Planning Commission forwards Applegate special-use permit for commercial garage to Board of Supervisors

The Buckingham County Planning Commission voted to forward case 25SUP353 — Donald Applegate’s request for a special-use permit to operate a commercial garage and auto-repair business on a roughly 2-acre A-1 (agricultural) parcel — to the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors with added conditions addressing fencing and proximity to adjacent parcels.

The motion to send the case to the Board passed after public comment from a nearby property owner and discussion of conditions. Gerald Washington, who said he was speaking on behalf of his sister and brother‑in‑law, asked the commission to require a privacy fence to prevent equipment, vehicles or parts from encroaching on their adjoining property. “It’s only 2 acre parcel of property. It already has a home on it and a garage on it, so it doesn’t leave much room for anything much else,” Washington said.

Nikki, planning staff, summarized the revised conditions that the commission had discussed previously, including two fencing provisions added at prior hearings. “Those being condition number 6, a 6 foot board privacy fence to be installed should there be any removal of natural vegetation on the property … and number 7, if any development or building/construction occurs … within 50 feet of the property lines … the owner … will install a 6 foot board privacy fence,” she told the commission. Nikki further noted that civil trespass or encroachment claims would be handled in civil court if neighbors believe the applicant crossed property lines.

Applegate, the applicant and property owner, said the property is largely screen by existing vegetation. He told commissioners that parked vehicles are not visible from neighboring property because they are “surrounded by trees and woods and brush” and that any removal of vegetation would trigger the fence condition. Commissioners also noted the application would be subject to the existing limit on vehicles on site discussed during the hearing.

Commissioners did not record the maker and seconder by name on the audio record during the motion, but the commission’s chair called the vote and confirmed the measure would move forward to the Board of Supervisors with the stated additional conditions. The file identifies the subject parcel as Tax Map 138‑39 and the adjacent parcel raised in the letter and public comment as Tax Map 137‑100.

The Board of Supervisors will now receive the commission’s recommendation and the staff file for final action. The planning record includes the email from Maria Jackson on behalf of Doris and Richard Carey objecting to the permit and asking that the commission require fencing and an explicit non‑encroachment condition.

If the Board votes to approve the permit, enforcement of property‑line disputes or alleged encroachment would be handled through civil processes described by staff and any permit conditions attached by the Board.