[I. Call to Order]
[00:00:06]
[II. Roll Call – Determination of Quorum]
AS PART OF ME, WE HAVE A ROLL CALL OF THE MEMBERS, CHAIRMAN JONES, PRESENT VICE CHAIRMAN, MCFADDEN, COMMISSIONER MARSH, NER ROSLYN COMMISSIONER GORDON, PRESENT COMMISSIONER MERCHANT HERE.[III. Approval of Minutes]
NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21ST, UH, 2020.THEY COMMISSIONED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ARE WE READY TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? MR. CHAIRMAN? I WOULD MOVE UP THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2020 BE ACCEPTED AS SUBMITTED.
UM, HE SAID WE'LL HAVE A, WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL FOR THAT COMMISSIONER MARSH NOUR.
OH, THE, UM, THE MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
UH, THE NEXT, UH, ITEM IS, UM, CITIZEN COMMENTS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE NOT ON THE SUBJECT OF THE, UM, PUBLIC HEARING THAT FIRST, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT CITIZENS WOULD HAVE, THAT WOULD NOT BE RELATED TO THIS, BUT TO OTHER MATTERS AND OTHER CONCERNS.
SO IS THERE ANYONE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WELL, TH THIS, THIS IS THE TIME FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR SUBJECTS, NOT RELATED TO THE, UM, UH, THE MAIN SUBJECT OF THIS MEETING.
NOT HEARING ANYTHING I ASSUME WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS.
[V. Public Hearings]
WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPLICATION NUMBER F R S P U TWO THREE THREE ONE DASH 2020 SUBMITTED BY RICHARD SPI WHACK, A PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON OUR ONE DISTRICT LEGAL NONCONFORMING, LOTS OF RECORD LOCATED ON GRAND AVENUE TAX MAP PARCELS TWO OH TWO OH A SIX, SIX DASH FIVE, LOTS 11 AND 12.AND, UM, MR. WILSON, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US A BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT INFORMATION BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, AS YOU SUMMARIZED, UH, WE DO HAVE ONE APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING THE SEEDING, A SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS PURSUANT TO ONE 75 DASH ONE 28, A WHICH DEALS WITH NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD.
UH, THE APPLICATION PROPOSES THE CONSOLIDATION OF TWO ADJOINING, UNDEVELOPED LEGALLY.
NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD.
UH, THESE LOGS ARE NONCONFORMING IN BOTH THEIR AREA AND THEIR WEB AND THEIR PROPOSAL, UH, WOULD BE TO COMBINE THESE INTO ONE STILL LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING LOT IN, BUT IT WOULD BE NONCONFORMING IN TERMS OF WIDTH.
ONLY THE PURPOSE OF THIS LOT CONSOLIDATION WOULD BE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED DWELLING AND AN R ONE ZONING DISTRICT.
IT'S, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THOSE MASKS OFF.
THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE RIGHT IN THE NICK NEW ORDER, BUT CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME ANY BETTER NOW? OKAY.
I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA HAVE TO POP RIGHT DOWN INTO THE, UH, INTO THE MICROPHONE THEN BECAUSE OF THE MASS.
YEAH, JUST TO REVIEW AGAIN, I THINK THE, UH, THE CHAIRMAN HAS GONE THROUGH THE, UH, THROUGH THE SUMMARY, IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT, UH, SLIDE, UH, WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A VICINITY MAP, UH, THAT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE TWO PARCELS.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE, HUH?
[00:05:04]
OKAY.AND THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, I'LL PROBABLY DOWN, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, THIS IS A, A DEPICTION OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AS IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON THE TWO LOTS, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THESE TWO LOTS WOULD BE COMBINED AND TO A SINGLE LOT, UH, SLIGHTLY OVER 11,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE 10,000 MINIMUM SQUARE FEET.
BUT THE LOT, THE RESULTING LOT WITH, UH, WOULD BE 50 FEET.
AND, UH, IT'S THAT NON-CONFORMITY AND WITH WHY THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL PERMIT REVIEW AND, AND PROCEEDING.
WELL, WE HAVE HERE IS, IS LOOKING AT ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION ONE 75, 28.
UH, THERE'S ACTUALLY A CRITERIA THAT IS, THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND IS SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, TO DETERMINE, UM, WHAT'S CONSIDERED COMPARATIVE VALUE.
AND THIS IS, UM, UNIQUE TO THE R ONE DISTRICT FOR, FOR NON-CONFORMING LOTS.
AND WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN THERE, UH, THE BOXED AREA THAT IS THE AREA, UH, USED FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ORDINANCE AND WITHIN THAT AREA, UH, THERE WERE 14 HOMES AND THOSE 14 HOMES, UH, FROM PUBLIC RECORDS, THE, THE SQUARE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, AND OTHER INFORMATION WERE TAKEN TO DETERMINE THE COMPARATIVE VALUE AND ALFREDO, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE, UH, TO THE NEXT PART, UM, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A TABLE AND THIS TABLE REPRESENTS THE 14 HOMES THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE COMPARATIVE AREA, UH, AS DICTATED BY THE ORDINANCE AND WITH EACH OF THOSE HOMES.
AS I STATED BEFORE, THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH DWELLING FROM THE, FROM THE COUNTY RECORDS, UH, IS SHOWN AND WHAT YOU HAVE, THERE IS A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THESE HOMES OF 28,706 SQUARE FEET.
NOW, FINALLY, TO FIND JUST THE, JUST THE STATISTICAL AVERAGE, THAT NUMBER WAS DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOME 14, WHICH GIVES AN AVERAGE OF 2050 SQUARE FEET.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE FURTHER DESCRIBES FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPARISON HOMES ARE COMPARATIVE VALUE THAT THE COMPARATIVE SIZE THAT IS APPLIED SHALL BE 60% OF THAT AVERAGE HOME SIZE THAT YOU SEE THERE, UH, 2050 SQUARE FEET.
SO THE COMPARATIVE SIZE THAT'S THAT'S USED BY THE ORDINANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WOULD BE 1000, 230 SQUARE FEET.
THERE'S THERE'S ONE MORE STEP.
AND THE EQUATION USED BY THE ORDINANCE IN EVALUATING THE PROPOSED HOME.
AND THAT LAST VALUE IS THAT THE PROPOSED HOME HAS TO BE AT LEAST 90%, UH, AND SIZE OF THAT, OF THE SIZE THAT'S USED.
SO BY DOING THAT, WE TAKE THE 1,230 SQUARE FOOT COMPARATIVE SIZE.
AND 90% OF THAT VALUE WOULD BE 1,107 SQUARE FEET, THE PROPOSED SIZE OF THE HOME AS PRESENTED AND THE APPLICATION.
AND THIS WOULD BE THE, THE, THE, THE LIVING SPACE.
