Joint Public Hearing Appomattox Town Council & Planning Commission July 11, 2013
The Appomattox Town Council and Appomattox Town Planning Commission held a Joint Public Hearing on Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Appomattox County Board of Supervisor’s Meeting Room, 171 Price Lane, Appomattox, Virginia. The public hearing was followed by a question and answer session at 5:00 p.m. and then a presentation of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map at 6:00 p.m. Mr. C. William Gillespie, Jr., Interim Town Manager/Zoning Administrator provided the presentation.
Town Council Members present: C. L. McDearmon, Jr., Steven T. Conner, Timothy W. Garrett, Mary Lou Spiggle, Claudia Puckette, N. H. “Jimmy” Mayberry. Absent – Mayor Paul D. Harvey
Planning Commission Members present: Marvin Mitchell, S. L. Ferguson, Roger Carson. Absent – Erin Finch.
Others present: C. William Gillespie, Town Manager, Roxanne Paulette, Clerk of Council, Marsha Ryan, Brod Pack, Sylvia Pack, Fred Kruschwitz, Gary Gilliam, Phillip Jamerson, Steve Lawson, K. Horn, Debbie Baine, Bryan Baine, Jack Caldwell, John Canada, Tim Sturgeon, Barry & Diane Morris, Wayne & Peggy Simpson, Carolyn Dolan, Brian Robertson.
N. H. “Jimmy” Mayberry, Vice-Mayor called the Town Council to order.
Marvin Mitchell, Chairman called the Planning Commission to order.
Mr. Gillespie previously (during the 6:00 p.m. presentation) provided the following purpose for the public hearing:
This has been the most comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance since 1969 when the
ordinance was first enacted. The Appomattox Town Council has been redrafting the ordinance for well over 18 months.
There are a number of reasons why the council decided to view the map and ordinance and they
include several areas of the town that are “spot” zoned, public property was not identified, there was interest in creating a single family/village home residential areas and taking a closer look at business districts by creating B-2 more intensive use.
The Special Use Process was reviewed by the Town Attorney and changes to the language were
suggested so that it flows better.
There are a number of things that did not change – such as R-1 and R-3 have the same square
footage as before, Court Street is less business intense to flow closer to the Main Street area, Confederate Blvd (B-2) is more intense business, MHP-1 is the same.
The floor was opened for comments:
Gary Gilliam – 291 Turkey Road My name is Gary Gilliam; I reside at 291 Turkey Road, which is just outside the town limits. I do appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts with you this evening. For all of us, in Appomattox
1
Joint Public Hearing Appomattox Town Council & Planning Commission July 11, 2013
County, the Town of Appomattox itself is a central hub, and our hometown. It is where we grocery shop, send our kids to school, go to the doctor, and engage in every other form of life to conduct our personal business, socialize, and go to church in so many cases.
A lot of good can come out of a review of the zoning ordinance and improving the town’s land use policy and I commend you for your effort. My purpose for being here is to address apparent conflicts with the current town code and one specified zoning change presented. The current code states one directed purpose of the existing code is to protect historic areas. One property owner has requested a change of zoning designation that is counterintuitive to the code. Further, it is the altered state of access to submit a zoning change request, and altered process of review for the zoning change to occur, that I would like to express concern about. For example, the current process for a zoning change request requires notification to each adjoining landowner that a change of zoning request has been submitted. The current proposal as presented does not do that and requires the existing land owner to dig deeper to understand what may or may not be changing around them.
To quote this week’s Times-Virginian article, “in an effort to attract future growth, Town of Appomattox officials have proposed changes to the town’s zoning ordinance and map.” I believe you will get two thumbs up from 99% of the community with such a mission statement.
I would like to make a recommendation on the process and share an observation that I believe would help citizens engage and participate in a manner that may be more effective for them, and provide opportunity for the town to garnish a more satisfactory result in terms of customer service, which would help minimize complaints and potential legal issues regarding notification.
