote was: YES (TO APPROVE): Straub, Gochenour, Unger, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett NO: Watt, Morris, Light (Commissioner Rosenberry was absent from the meeting.)