Board of Zoning Appeals OKs major home-occupation for auto body shop, grants sign variances

Board of Zoning Appeals members voted to approve a major home-occupation application to allow an auto body shop at a recorded parcel in Archville and separately granted variances for two larger signs after questioning from planning staff and board members.

The application by Randall Blair for a paint-and-body operation at a property owned by Oscar Sanchez was approved by voice vote after board members moved and seconded the measure. The board then approved a separate motion to allow an 8-square-foot roadside sign and a 20-square-foot sign attached to the building, larger than the 4-square-foot limit stated in the county’s home-occupation rules.

Why it matters: The decision allows a commercial vehicle-repair use to operate from an accessory building on a small, recorded parcel that otherwise sits inside a rural zoning district; the board’s approvals include specific limits and follow-up conditions the board discussed, including permitting, setbacks, and a three-year review requirement.

Board members and staff questioned whether the application complies with several provisions of the county ordinances. Planning staff said the relevant rules appear in the county ordinance’s major home-occupation section (referenced in the meeting as section 4.04 and related subsections) and flagged provisions limiting nonresident employees, the relative size of accessory structures, and storage restrictions. Planning staff also noted that if the variance is granted it is subject to a three-year review to return before the board for reapproval.

Applicant Randall Blair described his proposal and operations: “I would like to, see about getting and doing a paint and body shop, and, try to bring more business to Archville,” he told the board, adding he expects typical hours of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and “2 or 3 helpers” on site. Planning staff and board members noted the ordinance language limiting major home-occupation nonresident employees to no more than one, and the board discussed that hiring plans could be a separate variance issue.

The board reviewed site details in the record: staff said the accessory storage building on the parcel is about 2,000 square feet and has a certificate of occupancy; the parcel was described in the record as a preexisting (lot of record) parcel created before current minimum-lot rules. Planning referenced the ordinance language that storage of equipment, vehicles, trailers or supplies associated with the home occupation must be within the dwelling or accessory building and not stored openly outside the building.

The board explicitly separated the major home-occupation approval from the sign variances. After granting the major home-occupation, members discussed sign materials, setbacks and lighting. The applicant said both signs would be unlit wooden signs; the board approved the sign variance with the stipulation that the applicant must obtain the required sign permit and that staff will ensure applicable setback requirements are met.

Votes at a glance: - Major home-occupation variance to allow an auto body/paint shop at the site (motion by Board member Mark Presley; second by Board member Frady). Outcome: approved by voice vote; motion carried. Note: the motion as recorded approved the major home-occupation as applied for; the board indicated signage would be handled separately and that the three-year reapplication requirement in the ordinance applies. - Sign variances to allow one 8-square-foot roadside sign and one 20-square-foot building-mounted sign (motion by Board member Cicely Saputo; second by Mark Presley). Outcome: approved by voice vote; motion carried. Condition: applicant must secure a sign permit and meet required setbacks.

What remained unresolved in the meeting: The board discussed but did not make a separate recorded decision on a variance for the number of nonresident employees. Planning staff cited ordinance language limiting nonresident employees to one; the applicant said he expects 2–3 helpers. The board did not record a separate motion explicitly amending that employee limit in the minutes presented at the meeting. The board also noted questions about whether the accessory building size is allowable relative to the primary residence under some ordinance provisions; staff said the parcel is a lot of record and noted the house on the property dates from about 1950, which affects how the regulations apply.

The board’s chairman and building official closed the meeting after the sign variance vote and noted the applicant must return for any permit applications and the three-year review tied to the major home-occupation approval.