DAVID WINSTON, CHAIR; MIKE STOLARZ, LEE MCLAUGHLIN, JR., TIM HICKMAN AND ROBERT LUCAS SAM CRICKENBERGER AND BRANDY FLINT

Transcription

1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING, 150 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 14, 2018 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: SECRETARY: STAFF: COUNTY ATTORNEY: OTHERS: DAVID WINSTON, CHAIR; MIKE STOLARZ, LEE MCLAUGHLIN, JR., TIM HICKMAN AND ROBERT LUCAS CHRIS SLAYDON (ABSENT) SAM CRICKENBERGER AND BRANDY FLINT VICKIE HUFFMAN KIM OSBORNE, JOHN VITA, MICHAEL LOUDERMILK, LINDA DONALD, CHRISTA LOUDERMILK, BABARA LOUDERMILK, MIKE LOUDERMILK, TENNEY MUDGE, WILLIAM MILLER, ANGEL BONEY, JIM WOODELL, BOB MICHIE, STEVE FLINT, BUDDY POWERS, STEVEN HART Mr. Winston called the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m. The second agenda item was the election of officers. Upon a motion by Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Stolarz, the Commission voted unanimously to reappoint Mr. Winston as Chair. Upon a motion by Mr. Stolarz, seconded by Mr. Hickman, the Commission voted unanimously to reappoint Mr. McLaughlin as Vice-Chair. Upon a motion by Mr. McLaughlin, seconded by Mr. Lucas, the Commission voted unanimously to reappoint Mr. Slaydon as Secretary. The third agenda item was the review and adoption of the 2018 Meeting Schedule. Upon a motion made by Mr. Stolarz, seconded by Mr. McLaughlin, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the 2018 meeting schedule as presented. The fourth agenda item was citizen comments. There were no citizen comments. 1

2 The fifth agenda item was the review of the November 2017 and December 2017 meeting minutes. Upon a motion by Mr. McLaughlin, seconded by Mr. Lucas, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes as submitted. The sixth agenda item was the Board and Committee reports. Mr. Crickenberger informed the Commission that the Board approved the substation applications per the Commission s recommendations. The seventh agenda item was the continued discussion on RYT, LLC (Robert Young Towing) special exception application for a holding yard in B-1. Mr. Crickenberger noted that after the last review Commission suggested that the landscaping be looked at closer. He indicated that was done, and some other non-conforming signage was noted and plan of action was identified. Mr. Winston offered to help prune the plants that will be installed. Mr. Stolarz asked how far the screening will come out. Mr. Crickenberger indicated it will stay as it is. Mr. Lucas asked if the sign that will stay will be the non-conforming sign in the back. Mr. Crickenberger stated staff recommendation is to remove it and the other signs identified on the plan. Mr. Lucas stated that the sign ordinance states that non-conforming signs not in use should be removed. Mr. Winston asked since this is a conditional use permit - what conditions have been set. Mr. Crickenberger indicated that the screening and proposed sign removal were the only conditions that were recommended. Upon a motion by Mr. Stolarz, seconded by Mr. McLaughlin, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the special exception permit, as presented, with the conditions set forth in the landscaping plan and the removal of the signage as indicated in the plan dated January 9, The eighth agenda item was the public hearing on the special exception application for Eric and Kim Osborne s special events venue as follows: Notice is hereby given per Section of the Code of Virginia and Section , 04 and 05 of the County of Rockbridge Land Development Regulations that public hearings will 2

