HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200600417 Staff Report Final Plat 2007-03-234L
y
�112C;I1`n'''
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SUB 06 -417 — Bundoran
Staff: David Pennock
Farms — Final Subdivision Plat (Easement
Documentation)
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
March 20, 2007 Work Session
N/A
Owners: Edge Valley Preservation
Applicant: Edge Valley Preservation
Acreage: 2,100 Acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not Applicable
TMP: Tax Map 86, Parcels 13,13A, 16C1,
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas; Property also
22, 22A, 23, 23A, 23B, 23C, 24C, 24D, 25, 26
has Special Use Permits for a private landing
and Tax Map 87, Parcels 1 B, 2, 3
strip and for the Albemarle County Fair
Location: Near North Garden on Plank Road
and Edge Valley Road
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Lots: 92 lots
DA— RA — Yes
(Previously Received Preliminary Approval
with conditions)
Proposal: The purpose of the work session is
Comp. Plan Designation: The
to discuss the language of the easement
Comprehensive Plan designates this property
documents that have been submitted, with
as Rural Areas in Rural Area 4.
specific focus on the long term conservation
aspects discussed during the preliminary
subdivision review.
Character of Property: Mixture of farm,
Use of Surrounding Properties: Mixture of
woodland and orchard with some residences.
farm, woodland and orchard with some
residences.
RECOMMENDATION:
This proposal is presented for Planning Commission discussion. No recommendation has
been formulated, pending the outcome of this session.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AGENDA TITLE:
David E. Pennock, AICP
March 20, 2007 Work Session
N/A
SUB 06 -417 — Bundoran Farms — Final Plat
APPLICANT: Edge Valley Preservation
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Edge Valley Preservation
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
This proposal is part of the final plat review for the proposed Bundoran Farms Subdivision. The
preliminary plat was previously approved to allow 92 lots served by private streets. The property
is Tax Map 86, Parcels 13, 13A, 16C1, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 23B, 23C, 24C, 24D, 25, 26 and Tax
Map 87, Parcels 113, 2, 3. It is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District near North Garden
on Plank Road and Edge Valley Road.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 3. Portions of the property are
in the Mountain Resource Area.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
At its meeting of August 8, 2006, the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary
Subdivision Plat for Bundoran Farms, with conditions. One of the conditions stipulated that "the
Commission reserve the right to review the final plat and conservation easements associated with
the development plan ".
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP 1987 -109, SP 1988 -90, SP 1992 -19, and SP 1996 -045 Albemarle County Fair - These
Special Use Permits are for the location of the Albemarle County Fair.
SP 421 On November 13, 1974 the Board of Supervisors approved a private landing strip with
conditions, for a landing strip on this parcel. The Board deleted Condition #4 on March 27,
1975.
DISCUSSION:
This project represents a relatively large development (2,100 acres or 3.6 square miles) in a
location that is both scenic and environmentally sensitive. In addition, many of the various
pieces that will comprise this project are currently employed as working farms. During the
review of the preliminary subdivision plat, there was much discussion (see Attachment C) about
the long -term vision of the developer and the intent to preserve as much of the property as
possible, both for continued agricultural production and to protect environmentally sensitive
areas. Ultimately, the applicant expressed a desire to allow for permanent preservation of as
much as 90% of the property in an unfragmented state. This would necessitate a series of cross -
access easements, deed restrictions, and an active Property Owners' Association. The Planning
Commission conditioned the ability to review these documents during final plat review.
The final plat for this project was submitted in December, 2006. At that time, the applicant's
representative, David Hamilton, also submitted a Draft Easement Document (Attachment B). In
addition, he provided an explanation for the format of the easement. In part, the explanation is:
"In our discussions with individual Commissioners, and at our August 8, 2006 meeting, we
were encouraged to apply an overlay easement, to be held by a third party, with the purpose of
restricting further development of the property, beyond the plat we propose. Our plan was to
have Audubon International, the non - profit group that runs environmental programs here, hold
the easement, as they would have primary responsibility for management of natural resources.
Our attorneys have suggested to us that a permanent and clean way to accomplish this goal
may be a pemanent deed restriction, not an easement. I have attached proposed language for
such a restriction to this email. It was thought that, in light of the Planning Commission's
concern over this issue, and due to the relative permanence of County government versus
other institutions, we could actually name the county Planning Commission, along with all the
homeowners, and perhaps Audubon International, as the parties who would have to sign off on
additional development beyond the platted development rights."
The draft easement document was reviewed by Current Development staff and by the Office of
the County Attorney. Several concerns were raised, mostly regarding the ability of the easement
to adequately function in perpetuity as a mechanism for the type of preservation discussed during
the preliminary plat review. Ultimately, it was decided that, due to the condition presented with
the approval of the preliminary plat, the Planning Commission would need to be a parry to the
review of the easement language.
In the following pages, passages have been highlighted to draw attention to what appear to be key
issues. Following the scheduling for the work session regarding this matter, staff also received
copies of the Property Owners' Association documents proposed for this development. This
document is quite lengthy, and was delivered separately to the Commission by e -mail and hard -
copy. The purpose of the work session is to discuss the language of the easement documents that
have been submitted, with specific focus on the long term conservation aspects discussed during
the preliminary subdivision review.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Preliminary Subdivision Approval Letter
B. Draft Easement Document
C. Planning Commission Minutes — 8/8/06
D. Property Owners' Association Documents (under separate cover)
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL LETTER AL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012
August 23, 2006
Eugene Ryang
McKee Carson
301 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SUB 2006 -193 Bundoran Farm — Preliminary Plat
Tax Map 86, Parcels 13, 13A, 16C1, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 2313, 23C, 24C, 24D, 25, 26; and
Tax Map 87, Parcels 1B, 2, 3
Dear Mr. Ryang:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 8, 2006, took the following actions
on the waiver requests for SUB - 2006 -193 Bundoran Farm.
