HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-6-10B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JUN E 10, 2009
5:00 P.M. LANE AUDITORIUM
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. Call to Order.
a. Closed Meeting.
b. Certify Closed Meeting.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
6:00 P.M. PU BLIC HEA RIN GS:
7. ____ 0903( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts – Amend Secs. 3201, Creation of district, 3205,
W ithdrawal of land from district, 3301, Creation of district, and 3305, Withdraw al of land from district, of
C hapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts , of the Albemarle County Code, to revise references to County
departments and officers.
8. ______ 09A.1( ) – Acquisition of Conservation Easements – Amend Secs . A.1103, D efinitions and
c onstruction, and A.1104, D esignation of program administrator; powers and duties, of Appendix A.1,
Ac quisition of C onservation Easements Program, of the Albemarle County C ode, to revise references to
C ounty officers.
9. PROJECT: SP 2007052. Nortonsville Church of God Facility Expansion. PROPOSED: Addition of
14,000 square foot Family Life and Music Center for up to 500 attendees to exis ting church. ZONING
C ATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre). SECTION : 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery. C OMPREH ENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open s pace, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre). ENTRAN CE COR RID OR: N o. LOC ATION:
1550 Simmons Gap R oad (Route 663), 0.67 miles southeast of the intersection w ith Route 810. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 9 Parc el 4. MAGISTERIAL DISTRIC T: White Hall.
10. PROJECT: SP2008048. Matheny Development Right Request. PROPOSED: Request for one
additional development right for a family subdivis ion. ZONING CATEGORY/GENER AL USAGE: RA
R ural Areas: agric ultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SEC TION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as prov ided in section 10.5.2.1. COMPR EHENSIVE PLAN LAND
U SE/DENSITY: Rural Areas preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic
and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). EN TRANC E CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635), approximately 2000 feet s outh of the inters ection with
W hite Mountain R oad (Route 736). TAX MAP/PARC EL: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E. MAGISTERIAL
D ISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
11. PROJECT: SP2008058. H arris Garage. PR OPOSED: Amend SP 0049 Thomas Harris Garage to
expand the public garage on approximately a .60 acre portion of a 3.17 acre property. ZONIN G
C ATEGORY/GEN ERAL USAGE: R A Rural Areas agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; res idential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public Garage. C OMPREH ENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open s pace, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots ). ENTRAN CE
C ORR IDOR: No. LOCATION: 6929 Markwood R oad, approx . onehalf mile north of Davis Shop Road. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 008000000035A0. MAGISTERIAL D ISTRICT: W hite Hall.
12. PROJECT: SP2008061. Slingluff Dock. PROPOSED: C ons truction of a private floating dock on the
South Fork R ivanna Reservoir. ZON ING CATEGORY/GEN ERAL USAGE: R A Rural Areas agricultural,
forestal, and fis hery uses; res idential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard Overlay
to provide safety and protection from flooding. SEC TION: 30.3.05.2.1(2): Water related uses s uch as boat
docks, canoe liveries, bridges , ferries, culverts and river cros sings of transmiss ion lines of all types.
C OMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAN D U SE/DENSITY: Rural Areas preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots).
EN TR ANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 256 Woodlands R oad (R oute 676), approximately 0.3 miles
north of the inters ection with Earlysville Road (Route 743). TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 456D1 and TMP 45
67A. MAGISTERIAL D ISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
13. From the Board: C ommittee R eports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
14. Adjourn to June 17, 2009, 4:30 p.m.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: June 4, 2008.
6.2 Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to improv e processes for s ite plans.
6.3 Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to improve processes for subdivision plats.
Ret urn t o Top of Agenda
Ret urn t o Board of Superv isors Home P age
Ret urn t o Count y Home Page
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance – Resolution of Intent
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of R esolution of Intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to improve processes for site plans
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
and Brook s
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
June 10, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Engineering review staff has identified more efficient and predictable review process es for site plans involving minor
changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Thes e small improvements could benefit the public, applicants, staff, the
Planning C ommission and the Board by clarifying requirements and ac complishing the purposes of the regulations
more effic iently.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development.
DISCU SSION :
The proposed process changes would provide a more efficient and predictable development review proc ess for
applicants, the public and staff. The recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are:
Section 4.12 regulates parking and authorizes the county engineer to review and approve alternative approaches
to providing park ing and travelway design. Staff recommends that county engineer review of the alternative
approaches be deleted because alternative approaches are already provided in the county’s parking regulations
and, by their nature, do not raise engineering issues. Staff also recommends that casebycase engineer rev iew
of alternative travelway designs be replaced by minimum design standards.
Section 32.7.4 es tablishes requirements for erosion and sediment control and stormwater management as part
of s ite plan review. Most of the subject matter of Section 32.7.4 and its subs ections is now addressed in
C ounty Code Chapter 17, Water Protection. Staff recommends that Section 32.7.4 be amended to cross
reference Chapter 17.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Although no specific budget changes are anticipated, these proposed amendments would provide for a more orderly
and organiz ed process that ensures fairness to all applicants. It will allow for limited staff resources to be used
most effectively and prov ide greater predictability for applicants and the public.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution of Intent to initiate the text amendment discussed
herein.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Resolution of Intent
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
R ESOLU TION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordina nce § 4.12 regula te s pa rking a nd a uthoriz e s the county e ngine e r to re vie w
and a pprove a lte rnative a pproa c he s to providing pa rking a nd tra ve lway de sign; a nd
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordina nce § 32.7.4 establishe s require me nts for e rosion a nd sediment c ontrol a nd
stormw ate r ma na geme nt a s pa rt of site plan re vie w ; a nd
WHEREAS, in order to improve efficie nc y in deve lopment review proce sse s, it is de sire d to a me nd
Zoning Ordina nc e § 4.12 be c ause a lte rnative approa c he s are a lrea dy provide d in the county’s pa rking regula tions
and, by the ir na ture , the y do not ra ise engine ering issue s, a nd bec ause a lte rna tive trave lway de signs c a n be stated
as minimum standards w ithout ca sebyc a se re vie w ; a nd it is de sire d to a me nd Zoning O rdina nc e § 32.7.4
be c ause most of the subje c t ma tte r of that sec tion a nd its subse ctions is alre a dy a ddresse d in Cha pte r 17, Wa te r
Protec tion, of the County Code .
NOW, THEREFOR E, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purpose s of public ne c essity, c onve nie nc e ,
ge nera l welfa re and good z oning prac tic e s, the Board of Supe rvisors hereby a dopts a resolution of inte nt to ame nd
Zoning Ordina nc e §§ 4.12 a nd 32.7.4 a nd a ny other re gula tions of the Zoning Ordina nce de e me d appropria te to
ac hie ve the purpose s de scribe d here in.
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED THA T the Planning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
zoning text a me ndme nt propose d by this resolution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its re comme nda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, at the e arlie st possible da te .
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Subdivis ion Ordinance – Resolution of Intent
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of R esolution of Intent to amend the
Subdivis ion Ordinance to improve processes for
subdivision plats
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Brooks
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
June 10, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Engineering review staff has identified more efficient and predictable review process es for subdivision plats involv ing
minor c hanges to the Subdivision Ordinance. These small improvements could benefit the public, applicants, staff,
the Planning Commiss ion and the Board by clarifying requirements and accomplishing the purposes of the
regulations more efficiently .
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development.
DISCU SSION :
The proposed process changes would provide a more efficient and predictable development review proc ess for
applicants, the public and staff. The recommended amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance are:
Section 14404 es tablishes the standards for subdivision lots having a single access from an internal street,
s hared drivew ay or alley and requires the county engineer to recommend an alternative standard w hen the
Planning Commission is cons idering a waiver request. Staff recommends that the county engineer’s
recommendation no longer be required because the question of w hether a lot should access an internal or an
external street and the impacts therefrom is a planning, rather than an engineering, matter.
Section 14412 es tablishes the standards for private streets and authorizes the Planning Commission to waive
minimum easement and rightofw ay widths. Staff recommends that the scope of permissible waivers be
expanded to include other private street standards (e.g., to allow onelane bridges, narrow entry gates, and other
c ommon rural area features). Staff also recommends that the c ounty engineer be authorized to act on the
w aivers, subject to appeal to the C ommission.
C ounty Code Chapter 17, Water Protection, was recently amended to establish standards for lot access
(stream crossings). Staff rec ommends that a new section be added to the Subdivision Ordinance to provide
that a plat cannot be approved if it does not meet the stream crossing requirements in Chapter 17, and that this
requirement apply to subdivis ions , rural subdivisions, and family subdivisions.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Although no specific budget changes are anticipated, these proposed amendments would provide for a more orderly
and organiz ed process that ensures fairness to all applicants. It will allow for limited staff resources to be used
most effectively and prov ide greater predictability for applicants and the public.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution of Intent to initiate the text amendment discussed
herein.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Resolution of Intent
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Subdivision O rdina nce § 14404 e sta blishes the sta nda rds for subdivision lots having a
single a c ce ss from an interna l stre et, sha re d drive w a y or alley, a llow s its re quirements to be wa ive d by the
Planning Commission, and requires the c ounty e ngine er to rec omme nd an alterna tive standard w hen the
Commission is c onside ring a wa ive r re que st; and
WHEREAS, Subdivision O rdina nce § 14412 e sta blishes the sta nda rds for priva te stre e ts a nd a uthoriz es
the Pla nning Commission to w a ive e ase me nt a nd rightofwa y widths; a nd
WHEREAS, in 2008, Cha pte r 17, Wate r Prote c tion, of the County Code was a me nde d to esta blish
sta nda rds for lot a cc ess (stre a m crossings); and
WHEREAS, in order to improve efficie nc y in deve lopment review proce sse s, it is de sire d to a me nd
Subdivision Ordina nc e § 14404 to e limina te the require me nt tha t the county e ngine e r re commend a n a lte rnative
sta nda rd to the Pla nning Commission whe n it is considering a w a iver from the single a cc e ss require me nt sinc e
the que stion of whe ther a lot should a cc e ss a n inte rnal or a n e xte rnal stree t a nd the impa cts the refrom doe s not
re quire e ngine e r re view a nd c omment; to a me nd Subdivision Ordinanc e § 14412 to e xpa nd the sc ope of
pe rmissible waivers to inc lude not only e ase me nt and rightofwa y widths but a lso other private stre et sta nda rds
and tha t the c ounty enginee r should be authoriz ed to a c t on the se wa ive r re que sts, subjec t to a ppe al to the
Planning Commission; and to a dd a new se c tion to provide tha t a pla t c a nnot be approve d if it doe s not me e t the
lot a cc e ss (strea m c rossing) requireme nts in Cha pte r 17, Wate r Prote c tion, of the County Code , a nd tha t this
re quirement should a pply to subdivisions, rura l subdivisions, a nd fa mily subdivisions.
NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED THAT for purposes of public nec e ssity, conve nie nce ,
ge nera l welfa re and good la nd de velopme nt pra ctic e s, the Boa rd of Supe rvisors hereby a dopts a resolution of
intent to a me nd A lbe ma rle County Code §§ 14206, 14207, 14208, 14404, 14412 a nd any othe r re gulations of
the Subdivision Ordina nce , a nd to add a ny new se ctions, de emed a ppropria te to a c hie ve the purpose s de scribe d
he re in.
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED THA T the Planning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
subdivision text a me ndme nt proposed by this resolution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its rec omme nda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, at the e arlie st possible da te .
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County C ode – Ordinance to make technical
amendments to C ounty Code Chapter 3
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance to
amend C ounty Code Chapter 3, Agric ultural and
Forestal Districts, to revis e references to C ounty
departments and officers
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Cilimberg
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
June 10, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The phased reorganization of the former D epartment of Planning and C ommunity D evelopment, Department of Zoning
Servic es and Department of Engineering and Public W orks into a single Department of Community Development
began J uly 1, 2003. Since the reorganization, amendments to the C ounty’s Subdiv ision, W ater Protection and Zoning
Ordinanc es have updated references to the former departments and officers as substantive changes w ere made to
those ordinances. The updates to the Subdivision and Water Protection Ordinances are completed. The updates to
the Zoning Ordinance are ongoing as s ections of that ordinance are substantively amended.
Staff has identified County Code Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal D istricts, as one of the final chapters whose
references to the former development departments and officers requires updating.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents
DISCU SSION :
The proposed ordinanc e w ould amend County Code Chapter 3 to rev ise the references to County departments and
officers so that it conforms to current department names, officer titles and assignments .
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A Proposed Ordinanc e (Chapter 3)
Ret urn t o regular agenda
OR DINA N CE N O. 0903( )
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, AG RICULTU RA L AN D FORESTAL DISTRICTS, ARTICLE
II, D ISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIG NIFICANCE, AN D ARTICLE III, D ISTRICTS OF LOCAL
SIGN IFICAN CE, OF THE CO DE O F THE CO UNTY OF A LBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 3,
A gricultura l a nd Foresta l Districts, Artic le II, D istric ts of State w ide Signific a nc e, and Artic le III, Districts of
Loc a l Significa nce , a re he re by amende d a nd re orda ine d a s follow s:
By A mending:
Se c. 3201 Crea tion of district
Se c. 3205 Withdrawal of la nd from district
Se c. 3301 Crea tion of district
Se c. 3305 Withdrawal of la nd from district
C hapte r 3. Agr ic ultur al and For e stal Distr icts
Ar ticle II. Districts of Statewide Signific ance
Division 1. Pr oce dur e
Se c. 3201 C r eation of distr ict.
Ea c h a gric ultural and forestal district of state w ide signific anc e shall be c re ate d a s provided he re in:
A. Applic ation. On or before Novembe r 1 of ea c h ye a r, a n owne r or ow ners of land ma y submit an
applica tion to the department of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment for the c rea tion of a distric t. An
applica tion sha ll be signe d by e a ch owne r of la nd to be include d within the district. The a pplic ation sha ll be
ma de on a form develope d a nd provide d by the dire c tor of the de pa rtme nt of planning a nd community
de velopme nt. The a pplic a tion form shall c omply w ith Virginia Code § 15.24303(D ). Ea c h submitte d a pplica tion
sha ll be ac c ompa nie d by: (i) a Unite d Sta te s G e ologic Surve y 7.5 minute topogra phic ma p that c lea rly show s the
boundarie s of the district and e a ch a ddition, a nd the bounda rie s of the propertie s ow ned by ea c h applic ant; (ii) a
V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Transporta tion gene ra l highway ma p for the loca lity that show s the ge ne ra l loc a tion of the
propose d distric t; a nd (iii) the fee required by sec tion 3206.
B. Initiation of application re vie w. Upon re c eipt of a n a pplica tion for a distric t, the planning
commission sha ll:
1. Acc e pt the a pplic a tion a t a re gula rly sc he duled me eting;
2. Direc t the de partment of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment to provide notice of the
applica tion pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.24307(1); and
3. Re fe r the a pplic a tion to the a dvisory c ommitte e for re vie w and c omme nt.
C. Ev aluation criteria. Ea c h a pplic a tion sha ll be e va lua te d a s provide d in Virginia Code
§ 15.24306.
D. Adv isory c om mitte e re vie w. Upon re fe rral of a n a pplic a tion by the planning c ommission, the
advisory c ommitte e shall review a nd ma ke re comme nda tions c onc erning the applica tion a nd a ny propose d
modifica tions to the pla nning commission.
E. Planning c omm ission re vie w. Upon re c eipt of the re port of the a dvisory c ommittee on an
applica tion, the pla nning c ommission sha ll conduc t a public he a ring on the a pplic ation and a ny proposed
modifica tions, a nd therea fte r re port its rec omme nda tions to the board of supe rvisors, a s provide d herein:
1. In c onduc ting its re vie w, the pla nning c ommission shall e va lua te the applica tion a s
provide d in paragra ph (C), a nd a lso sha ll conside r the pote ntial effec t of the distric t a nd a ny propose d
modifica tions on the county’s pla nning polic ie s and obje ctive s.
2. Upon c onc lusion of the public he aring, the planning c ommission sha ll dire ct the
de partme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity de velopment to publish and provide the notic e re quire d by Virginia Code §
15.24307.
F. Hearing by board of superv isors. Afte r re c eiving the re ports of the pla nning commission and the
advisory c ommitte e , the board of supervisors sha ll hold a public he a ring on the a pplic a tion a s provided in V irginia
Code § 15.24307.
G. Ac tion on applic ation. Afte r a public he a ring, the boa rd of supe rvisors ma y by ordina nc e c re ate
a district as a pplie d for or w ith any modific a tions it de e ms appropria te , a s provide d herein.
1. The ordina nc e sha ll be adopted pursua nt to the c onditions a nd proce dure s provide d in
V irginia Code § 15.24309, a nd sha ll be subjec t to se ction 3202(A ).
2. The board of supervisors sha ll ac t to e ither a dopt the ordinanc e c re ating the distric t, or
re je c t the a pplica tion, or a ny modific ation to it, by the Ma y 1 follow ing the Novembe r 1 by whic h the a pplic a tion
w a s re c eived.
(§ 2.12; 6883, §§ 3, 4, 5; 121687; 121191; 7192; Code 1988, § 2.12; Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code §§ 15.24303 through 15.24309.
Se c. 3205 Withdr aw al of land fr om distr ict.
An ow ner of la nd within a n a gric ultura l a nd foresta l district of sta te wide signific a nc e ma y request tha t
his la nd be w ithdra w n from the district, a s provide d herein:
A. Withdrawal by right by owne r. Afte r the planning c ommission initia tes the re view of a distric t
and before the boa rd of supe rvisors ac ts to c ontinue, modify or te rmina te the distric t, a n ow ner of la nd ma y
w ithdraw the land from the distric t by filing a written notic e of withdra w a l with the de pa rtme nt of planning a nd
community de ve lopme nt.
B. Withdrawal by right by c e rtain suc c essors to de ce ased owner. Within two ye ars of the da te of
de a th of a n ow ner of la nd within a distric t, a ny he ir, devisee , surviving cote na nt or pe rsona l repre sentative of a
sole ow ner of a ny fee simple inte re st of la nd ma y, upon the inheritanc e or de sc ent of suc h la nd, withdra w the
la nd from the district by filing a writte n notic e of w ithdrawal w ith the depa rtme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity
de velopme nt a nd the depa rtme nt of financ e.
C. Withdrawal in discre tion of board of supe rv isors. A t a ny time afte r the crea tion of a distric t, a n
owne r of la nd ma y re que st the boa rd of supe rvisors to w ithdra w all or pa rt of the la nd from the district, a s
provide d herein:
1. Filing of written request. The owne r shall file a writte n re que st for withdra w a l with the
de partme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity de velopment. The request sha ll ide ntify the owne r of the land, ide ntify the
la nd or pa rt thereof proposed to be w ithdrawn, sta te the rea son for the request, a nd addre ss the crite ria for re vie w
set forth in pa ra gra ph (C)(2). The re que st shall be a cc ompanied by the fe e require d in se c tion 3206.
2. Crite ria for rev iew. A re que st to withdra w la nd from a distric t may be a pprove d only if
the withdra wa l sa tisfie s a ll of the following c rite ria:
(a ) The propose d ne w la nd use w ill not have a signific ant a dve rse impa ct on
agric ultura l or fore sta l operations on la nd w ithin the distric t;
(b) The propose d ne w la nd use is c onsiste nt w ith the c omprehe nsive pla n;
(c ) The propose d la nd use is consistent with the public inte re st of the c ounty in tha t it
promotes the he a lth, safety or gene ral w e lfare of the c ounty, rathe r tha n only the proprie tary interest of the
owne r; a nd
(d) The propose d la nd use was not antic ipa te d by the owne r a t the time the land wa s
pla ce d in the district, a nd the re ha s bee n a cha nge in c ircumsta nc es sinc e that time .
3. Adv isory c om m itte e re vie w. Upon re c eipt of a re que st to w ithdra w , the advisory
committe e sha ll re view the re que st a nd re port to the pla nning c ommission its re commendations. In c onducting its
re vie w , the committe e sha ll eva lua te the re que st a s provide d in pa ra gra ph (C)(2).
4. Planning com mission rev ie w. U pon re ce ipt of the re port of the advisory c ommitte e on a
re quest, the pla nning commission sha ll c onduc t a public hea ring and e valuate the re que st a s provided in pa ra graph
(C)(2). The planning c ommission shall report to the boa rd of supe rvisors its re c ommendations, toge the r w ith the
advisory c ommitte e ’s rec omme nda tions.
5. Hearing by board. A fte r rec e iving the re ports of the pla nning c ommission a nd the
advisory c ommitte e , the board of supervisors sha ll hold a public he a ring on the re que st.
D. Effe c t of withdrawal. Land that is w ithdra w n from a district sha ll be subjec t to rollba c k taxe s a s
provide d in Virginia Code § 58.13237, a nd subje ct to a ll loc a l laws a nd ordinance s otherw ise prohibited from
applying to la nd w ithin a distric t, as provide d in se ction 3202(C). The w ithdra w al of la nd from a distric t shall
not itse lf te rmina te the distric t.
(Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVir ginia Code §§ 15.24307, 15.24314.
A r ticle III. Distr icts of Loc al Signific anc e
Division 1. Pr oce dur e
Se c. 3301 C r eation of distr ict.
Ea c h a gric ultural and forestal district of loc a l significa nce sha ll be crea te d a s provide d herein:
A. Applic ation. On or before Novembe r 1 of ea c h ye a r, a n owne r or ow ners of land ma y submit an
applica tion to the department of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment for the c rea tion of a distric t. An
applica tion sha ll be signe d by e a ch owne r of la nd to be include d within the district. The a pplic ation sha ll be
ma de on a form develope d a nd provide d by the dire c tor of the de pa rtme nt of planning a nd community
de velopme nt. Ea c h submitte d a pplic a tion shall be a cc ompanied by: (i) a ta x ma p showing the bounda ries of the
propose d distric t a nd ea c h a ddition, a nd the boundarie s of properties ow ned by ea ch applic ant; and (ii) the fe e
re quired by sec tion 3306.
B. Initiation of application re vie w. Upon re c eipt of a n a pplica tion for a distric t, the planning
commission sha ll:
1. Acc e pt the a pplic a tion a t a re gula rly sc he duled me eting;
2. Direc t the de partment of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment to provide notice of the
applica tion pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.24405(C)(1); a nd
3. Re fe r the a pplic a tion to the a dvisory c ommitte e for re vie w and c omme nt.
C. Evaluation c rite ria. Eac h a pplica tion shall be e va lua ted as provide d he re in:
1. All la nd within the district sha ll be de voted to agric ultura l, hortic ultural, fore stal or ope n
spa c e use at the time of the a pplica tion, exc ept that a re asonable amount of re sidentia l or othe r use , not exc ee ding
five (5) a c re s pe r distric t a nd re lated to the a gricultura l, horticultura l, fore sta l or ope n spac e use, ma y be
inc lude d.
2. If the la nd is loc ate d in the rural area s identifie d in the compre hensive plan, then the
owne r sha ll have first attempte d to inc lude the la nd in a new or e xisting a gric ultural and forestal district of
sta tewide significa nc e .
3. If the la nd is loc ate d in a deve lopme nt are a identifie d in the compre hensive plan, then a
distric t sha ll be crea te d only to protec t e ithe r:
(a ) O pe n spa ce re sourc es inc luding stre a m va lle ys, mountains, woode d a re as, buffe r
area s, or civic or c ultural fe ature s, as ide ntifie d on the growth a re as ope n spa ce c omposite ma ps; or
(b) Existing, bona fide agric ultural and/or fore sta l ope ra tions a s evide nc e d by a
history of inve stme nt in farm or fore st improvements, suc h a s the re gula r production a nd sa le of fa rm a nd/or
fore st products from the property during the la st five (5) ye a rs, or other c ommitments to c ontinuing a gricultura l or
fore sta l use in the distric t. In the e ve nt suc h e videnc e of commitme nt is not ava ilable, the owner sha ll submit a
notariz ed affida vit w hic h desc ribes the e xisting, bona fide a gricultura l a nd/or fore stal use of the prope rty. In
addition, if the la nd is use d for a gric ultura l or hortic ultura l purposes, the owne r sha ll ha ve obta ined, or shall ma ke
or ha ve made a re quest for, a current c onse rvation plan w ith the Na tural Re sourc e Conse rva tion Se rvic e . If the
la nd is used for fore stry, the ow ner shall ha ve obtaine d, or sha ll ma ke or ha ve made a re que st for, a current
conserva tion pla n with the V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Forestry or a private c onsulta nt.
4. Whe the r the la nd is c urre ntly enrolle d in the la nduse va lue a sse ssme nt progra m.
D. Adv isory c om mitte e re vie w. Upon re fe rral of a n a pplic a tion by the planning c ommission, the
advisory c ommitte e shall review a nd ma ke re comme nda tions c onc erning the applica tion a nd a ny propose d
modifica tions to the pla nning commission.
E. Planning c omm ission re vie w. Upon re c eipt of the re port of the a dvisory c ommittee on an
applica tion, the pla nning c ommission sha ll conduc t a public he a ring on the a pplic ation and a ny proposed
modifica tions, a nd therea fte r re port its rec omme nda tions to the board of supe rvisors, a s provide d herein:
1. In c onduc ting its re vie w, the pla nning c ommission shall e va lua te the applica tion not only
as provide d in pa ra gra ph (C), but a lso sha ll c onside r the pote ntia l effe ct of the district and a ny proposed
modifica tions on the county’s pla nning polic ie s and obje ctive s.
2. Upon c onc lusion of the public he aring, the planning c ommission sha ll dire ct the
de partme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity de velopment to publish and provide the notic e re quire d by se ction V irginia
Code § 15.24405(E).
F. Hearing by board of superv isors. Afte r re c eiving the re ports of the pla nning commission and the
advisory c ommitte e , the board of supervisors sha ll hold a public he a ring on the a pplic a tion a s provided in V irginia
Code § 15.24405(E).
G. Ac tion on applic ation. Afte r a public he a ring, the boa rd of supe rvisors ma y by ordina nc e c re ate
a district as a pplie d for or w ith any modific a tions it de e ms appropria te , a s provide d herein.
1. The ordina nc e sha ll be adopted pursua nt to the c onditions a nd proce dure s provide d in
V irginia Code § 15.24406, a nd sha ll be subjec t to the conditions provided in sec tion 3302.
2. The board of supervisors sha ll ac t to e ither a dopt the ordinanc e c re ating the distric t, or
re je c t the a pplica tion, or a ny modific ation to it, within one yea r from the N ove mber 1 by w hic h the applic ation
w a s re c eived.