3 be held by the Rockbridge County Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at or around 7:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room in the County Administrative Offices, 150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia 24450, followed by public hearings by the Board of Supervisors on Monday, February 26, 2018, at or around 6:00 p.m. in the same location to consider the following application: Eric and Kim Osborne, 180 Moores School Lane, Lexington, Virginia, applying for a special exception permit to hold Special Events in the Agricultural and General Uses District (A-2) per Section of the Regulations. Property is located on the west side of Moores School Lane approximately.35 miles south of its intersection with Poplar Hill Road and further identified as Tax Map B in the Buffalo Magisterial District. Mr. Crickenberger reviewed the application as submitted. He indicated there is a shared driveway and that VDOT indicated the existing shared driveway can stay but will need to be gated on the weekends to prevent event traffic from entering there. Mr. Crickenberger stated that VDOT has approved a new entrance just above the shared driveway. Mrs. Osborne stated that a 36 x 60 timber frame barn is proposed on the back part of the 22-acre property. She indicated that they have full VDOT approval for a new entrance and a plan to install a gate on the shared one. Mrs. Osborne indicated that parking will be set up behind the barn and will have about parking spots. She noted they will offer a shuttle service for overflow guests to decrease traffic on Moore s School Lane. She indicated that music that is amplified will be set inside the barn and face away from Moore s School Lane as to not disturb the neighbors. She advised that guests will need to obtain an ABC license to serve alcohol, and no self-serving of alcohol will be allowed. She noted that lighting will adhere to the County ordinance and that hours of operation will be 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. Mrs. Osborne told the Commission that those hours of operation are in line with other venues that have been approved. She then stated that the business would operate from March to November. Mr. Winston opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Mr. Crickenberger advised the Commission that he received 108 signatures on a petition opposing the venue. He noted that he provided a map showing the location of the petition signers as well. Mr. John Vita spoke on behalf of the property adjoiners, Mark and Sharon Hansen, he indicated they are in Florida and could not make it to this meeting because they came to the January meeting that had to be canceled. He handed out the deeds to the properties and then highlighted in the deeds the legal issues present. He advised that this will end up in court because of those legal issues. Mr. Vita stated that the Hansens had no contact with the Osbornes. He stated the following issues: location of new entrance, a gate to be installed on the existing entrance, peace violation of the easement, and adding a second easement which is a violation of State law. He stated that Guy Tudor, with VDOT, indicated that if the gate is approved then the Osbornes will need to make sure the gate is maintained and locked during events. He stated an injunction will be filed to stop this regardless of who approves. He then talked about the parking area and the fact that the vendors will take up half of the parking and then there will only be about half the parking left for guests with no overflow parking plan. Mr. Vita stated Mr. Steve Crowder, with Lexington Limousine, told him that if he has an event at House Mountain then he 3

4 will pick House Mountain over this venue every time. Mr. Vita stated that Mr. Crowder also indicated that he does not want to drive vans or buses on that road. Mr. Vita advised that due to his conversation with Mr. Crowder there will not be a limo service and most people will be driving to the event venue and there is no plan for overflow parking. He then passed around copies of the "shell website" that was set up for the venue. He quoted items from the website and asked why the equestrian statement is not listed in the special exception permit application, and neither are the carriage rides that are being offered. Mr. Vita indicated that the Osbourne s have a few horses, but those are not listed as being used in the plan. Mr. Vita stated there has not been complete transparency from the Osbornes about this project, and what happens if they come back and want to be a première equestrian center. Mr. Vita concluded that if the Osbornes square off five acres of land as indicated in their plan then that would invoke subdivision rules and further legal issues. Mr. Michael Loudermilk stated he has been a resident of Moores School Lane his whole life - over 31 years and he is strongly opposed to this application. Mr. Loudermilk indicated he was responsible for putting the petition together showing those opposed to the special exception permit. He noted that he has added a few additional signatures since last night. Mr. Loudermilk stated that the people he has talked to about this project are worried about the traffic, the noise, the impacts to viewshed, double the amount of traffic on the road, the impact to wildlife in the area and number of people at each event. He indicated he talked to Mr. Crowder as well and he stated that he rents vans for larger events and those run on a 30-minute road trip basis during an event. Mr. Loudermilk advised that VDOT recently did a traffic study on Moores School Lane and the results showed that an average of about twelve cars a day on that road. He stated that this event venue would more than double the number of cars on Moores School Lane. He advised that his house is only 30 feet from the road, and his son s bedroom is located on the front of the house. He indicated that he is concerned that if someone leaves an event drunk and runs off the road they could run through his house and kill his son. He addressed a fence issue stating that he installed the fence incorrectly and had to move it. He then stated that he has never met Mrs. Osborne, but he talked to Mr. Osborne once last summer when he confirmed what they planned to do. He advised that he started the petition and took a non-bias approach by just giving the information to his neighbors and letting them make their own decision. He indicated that he talked to everyone that he felt would be affected and he ended up with more signatures than he anticipated. He then advised that he heard his neighbor, Mr. Michie, would be renting his house out to a guest of the wedding venue giving him a financial interest which he considered to be a conflict of interest. Mr. Winston asked Mr. Loudermilk when the last time he talked to the Osborne was. Mr. Loudermilk indicated in August. He then showed the location of his home in relation to the Osbornes. He talked about roadside parking and the water runoff. He stated that a change in one property will affect the other properties. Linda Donald stated that she and her husband reside at 612 Old Farm Road and are not directly affected; however, lots of things in the plan look good on paper but are not enforceable. She advised that there is no way to force the host of an event to make their guests use a shuttle service. Mrs. Donald indicated that she used to be an employee at Lee Chapel and she knows that 4