UH, THE, THIS HOME DID HAVE, UH, A, A FIRST FLOOR FRONT PORCH, A SECOND FLOOR, UH, PORCH, AND ALSO A SMALL BACK PORCH.
UH, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THAT WAS SUBTRACTED FROM THE SIZE OF THE HOME.
AND THAT CAME WHERE THEY ARE, THEY HOME, WHERE THEY LIVING SPACE OF 1,852 SQUARE FEET.
SO THE PROPOSED DWELLING, UH, DOES EXCEED THE COMPARATIVE HOUSE
[00:10:01]
SIZE, UH, AS SET FORTH BY THE ORDINANCE BY 745 SQUARE FEET.AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE LIST OF HOMES JUST FOR FURTHER COMPARISON, SAY THAT THE, UH, PROPOSED DWELLING IN THE APPLICATION IS LARGER IN SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN FIVE OF THE 14 HOMES.
AND THE REVIEW AREA, THE, UH, APPLICATION THE STAFF REPORT DOES GIVE THE PROPERTY INFORMATION.
UH, THE COUNTY RECORDS THAT THAT WAS USED SHOWING THE, UH, UH, PICTURES AS WELL AS THE FLOOR PLANS AND THE VALUE, UH, LOT SIZE, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOMES, UH, OF THE 14 HOMES USED IN COMPARATIVE IN THE COMPARATIVE VALUE AREA.
THE, THE ORDINANCE DOES, UH, ALSO INDICATE, UH, NOT WITH GREAT SPECIFICITY, BUT, BUT LOOKS TO TRY TO SEE DOES IS THE HOME, DOES IT, DOES IT FIT IN THE CONTEXT, I GUESS MAYBE IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT? IS THERE ANYTHING YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE HOME THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKES IT, YOU KNOW, EITHER INCOMPATIBLE OR, OR SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, NEGATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM HOMES FOUND IN THE COMPARATIVE AREA, STAFF FOUND THAT, UH, OUT OF THE 14 HOMES, UH, THERE IS A VARIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLES.
THERE'S THERE WASN'T ONE CENTRAL OR COMMON ARCHITECTURAL THEME THAT WAS USED.
UH, THE MOST OF THE HOMES UP PREDOMINANTLY WERE ONE STORY HOMES.
THE, THE HOME THAT IS PROPOSED IS A TWO-STORY HOME AND EVEN LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION TYPE, UH, THERE IS A VARIETY OF HOME BUILDING MATERIALS AND FINISHES GOING FROM BRICK WOOD STUCCO.
THERE THERE'S JUST A, A VARIETY, UH, ALL OF THE HOMES, YOU KNOW, STAFF FINDS THAT IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU KNOW, LARGE OR SMALL, IT WAS A, YOU KNOW, IT'S A NEAT WELL-KEPT, UH, STREET AND AREA, BUT LOOKING AT THE HOME THAT IS PROPOSED, UH, STAFF DID NOT FIND THAT IT WAS COMPATIBLE, UH, WITH THE DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF HOUSING, ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, UH, AS WELL AS MATERIALS AS, AS FOUND, UH, ALONG THE COURSE OF, OF, OF GRAND AVENUE.
UM, WOULD THAT IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSED USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO LOTS REDUCES THE NUMBER OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS IN THE AREA BY ONE AND THE ONE REMAINING LOT WHILE STILL BEING LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING IN TERMS OF LOT WITH WILL BE CONFORMING AND TERMS OF LOT AREA.
AND THE ORDINANCE DOES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT COMBINING A BLOTS IS ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING THE LOTS CONFORMING AN AREA, AND AS BEING A STATE OF DESIRE OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND THAT, THAT WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THIS LOT COMBINATION, THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING, WELL EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPARATIVE HOMES AS DEFINED AND SET FORTH IN THE ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSED DWELLING IS CLOSER, JUST A LITTLE LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FEET TO THE AVERAGE HOME SIZE FOUND ON GRAND AVENUE, UH, THEN THE COMPARATIVE SIZE VALUE, WHICH IT IS GREATER THAN THAT BY 745 SQUARE FEET, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS DEEMED CONSISTENT WITH COMPARATIVE HOMES IN TERMS OF BUILDING ORIENTATION, SCALE PROPORTION, AND SITE LAYOUT.
UM, AS NOTED, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT HOME ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND CONSTRUCTION TYPES PRESENT ON GRAND AVENUE.
THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING ARE CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE AND COMPLIMENTARY AND DETACHED.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE A PERMITTED USE IN THE R ONE DISTRICT.
AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL R ONE DISTRICT AND OTHER APPLICABLE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
AND LAST MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE RECEIVED WRITTEN, UH, COMMENTS ON THIS APPLICATION REQUESTS.
[00:15:01]
FIVE LETTERS AND ONE PETITION, ALL AN OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED, UH, REQUEST, UH, JUST FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.SO, YOU KNOW, THAT ALL LETTERS, UH, AND THE PETITION THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
UH, THOSE LETTERS AND PETITIONS WILL BECOME PART OF THE OFFICIAL FILE AND RECORD OF THIS APPLICATION.
YOUR OBJECTION OR SUPPORT WILL BE NOTED IN THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING.
AND, UH, AS BEING PART OF THE FILE, UH, OF THIS APPLICATION, THESE LETTERS WILL ALSO BE FORWARDED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL WHEN THE TOWN COUNCIL TAKES UP THE APPLICATION FOR ITS PURPOSES, AND WHICH IS THE FINAL REVIEWING AND DECIDING AUTHORITY.
SO IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A RECORD ON FILE THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMISSION, YOU WOULD NOT NEED TO SUBMIT A SECOND LETTER FOR PURPOSES OF GOING TO TOWN COUNCIL.
THE LETTERS THAT WE HAVE WILL BE FORWARDED AND ANY NEW LETTERS THAT WE DO RECEIVE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME OF THE TOWN COUNCIL, PUBLIC HEARING, UH, STAFF WILL ENSURE THAT, THAT THOSE LETTERS LIKEWISE, MAKE IT INTO THE HANDS OF COUNCIL.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN, AND, UM, WE HAVE A LIST OF FIVE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, SO I WILL CALL YOU FORWARD.
UM, AND, UH, YOU ARE WELCOME TO SPEAK.
UM, AND, UM, UH, SO I'LL START WITH, UH, DEREK GREEN.
THE ADDRESS IS THREE 27 GRAND AVENUE.
I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE STILL, I JUST GAVE HER A DRESS.
I AM A EQUITABLE TITLE HOLDER OF THREE 27 GRAND.
IT'S THE HOME IN THE, UH, IN THIS PICTURE THAT SHOWS THE PROPOSED PROPERTY TO BE BUILT.