Regarding, the he request for waivers of Section 14- 232(A) related to private street authorizations, the
Commission approved all thirteen waivers on the basis of recitation by counsel as then later supplemented
with the further condition that the Commission reserve the right to review the final plat and conservation
easements associated with the development plan set forth by the applicant.
Regarding, the request for waiver of Section 14 -404 to allow Lot D 12 to access Plank Road directly, the
Commission approved the waiver request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The use of Lot D 12 shall be limited to activities as permitted by Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18,
Section 10.2.1(3), 10.2.1(4), 10.2.1(5), 10.2.1(7), 10.2.1(12), 10.2.1(17), 10.2.1(20), as it exists on
July 21, 2006.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Virginia Department of Transportation to
install any required improvements.
3. Access to Lot D 12 shall be limited to existing entrances except as they may require modification as
recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Any entrance shall comply with the
design standards set forth in Albemarle County Code, Chapter 14, Section 410(F) and 410(G)
4. The subdivider shall demonstrate to the agent prior to approval of the final plat that the waiver does
not violate any covenants to be recorded for the subdivision.
Regarding, the request for waivers of Sections 18 -4.2.1 and 18 -4.2.3 related to critical slopes, the
Commission approved the twelve critical slopes waivers with the condition as to the waiver for building
SUB 2006 -193 Bundoran Farm
Page 2 of 4
August 23, 2006
site locations that there would be no disturbance of critical slopes for the construction of buildings or septic
fields in the construction.
Regarding, the request for waiver of Section 18- 4.2.2(a)(1) related to the modification of building sites,
ites,
the Commission approved the waiver request for modification on the two sites on SUB - 2006 -193,
Bundoran Farm.
The Department of Community Development hereby grants administrative approval to the above
referenced preliminary subdivision plat.
The preliminary plat is valid for five (5) years from the date it is approved pursuant to Section 14 -228 of
Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code, provided that the subdivider submits a final plat for all or a
portion of the property within one (1) year (August 24, 2007) of the approval as provided in section 14-
221, and thereafter diligently pursues approval of the final plat. After three (3) years (August 24, 2009)
following preliminary plat approval, the agent may, after ninety (90) days' written notice provided by
certified mail to the subdivider, revoke the approval upon a specific finding of facts that the subdivider
failed to diligently pursue approval of the final plat. The failure to officially submit a final plat as provided
in section 14 -221 within the one (1) year period shall render the approval of the preliminary plat null and a
new application must be filed and processed.
Please address all of the requirements and conditions listed below and submit eight (8) tentative plat copies
to the Department of Community Development. This letter must be submitted with the tentative plats, as a
checklist, to document that you have addressed all requirements or conditions, or the tentative plat will be
denied.
Erosion and Sediment Control, BMP Stormwater Management, and road plans with the associated
applications and fees must also be submitted with the eight (8) tentative Plats.
Once the tentative plan is submitted and reviewed you will receive comments from all
departments /divisions /agencies that have made comment on the tentative plan. Any further
responses must be made directly to each department /division /agency that has further comment.
After all aforementioned departments /divisions /agencies have granted a tentative approval, you
must verify with the Planner that you may submit the final plat mylar or other media original the
final plat application, any remaining fees to the Department of Community Development.
Assuming that the final plat reflects all tentative approvals, signing of the plat will occur within four
days.
The final plat will be subject to all final plat requirements (Subdivision Ordinance Section 14.206), in
addition to the following conditions.
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final plat for signature until
tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final plat shall not be signed until
the following conditions are met:
Zoning & Current Development approval to include:
❑ [Chapter 3, Section 202] Remove all lots of less than 21 acres located in the Hardware
Agricultural Forestal District
❑ The final plat will be subject to the subdivision requirements required by Section 14 -206
SUB 2006 -193 Bundoran Farm
Page 3 of 4
August 23, 2006
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Engineering approval to include:
❑ All items in Design Manual 903B (Final Plat) must be addressed.
❑ Design of all private streets.
❑ Building or bonding of all street and drainage improvements.
❑ Design of all Stormwater Management Facilities
❑ Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for all required improvements.
Please contact ENGINEER at 296 -5832 if you have questions or require additional information.
Health Department approval to include:
❑ Approval of a primary and reserve drainfield on each lot.
Please contact Jack McClelland at 972 -6259 if you have questions or require additional information.
Fire & Rescue approval to include:
❑ Approval of street design to insure adequacy of access.
Please contact James Barber at 296 -5833 if you have questions or require additional information.
VDOT approval to include:
❑ Approval of all entrances onto public streets.
Please contact Charles Proctor at 293 -0014 if you have questions or require additional information.
ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT /DIVISION /AGENCY approval to include:
❑ Planning Commission approval of final subdivision plat to include approval of
conservation easements.
