Planning commission forwards Hatchins’ auto‑repair special‑use permit after debating vehicle limits

The Buckingham County Planning Commission voted to forward special‑use permit case 25SUP356 — a request by Mary and Charles Hatchins to operate a commercial garage at 515 Cattail Creek Road — to the Board of Supervisors after commissioners clarified conditions including a vehicle limit and a privacy fence.

Commissioners focused on how many vehicles the business could keep on site and on clarifying which vehicles fall under county rules for “operable” versus “inoperable.” Nikki (planning staff) told the commission the original conditions as presented in the packet listed 15 vehicles but that the commission had previously discussed 10 for the business; commissioners debated whether that limit should include personal, operable vehicles. Commissioner Kapuscinski and Commissioner Bickford recalled the prior discussion and said the intent was 10 business vehicles with no limit on operable personal vehicles. Commissioner Kapuscinski said, “we agreed to 10 for your commercial business.”

The applicants’ representative, Miss Foster, said the applicants had begun installing the agreed privacy fence and were moving inoperable vehicles behind it. Foster told the commission, “We actually started at the side of the house. … once we get that finished, we'll start moving some of the inoperable vehicles behind that so that they are out of sight.” The applicants confirmed some vehicles are being repaired or removed and called the work a “work in process.”

Commissioners and staff also discussed the zoning ordinance definition for inoperable vehicles and enforcement: county staff confirmed that the zoning ordinance treats more than four inoperable vehicles at a household as a violation and that the special‑use permit would only authorize business‑related activity. Commissioner discussion repeatedly separated business vehicle limits from the rules that govern personal, operable vehicles.

After debate, the commission agreed to amend condition number 5 in the draft permit from 15 to 10 business vehicles and to retain an allowance for personal operable vehicles per the ordinance; the commission vote resulted in a tie. The chair stated that the case would therefore move forward to the Board of Supervisors with the tie recorded. The record also notes agreement that the applicants must install a privacy fence along the road frontage and provide state‑required fluid containment (a reservoir or tank) for automotive fluids as a condition of the permit.

Because the commission’s discussion centered on clarifying how the county enforces inoperable vehicle limits and how a special‑use permit applies only to business activity, staff emphasized that personal compliance (no more than four inoperable vehicles under the zoning ordinance) remained the property owners’ obligation regardless of the permit outcome.

The commission recorded the amendment to condition 5 (10 business vehicles) and forwarded the case to the Board of Supervisors for final action.