WE'VE GONE OUT AND TAKEN A LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND DON'T REALLY SEE HOW THIS OUT, BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT TONIGHT, JUST FOR THE MINUTES AS AN EQUITABLE TITLE HOLDER OF THREE 27 GRAND AVENUE.
I HAVE SOME IMMEDIATE CONCERNS WITH THE USE OF LOTS OF 11 AND 12.
MY FIRST CONCERN SHOULD ALSO BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERN AS WELL.
THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER ONE 75 DASH 13, SECTION C IN ORDER TO HOOK UP TO PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER.
THE LUCK LOCK MUST BE 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND HAVE A MINIMUM WITH OF 75 FEET.
THE LOTS COMBINED ONLY MAKE 50% OF SECTION C REQUIREMENTS.
THEY BARELY MEET THE 10,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIREMENT AND DO NOT MEET THE 75 FOOT WITH REQUIREMENT.
EVEN WITH THE 20% VARIANCE AS GRANTED BY THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
YOU STILL 10 FEET SHORT, THIS PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED.
PLANNING, PLANNING, COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MENTIONS THIS FAILURE TO MEET THE WIDTH REQUIREMENT IN PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE REVIEW PORTION OF THE REPORT, BUT THEN ABRUPTLY REVERSE IT ITSELF IN PARAGRAPH TWO, STATING THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE NEW DWELLING MEET OR X SEEDS, ALL, ALL OUR ONE DISTRICT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE ARE ONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
IF THIS WERE THE CASE, THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
SO THIS STATEMENT COULD ONLY BE HALF TRUE AT BEST.
SECONDLY, AS AN EQUITABLE TITLE HOLDER, I HAVE SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED NEW HOME.
THE PROPOSED HOME WILL COVER THE ENTIRE
[00:20:01]
EAST SIDE OF THREE 27 GRAND AVENUE.AS YOU CAN SEE IN THAT PICTURE, THE SUN COMES UP ON THE EAST SIDE.
IT WILL GET ABOUT MAYBE AN HOUR ON A GOOD DAY THROUGH THAT CRACK IN THE MIDDLE AND THE DRAINAGE ON THIS LOT FROM MARY BIRD'S HOME, ALL THE WAY TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS HOME IS A NATURAL SLOPE.
PITCHERS ARE PROVIDED IN THE PACKAGE.
MY WIFE SAID THERE IS ZERO DRAINAGE PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL FOR MARY BIRD FLOCK, OR LOT THREE 27.
IT JUST SIMPLY DREAMS INTO LOTS OF 11 AND 12.
HOW THAT PROBLEM WILL BE SOLVED TO FIX THAT CRACK.
I'M NOT SURE, BUT LET ME MOVE ON.
THIS WILL BLOCK ALL OF A SUDDEN LAID ON THE SIDE OF HOME WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE OF THE LAND DRAINS ALL RAINFALL AND SNOW MELT.
THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE AN EXCESSIVE MOISTURE TO BUILD UP CREATING MUD MUCK AND LONG-TERM FOUNDATION ISSUES FROM LACK OF DRAINAGE, LOTS, 11 AND 12 ARE SITUATED IN A PLACE WHERE ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTIES DRAIN DIRECTLY TO THOSE LOTS, THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT ALSO DRAINS INTO THAT LOT.
THAT IS THE LOW SPOT ON THE STREET WORLD.
ALL THE WATER GOES NO MENTION OF THIS ISSUE AND THE PC STAFF REPORT THAT WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT SEEMS TO BREEZE OVER ANY CONCERNS OR ANY HIGHLIGHTS, ANY FACTORS THAT CAN APPROVE IN ORDER TO GET THIS HOME BUILT AND TO BEGIN TO COLLECT TAXES.
THE PLACEMENT OF A HOME IN A PROPOSED LOCATION WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CAUSE MAJOR, MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING NATURAL DRAINAGE.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT MUST BE RESOLVED, LIKELY NOT BY THE BUILDER WHO WILL BE SELLING OFF SELLING THIS OFF AND WASHING HIS HANDS AT THE SITUATION AND NOT LIKELY BY ANY MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.
LASTLY, MY CONCERN HERE IS FOR THE HARD EARNED MONEY, THE CITIZENS OF GRAND AVENUE HAVE PAID YEARS OF PROPERTY TAXES TO THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL.
THEY HAVE ASKED NOTHING IN RETURN UNTIL NOW THEY'RE ASKING PAID TOWN OFFICIALS TO CONSIDER THEIR WISHES AND TO DENY THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
FROM WHAT I GATHER, THERE IS NOT ONE PERSON LIVING ON GRAND AVENUE IN FAVOR OF TURNING THE STREET INTO A CONSTRUCTION SITE SLASH MUD HOLE FOR THE COMING YEAR.
HOW WILL THE BUILDER MANAGED TO PUT A HOME ON A 50 FOOT WIDE LOT? HOW WILL THE FOUNDATION BE DUG? HOW DO YOU GRADE A 50 FOOT WIDE LOT WITH 14 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF A HOME? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN TRY? WHY IS THERE A REGULATION REQUIRING A 75 FOOT WIDTH? WHY WOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION VIOLATE THE 75 FOOT REQUIREMENT THEN VIOLATE THE 20% VARIANCE? THIS PERMIT SHOULD BE DENIED.
THE DECEITFUL NATURE OF THE SALE OF THREE 27 GRAND WITH NO MENTION OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS, 11 AND 12 BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A HOME HAD BROUGHT ME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE LOOKED THE HOME AT AN OPEN HOUSE ON NOVEMBER THE THIRD, PUT A CONTRACT ON IT.
I THINK WE SIGNED THE CONTRACT THAT THURSDAY REAL ESTATE AGENT IS THAT THE HEARING NEVER MENTIONED THESE TWO LOTS WERE FOR SALE BY THE SAME OWNER.
WE SIGNED A CONTRACT, GAVE UP EARNEST MONEY.
NOW I FIND OUT WHEN I CAME BACK FOR HOME INSPECTION, THERE'S A PUBLIC USE HEARING SIGN SITTING IN FRONT.
WHAT I THOUGHT IS MY FOR SALE.
SO THAT BRINGS ME HERE TONIGHT.
I WOULD NOT BUY A HOME NEXT TO AN AIRPORT AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE NOISE.
I DID NOT FIND OUT THE OWNER WAS TRYING TO SELL THESE LOTS UNTIL WE CAME TO THE HOUSE.
HE CAME TO THE HOME, CAME TO THE HOUSE FOR HOME INSPECTION.
AND MY WIFE AND I WERE ALREADY UNDER CONTRACT.
KEEP IN MIND WHY CART REALTY WAS USING THE SAME AGENT TO SELL BOTH PROPERTIES.
THIS UNETHICAL SALE CONDUCTED BY CHAIRMAN JEREMIAH.
