Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-00 BOS Staff ReportPC REVIEW: 1/03/01 BOS REVIEW: 1/24/01 (tabled); 2/28/01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #18-00 DONNIE AND RACHEL HAMMAN Cottage Occupation - Sheet Metal Fabrication and Storage of Materials LOCATION: This property is located at 160 Journeyman Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 87-4-1 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use: Residential and Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation for Sheet Metal Fabrication and Storage of Materials REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. Inspections Department: Existing building shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 304, Use Group B (Business)of the BOCA National Building Code. Other code that would apply is CABO Al 17.1-92, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. Please submit a floor plan of the area at the time of Change of Use permit application. A certificate of use and occupancy shall be issued prior to operation. Handicap parking and building access shall be provided. Fire Marshal: Structure is unsecured with no doors. Approval recommended on closure to unauthorized public. Plan approval is recommended. Health Department: Please see attached letter from Doug Dailey dated 9115100. Donnie and Rachel Hamman CUP 41-8-00- Page 18-00-Page 2 February 22, 2001 Planning and Zoning: This application is a request to operate a cottage occupation in the Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District. Specifically, the applicants would like to use an existing barn on their property for sheet metal fabrication and the storage of business-related materials. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for a cottage occupation in the RA Zoning District with an approved CUP. The circumstances leading up to this request for a CLIP application have involved an active violation case against the applicants and a court ruling on the matter. Staff opened a violation case against the applicants in July, shortly after a county resident reported a complaint on the matter. Then on October 31, 2000, the District Court ruled that the applicants were guilty of the storage of trash and debris on their property, the storage of inoperable vehicles, as well as the illegal operation of a business. The judge gave the applicants 30 days to comply with the first two offenses, and 90 days to obtain an approved CUP or the business would have to be removed. As of the most recent inspection by staff, prior to the preparation of this report, violations still exist on the applicant's property. The lot is approximately 8 %2 acres in size. Located on the property is the applicants primary residence, a barn, and a couple storage sheds. The adjoining properties include residential, agricultural, vacant, or mixture of the three. An industrial business would not be an appropriate use in the area. When assessing the ability for a sheet metal fabrication business to comply with the cottage occupation definition, staff reviewed the cottage occupation definition. A cottage occupation is defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance as: "An occupation or profession customarily carried on in a dwelling or an accessory building, which: A. Actually is carried on wholly within the principal residential building or an accessory building or structure. B. Is carried on by no more than one (1) person other than members of the family residing on the premises; and C. Is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes." The applicants have informed staff that their business has two employees that do not live on the premises. Occasionally, these employees would come to the property and assist in the sheet metal fabrication process. Staff believes that the fabrication business is an industrial use and is not appropriate as a cottage occupation. Additionally, the assistance of employees at the subject property would not be in conformance with the cottage occupation definitions. Therefore, staff believes that this request is inappropriate. Donnie and Rachel Hamman CUP #18-00 Page 3 February 22, 2001 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 1-03-01 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff is of the opinion that this request for a CUP be denied for the following three reasons: The proposed use is not allowed as a cottage occupation due to the number of employees. 2. The property has been in violation for at least six months, and is currently still in violation despite a court ruling on the matter. The proposed industrial use is not consistent with the nature of the RA Zoning District. A passerby could easily distinguish that a business exists on the property, due to the visibility of the cargo container, other materials, and business vehicles. Furthermore, the business would increase the amount of vehicular traffic on Journeyman's Land, and possibly Wright's Run Lane. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION FOR 01/03/01 MEETING: Two persons came forward to speak in opposition to the proposed CUP and one person spoke in favor. The two persons who spoke in opposition were residents of the Wright's Run subdivision and they expressed concern over the appearance ofMr. Hammon's property, especially since his property was located at the entrance to their subdivision. They spoke of debris, inoperable vehicles, and a large, approximately 150 sq. ft., metal storage container. They believed that Mr. Hammon has conducted his business in disregard, and sometimes disdain, of the rest of the neighborhood. They also mentioned Mr. Hammon's resistence to their efforts in getting Wright's Run Lane widened and maintained. The person who spoke in favor of the proposed CUP, an adjoining property owner, was satisfied with the appearance of Mr. Hammon's property and did not believe Mr. Hammon's business would adversely affect him. Members of the Planning Commission believed that Mr. Hammon's business had outgrown the definition of a Cottage Occupation, primarily because Mr. Hammon stated that he employed six persons. They believed that the neighboring residents maybe adversely affected by the continuation of Mr. Hammon's operation. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the CUP by the following majority vote: YES TO DENY): Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Miller, DeHaven, Marker, Morris, Light, Unger NO: Thomas Donnie and Rachel Hamman CUP #18-00 Page 4 February 22, 2001 (Note: Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.) Note: During the January 24, 2001 Board of Supervisors meeting; the Board tabled this request for 30 days because the CUP public hearing sign had not been properly advertised on the subject property.