(91593; Code 1988, §§ 2.1.12, 2.1.14; Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.24405.
Se c. 3305 Withdraw al of land from distric t.
After the pla nning commission initia te s the re vie w of a district and be fore the boa rd of supe rvisors a cts to
crea te , c ontinue , modify or te rminate the district, a n ow ner of land ma y withdraw the la nd from the district by
filing a written notic e of w ithdra w al w ith the de pa rtme nt of planning a nd community de ve lopme nt.
(Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.24407.
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County C ode – Ordinance to make technical
amendments to C ounty Code Appendix A1
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance to
amend C ounty Code Appendix A1, Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Program, to revise
referenc es to County departments and officers
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
and Cilimberg
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
June 10, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The phased reorganization of the former D epartment of Planning and C ommunity D evelopment, Department of Zoning
Servic es and Department of Engineering and Public W orks into a single Department of Community Development
began J uly 1, 2003. Since the reorganization, amendments to the C ounty’s Subdiv ision, W ater Protection and Zoning
Ordinanc es have updated references to the former departments and officers as substantive changes w ere made to
those ordinances. The updates to the Subdivision and Water Protection Ordinances are completed. The updates to
the Zoning Ordinance are ongoing as s ections of that ordinance are substantively amended.
Staff has identified County Code Appendix A1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, as one of the final
chapters w hose references to the former development departments and officers requires updating.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents
DISCU SSION :
The proposed ordinanc e w ould amend County Code Appendix A1 to rev ise the references to County departments
and officers so that it conforms to current department names, officer titles and assignments.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A Proposed Ordinanc e (Appendix A1)
Return to regular agenda
ORDIN ANCE NO. 09A.1( )
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND A PPEND IX A1, A CQ UISITIO N O F CO NSERVATION EASEMENTS
PRO G RA M, OF THE CO DE OF THE CO UNTY OF A LBEMARLE, VIRG INIA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Appendix A .1,
A c quisition of Conserva tion Ea se ments Program, is hereby a me nde d a nd re orda ine d a s follows:
By A mending:
Se c. A .1103 D e finitions a nd construc tion
Se c. A .1104 D e signa tion of progra m a dministra tor; powers a nd dutie s
Appe ndix A .1 Acquisition of Conser vation Ease ments Pr ogr am
Se c. A .1103. Definitions and constr uc tion.
A. The following de finitions shall a pply in the interpre tation and imple me nta tion of the ACE
progra m:
(1) Conserv ation ease m e nt. The te rm “c onserva tion e a seme nt” me ans a nonposse ssory
interest in one or more parce ls of one or more qua lified ea se me nt holde rs under se ction A .1109(E) ac quire d
under the O penSpa ce Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.11700 et seq.), whe the r the e ase me nt is a ppurtena nt or in
gross, volunta rily offe re d by a n ow ne r a nd ac quire d by purcha se pursua nt to the ACE progra m, imposing
limitations or a ffirma tive obligations for the purpose of re ta ining or protec ting natura l or ope nspa ce va lue s of the
pa rc el or pa rc els, a ssuring a vailability for agric ultura l, fore stal, re c re ationa l or openspa ce use , prote c ting natural
re sourc es, ma intaining or enhanc ing a ir or wa ter qua lity, or prese rving the historic a l, archite c tura l or
archae ologic a l a spe cts of the parce l or pa rc e ls.
(2) D ivision rights. The term “division rights” mea ns the numbe r of pa rc els into w hic h a
pa rc el could be divided and de ve loped w ith a dw e lling a nd a ll associa te d improve me nts a nd utilitie s, c ounting
both those parce ls less tha n twe ntyone (21) a c re s in size and those twe ntyone (21) a c re s in size or gre a te r tha t
could be c re a te d, by a byright c onventional de velopme nt unde r the rura l a re a s z oning district regula tions sta te d in
Se ction 10 of Cha pte r 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code , w here e ac h pote ntial pa rc e l could comply with
all a pplic a ble require me nts of Cha pter 14, Subdivision of La nd, and Cha pte r 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. Ea ch division right repre se nts the right to build a single dwe lling, re ga rdle ss of whe the r it is a prima ry or
sec ondary dw e lling.
(3) Forc e d sale . The te rm “forc ed sale ” me ans a sa le of a pa rc el w ith unuse d de ve lopme nt
rights in a manner pre scribe d by law tha t is conducte d unde r a judgment, order or the supervision of a c ourt of
compete nt jurisdic tion, other than a sale a rising from a partition a ction; a sale resulting from fore closure unde r the
la ws of the Commonwe a lth of Virginia; or, a sa le tha t is not the volunta ry ac t of the owne r but is c ompelled in
orde r to satisfy a de bt evide nce d by a mortga ge , judgme nt, or a tax lie n.
(4) H ardship. The term “ha rdship” me ans an e c onomic hardship, othe r tha n a c irc umsta nc e
ca using a force d sa le , e xpe rie nc e d by the owne r of the pa rc e l so a s to c ompel him to pla ce a parc e l with unused
de velopme nt rights for sa le or to use suc h deve lopment rights.
(5) Immediate family . The te rm “imme dia te family” me a ns an owne r’s spouse a nd his or
he r offspring re siding in the sa me house hold a s the owne r.
(6) O wne r. The te rm “ow ner” me ans the ow ner or ow ners of the fre ehold inte re st of the
pa rc el.
(7) Program adm inistrator. The te rm “progra m administra tor” me ans the direc tor of the
de partme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity de velopment.
(8) Parc e l. The term “pa rc el” me a ns a lot or tra c t of la nd, la w fully re corded in the c lerk’s
office of the circ uit c ourt of the County of Albe marle .
(9) Retaine d div ision rights. The te rm “re ta ine d division rights” mea ns the numbe r of
pa rc els into which a pa rc e l subje ct to a conserva tion e ase me nt ma y be divide d a s provide d in sec tion A.1109(A ).
B. Construction. Bec ause a conserva tion e ase me nt ma y c ontain one or more parce ls, for purpose s
of the A CE progra m the term “pa rce l” shall include a ll parce ls c ove re d by, or propose d to be c overed by, the
conserva tion e ase me nt.
(Ord. 00A.1(1), 7500; O rd. 02A.1(1), 121102; O rd. 07A.1(1), 12507)
Se c. A .1104. Designation of pr ogram administr ator; power s and dutie s.
A. D e signation. The dire ctor of the de partment of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment is he re by
de signate d a s the progra m a dministra tor.
B. Powers and dutie s. The progra m administra tor, or his de signee , shall a dministe r the A CE
progra m and sha ll ha ve the pow e rs a nd duties to:
1. Esta blish re asonable a nd sta nda rd proc edures a nd forms for the proper a dministration a nd
implementation of the progra m.
2. Promote the program, in c oope ra tion with the A CE c ommitte e, by providing educa tiona l
ma te rials to the public and c onducting informa tiona l mee tings.
3. Inve stigate a nd pursue , in conjunction w ith the c ounty exec utive, sta te, fede ra l a nd othe r
progra ms ava ila ble to provide a dditiona l public and priva te re sourc e s to fund the progra m a nd to maximize private
pa rticipa tion.
4. Eva lua te all a pplic a tions to de termine their e ligibility a nd their ra nking score , rank
applica tions ba sed on their ra nking score , a nd ma ke re commendations thereon to the A CE c ommitte e.
5. Dete rmine the number of division rights existing on ea c h pa rc e l subje ct to a n a pplica tion,
afte r obtaining the numbe r of theore tic al de velopme nt rights from the z oning a dministra tor.
6. Coordinate the prepa ra tion of a ppraisa ls.
7. Provide staff support to the a ppra isal re view c ommitte e , the ACE c ommittee and the
boa rd of supe rvisors.
8. Provide e duca tional ma te rials re ga rding othe r land protec tion programs to the public .
9. For e a ch conse rva tion e ase me nt, a ssure tha t the terms and c onditions of the de e d of
ea se ment a re monitore d a nd c omplie d with by c oordina ting a monitoring program with e ac h e a se me nt holder, and
if the other e a sement holders a re eithe r una ble or unwilling to do so, monitor a nd assure complia nc e with the
te rms a nd conditions of the de ed of e ase me nt.
(Ord. 00A.1(1), 7500; O rd. 02A.1(1), 121102)
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: SP 200700052
Nortonsville Churc h of G od
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/R EQUEST:
Addition of 14,000 square foot Fa mily Life a nd
Music Center for up to 500 attendee s to
e xisting c hurc h.
STAFF C ONTAC T(S):
LEGAL R EV IEW: N o
AGEN DA DATE: June 10, 2009
AC TION : INFOR MATION :
CONSENT A GENDA :
A CTION: IN FORMATION:
ATTACHMEN TS:
REVIEW ED BY:
BAC KGROUND :
A t the April 21, 2009 Pla nning Commission me e ting, the Commission dire c te d sta ff to a dd a condition of
approva l tha t would provide scree ning for tw o adjac e nt prope rties—Ta x Ma p 9 Parce l 3 a nd Ta x Map 9
Pa rc el 6H. This scre e ning was inte nde d to limit the visual impac ts of the church improveme nts and
ac tivities on the ne ighboring prope rtie s, a nd to pre ve nt de bris from blowing off the site .
D ISCU SSION :
Sc re ening the site ca n be done se ve ra l w a ys, and ne w propose d c ondition (se e be low) is inte nde d to
provide the a pplic ants a nd the neighbors e nough fle xibility to work out sc re e ning solutions tha t w ork be st
for the m. The churc h will ne ed flexibility in orde r to provide scree ning along boundarie s whe re pla nte d
buffers might interfere with se ptic fields or e xisting parking a re as.
The re c omme nde d c ondition (numbe r 10 be low) for sc re e ning this use from TMP 96H re fe rs to the
boundary betwe e n the church pa rc e l a nd TMP 96C, ra the r tha n to TMP 96H. This is intentiona l—w hile
TMP 6H is the parc e l being sc re e ned, two ve ry na rrow strips of TMP 96C a nd 96D , which provide
spa c e for a drive wa y, lie be twee n the churc h prope rty a nd TMP 96H .
R EC OMMEND ATION:
Staff rec omme nds a pprova l of SP 200800029 South Pla ins Presbyte rian Churc h w ith the following c onditions:
1. The development of the site shall be in gene ra l a cc ord with the “Conc eptua l Site Pla n” prepa re d for
Nortonsville Church of God by TCS Engine e ring Co., LLC, da ted A pril 3, 2009 (hereinafte r, the
"Conc e ptua l Pla n"), provided tha t the maximum building siz e shall be gove rned by Condition 2 rathe r
than the Conc eptua l Pla n. Minor va riations from the Conc eptua l Pla n ma y be a pproved by the Zoning
Administra tor in c onjunc tion with site plan re vie w to e nsure c ompliance w ith the Zoning Ordinance .
2. The footprint of the building ide ntified on the Conc eptua l Pla n a s “Propose d MultiPurpose Building”
sha ll not e xc e ed 15,500 squa re fe et.
3. A dw e lling use d by the c hurch's sta ff, loc ate d within the churc h, may be pe rmitted a s an ac c essory
use .
4. All structure s sha ll me e t c omme rc ial se tba c k standards as se t forth in Se c tion 21.7(b) of the
Albe ma rle County Zoning Ordinanc e. The tot lot is not subje c t to this c ondition.
5. A fire suppre ssion w a te r supply me eting the a pproval of the A lbe ma rle County Fire/Resc ue
Depa rtment sha ll be re quired be fore approva l of the pre liminary site plan for this use.
6. He a lth De partment a pproval of well a nd/or se ptic syste ms.
7. All outdoor lighting shall be only full c utoff fixtures and shielded to refle c t light a w ay from a ll
a butting prope rties. A lighting plan limiting light leve ls at all property line s to no gre a te r tha n 0.3 foot
c a ndles sha ll be submitte d to the Zoning A dministra tor or their designe e for a pprova l.
8. There sha ll be no day ca re c e nte r or priva te sc hool on site without a pproval of a separate spe cia l use
pe rmit;
9. If the use , struc ture , or ac tivity for w hic h this spe c ia l use permit is issue d is not c omme nc e d within
sixty (60) months afte r the pe rmit is issued, the permit sha ll be dee me d a ba ndoned a nd the authority
gra nte d the re unde r sha ll the re upon termina te .
10. The a pplic a nt sha ll install a nd ma inta in a ve geta tive buffer, a fenc e, or a c ombina tion the re of, a long
the share d boundary line betwe e n TMP 93 and TMP 94, from the inte rse c tion of the bounda ry line s
of TMP 93, TMP 94, and the Simmons Gap Roa d public rightofwa y, to a point w here the pa ved
pa rking a re a on TMP 94 along the shared bounda ry line e nds, and a long the sha re d bounda ry line
be twee n TMP 94 a nd TMP 96C paralle l to Silver La ce Lane , from the intersec tion of the boundary
line s of TMP 94, TMP 96C, and the Simmons Gap Road public rightofw a y. The purpose of the
ve ge tative buffe r a nd the fe nce is to provide visual scre e ning of the uses a nd struc ture s on TMP 94
from TMP 93 a nd TMP 96H, and to minimiz e dust and de bris moving from TMP 94 onto TMP 93
or TMP 96H. A ny vegeta tive buffe r sha ll consist of a na tura listic pa tte rn of multispe cie s tre e s a nd
shrubs, as liste d in the broc hure title d “N a tive Pla nts for Conse rva tion, Re stora tion, and La ndsc a ping:
Pie dmont Pla tea u,” publishe d by the Virginia De partme nt of Conserva tion a nd Re c rea tion. These
plantings a re to be a rrange d in a de nsity tha t would mitigate views of the pa rking a re a, w ith a spac ing
a llowing the na tura l form/ha bit of the plant mate rial to be rec ognize d. A ny fe nce insta lle d a long the se
boundarie s sha ll be at le ast four fee t tall a nd shall be opa que . The vege ta tive buffe r, the fe nce , or a
c ombination the re of shall be insta lle d before the ce rtific a te of oc cupa ncy is issue d for the building
identifie d on the Conce ptual Plan as the “MultiPurpose Building.”
View PC ac tions letter
View st aff report and at tac hment s
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
May 8, 2009
Nelson Morris
20 Buck Drive
Ruckers ville, Va 22968
RE: SP200700052 Nortonsville Church of God Facility Expansion
Tax Map 9 Parcel 4
Dear Mr. Morris:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 21, 2009, by a v ote of 6:0 rec ommended
approval of the abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord w ith the “Conceptual Site Plan” prepared for
N ortonsville C hurch of God by TCS Engineering Co., LLC, dated April 3, 2009 (hereinafter, the
"Conceptual Plan"), prov ided that the maximum building size shall be governed by Condition 2 rather
than the Conceptual Plan. Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan may be approved by the Zoning
Administrator in conjunction with site plan review to ensure compliance w ith the Zoning Ordinance. The
arrangement of parking spaces may be altered so that C ounty standards for safe and convenient
access may be met. The total number of parking spaces shall be in accord with a parking study
approved by Zoning staff before approval of the preliminary site plan for this use.
2. The footprint of the building identified on the Conceptual Plan as “Propos ed MultiPurpose Building” shall
not exceed 14,500 square feet.
3. A dwelling used by the church's s taff, located within the churc h, may be permitted as an accessory
use.
4. All structures shall meet commercial setback standards as set forth in Section 21.7(b) of the Albemarle
C ounty Zoning Ordinance. The tot lot is not s ubject to this c ondition.
5. A firesuppression water supply meeting the approval of the Albemarle C ounty Fire/Resc ue D epartment
shall be required before approval of the preliminary site plan for this use.
6. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems .
7. All outdoor lighting s hall be only full cutoff fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties . A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their des ignee for approval.
8. There shall be no day care center or private school on s ite without approval of a separate special use
permit;
9. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenc ed within
sixty (60) months after the permit is issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority
granted there under shall thereupon terminate.
10. The church should work out an agreement w ith the adjoining neighbor(s) to provide some s ort of
screening be it a fence, shrubbery, trees, or w hatever is acceptable. The screening is to reduce
the noise and trash. On the low er side closest to Parcel 96H, all of the fencing and lands caping, if
the neighbors decided it w as needed, w ould be on the church property . N ote: The fencing and
other screening should be provided for thos e neighbors that make accommodations with the church
to have it.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on June 10, 2009.
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Planner
Planning D ivision
C OUN TY OF ALBEMAR LE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SU MMA RY
Pro ject N ame:
SP 2 007 00052 Norto nsville Church of G od
Staff: Scott Clark
Planning Commission Public Hearing :
April 2 1, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 10, 2009
Owner/s: N ortonsv ille Church Of Go d; Renchler N
Shifflett Trs et al
Applicants: No rtonsville Church O f God; Ren chler
N Shifflett Trs et al
Acreag e: 5.943 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.35 Church buildin g
and adjunct cemetery
TM P: Tax Map 9 Parcel 4
Location: 1550 Simmon s G ap Road (Ro ute 663),
0.67 miles southeast of the intersection with Route
810
Existing Zoning and Byright use: RA Rural
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential d ensity (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots);
M ag isterial District: White H all Conditions: Y es
RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Pro posal: Addition of 14,000 square foot Family Life
and Mu sic Center fo r up to 500 atten dees to existing
church.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open sp ace,
and natural, histo ric and scenic resources/ den sity ( .5
unit/ acre in dev elopment lots)
Cha racter of Property: The property is o pen, w ith
only slig ht slopes.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Most adjacent
properties are small residential parcels. A larger farm
parcel lies across Simmons Gap Road
1. Factors Favora ble: There are no known
significant phy sical limitations that would
prev ent this expansion.
1. Facto rs U nfavorable: The scale of th e
new b uilding is large for a rural church .
Howev er, it is intended to accommodate
the church ’s existing activities, for which
they cu rren tly do not have enough space.
RECOMMEN DATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with co nditions.
Petition:
PRO POSED : Addition of 14,000 squa re foot Family Life a nd Music Center for up to 500 attende e s to e xisting
church.
ZO NIN G CATEG ORY /G ENERAL U SAG E: RA Rural A re a s: agric ultural, fore stal, a nd fishe ry use s;
re sidentia l de nsity (0.5 unit/a cre)
SECTIO N: 10.2.2.35 Churc h building a nd adjunc t ce me tery.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LA ND USE/DEN SITY : Rura l Are a s prese rve a nd prote ct agricultura l, fore stal,
ope n spa c e, and na tura l, historic and sc enic re sourc e s/ density ( .5 unit/ a cre)
EN TRAN CE CORRID OR: No
LO CA TION: 1550 Simmons G a p Roa d (Route 663), 0.67 miles southe a st of the inte rse ction w ith Route 810
TA X MAP/PARCEL: Tax Ma p 9 Parce l 4
MAG ISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
C harac te r of the A re a:
The site is loca ted in a rura l a re a c ha ra cte rize d by a mixture of w oods a nd pastures, w ith sma ller residentia l
pa rc els lined along the roa ds.
Planning and Zoning Histor y:
SP 9528: On O c tobe r 11, 1995, the Boa rd of Supervisors approve d this spe c ia l use permit, w hic h a llow e d
an expa nsion of the e xisting churc h on the site. The origina l c hurc h bec a me a fe llowship ha ll, a nd the ne w
building provide d a large r sa nc tua ry a re a , c la ssrooms, a nd a kitc he n.
Spe c ific s of the Pr oposal:
N ortonsville Churc h of God is proposing to a dd a building with a 14,000squarefoot footprint (28,000 squa re
fe et tota l inte rior area , inc luding the base me nt) to the ir 5.9a cre pa rc e l (se e Attac hme nt C for the propose d
conce ptual pla n) in order to provide a dditiona l spa c e for c hurch and c ommunity ac tivitie s (on the first floor),
as we ll as a dditiona l storage (in the base me nt). The ne w building w ould be use d for churc h a ctivitie s that
inc lude music a l e ve nts, mee tings a nd ac tivitie s for the congrega tion, c hurch ca mps, a nd educa tion. The
origina l c hurc h, now used as a fellowship hall, doe s not provide enough spa ce for the c hurc h’s e xisting
ac tivities.
The applica nts e stima te tha t pea k a tte nda nc e on the site , e ither for e ve ning se rvic e s or spec ial e vents in the
ne w building, would be 500 pe ople. A tta chme nt D inc ludes the applica tion informa tion a nd ta ble s show ing
the e stima ted le vels of use on the site.
The site c urre ntly inc ludes a pa rsona ge tha t would be remove d before construc tion of the ne w building. The
applica nts have propose d to inc lude the re pla ce me nt pa rsonage inside the ne w building. The County
A ttorney’s offic e a nd the Zoning division have de te rmined tha t a parsona ge is a cc essory to a c hurc h a nd ca n
be pe rmitte d in the building. In this c a se, the re is no c hange is the numbe r of pa rsona ge s, only the loc a tion.
SP 9528 a pplied to the 1.6a c re pa rce l immediate ly surrounding the c hurch. That pa rc e l has sinc e bee n
combine d with the adja c ent c hurch property, a nd the c urre nt proposal w ould a pply to the entire 5.943a c re
property.
R e gulatory C onte xt:
This a pplica tion is subje c t to the First Amendment's Esta blishme nt a nd Fre e Exercise Clauses a nd the
Re ligious La nd U se and Institutionalize d Pe rsons Ac t of 2000 ("RLU IPA "). O ne ke y provision of RLUIPA
sta tes:
No governme nt sha ll impose or imple me nt a land use regulation in a manner tha t impose s a
substantial burden on the re ligious e x erc ise of a pe rson, including a religious a sse mbly or institution,
unle ss the government de monstra tes that imposition of the burde n on tha t person, a ssembly, or
institution – (A ) is in furtheranc e of a compe lling gove rnm e ntal intere st; a nd (B) is the least
re stric tiv e me ans of furthe ring tha t c ompe lling governmenta l inte re st. (ita lic s added)
42 U .S.C. § 2000cc (a )(1). RLUIPA a lso re quire s that la nd use re gula tions: (1) tre at a religious asse mbly or
institution on e qua l te rms with nonre ligious asse mblie s a nd institutions; (2) not disc riminate a ga inst any
asse mbly or institution on the ba sis of re ligion or re ligious de nomina tion; a nd (3) not totally exc lude re ligious
asse mblie s, or unre asonably limit re ligious asse mblie s, institutions or struc tures, from the loca lity. 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000c c (b).
C onformity With The C ompr ehensive Plan
The Rura l Area s Plan c a lls for “c ommunity me e ting pla ce s, a ba sic le vel of se rvic e s,
and rura l orga niz ations a nd othe r cultura l institutions a t tra ditional rural sca les….” This fa c ility w ould inc lude a
14,000squa re foot building (28,000 square fe e t total inc luding the ba se me nt stora ge area ) a nd approxima te ly 76
ne w pa rking spa c es, in a ddition to the existing 10,473squa re foot fa c ility (origina l c hurch, c hurc h a ddition, a nd
pa rsona ge, w ith 79 pa rking spa ce s). While this is ne w structure is la rger than most rura l c hurc he s, it is ne e de d for
the a ctivitie s he ld by an ac tive c ongre ga tion.
Staff Comme nt
Staff w ill a ddress e ac h provision of Se c tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning O rdina nce .
31.2.4.1: Spe cial U se Permits prov ide d for in this ordinanc e may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supe rv isors that suc h use will not be of substantial detrime nt to adjace nt property,
A s the new fa c ility is intended to provide more spa ce for the e xisting c hurc h’s ongoing a c tivities, it is not
expec te d to cre a te a substa ntial de triment to a dja ce nt prope rtie s. Sta ff is rec omme nding a c ondition of
approva l re quiring tha t structure s a dhe re to c omme rc ia l se tba c ks from the adjac ent propertie s.
that the charac te r of the distric t will not be c hanged there by and
The inc re asing siz es of rural churc he s ra ise c onc erns ove r the ir physic a l a nd ae sthe tic impa cts on the ir
surroundings. In this ca se , the surrounding district w ould still be rura l in c hara c te r, but this pa rticular
property would be more inte nsely de ve lope d. H ow eve r, give n the regula tions discusse d a bove under
“Re gula tory Context,” a n increa se in a c hurch’s c a pac ity is c onside re d a pa rt of its re ligious a ctivity.
and with the public he alth, safety and ge ne ral we lfare .
The V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Transporta tion (VD OT) has sta ted tha t the propose d entra nc e s to the site c an be
approve d.
The County Engine e r ha s sta te d tha t the site la yout shown on the c onc e ptual pla n sugge sts that this pla n, in
more deta ile d form, will mee t the County’s re quirement for site de velopment plans. H ow e ve r, he state s tha t
some pa rking spa c es ne a r the e ntra nce s ma y not mee t the County’s sta nda rds for sa fe and c onvenient
ac c ess. The re fore sta ff is rec omme nding langua ge in propose d c ondition of a pprova l #1 that w ould pe rmit
the a pplic ant to vary the parking de sign from tha t shown on their proposed plan in order to me et the County
sta nda rds during sitepla n re vie w.
Eme rge ncy ac c ess for a fa c ility of this sca le loc a te d a t a signific a nt dista nc e from fire stations is a
conce rn. This site w ould be se rved by the Ea rlysville Voluntee r Fire Depa rtme nt sta tion. V DOT re c ords
indic ate that the re a re no bridge s w ith weight limits tha t a re too low for fire e quipme nt a long Simmons
G a p Roa d betwe e n Earlysville a nd the c hurc h. Estima ted fire response time to the site is approxima te ly
14 minute s, or one minute more than the County’s goa l for re sponse times.
A s the a pplic a nts ha ve not ye t provide d a de tailed plan for a wa ter supply for fire suppression, sta ff
re comme nds a c ondition re quiring Fire/Resc ue a pprova l of such a w a te r supply be fore site pla n
approva l. A s the building is over 12,000 squa re fee t, the Building Code will require tha t a fire
suppression sprinkler syste m be installed.
SUMMA RY:
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors favora ble to this applic ation:
1. There a re no known signific ant physica l limita tions tha t would pre ve nt this e xpa nsion.
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors unfa vora ble to this a pplic ation:
1. The sc a le of the new building is la rge for a rura l c hurc h. H oweve r, it is intended to
a c commodate the c hurc h’s e xisting a ctivitie s, for w hic h the y curre ntly do not ha ve enough
spa ce .
