PC_03-05-80_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, 3/5/80.
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman;
W. French Kirk; Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.;
Kenneth Stiles: Herbert Sluder
ABSENT: Elmer Venskoske
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order. The first order of
business was the consideration of the minutes of February 12, 1980. There
being no corrections, Mr. Golladay made a motion that minutes be approved
as submitted. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley explained that
the asterisk indicated administrative approval and further noted that this
indication should not be next to Neff Construction Company. Mr. Riley
also explained that the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park Site Plan is Section V.
Chairman Gordon accepted the Bimonthly Report as information.
SITE PLANS
Request for Site Plan approval by Winchester Electric, No. 027 -79, for a
8,400 square foot building with parking and entrance for the repair and
replacement of electrical equipment, in Windy Hill Subdivision, Lot 4,
Route 522S, Shawnee Magisterial District.
ACTION - Recommend approval
Mr. Riley first gave the background information, noting that
all reviewing agencies deemed this site plan satisfactory.
Mr. Brumback first asked what the size of the lot would be.
Mr. Bruce Edens then came forward and introduced himself to the
Commission, noting he was representing Winchester Electric. Mr. Edens
noted that this lot is about 2 acres.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley acknowledged that
this lot is served by water and sewer from the City of Winchester.
926
Planning Commission Minutes -2- 3/5/80
In answer to Mr. Stiles' question, Mr. Edens commented that
this property does not border on Route 522.
Mr. Stiles next asked how many lots are between this lot and
Route 81.
Mr. Edens noted that there was one on the left and one on the
right.
Mr, Brumback then asked how many lots there are in the Windy
Hill Subdivision.
Mr. Edens stated that there were only four or five.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Edens explained that
the majority of the business was moving to the new location,
Chairman Gordon added that it was his understanding that they
would be maintaining the downtown location.
Mr. Kirk added that he had been to the location and the entrance
is nice and further noted that he had no objections to this site plan.
Chairman Gordon next asked if there was anyone present opposing
this petition. There were none.
Mr. Golladay next asked if this falls under the new or the old
B -2 Zoning.
Mr. Riley answered that he presumed it would be under the new
B -2 Zoning, noting that more specific uses listed in this category would
would be helpful in making these determinations.
Mr. Kirk made a motion that this site plan be recommended to the
Board for approval. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval Qf Site Plan
No. 027 -79 of Winchester Electric to the Board of Supervisors.
927
Planning Commission Minutes -3- 3/5/80
PROPOSED PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Mr. Riley first explained that this proposal is basically the same
as was submitted at the last meeting. Mr. Riley noted that the staff is
comfortable with this proposal and would like the endorsement of the
Commission before going ahead with the advertising. Mr. Riley also noted
that added to this proposal since it was last seen by the Commission is
a requirement regarding the parking of tractor trailers in residen-
tial districts,
Mr. Stiles then asked what a common off - street parking bay'
would be. Mr. Stiles also asked if it would be required that parking be
paved.
Mr. Riley explained that this would require that parking be paved.
Mr. Golladay commented that under #12 of the proposal it would
be presenting a hardship to some citizens of the County to require paving
instead of just gravel.
Mr. Riley also explained that the definition of a common off-
street parking bay would be a common parking space in a parking lot versus
a parking space in a residential area.
Mr. Stiles noted that this should be spelled out so that there is
no question.
Mr. Stiles next asked what an all- weather surface might be.
Mr. Riley explained that this would be a double prime and seal
or asphalt surface, not gravel or stone.
Mr. Stiles noted that it was his opinion that all- weather surfaces
are not always necessary and perhaps this could be left up to the judgement
of the staff based on the business operation involved.
Mr. Gordon noted that the way this is written there is room for
discretion on the part of the Public Works Department.
Planning Commission Minutes -4-
3/5/80
Mr. Horne noted that the interpretation could be put in the
definition section of the ordinance. Mr, Horne also noted that perhaps
the wording could be clearer giving the Department of Public Works more
discretion.
Mr. Stiles noted that requiring paving would be cost prohibitive
to the citizenry.
Mr. Riley explained that the ordinance now says that off-,street
parking pavement shall be the same as the street it enters on in the Site
Plan Section, page 266.