SHE ALSO NEGLECTED TO TELL US THAT THE HOUSE HAD FAILED RADON TESTING AND PREVIOUS
[00:25:01]
HOME INSPECTIONS.AND SHE WILL PAY THE COST OF THAT FAILURE.
TO MENTION THAT AT CLOSING, THE SHADY PRACTICES OF A REALTOR OPERATING IN YOUR TOWN ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO BREAK YOUR OWN RULES, TO FILL THEIR POCKETS WITH ILL-GOTTEN GAIN.
IF THE TOWN OFFICIALS WON'T ENFORCE THE RULES AS WRITTEN IN THE TOWN CODE, THERE'S NO PROTECTION FOR THE CITIZENS ON THEIR PROPERTY OR INVESTMENTS.
WHEN GREED OVERCOMES COMMON SENSE, THESE LOTS WERE NOT ABANDONED.
THEY'RE NOT SITTING OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE.
THERE WAS A CONSTANT CHOICE, MATE.
THESE LOTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SALE OF THE HOME IN ORDER TO ENRICH THE SELLER AND THE BUILDER.
THEY'RE COUNTING ON THE TOWN OFFICIALS TO GO ALONG WITH THE DECEITFUL PLAN THEY HAVE PUT IN PLACE.
THE OWNER OF THESE LOTS WILL CONTINUE TO PAY TAXES ON THESE LOTS, NO FINANCIAL LOSS, THE TOWN BY LEAVING THEM JUST AS THEY ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
THESE ARE NON-CONFORMING LEGAL, LOTS, NOT BUILDABLE.
THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED WITH THE SALE OF THE HOME.
IF THE OWNERS IT'S THE OWNER'S CHOICE, HE DECIDED TO HOLD ONTO THE TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS.
THE COMMUNITY SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO BEAR ANOTHER HOME BECAUSE SELLING ONE HOME, BUT NOT SET SATISFY THE OWNER'S DESIRES.
WELL, THE TOWN OFFICIALS ASSIGNED THE DUTY OF UPHOLDING THE TOWN MUNICIPAL CODE, BREAK THE CODE AND REWARD THE DECEITFUL DECEITFUL BEHAVIOR, OR WILL THEY STAND WITH THE ENTIRE GRAND AVENUE COMMUNITY AND DENY THIS PERMIT GRANTING THE SPECIAL UNITS USE PERMIT IN A WELL-MAINTAINED R ONE ZONE ONLY BENEFITS THE SELLER AND THE BUILDER.
THE ENTIRE GRAND AVENUE COMMUNITY IS AGAINST THIS SPU MAKE NO MISTAKES.
THE WINNERS WILL NOT BE THE RESIDENTS AND THE TAXPAYERS OF GRAND AVENUE.
THE WINNERS WILL BE THE SELLER WHO WILL TAKE HIS BAG OF SILVER TO ANOTHER COMMUNITY TO SPEND IT.
THE BUILDER HAS NOTHING TO LOSE.
HE DOES NOT HAVE TO LIVE ON GRAND AVENUE.
THE PEOPLE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG WILL BE THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON GRAND AVENUE, DENY THIS PERMIT AND SAVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SAVE THE TRUST OF YOUR HARDWORKING TAX, PAYING LIFELONG RESIDENTS OF THIS TOWN.
AFTER CLOSING ON OUR HOME AT THREE 27 GRAND, I WILL NOT HAVE ONE LEAF DISTURBED DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY KIND.
ANY VIOLATION OF MY PROPERTY LINE WILL BE CONSIDERED TRESPASSING AND ADDRESS THIS SUCH.
WE WILL NOT HESITATE TO APPEAL THIS PERMIT.
UM, CARESSA GREEN, SAME ADDRESS.
DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
I WILL KEEP THIS MUCH SHORTER THAN MY HUSBAND.
UM, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY HEARTBROKEN THAT WE HAVE TO STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY TO ASK YOU TO DENY THIS PERMIT.
WE HAVE WORKED OUR ENTIRE LIVES TO BUY A HOME.
WE CHOSE FRONT ROYAL AS THAT HOME.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE DID SEND A FOLLOW-UP EMAIL.
UM, WE SENT A FOLLOW UP EMAIL ASKING ABOUT SUB CODE ONE 48, ONE 80 ON HOW THE DECISION TO EVEN SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY WAS ALLOWED.
THE DRAINAGE FROM OUR HOME GOES ONTO LOT 12 BASED ON PICTURE.
NUMBER TWO PROVIDED IN YOUR REVIEW PACKAGE.
IF THE LOT NEXT DOOR IS ALLOWED TO BUILD, THE DRAINAGE WILL BE CUT OFF.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
NOT ONLY WAS IT DECEITFUL AND UNETHICAL THAT THEY WENT AHEAD AND SOLD THIS WITHOUT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT POSSIBLY THE PERSON WANTING TO BUY THREE 27 WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY INCLUDED.
THEY ABSOLUTELY CHOSE GREED, AND THEY ARE HOPING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES TO MAKE THE, AND ALLOW THAT TO CONTINUE AGAIN.
IF YOU NEED MY CONTACT INFORMATION, YOU GOT PLENTY OF LETTERS FROM US.
UM, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS RAY RULING, A THREE OH ONE SALEM AVENUE.
[00:30:10]
GOOD EVENING.UM, FIRST I JUST WANTED TO START BY SAYING THAT I WAS ALWAYS TOLD BY MY WIFE WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED HER IN FRONT OF OIL THAT HOFFMAN HEIGHTS, WHICH GRAND AVENUE IN SALEM AVENUE WAS PART OF, WAS ONE OF THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AREAS IN ALL OF FRONT ROYAL.
AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE TWO LOTS IN QUESTION ARE STILL UNDER HUFFMAN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION.
AND THAT SUBDIVISION REQUIRES REQUIRES A 75 FOOT LOT TO BUILD ON.
SO BY YOU ACCEPTING A 50 FOOT, YOU'RE BREAKING THE RULE.
NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, MR. WILSON TALKED ON AND ON ABOUT HOW THIS HOUSE IS COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE, THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE AND THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE ARE NOT THE QUESTION HERE.
THE QUESTION HERE IS THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING EXCEPT THAT WORD.
NON-CONFORMING WE DON'T QUESTION THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSE AND WHO DESIGNED IT? THE HOUSE WE QUESTION WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING IT.
JUST LIKE THESE FOLKS TALKED ABOUT.
THEY'VE BEEN REALLY BADLY DUPED.
AND I REALLY SYMPATHIZE WITH YOU BOTH BECAUSE THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
IF YOU REQUIRE 75 FEET THEN REQUIRES 75 FEET.