R EC OMMEND ED AC TION:
Ba se d on the findings c ontained in this sta ff re port, sta ff rec omme nds a pproval of SP 200800029 South
Plains Presbyte ria n Churc h with the following c onditions:
1. The development of the site shall be in gene ra l a cc ord with the “Conc eptua l Site Pla n” prepa re d
for Nortonsville Church of God by TCS Engine e ring Co., LLC, da ted April 3, 2009 (hereinafte r,
the "Conce ptua l Pla n"), provide d that the ma ximum building size sha ll be governe d by Condition
2 ra the r than the Conc eptua l Pla n. Minor va riations from the Conc e ptua l Pla n may be a pprove d
by the Zoning A dministrator in conjunc tion with site pla n re vie w to ensure c omplia nc e with the
Zoning Ordinanc e.
2. The footprint of the building ide ntified on the Conc eptua l Pla n a s “Propose d MultiPurpose
Building” sha ll not exc e e d 15,500 square fe e t.
3. A dw e lling use d by the c hurch's sta ff, loc ate d within the churc h, may be pe rmitted a s an
a c ce ssory use.
4. All structure s sha ll me e t c omme rc ial se tba c k standards as se t forth in Se c tion 21.7(b) of the
Albe ma rle County Zoning Ordinanc e. The tot lot is not subje c t to this c ondition.
5. A fire suppre ssion w a te r supply me eting the a pproval of the A lbe ma rle County Fire/Resc ue
Depa rtment sha ll be re quired be fore approva l of the pre liminary site plan for this use.
6. He a lth De partment a pproval of well a nd/or se ptic syste ms.
7. All outdoor lighting shall be only full c utoff fixtures and shielded to refle c t light a w ay from a ll
a butting prope rties. A lighting plan limiting light leve ls at all property line s to no gre a te r tha n 0.3
foot c a ndle s sha ll be submitte d to the Zoning A dministrator or their de signe e for a pprova l.
8. There sha ll be no day ca re c e nte r or priva te sc hool on site without a pproval of a separate
spe cia l use pe rmit;
9. If the use , struc ture , or ac tivity for w hic h this spe c ia l use permit is issue d is not c omme nc e d
within sixty (60) months afte r the pe rmit is issue d, the permit shall be dee me d a bandoned and
the a uthority gra nte d the re under sha ll thereupon te rminate .
A TTACHMENTS
A ttac hme nt A – Area Ma p
A ttac hme nt B – D eta il Ma p
A ttac hme nt C – Nortonsville Churc h of God c onc eptua l plan
Re turn to exe c summa ry
SP 2007-52
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 6
Attachment A
SP 2007-52
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 7
Attachment B
SP 2007-52 PC April 21, 2009 Staff Report Page 8 Attachment C Church Sanctuary Old Church – Current Fellowship Hall New Multi-Purpose Buildng Existing Parking New Parking
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 21, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning C ommission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on Tuesday, April 21,
2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach and Eric
Strucko, C hairman. Cal Morris and Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for the University of Virginia,
were absent.
Other officials present were Stew ard Wright, Permit Planner; Sherri Proc tor, Permit Planner; Ron H iggins, Chief of
Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Sc ott C lark, Senior
Planner; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration; Mark Graham, Director of C ommunity D evelopment
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy C ounty Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Struck o called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Struck o invited c omment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the
meeting moved to the next item.
Public Hearing Item:
SP200700052 Nortonsville C hurch of God Facility Expansion
PROPOSED : Addition of 14,000 square foot Family Life and Mus ic Center for up to 500 attendees to existing
church.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R A Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses ; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery.
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DEN SITY: Rural Areas pres erve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, his toric and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre)
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : N o
LOCATION: 1550 Simmons Gap Road (Route 663), 0.67 miles southeas t of the inters ection with R oute 810
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: Tax Map 9 Parc el 4
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: White Hall
(Scott C lark)
Mr. Clark made a pow erpoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit to allow a new building to be constructed at an existing church. The existing
church already has a special use permit. The proposed addition would be an approximate 14,000 (with a
request for 15,020) square foot Family Life and Music Center for up to 500 attendees to existing church.
For the size of the building the amount of earth moving will be fairly minor bec aus e it is a fairly level site.
Staff has identified the follow ing factors fav orable to this application:
1. There are no known signific ant physical limitations that would prevent this expansion.
Staff has identified the follow ing factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The scale of the new building is large for a rural church. However, it is intended to acc ommodate
the churc h’s existing activ ities, for which they currently do not have enough space.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 200700052
N ortonsville Church of God with the c onditions listed in the staff report, amended with the addition of
the two sentenc es in condition 1 as follows:
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the “Conceptual Site Plan” prepared for
N ortonsville C hurch of God by TC S Engineering Co., LLC, dated April 3, 2009 (hereinafter, the
"Conceptual Plan"), provided that the maximum building siz e shall be governed by C ondition 2
rather than the Conceptual Plan. Minor v ariations from the C onceptual Plan may be approved by
the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with site plan rev iew to ens ure compliance w ith the Zoning
Ordinance. The arrangement of parking spaces may be altered so that C ounty standards for
safe and convenient access may be met. The total number of parking spaces shall be in
accord with a parking study approved by zoning staff before approval of the preliminary site
plan for this use.
The tw o s entences added to condition 1 had inadv ertently been left out of the conditions sent
previously in the staff report. The purpose of the tw o s entences is to ensure that when the request
c omes in for its site plan review the park ing arrangement probably is going to c hange from w hat is on
the conceptual plan to make some minor adjustments to ens ure the traffic flow will work. The church
w ill be building part of a new road way and adding parking to mess in with the ex isting parking. Also,
the church does not have a parking study that s how s exactly how many spaces will be needed for a
500 person facility, w hich is likely going to be more than what is shown in the conceptual plan. Staff
does not have any concerns because there is plenty of room on the site to accommodate the additional
parking. But staff does not have an exact number yet. The purpose of the condition is to make sure
w hen the applicants work that out w ith zoning during the site plan review that they don’t need to come
back and amend the whole special use permit just because that number w ill change. Otherwise, the
recommended c onditions are unchanged.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loac h noted that on page 3 in the last sentence under the section Conformity w ith the Comp Plan it says
while this is a new structure it is larger than w hat most rural churches need for the activities held by an active
congregation. He asked if there is some specific methodology that staff used to determine that or was that just
based on the size and ex perience with this size of a church. He as ked how s taff determined that it was
needed for the activities of a congregation of this siz e.
Mr. Clark replied that it w as based on the statements of the applicants. The church representatives s aid this is
what they need to do the activities they have planned and in fact to meet the needs for activities that they are
already having on s ite. There is no standard in the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan calls for meeting places that
are traditional rural scaled, but it is not quantified.
Mr. Loach asked how far the nearest residence is from the proposed new structure.
Mr. Clark replied that he did not have the exact distance, but pointed the location out on the slide of the closest
residenc e being near the bloc k of tex t. Along the back line there is nothing visible. Toward the east there are
several very thin parcel lines that run down together and make up a wide driveway that goes to residential lots
back behind and off to the c orner of the church. There really is only one res idence close that is directly
adjacent to the existing parking area.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to help clarify the church camp concept that is in the staff report. N ormally they ask for
a special use permit for a camp. She w anted to make sure that ev ery one is aware that from their c onv ersation
that it is not like a normal stay over camp but it is just like vacation bible school.
Mr. Clark replied that a camp in this c ase does not mean over night stays or summer w eek long programs and
things lik e that. It is more like Sunday school during the week as he understands it. It is church education
during the day and it does not require a separate special use permit.
Ms. Jos eph said that this church will be used a whole lot more than they normally see a church used suc h as
on Sundays and Wednesdays or whatever. The churc h is going to be a very intensiv ely used plac e.
Mr. Clark noted that there will be weekday and weekend use. It is a fairly large facility. Again, from w hat he
had heard from the applicants they are trying to make spac e for a lot of things that they are already
accommodating without the necessary buildings.
Mr. Struck o said that bas ically they us e the church this way now.
Mr. Clark noted that the church would be able to better accommodate some of the activities, such as musical
events, indoors.
Ms. Joseph hoped that staff is contemplating changing the ordinanc e because the way they have been
interpreting federal law and the w ay our attorneys have told us to interpret it that they really don’t hav e any say
over what goes on here and they are wasting a w hole of people’s time. This inc ludes the time of staff, the
Commis sion and the congregation if there is really nothing that they can do in this instance.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that this subject will be discussed at the rural area strategies meeting coming up w ith the
Board. Mr. Kamptner can speak to this better. But, generally s peaking where they can focus their attention is
on the health, safety and welfare impacts of a facility like this if they exist at all. As an example, we need to
review for insufficient road sy stems leading to the c hurch and problems of that sort. They are somewhat
restricted. Therefore, he felt that it very definitely deserves a different approach from our ordinance. They have
been talking about this for a w hile any way because so many of the c hurch requests hav e the same kind of
circums tances. There have been occ asions where they have seen a church in a particular location of a size
impacting the neighboring areas and concerns raised regarding that where the s pecial use permit process has
given the Commission the opportunity to s end the applicants back and to further look into what they are
proposing. So there is a fine line there that was not abs olute in all cases .
Ms. Porterfield ask ed what would be staff’s guess as to the number of parking spaces that are going to be
required.
Mr. C lark replied that right now the c onceptual plan is showing 127 spaces, whic h s taff’s normal c alculation
would be for 380 people. It would be in the range of 160 to 170 parking s paces instead of the 127 for 500
people.
Ms. Porterfield asked w ill the parking stay in the current location.
Mr. C lark said that the existing c hurch parking is around the church building and along the edge of road will
stay where it is. It is important to the church to have the new parking w here they have shown it. They may
need to add some more in the existing area or pos sibly add some more around the loop at the back of the site.
There is a lot of open space back at the picnic shelter that could be us ed for some more parking if necessary.
They also ex pec t that some more parking would go up front. He suggested that the applicant could ans wer the
question.
Ms. Porterfield asked w here the tot lot w as located and if it was fenced.
Mr. Scott pointed out the location of the tot lot. He noted that there is a fence along the tree line, but he did not
know if the tot lot would be fenced.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that if parking is back there that the tot lot be fenced so that there w ould not be
children running across parking lots.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are site plan requirements for tot lots and other activities near by. He could not
tell her exactly how that w orks, but it would be addressed at the site plan stage.
Ms. Porterfield said that because of the s ize of the new building it is going to have a fire suppression sprinkler
system. She assumes this is on a well and asked if there is enough pres sure to run that system.
Mr. C lark replied that one of the conditions staff recommended was that the Fire D epartment w ould approve
that. There is no detailed water supply study at this time. However, it is entirely possible that w ith w ater
storage there would be an available supply of water for that.
Ms. Porterfield asked if that would be required at the site plan stage, and Mr. Clark replied yes that it w ould be
address ed at the site plan stage.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was conc erned that from the plat he could not figure out w hat parking existed since
it did not s how up on the drawing very well. The staff report says there were 76 or 79 parking spaces .
Mr. Clark noted that he rec hecked it earlier today and found 79 existing parking spaces.
Mr. Edgerton said that they are proposing 76 plus 79 spaces which add up to 155. Staff just gave them a
much bigger number. He was concerned that even with that larger number it was not a realistic amount for a
building of this size which they are hoping to be able to put 500 people in. Their math based on the staff report
suggested that if they did use the building to capacity that every car that came would have to have over 3
people in it with the spaces they have. H e w as concerned about putting that off and not dealing with it until the
site plan because it may not work at all.
Mr. C lark noted that one (1) s pace per three (3) seats use to be the requirement for churches. Now they don’t
have a fixed requirement for rural churches and ask the applicant to do a parking study to meet their needs. A
lot of times staff does fall back on that 1 per 3 number that they did use for quite a while.
Mr. Edgerton expressed s ome concern that this site w ill be overw helmed w ith parking to meet the
requirements. W ith that in mind he was a little surprised with condition 2 that somehow the building that was
shown v ery clearly as 1,400 square feet grew to 1,550 square feet. He questioned how that happened.
Mr. Clark noted that staff generally tries to avoid the applicant to have to come back for another special use
permit amendment.
Mr. Edgerton said that when they reference a conc eptual plan that shows 1,400 square feet and then they
amend it by 150 he gets a little nervous about w hether the C ommission is actually reviewing anything other
than the c oncept. He noted that maybe that is all the Commission is being asked to do here.
Mr. Clark said that certainly the Commission or Board c ould change that number. He believed that he added
just a little over 10 percent to be absolutely sure that something that was generally the same s cale but that
would allow for the changes that typic ally happens during the site plan process when things get moved around
and changed a bit. Ov erall it is not a major change that would bump it into a different category of s cale.
Mr. Edgerton said perhaps the applicant c ould reassure him a little more.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
John Grady, representative for the Nortonsville Churc h of God, said that he would try to clear up a couple of
the concerns he had heard.
Regarding existing uses or activities there are no more planned uses or activities other than what is
going on at the church right now. This is not a growth plan. This is to take care of what is currently
going on and taking the relief and some of the use off the main sanctuary. There is additional room for
the church to grow with numbers in the exis ting sanctuary. W hat they are trying to do is dev elop a
family life center, music center and a gymnasium that may be us ed by its church personnel keeping
their personnel and their children there and around the area.
Ms. Porterfield addressed the need for fire s uppression. The building is being designed by an architect
and they are lay ing it out it will be fire stopped at the right square footage s o they will not have to use a
fire s uppression system. The Building Code requires a fire suppression system at 12,000 square
feet. They will have sections that are 10,000 square feet or less so that a sprinkler system is not
necessary. They have already gone over that w ith an architect and engineer and it can be done by just
building material. Regarding the response time Earlysville Fire Department w ould normally get this, but
they have talk ed to the people at Dike. The Dik e Fire Station, although it is in Greene County, is only
2 miles away from the c hurch. The fire call will go to Early sville, but D ike will respond as well. So
that means Dike Fire Station would be there much sooner than the 14 minutes that is indicated in the
s taff report. They will open their doors to area residents during emergencies or disasters.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loac h asked what the hours of operation would be and if there would be any c ommercial use of the
building. For instance, his church has a hall and they rent it out for w eddings.
Mr. Grady replied not rental, but that the church has concerts that c urrently use the s anctuary that w ould be
moved over to this. There will be a stage behind the basketball goals. But, he was not aware of any leasing.
Nelson Morris, Pastor of Nortonville C hurch of God, s aid that the churc h us es the present sanctuary for
weddings for church members that attend.
Mr. Loach asked if the c hurch is used for the wedding rec eption and there w ill be cook ing.
Pastor Morris replied that right now they use the exis ting sanctuary and fellowship halls for those types of
events right now. It includes weddings , receptions and things as suc h.
Mr. Loach asked if this is a 7 day a week operation and what are the hours of operation.
Pastor Morris replied that they only have 2 or 3 staff members there Tuesday through Friday and sometimes on
Saturday . Then they have Wednesday night and Sunday servic es and a Tuesday night prayer meeting.
Usually everything is done by 9:00 p.m. It is certainly not going to be consistent day meeting activities.
Ms. Porterfield ask ed how big a wedding can the churc h handle in the current sanctuary and if they anticipate
being able to increase that number with the new buildings.
Pastor Morris replied about 250 people and that if they need to move the reception ov er to the new building they
would do so. They would try to accommodate whatever the need is.
Mr. Edgerton asked for s ome discuss ion about the park ing.
Mr. Grady said that the ex isting park ing around the s anc tuary around the back, the sides and up the northeast
property line is the 70+ spaces that staff referred to. They were hoping to not have to put in any more parking
spaces than what they are showing now in front of the new building. That is something they will talk with Mr.
Clark about when they do the site plan submittal. They certainly don’t want to put in more parking spaces than
necessary. There are 79 existing park ing spaces. Staff had some heart burn about 3 or 4 spots that were out
to the road because they were parallel to some of the entrances. They can make those spaces go away. If
there is an engineering concern that they make block or restrict site distance they w ill certainly do what they
need to do.
Mr. Struck o invited public comment.
Eunice Steen, an adjac ent property owner, said that she w ished that the church would not expand. They have been
her neighbors for 35 years and Pas tor Allison has been there for 18 years . They are very good neighbors. Howev er
they are v ery noisy and trashy neighbors . The groundw ater pressure is much lower since the new church w as built
10 years ago. There are a couple of misconceptions . The ground is not level. The reason the ground appears level
is because in previous buildings they bas ement and all of the stuff was pushed over into a deep gully that is about 8’
high and s he w as contending with mud washes. She was c ontending with her lawn and garden being w ashed.
There was one small hous e adjacent to the church w hen it was first built in 1950. There are now 11 residences. The
proposed building is about 100’ in front of the closest res idence. The parking is about 50’ from her house. There is
no longer a fence because when they made that parking they pus hed the fence over. Their motto is a grow ing
church for a grow ing community. This building is to accommodate their growth. She was saying that when a
church grows in town or out if the location is not permissible they move to a different location and sell the old church
to a different one. She thought there were many parcels of land w ithin a 2 to 5 mile radius owned by church
members where they could expand. If this is real rural more expans ion commerc ial like this is going to make it unfit
for res idential until they bring in public w ater and sewer and control mud slides.
Ms. Porterfield asked w here her property is located.
Ms. Steen replied that it was where the 93 is located. The volley ball court and basketball court area was a deep
ravine and it got pushed in. It is now washing down. She has let the area grow up in woods in the front and back
since her mother pass ed aw ay. It affects her 3 acres more than it does any other neighbor. There may be some
traffic problems getting in and out at times. At the corner of her property is a stream that goes into Beaver Creek,
which is where the mud is flowing down the back carrying with it a lot of trash and soccer balls, baseballs and
basketballs. She felt that it was too muc h for a rural area. There w as too much under pavement and asphalt and
too much activity for that area and that narrow of a road.
There being no further public c omment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commis sion.
Mr. Loach suggested that this might be a case where good fencing makes good neighbors. H e suggested
adding some landscaping and fencing along her side of the parking lot to help improve this. He felt that some
plantings or vegetation might help out in this situation.
Mr. Clark noted that staff had conceived that early in the review. But, because the parking along that edge is
so clos e to the property line there is no room between the parking spaces and the edge of the property to do
planting. Behind the parking there is room but that is past where the existing parking is. He was not sure
about lands caping between the parking and the property line because there is not really much room.
Mr. Struck o asked if the parking area comply w ith setback rule and is it appropriately off the property line itself.
Mr. C lark replied that there w ere no conditions in the prior special use permit for commercial setbac ks on
parking. It w as not done in this case.
Mr. Loach asked if it was allowed as part of the conditions for the church to put the plantings and the fence on
her property if she allows it.
Mr. Kamptner noted that they had done something like that before provided that permission is granted. Part of
the problem is that unless she volunteers to accept the fencing and vegetation it does take away from her use
of the property to a certain extent.
Mr. Loach favored churc hes getting larger, but was trying to resolve the issues.
Mr. Grady noted that the c hurch w ould certainly offer screening and a fence. They know that they have
approximately 4’ to 5’ from the end of the parking space to the property line. They will do whatever s creening
is required. They will offer something on a site plan.
Mr. Loach noted that his other concern was in regards to the fire suppres sion which was part of the conditions.
He w ould hope with 500 people that they make sure that there w ill be adequate water pres sure in the site plan
review.
Mr. Clark said that staff felt it was important in this c ase to include a condition for fire/rescue approval.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the applicant indicated that the architec t was somehow going to work around that
requirement so they would not have to fire s uppression in there. He as ked w ith this condition it would require
that if it w as over 12,000 square feet.
Mr. Clark noted that in talking with the Inspections Department the Building code requires s prinklers for new
structures of 12,000 square feet or more. They did not talk about any exceptions to that rule if the building is
broken up into small fire proofed sections .
Mr. Edgerton said that worried him that if there were 500 people and no fire suppress ion system. H e agreed
with Mr. Loach that they should hold firm on that. It worried him that their architect said they could work
around that.
Mr. C lark pointed out that it was explained that they would not be able to get the building permit and the
certificate of occupanc y if they did not have that. If there is some w ay around that rule that is permissible under
the Building Code that could be done through engineering that would still hav e to be approved before those
permits could be issued.
Ms. Porterfield questioned the size of the facility with the proposed 500 people fitting into the 300 parking
spaces. From the neighbor’s view point she did not understand the trash situation. Also, she was trying to
figure out who was going to use the bask etball and other facilities.
Mr. Grady said that he did not know where the 500 people came from. The current Sunday morning services
normally run from 220 to 250, which is the largest serv ice of the day. W hen they are talking about some 400 or
500 people it may be for a wedding that now has around 350 people. That wedding could take plac e in the
existing sanctuary. But they would rather take some of the heat off of the exis ting building and offer these
services in the multipurpose room.
Mr. Struck o pointed out that in the chart for occupancy it says the number on Saturday is 500 and Sunday is
980. There are two services being an evening and morning worship on Sunday. On Friday the oc cupancy is
381. On Wednesday it is 360. It drops off on Monday to 72. He was not sure if these are absolute
maximums . This say s it is the occupancy estimates.
Pastor Morris pointed out that they w ere asked to project what would be the total usage per week to inc lude the
total attendance for Sunday School, morning worship, Sunday night and Wednesday night to get one common
number as to how many people may attend during a week’s time. They were told to project w hat would be a
usage for the total there. Admittedly they misunderstood the question. That does not mean that at any
particular s ervice that number of 500 is there.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that the numbers in the table had to do with the septic. The projections are w hat is the
flow going to be and how big the septic site should be.
Pastor Morris noted that there could be up to 500 people attending a c onc ert or w edding. But that is not a
normal usage of it on a regular bas is. During the w eek there are only 3 staff people there during the day along
with those attending their regular serv ices . There is not a 9 to 5 Monday through Friday situation where there is
300 to 500 people there during the week.
Ms. Joseph asked how many people does their sanctuary seat.
Pastor Morris replied that it was 325 maximum seating. They have a fellowship hall that will seat about that
same amount. Then the old sanctuary w ould seat about 140, which w ould now be used as the youth room.
For normal events other than funerals and weddings the c hurch is able to seat every one.
Mr. Loach supported SP200700052 with conditions as amended by staff.
Ms. Joseph asked if he w anted to talk about the screening.
Mr. Loach added that the s creening for the neighbor be provided.
Mr. C ilimberg noted that it seems from the aerial that there may already be vegetation right up to the property
line on the adjacent property. In the slide it looks like the trees go up to the property. He asked if the
Commis sion prefers that screening to be in the form of a fence.
Mr. Loach said that he would like the condition to s tate that the church work out w ith the adjoining neighbor
some s ort of screening condition be it a fence or shrubbery and trees , for w hatever is acceptable. He
understands the neighbor’s concern. H e thought that the fencing or the s hrubs may cut dow n on some of the
noise that gets there and possibly some of the trash. If they can come to an agreement he felt that is a plus.
Mr. Kamptner asked if that is for the length of the parking spaces or that w hole side of the parcel. That can
be work ed out between the neighbor and church.
Mr. Loach asked that it be an acceptable length to acc ommodate the neighbors.
Mr. Strucko asked if the Commiss ion was ok ay with c ondition 2. There was some earlier discuss ion about the
size of the structure not to exceed 15,500 square feet v ersus what is on the site plan.
Ms. Porterfield preferred it be the 14,000 s quare feet as shown on the s ite plan.
Mr. C ilimberg suggested that the C ommission not cut it completely to the chase. They have had
circums tances where they have had repeated requests. Normally they ask for a little bit of wiggle room for
folks so that it is not abs olute at the dimensions.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the church has draw n the plans up yet because this is simply a schematic.
Mr. Clark replied that the church does have detailed building plans w orked up. Most of the drawings he has are
interior drawings that are not too relevant to a land use review. But, he does k now that the c hurch has had
pretty detailed drawings worked up by their architect.
Ms. Porterfield asked at the 14,000 s quare feet, and Mr. Clark replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield suggested conditioning it to 14,050 square feet.
Mr. Loach asked for a w iggle figure from planning staff.
Mr. Clark replied that at least 500 square feet would be necessary just for changes happening during the site
plan proces s.
Mr. Loach amended the motion to include 14,500 square feet.
Ms. Porterfield as ked if the fence could be required on both sides bec aus e they are going to end up with a
parking lot on the opposite side when this building is being put up to take care of the neighbor opposite. What
they are trying to do is screen the parking lots from both sides . She assumed that the parking lot would go all
the way across when they build this building. She asked if they could screen the park ing lots from both sides
and if he w ould accept that in the motion.
Mr. Loach amended the c ondition to state that the fencing and the cover be provided for those neighbors that
make acc ommodations w ith the church to have it. This way if the other neighbor wants it fine, but if not it
would be okay. Obviously the one neighbor has express ed some concerns.
Mr. Clark pointed out that the difference between the two sides is parcel 96H, which is not directly adjacent to
the churc h property. There are several small parcel lines that c ome dow n in between there w here there is a
drive w ay to the houses that are farther in the back of the parc el. There are s ome trees there and it is not as
direct.
Mr. Loach asked that they k eep the c ondition open to what he said so to accommodate the neighbors. Then
they can w ork it out w ith the neighbors on either side within the structures that they hav e either within their own
grounds or within the neighbor’s property.
Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Kamptner if he could w rite a condition like that.
Mr. Kamptner replied absolutely . On the lower side closest to 96H he assumed that all of the fencing and
landscaping, if the neighbors decided it was needed, would be on the c hurch property .
Mr. Loach replied that was correct.
Mr. Clark said that hopefully fencing w ill work there. There is an area where a septic field will come down
close to that property line where it would be difficult to have plantings because it would interfere. Hopefully this
working out process can also accommodate that.
Mr. Strucko reiterated that Mr. Loach’s motion is on the table for the conditions as amended by s taff, plus the
screening requirements and the size.
Ms. Porterfield asked if a dumpster enclosure w ould be required because it would help with the trash situation.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the dumpster would be covered during the site plan review .
Ms. Joseph suggested that on page 4 regarding the recommended ac tion that staff should change the name of
the church.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Ms. Porterfield sec onded to approve SP200700052, N ortonsville Church of God
Facility Expansion with the c onditions as recommended by staff, as amended, including adding the conditions about
the screening and size.
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the “C onc eptual Site Plan” prepared for
Nortonsville Churc h of God by TCS Engineering Co., LLC, dated April 3, 2009 (hereinafter, the
"Conc eptual Plan"), provided that the maximum building s ize shall be governed by Condition 2
rather than the Conc eptual Plan. Minor v ariations from the Conceptual Plan may be approved by the
Zoning Administrator in conjunc tion w ith site plan review to ens ure compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. The arrangement of parking s pac es may be altered so that C ounty standards for safe
and convenient acces s may be met. The total number of parking s pac es shall be in accord with a
parking study approved by zoning staff before approval of the preliminary site plan for this use.
