Commission pauses and reworks proposed 'building service establishment' text change; authorizes advertising after edits

A citizen-initiated zoning text amendment seeking to add a new land-use category—described as a “building service establishment” for contractor storage, staging and related operations—generated extensive discussion July 9 before the Planning Commission.

The applicant, identified in staff materials as Ray Bramble of Brandon Bramble Enterprises LLC (a local HVAC/plumbing business), is seeking the change to permit a secondary support site at 3812 Guard Hill Road to store residential HVAC and plumbing supplies and stage units for installations. Staff proposed making “building service establishment” permissible by conditional-use permit in the Agricultural Zoning District with supplementary regulations intended to reduce impacts: access onto a state-maintained road with VDOT entrance approval, an illustrative site plan, limits on the total number of employees and customers (not to exceed the occupancy certified by the health department or septic capacity), a 25-foot screening setback for outdoor storage/staging, off-street parking, landscaping and lighting requirements, hours of operation set by CUP condition, and an explicit prohibition on auto-salvage or junkyard uses absent a separate CUP.

Commissioners raised concerns about allowing commercial storage and staging in agricultural areas, potential changes to the rural character, how the proposal differs from informal contractor storage historically observed in parts of the county, and whether the draft could be used by others to justify similar operations on small lots. Commissioners and staff discussed the difference between home occupations (protected, limited, often without visible signage or onsite employees) and the proposed building-service use. Several commissioners said they were open to allowing the use on properties where scale and location made it appropriate but preferred stronger drafting to avoid introducing retail or larger commercial operations into agricultural neighborhoods.

Because the application was citizen initiated and tied to an accompanying CUP for 3812 Guard Hill Road, the commission removed the text amendment from the consent agenda for discussion, voted to reconsider the advertising authorization for the CUP, and directed staff to redraft the ordinance language to remove retail and clarify limits. The commission then approved a motion to advertise the (revised) proposal for the August meeting (with intention to hear substantive public comment and then consider scheduling the formal vote at a later meeting when a commissioner absent this month would be present). Staff indicated the applicant’s stated intent is to keep the principal office at 702 North Commerce Avenue and use the Guard Hill site primarily for storage and staging, parking trucks behind the building rather than a showroom. Staff also noted that a conditional-use permit would allow the commission or board to deny or condition individual proposals based on site-specific impacts.

The Planning Commission’s actions were procedural—authorizing advertisement after redrafting language and reopening the CUP authorization—so any final change to the code or approval of a CUP will depend on subsequent public hearings and votes.