Mr. Horne then commented that it would be possible to change the
wording to say "it be adequately drained" and then refer to each district
for pavement requirements.
Mr. Riley next asked how you would require an individual to pave
a,parking lot for a retail center when it does not clearly say so in the
ordinance.
Mr. Stiles commented that they have approved site plans that do
not conform to what is in the ordinance. Mr. Stiles then asked, under our
ordinance, would the Fairgrounds parking lot have to be paved.
Mr. Golladay noted that it would seem you would have more runoff
if you increased the paved areas,
Mr. Golladay then brought up another question, the possibility
of obstructing view under item 13 requirements.
Mr. Riley noted that usually the right -of -way line is approximately
20 feet beyond the edge of the pavement and there would be no problem with
site distance. Mr. Riley continued, saying this is a good point and perhaps
this area needs amending.
929
Planning Commission Minutes -5-
3/5/80
Mr. Golladay then asked, under specific requirements on page 17,
does "floor area" refer to retail floor area.
Mr. Riley confirmed that it would be retail floor area to service
the public.
Mr. Stiles then confirmed that single family dwelling requirements
are being reduced from 2 to 1 per-:unit and colleges and high schools are
being increased to 1 per 4 seats.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question regarding the meaning of
A.1. under Loading, Mr. Horne explained that this means you cannot have a
space a truck cannot fit in and count it as a loading space.
Chairman Gordon then suggested this proposed amendment be given
more thought. In an attempt to give the staff some direction, Chairman
Gordon noted that perhaps the Commission is concerned with the word "paved"
and suggested some alternative term be used.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PER -MIT
Request for a Conditional Use Permit by Robert W. Kerns and Betty Joan
Kerns to operate a garage in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, Route 692.
#001 -80.
ACTION - Withdrawn by
Applicant
Mr. Riley first gave the background information, noting that
specific uses requiring a conditional use permit do not include public
garages.
Mr. B. J. Tisinger, attorney, came forward and noted that he
was representing Mr. & Mrs. Kerns. Mr. Tisinger explained that when they
made application they thought they came under an area of the ordinance, but
apparently this does not. Mr. Tisinger further stated that he would request
this request be tabled and further would like to initiate an addition to the
930
Planning Commission Meetings -6-
zoning ordinance to allow public garages in the A -1 category
3/7/80
Mr. Tisinger
explained that the applicant has 29.6 acres on Route 692 off of Route 522N
on which there is a trailer and a garage and which is now in violation of
the zoning ordinance. What we are asking, continued Mr. Tisinger, is the
amendment to the ordinance to allow us to come into compliance after the
conditional use permit is granted. Mr. Tisinger stated that they would only
be asking for approximately 600' X 600' come under the conditional use
permit, making the nearest neighbor some 1000' feet away. Mr. Tisinger noted
that this conditional use permit would allow Mr. Kerns to apply for a State
Inspection Station. Mr. Tisinger further noted that they will live up to
whatever conditions are placed on this conditional use permit.
Chairman Gordon next asked if there was anyone in opposition.
Mrs. Alejandro Castro came forward and introduced herself to the
Commission noted that they owned adjoining property for twenty years.
Mrs. Castro noted that she objected to Mr, Kerns having a car dump at this
location.
Chairman Gordon explained that the conditional use process would en-
able the County to put restrictions against excess situations.
Mr. Stiles then asked if Mrs. Castro could see this garage from
her property line,
Mrs. Castro answered that she could not be sure.
Mr. Stiles commented that he was there this afternoon and noted
that you could not see the garage from the property line and further noted
that you could only see the roof of the garage from the road.
Mrs. Castro commented that she just wanted some protection, to
keep this a nice piece of property.
Mr. DeHaven stated that a conditional use permit would give
protection.
931
Planning Commission Minutes -7- 3/5/80
Mr. Golladay stated that the issuing of a conditional use
permit would take Mr. Kerns out of being illegal and put some conditions
on the operation. Mr. Golladay suggested that Mrs. Castro receive a copy
of conditions that could be placed on a conditional use permit.
Mr. Stiles also. explained that a conditional use permit is
placed with a time limit and that they are reviewed automatically. Mr.