5 you cannot deal with people in that way. She stated that even with the protocols in place, a bride tends to make their day their way. She also indicated that she is concerned about traffic, the site is going to be behind the house facing the mountain and that the music will carry over the hills even if it is inside a building especially if one side of the building is opened like in the proposal. She stated the noise carries from the interstate that is three miles away. Mrs. Donald further discussed her concerns about alcohol consumption and the road conditions. She indicated that heavy truck traffic uses her road. She noted that the road is starting to fall apart since it is not wide enough for more than two vehicles to pass and that because vehicles run off the side of the road the road is being undermined. Mrs. Donald reiterated that you cannot stop people from drinking and driving and the lack of parking spaces will lead to parking all along the hill. Christa Loudermilk, read from a written statement as follows: "Good evening Planning Commission - My name is Christa Loudermilk. I reside at 164 Moores School Lane in Lexington, VA and have been planning events for 28 years. I have never in my life met Kim or Eric Osborne. I have never had any conversations concerning a venue or any other issues with either of them ever. I am standing here tonight because I oppose the Osborne's Special Exception Permit for a venue. I started the Save Moores School Lane Facebook page after the Osborne's first attempt to slide this permit through. As I was talking to neighbors and friends, I realized that no one knew about the Osbornes venue. I believe that the way the Osbornes have gone about this is wrong. I have used the Facebook page to share information and to answer questions. I have added pictures and videos to provide information. The Facebook page has over 80 likes. I have been thanked over and over by people that told me they would have had no idea there was a potential venue without the page. I understand that Mrs. Osborne feels that her current job has worn her out physically and she is searching for a new career. Isn't that what we all want when we get older and retire? We want a job that is less physically and mentally demanding. My husband has had diabetes most of his life. He will eventually need to slow down and change jobs too. He is a 4-H All-star and wants to farm full time when he retires. Farming is not our hobby it is our lifestyle! Will this even be an option if the Osborne's permit is approved? Why is Mrs. Osborne's health and next career more important than my husband who has lived on Moores School Lane his entire life? He doesn't plan to destroy his neighborhood because of his health issues. I chose to live on Moores School Lane because it is a peaceful, A2 agricultural area on a dead-end road. It has been a safe road for residents and their children to take walks, to play, ride bikes, and it has also been safe for our animals. There is agricultural traffic that has been travelling this road for generations. Our road is not wide enough for two cars let alone commercial transportation. I am concerned for my personal and the safety of my family, my animals, and my property. I asked my husband to put up a piece of wooden fence to determine if this would help with the safety of our property, family, and animals. I also do not want to look at cars, trucks or any other vehicles that may be travelling to the Osbornes. There is a high volume of traffic that goes up their driveway now. I have decided that I don't like the wooden fence and am in talks with an installer to possibly place vinyl fencing which will hopefully be taller. My house is approximately 30 feet from the road. The Osborne's driveway goes down one side of my home and I can see their home and property from three sides of my home. There is little privacy now and a venue would decrease it even more. I am also concerned about their ability to control 5

6 the guest on their property. As I am sure you are aware, a naked man was reported in the December issue of The Rockbridge Advocate as having left a wedding reception on Stuartsburg Road. My additional concerns-garbage removal, environmental issues and wildlife (Certified Wildlife Habitat), drinking, noise, changed views, lighting, speeding, another helicopter landing, parking concerns, and the need to lock up and secure valuables. Law enforcement was at the Osborne residence three times in 2017 and there is no venue. How many times will they be there with a venue? In conclusion, I oppose the Osborne's request for a Special Exception Permit for a venue on Moores School Lane tonight and always. Barbara Loudermilk read the following statement: My name is Barbara Loudermilk. I first want to clarify a rumor that the Osbornes have been working with the neighbors on their plans. Until a few minutes ago I had never seen the Osbornes up close. Until a few minutes ago I would not have known them if they had walked up to my door. Kim Osborne did call me last January at work to tell me I would be receiving a certified letter because they were putting in a venue. In March of 2017 she sent me an basically telling me there was a problem getting VDOT approval and asking me to talk to my son and daughter in law about moving the corner post between their properties. Other than this, there has been no contact. Thank you to this committee for allowing me to send you many s concerning our water runoff issues. I won't mention those tonight. My husband, Mike and I have lived at 138 Moores School Lane for 37 years. Our property joins the Osborne's 22 acres up along one side and across the back of their property. As we all know the area we live in is zoned A-2. We abide by the zoning in this area raising cattle and hay. Our children were in 4-H and showed cattle. Our grandson, Benjamin showed bucket calves and pigs last year and hopes to be involved in livestock projects again this year. I myself have worked in the ag industry for 37 years, promoting agriculture at every opportunity. Cattle can be seen on many hilltops in the neighborhood. Five men regularly drive tractors on Moores School Lane mostly to move hay or hay equipment. Every year farmers are killed on their tractors by motorists who are not paying attention, are in a hurry, impaired by alcohol or drugs, distracted by cell phones and various other reasons. Moores School Lane is not a suitable road for the additional traffic a venue will bring to it. It doesn't matter whether the traffic is a bus, truck or passenger car. Additional vehicles mean additional risk and danger to our farmers. It also brings additional risk of farm fences being taken out by impaired or distracted drivers. The County Comprehensive plan is peppered with references in support of agriculture and forestry: Page 191: Land Use & Transportation Planning Factors and Assumptions: "In an effort to preserve agriculture and forested lands, the Rockbridge Land Use Plan designates Suburban and Village Planning Areas as the preferred location for future residential and commercial growth". Approving this SEP at this location does not preserve ag or forested lands. The lay and size of the Osborne's property is not suitable for what they propose. This venue should be built in a Suburban and Village Planning area where guests can still enjoy mountain views. The plan that was submitted is vague and confusing and does not answer my questions. Keep in mind the following will be happening just over the fence from our cattle: They plan to flatten the ridge top and yet have minimal disturbances to the land thus increasing neighborhood tolerance. How do you flatten a ridge top and yet have minimal land disturbance? I doubt their neighbors are thinking as much about 6