First, it would be helpful if on the map of proposed changes, an identifier was placed on those parcels actually being changed. This would be most helpful in terms of review and comprehension of what is occurring.
Secondly, and the reason I am attending tonight, not all of the changes being proposed are directly related to the noted purpose of the zoning change, to attract future growth.
I am aware of one zoning change request incorporated into this proposal that comes at the request of the property owner. I would recommend any such requested change, that is not, directly related to the mission of the Town’s efforts and intentions, be separated out and handled in a manner where citizens of the community may be properly advised and given the opportunity to participate.
To be clearer, it appears the current process does not afford one neighbor the clear opportunity to be aware of another neighbor’s intent. An individual could have an intention to change the use of their property, that would be benefited or solely enabled by a zoning change, and that property owner would not be directly open to the scrutiny of the adjoining landowners. That property owner who is seeking the zoning change can remain silent as this process moves along, or even could project “they” changed it, there will be no record. Again, I am only aware of one such request, through a conversation with Mr. Gillespie, if they’re others that would be important as well.
The Times-Virginian article also noted Mr. Gillespie stating “that the changes are to get areas in the proper zoning.” I believe this is contrary to the request of change for Tax Map # 64A5(A)66, 658 Lee
2
Joint Public Hearing Appomattox Town Council & Planning Commission July 11, 2013
Grant Avenue. The property is currently zoned R-1 and the plans show the current owner’s request of a lessening to that designation.
I wish to reiterate the expression currently stated in the Town Code –Section 195.2 Purpose of Chapter. Part E. – Protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas. The current owner was certainly aware of this status as the purchaser and current neighboring landowner.
The current land owner is forwarding a business plan. You in your role have a business decision to make. I would strongly encourage you to not support the zoning change request for this parcel of land. And, would not for reasons already expressed and shared in the current ordinance, the current landowner will respect your decision.
It is in my opinion as the details of their plan come forth to you, you will recognize a cost and impediment to other stakeholders. So I again would ask you see the advantage in parsing out those request which are separate from your stated reasons for updating the zoning code, and allow a more focused consideration and improved discussion to develop for those properties being requested a change by current landowner. This is not a foot race and I would strongly encourage you to consider these observations.
Respectfully yours, Gary Gilliam
Bryan Baine – 646 Lee Grant Avenue He appreciates the work involved on the map and ordinance. It is much needed. Appreciates the idea of more categories and it is very helpful for municipal zoning.
Stated he had spoken with Mr. Gillespie earlier in the day encouraging the addition of deli’s, coffee shops and sandwich shops in the B-1 list of Permitted Uses.
His main concern however, is the property near 646 Lee Grant Avenue, property being rezoned from R-1 to R-3. The property is owned by Liberty Baptist Church. Zoning as he understands it – protects land owners. The property he purchased was in the middle of an R-1 district. The normal process for Liberty Baptist Church to rezone its property should include a petition to the Planning Commission. The adjacent property owners would be notified of a public hearing for the request and then the adjacent owners would be able to voice their concerns, if any. This process has abbreviated his rights. He urged Town Council not to rezone without the proper process.
Fred Kruchwitz – 3164 Wildway Road, Appomattox He appreciates the concerns that Bryan Baine and Gary Gilliam have shared. Liberty Baptist Church requested the change of the property from R-1 to R-3. The church has a problem with overcrowding in the classrooms and is in need of a gym. The gym would not fit on the Moses property without encroachment on the Babcock property. It is the desire of Liberty Baptist Church to consolidate all of this property into one lot. The zone line between the Moses and Babcock property will be lost. Currently, the Babcock Home is being used as Sunday school classrooms. Schools are not permitted in R-1. And while it might be grandfathered in it seems only right to make it all the correct zone. It doesn’t change a whole lot either way.