Stiles further noted that if a violation is detected, the permit can be
revoked.
Chairman Gordon commented that the Planning Commission must look
at both sides and stated that the Planning Commission will take steps to
protect all involved.
Mrs. Castro, Jr. then came forward and introduced herself to
the Commission and asked what would happen if a conditional use permit is
not issued.
Mr. Riley stated that technically Mr. Kerns is in violation and
the staff feels that he is trying to work toward the end of making, his
operation legal. Mr. Riley further explained that those in violation could
be issued a letter to cease operation or correct violation.
Mr. Golladay summarized by confirming with Mr. Riley that because
Mr. Kerns is making an effort to correct the situation the Planning Commission
will let it go until a permit is approved or disapproved.
Chairman Gordon expressed that this is an area that needs to be
addressed and a vehicle is needed to make it compatible with the neighbors
and allow an individual to do this type of work.
Mr. Golladay noted that if an item is tabled, it must be heard
in thirty days.
Mr. Tisinger noted that if that is the case, he would officially
withdraw.the application at this time.
932
Planning Commission Minutes -8- 3/5/80
Mr. Riley explained that under Section 21 -12 of the Zoning
Ordinance Mr. Kerns can make application to the Planning Commission for an
ordinance amendment change.
Chairman Gordon commented that a worksession is needed to discuss
the issue of treatment of garages in A zones.
At this point in the meeting the Chairman relinguished the chair
to the Vice - Chairman who conducted the rest of this meeting.
REZONING
Request for rezoning by Richard R. Neff Construction Company, No. 005 -80,
from A -2 to M -1 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
ACTION - Tabled
Mr. Riley first gave background information, noting that the
Health Department requirements have not yet been satisfied as an alternate
method of sewage disposal will be necessary, Mr, Riley then pointed out the
area in question on a visual aide, noting the adjoining zoning,
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Sluder commented that
Mr. Neff, to date, does not have Health Department approval.
Mr. Golladay noted that it is the policy of the Commission to not
hear a petition until there is approval from all the reviewing agencies.
�.4r. Golladay then made a motion to table further discussion on this rezoning.
This was seconded by Mr. Kirk.
Mr. Gordon noted that, since it was advertised to be heard, the
opposition should be given time to make their presentation.
Mr. Golladay added that the petitioner should also be given time
to speak. Mr. Golladay next withdrew his motion, as did the second, Mr. Kirk.
In answer to Mr. Neff's question, Mr. Sluder commented that to date
933
Planning Commission Minutes -9- 3/5/80
he has received no approval from the Department of Inspections with regard
to the variance needed from that Department, Mr, Sluder added that this
land will not perk and noted that the problem can be taken care of by an
alternate method.
Mr. Neff stated that the equipment would only be stored at
this location from December until March of the year or when there is a
need to work on a piece of equipment.
Chairman Brumback next asked if there were any other persons
to speak in favor of the petition. There being none, Chairman Brumback
called for any one wishing to speak in opposition.
Mr. John Wert first came forward and introduced himself to the
Commission. Mr. Wert noted that he was a resident in the area and further
submitted a petition to the Commission from area residents. Mr. Wert stated
that their major concern is the access on Route 841, noting that it is a
very light use road.
Mrs. Marie McCarter next came forward and introduced herself to
the Commission, stating that she objected to looking at unsightly and unsafe
equipment storage this close to her residence.
At this point in the meeting, Mr. Gordon took leave.
Mr. Golladay next made a motion that the petition submitted by
Mr. Wert be made a part of the minutes. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven
and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the following petition be made a part of the minutes of
this meeting of 3/5/80 of the Frederick County Planning Commission,
PETITION IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
TO: The Department of Planning and Development, County of Frederick,
Commonwealth of Virginia, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia 22601 -
John R. Riley, Director.
934
Planning Commission Minutes -10- 3/5/80
In Re: Application of Richard R. Neff Construction Company - Rezoning for
Storage of heavy equipment.
Rezone from A -2 (Agricultural General) to M -1 (Industrial- Limited).