7 tolerating the construction phase as they are tolerating the next 15 to 20 years when the venue is in full swing. I see that guests will be required to obtain an ABC license. According to the Regional ABC office in Verona VA, a retail license is issued for the SALE of alcohol. Were you aware that alcohol would be sold in our neighborhood at this location? This is a grim reminder that this barn is not just for weddings but fraternity and alumni parties and other private celebrations. Lighting is not addressed in the plan. Will there be lights along the driveway from Moores School Lane all the way up to the party barn? What about trash? Should we expect a trash truck on our road or will the trash be hauled to a dumpster and taken to the landfill at tax payer's expense? The plan suggests Lex Limousine service could be used for shuttle service. I spoke to Mr. Steve Crowder on January 10 and again on February 9 and both times he said he had not been contacted by the Osbornes. He should have been invited by the Osbornes to view the roads so that he could decide if he wanted to provide any services to this venue. We did provide him a copy of their plan and he did come out and view the road and said he didn t like the idea of a shuttle bus on the roads leading from Lexington to their property. Will helicopters be allowed to land for events? One landed last fall on their adjoining neighbor's property so it is possible. The plan says five acres will be sectioned off their 22 acres. The overview refers to a "private 5-acre venue parcel". Will the five acres be surveyed off and the new plat recorded in the Clerk's office? We need to know now-will it be surveyed off or sectioned off? There is a big difference in what the county officials need to know and what the people who share a driveway need to know. And finally, the hilltop views described in their plan are equally as stunning on our side of the fence. The plan states the barn will be minimally seen from the road and not affect the neighboring properties viewsheds. Most definitely OUR viewshed will be affected. Life as we know it on Moores School Lane will be forever changed if this SEP is approved. The Osbornes are asking the county to make a special exception for them but I fear it is the neighborhood who will have to make the special exception. 108 people in our neighborhood have said "no". I hope you will ask for a show of hands tonight so that we may see how many people came out in support of or against the Special Exception Permit application. I ask you to support agriculture and recommend to our supervisors that this request be denied. Thank you. Mike Loudermilk stated that he is native of Rockbridge County and has been a good steward of the land and a good taxpayer. He indicated that he has raised two kids here and that conservation is important to him. He advised that he purchased additional property to preserve the land around him, and to teach his son and grandson conservation as well. He talked about water runoff issues, parking lot concerns, and traffic concerns. Mr. Loudermilk stated he is active in ag and is concerned about how these issues will affect his farm. He quotes from page 152 of County s Comp Plan and indicated that this proposed venue will deter their children and grandchildren from staying in the area. He then thanked the community for coming out and supporting his son s right to live where he lives and recognizing his hard work. Tenney Mudge read the following statement on behalf of Sharon Hansen: Good evening. I'm Sharon Hansen, my husband Mark, and I own 57 acres adjacent to the Osbornes with whom we share 1000 feet of driveway. We regret that it is not possible for us to be here this evening. We presently do not yet live in Rockbridge County. Last month we traveled at our own considerable expense to be in town for the January Planning Commission meeting that 7