Please contact Bill Fritz at 296 -5832 ext. 3242 if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Current Development
SUB 2006 -193 Bundoran Farm
Page 4 of 4
August 23, 2006
Zoning and Current Development Division
WDF /acr
Cc: Edge Valley Preservation (David Hamilton)
5473 Plank Road, North Garden, VA 22959
Forest, Todd M & Christy L Forest Trs of Todd M Forest Rev Tr; Etal
4411 N 19th Street, Arlington, VA 22207
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
DRAFT EASEMENT DOCUMENT
Prepared by /upon recording, return to:
Edge Valley Preservation, LLC
P. O. Box 889
Hot Springs, VA 24445 -0000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DRAFT DATE: 11/20/06
DECLARATION OF PRESERVATION COVENANT AND EASEMENT
THIS DECLARATION OF PRESERVATION COVENANT AND EASEMENT
( "Declaration ") is made this by Edge Valley Preservation, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its
successors and assigns ( "Declarant ").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner of that certain property more particularly described on
Exhibit "A" (the "Property "), which is presently being used for agricultural purposes and contains open
space, pastures, forests and other natural areas of significant scenic and aesthetic value to the Declarant
and the people of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Declarant desires to preserve the rural, agricultural character and scenic value
of the land while permitting environmentally sensitive land use and stewardship of farm lands, forest,
and other natural resources; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County ") has planning, zoning, and land use
regulations which would permit development of up to 163 dwelling units within the Property under
current zoning applicable to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Declarant desires to impose a restrictive covenant on the Property limiting the
future subdivision and development of the Property to fewer lots and dwelling units than would be
permitted by current zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Declarant desires to grant to Albemarle County a right and easement to
enforce this Declaration in perpetuity;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby declares that the Property described in Exhibit "A"
shall hereafter be held, sold, used, transferred and conveyed subject to this Declaration, which shall be
1
DRAFT DATE: 11/20/06
binding upon and enforceable by the Declarant, Albemarle County, and the future owners of any
portion of the Property, their respective heirs, successors, successors -in- title, and assigns, and any other
person or entity that now or hereafter holds any legal, equitable, or beneficial interest in any portion of
such property.
1. Limitation on Development. The Property shall not be subdivided into more than
110 lots nor improved with more than 110 dwelling units without the prior written consent of the
record owner(s) of every portion of the Property and the County's written consent. This limitation is
not intended to preclude the construction of accessory structures on any lots within the Property or
use of portions of the Property for purposes other than dwelling units, provided such use is consistent
with applicable zoning on the Property as such zoning exists on the date of this Declaration and
consistent with the development plan approved by the County, as it may be amended, and the
development rights reserved by the Declarant therein.
2. Prohibition on Use or Transfer of Development RiLyhts. To the extent that Declarant
owns or is entitled to development rights in excess of those permitted under Paragraph 1 by reason of
the fact that the zoning now or hereafter applicable to the Property would permit the Property to be
developed to a higher density than permitted under Paragraph 1 of this Declaration, such development
rights shall not be exercisable on, above, or below the Property, nor shall they be transferred without
the County's prior written consent to any adjacent parcel and exercised in a manner that would
interfere with the preservation purposes of this Declaration.
3. Right and Easement to Inspect; Enforcement. Declarant hereby creates, reserves for
itself, and grants to the County, a perpetual right and easement, without obligation, for their respective
authorized employees and agents to enter upon the Property at reasonable times and upon reasonable
notice to the owner to inspect for compliance with the limitation set forth in Paragraph 1; provided,
such easement shall not permit entry into any structure on the Property without the consent of the
owner thereof. In the event that the County determines that a violation of this Declaration exists, it
may pursue any and all remedies available at law or in equity to enforce this Declaration, including
seeking to enjoin the violation, to require corrective action, and to recover damages for loss of scenic,
aesthetic, or environmental values. Any costs which the County reasonably incurs in taking
enforcement action under this Declaration shall, upon the County's written demand, promptly be
reimbursed by the owner of the Property or that portion thereof which is determined to be in
violation, and shall constitute a lien against the Property or that portion thereof which is determined
to be in violation until paid. Enforcement action shall be at the County's discretion and any delay or
forbearance by the County in exercising its rights hereunder in the event of a breach shall not
constitute a waiver by the County of the right thereafter to take action with respect to the same or any
subsequent breach. Nothing herein shall be construed to grant any right of access over the Property to
the general public.
4. Duration. This Declaration, as it may be amended, is intended to have perpetual
duration. If Virginia law now or hereafter limits the period during which covenants may run with the
land, then this Declaration shall be effective for an initial term of 21 years from the date it is recorded
and thereafter shall be renewed and extended automatically for successive 10 -year periods unless the
2
DRAFT DATE: 11/20/06
record owner(s) of 100% of the Property and the County agree in writing to terminate this Declaration
and that agreement is recorded within the year before any renewal. In such case, this Declaration shall
terminate on the date specified in such recorded agreement.
5. Severability. If any court having jurisdiction should determine that any provision of
this Declaration is invalid, or invalid as applied in a particular instance, such determination shall not
affect the validity of other provisions or applications of such provision.
6. Amendment. This Declaration may be amended only by an instrument executed by
the record owner(s) of 100% of the Property and by the County, which amendment shall be effective
only upon recording in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, or
such other place as may hereafter be designated as the official location for filing documents affecting
title to real estate in Albemarle County in order to make them a matter of public record.
In witness of the foregoing, the Declarant has executed this Declaration this ____ day of
---------------- ,20 - - - --
DECLARANT: EDGE VALLEY PRESERVATION, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
BY:
QROE -CA BUNDORAN, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, its manager
Name:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF BATH
M.
Its: General Manager
I ------------------- a notary public for ___ County, in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
do certify that ________________, General Manager of QROE -CA BUNDORAN, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, sole Manager of EDGE VALLEY PRESERVATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is signed to the writing above bearing date on the ___ day of _______________200__, has
acknowledged the same before me in my county aforesaid.