The undersigned affected property owners do by their signature hereon express
their opposition to the above proposed rezoning action for the basic reason
that the access to the property proposed to be rezoned constitutes their
access to their property via State Route 841 which is at present little more
than a country lane .02 of a mile in length located between U.S. 11 and the
right -of -way of I- 81.
To accommodate heavy equipment traffic would create a safety hazard to the
residents of this enclave of property owners which consist of nine residential
properties and one general agricultural property, each and everyone of which
are required to use said Route 841 as their means of access.
In addition in order to accommodate heavy equipment traffic such as "low boys"
to haul caterpillar tractors, graders, backhoes, front- end - loaders, auto -
patrols, or the movement of such graders, backhoes, front - end - loaders, auto -
patrols, together with dump trucks and other heavy equipment associated with
the business of the applicant, would utterly destroy the surface of said
Route 841 and would require the widening of said Route 841 to reasonably
accommodate said vehicles and the reconstruction and reinforcement of said
roadway.
For the reasons set forth above and for other reasons the undersigned do
oppose the granting of the proposed rezoning.
/John H. Wert
/Eve McCormick
/Robert McCormick
/Jan Tusing
/Gary L. Tusing
/Barbara R. Greene
/Caroline J. Carper
/ Mary L. Wert
/John F. Baker, Sr.
/Charles R. McCarter
/Bertie M. :McCarter
/Mr. & Mrs. Curtis Vann, Jr.
/Raymond Bly
/Louise B. Baker
/Philip 0. Stewart
/Loretta C. Stewart
/Harry E. Martin
Also the following property owners in the general vicinity of said rezoning
also object:
/Gladys Ogden
/Marshall Fletcher
/Robert H. Clayton
Mr, Gary Tusing next came forward and introduced himself to the
Commission. Mr. Tusing noted that additional objections are that there are
small children in the area and questioned the safety aspect of the proposed
use
of this area.
Mr.
Tusing also
noted
that
sewage
disposal could
come into
the
residential
areas,
Mr. Tusing
also
stated
that
the rezoning of
this
935
Planning Commission Minutes -11-
3/5/80
property could leave the door open for manufacturing concerns to come into
this area.
In answer to Mr. Brumback's question, Mr. Riley explained that
any permitted M -1 use could be put in this area if it were rezoned.
Ms. Eve McCormick next came forward and stated that she was in
agreement with what Mr. Tusing had stated, Ms, McCormick noted that the
petition was signed by 100% of the neighbors with the exception of one that
could not be contacted. Ms. McCormick commented that she thought the
rezoning of Technicon was a mistake and would like no further rezoning%
In answer to Mr. Stiles' question, Mr, Neff noted that it was
not likely to obtain access to Route 11.
Mr. Bob McCormick came forward and introduced himself to the
Commission. Mr. McCormick commented that this road had two blind- ;spots
and further noted that this area is surrounded by highways and noted his
concern regarding pollution.
Mr. Riley explained that the Highway Department had given their
approval and noted that they said this rezoning would notadversely affect
Route 841 and,that if there were repairs to be made, the Va. Dept. of
Highways would make them.
Mr. Riley next read a letter to the Commission from Philip 0.
Stewart.
Mr. Golladay made a motion that this letter be made a part of
the minutes. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission made a motion
to make the following letter from Philip 0. Stewart a part of the minutes
of their meeting of 3/5/80.
936
Planning Commission Minutes -12- 3/5/80
2/29/80
John R. Riley, Director
Frederick County Department
of Planning and Development
P. 0. Box 601
9 Court Square
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Application of Richard R. Neff Construction Company Rezoning
Dear Mr. Riley:
This refers to your letter of February 21, 1980 and to our subsequent
telephone conversation.
Needless to say all those owning homes in this area are concerned about
the access problem of Rte. 841 and several intend to attend the hearing.
My particular concern is the fact that I am disabled and purchased this
home last June precisely because it is barrier free construction. For
that reason I am writing you since I will not be able to attend the public
hearing. In addition we also have a handicapped daughter (Huntington's
Disease) and are concerned for her welfare since we are "locked" in to this
property come what may. Others might move if the effect on their property
values were not too severe. We cannot, and are therefore at the mercy of
rezoning.