8 ultimately was canceled. Because of the travel costs, conflicts with work schedule, and the logistics of caring for our livestock, we cannot attend this rescheduled meeting in person. Our absence in no way indicates that our concerns about this proposal and our opposition to it have decreased. We purchased our property in October 2014-it was a culmination of 30 years of saving and planning for our retirement and included 7 years of looking for the perfect farm. Our plan is to have high quality wool sheep and a small vineyard for personal use and sale of grapes to local wineries not for a tasting room. When we viewed the property on Moore's School Lane, we fell in love with it and the quiet, peaceful neighborhood. We purchased the property from Dr. Mills who also sold the Osbornes their property. We would have built in the spring of 2017 and moved here that summer but we were forced to put our plans on hold due to this unexpected SEP issue. We share by Deed 1000 feet of driveway with the Osbornes. This is included in both of our Deeds. Our property is landlocked and the shared driveway is the only access. It is a single lane, one-way driveway. It is not built to VDOT commercial standards. If this SEP is approved, it becomes a public access driveway which will eliminate or greatly reduce our free access to our property, diminish rapid response of emergency vehicles to our property, increase our liability, and devalue our property. Sharing this driveway with a party barn is an unreasonable interference of our ability to use and enjoy our farm and home. We have been placed in a position to have to defend our rights to our property. I believe anybody else who was faced with this situation would do the same thing. Our Deed also has other restrictions in place that protect each of us and our peaceful neighborhood. The Osbornes purchased their property in October 2016, two years after us. They knew they were purchasing property with a shared driveway, with deed restrictions and with A-2 agricultural zoning. In February 2017, we were notified by a friend who saw a notice in the newspaper that the Osbornes had submitted an SEP to the county. The Osbornes never contacted us, not once, to inform us or to seek our input on this. Blindsided by this news Mark immediately called Mrs. Osborne to better understand what was going on. Mark informed her that we would be opposed to an event venue but we wanted to be good neighbors and he suggested other less invasive ways for them to generate income from their property. They withdrew that SEP and we never heard from them again so we assumed the venue idea was done. In July 2017, Mr. Slaydon informed us that the Osbornes were still planning to submit an SEP to operate a party venue and he shared a copy of a letter the planning office had received from the Osborne's attorney, Mr. Natkin, regarding the shared driveway. To protect our rights, we have had to hire an attorney, Mr. Vita, to provide us legal counsel. It has been a year now and the Osbornes have never, not once, shared their venue plans with us or proposed ways to minimize impacts to us. We oppose the SEP for 3 valid reasons. Others here tonight will address additional reasons that we concur with as well. First: Every weekend from March to November, OAM to 11PM, we could have to wait for 75 or more cars to enter or exit before we could drive to or leave our home. This is in addition to service vehicles, such as florists, caterers, tent installers, days before and after an event. This is an unreasonable impact on our ability to freely come and go to our home. Imagine yourself in our position trying to get home late at night when venue traffic is departing, and having to wait for a line of 75 or more cars to clear before you can proceed to your house - over your own deeded driveway. Second: The existing entrance to our properties does not meet VDOT sight distance requirements so the Osbornes have 8

9 proposed moving the entrance 100 feet west. They plan to loop this new entrance back to the existing shared driveway. This does not solve any ingress/egress problems. VDOT will only allow a new entrance if the existing entrance is permanently gated. The entrance was not gated when we bought our property nor is it gated now. Gating the existing driveway cuts us off from any means of legally accessing our home-unless we trespass using the new "loop" on the Osborne's property. The "loop" is not on our Deed so we would have no legal easement to our home. This plan violates our easement rights stated in our Deed and in Virginia easement laws. This permanent gate, if approved by the County, will force us into a lawsuit in order to protect our right to legally access our land. We will incur great expenditures to defend our rights against the Osbornes and the County when we have done nothing to bring this on. Third: If an accident or fire occurred at our home or farm, first responders could face delays in getting to us because of venue traffic and because of the proposed gate on our driveway entrance. We all know that minutes count when an accident or fire occurs. We feel if the SEP is approved, Rockbridge County is placing our health and home at risk. In conclusion, Moore's School Lane is a quiet community with A-2 Agricultural Zoning Regulations. Commercial enterprises such as this are not supported in an A-2 zone by ROCKBRIDGE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. Both of us, the Osbornes and us were aware of the shared driveway and A-2 zoning when we purchased our properties. Mark and I bought believing our rights to our home would be protected by our Deed and that the quiet, rural neighborhood was protected by zoning regulations. If this SEP is approved, we lose the ability to freely come and go to our home because of venue traffic and the ability to legally access our home on our Deeded driveway. In addition we face potential liability, our property values could decline, emergency vehicles face delays in responding to us, and we face unnecessary legal costs to defend our rights. Our plans to establish a farm with sheep and a vineyard conforms in every way with the Land Development Regulations and District Plan. We did not purchase the property with the intention of forcing our neighbors to change to accommodate us. The Osbornes are asking for a zoning exception. In reality, they are asking us and our neighbors to make exceptions in order for them to profit. Any reasonable person who was forced into this situation like we have been, would oppose this SEP. Again, please put yourselves in our shoes and think about how you would respond if an adjacent landowner that you shared a driveway with was trying to do this. We ask you to protect our rights and the rights of our other neighbors by not approving this SEP. Thank-you. Sharon Hansen William Miller, 273 Moores School Lane, stated that he just purchased his property a little over a year ago with no idea this was planned. He indicated that his property is rustic with a beautiful view and that is why he purchased it. He advised that allowing this special exception would be a defacto changed to zoning that would promote additional commercial uses in the area moving the area from ag to commercial. He reiterated that these roads are narrow, winding roads that are not banked properly, have no light and are not built for commercial traffic. Which will pose a risk to those traveling on the road. If a truck is on the road then another vehicles has trouble passing. Angel Boney spoke on behalf of her fiancé Jason Mendola. She stated that the proposed new entrance will be directly across from their living room. She indicated that she is concerned 9