2. The footprint of the building identified on the Conc eptual Plan as “Proposed MultiPurpose Building”
shall not exceed 14,500 s quare feet.
3. A dwelling used by the church's staff, located within the churc h, may be permitted as an accessory
use.
4. All struc tures shall meet c ommercial s etback standards as set forth in Section 21.7(b) of the
Albemarle C ounty Zoning Ordinance. The tot lot is not s ubject to this c ondition.
5. A firesuppression water supply meeting the approval of the Albemarle County Fire/Resc ue
Department shall be required before approval of the preliminary site plan for this use.
6. Health Department approval of well and/or septic sy stems.
7. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot
candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approv al.
8. There shall be no day care center or private sc hool on s ite w ithout approval of a separate special
use permit;
9. If the use, struc ture, or ac tivity for which this special use permit is iss ued is not commenced within
sixty (60) months after the permit is issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the
authority granted there under shall thereupon terminate.
10. The churc h should work out an agreement with the adjoining neighbor(s) to provide s ome sort
of screening be it a fence, shrubbery, trees, or whatever is acceptable. The screening is to
reduce the noise and trash. On the lower side clos est to Parcel 96H , all of the fencing and
landscaping, if the neighbors decided it was needed, w ould be on the church property. Note:
The fenc ing and other screening should be provided for thos e neighbors that make
accommodations with the church to hav e it.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Morris absent)
Mr. Strucko said that SP200700052 N ortonsville Church of God Facility Expansion would go to the Board of
Supervisors on June 10, 2009 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to exec summary
May 8, 2009
Janie A & Ronald E Matheny
2806 Kac ey Lane
Afton Va 22920
RE: SP200800048 Matheny Development Right Request
Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Matheny:
On April 21, 2009, the Albemarle County Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:2 approved a motion to recommend
denial of the abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on June 10, 2009. It is the Board of Supervis or’s preference that a public hearing not be
advertis ed until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the C ounty and are available
for public review. Therefore any new or additional information regarding your application, including final proffers if
applicable, must be submitted to our office at least twentythree (23) days prior to your s cheduled hearing date.
Please review the attached proffer polic y established by the Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2005.
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
View st aff report and at tac hment
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Pr ojec t Name : SP200800048 Ma the ny
Development Right Request
Staff: Scott Cla rk
Planning Commission Public He aring:
April 21, 2009
Boar d of Supe r visors Public He aring:
June 10, 2009
Ow ne r/s: Ronald E & Janie A Ma the ny Applicants: Rona ld E & Ja nie A Ma the ny
Acr eage: 4.936 ac re s Spe cial Use Pe r mit: 10.2.2.28, D ivisions
of land a s provide d in se ction 10.5.2.1
TMP: Tax Ma p 84 Pa rc e l 14E
Loc ation: 2839 Cra igs Store Roa d (Route 635),
a pproximate ly 2000 fe et south of the inte rse ction
with White Mountain Road (Route 736).
Existing Zoning and Byr ight use: RA
Rura l Area s: a gric ultura l, foresta l, and fishery
use s; re side ntial de nsity (0.5 unit/a c re in
de ve lopme nt lots)
Magister ial D istric t: Sa muel Mille r Conditions: Yes
RA (Rura l Are as) Reque sted # of Dw e lling Units: 1
Pr oposal: Re quest for one a dditiona l
deve lopme nt right for a family subdivision.
Compre he nsive Plan De signation: Rura l Are as
pre se rve and protec t a gric ultura l, fore sta l, ope n
spa ce , a nd na tural, historic a nd sce nic resourc es/
de nsity ( .5 unit/ a c re in deve lopme nt lots)
Char acter of Pr oper ty: Residentia l Use of Sur rounding Pr oper tie s: Re sidentia l
lots on we st side of Cra igs Store Roa d; la rge
forest and fa rm pa rc els in the vic inity
Factor s Favorable:
1. The proposa l c an be ac commoda te d
without signific a nt he a lth or safety
impac ts to the area .
Fac tors Unfavorable :
1. Additiona l deve lopment rights a re not
norma lly in a cc ord w ith the purpose s
of the Rura l Are as zoning distric t.
Sta ff propose s to a ddre ss this c once rn
with a c ondition of approva l tha t would
require the subdivision to be proce ssed
a s a fa mily subdivision, w hic h would
ke ep the land in the fa mily for a t le ast
four ye a rs.
RECOMMENDA TION : Sta ff re commends a pproval of this Spec ial U se Permit, with one
c ondition.
Petition:
PRO POSED : Re quest for one a dditiona l de ve lopme nt right for a family subdivision.
ZO NIN G CATEG ORY /G ENERAL U SAG E: RA Rural A re a s: agric ultural, fore stal, a nd fishe ry use s;
re sidentia l de nsity (0.5 unit/a cre in de velopment lots);
SECTIO N: 10.2.2.28, D ivisions of land a s provide d in se ction 10.5.2.1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LA ND USE/DEN SITY : Rura l Are a s prese rve a nd prote ct agricultura l, fore stal,
ope n spa c e, and na tura l, historic and sc enic re sourc e s/ density ( .5 unit/ a cre in de velopment lots)
EN TRAN CE CORRID OR: No
LO CA TION: 2839 Cra igs Store Roa d (Route 635), approxima tely 2000 fee t south of the intersec tion with White
Mountain Road (Route 736).
TA X MAP/PARCEL: Tax Ma p 84 Pa rc e l 14E
MAG ISTERIAL DISTRICT: Sa muel Mille r
C harac te r of the A re a:
The a re a is loc a te d to the northwe st of Hea rd’s Mountain, and is c ha ra c te riz ed by sma ll re sidentia l parce ls
along the roa d a nd la rge a re as of forest and pa sture .
Spe c ific s of the Pr oposal:
The a pplic a nts a re re que sting a n a dditional de ve lopme nt right for the purpose of giving a gra ndc hild
approxima te ly 2 ac re s of la nd (out of their 4.9a cre pa rc e l) for a ne w home . The ne w pa rc el w ould be a dde d
to a group of five sma ll re side ntia l pa rc els on the west side of Craigs Store Roa d, all be longing to me mbers
of the sa me fa mily. Those five s pa rc e ls c onta in a ll the a crea ge of the single pa rc el tha t w a s distributed to
fa mily me mbers. See A tta c hment C for a sketch pla n of the propose d division—a n a rrow indic ate s the
loc ation of the propose d lot. (Ple a se note that, if this spe c ia l use permit is a pproved, a more de ta ile d
subdivision pla t mee ting the County’s subdivision re quire me nts w ould be re quire d before the lot c ould be
crea te d.)
C onformity w ith the C ompr ehensive Plan:
The Comprehe nsive Pla n de signa te s the site as pa rt of the County’s Rura l A re a s, whe re la nduse policie s
focus on the prese rva tion and prote ction of a gricultura l, foresta l, ope n spa c e, a nd natura l, historic a nd sc e nic
re sourc es. The Plan sta te s tha t:
To be c onsistent with the G uiding Princ iples, the County's la nd de ve lopme nt polic ie s must be
c hanged to stop the ongoing tre nd towa rd fragme nta tion a nd loss of rura l c ha ra c te r. N e w policie s
should foc us on protec ting e xisting la rge pa rc els from fragme nta tion, pre serving a ge ne ra l pa tte rn
c harac teriz ed by fa rms, forests, a nd ha bita t c orridors, and re duc ing the potentia l ove ra ll leve l of
residentia l deve lopme nt and loss of rura l cha ra cte r.
While this proposa l does not direc tly support those goa ls, the addition of one dwe lling to a group of family
re sidenc es is not e xpec ted to ha ve signific a nt impa cts.
STA FF COMMENT:
Staff w ill a ddress e ac h provision of Se c tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning O rdina nce .
31.2.4.1: Spec ial U se Pe rmits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supe rv isors that suc h use will not be of substantial detrime nt to adjace nt property,
Re side ntial use s are permitte d by right in the Rural A re a s z oning distric t, a nd the additional lot w ould ma tc h
the e xisting pa tte rn of the surrounding lots.
that the charac te r of the distric t will not be c hanged there by and
The a ddition of one house to the existing grouping of home s w ill not signific antly cha nge the pattern of land
use in the a re a.
and that suc h use will be in harmony with the purpose and inte nt of this ordinanc e,
A lthough se ction 10.1 (“Inte nt”) ma kes it c le a r that re side ntia l de ve lopme nt is not a pre fe rred use in the
Rura l Area s zoning distric t, this proposa l is inte nde d to a cc ommoda te a fa mily me mber in an e xisting
re sidentia l a re a . In orde r to ensure tha t the a dditiona l de ve lopme nt right w ould be use d for this purpose , sta ff
re comme nds a c ondition requiring tha t the subdivision be done through the “fa mily subdivision” provisions of
the subdivision ordinance . Se ction 14212(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance w ould re quire that the land
re ma in in fa mily ow nership for at le a st four ye ars a fter the re c orda tion of the subdivision plat. The
applica nts have sta te d that the ir inte ntion is for the new pa rc el to be use d longterm as a reside nce for the ir
grandc hild.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Re side ntial use s are pe rmitted by right in the distric t.
with additional re gulations prov ide d in sec tion 5.0 of this ordinanc e ,
The re a re no supple me nta l re gula tions in sec tion 5 for this use. H oweve r, se c tion 10.5.2 requires the
follow ing a nalysis for spe c ia l use permits re que sting a dditiona l deve lopme nt rights in the Rura l Area s zoning
distric t:
10.5.2 WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10.5.2.1 The board of supe rvisors
may authorize the issuanc e of a spec ial use permit for more lots than the total num ber pe rmitte d
unde r sec tion 10.3.1 and sec tion 10.3.2; provided that no such pe rm it shall be issued for property
within the boundarie s for the watershed of any public drinking wate r supply impoundm e nt, and
furthe r prov ide d that no suc h pe rmit shall be issued to allow m ore de ve lopme nt lots within a
propose d rural pre se rv ation dev e lopm e nt than that pe rm itted by right under se ction 10.3.3.3(b).
(Adde d 11889; Amended 5504 e ffe ctive 7104) The board of superv isors shall dete rm ine that
suc h div ision is c om patible with the neighborhood as se t forth in se c tion 31.2.4.1 of this chapte r
with refe renc e to the goals and obje ctive s of the compre he nsiv e plan relating to rural are as
including the ty pe of div ision proposed and spe cific ally , as to this sec tion only, with refe renc e to
the following: (Ame nde d 11889)
1. The size , shape , topography and e x isting v e ge tation of the prope rty in relation to its suitability
for agric ultural or forestal produc tion as e valuated by the U nited States Departme nt of
Agriculture Soil Conse rv ation Se rvic e or the Virginia Departme nt of Fore stry.
The pa rc el to be divided is too small to be via ble for comme rc ial agric ulture .
2. The ac tual suitability of the soil for agric ultural or fore stal produc tion as the same shall be
shown on the most rec e nt publishe d m aps of the United States D e partm ent of Agric ulture Soil
Conse rv ation Serv ice or othe r sourc e dee me d of equiv ale nt re liability by the Soil Conse rvation
Se rvic e.
The soils on the pa rc el a re liste d as “Loca lly Importa nt” in the Ope n Spac e & Critic a l Re sourc e s
Pla n. This soil list wa s de ve lope d by the N atura l Resource s Conserva tion Se rvice .
3. The historic c om me rc ial agricultural or fore stal uses of the property sinc e 1950, to the ex tent
that is re asonably av ailable.
County re c ords indica te that this pa rc el was c re a te d in 1967. It has be e n in re side ntia l use sinc e
a t le ast tha t time .
4. If locate d in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable e ffe c t of the propose d dev elopment
on the c harac te r of the area. For the purposes of this sec tion, a prope rty shall be de emed to be in
an agric ultural or forestal are a if fifty (50) perc ent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the
borde r of suc h property has be en in commerc ial agric ultural or fore stal use within five (5) ye ars
of the date of the application for spe c ial use pe rmit. In making this dete rm ination, m ountain
ridge s, m ajor streams and othe r phy sical barriers whic h de trac t from the c ohe siv ene ss of an
are a shall be c onside re d.
Approximately 84 perce nt of the Albemarle County parc e ls within one mile have be e n in
a gricultura l or fore stal use , a s indic a te d by ta x re c ords. H oweve r, the a ddition of one family
dwe lling to the a re a is not e xpe cte d to c re a te a signific ant diffe re nc e in the cha ra cte r of the area .
5. The re lationship of the property in re gard to de ve loped rural areas. For the purpose s of this
se c tion, a property shall be de emed to be located in a dev elope d rural area if fifty (50) perc e nt or
more of the land within one (1) m ile of the boundary of suc h prope rty was in parce ls of re c ord of
five (5) ac res or le ss on the adoption date of this ordinanc e. In mak ing this de termination,
mountain ridges, major stream s and other phy sic al barriers which de trac t from the c ohesiv ene ss
of an are a shall be c onside red.
Le ss tha n 3 pe rc e nt of the land w ithin one mile is c urre ntly in parce ls of 5 ac re s or le ss.
The re fore , muc h le ss than 50 pe rc ent of tha t la nd must ha ve bee n in pa rc e ls of 5 a cre s or le ss
whe n the ordinanc e wa s adopted in 1980. The re fore , this is not a de velope d rura l a re a .
6. The relationship of the propose d de v elopme nt to e xisting and propose d population ce nte rs,
se rv ic e s and e mploy me nt ce nte rs. A prope rty within areas de scribed be low shall be de e m e d in
proximity to the are a or use desc ribe d:
a. Within one m ile roadway distanc e of the urban are a boundary as de sc ribed in the
c om prehe nsive plan; (Am e nded 11889)
The property is not within one mile of an urba n a re a bounda ry.
b. Within onehalf mile roadway distanc e of a community boundary as de scribed in the
c om prehe nsive plan; (Am e nded 11889)
The property is not within oneha lf mile of a c ommunity bounda ry.
c . Within onehalf mile roadway distance of a v illage as de sc ribe d in the compre he nsiv e plan.
(Am e nde d 11889)
The property is not within oneha lf mile of a villa ge boundary.
7. The probable e ffe ct of the proposed dev e lopm e nt on c apital im prov ements programming in
re gard to incre ased prov ision of serv ice s.
The addition of one lot to this a re a of e xisting fa mily lots is not e xpe cte d to require any
signific ant inc re a se in se rvic e provision.
8. The traffic ge ne rate d from the proposed dev e lopm e nt would not, in the opinion of the Virginia
Department of Transportation: (Ame nde d 11889)
a. Occ asion the ne e d for road improve me nt;
b. Cause a tolerable road to bec om e a nontole rable road;
c . Inc re ase traffic on an e xisting nontole rable road.
VD OT doe s not e xpec t that the a ddition of one new lot w ill c re a te the nee d for a ny roa d
improvements
9. With re spec t to applic ations for spec ial use pe rmits for land ly ing wholly or partially within the
boundarie s for the wate rshe d of any public drink ing wate r im poundment, the following additional
factors shall be c onsidere d:
This se c tion doe s not a pply, as the prope rty is not in the w a te rshe d of a public w ate rsupply
impoundme nt.
and with the public he alth, safety and ge ne ral we lfare .
The applica nts have state d tha t they want to use a n e xisting drivewa y to a c ce ss the propose d lot. The
V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Transporta tion has c onfirme d that tha t drive w a y has sufficie nt sight distanc e,
provide d tha t some minor cle aring of ve geta tion is done .
SUMMA RY:
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors favora ble to this applic ation:
1. The proposal ca n be a c commodate d without signific a nt he alth or safety impac ts on the area .
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors unfa vora ble to this a pplic ation:
1. A dditional de ve lopme nt rights a re not norma lly in a cc ord with the purposes of the Rural A re a s
z oning distric t. Sta ff proposes to addre ss this conce rn with a c ondition of a pproval tha t w ould
require the subdivision to be proce sse d as a fa mily subdivision, which would ke e p the land in the
family for a t lea st four yea rs.
R EC OMMEND ED AC TION:
Ba se d on the findings conta ine d in this sta ff re port, sta ff re commends a pproval of SP 200848 Matheny
D e ve lopme nt Right Re que st with the following c ondition:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Ma p 84 Pa rc e l 14E sha ll only be permitte d a s a “fa mily
subdivision” a s provide d by Cha pte r 14 of the Albema rle County Code.
A TTACHMENTS
A ttac hme nt A – Area Ma p
A ttac hme nt B – D eta il Ma p
A ttac hme nt C – Conc eptua l Pla n
Re turn to PC a c tions le tte r
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 6
Attachment A
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 7
Attachment B
SP 2008-048 PC April 21, 2009 Staff Report Page 8 Attachment C
SP200800048 Mathney D evelopment R ights
PROJEC T: SP200800048 Matheny Dev elopment Right Request
PROPOSED : R eques t for one additional development right for a family s ubdivision.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R A Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses ; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots );
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Div isions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DEN SITY: Rural Areas pres erve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, his toric and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : N o
LOCATION: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635), approximately 2000 feet s outh of the intersection with White
Mountain R oad (Route 736).
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: Samuel Miller
(Scott C lark)
Mr. Clark made a pow erpoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applic ants are requesting an additional development right for the purpos e of giving a grandchild
approximately 2 acres of land (out of their 4.9acre parcel) for a new home. The new parc el would be
added to a group of five small res idential parc els on the west side of C raigs Store R oad, all belonging to
members of the same family . Those fives parcels contain all the acreage of the single parcel that was
distributed to family members. If this special use permit is approved, a more detailed s ubdivision plat
meeting the County’s subdivision requirements would be required before the lot c ould be created.
Staff has identified the follow ing factors fav orable to this application:
1. The proposal c an be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area.
Staff has identified the follow ing factors unfavorable to this application:
1. Additional development rights are not normally in acc ord with the purpos es of the Rural Areas zoning
district. Staff proposes to address this conc ern with a c ondition of approv al that would require the
s ubdivision to be processed as a family subdivision, whic h would keep the land in the family for at
least four years .
Staff recommends approval of Special Us e Permit SP2008028 with the one c ondition listed in the staff
report.
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 84 Parc el 14E shall only be permitted as a “family subdivision”
as provided by C hapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for staff from the Commiss ion.
Mr. Edgerton asked how many of the previous parcels given away to family members have been built on and Mr.
Clark replied all of them.
Mr. Edgerton said that the ow ner has used up all the development rights they have and there are no development
rights left. He ques tioned if they would be asked to give two more development rights. H e was s truggling with w hy
they w ould w ant to giv e additional development rights and thought it was a terrible idea. He as ked if a family
division needs development rights
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that for the parcel requesting this additional right there is not enough land to do more than
one more additional division because that particular property only has 4.9 acres. So as a family division for that
particular property there is only one more possible div ision.
Mr. Edgerton noted that Parcel 6414E, w hich was one of the parc els cut off from the original parcel, used up a
development right.
Mr. Cilimberg said without the special use permit they can’t do any thing. If the Board ultimately grants a special
use permit the applic ant could only do one more division w ith the allowance through special use permit of an
additional development right.
Mr. Edgerton said that he did not hav e anything against trying to help family members out, but at the same time they
have some larger parc els in the back and they may be as ked later, too. This is totally contrary to everything in the
Comp Plan. He did not have anything agains t the c oncept, but he did have a hard time in the rural area adding
development rights to exis ting parcels that have already used up their development rights.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the C ommission and Board have been very stric t about that. He believed if they go back in
history about the only times in the recent years that has been an added development right has been for a family
member. There were other requests whic h w ere not granted.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that a development right was given to a family , but there was also land that was given to the
fire station.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that ended up being one additional development right and the land that w as given to the fire
station.
Mr. Struck o asked if in order to do a family subdivision there has to be an unused dev elopment right.
Ms. Joseph replied that w as correct.
Mr. Cilimberg said that w as the subject of the special use permit and the Board had to grant the additional
development right before the applicant could even do it.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Janie Matheny, property owner, said that the request is for their 21 year old grandson that needs a place to
live. They had this one place w here there is enough land they could give to this one grandchild to build on.
Rent and everything is so high now it is hard for a person to make it, es pecially if they are not married. They
would also like to put it with his dad’s name on it so that he could not sell it. The other lots they gave to their
four sons. She built a house and lived on one of the lots, lot 4, because one of their sons preferred to live in
Crimora. They would lik e to give their grandson part of the lot. They feel like that is the best thing they could
do for their grandson so that he would have a place where he could go out on his own and be there w ith family.
She asked the Commiss ion to grant the s pecial use permit.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach asked if all of the other subdivisions that were divided are currently occupied by family members,
and Ms . Matheny replied yes.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before
the Commission.
Ms. Jos eph agreed with Mr. Edgerton. She found it very difficult to grant this becaus e she did not see any
compelling reason to grant this at this time.
Mr. Loach understood their objections , but also understands family and the fact that all of the other divisions are now
occupied by family and given the fact that this is being retained in the family . There is a lot of credibility that this is
being about keeping family together in hard times. He would be very honest that he understands where they are
coming from, but this is one he could support.
Mr. Franco said that he had the same opinion as Mr. Loac h. He struggled with this when he first read it becaus e of
the dev elopment of the rural area. He asked if there is a w ay that they could allow a second unit to be built on the
parcel but not have a subdivision.
Mr. Clark said that they would still need a development right.
Mr. Franco said he was not sure if it ac complishes anything, but in his mind it keeps it from creating one more lot in
the rural area. It probably would keep it so it would be more difficult to sell. What they are trying to do is house a
family member so selling the property is not as much of an issue. H e felt that would be a better safeguard if that
was pos sible.
Mr. Kamptner said that the development right is needed to add the sec ond dwelling. The w ay that zoning looks at it
is that they when they analyze the s econd dwelling they want the dwellings situated so it complies with all the
zoning regulations in the event that there was a division. So a development right is needed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the question was whether they could issue a spec ial use permit granting the dev elopment right
with a c ondition that it not be divided.
Mr. Franco replied that is the questions , but he was not sure if that does anything for us .
Mr. Kamptner replied that legally they could impose that condition. But whether or not that w orks for zoning in their
analysis he was not sure. The other problem that they often hear is that it is going to be very difficult for the owners
to get financing.
Mr. Franco said that he was not sure if the owners agree with that or if it even made sense. He knows that it will be
hard to get financing to build it and it creates a lot of other issues. But it does not c reate another lot.
Ms. Joseph said that it is not just the lot. The fact is that there would be another dw elling on there. There would be
more w heels on the roads. There will be more c hildren in the s chools, etc. There w ill be another well and septic.
She felt that would not make any difference.
Mr. Franco agreed w ith Mr. Loac h. He s truggled giv en the fact that there are 5 lots and they are all still occupied by
family members is very c ompelling.
Mr. Struck o said that this one is tough for him as w ell. First he is a strong component of the principle that they
don’t want to encourage or ex pand dev elopment in the rural areas. However, they have alw ays been respectful of
family s ubdivisions. How ever, this particular situation the existing development rights were all utilized. That is what
he sees as the legal capacity of the existing parcel. So this grants something new . H e was thinking of the longer
term impacts as well. So as difficult that this would be he could not s upport this proposal.
Ms. Porterfield said she c ould not s upport this proposal for basically the same reasons as Mr. Strucko and only
supported the use of the allowed number of development rights. She did not want to set a precedent in voting for it.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded to deny SP200800048, Mathney D evelopment Rights.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Loach and Franc o voted nay.)
Mr. Strucko said that SP200800048, Mathney Development Rights would go to the Board of Superv isors on June
10, 2009 w ith a recommendation for denial.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP200900058 JR Harris Garage – Amendment
and Critic al Slopes Waiver
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend special use permit (SP 200149) to allow
an expansion of a public garage
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Cilimberg, McDowell
A GENDA DATE:
June 9, 2009 – Planning Commission
June 10, 2009 – Board of Supervisors
A CTION: X INFOR MA TION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
AC TION : INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
BACK GROUND : On May 5, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approv al of SP 200958 and approved
a request for a critical slopes waiver at the site. On May 11, staff learned from a citiz en that the sign notifying of the
pending Commission public hearing had not been pos ted on the property and advised that he and others w ould have
attended the Planning Commission hearing if they had k now n about it. A notice sign was posted the afternoon of
May 11.
Section 31.8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that failure to comply
with the posting requirements of zoning ordinance § 31.8.1 has denied the public reasonable notice of the public
hearing, the Board may defer action on the petition or application until reasonable notice by posting is given. In
consideration of citizen interest in this project and in order to avoid a potential deferral of the request by the Board,
staff determined that a sec ond Planning C ommission public hearing should be held. The Board of Supervisors will
hold its public hearing the day following the Planning Commission hearing, as previously scheduled.
DISCU SSION :
No changes to the application or to the s taff report have occurred since the May 5 public hearing.
The draft minutes (Attac hment B) of the initial Commission public hearing note the discussion and ac tions
regarding this request. No changes to staff’s recommended Special U se Permit conditions were made by
the Commiss ion. C hanges to the critical slope waiver c onditions rec ommended by staff are also noted in
the attached minutes.
RECOMMENDA TION :
Staff recommends approval of SP 200958 Harris Auto, subjec t to the conditions as stated in the May 5,
2009, staff report (Attachment A) and approval of the Critical Slope Waiver request, subject to the
conditions as amended by the Planning C ommission on May 5, 2009 (Attachment B).
ATTAC HMENTS:
A Staff R eport dated May 5, 2009 and attachments
B Planning Commission Draft Minutes
PC ac t ions let ter
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COU NTY OF A LBEMARLE
STA FF R EPOR T SU MMAR Y
Pr ojec t Name : SP 200858 JR Ha rris G a ra ge –
Amendme nt and Critic al Slope s Wa ive r
Staff: Joa n McDowell,
Principal Pla nne r Rural A re as
Planning Commission Public He aring:
May 5, 2009
Board of Super visor s Public Hear ing:
June 10, 2009
Ow ne r/s: Thoma s a nd Theresa H arris A pplic ant: Thoma s and Theresa H a rris
Acr eage: 3.23 a cres (tota l)
.60 ac re s de signate d for spec ial use pe rmit
Spe c ial Use Per mit: Zoning O rdina nce
Se ction 10.2.2 (37) Public G a ra ge
TMP: 008000000035A0
Loc ation: 6929 Ma rkw ood Road, a pproxima te ly
one ha lf mile north of Davis Shop Roa d
Existing Zoning and Byr ight use : Rura l
A re a s a gric ultura l, foresta l, and fishe ry uses;
re side ntial de nsity (0.5 unit/a cre in development
lots)
Magister ial D istric t: White Hall C onditions or Pr offe r s: Y es
RA (Rura l Are as) X R e que ste d # of D we lling Units: N/A
Pr oposal: amend SP 0149 to a llow a n
e xpa nsion of the a uto repa ir ga rage
C ompr ehe nsive Plan Designation:
(Rural A re as 1) Rural Areas – preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density
( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
Char acter of Pr oper ty: mixture of re side ntial
a nd auto re pair gara ge
U se of Sur r ounding Prope rtie s: re sidentia l,
agric ultural, a nd fore sta l
Factor s Favorable:
1. The public garage is an existing ope ra tion
tha t provide s a se rvic e to the surrounding
community.