We would not object to the use of the subject property so long as it had
direct access to U.S. 11, which may or may not be possible. However, we
fully agree with others that the use of Rte. 841 for the movement of heavy
equipment would create an intolerable situation and would be detrimental
to the interest of all ten (10) families who use Rte. 841 as their only
means of access. In fact the situation could be hazardous as well as
detrimental to the condition of the road and property values.
Covered storage of heavy equipment might well increase the fire hazard to
this community and if access from U.S. 11 is possible and the rezoning
application granted, I believe that city water and attendant fire hydrants
ought to be extended onto this property for fire fighting purposes.
Since I am not physically able to attend your meeting on :March 5, I
respectfully request that this letter be read and made a part of the
hearing record.
Sincerely yours,
/Philip 0.
RFD #2, Box
Middletown,
Stewart
18
Va. 22645
937
Planning Commission Minutes -13- 3/5/80
Mr. Golladay then stated that,in light of the fact that the
Commission has gone against established policy regarding the hearing of
a zoning application without all the approvals,he did not know how the
Commission could table another zoning request because of insufficient
approvals from reviewing agencies. Mr. Golladay made a motion that this
rezoning request be tabled until the March 19, 1980 meeting. This was
seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission unanimously moved to table
further discussim of the Rezoning Petition No. 001 -80 until their next
meeting March 19,1980.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHANGE - HOME OCCUPATIONS
Mr. Riley noted that what was included in the agenda is the
Home Occupations Ordinance Amendment proposal that was sent to the Board
of Supervisors several months ago and tabled.
Mr. Stiles questioned if this prevented'the operation of Antique
Shops as a home occupation.
Mr. Riley stated that they could be permitted with a conditional
use permit.
After further discussicn Stiles ascertained that a person could
not be granted the right to operate an Antique Shop in his house under the
home occupation section of the ordinance.
Mr. Riley noted that he understood the inadequacies of the
ordinance are that a conditional use permit for an antique shop is present
but it is not considered a home occupation in the definition section of the
ordinance.
Mr. Stiles then questioned what the logic is for restricting
home occupations in an out building.
940
Planning Commission Minutes -14- 3/5/80
Mr. Riley explained that the problem is not as great in an
agricultural zone as it is in a subdivision or residential area,
Mr. Golladay explained that accessory structure was eliminated
in all zones because of areas that are residential in character but are
not zoned residential.
Mr. Horne noted that you can write specific restrictions in
the ordinance to cover these situations.
Mr. Riley suggested that the staff take this proposed amendment
change for home occupations and look at it further.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT CHANGE - NON- VOLATILE LIQUIDS
Mr. Riley noted that a property owner has requested a change in
the M -1 Section to allow for the storage of non - volatile liquids on the
premises. Mr. Riley explained that he was submitting this to the Commission
so they would be familiar with it when it came up for public hearing.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley commented that
this change would allow outside storage so long as it is screened.
Mr. Horne explained that the request is being made because the
property owner:feels that the storage of non - flammable materials should be
allowed in a lighter industrial zone because they are not similar to the
petroleum products only allowed in M -2.
Mr. Horne also noted that the staff will look into how flammable
these materials are.
STATUS OF GERALD DEHAVEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mr. Horne stated that Mr. Donald Bowen would like to conduct an auto
repair business in a structure on the lot
Mr. Horne explained that Mr. Bow?19
ME
Planning Commission Minutes -15- 3/5/80
had produced papers showing that the Gerald DeHaven Conditional Use Permit
was not necessary since Mr, DeHaven was doing basically the same thing as
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Bowen is contending that he would be a nonconforming use,
continued Mr. Horne. Mr. Horne explained that this is being brought before
the Commission so that a determination can be made.
In answer to Mr. Stiles' question, Mr. Horne related that the
Gerald DeHaven conditional use permit did not have a non - transferable clause
in it when it was passed by the Board of Supervisors,
Mr. Horne explained that Mr. Bowen had showed receipts of the
business which demonstrate that this has been a continuing nonconforming
use by Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Golladay then asked if the new construction of this building
constituted an increase in the intensity of the nonconforming use.