3
Joint Public Hearing Appomattox Town Council & Planning Commission July 11, 2013
Mr. Kruschwitz also offered the following in letter format:
Appomattox County Planning Commission Subject: Tax Lot 64A5(A)66 …. (Babcock Parcel)
Dear Sir:
The elders of Liberty Baptist Church request a zone change on the Babcock parcel from R-1 to R-2
for the following reasons:
•
•
Liberty also owns the adjacent two parcels referred to as the Moses property. Both these parcels as well as the church parcel itself are all zoned R-2. Consolidation of all the property including the Babcock property into one parcel is presently underway to eliminate interior property lines and setback violation issues that will arise when we submit for a building permit in the near future. Our new educational building will be located on the Moses property but extend slightly onto the rear of the Babcock parcel. The line distinguishing R-2 from R-2 will be eliminated by the parcel consolidation and it is just reasonable to make the zoning for the new parcel a uniform R-2. Liberty is presently using the Babcock home for Sunday school classes and has been doing so for over a year. Under present R-1 zoning this is a permitted use whereas under the new R-1 zone, schools are not permitted. Our desire is to continue to use the home for classrooms but without grandfather privileges, we will be in violation. The new R-2 zone allows for schools and again it is appropriate to make the zoning for this parcel R-2 to eliminate the potential use violation.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
On behalf of the elders and congregation, Fred Kruschwitz
Tim Sturgeon – 583 Lee Grant Avenue, Appomattox It seems as though the neighborhood is getting blindsided. Why take down historical homes? Recognizes that Liberty Baptist Church is in a rock and hard place but there should be procedures to go through. If Liberty Baptist Church has nothing to hide then put it all out there.
J. E. Sears & Company, Inc. – Robert A. Sears, Jr. – submitted the following written request: July 9, 2013
Mr. Gillespie,
I request that J. E. Sears & Co., Inc.’s properties tax map #’s 64A5 (A)30 remain zoned M-1 Industrial and the adjoining properties 64A5(A)27, 64A5(A)28, 64A5(A)29 and 64A5(A)29A be changed to M-1 Industrial.
This property consists of 6.5 acres, a 17000 square foot building with an additional 6200 square foot out building. The property also has a railroad siding which would be beneficial to a manufacture. The new B-1 zoning would not even allow us to reopen a building supply business which operated 85 years ago on the property.
4
Joint Public Hearing Appomattox Town Council & Planning Commission July 11, 2013
The building is too large for general business in a downtown location. I would appreciate you
considering my request.
Sincerely, Robert A. Sears, Jr.
Robert Stephens – 711 Snapps Mill Road, Spout Spring, Virginia submitted the following written request: July 2, 2013
Mr. Gillespie,
I own the property fronting on Oakleigh Avenue and fronting on Martha Street. The Tax Map numbers are 64A6(1)1, 64A6(1)2, 64A6(1)3, 64A6(1)4, 64A6(1)5, 64A6(1)6. The property is zoned R-2 Residential at this time. And that is why I purchased the property a few years ago because of the options this piece of property gave me. I have kept the property in nice condition and paid the Town Real Estate taxes. It is being proposed to be changed to R-2 High Density Residential. I do not want this to happen. Please keep it as it is was when I purchased it which would now be R-3 General Residential, which is the way the land is proposed to be directly across the street on Oakleigh Avenue. That was also previously zoned just like my property. This gives me the same options that I previously had. Therefore, this is what I would like to keep and have it be. I do not want these options to be taken away from me. It still adjoins the same R-1 and leaves the large piece of property owned by me, for a much better purpose to benefit me, my family, and the Town Citizens.
If you have any questions or I need to do anything else to have this property put in the new R-3 Zoning, please call me at 434-942-9498.
Thank you very much,
Robert Stephens
With no further comments, the public hearing was declared closed by Mr. Mayberry, Vice-Mayor, presiding.
Mr. Mitchell, Chairman, Planning Commission closed the Planning Commission’s meeting.
Roxanne W. Paulette, Clerk
N. H. “Jimmy” Mayberry, Vice-Mayor
5