2. The applica nt has ma de improve me nts to
the ga ra ge a nd the pa rking a re a .
3. The use is consiste nt w ith the Rural A re a,
if a ll impac ts of this use a re mitiga ted.
Fac tor s Unfavor able :
1. The garage , if conditions a re not
imple me nte d, c ompromise s the c ha ra cte r
of the Rura l Area s distric t.
RECOMMENDA TION : Sta ff re commends a pproval of this Spec ial U se Permit, with c onditions.
Petition:
PRO JECT: SP200800058 Harris Ga ra ge
PRO POSED : Amend SP 0049 Thoma s H a rris G arage to a llow an expansion of a public garage on
approxima te ly a .60a c re portion of a 3.23a cre parc e l
ZO NIN G CATEG ORY /G ENERAL U SAG E: RA Rura l Are as agric ultural, fore stal, a nd fishe ry use s;
re sidentia l de nsity (0.5 unit/a cre in de velopment lots)
SECTIO N: 10.2.2 (37) Public Ga ra ge
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LA ND USE/DEN SITY : Rura l Are a s prese rve a nd prote ct agricultura l, fore stal,
ope n spa c e, and na tura l, historic and sc enic re sourc e s/ density (.5 unit/ ac re in de ve lopme nt lots)
EN TRAN CE CORRID OR: No
LO CA TION: 6929 Ma rkw ood Road, a pprox. oneha lf mile north of Davis Shop Roa d
TA X MAP/PARCEL: 008000000035A0
MAG ISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
C harac te r of the A re a:
Loc a te d a pproximately onemile south of Gre ene County, this a rea consists of a mixture of re sidenc es,
agric ultura l use s, a nd wooded area s. Be a ve rda m Cre e k is loca ted on a n a dja c ent prope rty to the ea st, a t a low er
ele va tion tha n the gara ge.
Spe c ific s of the Pr oposal:
In 2002, a spe cia l use pe rmit for a public ga ra ge (SP 200149) was approve d with c onditions that ha d be en fra me d
to bring a n e xisting nonc onforming ga ra ge into c onformity with the z oning ordinanc e a nd to alle via te se ve ra l
zoning a nd building viola tions. With this applic ation, the applic ant has re que sted a n a me ndment to the spe c ia l use
pe rmit in orde r to expa nd the ga ra ge fa cilities. The c hart below summariz e s the existing a nd propose d fac ilitie s in
thre e c ate gorie s:
1) ga rage fac ilitie s approve d with SP 200149;
2) ga rage fac ilitie s that ha ve bee n c onstructe d without approva l of an amendme nt to SP 200149 with one
exc eption: a building e xpa nsion that was a dministra tive ly approve d by the Zoning Division, a s it wa s de termine d
tha t it w ould not be an expansion of the approve d public ga ra ge (Attac hme nt B). With the e xc eption of this
building e xpa nsion, the remaining improve me nts a re z oning viola tions (Atta chme nt C); a nd
3) items tha t ha ve be en re que ste d with SP 200858 tha t ha ve not bee n implemente d.
SP 200149 – A PPROVED EXISTIN G FA CILITIES
PR OPOSED W/ SP 200858
ADD ITION AL C HANGES
PROPOSED W/ SP 200858
1,936 sq.ft. me tal building for a
public garage c onta ining 3 ba ys
1,496 sq.ft. bloc k building
e xpa nsion with 1 ba y (to c ontain
existing outside c a r lift) a nd
stora ge wa s administra tively
approve d
16’ X 30’ Stora ge building
10 pa rking spa ce s (outside )5 a dditiona l parking spac e s
(outside ) – 15 tota l
De signate a re a for spec ial use
permit to sepa ra te it from the
re side ntial portion of the prope rty
1 outside c a r lift (move d inside to
ne w building expansion)
1 new outside ca r lift
G ra vel pa rking a nd ac c ess Pa ve d pa rking a nd ac c ess
Tra sh dumpster (front)Re loc a te d tra sh dumpste r (re ar)
Pa int mixing building
Ca rport – two ca r spac e s
Ca rport – thre e c ar spa ce s
In a ddition, an approxima te ly a .60 ac re portion of the prope rty has be e n designa te d for the public ga ra ge use .
The remaining property c onta ins a re side nc e a nd ac c essory buildings for the re side nc e . Additional information
re ga rding this se pa ra tion of the ga rage use a nd the residentia l use is discusse d in the Sta ff Comme nt sec tion of
this re port.
Planning and Zoning Histor y:
The SP 0149 sta ff re port inc ludes the history of a ga ra ge on this property (A tta c hment D, pa ges 23).
SP 0149 w as a pproved by the Boa rd of Supervisors on Februa ry 13, 2002.
Currently there a re Zoning Viola tions on the prope rty (Attac hme nt C)
The applic ant re c eived building pe rmits (residentia l) for two ca rports, but whe n it was de termine d that these
ca rports we re pa rt of the public garage operation a nd not the reside nce , the a pplic ant was notifie d that the
pe rmits were voide d a nd tha t c omme rc ia l pe rmits would be re quired, subje c t to approva l of an amendme nt to
the spec ial use pe rmit.
C onformity w ith the C ompr ehensive Plan:
The property is loc a te d within the Rura l Are as land use designa tion of the Comprehe nsive Pla n.
While the Rura l Area s sec tion of the Compre he nsive Pla n doe s not spec ifica lly mention public ga ra ges, it doe s
ca ution tha t the siz e a nd intensity of rura l a lte rna tive use s should be limite d so that the y do not c onflic t with the
cha rac ter of the Rura l Area s. A Guiding Principle a ims to addre ss the ne e ds of e xisting rura l re side nts w ithout
foste ring growth and further suburba niz ation of the Rura l Are as. The e xpa nsion of a n e xisting ga ra ge to serve the
surrounding c ommunity w ould not appea r to c onflic t with goals and policie s of the Compre he nsive Pla n, if the
ga ra ge expansion is ca re ful to reta in the rura l c hara c te r of the a re a. The re fore , a c ondition of a pproval
(Condition 8) is offere d to require additiona l landsc a pe scree ning betwe e n both Markwood Road a nd the ga ra ge
fa cilitie s and to c ontain the garage uses within a spe cific a re a of the property.
STA FF COMMENT:
A s de scribe d in SP 200149 staff report (A tta c hment D), the re is a history of z oning a nd building viola tions
re la ted to this use. The a pplic a nt ha d bee n operating the garage a t a sc a le grea te r tha n sta ff c ould re commend for
approva l without c onditions ne ede d to bring the ope ra tion into sc ale a nd inte nsity for a use to be consiste nt w ith
rura l area polic ies. This history toge the r with the curre nt violations a gain raise s que stions c onc erning the sca le
and inte nsity of this use a nd the a pplic a nt’s nonc omplianc e with the c onditions of the e xisting spec ial use pe rmit.
In disc ussions during the re vie w of this a pplic a tion, it be ca me appa re nt tha t a pa rt of the problem ma y ha ve
re sulte d from the unusual numbe r of vehicle s owned by the a pplica nt’s fa mily (15 vehicle s c urre ntly) pa rked on
the prope rty. In a ddition, eve n though a n e xpa nsion to the ga ra ge w a s a dministrative ly a pproved to a llow inside
stora ge of mate rials, the applic ant has c ontinued to store items outside on the ga rage site. In see king a solution,
the a pplic a nt’s e ngine er be lie ve s that a se pa ra tion of the busine ss from the re side ntial use ma y dire c t c ustome r
and priva te parking to different a re as of the property. With this se pa ra tion, the are a inside that pa rt of the
property subjec t to the spe c ia l use permit for a public ga ra ge (spec ial use pe rmit boundary) would conta in
ve hic le s w a iting for repa ir, for pic k up, and in the pa int drying proc e ss. A ll vehic les ow ned by the fa mily would
be pa rked outside the spe c ia l use permit bounda ry. O c ca siona l minor re pairs tha t would allow the ve hic le to be
sta rted in orde r to be move d into the garage for further repa irs would be pe rmitted outside. All othe r vehicle
re pa ir, painting a nd a sse mbly re la ted to the public ga ra ge w ould be re stricte d to the inside of the ga ra ge . Signage
along the drive wa y a t the public ga rage a re a e ntrance w ould indica te whe re c ustome rs ma y park the ir ve hic le s
and whe re the parking is for priva te use only. The e xisting restriction on outdoor stora ge (Condition 5) would
continue a nd the outdoor stora ge of ma teria ls c urre ntly taking pla c e outside would be plac e d inside a new 480
squa re foot storage building.
A comparison of this use a nd othe r public garage uses in the Rura l Area s is inc luded as re fe re nc e (A tta c hment
H ). Only one ga ra ge , the Ea rlysville Se rvice Ce nte r, whic h is c urre ntly unde r review, is la rger.
Staff w ill a ddress e ac h provision of Se c tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning O rdina nce :
31.2.4.1: Spec ial U se Pe rmits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supe rv isors that suc h use will not be of substantial detrime nt to adjace nt property,
The ga ra ge fa cilities are within sight of the adjac ent propertie s on the north a nd south. In se asons tha t de ciduous
tree s ha ve she d their le a ve s, the landsc a pe buffer betwe e n the ga ra ge and the a djac e nt prope rty to the north is not
sufficient to sc re e n the ga ra ge area . In a ddition, the e xisting la ndsc ape buffe r be tw e en the ga rage a re a a nd
Ma rkw ood Roa d is not sufficie nt to sc re e n the ga ra ge from the roa d. In orde r to mitiga te the visua l impa cts of a
public garage from existing re side nc es, sta ff ha s re c omme nde d a c ondition to re quire a dditiona l landsca pe
scree ning (Condition 8) from the stre et. A c ondition of the critica l slope waiver would re quire landsca ping
be tw ee n the re a r of the ga ra ge a nd the a dja ce nt prope rty to the north.
A s the se pa ra tion of the public garage from the priva te re side ntial a re a of this property w ould re sult in the family
ve hic le s be ing pa rked along the drive wa y in front of the ga ra ge in a highly visible a re a from the stree t, A
condition of approva l to re quire la ndsc ape sc re e ning in the a re a betwe e n the road a nd the priva te pa rking a re a is
also re c omme nde d. Attac hme nt F show s the loca tions of the rec omme nde d (Condition 8) la ndsca ping buffe rs.
that the charac te r of the distric t will not be c hanged there by and
D e nse la ndsc ape sc re ening be tw e en the public ga ra ge , the garage parking a re a, a nd the fa mily pa rking a re a
w ould shie ld the ga ra ge and ve hic le s from public vie w, prote ct the gene ra l c ha ra cte r of the district. An
additional stora ge building w ould provide spac e for inside storage.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinanc e,
The purpose and inte nt of the Rural A re as z oning is to prese rve a gric ultura l a nd foresta l lands a nd ac tivitie s, to
prote c t the wa ter supply, to limit se rvic e to rural are a s, a nd to conse rve the natural, sc e nic , a nd historic resource s
of the County. A lthough this use does not prese rve the se resourc e s, public garages a re a llowe d by spec ial use
pe rmit in the Rural A re as. Conditions of a pprova l are inte nde d to ke e p the sca le and inte nsity of the ga ra ge in
conformity w ith the c ha ra c te r of the Rural A re a s.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The propose d e xpa nsion of the public ga ra ge would not inte rfe re w ith the uses pe rmitted by right in the Rura l
A re a s distric t.
with the additional re gulations prov ide d in se ction 5.0 of this ordinance ,
N o regula tions for a public ga ra ge are in Se c tion 5.0 of the Zoning Ordina nc e .
and with the public he alth, safety and ge ne ral we lfare .
A s required by SP 200149, the drive w a y wa s re loc ate d in order to provide a de qua te sight distanc e. The
V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Transporta tion has not re comme nde d a ny additiona l c ha nge s to the e ntra nc e , with this
applica tion. The Fire De partment has indica ted that the y routinely c onduc t ye arly inspe c tions of these types of
busine sses. The Department of Environmental Q ua lity ha s not re commended any a dditiona l require me nts.
SUMMA RY:
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors favora ble to this applic ation:
1. The public ga ra ge is a n e xisting ope ra tion tha t provide s a se rvice to the surrounding community.
2. The a pplic a nt ha s made improve me nts to the ga ra ge and the pa rking area .
3. The use is c onsiste nt with the Rura l Area , if all impa cts of this use are mitigate d.
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tor unfa vora ble to this a pplic ation:
1. The garage , if c onditions a re not imple me nted, c ompromise s the c harac ter of the Rura l A re a s distric t.
R EC OMMEND ED AC TION:
Ba se d on the findings c ontained in this staff re port, staff re comme nds a pproval of SP200858 JR H a rris G a ra ge
A me ndme nt, subjec t to the follow ing c onditions of a pprova l. (The c onditions a pprove d with SP 200149 ha ve
be e n ha ve bee n c opied be low a nd amended, a s ne ede d.)
1. Within one (1) month following approva l of this spe cia l use pe rmit, the pe rmittee sha ll submit to the
County eithe r a site pla n or an a pplica tion for a site pla n wa ive r a nd sha ll obtain pre liminary site pla n
a pproval or a pproval of a site pla n waiver. If a pre liminary site plan is a pprove d, within one (1) month of
tha t a pprova l the pe rmitte e shall submit for approva l the fina l site pla n. If a final site plan is not a pproved
within six (6) months afte r the da te of the prelimina ry site pla n was a pprove d, the public garage use shall
c ea se until a fina l site pla n is a pproved;
Deve lopme nt of the use sha ll be in ac c ord w ith the c onc eptua l plan title d “A me nde d Site Pla n Ha rris’
Garage ”, pre pared by D W Ente rprises, and date d March 16, 2009 (he re ina fter, the “Conc eptua l Pla n”),
a s de termine d by the D ire ctor of Pla nning a nd the Zoning A dministrator. To be in a cc ord with the pla n,
de ve lopme nt sha ll re fle ct the following ma jor e le me nts within the de velopme nt e ssentia l to the de sign of
the deve lopment:
The a re a de signated for the spe cial use (public ga ra ge );
The siz e, he ight a nd loc ation of the proposed buildings (16’ X 30’/ma ximum 24’ high);
The siz e, he ight a nd loc ation of the existing buildings/struc tures (original ga ra ge – 1,936 squa re
fee t/24 fee t high/3 ve hic le ba ys; garage e xpa nsion – 1,496 squa re fe et/24 fee t high/1 ve hic le bay;
e nclosed compre ssor room; pa int mixing room; one outside lift; one dumpster pa d/fe nc e e nclosure; 3
pa rking spac e s c a rport; 2 pa rking spa c es ca rport);
The number (ma ximum15 spac e s public ga ra ge) a nd loc ation of the ve hic le parking spa c es;
The two (2) signage loc a tions a t the e ntranc e to the spe cia l use pe rmit area . The signs sha ll sta te ,
“All ve hicle s be yond this point must be plac e d in a marke d parking spa c e” and be a maximum of four
(4) square fe et.
The sign loc a tion at the a re a de signa ted as “Pa rking for Priva te V ehicle s.” The sign sha ll state,
“Pa rking for only pe rsonal ve hic le s of the H a rris Fa mily” a nd be a ma ximum of four (4) squa re fe et.
2.1.Within five (5) months follow ing a pprova l of this spec ial use pe rmit, the pe rmitte e sha ll a pply for
a pprova l from the V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Environme nta l Qua lity (DEQ ) for storing oil, ra dia tor fluid and
othe r c he mica ls a ssocia te d with the public garage . Storage shall c onform to a ll re quire me nts of DEQ .
The c hemic als sha ll be store d unde r a she lter with overhe ad coverage ;
3.1.Within thre e (3) months following a pproval of this spe c ia l use permit, the permitte e shall obta in w ritte n
a pprova l from the County De partment of Fire a nd Resc ue of a me ans to c onta in ac c ide ntal or incidenta l
spills from stora ge drums or c ontainers a nd a spill c onta inme nt syste m;
4.1.Within thre e (3) months following a pproval of this spe c ia l use permit, the permitte e shall e ither remove or
de molish one of the dw e lling units on the prope rty, or conve rt it so tha t it is no longer a dwe lling unit
within the me a ning of the Zoning Ordinance , a s de termine d by the Zoning Administrator;
5.Within one (1) month following approva l of this spe cia l use pe rmit, the permittee sha ll submit to the DEQ a
Form 7 a pplic a tion for an air permitting de te rmination for the paint ope ra tion. The pe rmittee sha ll comply
w ith a ll rules a nd regula tions impose d by DEQ . If a Form 7 applic ation is not submitte d or if the pe rmittee
fails to c omply w ith a ll rules a nd regula tions impose d by DEQ , body work a nd spra y pa inting vehicle s is
prohibite d;
6.2. Gasoline sa le s are prohibited;
7.3. The sa le or rental of ve hic le s or othe r motorize d e quipment is prohibited;
8.4. All re pa iring or e quipping of vehicle s sha ll ta ke pla ce inside the e xisting garage , with the e xce ption of
ve hic le s be ing repa ired on the vehicle lift loc a te d a dja c ent to the ga ra ge;
9.5. The outdoor storage of parts, e quipme nt, ma c hinery a nd junk is prohibited;
6. Only personal ve hic les ma y be parke d in the area ma rked “parking for pe rsonal ve hic les” on the
Conc e ptual Pla n. No more tha n fifte e n (15) ve hic le s associa te d with the public ga ra ge use sha ll be
loca ted outside the ga ra ge. All ve hic le s associa te d with the public ga ra ge use sha ll be pa rked in the
spa ce s shown a s “for ga ra ge only” on the Conce ptua l Plan. Any ve hic les pa rke d outside the a re a ma rked
“parking for pe rsonal ve hic le s” sha ll be considered to be a ssocia te d with the public ga rage a nd a re
c ounted in the fifte en (15) vehicle maximum.
10.1.N o more tha n a tota l of ten (10) vehicle s of the public gara ge c ustome rs; a nd the ve hicle s of the owne r
or occ upa nt of the prope rty, or a ny othe r pe rson, tha t: (a ) a re inope ra ble ve hic le s w ithin the mea ning of
Sec tion 3/1 of the Zoning Ordina nce ; (b) a re be ing or will be re pa ire d, equippe d, re store d, re furbishe d, or
pa inted; (c) a re ha ving or w ill ha ve body w ork pe rformed on them; or (d) a re ha ving or w ill ha ve the ir
pa rts or e quipme nt re moved, to be used in the re pair or equipping of other vehicle s or to be sold;
11.Within thre e (3) months follow ing a pprova l of this spec ial use pe rmit, the pe rmitte e sha ll obta in written
Fire Officia l a pprova l of the ga ra ge ope ra tion;
12.1.Within three (3) months follow ing the a pproval of this spe c ia l use pe rmit, the pe rmitte e shall a pply for
Hea lth D e pa rtme nt approva l of the se ptic syste m. The se ptic syste m sha ll c omply with He a lther
Depa rtme nt requirements;
13.1.Within three (3) months follow ing the a pproval of this spe c ia l use pe rmit, the pe rmitte e shall obta in
writte n Engine e ring D e pa rtme nt approva l of the waste disposal and c ollec tion methods;
14.7. The hours of operation sha ll be be tw e ennot e xce e d (e a rlie r or la te r) 8 A .M. a nd 8 P.M., Monda y
through Saturda y. The se hours of ope ra tion do not prohibit customers from dropping off ve hic les before 8
A.M. on the da ys of ope ra tion; and
15.8. Within three (3) months following a pprova l of the site pla n or site pla n w a ive r, the permittee sha ll
insta ll a nd therea fte r ma inta in a minimum twe nty (20)foot de e p landsca pe eve rgre ensc re ening buffer to
shield be twee n the vie w of the ga ra ge from a nd ga ra ge pa rking and the adjac e nt prope rtie s on Ma rkw ood
Road; a nd be tw e en the a re as designa ted as pa rking for pe rsona l ve hic le s a nd Markwood Roa d. The
sc re e ning buffer sha ll be loca ted in the a pproximate a re a labe le d “gra ve l parking,” a nd be tw e en the
building a nd the stre e t, as shown on the “SP 0149 H a rris G arage Conc ept Pla n.” The spac ing and
mate rials use d in the la ndsc ape buffe r shall be a pproved by the Pla nning D irec tor. This la ndsc ape
sc re e ning sha ll supplement e xisting la ndsca pe a pproved w ith SP 200149 a nd c onsist of Ea stern Red
Ce da r or othe r ma teria l a pproved by the Pla nning D ire ctor, a minimum 4fe e t high a t planting, and plante d
in sta gge re d row s w ith a ma ximum of te n (10) fe et on ce nte r spa c ing be twe e n the la ndsc ape mate rials.
The pe rmitte e sha ll also submit a landsca pe pla n with the site pla n a pplic a tion tha t will be subje ct to the
a pprova l of the Pla nning D irec tor or the Pla nning Dire c tor’s designe e ; a nd.
9. All outdoor lighting shall be only full c utoff fixtures a nd shielded to re fle c t light a w a y from a ll abutting
propertie s. A lighting plan (for ne w lighting) limiting light le ve ls a t a ll prope rty line s to no gre ate r tha n
0.3 foot c andle s sha ll be submitte d to the Zoning Administra tor or the ir de signee for approva l.
C RITIC AL SLOPE W AIVER
The applica nt has a lso a pplied for critic a l slope wa ive rs for disturba nce s tha t a lre a dy ha ve bee n ma de on tw o
area s of the prope rty: gene ra lly be twe e n the ga ra ge and the a dja c e nt ne ighbor on the north a nd be tw e en the
ga ra ge and the Bea ve r Da m Cre ek on the e ast (Atta c hment F). The engine ering a na lysis of the re que st follows:
D e scr iption of c ritical slope ar ea and propose d distur banc e:
The two area s of c ritic al slope disturba nce consisted of a la rge woode d slope le ading down to the stre am on the
re ar, ea stern prope rty line , a nd a ste e p woode d slope be hind the building on the northern prope rty line . The
applica nt has a lrea dy disturbe d these a re a s in violation of the ordinanc e a nd existing spe c ia l use permit pla ns.
The applica nt is proposing to sta biliz e the northe rn slope be hind the building with se ed and a small wall a t the toe ,
and to lea ve the ea ste rn slope a sis.
Are as A cres
Total site 3.23 ac re pa rc e l
Critic al slopes 0.37 12% of site
Critic al slopes disturbe d 0.3 81% of critica l slope s
Exe mptions to c ritical slope s waive r s for dr ive w ays, r oads and utilities without r e asonable alter native
loc ations:
This disturba nc e is not e xe mpt.
C omplianc e with Zoning Or dinanc e 184.2:
“movement of soil and roc k”
The slope s ha ve not be en properly construc ted. The y a re slightly ste e pe r tha n 2:1 in pla ce s, which is not
inhe re ntly sta ble for most soils in A lbe ma rle . The slope in ba ck of the building is a n e xpose d c ut. The slope
dow n to the c re ek is slightly c onve x, with e xpose d boulders a nd de bris, a nd a light covering of ne w gra ss. It
does not appea r to ha ve bee n prope rly c ompac te d. The northe a st c orne r is loose fill with rubble a nd e xpose d
reba r pla ce d a mid the trunks of sma ll tree s, which w ill likely die .
“e xce ssive stormwater runoff”
Stormw a te r runoff ha s be en increa se d in the se a re as with stee pe r slope s than origina l, le ss ve ge tation, a nd
more impervious area be hind the building.
“silta tion”
Most silta tion has alre a dy ta ken plac e . Longte rm sta bility ma y be a n issue.
“loss of ae sthe tic re sourc e”
This a re a is visible from the surrounding properties.
“se ptic e ffluent”
This does not appe a r to be an issue, but the a pplic ant ha s provided no informa tion on this topic .
R EC OMMEND ATION:
Considering the disturba nce ha s alre ady ta ke n plac e a nd, ba sed on the re vie w a bove , sta ff re c ommends the
follow ing c onditions to grant a w a iver:
1. The e aste rn fa c ing slope above the c re ak must be re sha pe d to a uniform grade not stee pe r tha n 2H:1V ,
c ove re d with e rosion c ontrol ma tting, and perma ne ntly se ede d.
2. The re taining wa ll propose d in the rea r of the garage building must be a t lea st 3’ high, and topsoil,
matting, a nd pe rma nent se ed or mulc h a nd shrubs must be a pplied to the c ut slope for a de qua te
sta biliz a tion.
3. To provide stormwa ter manage me nt and re ple nish the buffe r, the e ntire buffe r area w ithin the property
should be pla nte d in a c cordanc e with the Chesa pea ke Bay Ripa ria n Buffers Modific ation a nd Mitiga tion
Guidanc e Ma nua l no la te r tha n three (3) months following the a pprova l of this c ritic al slope s w a ive r.
(The applic ant is referre d to the Re stora tion Establishme nt Tables in Appe ndix D, c alling for c anopy
tre e s a t 6’ c e nte rs, understory tre e s a t 4’ ce nte rs, and shrubs a t 18” ce nte rs.) The se sha ll be bonded as a
guarantee of surviva l for a minimum of 5 yea rs.
.
A TTACHMENTS
A ttac hme nt A – Conc e ptual Plan
A ttac hme nt B – Zoning Deter mination for Building Expansion
A ttac hme nt C – Notic e of V iolation
A ttac hme nt D – SP 200149 Staff R epor t / Update
A ttac hme nt E – Boar d of Super visors Appr oval Le tter SP 200149
A ttac hme nt F – Pr opose d Landscape Scr e ening / Cr itical Slope Distur banc e A r eas
A ttac hme nt G – Site Photogr aphs
A ttac hme nt H – RA Public Garage C omparisons
A ttac hme nt I – Applic ation Loc ation Map
Re turn to exe c summa ry
TMP 8-35A
Lot B
Dennis Harris
3.1 7 ace
Zoned: RA
Use; Residential
From: I?, David Wyant , JW
,, ,;7 C&
Sent: Wednesday, May 05,2004 1 1 :52 PM
John Shepherd
Amelia McCulley ,
RE: Harris Garage SP-2001-49 . ..j
,', ( 9.