Mr. Horne noted that, under nonconforming status, he can increase
the size up to 50 %.
Mr. Riley then questioned if Mr. DeHaven should have been required
to obtain a conditional use permit when he was basically doing the same as
the nonconforming use.
Mr. Sluder then asked about sewage facilities for this garage.
Mr. Sluder noted that a permit had been applied for and never picked up when
Mr. DeHaven applied for his conditional use permit.
Mr. Melnikoff of the Department of Inspections explained that the
entire framed structure has been removed and noted that only a small portion
of the original block foundation and slab remain intact and are incorporated
into the new construction. Mr, Melnikoff also stated that the roof had been
replaced.
Mr. Riley expressed that he felt, because of information furnished
939
1
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
3/5/80
Mr. Riley explained that the problem is not as great in an
agricultural zone as it is in a subdivision or residential area,
Mr. Golladay explained that accessory structure was eliminated
in all zones because of areas that are residential in character but are
not zoned residential.
Mr. Horne noted that you can write specific restrictions in
the ordinance to cover these situations.
Mr. Riley suggested that the staff take this proposed amendment
change for home occupations and look at it further.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT CHANGE - NON - VOLATILE LIQUIDS
Mr. Riley noted that a property owner has requested a change in
the M -1 Section to allow for the storage of non - volatile liquids on the
premises. Mr. Riley explained that he was submitting this to the Commission
so they would be familiar with it when it came up for public hearing.
In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Riley commented that
this change would allow outside storage so long as it is screened.
Mr. Horne explained that the request is being made because the
property owner feels that the storage of non - flammable materials should be
allowed in a lighter industrial zone because they are not similar to the
petroleum products only allowed in M -2.
Mr. Horne also noted that the staff will look into how flammable
these materials are.
TUS OF GERALD DEHAVEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mr. Horne stated that Mr. Donald Bowen would like to conduct an auto
repair business in a structure on the lot. Mr. Horne explained that Mr. Bovgl;
0
Planning Commission Minutes -15- 3/5/80
had produced papers showing that the Gerald DeHaven Conditional Use Permit
was not necessary since Mr, DeHaven was doing basically the same thing as
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Bowen is contending that he would be a nonconforming use,
continued Mr. Horne. Mr. Horne explained that this is being brought before
the Commission so that a determination can be made,
In answer to Mr. Stiles' question, Mr. Horne related that the
Gerald DeHaven conditional use permit did not have a non - transferable clause
in it when J.t was passed by the Board of Supervisors,
Mr. Horne explained that Mr. Bowen had showed receipts of the
business which demonstrate that this has been a continuing nonconforming
use by Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Golladay then asked if the new construction of this building
constituted an increase in the intensity of the nonconforming use,
Mr. Horne noted that, under nonconforming status, he can increase
the size up to 50 %.
Mr. Riley then questioned if Mr. DeHaven should have been required
to obtain a conditional use permit when he was basically doing the same as
the nonconforming use.
Mr. Sluder then asked about sewage facilities for this garage.
Mr. Sluder noted that a permit had been applied for and never picked up when
Mr. DeHaven applied for his conditional use permit,
Mr. Melnikoff of the Department of Inspections explained that the
entire framed structure has been removed and noted that only a small portion
of the original block foundation and slab remain intact and are incorporated
into the new construction. Mr, Melnikoff also sated that the roof had been
replaced.
Mr. Riley expressed that he felt, because of information furnished
Planning Commission Minutes -16- 3/5/80
by Mr. Huffman, the use never really stopped and that a conditional use
permit should not have been required in the first place and this operation
should be allowed to continue as it is,
Mr. Gerald DeHaven then told the Commission that he will not
be using his permit, noting some annoyance at being required to go through
the permit process.
Mr. Kirk next asked if another entrance will be considered.
i
Mr. Bowen stated that eventually he would like to place the
entrance in front of the garage.
By general consensus, the Planning Comission advised the staff
that a conditional use permit should not be required and that Mr. Bowen
be allowed to conduct his business as a nonconforming business.
There being no further business, Mr. Golladay made a motion
that the meeting be adjourned. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed
unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
oh R. Ril y, Secre ary
C. Lang on Gordon, Chairman
941