IF YOU HAD ANOTHER AREA WHERE YOU COULD PUT THIS HOUSE IN IT AND IT WOULDN'T LOOK RIDICULOUS, THEN SO BE IT.
BUT YOU PUTTING THIS HOUSE ON THESE TWO LOTS IS A NO BRAINER.
I GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT, UH, THE WORD, THE IMPORTANT WORD HERE IS NON-CONFORMING.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT WORD.
UM, IN CLOSING, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION THIS, THINK ABOUT THIS.
IF YOU HAD A ONE, A ONE CAR DRIVEWAY AT YOUR HOUSE, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PARK AN 18 WHEELER? THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE GOT.
THAT'S NON-CONFORMING WE DON'T WANT THIS HOUSE BUILT.
NOW I'VE HAD OCCASION TO GO DOWN SALEM AVENUE ODD BY THE WAY, LIVE IN A JACK EVAN'S OLD HOUSE ON THREE OH ONE SALEM.
AND I'M SURE HE'D BE APPALLED BY THIS IF HE WERE STILL ALIVE, BUT WE HAVE RESIDENTS ON SALEM AVENUE 109 SALEM, 100 SALEM, 309 SALEM, THREE 14, SALEM, THREE 15 SALEM, THREE 27, THREE OH EIGHT SALEM, TWO 13 SALE ON THREE OH ONE SALE, ALL OPPOSING THIS VARIANCE.
SO WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO NOT ACCEPT THIS VARIANCE? I MEAN, IT'S A NO BRAINER.
I UNDERSTAND POLITICS, BUT THIS IS A NO BRAINER.
AND IF YOU DO ACCEPT THIS VARIANCE, WE'LL SHAME ON YOU.
SPIVA 80 BOWLING VIEW ROAD IN FRONT OF ME.
UH, FIRST I LIKE TO SAY THAT, UH, WHEN I SAW LOTS OF GOOD FOR SALE, I HAD NO PRE-KNOWLEDGE OF THESE, UM, THESE LOTS GOING FOR CELL ALL LOOK ON ZILLOW ONE DAY AND I SAW A COUPLE OF LOTS FOR SALE IN TOWN AND THOUGHT IT'D BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY.
UH, UM, MY CLASS A FEW YEARS AGO, I'VE BEEN DOING REAL ESTATE, UH, REMODELING AND NEW CONSTRUCTIONS IN FRONT ROYAL FOR, UM, ABOUT 15 TO 20 YEARS.
I LIKE SEEING THAT PEOPLE HAVE BUILT HOUSES FOR REMODELED AND THE LOCAL STORE.
SO THIS ONE, I STARTED BY SAYING THAT, UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY IF THIS, UM, APPEARANCE WAIVER APPROVED.
UM, I LOOKED AROUND FOR SOME HOUSE PLANS THAT WOULD FIT IN THE COMMUNITY AS FAR AS THE SIZE AND CONFORMING WITH THE LOOK.
I DIDN'T SEE TOO MANY BRICK SIDING OR STUCCO.
SO I KIND OF TRIED TO FIND ONE THAT FIT ON THE MIDDLE.
[00:35:01]
UM, I ALSO LOOKED FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.I LOOKED AT THE LOWER AND THE HIGHER, AND I KINDA TRIED TO FIT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS AND I CERTAINLY WILL.
UM, THIS ISN'T MY FIRST, UH, MY FIRST BUILD, I WILL CERTAINLY, UM, BE EXTRA CAUTIOUS TO, UH, BE VERY AWARE OF THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE ROAD, UM, BE IN CLEAR OF DEBRIS AT ALL TIMES.
AND AS PART OF THE APPLICATION AND THE HOUSE I BUILT BEFORE IN TOWN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE, UM, YOUR, THE, THE, THE SOIL AND THE LAND ELEVATIONS APPROVED.
UM, SO ANY KIND OF DRAINAGE CONCERNS, IF THOSE ARE, UM, BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BEFORE, WHICH I'M SURE THEY WILL BE, UH, WE'LL MAKE SURE WE INCLUDE THOSE IN OUR PROPOSED HOUSE PLANS AND OUR SITE ELEVATIONS, UM, AND MAKE SURE WE TAKE CARE OF, UH, ANY AND ALL OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
AND, UM, IF THERE ARE ANY, AND THAT JUST WANT TO CLOSE BY SAYING THAT IF WE'RE GIVEN THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD THIS HOUSE HERE, UM, WE'LL CERTAINLY DO OUR BEST TO MAKE SURE WE CONFIRM CONFORMS TO THE COMMUNITY.
IT'S VERY FITTING AND, UH, AND WE JUST LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY AND, UM, HAVE WORKED OUT FOR ALL.
UM, PATTY MCHUGH OF THREE 34 GRAND AVENUE.
THANK YOU FOR, UM, THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL.
UH, GRAND AVENUE, AS MANY OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW IS A SWEET SPOT IN OUR COMMUNITY.
I WAS WELCOMED BY MY KIND NEIGHBORS FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN I MOVED TO THREE 34 GRAND AVENUE, WHICH SITS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THREE 27 AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING SITE.
THIS IS A QUIET STREET WHERE MANY DEER, FOX, RABBITS, BIRDS, UNIQUE, MATURE TREES ON THAT LOT.
THERE'S A BEAUTIFUL CATALPA TREE.
UH, WE REGULARLY HAVE, UM, WOODPECKERS AND ALL OTHER, UH, BIRDS AND FOLKS TAKE DAILY STROLLS JOBS, CHILDREN, BIKE RIDE THERE.
THIS HAVEN DESERVES TO BE PROTECTED AFTER MUCH CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION WITH MY GOOD NEIGHBORS.
THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT A SOUND ID IDEA FOR GRAND AVENUE WHILE I BELIEVE MR. SPE WHACK TO BE WELL-INTENTIONED IN THIS PROPOSAL.
HE HAS NO PLANS TO LIVE IN THIS HOME AND HE IS NOT INVESTED IN PRESERVING THE CURRENT VALUE AND AMBIANCE OF OUR PROPERTIES.
THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON TO COMPROMISE OUR ZONING CODES FOR THIS PROPOSAL.
THE HOUSE ECO ARCHITECTURE IS NOT AN ISSUE AS MR RULING SAID.
UM, IT IS THE LOT ITSELF THAT VIOLATES THE CODE AND IT PUTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT RISK.
THE FIRST GLARING PROBLEM WITH THE BUILDING OF A TWO-STORY SHOTGUN HOUSE ON THIS AWKWARD LOT IS THE HARM THAT THREATENS TO THE NEW OWNERS OF THREE 27, DEREK AND CHRISSA GREEN, THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE TO THE GREEN'S HOME POSES, DRAINAGE DIFFICULTIES IN OPPOSITION OF THE TOWN MUNICIPAL CODE ONE 75.