'5%&4-
k
I'll discuss your ruling with JR and let you know his thoughts and plans. I think it is a good solution to this situation. If ;%
1 evewing is OK, then I will change the building permit and site plan. . Y~ ka2 - . , [JIV _..
*; -
Thanks,
David Wyant
----Odginai Message---
From: John Shepherd
Sent: Wednesday, May 05,2004 8:26 PM
,,,!To: David Wyant . Cc: Amelia McCulley V'
.I ' 7 <.,
hbjed: Harris Garage SP-200149 '&
t
David,
Amelia and I have read your recent email and discussed this further. We have concluded that the plan for the
addition can be approved on the condition that it only contain one garage door wide enough to accommodate a
vehicle. Here is our rationale:
The special permit has two applicable conditions:
11. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage, with the exception of
vehicles being repairsd on the vehicle 1% located aQacent to the garage;
I 12. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited;
The building plan for the addition to the garage clearly shows a space that could be used as a two bay garage.
One bay contains the lift. Both bays are equal in size, both have garage doors and both have centered ceiling
lights. While the bay next to the lift can certainly be used for storage, it could also be used as a service bay for
vehicle repair.
It remains our opinion that the special permit condition #11 allows the lift to be enclosed but does not allow the
construction of the additional bay as it is shown on the building permit application. An additional service bay would
constitute an expansion of the use that is permitted by SP-2001-49. Such an expansion would require an
amendment of the SP.
However, upon further reflection, we have concluded that the building permit for the proposed structure could be
approved, in accord with the conditions of SP-2001-49, if it was served by only one garage door. That would limit
its use to one repair bay and a storage area. A standard 3-0" door could serve the storage area. Again, this
revision must be shown on the building permit plan as well as the site development plan. I
We hope this approach is seen to meet Mr. Harris's storage,nee&. I would be glad to discuss this frarthr. e-- .
John 1
296-5832 x 3023
ATTACHMENT B
7-- --- -~ ~
i
I i ,, ?~
'.E : .. .
C I ' -9,
I 8 7
Community Development Depattmcnt
401 Mclntin Road I
Charlo#esviilt, Virginia22902-4596
..C .
FAX (434) 972-4126 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TID (434) 972-4012 I
NOTICE OF OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION I I
4
The Date this Notice of Determination is given is Au~ust 29,2008.
CERm MAIL # 7007 2680 0002 873 1 2090
Thomas H. Jr. or Theresa Harris .
6929 Markwood Road . =
Earlysville, VA 22936 . . , -.
Pr~perty: 00800-00-OO435AO
. Tax Map and Parcel Number
Loning: " !
Rural Area IRA3 District
Same As Above
Owner of Record
. -
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Harris, ' '<
This notice is to inform you that the above described property is in violation of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance. This conclusion is based on the fact that a Code Enforcement Officer visited the listed
property on July 16,2008 and July 23,2008 and found that the following conditions existed:
I
I, The following circumn'ances on the parcel are not in compiiance with the stated coditions of the
upproved Special Use Permit SP-2002-049/TFIomas HnrriF; Tax Mq 8 Parcel 354:
A. Automobiles are being repaired outside 'the garage: a violation of Condition #I I.
B. There are materials, vehicle parts, equipment and junk outside: a violation of Condition #12.
C. There are 16 - 25 vehicles located outside the enclosed structure and a new parking area is
being installed: b~th are violations of Condition #13.
IX The following clrcdces th thepame[ are not in conqpliance w&'(&&~f shown on) the
approved site plan dated &/2243004: . r.
A' The ping ofhe parking area;
B. % addition of the pavedparking area dire&& ac$acen~ to the garage;
C The relocation ofrhe dumpster, and
D. The addition of two (2) carport structures.
m. Diri, rock, asphall and concrete hns been fded (on the easternpart of the parcel in the location of
the exterior vehicle l@) on crlficalslopes (slopes of 25% or greater) without approval of a waiver.
ATTACHMENT C
A lbe mar le County Planning Commission
May 5, 2009
The Albemarle County Pla nning Commission he ld a public hea ring a nd me e ting on Tue sda y, May 5, 2009, at 6:00
p.m., at the County O ffic e Building, La ne Auditorium, Se c ond Floor, 401 Mc Intire Roa d, Cha rlotte sville ,
V irginia .
Me mbers a tte nding we re Ca lvin Morris, Marcia Jose ph, Don Fra nc o, Linda Porte rfield, a nd Thoma s Loac h,
V ice Cha ir. Eric Struc ko, Cha irma n, Bill Edgerton and Julia Monte ith, AICP, nonvoting re prese nta tive for the
U niversity of Virginia we re abse nt.
O the r officia ls pre sent were Sc ott Clark, Se nior Pla nne r; Wayne Cilimberg, Direc tor of Planning; Ma rk Graham,
D ire ctor of Community D e ve lopme nt; Bill Fritz, Chie f of Current De velopment, Rob Heide, Zoning Enforc eme nt
Ma nager; Lisa G re en, Code Enforc ement O ffic e r, Ron Higgins, Chie f of Zoning; Amy Pfla um, Se nior Engine er,
G lenn Brooks, County Engine e r; Re be c ca Ragsdale , Senior Planner; Summe r Frede ric k, Senior Planner; Joa n
Mc Dow e ll, Princ ipa l Pla nne r and Andy He rric k, Se nior A ssista nt County Attorne y.
Call to Or de r and Establish Quor um:
Mr. Loa c h c alled the re gula r me eting to orde r at 6:00 p.m. and e sta blished a quorum.
Public He ar ing Ite ms:
SP200800058 Har r is Gar age – Ame ndme nt
PRO POSED : A me nd SP 0049 Thoma s Ha rris Ga ra ge to e xpa nd the public ga ra ge on approxima te ly a .60 a cre
portion of a 3.17 ac re property
ZO NIN G CATEGO RY /G EN ERA L USAGE: RA Rural A re as agric ultura l, foresta l, a nd fishery use s;
re sidentia l de nsity (0.5 unit/a cre in de velopment lots)
SECTIO N: 10.2.2 (37) Public Ga ra ge
COMPREHENSIVE PLA N LA ND USE/D ENSITY : Rural Are a s pre se rve a nd prote c t a gric ultural, fore sta l,
ope n spa c e, and na tura l, historic and sc enic re sourc e s/ density (.5 unit/ ac re in de ve lopme nt lots)
EN TRAN CE CORRID OR: No
LO CA TION: 6929 Ma rkw ood Road, a pprox. oneha lf mile north of Davis Shop Roa d
TA X MAP/PARCEL: 008000000035A0
MAG ISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Joan Mc D ow e ll)
Ms. Mc D ow e ll prese nte d a PowerPoint Prese nta tion a nd summa riz e d the sta ff re port.
This an amendme nt to an e xisting staff re port for SP200149 to a llow a n e xpansion of the a uto repair gara ge tha t
w a s a pproved in 2002 for Ha rris A uto. It is a n existing ga ra ge loc ate d in the rura l area s. The re is a lot of history
w hic h is inc luded in the staff report. The a pproval of SP200149 c orre cte d some viola tions a nd brought Harris
A uto into c omplia nc e with the Zoning O rdina nce a nd Building Code. In 2004 zoning de te rmine d tha t a gara ge
addition to e nclose an outside lift a nd to provide some stora ge spa ce w ould not c onstitute an expansion of the
spe c ia l use pe rmits a nd that building w a s built. In D e ce mbe r, 2008 new viola tions w e re rec orde d a nd the notic e
of viola tion was maile d to the a pplic ant. Conseque ntly SP200858 wa s submitte d a s a re que st to a me nd the
ea rlier spec ial use pe rmit in orde r to c orre c t the viola tions a nd make the pla n c urre nt.
To give a n idea of the c ha nge s on the site sta ff pre se nte d side by side ae ria ls of the site. The ea rlie r a e rial in
2002 provide s a n ide a of the site differe nce s be tw ee n the a pplic ation the n and wha t has take n pla ce now . She
noted the cha nges to the garage in 2001 and how it looke d now with the a ddition. The proposal is for tw o
ca rports, the pa int mixing building, additiona l pa rking for 15 spa ce s, paved pa rking a nd a c ce ss (whic h ha s a lrea dy
be e n done), a n outside ca r lift, re loca ted trash dumpster to a re a of c ritic al slope s disturbanc e a nd to inc orpora te
the building e xpansion into the spe c ia l use pe rmit. Additionally the re is a stora ge unit a nd spe c ific ally to
de signate the garage area from the re side ntia l or the personal spac e . This has be e n a ve ry big issue . It w as
disc usse d in the sta ff report to designa te a spe cific a re a only for the ga ra ge . If the applica nt dec ide s to pa rk in
the garage a re a a nd use those spac e s, then those spa ce s a re use d. This was de te rmine d to be the be st solution by
not only the a pplic ant but sta ff in fe eling like if they c ould se pa ra te these tw o use s it would be tte r se rve the
applica nt a nd the z oning enforc e ment.
Staff revie we d the c onc e pt plan noting that the drive w a y wa s re loc ate d with the spec ial use pe rmit in 2002. She
noted the e xpa nde d ga ra ge, the ne w stora ge ga ra ge , the e xisting dumpster, two c a rports (a 2spa c e and 3spa c e
ca rport) e xisting and priva te parking be hind the re side nc e . She a lso note d the tw o a re as of critic a l slope s.
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors favora ble to this applic ation:
1. The public ga ra ge is a n e xisting ope ra tion tha t provide s a se rvice to the surrounding community.
2. The a pplic a nt ha s made improve me nts to the ga ra ge and the pa rking area .
3. The use is c onsiste nt with the Rura l Area , if all impa cts of this use are mitigate d.
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tor unfa vora ble to this a pplic ation:
1. The garage , if c onditions a re not imple me nted, c ompromise s the c harac ter of the Rura l A re a s distric t.
Ba sed on the findings c ontained in this sta ff re port, sta ff re c omme nds approva l of SP200858 JR H a rris G a rage
Ame ndme nt, subje c t to the c onditions of a pprova l as liste d in the sta ff re port.
The re is also a re quest for a c ritic al slope s w a ive r. The applic ant has a pplie d for c ritic al slope w a ive rs for
disturba nc e s that alre ady ha ve be e n ma de on two area s of the prope rty: ge ne ra lly be twee n the ga ra ge a nd the
adjac ent ne ighbor on the north a nd be twee n the gara ge a nd the Bea ver Dam Cre ek on the e a st. The County
Engine er, Gle nn Brooks, is pre sent to a nswer a ny que stions spec ific to this portion of the a pplica tion. She
re vie w ed photogra phs of the disturba nc e of the slope s w ith area be low the slopes, whic h had some eve rgre ens
pla nted. The a pplic ant ha s gra vele d be hind the gara ge. The sta ff re port disc usse s the c ritic al slope s and the
enginee ring a na lysis. The re are thre e c onditions re commended if the critica l slope s waiver is approve d.
Mr. Loa c h invite d que stions for sta ff.
Mr. Morris a ske d how many viola tions are c urre ntly in effe ct.
Ms. Mc D ow e ll re plie d that seve ral pe ople from z oning, Lisa Gree n a nd Rob He ide are pre se nt to a nswe r
que stions about zoning issue s.
Rob H e ide , Ma na ger of Zoning Enforc ement, sa id that the re is one notic e of z oning violation tha t outline s se ve ra l
differe nt c onditions, which is inc luded in the sta ff re port.
Mr. H e rric k note d tha t the notic e of zoning viola tion is a le tte r da te d August 22, 2008.
Mr. He ide pointed out that the re a re thre e diffe re nt c onditions within tha t notic e of viola tion that have be e n
outline d.
Ms. Porte rfie ld a ske d if the spe cia l use pe rmit approva l would clea n up those viola tions.
Mr. H e ide replie d tha t it won’t pre ve nt future viola tions. They still ha ve the one s tha t w e re pending before the y
got to today, but it w ill bring the site into c omplia nce . The viola tions tha t exist as a re sult of this notic e of
viola tion have yet to be a djudic ate d. They a re pe nding in c ourt. It w ould prevent the site from being in viola tion
in the future. He sa id that pe rha ps Mr. He rric k c ould e xplain that.
Mr. Herrick note d tha t Mr. Heide summariz ed it w e ll tha t this site wa s in violation of the site pla n tha t e xisted as
of A ugust 28, 2008. If these conditions are met the current condition of the site pre suma bly w ill not continue to
be in viola tion going forwa rd.
Ms. Porte rfie ld re ite ra ted that the a nsw e r to he r question was ye s it would c lea n up a ny viola tions tha t a re on the
books.
Mr. He rric k pointed out that it would not ta ke c are of viola tions tha t ha ve alre ady occ urre d. It would pre ve nt
future viola tions if the sa me use c ontinued.
Mr. Morris sa id tha t the c onditions must be me t.
Mr. He rric k re plie d tha t was c orre ct be c ause if the c onditions a re c ha nge d the n it will no longe r be in viola tion
going forw a rd.
Mr. Loa c h ope ned the public he a ring a nd invite d the applic ant to a ddre ss the Commission.
D a ve Wya nt, re prese nta tive for the Ha rris fa mily, said tha t he put toge the r the pla n. He appre cia te d sta ff
w orking with the m on this request and ma de the following c omme nts.
He had met a numbe r of time s with sta ff in the offic e and on the site since the violation wa s issue d a t the
e nd of last yea r. The a pplica nt ha s be e n a sked not to do anything on the site until the y got it c orre cte d
a nd me ets this pla n as the counse l has said. The other thing is tha t they ha ve be en a dvise d by staff tha t if
they w a nt to do some thing tha t is in a ddition to w hat is out the re to plea se show it on the pla n. So the
stora ge building has be e n indic a te d a s a new building. Also, the y ha d gotten building pe rmits and got the
c a rports in. That w a s not on the pre vious site pla n. Sta ff issue d the building permits not knowing tha t
they should ha ve gotte n a site pla n amendme nt just to build those. This is a c omme rc ia l ope ra tion a nd
they ha ve live d the re a ll of the ir live s. The garage ope ra tion has be en going on since the late ‘70’s. So
this ha s be en a family ope ra tion sinc e the ir da d’s ope ra tion of the ga ra ge sinc e the la te ‘70’s. The boys
work in the ga ra ge . There are a tota l of five employe e s.
He ha s a dvised the Ha rris’ se ve ra l times not to do a nything until the y ge t this thing through the proce ss.
Eve ry time staff says something like plant a nothe r tre e the Harris’ are re ady to do it the ne xt day. But tha t
is wha t ha s gotte n them into some of this. They a re re ady to correc t. The ba c k slope w hic h wa s show n
a s be ing see de d is a c ritic al slope . He met with sta ff and the ba c k slope was unsta ble . The small strea m
is down off of the ir prope rty and w a s not in good c ondition. Being involve d w ith e rosion control all of his
life he did not like it a nd advise d them to go in a nd get it at a 2:1 slope and se e d it. Tha t is wha t the y did
one we e ke nd whe n he was not a round. The re fore , he w a s not a vaila ble to shoot the gra des. It is a little
bit off from a 2:1, but it is fa irly c lose a nd is sta ble . H is re commendation ha s be e n not to disturb it a nd to
over se ed it more to get a more pe rmane nt e sta blishment on tha t slope . They got that on. From that point
on he told them to le ave it a lone.
The other problem they ra n into with z oning was wha t c a rs a re on this pa rc e l of land tha t be longs in the
ga ra ge ope ration and what are pe rsona l. Ba ck on the first pla n in 2001 he got involve d a nd the boys w ere
living a t home . The boys had four a ntique c a rs a pie ce to show a nd sta ff did not know who owne d the
c a rs. Ea c h boy titled thre e or four c a rs. It has be e n a ve ry diffic ult situa tion. So through the yea rs
a c know ledging wha t they ha ve bee n going through they said le t’s de fine the bounda rie s of this gara ge
a re a a nd ke e p the pe rsona l vehicle s se pa ra te just like the rest of us that don’t have a business on their
property. In working with sta ff the y c a me up with 15 ca rs a nd de cided to ha ve ma rke d pa rking spa ce s.
Wha t folks have done in G re e ne a nd other pla ce s that ta ke ve hic le s up the re is just park them a nywhere
a t night whe n the y a re not the re at night. The y park the c a rs in front of the door wa iting for somebody to
c ome in the ne xt da y to sta rt working on them. The y do run a paint operation. The y ha ve a paint booth
inside a nd re store ca rs. The y ta ke fenders off of the c ars to pain in a slow proc ess. A que stion is how
they ke ep the se parts from be ing out there in vie w of the public . It is not just sc re ening. The y sta rte d out
with the c a rports, but it would not ke e p it out of site . The re fore , the y ne e d the storage building to ke e p
the pa rts in. The ca rs propose d on the ca rport a re the one s the y ha ve re pa ire d tha t ne ed to sta y out of the
sun a nd we ather that the y ha ve sa nde d wa iting to go in the paint booth.
The la st se nte nc e in condition 6 sa ys any ve hic le s pa rked outside the area ma rke d pa rking for persona l
ve hic le s shall be c onside re d to be a ssoc iate d w ith the public gara ge and a re c ounte d in the 15 vehic le
maximum. Wha t he ha s be e n trying to do is that the pe rsonal ve hic le plac e tha t the y ha ve for the se extra
c a rs is ma rked w ith a sign. A s w e ll a t the entranc e into the ga ra ge a re a they have two signs that indica te
pa rk the vehicle s in a parking spa ce . He is re ading this a s being just to sa y tha t he has a ve hicle parke d
some whe re e lse on the pe rsona l pa rt of the prope rty it is not pa rt of the ga ra ge . He thought tha t se ntenc e
was proble matic a nd something tha t sta ff should conside r be fore the re que st gets to the Boa rd.
The othe r c ondition he ha d proble ms w ith w a s c ondition 3 re ga rding the c ritic al slope s. Gle nn Brooks
wrote c ondition 3 that sa id c a nopy tree s a t 6’. It is a bout 170’ a c ross the bac k of the prope rty. If the y
took that a t 6’ that is a lmost 30 tre es ac ross there. Tha t is not wha t the y ta ble says. It says for every 400
square fe e t ac ross a buffe r you nee d to ha ve 1 c anopy tree . Whe n you have to put more than 1 it nee ds 6’
spa cing. H e did not wa nt z oning to c ome out a nd say the y a re suppose to have tre e s e ve ry 6’ a ll the w a y
a c ross he re whe n re a lly a s he figure d it w a s a c tua lly a bout 1,800 square fee t a nd ought to ha ve a bout 5
tre e s a c ross the re . If a buffe r is bigge r tha t the n the numbe rs goe s up. But he w a s figuring a smalle r
buffe r ac ross the w hole bac k. H e thought tha t they ne ed to be very cle ar a bout the la st sta te me nt on the
rec omme nda tion 3.
Mr. Loa c h invite d que stions for the applic ant.
Ms. Porte rfie ld a ske d if this busine ss e ve r has more than 15 ca rs on this property.
Mr. Wya nt replie d that it w a s their re sponsibility which w a s why he fe lt tha t the marke d pa rking spa ce s in there
and the signs sa y if the re is no pa rking spa c e the y ca n’t le a ve tha t ca r here to be worke d on. That is the
re sponsibility of the H a rris’ to let pe ople know tha t. Right now they just drop c ars off. The wa y the y c a me up
w ith 15 c ars is the 5 spac e s for the e mployee s to park at the ga ra ge , the 4 lifts a nd pa int booth tha t hold 2 ca rs is
10 w hic h is how they c ame up with the 15 numbe r. H a ving live d in the rura l area for yea rs he did not think tha t
the y wa nt to get muc h large r tha n that. He ha s a ga ra ge coming be fore the Commission in tw o we e ks a nd the
number of spac es is rea lly ge tting up in size . The y use d the ba y numbe rs a nd e mploye e s in that re que st to ge t a
total.
Ms. Porte rfie ld note d tha t this number is 5 more than w a s a llowe d pre viously.
Mr. Wya nt re plie d ye s be c ause the other count ma de it diffic ult for sta ff. The c a lc ula tion and increa se w ould
ma ke it much e a sie r for sta ff to enforc e. The applic ant unde rsta nds building pe rmits now, but not so much the
site pla n. A lot of pe ople in the rural are a do not unde rstand site pla n re gula tions. Tha t is his a ssessment of wha t
he ha s be en running into out in the rura l a re as.
Mr. Fra nco aske d what w ording he would you propose for #6.
Mr. Wyant sa id that he was not sure that adde d a lot to it. H e suggeste d that the y strike #6. The y ha ve to park
the persona l vehicles in the a re a de signate d as pe rsona l ve hic les. If the y go a cross that marke d line the y are
going into the ga ra ge a re a and have to pa rk the re . He thought tha t the c ondition ma ke s it a mbiguous. For
exa mple if he wa s not in tha t persona l pa rking spac e a nd he was pa rking on the side of the drivewa y going ba c k
the re by this w ording he w ould ta ke it to be part of tha t ga ra ge . When the y wrote this staff may ha ve ha d
another re a son, but he ha d not gotte n to sta ff to get a c la rifica tion on that. It w a s some thing tha t he notice d whe n
he re a d through the sta ff report.
Mr. Loa c h a ske d if he w ould rather have a total number of parking be it pe rsonal or priva te.
Mr. Wya nt re plie d no, but just be ing totally in the bounda ry of the ga ra ge the tota l be 15. Mr. Ha rris w orks for
the fire c ompany a nd he brings that c ompany vehic le home . If he goes into the garage a re a it is considered part
of the ga ra ge ope ra tion e ven though he is not doing w ork on it. If he take s his pe rsonal ve hic les a nd drive s it into
the ga ra ge a re a he ha d to park it in a parking pla c e a nd it is pa rt of the garage . Ke ep the pe rsona l ca rs outside
and kee p the business ve hic les inside . He thought tha t would ma ke it c lea nly cut.
Mr. Loa ch note d tha t he would le a ve it no more than 15 ve hic les a ssocia te d and strike the only pe rsona l vehic les
ma y be pa rke d in the a re a marke d parking for personal ve hic les.
Mr. Wyant re plie d ye s. Tha t is on the conce ptua l pla n tha t only for persona l vehicle s. The y don’t wa nt to allow
those pe ople c oming in w ith a vehicle for the garage pa rking out the re be ca use tha t ha s be e n the proble m. The y
pa rk a nywhe re the y ca n find a spot to lea ve one. H e thought tha t it re ally c la rifie s this. Tha t is why they put the
boundary a round this area .
Mr. Morris a ske d if tha t a lso applies to ite m 3 in c ritic al slopes.
Mr. Franc o a ske d if in re comme nda tion #3 he would propose cha nging tha t to sa y inste ad of the 6’ on ce nte r it
sta te one tre e for e ve ry 400’.
Mr. Wyant re plie d ye s. H e be lie ve d for anything le ss tha n one qua rte r of a n a cre for a buffer tha t the y use table
A out of this guidance ma nua l. It has a ll those 6’ spa c es a nd the unde rstory a re 4’. He a ssumed tha t G le nn
Brooks wrote the ma nua l. The shrubs would be up to 18”. The refore, he w ould just re fe r to ta ble out of the guide
and not have the spec ific. The n that wa y they just follow this guide line. H e was a fraid that condition might
ca use the m a proble m.
Mr. Morris a ske d Gle nn Brooks to c ome forward and a ddress this.
G lenn Brooks agre e d w ith striking w ha teve r is in the pare nthe ses there. He wa s just trying to give an e xa mple of
one of the sc ena rios tha t is possible out of tha t ma nua l. It has a numbe r of them. The re fore , tha t is fine be c ause
he did not ha ve to give a n e xa mple.
Mr. Loa ch invited public c omme nt. The re being none , the public he aring was closed and the ma tte r be fore the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Joseph a ske d Mr. Brooks to come bac k up and addre ss c ondition 2 tha t talks about the reta ining wall. She
aske d if that is tha t the same garage building tha t the Commission w a s show n photogra phs of.
Mr. Brooks a sked if she wa s re fe rring to the ba ck of the building w he re the tra ve l way ha s be e n installed.
Ms. Jose ph re plied that w a s c orre c t.
Mr. Brooks replie d yes.
Ms. Jose ph aske d if his e xpe c ta tions a re that the re is a 3’ wall the re and then it w ill fea the r bac k some how.
Mr. Brooks replie d that the y a ske d the a pplic ant if the y would like to finish the slope and the y sa id no tha t the y
w a nted some a re a in the ba ck of the building. So the a lte rnative is a re taining w all. Tha t is w hy he put the
condition. He did not se e a nothe r w a y to kee p that slope the way it is.
Ms. Jose ph said that the othe r slope the y were talking about was the other photo that they were show n. It looks
like the y a re sta rting to e sta blish some thing ba c k the re .
Mr. Brooks re plied tha t the y a re . When he looks at these he is ca re ful bec a use the y a lways had the comme nts
tha t it is e asie r to ask forgive ness than in this c ounty tha n permission. So he tried to re vie w them like the y w ere
not alre a dy built. But as Mr. Wya nt sa ys he be lie ve s tha t it is c lose e nough a nd the y ca n ke e p it as it is, then he
doe s not objec t to tha t.
Ms. Jose ph aske d if this is some thing tha t the y e xpe ct to be ma intained or ca n the y let it rip a nd le t this go bac k to
the tre e s tha t w e re the re be fore . She a ske d whe n he looke d at this doe s he ha ve a no mow z one from the cre e k
itse lf.
Mr. Brooks re plie d tha t the buffe r itse lf is be yond the slope . It is down in the fla t a rea w here the y see the
downed tre e s in the pic ture. It is a ctually not much land that is in buffer on this property. It a ppe a rs a s though
the re w a s some ba ck there too. If the y look on the a eria l photo the y ca n drive fa rm e quipme nt down through
the re . He did not know wha t the y we re doing w ith it. But it c onnec ts to the neighboring prope rty a nd the n goes
all the way a round ba ck up to the ba ck side of this prope rty. The re w a s not much c lea ring in the buffe r be c ause
the buffe r is wa y c lose to the prope rty line . It is not a la rge a re a.
Ms. Jose ph said that they w e re ta lking a bout c ritic al slopes ra the r tha n buffe rs in this insta nc e .
Mr. Brooks replie d e xa c tly.