Given under my hand this ____ day of --------- 20 —
550602 /cadocs /112006 /jps
3
Notary Public
My commission expires:
DRAFT DATE: 11/20/06
EXHIBIT "A"
LeL,al Description of Property
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - 8 -8 -06
SUB - 2006 -193 Bundoran Farm: Request for approval of a preliminary plat to allow the
creation of 94 lots. The property, described as Tax Map 86, Parcels 13,13A, 16C1, 22, 22A,
23, 23A, 23B, 23C, 24C, 24D, 25, 26 and Tax Map 87, Parcels 1 B, 2, 3 contains
approximately 2,301 acres zoned RA, (Rural Areas). The proposed development is located
west of Route 29 and is located on the northeast and southwest side of Plank Road (Route
692) and the north and south side of Edge Valley Road (Route 696). This site is located in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural
Areas in Rural Area 3. (Bill Fritz)
Bill Fritz distributed petitions staff received after preparation of the staff report. All of the
petitions are in support of the waivers and the project as a total project. (Attachment A —
Letter dated August 4, 2006 addressed to Sally H. Thomas from Robert B., Jr. and Rebecca
M. Rogers in support of the request.) (Attachment B — Letter dated July 27, 2006 to
Albemarle County Planning Commission and Sally Thomas from C. Clayton Hurt, Jr. in
support of the request.) (Attachment C — Letter and Petition of Support from over fifty (50)
abutting landowners and neighbors dated August 2, 2006 to William D. Fritz.) He
summarized the staff report.
• It is a large project covering about 3.6 square miles located west of Route 29 on
both sides of Plank Road and Edge Valley Road. This request is before the
Commission solely due to waivers and modifications. There has been no appeal of
the plat and the Commission is not being requested to act on the plat. There are
many waivers and modifications being presented to the Commission for
consideration. Action does not need to be taken on each of the items individually. The
Commission may act in one motion. At the end of the hearing staff will provide the
Commission with guidance on how to frame a motion.
• Staff pointed out that the eastern portion of this project includes properties that are
in the Hardware Agricultural /Forestal District. Parcel J1 is also in the
agricultural /forestall district and is being shown on this plat simply as information and
is not being proposed for any division. It is an existing parcel and is simply shown for
information and numbered as such.
• The applicant is proposing some lots that are less than 21 acres, which is not
permitted in the agricultural /forestal district. Staff already informed the applicant and
they have actually started work on preparing a plat that would correct it. The applicant
will just need to remove any lots that are less than 21 acres.
• The request is for the use of private roads instead of public streets. A detailed
analysis of each road is included in the staff report. Staff would be happy to answer
any questions about a particular street. The applicant has requested a modification
for the design standards in addition to requesting private streets. Generally, staff can
support the use of Mountainous Terrain Standards as opposed to Rolling Terrain
Standards. However, for this project the applicant is requesting roads built to
standards below the Mountainous Terrain Standards primarily to reduce the road
width and shoulder width. Staff is not recommending approval of private streets. If the
Planning Commission does authorize private streets, staff is not recommending a
reduction in the design standards. The applicant's justification for the use of private
roads at a standard lesser than permitted is that this will reduce impacts caused by
road construction. This is an argument that can be made for virtually all rural area
development.
• County staff did and continues to recommend that multiple rural preservation
developments be pursued for this development. This would, in staff's opinion, allow
for the construction of public or private roads meeting the standards and still have
less impact than the street currently proposed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -AUGUST 8, 2006
1
• He noted that Carpenter Drive in Long Hollow will serve lots that are in the
agricultural /forestall district. Therefore, those two roads are in the agricultural /forestall
district.
• In regards to access, there is one lot that is being requested to have access directly
to Plank Road. The ordinance requires that all lots access internal roads. Lot D12 is
requesting access directly to Plank Road. Staff is recommending approval of that
modification subject to conditions. A detailed analysis of that is included in the staff
report.
• A critical slopes modification has also been requested. This is to allow both
disturbance of critical slopes for streets and building sites. A detailed analysis of the
request for disturbance of critical slopes for streets and building sites is included in
the staff report. Staff would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may
have about a particular street or building site.
• Street construction on critical slopes is permitted without a modification if it is
determined that no reasonable alternative exists. With a project of this scale
alternative layouts exist and no exemption has been granted.
• One critical slope waiver for Gooding Road is recommended for approval. All of the
waivers for street construction are not recommended for approval.
• A modification to allow building sites on critical sites has been requested. In every
case except one there are alternative locations meeting the requirements of the
ordinance for a building site. Therefore, staff is recommending denial. In the case of
lot H1 no alternative location exists meeting the ordinance requirements. Further if
this modification is granted it would allow for the creation of a lot that is not consistent
with the kernel rule. Staff would be happy to go into that more if the Commission
would like. But, there is content in the staff report about that also.
• The applicant has also requested a modification of building sites. On two lots the
applicant is proposing a building site shape that does not meet the ordinance
requirements. The area is adequate. It is only the shape that is in question and the
30,000 square feet is not in a rectangle 5 to 1 ratio. In both cases alternative lot
configuration would allow for building sites meeting all of the requirements of the
ordinance. Therefore, staff is not supporting the request.
• That is a summary of the actions the Commission needs to take. The staff report is
broken out so that each individual one is addressed. Staff provided a page reference.
If there are any questions, staff would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any questions for Mr. Fritz.
Mr. Cannon said that this is an interesting and carefully thought through proposal and
basically the response from staff's review is that the things that it needs it should not have.
So they have a list of things that it needs in its current form that it should not have. There is
some pretty strong opposition here. He was interested in trying to figure out how to get
through it. Operating underneath the response that staff summarized it seems to be an
alternative vision for this site. He wanted to make sure that he understands it and what it
would look like. That is the multiple RPD option. What would that look like and how in the
review would it accomplish the same or similar purposes as the proposal that has been put
forward by the applicant?