SEE THAT ASSURES AGAINST ADVERSE IMPACTS TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES, UM, PROTECTING AGAINST ADVERSE, UH, ISSUES.
THE ONLY WAY IS TO KEEP TO THE CODE, BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE, THIS NEW BUILD IS ON A DEEP SLOPE THAT IS DRAINAGE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I PERSONALLY MOVED INTO A HOME THAT IS SITTING ON A SPRING, AND THOUGH IT HAD, UM, A SUMP PUMP.
I EXPERIENCED FLOODING ON THAT HILL AND HAD SINCE HAD TO RECTIFY AND HAVE TWO SUMP PUMPS PUT IN.
IT WAS FINALLY RECTIFIED, BUT I DO HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT DRAINAGE SERVES FOR SEVERAL HOMES ON THE HILL.
AND AS I SAID, IT'S A KNOWN FACT THAT WE'RE SITTING ON SPRINGS UP THERE.
I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE GREENS WILL SUFFER.
AND ANY FAMILY THAT MOVES INTO THAT HOME OR PURCHASES, IT WILL ALSO FIND OUT WITHIN A YEAR, YOU KNOW, WHAT, THREE YEARS AGO WE HAD THE BIG RAINS THERE'LL BE FLOODED.
I'M CONFIDENT THEY WILL EXPERIENCE FLOODING.
[00:40:02]
THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, THE CHANNON CHOATES PURCHASED THESE LOTS.IT'S TO PROVIDE A BUFFER FOR THEIR HOME AS DID MRS. BOWEN, THE GREENS BOUGHT THIS HOME BELIEVING THAT THE NATURAL WOODED LOT WOULD REMAIN.
AND I AM VERY SAD THAT THE HOUSE PLACEMENT IS 10 FEET FORWARD.
AS WE SAW THE PICTURES, UM, IN FRONT OF THE GREEN'S HOME, I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS NOT PLEASING FROM THE STREET.
IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH MRS. BOWEN'S HOME OR THE GREEN'S HOME.
THAT 10 FEET, UM, STANDS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.
AND I THINK THERE'S ALSO THE QUESTION OF PARKING.
UM, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE CHILDREN FROM SALEM, UM, AND, UH, UP AND DOWN OUR STREET ON YOUR BICYCLES.
AND I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO, UH, FIGURE OUT PARKING FOR THAT.
SECONDLY, THIS NEW BUILD DOES NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SPACING BETWEEN THE OTHER HOMES ON GRAND AVENUE, AS THE CODE, UH, FOR THE TOWN MUNICIPAL CHAPTER ONE 75 B RECOMMENDS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THIS NONCONFORMING PROPERTY SETS A MISTAKEN PRECEDENCE AS WELL.
IF THIS IS ALLOWED HERE, HOW MANY OTHER HOMES ON AWKWARD LOTS ARE GOING TO BE ALLOWED, THUS CHANGING THE UNIQUE PLACE THAT ALL OF THE HOMEOWNERS, UM, CALL HOME AND ENJOY THE ATMOSPHERE THAT WE HAVE THERE AS TAX PAYING HOMEOWNERS.
WE'RE TRUSTING OUR COUNTY OFFICIALS TO PROTECT THE VALUE OF OUR HARD EARNED INVESTMENT.
THEREFORE MR. SPE WAX PROPOSED HOME IS CLEARLY NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOOD NEIGHBORS OF GRAND AVENUE.
PLEASE RECOMMEND TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO AND DENY THE VARIANCE.
WE HAVE NO OTHER ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
SO I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING A LITTLE BIT.
I DIDN'T SIGN UP, BUT I'D LIKE TO GET THAT, UM, MERIT BIRD HOP.
UM, WE'VE BEEN RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA, ALL OUR LIVES, AND IT WAS IN 10.
PUT THAT RESTRICTION ON THAT PROPERTY.
YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE PODIUM.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAN STAND.
UM, WHY DID YOUR NAME? I'M MARRIED.
AND I LIVED THERE AT FOUR 13 GRAND AVENUE AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THERE ALL MY LIFE, EXCEPT I DID LIVE IN THE CITY, BUT I MOVED BACK TO FRONT RAWLS ABOUT 20 SOMETHING YEARS AGO.
BUT THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE IS WHAT IS THE REAL REASON THAT ANYBODY WOULD WANT TO GO TO ALL THIS TROUBLE TO BUILD ON A 50 FOOT LOT AND PUT IT IN A LONG WAYS ON THOSE LOTS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY GOOD REASONING TO ME WHEN THERE'S LOTS OF, LOTS OF PROPERTY HERE IN FRONT ROW, VIRGINIA, THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED BY THIS INDIVIDUAL.
THERE MUST BE SOME UNDERLYING REASON THAT THEY'RE SO ADAMANT ABOUT SECURING THAT PROPERTY AND GETTING A BEAR RACER.
NOW, MR. OF FEMA, DAVID FEMA TRIED THAT SOME YEARS AGO WHEN HE BOUGHT THE LOT DOWN THE STREET FROM THERE.
AND HIS REASONING WAS THAT HE WANTED TO SAVE A FEW TREES.
IT DIDN'T WORK OUT THE TOWN REJECTED THAT.
SO I REALLY THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS, WHAT IS THE REASON, WHAT IS THE MAIN REASON THAT THEY REALLY WANT TO SELL THAT SEPARATELY AND GO TO ALL THE TROUBLE, TO DEVELOP A PLOT AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT A HOUSE LONG WAYS ON THAT LOT.
SO, AND I MUST SAY I HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN ABLE TO HEAR WHAT ALL OF YOU ALL WERE SAYING, AND I KNOW YOU HAVE THE RESTRICTIONS, BUT I COULDN'T TAKE IT IN.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET A RECORDING OR A PRINT OUT OF THIS SESSION SO THAT YOU COULD HEAR WHAT EVERYBODY HAD TO SAY?
[00:45:02]
IS THAT POSSIBLE IT'S BEING, IT'S BEING RECORDED BECAUSE I'M NOT COMPLAINING BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE RESTRICTIONS, BUT IT'S VERY HARD TO HEAR WHATTHANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK A QUESTION ANYWAY? I THINK HE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE.
AND THE OTHER THING, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS PASSED, WHAT WILL HAPPEN ALSO? WELL, THERE'S SOME LOTS DOWN BELOW THERE THAT ARE, UM, RECENTLY BEEN PURCHASED FROM ELAINE MILLER, DR.
AND IF THEY DROPPED THIS BACK TO A 50 FOOT, RICK, THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME TOWNHOUSES OUT THERE AND IT'S NOTHING WRONG WITH VISCO CITY, BUT IT WILL BE ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT LIKE THAT, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED UP THERE.
