<p> PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS</p><p>REGULAR MEETING</p><p>August 14, 2012</p><p>MINUTES</p><p>VIRGINIA: The Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals met on Tuesday, August 14, 2012, in the General District Courtroom, Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition, Chatham, Virginia. Mr. Easley called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. Mr. Merricks gave the invocation. Mr. Shelton called the roll.</p><p>PRESENT</p><p>Kenneth Talbott R. Allan Easley Larry Estes Mrs. Helen Glass Carroll Yeaman H. Blair Reynolds Ronald Merricks Odie H. Shelton, Jr.</p><p>APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES</p><p>By motion of Mr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. Estes, and by unanimous vote the Minutes of the July 10, 2012, meeting were approved as presented.</p><p>Old Business</p><p>There was no old business.</p><p>New Business </p><p>Mr. Shelton reported on the four cases for the September 2012 Cycle.</p><p>CHAIRMAN’S REPORT</p><p>There was no Chairman’s report.</p><p>THE ZONING PRECEPTS WERE READ BY Mr. Talbott to OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING at approximately 7:01 p.m.</p><p>Case S-1, Audrie Gale Meadows, S-12-012 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:01 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported Audrie Gale Meadows had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 1.00 acre, located on State Road 681/Mountain Road, in the Banister Election District for placement of a single-wide mobile home for her personal use. Mr. Shelton further reported the Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Ms. Meadows was present to represent the petition and stated she had nothing to add. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:02 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole and determined there were no adverse effects. During the discussion it was stated this was consistent with the area. Upon motion of Mr. Easley, seconded by Ms. Glass, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, Audrie Gale Meadows has petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Special Use Permit for placement of a single-wide mobile home for her personal residence and, Whereas, we find no substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the zoning district will not be Board of Zoning Appeals August 14, 2012 Page 2 changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, I move the Special Use Permit be granted. Motion passed unanimous.</p><p>Case S-2, Richard and Tondia Holland, S-12-013 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:03 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported Richard and Tondia Holland had petitioned for a Special Use Permit on 100 x 100 feet (10,000 square feet), part of 111.55 acres, located off State Road 1098/Bowl Drive, in the Chatham-Blairs Election District for construction of a 195 foot telecommunications tower, monopole design, with a four (4) foot lightning rod, within a fenced 75 feet x 75 feet (5,625 square feet) compound for NTelos Wireless. Mr. Shelton further reported the Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioners’ request. Debbie Balser, Agent for NTelos Wireless, was present to represent the petition and stated she had nothing to add. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:04 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole and determined there were no adverse effects. During the discussion it was stated this was in the middle of a 100 acre field and a good location. Upon motion of Mr. Reynolds, seconded by Mr. Yeaman, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, Richard Allen Holland and Tondia Brafford Holland have petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Special Use Permit for a 195 foot telecommunication tower, monopole design, with four (4) foot lightning rod, within a fenced 75 feet x 75 feet (5,625 square feet ) compound for NTelos Wireless and, Whereas, we find no substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the zoning district will not be changed thereby, and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, I move the Special Use Permit be granted. Motion passed unanimous.</p><p>This concludes the Special Use Cases.</p><p>Case Z-1, Rickey Lee Berkley, II, Z-12-001 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:07 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported Rickey Lee Berkley, II, had petitioned for a Sign Permit on 2.51 acres, located on U. S. Highway 58 East/South Boston Highway, in the Dan River Election District for an 8 feet x 20 feet (160 square feet), double-sided (total of four (4) panels, off site advertisement sign. Mr. Shelton further reported the Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. Henry Sasser with DI-MAC Outdoor, Inc., was present to represent the petition and stated he had nothing to add. He further confirmed the size of the panels and that the sign would not be lighted. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:08 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole and determined there were no adverse effects. During the discussion it was stated this was a busy area. Upon motion of Mr. Estes, seconded by Mr. Merricks, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, Ricky Lee Berkley, II, has petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Sign Permit for an 8 feet x 20 feet (160 square feet), double sided (total of four (4) panels), off-site advertisement sign and, Whereas, the application meets the requirements of Section 35-95 of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance, I move the Sign Permit be granted. Motion passed unanimous.</p><p>Case Z-2, David & Robin Lester, Z-12-002 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:10 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported David and Robin Lester had petitioned to request the Board of Zoning Appeals remove Condition #2 attached to Case Z-11-001 for a Sign Permit. Condition #2 reads as follows: Sign location shall be moved as far north as VDOT regulations and sound engineering practices allow. Mr. Shelton further reported the Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. David Lester was present to represent the petition. He stated the sign would be 52 feet off each right-of-way and adjacent property owners. It was further stated the person in opposition to the previous petition had sent a letter stating he was not opposed to placement of the sign. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:11 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole and determined there were no adverse effects. Upon motion of Mr. Easley, seconded by Mr. Yeaman, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, W. David Lester and Robin L. Lester, have petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals to remove Condition #2 (Sign location shall be moved as far north as VDOT regulations and sound engineering practices allow) attached to Case Z-11-001 for a sign permit and, Whereas, the application meets the requirements of </p><p>Board of Zoning Appeals August 14, 2012 Page 3</p><p>Section 35-95 of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance, I move the removal of Condition #2 attached to Case Z-11-001 for a Sign Permit be granted. Motion passed unanimous.</p><p>Case Z-3, David & Robin Lester, Z-12-003 – Mr. Talbott opened the public hearing at approximately 7:14 p.m. Mr. Shelton, Director of Code Compliance, reported David Long had petitioned for a Sign Permit on 6.85 acres, located on U.S. Highway 58 West/Martinsville Highway in the Tunstall Election District for a 12 feet x 37 feet (444 square feet) double-sided (total of four (4) panels), off-site advertisement sign. Mr. Shelton further reported the Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner’s request. David Long and Tom Powers with Powers Signs, Inc., were present to represent the petition. Mr. Powers stated there was an existing sign at this location that had to be relocated because of the construction of the Dollar General store. He further stated the sign had not been lighted before and this sign would not be lighted. There was no opposition to the petition. Mr. Talbott closed the public hearing at approximately 7:16 p.m. The Board discussed the petition as the Committee of the Whole and determined there were no adverse effects. During the discussion the Board stated they were familiar with this location and saw no problem with the sign or adverse effect in moving it west. Upon motion of Mr. Estes, seconded by Ms. Glass, the following motion was adopted: Whereas, David Anderson Long, Jr., has petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals for a Sign Permit for a 12 feet x 37 feet (444 square feet), double-sided (total of four (4) panels, off-site advertisement sign and, Whereas, the application meets the requirements of Section 35-95 of the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance, I move the Sign Permit application be granted. Motion passed unanimous.</p><p>This concludes the Sign Cases.</p><p>The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:14 p.m.</p><p>______Kenneth Talbott, Chairman</p><p>______Hannah R. Orgain, Clerk.</p>