Mr. Morris a ske d on item 6 is sta ff satisfie d with re moving the first se nte nc e so it sta rts that no more tha n 15
ve hic le s assoc ia ted, e tc .
Ms. Mc Dowe ll sa id if the y don’t le ase it then the ga rage c a rs c a n go over the line . She aske d to de fe r the
que stion to the z oning division sinc e the y ha ve to enforc e this.
Mr. Morris aske d zoning staff to c ome forward. H e a ske d for e nforce me nt purpose s how ite m 6 should be
w orde d.
Mr. H e ide sa id tha t for z oning enforc ement they pre fe r c ondition 6 as written.
Mr. Wya nt pointed out tha t he was just ta lking a bout the la st se nte nce . He agre ed w ith the first se nte nc e. The y
ne e d to ke e p the de signate d personal pa rking spa c e s ma rked w ith a sign.
Ms. Mc D ow e ll thought tha t the la st se nte nce ac tua lly a ddresse d wha t Mr. Wya nt w a s ta lking a bout. If the ow ne r
use s up some of those 15 spa c es de signa te d for the ga ra ge the n the y a re use d up a nd the garage ha s less for
public. She thought tha t is wha t that se nte nce is re fe rring to.
Ms. Jose ph aske d Mr. He rric k to c omme nt.
Mr. He rric k a gree d be ca use he unde rstands Mr. Wya nt’s desire for c la rity. H e shared that de sire. H e used the
ana logy of c rossing the c enter line and ha ving a diffe re nt rule . He thought tha t is e xac tly wha t the final se ntenc e
of pa ragra ph 6 is inte nde d to do. It to sa y whe n you cross this line ra the r than ha ving a que stion of is it or isn’t it a
pa rt of the ga ra ge, is it or is it not a pe rsona l ve hic le w hen you c ross that line by de finition it is now cla ssifie d as
associa te d with the ga ra ge business. He thought tha t the la st se nte nce of pa ra graph 6 ac tua lly adds c larity a nd
crea te s a bright line te st tha t might not othe rwise be .
Ms. Jose ph ac know ledged that the y ha d bee n in violation, but felt from looking at the photogra phs it looks pretty
spiffy a nd it looks a s if they a re re ally trying to c lea n it up. She kne w it w a s frustra ting tha t it se e me d that the y
w e re sort of doing things as the y felt like doing things. She w as gla d that the staff ha d worke d toge the r to ge t
the m to this point so tha t the y ca n c ome into complia nce . She tha nke d the a pplic a nt for working w ith sta ff to
bring it into c omplia nc e.
Mr. Loa c h noted from the pic ture s it looks like they ha ve be e n trying to ke e p things on the up and up a t lea st to
ma ke this a pre se ntable ope ra tion in the rura l a re a, whic h is wha t the y a re conce rned about.
Mr. Franc o a ske d if ite m 1 in the rec omme nda tion for the c ritic al slope s wa ive r whe re it sa ys uniform gra de not
to exce e d 2 to 1 is ne e de d if it has be e n e sta blished to the sa tisfa ction of the c ounty e nginee r now.
Mr. Brooks sa id tha t he wa s le a ving tha t for the Commission to dec ide . It doe s not mee t a 2:1 dow n a t the bottom
of the slope . It will c a use more e rosion if the y disturb it a ga in. But maybe in the long run it might be be tte r, but
the y don’t know . The re is some c le a n up required a round the a re a w here the y a re still ha ving some fill in the
tree s and the y ha ve de posited some reba r and things like tha t. If the Commission w anted to remove tha t he w as
fine w ith it. If the Commission w a nted him to ma ke the de cision, he would sugge st removing it.
Ms. Jose ph noted the c ha nge in #3 w ithin the pa re nthe sis is out.
Ms. McDowell pointe d out a typo in the condition for condition 7 whic h should re ad tha t the hours of ope ra tion
sha ll not e xce e d e arlier or late r.
Mr. Fra nco noted that is how it show s up in the staff report.
Ms. Jose ph a sked if the hours of ope ra tion do not prohibit customers from dropping off ve hic les be fore 8:00 a.m.,
w hic h c an be from 9 p.m. to 8 a .m.
Ms. Mc D ow e ll re lied tha t wa s corre c t.
Ms. Jose ph noted that it says not more tha n 15 c ars in a row. She noted that the zoning inspec tor would have to
ge t out to the site before 10:00 a.m. to se e wha t the y a re doing.
Motion on Spe c ial Use Per mit:
Motion: Ms. Jose ph moved a nd Mr. Morris sec onded to a pprove SP200800058, H a rris Ga ra ge A me ndme nt
w ith the c onditions rec omme nde d by staff.
1. De velopment of the use sha ll be in ac c ord with the c onc eptua l pla n titled “A me nde d Site Plan Ha rris’
Ga ra ge”, pre pa re d by DW Ente rprise s, and date d Ma rc h 16, 2009 (he re ina fter, the “Conce ptua l Plan”), as
dete rmined by the D ire ctor of Pla nning a nd the Zoning Administra tor. To be in a cc ord w ith the pla n,
deve lopme nt shall re fle ct the following ma jor ele me nts within the de ve lopme nt e sse ntia l to the design of
the de velopme nt: The a re a designa ted for the spec ial use (public ga ra ge );
The siz e , height a nd loc a tion of the propose d buildings (16’ X 30’/maximum 24’ high);
The siz e, he ight a nd loc a tion of the e xisting buildings/struc ture s (origina l garage – 1,936 square
fee t/24 fe et high/3 ve hic le bays; gara ge expansion – 1,496 squa re fee t/24 fe et high/1 vehicle ba y;
e nclose d c ompre ssor room; pa int mixing room; one outside lift; one dumpste r pa d/fe nce e nclosure ;
3 pa rking spa ce s ca rport; 2 parking spa c es c arport);
The numbe r (ma ximum spac e s public ga ra ge) a nd loc ation of the ve hic le parking spa c es;
The tw o (2) signage loca tions a t the e ntra nce to the spec ia l use permit area . The signs shall state ,
“All ve hic les be yond this point must be pla c ed in a ma rked pa rking spa c e” a nd be a ma ximum of
four (4) squa re fee t.
The sign loca tion a t the a re a de signate d a s “Pa rking for Priva te V e hic le s.” The sign sha ll state ,
“Pa rking for only pe rsona l vehicle s of the Harris Fa mily” and be a maximum of four (4) square
fee t.
2. Ga soline sa le s a re prohibited;
3. The sa le or renta l of vehicle s or other motoriz e d e quipment is prohibite d;
4. All re pairing or e quipping of ve hic les sha ll ta ke pla ce inside the e xisting garage, with the e xce ption of
vehicle s be ing re paire d on the ve hic le lift loc ate d a dja ce nt to the ga ra ge ;
5. The outdoor stora ge of pa rts, e quipment, ma chine ry and junk is prohibited;
6. Only pe rsonal ve hic le s may be parke d in the a re a marke d “parking for pe rsona l ve hic le s” on the
Conc eptua l Pla n. No more than fiftee n (15) ve hic le s associa te d w ith the public garage use sha ll be loc ate d
outside the ga ra ge . All ve hic le s a ssoc iate d w ith the public ga ra ge use shall be pa rke d in the spa ce s show n
a s “for garage only” on the Conce ptua l Plan. Any ve hic le s pa rke d outside the a re a ma rked “pa rking for
persona l vehicle s” shall be c onside re d to be associa te d with the public ga ra ge a nd a re counte d in the
fifte en (15) vehicle maximum;
7. The hours of operation sha ll not e xce e d (e a rlier or late r) 8 A.M. a nd 8 P.M., Monda y through Sa turday.
These hours of ope ra tion do not prohibit c ustome rs from dropping off ve hicle s be fore 8 A .M. on the days of
ope ra tion;
8. Within thre e (3) months following a pproval of the site plan or site pla n w a ive r, the pe rmitte e sha ll insta ll
a nd therea fte r ma intain a minimum tw e nty (20)foot dee p la ndsc a pe e ve rgre ensc re e ning buffer be twe e n
the garage a nd garage pa rking and Ma rkw ood Roa d; a nd be twee n the a re a s designa ted a s pa rking for
persona l ve hicle s a nd Markwood Roa d. This la ndsc a pe sc re e ning shall supplement e xisting la ndsca pe
a pproved with SP 200149 and consist of Easte rn Re d Ce da r or othe r mate rial approve d by the Planning
Dire c tor, a minimum fe e t high at pla nting, and pla nte d in sta gge re d row s w ith a ma ximum of ten (10) fe e t
on c enter spa c ing be tw e en the landsca pe ma te ria ls. The pe rmittee sha ll also submit a landsca pe pla n with
the site pla n a pplic ation that w ill be subje ct to the a pprova l of the Pla nning Direc tor or the Planning
Dire c tor’s de signe e ; a nd
9. All outdoor lighting shall be only full c utoff fixture s a nd shielded to re flec t light away from a ll a butting
prope rties. A lighting pla n (for ne w lighting) limiting light leve ls a t all prope rty line s to no grea ter tha n 0.3
foot c andle s sha ll be submitte d to the Zoning Administrator or the ir de signee for approva l.
The motion pa sse d by a vote of 5:0.
Motion on C r itic al Slopes Waive r:
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved a nd Mr. Morris se conde d to approve the critica l slope s wa ive r re que st with the
conditions re c omme nded by sta ff a s a me nde d.
Re moving the rec omme nde d c ondition 1 and amending c ondition 3 to re move the la ngua ge be twee n the
pa re nthese s.
1. The e aste rn fa cing slope above the c re a k must be re shape d to a uniform gra de not ste epe r than 2H:1V,
c ove re d with e rosion c ontrol ma tting, and perma ne ntly se ede d.
2. The re ta ining w a ll propose d in the re a r of the ga rage building must be at le ast 3’ high, a nd topsoil,
matting, a nd perma ne nt se ed or mulc h and shrubs must be applie d to the c ut slope for a dequa te
sta biliz a tion.
3. To provide stormwa ter ma nage me nt and re ple nish the buffe r, the e ntire buffe r a re a w ithin the prope rty
should be planted in ac c orda nc e w ith the Che sa pe a ke Ba y Ripa ria n Buffe rs Modific a tion a nd Mitiga tion
Guidanc e Ma nual no la ter than thre e (3) months following the approva l of this c ritica l slope s wa ive r.
(The applica nt is referred to the Restora tion Esta blishme nt Ta ble s in A ppe ndix D, c a lling for ca nopy
tre e s a t 6’ c e nte rs, unde rstory tre es a t 4’ c enters, a nd shrubs a t 18” ce nte rs.) The se sha ll be bonde d a s a
guarantee of surviva l for a minimum of 5 yea rs.
The motion pa sse d by a vote of 5:0.
Mr. Loa c h sa id SP200800058, Ha rris G a ra ge A me ndme nt would go to the Boa rd of Supe rvisors on June 10 with
a re c ommendation for a pprova l.
Mr. Cilimbe rg pointed out that the c ritic al slopes w a ive r ac tion wa s fina l a nd did not go to the Board.
Re turn to exe c summa ry
May 18, 2009
David C Wyant
4686 Garth Road
Crozet VA 22932
RE: SP200800058 Harris’s Garage – Amendment
Tax Map 8, Parcel 35A
Dear Mr. Wyant:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 2009, by a vote of 5:0, recommended
approval of the abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Dev elopment of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Amended Site Plan Harris’
Garage”, prepared by DW Enterprises, and dated March 16, 2009 (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the D irector of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the plan,
dev elopment shall reflect the following major elements w ithin the development essential to the design of the
dev elopment: The area designated for the special use (public garage);
The size, height and location of the proposed buildings (16’ X 30’/maximum 24’ high);
The size, height and location of the existing buildings /structures (original garage – 1,936 square feet/24
feet high/3 vehicle bays; garage expansion – 1,496 square feet/24 feet high/1 vehicle bay; enclosed
compressor room; paint mixing room; one outside lift; one dumpster pad/fence enclos ure; 3 parking
spaces carport; 2 parking s pac es carport);
The number (maximum s pac es public garage) and location of the vehicle parking spaces ;
The two (2) s ignage locations at the entrance to the special use permit area. The signs shall state, “All
vehicles beyond this point must be placed in a marked parking space” and be a maximum of four (4)
square feet.
The sign location at the area designated as “Parking for Private Vehicles.” The sign shall state,
“Parking for only personal vehicles of the Harris Family” and be a maximum of four (4) square feet.
2. Gas oline sales are prohibited;
3. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
4. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage, with the exception of vehic les
being repaired on the vehicle lift loc ated adjacent to the garage;
5. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited;
6. Only personal vehicles may be parked in the area marked “parking for personal vehicles” on the Conceptual
Plan. No more than fifteen (15) vehicles associated with the public garage use shall be located outside the
garage. All vehicles associated w ith the public garage use shall be parked in the spac es shown as “for
garage only” on the Conceptual Plan. Any vehicles parked outside the area mark ed “parking for personal
vehicles” shall be considered to be as soc iated with the public garage and are counted in the fifteen (15)
vehicle maximum;
7. The hours of operation shall not exceed (earlier or later) 8 A.M. and 8 P.M., Monday through Saturday. These
hours of operation do not prohibit customers from dropping off vehic les before 8 A.M. on the days of
operation;
8. W ithin three (3) months following approval of the site plan or site plan waiver, the permittee s hall install and
thereafter maintain a minimum twenty (20)foot deep lands cape evergreenscreening buffer between the
garage and garage parking and Markw ood Road; and between the areas designated as parking for personal
vehicles and Markwood Road. . This landscape screening shall supplement existing landsc ape approv ed
with SP 200149 and consist of Eastern Red Cedar or other material approved by the Planning Director, a
minimum feet high at planting, and planted in staggered rows with a maximum of ten (10) feet on center
spacing betw een the landscape materials. The permittee shall also s ubmit a landscape plan with the s ite
plan application that will be subject to the approval of the Planning Director or the Planning D irector’s
des ignee; and
9. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fix tures and s hielded to reflec t light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan (for new lighting) limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot
candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
Critical Slopes W aiver –
1. The eastern fac ing slope abov e the creak must be reshaped to a uniform grade not steeper than 2H:1V,
c overed with erosion control matting, and permanently seeded.
2. The retaining wall proposed in the rear of the garage building must be at least 3’ high, and topsoil, matting,
and permanent seed or mulch and shrubs must be applied to the cut slope for adequate stabilization.
3. To provide stormwater management and replenish the buffer, the entire buffer area within the property
s hould be planted in accordanc e with the C hesapeake Bay Riparian Buffers Modification and Mitigation
Guidance Manual no later than three (3) months following the approval of this critical slopes waiver. (The
applicant is referred to the R estoration Es tablishment Tables in Appendix D, calling for canopy trees at 6’
c enters, unders tory trees at 4’ c enters, and shrubs at 18” centers.) These s hall be bonded as a guarantee of
s urvival for a minimum of 5 years .
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on June 10, 2009. **PLEASE NOTE DUE TO AN ADVERTISEING ERR OR TH IS
PROJEC T WILL HAVE A SECOND HEA RIN G AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 9, 2009*
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: SP 200800061 Slingluff
Dock
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Construc tion of a priva te floating dock on the
South Fork Riva nna Rese rvoir
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Scott Clark
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE: June 10, 2009
A CTION: Yes INFORMATION :
C ONSENT AGENDA: NO
AC TION : INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEWED B Y:
BAC KGROUND :
A t the Ma y 5, 2009 Pla nning Commission me eting, the Commission note d that while re comme nde d
condition of a pproval 3 prohibite d such struc tures a s de cking or sta irs in the re se rvoir stre am buffer, the
ske tch pla n of the dock (see Atta chme nts I a nd II) show e d tha t a sma ll se t of three ste ps was nee ded.
(The propose d c ondition is a sta ndard c ondition of a pproval for spe cia l use pe rmits for docks.) The se
ste ps we re not c onsidered a significa nt impa ct to the stre am buffer, and the Commission dire c te d staff to
re draft the proposed c ondition to c la rify that the steps shown on the sketc h pla n would be pe rmitte d.
The doc k de sign had bee n re vie w e d and approve d by the Riva nna Wate r a nd Sewe r A uthority, w hic h
controls dock de sign on the re se rvoir, be fore submission of the spec ial use pe rmit a pplica tion.
D ISCU SSION :
In orde r to pe rmit the ne e de d ste ps w ithout permitting other struc tures in the stre am buffer, sta ff ha s
de velope d a condition of a pproval tha t w ould pe rmit only the improvements show n on the ske tc h plan.
This c ondition w ould re pla c e the rec omme nde d condition 3 tha t wa s pre se nte d to the Planning
Commission.
R EC OMMEND ATION:
Staff rec omme nds approva l of SP 0861 Slingluff Doc k, w ith the following c onditions of a pprova l:
1. The re sha ll be no lighting within 25 horizonta l fe e t of the Rese rvoir, me asure d from the e le vation of
norma l pool, which is Elevation 382 (N orth A me ric an V ertic al D a tum of 1988).
2. The re sha ll be no remova l of ve ge tation or e arth disturba nc e with the 200foot stre am buffe r
a ssocia te d with the installation of the boa t doc k. The stre am buffe r is me a sured from the e dge of
the floodpla in, whic h is Eleva tion 391.
3. The re sha ll be no othe r struc tures, suc h a s de cking or stairs, construc ted in the 200foot stre am
buffe r. Struc tures a nd improvements loca te d in the 200foot stre am buffe r sha ll be limited to those
show n on the Sc he ma tic of Doc k De sign a nd Sc hematic of Doc k Design, Side Vie w, including a se t
of up to five ste ps without ra ilings loc a te d direc tly adjac ent to the doc k.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Schematic of Dock Design
II. Schematic of Dock Design – Side View
View PC actions letter
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Attachment I
Attachment II
May 18, 2009
Craig L. Slingluff Jr.
256 W oodlands Road
Charlottesv ille, Va 22901
RE: SP200800061 Slingluff Dock
Dear Mr. Slingluff:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 2009, by a vote of 5:0, recommended
approval of the abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no lighting within 25 horizontal feet of the R eservoir, measured from the elevation of
normal pool, whic h is Elevation 382 (N orth American Vertical Datum of 1988).
2. There shall be no removal of vegetation or earth disturbance within the 200foot stream buffer
associated with the installation of the boat dock . The s tream buffer is measured from the edge of the
floodplain, whic h is Elevation 391.
3. There shall be no other structures , such as deck ing or stairs , c onstructed in the 200foot stream buffer. For
the purposes of this condition the existing steps shall not be considered a structure.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on June 10, 2009.
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Pr ojec t Name : SP 200800061 Slingluff D ock Staff: Sc ott Clark
Planning Commission Public He aring:
May 5, 2009
Boar d of Supe rvisor s Public He ar ing:
TBA
Ow ne r/s: Craig L. Slingluff, Jr.Applic ant: Cra ig L. Slingluff, Jr.
Acr eage: 305.741 a cres Spec ial U se Pe rmit: 30.3.05.2.1(2): Wa te r
re late d use s suc h a s boa t doc ks, ca noe
live ries, bridge s, ferries, c ulve rts a nd rive r
c rossings of transmission line s of a ll types.
TMP: Tax Ma p 45 Pa rc e ls 6D 1 a nd 67A
Loc ation: 256 Woodlands Road (Route 676),
a pproximate ly 0.3 miles north of the intersec tion
with Ea rlysville Roa d (Route 743)
Existing Zoning and Byright use : RA Rura l
Area s agricultura l, fore sta l, a nd fishe ry use s;
re side ntial de nsity (0.5 unit/a c re in de ve lopme nt
lots); FH Flood Haz a rd Ove rlay to provide
sa fe ty and prote c tion from flooding
Magister ial D istric t: Jac k Jouett Conditions or Proffer s: Y e s
RA (Rura l Are as) Re quested # of Dwelling U nits: n/a
Pr oposal: Construc tion of a private floa ting dock
on the South Fork Rivanna Rese rvoir
Compr e hensive Plan D esignation: Rura l Area s
pre serve a nd prote c t a gric ultural, forestal, open
spac e , a nd na tura l, historic and sc e nic
re source s/ density ( .5 unit/ a cre in development
lots)
Char acter of Pr oper ty: The Slingluff property is
a la rgely open re sidentia l pa rc el bordering on the
rese rvoir. The re se rvoir pa rc el is a c onstructe d
drinking w a te r impoundme nt with ve geta te d
e dge s.
Use of Surr ounding Pr ope r ties: The site is
a dja ce nt to the South Fork Riva nna Re servoir.
Most ne a rby prope rtie s are re side ntial, but the
Ivy Cre e k N a tura l Are a is nea rby to the
southw e st.
Factor s Favorable:
1. No dire ct impa c t to the w ate r
supply or ne ighboring prope rtie s is
e xpe cte d as a result of this spec ial
use permit.
2. No inc rea se in flood levels w ill
re sult from installation of a dock.
3. The proposed doc k is supported by
the City of Charlotte sville
De partme nt of Public Works, a nd
me e ts the requirements of the
Riva nna Wa ter a nd Se we r
Authority for re side ntial boat doc ks.
Factor U nfavor able:
1. If a significa nt numbe r of these
re que sts a re a pproved, the re sulting
prolife ra tion of boat doc ks c ould
impa ir the prima ry func tion of the
Re se rvoir a s a drinking wa ter
supply
RECOMMENDA TION : Sta ff re commends a pproval of this Spec ial U se Permit, with c onditions.
Petition:
PRO POSED : Construction of a private floa ting doc k on the South Fork Rivanna Re se rvoir
ZO NIN G CATEG ORY /G ENERAL U SAG E: RA Rura l Are as agric ultural, fore stal, a nd fishe ry use s;
re sidentia l de nsity (0.5 unit/a cre in de velopment lots); FH Flood H az a rd Ove rlay to provide safe ty a nd
prote c tion from flooding
SECTIO N: 30.3.05.2.1(2): Wate r rela te d use s suc h as boa t docks, c anoe live ries, bridge s, ferrie s, c ulve rts a nd
rive r crossings of transmission line s of a ll types.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LA ND USE/DEN SITY : Rura l Are a s prese rve a nd prote ct agricultura l, fore stal,
ope n spa c e, and na tura l, historic and sc enic re sourc e s/ density ( .5 unit/ a cre in de velopment lots)
EN TRAN CE CORRID OR: No
LO CA TION: 256 Woodla nds Roa d (Route 676), approxima tely 0.3 mile s north of the inte rse c tion w ith
Earlysville Roa d (Route 743)
TA X MAP/PARCEL: TMP 456D 1 a nd TMP 4567A
MAG ISTERIAL DISTRICT: Ja ck Jouett
C harac te r of the A re a:
The site is a dja c ent to the South Fork Rivanna Rese rvoir. Most nea rby propertie s a re residentia l, but the Ivy
Cree k Na tural A re a is ne arby to the southw e st.
Spe c ific s of the Pr oposal:
A spe cia l use permit is being re que ste d in a c cordanc e with Se c tion 30.3.05.2.1(2) of the Zoning O rdina nce
to allow a boat doc k in the Flood Ha za rd O verla y z oning district. Se e Atta chme nt C for the propose d de sign.
C onformity w ith the C ompr ehensive Plan:
The Compre he nsive Pla n re c ogniz es the South Fork Rivanna Rese rvoir a s a surfac e drinking wa te r supply.
The N atura l Resource s and Cultural A sse ts c ha pte r of the Compre hensive Plan c onta ins the following
objec tive for the re cre a tiona l use of w a te r supply area s:
“Allow and m anage rec re ational use s of drink ing water rese rv oirs and adjace nt public land only as
incidental use s to the primary func tion of wate r supply and in suc h a m anner as to pre ve nt
c um ulativ e im pac ts that m ay impair the primary func tion.”
The Compre he nsive Pla n re c ogniz es tha t rec re a tiona l use of w a te r supply re servoirs ha s the potentia l to
thre a te n wa ter quality a nd wa ter supply functions, a nd ca lls for spe c ific conside ration of this issue in the
follow ing stra tegy:
“The County should take a le ad role in de ve loping a re cre ation and wate r supply prote ction plan for
e ach rese rv oir to addre ss incidental rec reational use s of drink ing water rese rv oirs and adjace nt
public land. This effort should be c oordinate d with the Rivanna Wate r and Se wer Authority, the City
of Charlotte sv ille , She nandoah National Park and othe r re lev ant age nc ies.”
The County will inc lude tha t c oordina ted pla nning in the next revision of the Comprehe nsive Plan. This
pa rticula r re que st is for a lowimpa ct use tha t is inc ide nta l to the w a te rsupply func tion of the re se rvoir, and
tha t pose s no thre at to public hea lth.
STA FF COMMENT:
Staff w ill a ddress e ac h provision of Se c tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning O rdina nce .
31.2.4.1: Spec ial U se Pe rmits prov ide d for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supe rv isors that suc h use will not be of substantial detrime nt to adjace nt property,
The addition of one floa ting boa t doc k will not be de trime nta l to eithe r the Re se rvoir or ne arby surrounding
propertie s. The re are a numbe r of boat doc ks for priva te re crea tiona l use a lre ady in pla c e on the Re servoir.
The ne arest existing doc k is a pproximate ly 500 fee t to the ea st.
that the charac te r of the distric t will not be c hanged there by and
In pa st re vie w s of simila r doc k reque sts, the possible c ha nge s to the distric t c aused by lighting on the
Re se rvoir ha ve bee n a signific ant issue . To a ddress this c onc e rn, re ce nt doc k a pprovals ha ve inc luded a
condition prohibiting lighting within 25 horizonta l fe e t of the Re servoir. The same condition of approva l is
re comme nde d in this ca se to be c onsiste nt with past pra c tic e.
The re a re approxima te ly 20 boa t doc ks a lre ady in pla c e on the Re servoir. The se boa t doc ks do not appea r to
de tra c t from the prima ry use of the Re servoir as a wa ter supply re se rvoir bec a use of the ir siz e , ma te ria ls,
and periodic usa ge. This propose d boa t doc k would not c hange the c harac ter of the Rura l Area z oning
distric t or the cha ra cter of the use of the Re se rvoir. A prolife ra tion of re side ntial boat doc ks, how e ve r,
w ould c ha nge the a ppe aranc e of the Rese rvoir a nd potentia lly provide for a more re c re ationa l cha ra cte r tha n
a wa te r supply c ha ra cte r. In re cognition of this a nd the Compre he nsive Pla n strate gy noted ea rlie r in this
re port, this issue will be a ddre sse d as part of the upc oming update of the Natura l Re source s and Cultural
A sse ts cha pte r of the Compre hensive Pla n.
