Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies special‑use permit for window‑tinting operation at Barnyard Peachland Flea Market
Summary
The planning board unanimously denied SUP 26‑02, a request by Pablo Vasquez to add a window‑tinting facility at the Barnyard Peachland Flea Market, concluding the proposal more closely resembles an automobile service use and fails to meet required findings of fact.
The Anson County Planning Board on April 9 denied a class B special‑use permit (SUP 26‑02) that would have allowed a freestanding window‑tinting facility at the Barnyard Peachland Flea Market (244 Faulkner Road).
Valerie, planning staff, told the board the 7.77‑acre property (PIN 642800946218) is zoned RA‑5 and that the planning department concluded the proposed new structure and operation are ‘‘more akin to an automobile related use category’’ than to the flea market use under which the site was grandfathered. Staff advised that automobile service and repair uses are not permitted in RA‑5 absent a rezoning and that the application, as submitted, did not meet the nonconforming‑expansion criteria or align with the county’s 2040 comprehensive land use plan.
The applicant, identified in the file as Pablo Vasquez, was not present. An adjacent landowner’s representative, Doug McIntyre, testified under oath as a person with standing and urged denial, citing lack of a complete site plan, unanswered questions about access and parking on Faulkner Road, noise from existing events, and uncertainty about who holds development rights for the flea market parcels. Attorney Mike Flake identified himself while in the audience and joined in opposition, raising similar procedural and safety concerns.
Board members noted specific evidentiary gaps: no documented NCDOT commercial access permit for the site, no soil or site‑layout plan submitted to confirm whether the expansion would exceed allowed nonconforming areas, and no expert testimony on traffic, property‑value impacts or environmental hazards. Under quasi‑judicial rules, the board must make four findings of fact; members said the application failed at least two of those findings and lacked sufficient evidence on a third.
A board member moved to deny SUP 26‑02 for failure to meet the required findings of fact; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The chair said written findings and conclusions will be drafted for consideration at a subsequent meeting and that the applicant will be notified of the decision and appeal procedures.
The planning department recommended denial; staff also listed conditions the board could impose if it had chosen to treat the application as a nonconforming expansion (traffic/parking plan, emergency access, signage, NCDOT commercial access permit). The denial means the applicant may pursue a full rezoning or submit additional evidence and a complete application if he wishes to reapply.