Mr. Fritz asked to first echo something that Mr. Cannon said. The applicant has clearly put a
lot of thought into this. Staff is not criticizing the applicant's efforts at all. It is simply an
analysis of whether or not it applies to our ordinance provisions, which he asked to make
clear. What staff is recommending is a use of multiple rural preservation developments.
What that would in essence do, in staff's opinion, would still be consistent with the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
2
applicant's desire to preserve large tracts of either wooded or farm land and allow them, in
essence, to cluster their development activities thereby reducing road lengths. For example,
they would not have to go to the top of the mountains. Staff believes the applicant would be
able to cluster these in areas which would have reduced visual impacts from adjacent
properties and from public areas and the roads. It would be a different layout than what the
Commission currently has. It would be clustering a lot of the development into particular
areas or into multiple clusters. When looking at the property it appears to staff that there are
areas that would provide those opportunities. There are wooded areas with gentle hills and
areas that are already developed with some level of activity that could be used. It would be a
different layout than what the applicant is currently proposing where they are utilizing a
significant portion of the property and disbursing the residential development throughout that
property as opposed to clustering every single place. The benefit is a much reduced road
length. They were disturbing somewhere in the neighborhood of 28 acres just for the road
construction. They have had developments in the urban areas that serve more lots than this
and don't have as much infrastructure development. Those 28 acres is not taking into
account any disturbance for roads, driveways and houses and the like. It is simply the
infrastructure of the road.
Mr. Cannon said that is interesting. His question would be that road length is one
consideration, but there are other considerations that purport to be driving this proposal like
preservation of view sheds across open agricultural land that now exists and the
preservation of agricultural land itself in large contiguous parcels that would maximum its
continued use for agricultural purposes. Does the RPD idea accommodate those purposes
to the same or greater or lesser degree?
Mr. Fritz said those are actually design guidelines for a rural preservation development. It
talks about view sheds and preservation of agricultural and forestall activities. So in staff's
opinion, yes, it is consistent with what their goals are.
Mr. Cannon said that is an abstract level. He would take it that nobody has sat down and
designed the alternative RPD.
Mr. Fritz noted that they would have to sit and look at it and start to think of some of the
ways. Some more work would have to be done to determine the real view sheds of any
particular area. There would be a lot more work that is necessary, but, in staff's opinion, it is
something that could be done.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and asked
the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Robert Baldwin, Jr., President of Qroe Companies, who is the developer of this proposed
project, said that he succeeds his father in this position. He certainly wished his father was
here to make this presentation, but he was extremely excited about his project and honored
to be here. Over the last several months he has spent a lot of time in the area. He walked
the land extensively, met with a great number of the neighbors and met with a few
Commission members. Now he could see the vision and the potential that he thought that
his father saw in this piece of property. He did not look to rebut other visions, but would try to
explain how they arrived at their vision and how they believe that it satisfies a great number
of the goals they have for the rural areas. He asked to start with the goals and methodology
that they use when they do their planning. They believe that they arrived at the best plan for
the land and not just the cheapest, easiest or most convenience. He presented a power
point presentation of the proposal. First they looked at the existing land use. Next they take a
look at the road systems for the public road systems, farm road systems and even
secondary farm tracks. They believe that these road systems were there for a reason and
contribute to the contours of the land. Next, they looked at the view shed from the public
road. They look to maintain that view shed. They looked at some of the critical natural
habitat and natural resources. This would be the water ways and wetlands. It is extremely
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
3
important to their concept, which has as its foundation in the preservation of farm land and
operating farm is the operating and productive farm land. Shown on the plan in yellow is the
current cattle grazing land and in the orange current productive orchards. Then they move
up into the forestry and natural wildlife habitat and make a real point to identify contiguous
unfragmented pieces of wildlife habitat that they work to preserve. They laid these on top of
each other. As shown, it leave them with most of the land that ought to be and will be
preserved under their planning. The reverse of this, of course, is what they consider to be
the most suitable land areas for development. Those areas generally fall within the seams of
the land in between the natural habitat and forestry and the productive farm land outside of
the view shed. That is what they are looking to do. To take it one step further they walked
the land again. He pointed out that they had done a lot of walking on the land. His father
spent days on this land. Each one of the potential sites has been gone out to, staked out
and looked at on the ground to make sure it is suitable, outside the view shed and in fact can
be developed. At the end of the day, they end up with the proposed master plan. So that is
their process. What they try to do is preserve as much of the key assets of the property as
possible. The major results that they have come up with about this plan include:
• Land preservation - 2,100 out of 2,300 acres were permanently preserved in our
plan. Excluding the building envelopes everything else is permanently preserved.
Therefore, 90 percent of the land is permanently preserved, which they think is the
most precious land. That includes the natural habitat, the water resources and
productive farm land. Based on current plan
• This property is protected by virtue of cross easements with all of the other home
owners. It would take 100 percent of all of the home owners to agree on any change
to that land use. Appears to be accomplished with this document
• Farm preservation — They went to great length to put the road systems out and
around all of the productive pasture land and orchards and out of the view shed
where ever possible. This is to preserve the rural character and the view shed. But,
equally important is not to fragment the productive farm land. Whereas, today they
have cattle, but do not know what the right agricultural use is going to be 50 years
from now. Once it is fragmented it cannot be unfragmented. This document
references a desire to protect agricultural use; doesn't appear to specifically limit the
use in the restrictions, but ties it to zoning and applicable law
• Regarding the farm land, they create a system of economic support that comes
from the home owners. It is a complicated system, but it ties the two uses together.