10 about noise impact especially considering that now you can sometimes hear the neighbors conversations. She noted they moved from Virginia Beach to separate themselves from the noise. She indicated they bought this house, their first home, in September with no idea that venue was proposed. She stated that they have three dogs, including a senior dog, and looked for a location that would be quieter for them. She agreed with the concerns expressed regarding alcohol, safety, lack of lighting and the road being too narrow. She stated the numbers of events and times for events is troubling to them as new owners. She advised that there are several options for venues like this in the area and it is not a new concept. Jim Woodell, who lives on Poplar Hill Road emphasized that sounds do bounce around those hills and he hears conversations carry as well. He stated there is no way to know what the sound effects will be and the traffic on a limited access neighborhood is a concern as well. He advised that it is a good business idea, but will need to be somewhere else. Bob Michie, 208 Moores School Lane, stated that he had one conversation with Mrs. Osborne about the potential of using his house as an Airbnb since he lives in Richmond. He indicated this is a second home for him and he planned to rent it out even before he was approached by Mrs. Osbourne. He also advised that the helicopter that landed on his property, with his permission, was a VMI alumnus that was flying into Rockbridge and asked to land there. He called one neighbor to let them know the helicopter was landing but didn t think to call the others. He apologized for not calling anyone else. He stated he is neutral and sees both sides of this issue. With no further comment, Mr. Winston closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Mr. Winston advised that the Commission s role is to advise the Board of Supervisors on land use and planning issues. He stated that the Commission looks at what is happening now and what will happen in the future using zoning laws, the comp plan and set goals as guides. Mr. Winston advised that sometimes goals are contradictory when economic development is involved, but this is a planning issue, not an economic development issue. He stated that this is not a by-right use and that allows the Commission to advise and mitigate issues, concerns and set conditions to address those issues and concerns that will run with the land. Mr. Lucas stated that he felt there will be a negative effect on surrounding landowners and that could affect property values. He indicated that traffic is a real concern and that will definitely have a negative impact on the neighbors. Mr. Lucas stated that this is a beautiful spot for a venue, but he felt it would truly have a negative effect on the surrounding community. Mr. McLaughlin stated that one positive of the project is economic development; however, he also felt that the Osbornes did not communicate with their neighbors about how they planned to address any issues. He also noted that there are a number of people present opposing the application and no one but the applicant is in favor of it. He concluded that he felt that noise would carry in that area and that he favored the opposition in this case. Mr. Hickman stated he agreed with his fellow Commissioners. The County has become a wedding destination, but there is a lot of opposition to this location. He indicated that the headlights that would shine into the neighbor's house across the street, could be dealt with by planting trees or installing a fence. 10

11 Mr. Stolarz agreed as well. He stated that as a region we do not have an influx of industry incoming in so we play on our strength, including our outdoor views that lead to wedding venues. Mr. Stolarz indicated that he supported recent applications for event venues, but there is more to this one. He advised that the Osbornes have done what they can to address issues, but that is not enough. Mr. Stolarz advised that we cannot put the wants and desires of one person over everyone else. He reiterated that they make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and this was ultimately up to the Board. Mr. Winston reiterated that the Board has final say. He then discussed the differences between this application and other applications that were approved. He noted the other applications did not have opposition from surrounding landowners. Support for previous applications was because the applicant worked with the neighbors and was not located off of a secondary road that serves the area. Mr. Winston asked if any conditions could be made to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors and if they would be enforceable. He then stated that it is not the purview of the Commission to get into legal issues, but it seems like there is a covenant in place that limits development and this will end up going to court. Mr. Winston stated that the original conveyance of land restricts the use. Mr. Stolarz indicated he has struggled with this application from the beginning because of precedence set with the other venue applications that were approved. He then noted that after hearing the issues in this application precedence does not apply here because this venue presents issues the others did not. Mr. Winston asked staff if it goes to the Board how they would approach any restrictions. Mr. Crickenberger indicated they would suggest conditions, but the Board would have to hash it out and would use other venues as an example. Mr. Winston asked Mr. Hickman what triggers a call to the Sheriff's office when noise is an issue. Mr. Hickman stated 99% of calls are in response to complaints called in. He indicated that if you can hear conversations then you will be able to hear the music; however, if the music is amplified within the confines of the law then it is legal. With no further discussion, upon a motion Mr. Lucas, seconded by Mr. Hickman the Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the application. There was a brief break from 8:21 to 8:31. The ninth agenda item was the public hearing for C&S Disposal to have a scrap metal yard in I-1 as follows: Notice is hereby given per Section of the Code of Virginia and Section , 04 and 05 of the County of Rockbridge Land Development Regulations that public hearings will be held by the Rockbridge County Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at or around 7:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room in the County Administrative Offices, 150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia 24450, followed by public hearings by the Board of Supervisors on 11