AND AS I SAID, I'VE, UM, HAD ALREADY OFFICIALLY CLOSED THE, UH, PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SO WE'RE NOT IN PUBLIC HEARING.
SO WE ARE AT THE, WE ARE AS A BOARD, UM, COMMISSIONED NOW TO, UM, DISCERN, UH, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ARE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.
UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, PLEASE.
UH, NORMALLY, AND I LIKE TO ASK THIS OF MR. NAPIER OR MR. WILSON DIRECTED AT YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UH, NORMALLY I REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE UNDER ONE 75, ONE 28.
CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME OUT THERE? OKAY.
UM, FOR A 50 FOOT WIDE LOT WOULD TYPICALLY BE IN A SUBDIVISION THAT WAS PLANTED, UH, WITH 50 FOOT, LOTS, SUCH AS, UM, ROYAL VILLAGE, UH, WARREN PARK, WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE 50 FOOT WIDE, LOTS THAT PEOPLE BUY AND BUILD ON.
SOME HAVE BOUGHT TWO LOTS AND BUILT ON A HUNDRED FOOT WIDE LOT, OR THEY SPLIT ONE OF THOSE TO MAKE A 75 FOOT LOT.
BUT, BUT A LOT OF THE UNITS ARE IN FACT ON A 50 FOOT WIDE PLATTED LOT.
NOW THE APPLICATION BEFORE US TODAY IS REALLY TWO THINGS.
THERE ARE THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND THE CONSOLIDATION, WHICH, UH, MR. NAPIER, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, UH, THESE ARE A REQUEST FOR 25 FOOT NON-CONFORMING LOTS, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSOLIDATED THE CONSOLIDATION IN ITSELF.
DOES THAT CREATE A NEW LOT? BECAUSE OUR CODE SAYS THAT, UM, OR IT HAS A STATEMENT THAT THE MINIMUM LOT WITH, AND LOT AREA SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW LAW.
NOW, THIS IS IN THE R ONE ZONE, ALL OF A SUDDEN THE
BUT HERE, UM, THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I'VE SEEN IN A WHILE WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY CREATING A NON-CONFORMING LOT BEFORE IT'S OFFICIALLY ON RECORD, WHICH TO ME WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH SECTION EIGHT.
BUT AGAIN, UH, I WOULD BOW TO YOUR LEGAL EXPERTISE ON THAT.
LOOKING AT THIS MA'AM MA'AM I'M SORRY, BUT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS OVER.
I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT SORRY.
UH, STAFF'S ANSWER WOULD BE NO, UH, PRESENTLY THERE ARE TWO LOFTS, CORRECT? UM, BY THIS PROCESS, ONE, THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE LOT THAT IS ELIMINATED AND THE RESULT WILL BE ONE LOT REMAINING.
SO THERE, AND THAT ONE REMAINING LOT WILL BE A LARGER LOT, BUT THERE, THERE IS, THERE IS NO NEW LOT BEING CREATED.
IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO AKIN TO A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT WHERE YOU START OFF WITH TWO LOTS, ONE BECOMES LARGER, ONE BECOMES SMALLER.
THIS IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR IN THAT WE HAVE TWO LOTS, BUT INSTEAD OF THE BOUNDARY LINE BEING ADJUSTED, THE BOUNDARY LINE IS BEING VACATED.
SO WE'RE GOING FROM A TWO LOTS SITUATION TO A ONE
[00:50:01]
LOT SITUATION.AND THE RESULTING ONE LOT WILL BE LESS NON-CONFORMING THAN PREVIOUS.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THEN A LOT CONSOLIDATION DOES NOT CREATE A NEW LOT BY THIS ORDINANCE, CORRECT? I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THIS REPRESENTS A SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY, THAT IT IS A LOT CONSOLIDATION AND NO NEW LOT IS BEING CREATED, BUT BY DEFINITION OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, UH, BY SUBDIVISION IT'S EITHER A NEW OR ADDITIONAL LOT IS BEING CREATED OR A STREET, A NEW STREET IS BEING PROPOSED AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THERE IS NO NEW LOT, NO ADDITIONAL LOT BEING CREATED.
AND IT INVOLVES THE CREATION OR ESTABLISHED PROPOSAL OF NO NEW STREETS.
SO IT DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION.
SO YEAH, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOT.
UH, SO I'M JUST QUESTIONING WHETHER IT'S CALLED A NEW LOT OR NOT.
THE, THE, THE NEXT ITEM, THAT QUESTION I HAVE IS PART OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IS A GRADING, UH, ON THE SITE.
UH, WE WERE NOT PROVIDED WITH ANY GRADING INFORMATION OR SITE PLAN, UH, HOW ARE WE TO MAKE A PROPER, UM, ENGINEERING PLANS FOR THAT, AND, AND LOOKING AT THIS LOT, AND ALSO REVIEWING THE OTHER, UH, MANY OF THE HOMES THAT ARE DEVELOPED ON GRAND AVENUE.
IT'S, IT'S ATYPICAL THAT, THAT PHIL HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN TO CREATE A, A LEVEL BUILDING SITE FOR THE HOME.
AND THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED AS UNDER THE ZONING PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS.
UH, BUT WE DID NOT SEE ANY CHARACTERISTICS, UH, THAT, THAT WERE NOT UNCOMMON TO HOW OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE USED THE USE OF FIL AND LOOKING THAT THIS WOULD ALSO BE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT DRAINAGE, NOT HAVING ANY NEGATIVE EFFECT ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES WOULD, WOULD ALSO BE PART OF THE ZONING PERMIT BECAUSE THIS STAFF COMPREHENDS THIS SECTION, AS I MEANS OF COMPATIBILITY.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE APPLICANT FROM ANY OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION? ONE QUESTION I HAVE, AND MAYBE MR. WILSON CAN ADDRESS THIS, UM, IN THE LETTER OF MR AND MRS. GREEN OF, UH, NOVEMBER 16TH, UM, THEY POINT OUT, UH, TOWN CODE ONE 75, ONE 36, WHICH STATES THAT SPECIAL USE PERMITS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ANOTHER PARTY.
AND, UH, I JUST, UH, UH, WAS IT ABLE TO, UM, READ THIS, UM, UH, PACKET, UH, TODAY AND HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO RESEARCH IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, MR. WILSON HAS HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IF THERE'S BEEN ANY PRIOR, UM, ZONING, OFFICIAL, UM, OPINIONS ON THIS, BUT, UM, IF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS GRANTED BY THE, UH, OR RECOMMENDED GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GRANTED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL, UM, WOULD THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHO WOULD ALSO BE THE OWNER OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BE ABLE, UH, TO, UH, TRANSFER THE, UH, HOME ON THE PROPERTY IF, IF THIS IS GRANTED TO A THIRD PARTY.
AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER, NEVER COME ACROSS IT BEFORE, BECAUSE IT WOULD, IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR, UM, TO THE OWNER, UH, TO HAVE HIM HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
AND, UH, IT ALSO WOULD PROBABLY PREVENT, UM, THE GRANTING OF A, UH, A BANK LOAN.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A CLOUD ON TITLE THAT WOULD NOT PERMITTING A BANK LOAN.
MR. WILSON, HAVE YOU EVER HAD OCCASION TO LOOK INTO, UH, I, LIKEWISE JUST BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH THAT PROVISION OF THE TOWN CODE IN TERMS OF THE TRANSFERABILITY OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
[00:55:02]
UH, I HAVE NOT SEEN WHERE THAT HAS EVER BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE TOWN.MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY EXERCISING OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS IS THAT THE PERMIT APPROVAL RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY, NOT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN TAKE AND APPLY, UH, AND THAT THEY ARE TRANSFERABLE.
IF, IF SPECIAL USE PERMITS WERE NOT TRANSFERABLE, THEN EVERY TIME A, A USE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE GOVERNING BODY WENT FOR SALE, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE NEED FOR AN APPLICATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFERRING OF THAT PERMIT TO THE NEW PARTY.
AND I HAVE, I HAVE NOT SEEN EVIDENCE WHERE THAT PRACTICE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE TOWN NOR HAVE I EVER SEEN THAT PRACTICE, UH, BY ANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
UH, IT IS MY OPINION THAT SPECIAL USE PERMITS ARE TRANSFERRABLE.
AND WHEN A PROPERTY IS SOLD, THE NEW OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS AS FULLY SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT SPECIAL USE OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AS THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT WAS MUCH THE SAME VEIN AS VARIANCES.
UH, THEY, LIKEWISE THEY ARE APPROVED AND THEY RUN WITH THE PROPERTY, BUT I, I, I AGREE.
IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S AN INTERESTING CLAUSE, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT ONE THAT I'VE SEEN PRACTICED BY THE TOWN.
IT IS NOT ONE THAT I HAVE SEEN PRACTICED BY ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRING THE, THE TRANSFERAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS UPON THE SALE OF A PROPERTY THAT HAS AN APPROVED SPECIAL USE.
ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE, UM, WE'D LIKE TO BRING NO OTHER ISSUES.
CAN, CAN SOMEONE DRAFT, UH, PROVIDING MOTION FOR US TO ACT MR. CHAIRMAN? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
UM, HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO CHANGE THE DRAFT MOTION WE HAVE IN OUR MINUTES, JUST A BIT.
SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL SO THAT A YES BOAT WOULD EQUAL DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION.
SO I MOVED THAT THE PLANET CAN MOTION FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL FOR APPLICATION FOR SUP DASH TWO THREE THREE ONE DASH TWO ZERO TWO ZERO AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE IDENTIFIED NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE PROPOSED NEWLY COMBINED A LOT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT OF FIRST OFF SECOND.
I THINK THE TOWN ATTORNEY RAISES A VERY INTERESTING POINT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD TRANSFER WITH THE PROPERTY.
ASIDE FROM THAT, I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I FEEL THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE TOWN CODE.
HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS AND HAVE THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR LOOK INTO THIS ISSUE FURTHER.
UH, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT YOU WOULD GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A STRUCTURE YOU WOULD SELL THE LOT AND THEN THE STRUCTURE NO LONGER.
I, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
UM, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A MOTION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS MOTION AND GIVE MY REASONING FOR WHY.
WELL, I GUESS WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
COMMISSIONER GORDON, NO COMMISSIONER MERCHANT.
SO THE, UM, DRAFT MOTION AS A GIVEN HAS BEEN APPROVED, I VOTED THREE TO ONE.
[01:00:01]
THERE OTHER APPLICATIONS? SO, SO THAT APPLICATION THEN WILL BE FORWARDED ON TO TOWN COUNCIL WITH OUR DENIAL AT THIS POINT, CORRECT.THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS OTHER APPLICATIONS.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OTHER APPLICATIONS, UM, OLD BUSINESS.
DO WE HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS, OLD BUSINESS,
[VIII. New Business]
NEW BUSINESS? UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS OLD BUSINESS OR NEW BUSINESS.I KNOW, UH, AT OUR LAST MEETING WE HAD DIRECTED STAFF TO START COMING UP WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PROCESS.
UH, I'M DON'T KNOW WHERE WE STAND ON THAT AS WELL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO, UH, ASK THAT WE AT OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION, UH, BEGAN FORGING AHEAD WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, UPDATES THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR A WHILE, BUT TO STREAMLINE THAT AND TO, UH, ESTABLISH WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO ACCOMPLISH OUR FINAL REVIEW OF THAT.
UM, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE STATUS OF THE FIVE MEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, THE NEW MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA FOR OUR ORGANIZATION, PLEASE.
UM, UM, MR. WILSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? I IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STATUS OF THE TOWN COUNCILS TAKING UP THE ISSUE OF THE CHANGING OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE HEARD AT THEIR DECEMBER MEETING.
UH, THE CLERK ADVISED ME THERE WAS A, THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ADVERTISEMENT AND THAT NECESSITATED IT TO BE SHIFTED TO THE DECEMBER MEETING.
SO IT ALL AS WELL, IT SHOULD BE AT THEIR REGULAR DECEMBER MEETING.
AND MR. WILSON, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT? WHAT IS, UH, THE PROCEDURE FOR SOMEBODY TO APPLY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, UH, MA MAKE APPLICATION WITH THE, UH, WITH CLARK WITH, WITH TINA AND THE TOWN MANAGER LAW? CAN THAT BE DONE ONLINE? I, I, I DON'T KNOW.
SOMEBODY WAS ASKING ME THE OTHER DAY, THERE WAS SOMEBODY WHO WAS INTERESTED IN JOINING THE THAT'S, WHAT I TOLD THEM.
CAN I REQUEST THAT, UM, WE GET A LEGAL OPINION, UM, THAT WOULD DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
I COULD FORESEE THIS ISSUE COMING UP IN THE FUTURE.
UM, THE WAY I READ THE CODE, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD NOT TRANSFER ON A SALE INSIDE.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, UM, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT HOW
[01:05:01]
IT READS OR AM I MAYBE MISINTERPRETING? OKAY.UM, MR. WILSON, UM, YOU, YOU THINK THAT CAN BE FORTHCOMING? YEAH.
I, I, I THINK WITH AGREEMENT WITH, WITH COUNCIL THAT YES, WE COULD, WE COULD DISCUSS AND BRING UP BRINGING AN OPINION BACK.
UH, I THINK WE ARE AT COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS, SEE ANYBODY JUMPING FORWARD.
SO, UM, OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I'M ONLY ADJOURN THIS MEETING THEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
I GUESS WE WILL VOTE INDIVIDUALLY ON THAT.