As a homeowner on this property they not only accept the farm operations next door,
but they are there to support it in off years.
• Regarding natural resources, the land, of course, preserves all of the eco- systems.
They are going one step further on this. They have partnered on a long term basis
with Audubon International and have on staff two Natural Resources professionals.
Those professionals will make sure that notjust their development and land planning
is done in such a way that it enhances the natural habitat, but also all of the
development of all of the home sites, the materials chosen and the siting of the
buildings. It will be done in such a way not to hinder or hurt the natural habitat, but
enhances it to the greatest extent possible.
• Rural character is very important. They believe that the view sheds that they are
maintaining is a critical piece. They are maintaining the rural character, the wild life
character and the operating farm in perpetuity. Of course, they are very happy to
host now and into the foreseeable future the County Fair and other such cultural
operations.
• All of these results come together with one other important result in which it is an
acceptable economic return so that it makes sense. Their plan is very carefully
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
4
balanced so that they believe that they have just the right number and right quality of
home sites.
• Regarding the waivers, they are not asking for density waivers. They are proposing
development rights on this property that equal about two - thirds of the by right
development. What they need is to essentially preserve the farm land and the rural
character and avoid these pasture lands. These are the road waivers and critical
slope waivers. They have worked with County staff and make no argument that there
are many other alternative routes for our roads and home sites, but they respectfully
suggest that if they took advantage of all of these it would in fact degrade the rural
character and the farm land more than their plan. They have made a couple of
changes already. They are totally open to taking a look at specific issues where they
did not see an alternative route that worked. They will continue to do that on specific
case by case basis.
• There are seven home sites that impact critical slopes. They will restrict all home
owners from disturbing the critical slopes. On these lots the home site would be
outside of the critical slope. They will be happy to enforce that no septic systems will
be located in areas of critical slopes. This is not necessarily enforced by this
document
• Regarding the road system, their philosophy is that roads should be unobtrusive
but serviceable access to also unobtrusive home site. They are not looking for
waivers of critical slopes for private roadways in order to gain extra access or for
economic gain. They believe that they can access virtually all of the home sites
under a public road system. They will be engineering their private road system to
practically public road standards. They will engineer it so that it is there forever. Itjust
won't look exactly the same. There will be some issues around the mountainous
terrain versus the rolling terrain. That is very helpful to keep us out of the middle of
the pasture.
• They could move the road system byjust dropping them down in the pasture, but
they don't think that is the proper use of pasture land to the view shed. They realize
the importance of the regulations regarding the private roads and the critical slopes
and that this is not a decision to take lightly at all. They respectfully submit that they
have unique property and a unique planning approach that sets the bar extremely
high for any other developer and warrants special consideration. What he means by
that is if they are approved these waivers will allow for the reduction of overall density
and not an increase. It will provide for preservation of not just farm land, but an
operation farm. It will serve in perpetuity 90 percent of the land. It will preserve
rather than obstruct the view shed. The goals and results of this would be assured
through a system of cross easements, harboring with Audubon International to make
sure the natural resources are taken care of and a well managed, well funded
homeowner's association structure that has been well proven and tested over time.
• In conclusion, he felt that they have a very unique plan that he believes aligns well
with many of the County's goals for the rural areas. They respectfully submit that if
they give them a chance and waive some of the technical requirements that they
would like to move forward and realize the vision and proof that it is a very
worthwhile mechanism.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Mr. Strucko asked what legal mechanisms they were considering to permanently preserve
the 2,100 acres.
Mr. Baldwin replied that they use a system of cross easements from one home owner to the
other enforceable by all the other home owners. It comes with the deed upon purchase of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
5
the property. It is enforceable with the home owner's association. The idea is that all of the
land that is not a development site, the 90 percent, is accessible by everybody else in the
community and as well as development restrictions. If anyone ever wants to change that
they don'tjust go to one organization and convince them to rewrite the easement. They need
to convince 100 percent of their neighbors that it makes sense. They believe that this has
buy in from the entire community about the importance of the preservation and frankly locks
it in. One could realize how difficult it would be to change it.
Mr. Strucko said that these would not be easements held by an external entity. These are 92
home owners that would require a unanimous acclamation to change the arrangement. He
was concerned with the word perpetuity if they could get 92 people to agree upon
something.
Mr. Baldwin said that he could not argue with that statement. He mentioned that this is a
system that has worked well for them in the past. They have in the past overlaid that system
with an external entity and they would be happy to talk about that as well.
Mr. Cannon asked if they grant some or all of the waivers would he be agreeable to a
condition that required you to implement in order to take the benefit of that waiver the
easement program and protections that he had outlined. This does not appear to have the
same effect as a "conservation easement"
Mr. Baldwin replied absolutely. He would not have any problem whatsoever.
Mr. Morris said that he was very impressed with his philosophy. One thing that has bothered
him is the consistent width of the roads and whether it is public or private. His primary
concern is emergency vehicles getting access in inclement weather for the 93 or 94
occupants.
Mr. Baldwin said that first and foremost they are equally concerned about the life and safety.