12 Monday, February 26, 2018, at or around 6:00 p.m. in the same location to consider the following application: C&S Disposal, 44 Arnolds Valley Road, Natural Bridge Station, Virginia, applying for a special exception permit for a scrap metal yard in the General Industrial District (I-1) per Section of the Regulations. Property is located at 153 Sherwood Lane off of Wert Faulkner Highway in Natural Bridge Station and further identified as Tax Maps 113E2-3-2 through 10 and 113E2-3-A and B in the Natural Bridge Magisterial District. Mr. Crickenberger advised that Mr. Flint purchased the old Campbell sawmill site and will be moving his scrap metal yard from its current location by the Greenlee Bridge. Mr. Steve Flint indicated that he needs more property for his business and would like to move it off of the main road. He stated that he has rented the current location from Mr. Young to have a place for scrap metal. Mr. Flint advised that for many years he has been using a company in Roanoke to process the materials but that company has changed hands and he is now looking to process his own materials. He noted that this location is off the main road and out of sight. He then reviewed the buildings on the property and which ones they will be using. He indicated they will use the office trailer as an office, the mill building will hold equipment and scrap metal, the building in the center will be a truck shop, building 153 will be equipment storage, and the others will not be used right now. Mr. Flint indicated that he has a good relationship with the neighbors. Mr. McLaughlin asked how much scrap metal they deal with. Mr. Flint stated he does not take material directly from the public but does from commercial contracts and demo jobs. Mr. Winston opened the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. There were no comments. Mr. Winston closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Winston stated that the requested use seems ideal for this location. All of the Commissioners agreed that this is a suitable location. With no further comments, upon a motion by Mr. Winston, seconded by Mr. Lucas, the Commission unanimously to recommend approval of the application as presented to the Board of Supervisor. The eleventh agenda item was the public hearing for an amendment to the sign ordinance proposed by the Pilot Flying J as follows: Notice is hereby given per Section of the Code of Virginia and Section , 04 and 05 of the County of Rockbridge Land Development Regulations that public hearings will be held by the Rockbridge County Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at or around 7:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room in the County Administrative Offices, 150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia 24450, followed by public hearings by the Board of Supervisors on Monday, February 26, 2018, at or around 6:00 p.m. in the same location to consider the following application: Pilot Flying J Travel Center, 713 Oakland Circle, Raphine, Virginia, 12

13 applying to amend the Land Development Regulations, Section , Raphine Interstate Signage, to allow for directional signs at each entrance to a business up to fifteen (15) square feet and six (6") feet tall to better direct truck traffic through the property. Mr. Crickenberger reviewed the application to amend the sign ordinance to allow for better directional signage. Mr. Lucas asked when the existing entrance will be closed. Mr. Orrison indicated that will take place as part of this process. He stated this is just directional signage and nothing else. Mr. Lucas stated that you do not want trucks going in the exit and that traffic stacking has already been reduced which is a vast improvement. Mr. Winston opened the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. There were no comments. Mr. Winston closed the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. Mr. Lucas stated he is good with the size of the signs changing but asked that they are placed so that they do not block the line of sight from cars. Upon a motion by Mr. McLaughlin, second by Mr. Stolarz, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment to the sign ordinance to the Board of Supervisors to allow for directional signage at each entrance to a business within the Raphine interchange, up to 15 feet square feet in size and up to six feet tall. This was moved up The tenth agenda item was the public hearing for Big Spring Events to have a lodge/resort in the A-2 district as follows: Notice is hereby given per Section of the Code of Virginia and Section , 04 and 05 of the County of Rockbridge Land Development Regulations that public hearings will be held by the Rockbridge County Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at or around 7:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room in the County Administrative Offices, 150 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia 24450, followed by public hearings by the Board of Supervisors on Monday, February 26, 2018, at or around 6:00 p.m. in the same location to consider the following application: Powers Farm LLC, 1824 Big Spring Drive, Lexington, Virginia, applying for a special exception permit to become a lodge/resort in order to build some rental cottages to support the approved events venue in the Agricultural and General Uses (A-2) per Section of the Land Development Regulations. Property is adjacent to the former Highland Belle School in the Kerrs Creek Magisterial District and further identified as Tax Map 47-A- 50A. Mr. Crickenberger reviewed the application as submitted. Mr. Buddy Powers gave a history of Big Spring Event. He noted that they have had over 200 events with $5 million economic impacts in the community. He indicated that from day one they have been asked to have on-site lodging for some of the guests and he felt there is a niche 13