Sinc e 1999, the re ha ve be e n four spe cia l use permit re que sts for priva te doc ks on the South Fork Riva nna
Re se rvoir, a ll of w hic h we re approve d by the Boa rd of Supe rvisors.
and that suc h use will be in harmony with the purpose and inte nt of this ordinanc e,
The floa ting doc k will be designe d to re spond to c ha nge s in flood leve ls a nd not impede the natural flow of
w a te r, unle ss it w e re to bre ak loose and tra vel dow nstrea m to the da m. The doc k would be anchore d to
avoid be ing broken loose by floods. The County Enginee r has c onfirme d that the re will be no inc re ase in
flood e le vations by insta lling a floa ting doc k.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Byright use s in the Rural A re a s inc lude single family a nd duple x uses, public uses a nd buildings,
agric ultura l, fore stry, boa ting, and fishery uses. This use is not e xpec ted to crea te conflic ts with the use s
pe rmitte d byright.
with additional re gulations prov ide d in sec tion 5.0 of this ordinanc e ,
The re a re no supple me nta ry regula tions re lating to boat doc ks in Se ction 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinanc e.
and with the public he alth, safety and ge ne ral we lfare .
Se ctions 11300 through 11306 of the A lbe ma rle County Code a ddre ss wate r supply rese rvoirs utiliz e d
by the Riva nna Water a nd Se we r Authority and regula te the use a nd ac tivity on e a ch re servoir. Se ction
11304 spe c ific a lly a ddre sse s a c tivitie s on the South Fork Riva nna Re servoir. Authorize d a c tivitie s are
fishing, c a noe ing, boa ting (no inte rnal combustion engine s), hiking, bird watc hing, a nd pic nic king.
Swimming is spe cifica lly prohibited unde r this sec tion. Give n those re gula tions and the proposed use of
this doc k—for the launching of nonpow e re d boa ts only—the dock is not e xpe c te d to have ne ga tive
publiche a lth impa cts.
SUMMA RY:
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors favora ble to this applic ation:
1. No direc t impac t to the wa te r supply or ne ighboring prope rtie s is e xpe cted as a result of this spec ial
use pe rmit.
2. No inc re a se in flood le ve ls will re sult from installation of a dock.
3. The propose d doc k is supporte d by the City of Charlotte sville D e pa rtme nt of Public Works, and
mee ts the re quire me nts of the Rivanna Wa te r a nd Se w e r A uthority for re side ntia l boa t doc ks.
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tor unfa vora ble to this a pplic ation:
2. If a signific ant number of the se re que sts a re a pprove d, the re sulting proliferation of boat docks could
impa ir the primary function of the Re se rvoir as a drinking w a te r supply
R EC OMMEND ED AC TION:
Ba se d on the findings c ontained in this staff re port, staff re comme nds a pproval of SP 200861 Slingluff D ock
w ith the following c onditions:
1. The re sha ll be no lighting within 25 horizonta l fe e t of the Rese rvoir, me asure d from the e le vation of
norma l pool, which is Elevation 382 (N orth A me ric an V ertic al D a tum of 1988).
2. The re sha ll be no remova l of ve ge tation or e arth disturba nc e with the 200foot stre am buffe r
a ssocia te d with the installation of the boa t doc k. The stre am buffe r is me a sured from the e dge of
the floodpla in, whic h is Eleva tion 391.
3. The re sha ll be no othe r struc tures, suc h a s de cking or stairs, construc ted in the 200foot stre am
buffe r.
A TTACHMENTS
A ttac hme nt A – Area Ma p
A ttac hme nt B – D eta il Ma p
A ttac hme nt C – Ske tc h Pla n
Re turn to exe c summa ry
SP 2008-61
PC May 5, 2009
Staff Report Page 6
Attachment B
SP 2008-61
PC May 5, 2009
Staff Report Page 7
Attachment C
SP 2008-61
PC May 5, 2009
Staff Report Page 8
A lbe mar le County Planning Commission
May 5, 2009
The Albemarle County Pla nning Commission he ld a public hea ring a nd me e ting on Tue sda y, May 5, 2009, at 6:00
p.m., at the County O ffic e Building, La ne Auditorium, Se c ond Floor, 401 Mc Intire Roa d, Cha rlotte sville ,
V irginia .
Me mbers a tte nding we re Ca lvin Morris, Marcia Jose ph, Don Fra nc o, Linda Porte rfield, a nd Thoma s Loac h,
V ice Cha ir. Eric Struc ko, Cha irma n, Bill Edgerton and Julia Monte ith, AICP, nonvoting re prese nta tive for the
U niversity of Virginia we re abse nt.
O the r officia ls pre sent were Sc ott Clark, Se nior Pla nne r; Wayne Cilimberg, Direc tor of Planning; Ma rk Graham,
D ire ctor of Community D e ve lopme nt; Bill Fritz, Chie f of Current De velopment, Rob Heide, Zoning Enforc eme nt
Ma nager; Lisa G re en, Code Enforc ement O ffic e r, Ron Higgins, Chie f of Zoning; Amy Pfla um, Se nior Engine er,
G lenn Brooks, County Engine e r; Re be c ca Ragsdale , Senior Planner; Summe r Frede ric k, Senior Planner; Joa n
Mc Dow e ll, Princ ipa l Pla nne r and Andy He rric k, Se nior A ssista nt County Attorne y.
Call to Or de r and Establish Quor um:
Mr. Loa c h c alled the re gula r me eting to orde r at 6:00 p.m. and e sta blished a quorum.
Public He ar ing Ite ms:
SP200800061 Slingluff D ock
PRO POSED : Construction of a private floa ting doc k on the South Fork Rivanna Re se rvoir
ZO NIN G CATEGO RY /G EN ERA L USAGE: RA Rural A re as agric ultura l, foresta l, a nd fishery use s;
re sidentia l density (0.5 unit/a cre in deve lopme nt lots); FH Flood Ha z ard Ove rla y to provide safety a nd
prote c tion from flooding
SECTIO N: 30.3.05.2.1(2): Wate r re late d use s such a s boat doc ks, c a noe live ries, bridges, ferries, culve rts a nd
rive r crossings of transmission line s of a ll types.
COMPREHENSIVE PLA N LA ND USE/D ENSITY : Rural Are a s pre se rve a nd prote c t a gric ultural, fore sta l,
ope n spa c e, and na tura l, historic and sc enic re sourc e s/ density (.5 unit/ ac re in de ve lopme nt lots)
EN TRAN CE CORRID OR: No
LO CA TION: 256 Woodla nds Roa d (Route 676), approxima te ly 0.3 mile s north of the inte rse c tion with
Earlysville Roa d (Route 743)
TA X MAP/PARCEL: TMP 456D 1 a nd TMP 4567A
MAG ISTERIAL DISTRICT: Ja ck Jouett
(Sc ott Clark)
Sc ott Cla rk prese nte d a PowerPoint Prese nta tion a nd summa rize d the sta ff report.
This is a spec ial use pe rmit request for a priva te floa ting doc k on the South Fork Rivanna Rese rvoir.
In re sponse to Mr. Fra nc o’s question by email on w hy this is being allowe d on a ne ighboring prope rty tha t
ac tua lly is ow ned by the c ity for the re servoir, Mr. Cla rk state d that pa rc el 4567A is a portion of the rese rvoir
and the city ha s signe d on this a pplic a tion a s the ow ne r of that parce l. The re fore, the c ity has agre e d to allow
this to happen in this plac e . The spe cial use pe rmit a ctually applie s to Dr. Slingluff’s prope rty a nd to the
re servoir’s prope rty and is signed off by both owne rs.
The drawing of the dock shows it 21’ long and 8’ wide. It is a floa ting doc k a nd is not anc hore d by pie rs into the
bottom of the re servoir. The side vie w shows how the doc k is on floa ts a nd then a nchored w ith we ights tha t will
ke e p it from le a ving the site. It is a fairly minima l floa ting de c king dock for the use of la unc hing wind powe r
boa ts.
The rec omme nda tion is ba sed on the following fa vora ble and unfavora ble fac tors:
Fac tors Favor able :
1. N o dire ct impa c t to the w a te r supply or ne ighboring prope rties is e xpe c te d a s a result of this spe c ia l
use pe rmit.
2. No inc re ase in flood leve ls w ill re sult from insta lla tion of a doc k.
3. The proposed doc k is supported by the City of Cha rlotte sville Depa rtme nt of Public Works, a nd mee ts the
requirements of the Riva nna Wate r and Sewe r Authority for re side ntial boat doc ks.
Fac tor Unfavor able :
1. If a signific a nt numbe r of these re que sts a re approve d, the re sulting prolife ra tion of boa t doc ks c ould
impa ir the primary func tion of the Rese rvoir a s a drinking w a te r supply. This is a n issue tha t sta ff
e xpe c ts to a ddre ss in the next upda te of the Compre hensive Pla n.
R EC OMMEND ATION: Sta ff rec omme nds approva l of this Spe cia l U se Pe rmit, w ith the standa rd thre e
conditions re c omme nded in the sta ff re port tha t have bee n a pplied in the past to floa ting doc ks in the re servoir.
Mr. Loa c h invite d que stions for sta ff.
Mr. Morris tha nke d sta ff for stating in the re port that the re a re a bout 20 of the se doc ks e xisting. Unde rstanding
tha t the c ity is involve d in this he a sked if it ha s eve r be en indic ate d wha t numbe r is the ma gic numbe r tha t the y
hit whe n the city would sa y no more .
Mr. Cla rk replie d tha t they ha ve ne ver he ard tha t from the city. A s he me ntioned that is a n issue the y w ould
dire c tly a ddre ss during the ne xt Comp Pla n upda te.
Ms. Porte rfie ld aske d if a ll 20 of the doc ks we re lega l. In othe r w ords, does sta ff ha ve a pplic a tions for a ll 20
doc ks?
Mr. Cla rk replie d no tha t quite a fe w of the doc ks ha ve bee n the re for a very long time . The e stima te of 20 doc ks
is taken from re vie w of the a eria l photos.
Mr. Cilimbe rg pointed out that it does not ma ke the doc ks ille gal, but potentia lly nonc onforming.
Ms. Porte rfie ld note d that she ha d se en three dock re que sts since she c a me on the Commission, which is w hy she
w a s curious how the doc ks got there. She a ske d if sta ff ha s a ny ide a when this se c tion of the Compre he nsive
Plan w ould be re vie w e d.
Mr. Cilimbe rg re plied that ac tua lly it was in the w ork program to begin in 2010.
Ms. Jose ph noted tha t the de sign is a pprove d by the city and Rivanna on a ll dock re que sts. The y re vie w the
re quest to ma ke sure tha t the w a te r supply is sa fe . The re a re no motor powe re d boa ts a llowe d.
Mr. Cla rk noted exc ept for sta ff mainte na nce a ctivitie s motoriz e d boa ts a re not eve n a llowed on the re se rvoir.
A lso sw imming is not allowed. The re fore , the doc k is only for the launching of ma n pow e re d ve hic les.
Ms. Porte rfie ld note d tha t the sta ff re port sa ys no sta irs and the a c tua l dra wing for this dock show s sta irs.
Mr. Cla rk note d that there is no c ondition re fe rring to this dra wing.
Ms. Porte rfie ld sa id de pe nding on the e leva tion c ha nge to get dow n to a doc k the y could e nd up with quite a set of
sta irs. She would assume that the re would be ele va tions like that a s you go a round the re se rvoir.
Ms. Jose ph said that this dra w ing or sc he ma tic could be c hanged be fore the re que st goe s to the Boa rd.
Mr. Cla rk agre e d tha t it c ould, but tha t the c onditions of a pproval don’t e ven re fe r to this dra w ing. The drawing
is just for the Commission’s informa tion.
Ms. Porte rfie ld a ske d if this is the doc k that the a pplic a nt pla ns to put in.
Mr. Cilimbe rg noted that the dra wing w a s not part of the c onditions.
Ms. Porte rfie ld suggeste d tha t they c ould c ondition it on the dra wing w ithout the steps.
Mr. Cilimbe rg suggested tha t the Commission might not w a nt to do that.
Ms. Porte rfie ld sa id that in other words the a pplica nt would have approva l of a dock tha t could be built a differe nt
w a y.
Mr. Cilimbe rg said tha t the doc k wa s pretty muc h set by the c onditions.
Mr. Fra nco suggested tha t the y a llow the a pplica nt to addre ss the issue .
Ms. Porte rfie ld a gree d tha t was a good idea . She aske d if a ll of the prope rty a round the re se rvoir is ow ned by the
city.
Mr. Cilimbe rg re plied tha t the pool level of the re se rvoir is a ctually within the owne rship of la nd by the c ity.
D e cking a nd stairs are referre d to in the c ondition a s structure s. The re c a n be steps. They c ould literally use the
grade to c re a te ste ps going dow n a nd tha t is not a struc ture. That is proba bly w hat the a pplic a nt would be
antic ipa ting. The re has to be some wa y to ste p down to the dock.
Mr. Loa c h ope ned the public he a ring a nd invite d the applic ant to a ddre ss the Commission.
D r. Slingluff sa id he use d the re se rvoir for ka ya king and row ing prima rily. In that loca tion the re is a ste p down.
The gra ssy le ve l slopes dow n gradua lly a nd it is e asy to walk down. A bout 5’ from the edge there is a cliff.
When he move d in he attac hed thre e steps to prevent e roding the la nd. He felt it was be tte r for the rese rvoir as
w e ll a s be ing safer. One of the a dva nta ge s of ha ving a doc k is tha t it ena ble s him to take a boa t in and out of the
w a te r without dragging it a c ross the e dge of the land. H e fe lt tha t the dock would be bene ficial to the rese rvoir
and he ha s followed all of the re quirements the re . His inte nsion is to use the steps that a re a lrea dy the re a nd put
the doc k out from tha t follow ing the requirements of the c ounty. If the re quire me nt is to not ha ve the steps the n
he could put in a ramp or build into the land without being a se para te structure .
Ms. Porte rfie ld a ske d if the diagra m is wha t he intended to put in.
D r. Slingluff replie d that wa s the doc k he inte nds to put in. He submitte d the diagra m to two other groups a nd
follow ed the requireme nts state d. He has ma de some a djustments to ma ke it narrow e r from the origina l pla n, but
this dia gra m fits what he ha s be e n told to do so far. He sa id tha t he w ould be willing to do what is a ppropriate.
Ms. Jose ph noted that the c ity ha s requirements for the doc k.
D r. Slingluff said tha t he ha d followe d the city’s and Riva nna Authority’s re quirements for a nc horing and use d
appropria te ma te ria ls so it would not be toxic.
Mr. Loa c h invite d public comment.
Jeff We rne r, spe a king solely a s a city resident, adde d that this is not just the city’s wa ter supply, but it is a lso the
county’s urba n growth area wa ter supply. The staff re port sa ys tha t there a re a numbe r of boa t docks for priva te
re crea tiona l use alre a dy in pla ce on the rese rvoir. It a lso sa ys a prolife ra tion of re side ntial boat docks c ould
impa ct the rese rvoir. H e ha d nothing a gainst this a pplica nt, but he thought that the y have a large r issue to a nswe r
he re . The que stion is what the tipping point is, which ha s alre a dy bee n ra ised. He unde rstands tha t this issue
w ill be pa rt of a pe nding Comp Pla n re vie w , but wha t ha ppe ns in the inte rim. By his rough c ount from the ma p in
the staff report the re are roughly no less tha n 60 pa rc e ls similarly a butting this public ly held 301 a c re pa rc el.
The y c a n only stipulate how many additiona l de ve lopme nt rights are out the re tha t also ge t a dditiona l lots a dded.
So how many private doc ks on public la nd c onstitute a prolife ration. Eve n if the doc k itse lf is not a n issue ,
re ga rdle ss of sta ted c onditions, how muc h clea ring will they se e for e a ch new dock? It was sta te d by sta ff tha t
the pe rson nee ds to a c ce ss the dock. So how muc h disturba nc e of gra de on public la nd are they going to se e
sinc e ma ny of these prope rtie s have ste ep te rra in going down to the re se rvoir. The big que stion is w ho monitors
the land cle aring a nd the doc k c onstruction, how fre que ntly a nd wha t informa tion is rec orded and in wha t manne r
to esta blish the base line c ondition of the existing vege ta tive buffe r and the e xisting terra in. H ow ofte n is G re g
H a rpe r going out there in a boat and c he c king things and a gainst w hat information? This is a priva te a me nity on a
public prope rty a nd w ho ha s re sponsibility for the ma inte na nce , repa ir or re mova l of the doc k a t some point in the
future . If the private prope rty is tra nsfe rre d how will the ne xt owne r know tha t the y have this re sponsibility to
this dock? He aske d if the re is going to be a note on the pla t. He felt that a fe e should be a ssocia te d for
monitoring the se a c tivities by a w a te r shed ma na ger. The conditions ne ed to be fa r more substa ntial and rigid
until the y esta blish some threshold for the tipping point. He questione d how the y w ould be a ble to say no in the
future bec a use it is one big pa rc el a nd the re a re 60 others out there. H e did not know at w hat point it is legally
de fe nsible to sta rt saying no.
The re being no furthe r public c omment Mr. Loa ch c lose d the public hea ring to bring the ma tte r be fore the
Planning Commission for disc ussion.
Mr. Morris aske d if the Commission c an c la rify condition 3 so that the e xisting sta irs tha t ha ve be e n the re for
some time are not required to be re move d a nd be c ome conforming.
Mr. Loa c h sa id tha t should be pa rt of the ove ra ll de sign.
Mr. Morris noted tha t Ms. Porterfie ld’s point is w ell ta ken sinc e it ha s bee n there a nd is for the good of the
property. He re comme nde d that the Commission re move tha t.
Mr. Cilimbe rg said tha t if the Commission de cides to rec omme nd a pprova l w ith that c omme nt, then a s pa rt of the
condition it c ould be a me nde d be fore it goes to the Boa rd to refle c t tha t the e xisting sta irs or ste ps ca n be
re ta ine d. Sta ff will ma ke sure that the c ondition la nguage is corre c t.
Mr. Porte rfie ld sa id the approva l w a s for a c ce ss to the doc k tha t has be e n shown in the drawing. So the approva l
w ould be base d on the drawing that ha s submitte d for the dock.
Mr. Cilimbe rg note d that they would not w a nt to ge t into the dock itse lf be c ause tha t is a pe rmitting proc ess by
the Rivanna A uthority. The a cc ess to the dock is good to a ddre ss but the a c tua l doc k c onstruc tion is something
tha t they work out be twe e n the applic ant and the A uthority. H e thought tha t w as why the Commission ha s ne ve r
ha d the full doc k pla n a s a condition of the ir a pproval.
Mr. H e rric k sugge ste d ra the r tha n a pproving the spe c ific de sign pe rha ps the c ondition c ould be a dde d to sa y, “For
the purpose s of this c ondition the existing ste ps shall not be c onside re d a struc ture .”
Mr. Cilimbe rg noted that staff wa nts to ma ke sure to ge t tha t right a nd tha t Mr. He rric k ha d a good a pproa ch the y
could ta ke if the Commission dec ide s to rec omme nd approva l.
Ms. Porterfield unde rstood w hat he wa s saying, but w as surprise d that the Commission w a s looking a t docks.
She gre w up on the shores of La ke Erie in the summe r time a nd it required a pprove d by the Corps of Enginee rs.
The re a re a w hole bunch of hoops to go through to e ve n ge t close to putting a doc k in. A doc k is like any othe r
struc ture the re a nd ha s to be approve d. She would ha te to approve docks and a llow them to be built in any wa y,
sha pe or form. She w ould like it to be base d a t lea st on w hat the a pplic a nt ha s sa id that he has ta ken this to the
other a uthoritie s and that the y like this design. They would be saying that the doc k should at le ast be similar to
the design.
Mr. Cilimbe rg pointed out that the Authority a ctually e xists a nd the y ha ve to pe rmit the spec ific de sign. It is being
pe rmitte d by a n e ntity tha t is e quiva lent to or ha s the sa me jurisdic tion a s the Corps, which is the Rivanna
A uthority.
Ms. Porte rfie ld a ske d tha t it be ba se d on this particular de sign.
Mr. Cilimbe rg noted that w a s the Authority’s dec ision.
Ms. Jose ph sa id that is not up to the Commission to make tha t dete rmination. It would be like the Commission
approving a building pe rmit for some thing a nd the Commission doe s not ha ve that authority.
Ms. Porte rfie ld said tha t it c ould a t le a st be siz e w ise or some thing like that. It just se e ms strange to not at le a st
ha ve something to ba se our a pproval on or our a pprova l w ould be ba se d on w ha t w a s submitte d by the applica nt
and a dding in w hat Mr. Morris has said a bout making sure tha t the ste ps bec ome c onforming.
Mr. Loac h note d tha t it would be tha t way be c ause the doc k is ac tua lly on the c ity prope rty and the Rivanna
A uthority ha s c ontrol.
Mr. Morris pointed out that from wha t he had hea rd the a pplica nt ha s a lrea dy be en to the Riva nna Authority a nd
the c ity a nd the de sign now ma tc hes the ir requireme nts.
Mr. Loa c h said tha t it is not to sa y to Mr. Werne r’s c omme nts a bout whe n the y hit tha t limit shouldn’t they study
w here the y are going. H e sugge ste d tha t this should be take n in the sa me c onside ra tion tha t the y ha ve looked a t
the past thre e . From w hat he ha s se e n it se ems tha t this is c ompliant.
Ms. Jose ph sa id tha t the y we re sort of de aling with the unknown. They know tha t maybe it is not such a good
thing to ha ve docks on the rese rvoir, but the y don’t know why and w ha t it is doing to the w ate r qua lity. The y
ha ve neve r ha d any study to her knowle dge . The re fore he r e xpec tations are whe n the y ge t to the Comp Pla n
re vie w that they w ill ha ve some informa tion from the Se rvic e Authority to find out w ha t sort of impac t the se
things ha ve on the rese rvoir. But right now she wa s thinking a bout a ll of the pla ce s she has lived that ha d wa te r
drinking re se rvoirs tha t people ac tua lly swim, boat a nd do a ll kinds of things. She fe els very comforta ble a t this
point since she the c ity a nd Riva nna a re going to take c a re of the de sign impa ct a nd will not a llow a nything tha t is
re ally inc re dibly intrusive.
Ms. Porte rfie ld suggeste d with Mr. We rne r’s c omments that they add a fourth c ondition tha t the applic ant will
ke e p the dock in good re pa ir and if not will remove such doc k. It at le a st puts the burde n on the applic ant.
Mr. Loa c h sa id it w as a jurisdic tiona l issue be c ause the doc k is in the city.
Mr. Cilimbe rg said tha t he did not know how tha t w ould w ork a nd c an’t spea k to it ve ry we ll. He thought tha t the
A uthority in ha ving a pe rmit is probably going to have some re quire me nts. He wished tha t the y had the pe rmit
he re to show the Commission. In future re views it would be good to have the permit for the Commission. The
A uthority has a pe rmit tha t the y a re giving these individual owne rs w hic h inc ludes not only wha t the pla n is the y
ha ve to construc t to but also how they are suppose to ma intain it.
Ms. Porte rfie ld a ske d if the 25 horiz onta l fe e t of the rese rvoir for the lighting is 25 horiz ontal fee t on the
re servoir’s prope rty or the a pplic a nt’s prope rty.
Mr. Cilimbe rg re plie d it is me asure d from the ele va tion of the normal pool at e le vation 382. So it is 25’
horiz onta l fee t from that point.
Ms. Porte rfie ld a ske d if this would give some a pplic ants the a bility to put lighting on prope rty tha t is not their
own.
Mr. Cla rk said tha t if the re servoir prope rty wa s de epe r tha n tha t betwe e n the resident’s property and the wa te r
line eleva tion it w ould proba bly incre a se tha t numbe r to make sure the lighting would ha ve to be ba c k on the
re sident’s prope rty. The permit only spec ifies a doc k a nd doe s not spec ify pe rmission for lighting.
Ms. Porterfield sugge sted cha nging tha t to indic ate tha t it nee ded to be on the applica nt’s prope rty if the 25’ did
not take it off onto the a pplic a nt’s property. Then it ha d to be 25’ plus w hate ve r it took to ge t onto the a pplica nt’s
property.
Mr. Clark said tha t he did not spe cifica lly mea sure that out pa rtia lly be c ause the re is no w a y to know on a ny
given da y if it is a t 382 or not. H e w ould tend to guess tha t there is no problem in this c ase sinc e he did not think
the re is 25’ be tw e en the wa ter line a nd the edge of the prope rty.
Ms. Porte rfie ld note d tha t in c ondition 2 she fe lt that sta ff mea nt “w ithin”, a nd Mr. Cla rk a gre ed.
Mr. Cilimbe rg pointe d out for the Commission’s informa tion that the re is a 14 point boa rd doc k use permit a nd
agre ement tha t the applica nt has with the Riva nna Wate r and Sewer Authority. It include s construc tion
re quirements and an a nnual inspec tion fe e to be paid to the A uthority. Staff trie s to a void re commending
duplica te conditions to the Commission which duplic ate or muddie s the jurisdiction that is a lre a dy in a nothe r
public e ntity’s c ontrol. For future referenc e staff will inc lude the pe rmit and a gre eme nt so tha t the Commission
w ill se e wha t it include s.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Fra nco sec onde d for a pproval of SP200800061, Slingluff D ock with the
thre e c onditions re c ommended by sta ff, a s amended, in c ondition #2 the w ord should be “e a rth disturba nce within
the 200’ stre am buffe r” a nd c ondition #3 a me nde d in a cc ordanc e w ith counse l’s w ording.
1. The re shall be no lighting within 25 horiz onta l fee t of the Re servoir, mea sure d from the ele va tion of
norma l pool, which is Elevation 382 (N orth A me ric an V ertic al D a tum of 1988).
2. The re sha ll be no remova l of ve ge tation or ea rth disturba nc e within the 200foot stre am buffe r a ssociate d
with the insta lla tion of the boa t dock. The stre a m buffe r is me a sured from the e dge of the floodplain,
whic h is Eleva tion 391.
3. The re sha ll be no other structure s, suc h a s de cking or stairs, c onstructe d in the 200foot stre am buffe r.
For the purposes of this c ondition the e xisting ste ps shall not be conside red a structure .
The motion pa sse d by a vote of 5:0.
Mr. Loa c h note d tha t SP200800061 Slingluff Doc k w ould go to the Board of Supe rvisors with a rec omme nda tion
for approva l on a da te to be de te rmined.
Return to ex ec summary