Life and safety is something that they don't negotiate in our business. They would not look to
build anything that is not easily accessible for all of the life safety systems. He knew that they
had had some conversations with some of the first responders out in North Garden. In
addition they look to engineer a road bed that is 16' paved section with engineering
shoulders. That brings it down to the rural character like Edge Valley Road a little bit. But,
they are going to engineer the shoulders so that they are there to support any emergency
vehicle or for passing. They will go through the same exercise with the grade differentials as
well to make certain in life safety that emergency vehicles can make it.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Robert B. Rogers, Jr., an abutting property owner, said that his family has been in Albemarle
County in this red soil since before it was Albemarle County. He has people buried out in this
area. He has looked at these view sheds and hunted on them, fished on them and swam on
them with his father, my children and looked at them as a boy and never wanted to see them
changed. He was a life member of the Nature Conservancy. He believed in conservation
very deeply. He believed in conservation easements. His family actually owned a significant
part of Bundoran Farm at one time many years ago. As a young boy when he looked out at
the beautiful Ragged Mountains of North Garden he said the he hoped that he would never
see it change. But, he knew as a realist that things change. Growth has found southern
Albemarle County and North Garden. When he heard about this development coming he
was naturally skeptical. H. L. Meniky said that you don't get a second chance to make a
good first impression. Well he will tell the Commission that Robert Baldwin, Sr. and David
Engels Brown bless their souls gave him a very good first impression. He was an engineer,
not a civil engineer, but he was skeptical of anything and checked everything as many ways
to Sunday as you can and found that these people had done their homework. They had
provided a spectacular approach or an alternative to what they are now fighting about in this
County on how best to manage growth. It was not invented here, but a lot of things are not
invented here. A lot of Mr. Jefferson's thoughts were not picked up in Albemarle, but were
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
6
picked up in other countries. As an engineer he felt that they could engineer study things to
death with computers. The question is not whether what your requirements or your
objectives are, but is the functionality in the form of the road fitting to the requirement and
they flow together in a system with what they are trying to develop and preserve. How often
have they looked at highway engineers and transmission engineers and said why these
people ever did this and run these roads through our scenic developments and across our
historic grounds. He looked at this and would say grant these waivers. All of the abutting
neighbors and property owners have come forward. This is really a down zoning. They are
using a less road standard. There will be fewer homes here. Theywere touched bytwo great
men being Jefferson and Major Claudius Crozet. They did spectacular achievements. They
brought Albemarle County here in his mind. He wondered today what they would look at
here. It is a chance to protect almost 4 square miles of pristine rural area with strict
agricultural controls, architectural controls, and environmental controls and make it pretty
much like it is today and have a marketable scheme at 57 percent at what they could by right
develop. It is a viable alternative to clustering and a beautiful one.
Russ Bodie, Senior Scientist with Audubon International spoke in favor of the request.
Audubon International is a non - profit environmental organization. They work with people
to achieve sustainable development. They do this through their program, which is in all
fifty states in the country and 27 countries in the world. They certify properties that
achieve their environmental goals and objectives. Their staff includes trained scientists,
like me in fields such as aquatic toxicology, wild life biology, and fresh water ecology,
who are all active in their fields. Therefore, they apply the logical principles to the
properties that they work with. They do feel very good about the plan that has been done
for Bundoran Farm. They feel like it is the best plan environmentally for this piece of
property. What is important here is that they apply the ecological theory to design,
construction and management of the properties and especially in the long term education
of the residents and visitors of the property. They have worked with the Qroe team since
the beginning of the property for approximately a year on coming up with this design.
They worked with their complete team. During their last decade of working with projects
to create sustainable development this will be our first project that integrates a working
farm, a working orchard and residential community. Therefore, they are very excited to
be involved in this. They feel that it is certainly achievable. What sets their goal signature
program apart is the long term commitment to sustainability. As Mr. Baldwin mentioned,
they have an on site presence in the form of a natural resource manager and a
sustainability development coordinator that will be part of the property during design,
construction and management. They require annual recertification of all of our projects.
Obviously, they don't recertify properties if they are not following our environmental goals
and objectives. So their natural resource manager is there to help make sure that the
framework of the sustainable development is being followed throughout the property,
even after the developer goes away. They really want the fabric of sustainable
development to be with the community and not just with the developer. They feel that is
very important. To that end they also encourage environmental education in having the
residents really embrace the concept and be involved in the community. He appreciated
the Commission's time. They are very excited to be here in Albemarle County.
Pat Lloyd said that she lived on Tom Mountain, which abuts this property. They have lived
there for about 20 years. She is a city girl, but thinks that now she is a country girl at heart.
The growth that she has seen during the 20 years that they have been in this area has made
her heart sick. In looking at the plan and seeing what ideals these people are hoping to have
happen she hoped that the Commission would consider very seriously the waivers that they
are asking for because they speak very much to preserving the environment and the beauty
of the little bit of heaven they now have at Edge Valley.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
7
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before
the Commission.
Mr. Craddock said that a few months ago he sat on the Mountaintop Committee with Fred
Scott. Then it was announced that Mr. Scott was going to sell the property. At that time he
wondered what would happen to the land. Then Mr. Strucko and he were invited out to a
presentation at the cottage by the pond for the initial meeting regarding the plans for this
property. He went out with dubious thoughts in mind about how they were going to develop
the property. Then when it came in that it was going to be roughly two - thirds of what they
could do by right he thought that t his was looking good. He has been on the Commission for
6 or 7 years and he did not know of any projects that they have come before us for
developing a property where they have had everybody come out in support of it instead of
being in opposition. It is a different design and there is nothing like in Albemarle County. As
they seen from the meetings last week he felt that everybody has the same basic goal, but
just had a different way to get there as far as trying to minimize development, preserve the
rural area and keep Albemarle County as an ideal place to live. His folks go back to the early
times of the Rivanna Channel Company and so he has seen a lot of changes here. He
thinks that with the whole philosophy of this presentation that he would like to work to make
these waivers reality. One of the questions that he had at the last meeting with the
applicants was about the fire safety and EMS. He thought that they have done their
homework as far as getting the folks from North Garden to check these out and make sure
that the apparatus can negotiate the terrains and things like that. So he has no problem
working to try to make these waivers and requests a reality.