14 for it and came up with this plan. He stated that there will be three cottages for now and if they are successful then he plans to add three more. Mr. Powers advised that the material will blend in and be something you expect to see in Rockbridge County. He indicated the cottages will be places for the bride, groom, and immediate family. He indicated that if they are not rented to the wedding party then he would offer lodging to alumni and would like to tap into the Agritourism industry since Big Spring is a working farm as well. Mr. Stolarz asked Mr. Crickenberger to show the topography on the mapping. Mr. Powers reviewed the location and indicated it runs along a steeper slope that is not ideal for farming. He stated that he will plant more trees behind the cabins along Big Spring Drive for screening. The cabins will face the pond so that guest can see the sunrise and sunset over the pond. He indicated there will be no windows on the back of the cabins or any outdoor spaces on back. He showed the private patio space and the privacy it would provide. Mr. Powers then reviewed the economic impact to the area. C.H.E.F.S. catering has catered 20 events, Southern Inn has catered 11 and downtown hotels reported an overwhelming amount of checkins for weddings are from Big Spring. Hope to attract more businesses and more weddings per year. The limited 12 guest capacity of the cottages will not affect the local hotels, and each cottage will have maps to get people out and about in the community. Mr. Winston asked about additional plans to buffer the cemetery. Mr. Powers indicated he has one to two visitors a year to the cemetery and screening it is mutually beneficial because you do not want to see the cemetery from the cottages. Mr. Hickman asked about parking, lighting, and sidewalks. Mr. Powers indicated there will only be lighting by the entrances with low voltage landscape light and each cottage will have the capacity to install a ramp. Mr. Winston opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. Mr. Steve Hart stated that he is a neighbor across Fredericksburg Road and he hasn t heard a sound, seen a light, or had issues with traffic. He stated he fully supports this and does not foresee an additional traffic issue. He stated that he thinks the most important thing is that the Powers have cared for that farm, they have been good neighbors, and he works hard planting trees. He respects that kind of hard work and does not conceive that the Powers would ever do anything that is not within the best interest of the land and the community. Mr. Winston closed the public hearing at 9:54 p.m. Mr. Crickenberger reviewed the conditions for Big Spring and recommended adding other than activities associated with overnight lodging to condition number two, and contingent on building department approval. Mr. Powers asked to add the three additional cabins for future planning but that would require a second drainfield that has been identified but will not be in place unless needed. Mr. Crickenberger stated approval as a lodge/resort with up to eight cabins would cover everything. Mr. Winston asked about the House Mountain conditions. Mr. Crickenberger indicated they have the option of eight cabins as well since they are a lodge resort. It was permitted at the time and they did not need a special exception but with the additional pavilion they did. 14

15 Mr. Winston commended the Powers on their economic development within the County and noted that this application falls in line with the comp plan. Upon a motion of Mr. Hickman, seconded by Mr. McLaughlin, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application to the Board of Supervisors contingent on building department approval and with the following conditions: 1. Events will be limited to weddings and receptions with a maximum of 300 attendees. 2. Other than activities associated with overnight lodging, all site activities will be concluded by 11:00 p.m. 3. Adequate sanitation facilities for the numbers of guests (two port-a-johns per 100 guests). 4. Adequate off-street parking facilities and traffic controls with no more than 120 vehicles. No parking allowed on Big Spring Drive. 5. Required license for alcohol per ABC regulations and alcoholic beverages will not be self-served. 6. All trash shall be taken directly to the landfill and not a collection center or green box site. 7. Any amplified music must be within an enclosed structure. 8. Approval is contingent on VDOT s and the Building Department s approval. 9. Project to be developed in substantial compliance with plans presented with up to eight cabins as allowed by the regulations for lodges/resorts. The twelfth agenda item was a review of the variance request by Tom Thomas. Mr. Crickenberger advised that the variance was approved in January after the pc meeting was canceled. He reviewed the application The thirteenth agenda item was a discussion on the sign ordinance. Mr. Crickenberger stated that at a previous meeting there was a discussion on removing the nonconforming signs and the poles being added to the ordinance. Staff will proceed with looking into the signage. With no further business to discuss, upon a motion by Mr. Stolarz, seconded by Mr. Lucas, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn. 15 Respectfully Submitted,

16 Christopher T. Slaydon Secretary 16