Mr. Cannon said that he shares a lot of Mr. Craddock's thoughts on this. It seems that this is
not fitting the mole, which is partly why people are struggling with it. It is not our image of
cluster development. It is not our image of the rural preservation alternative as they have
developed it. But, there is an intuitive appeal about the way these folks have gone about this
and about their rationale for the decisions that they have made and are proposing that they
adopt. He looked at the critical slopes and say that there might be ways to avoid some of
that, but he heard at the same time that in fact at least as the building sites it is not the intent
of the developers to disturb the critical slopes. So there may be some conditions or further
guarantees that they could have in that regard that would minimize the apparent conflict
there and still preserve the benefits as he understands them of placing these home sites
where they are minimally disruptive of the three major environmental concerns that are
guiding the development plan. There are more roads than there would be in a clustered
development, but the roads allow houses to be dispersed and moved back, which he felt on
this landscape, had some obvious benefits. That is confirmed by the support that the plan
has from folks that live on adjacent lands. So he would like to find a way to make this work in
a way that does not sacrifice significantly the values that are reflected in our regulations, but
gives us a different way to go at securing those values. Mr. Strucko brought up a good point
on the conservation easement. It seems that the developer is willing to consider an
additional level of commitment there, which he felt would be great. But, otherwise he was
finding it very appealing and would like to work through to allow it to happen appropriately.
Mr. Strucko said when he heard that Mr. Scott sold the farm he was concerned when he
found out there were 160 odd development rights on the various parcels combined. A lot of
Albemarle County's standards when it comes to the rural areas are fairly strict. He knew that
the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission has held public road standards in the
rural areas because they were concerned that exceptions to those rules would grant access
to terrain and to agricultural and rural lands and they wanted to make sure that our
standards are implemented. The public road standards are one way of doing that. He went
down to the cabin by the lake at the end of the air field with a bias in his thinking that he
could not look at this any other way than this is rural area development. Even at 92 units, it is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
8
92 units in Albemarle County's rural area and a choice section of our rural area on top of
that. But, he had to admit that he was very disarmed by the presentation and by the care that
Qroe and affiliate staff put into assessing the land and familiarizing themselves with it
looking for ways to exercise these development rights in a method that maintains the
agricultural and forestry character of the land, open space and minimizes the visual impacts.
This is unprecedented in our community. Therefore, they have to step back to give this
concept a fair thinking. He went down a second time last week to discuss these issues with
developers and came back again inclined favorably to this. The reason that he was inclined
favorably to it is that this is a unique property with a unique planning approach and an
exception to the rule because of the uniqueness, the extent and the care, and the
innovations that involve the cross easements with home owners. He would like to something
a little bit more extensive to secure those 2,100 acres in perpetuity. However, there is a way
that this project is developing and preserving. Certainly like Mr. Rogers stated Albemarle
County does not have a monopoly on all of the great and innovated ideas. This is something
that no one has considered for the last ten years when they were looking at the
Neighborhood Model and new ways to develop our designated growth areas and methods
for preserving rural land. They are wrestling with those issues now. Then along comes this
style of development. So it is very unique. It has a lot of conditions. The residents must
embrace and agree to the concepts. Because of that uniqueness he too am willing to
consider these waivers and try to work something out. Now he did not know what kind of
motion or how complex this thing has got to be and what are all the sentiments they want to
embody in it. He felt that was the next thing that the Commission needs to work out.
Mr. Morris said that is the tough one. He echoed his sentiments also. He went out and met
with the applicant's father, Mr. Brown, and actually toured the property. He thought that it
was absolutely unique that most of the roads were not designed or laid out by engineers, but
by cattle who generally know the right way to go. It is a unique proposition and he would love
to see it work, but he did not know how because there are certain items that staff has clearly
pointed out that need to be addressed. He felt that they had a consensus that the
Commission was in favor of the request if it can be worked.
Mr. Fritz recommended that since they don't know what the nature of the conservation
easement language is the Commission could reserve the final plat review and the language
of the conservation easement to themselves as a condition of the waivers. Staff would
simply bring the final plat along with the conservation easement documents back to the
Commission for their review and approval to ensure that it accomplishes the things that they
are after.
Mr. Morris asked if that was possible.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the Commission has the right to call the final plat back and the
right to review the documents regarding the duly recorded cross easements. He felt that
could be a condition of the waivers to address their concerns.
Mr. Fritz noted that staff's only concern is that the Commission does not have the plat before
them, but only the waivers. He felt that they could do that as a condition of the waivers.
Mr. Kamptner replied that was correct because the Commission had a pretty wide discretion
to impose condition that addresses their concerns.
Mr. Morris asked if anyone could put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Fritz questioned whether the Commission wanted to do them all together or break them
apart. He noted that there are multiple waivers and modifications. Among the waivers that
they have is not only the private streets and critical slopes for both streets and building sites,
but they also have building shapes that they also addressed. The other one is access to lot
D12, which staff was recommending approval on with conditions.
Mr. Morris asked if the Commission should make a separate motion on that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
9
Mr. Kamptner said that the Commission could based upon the information that they have
received conclude that those would satisfy the requirement that the private road standard will
alleviate significant degradation to the environment under Albemarle County Code section
14.2.32.a.1 and that they are able to make all of the findings under Albemarle County Code
section 14.2.34.c.1 — 5. Those are that the private streets that would be adequate to carry
the traffic volume, which may be reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision.
The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for a public street in the approximate location of
the proposed private streets. The fee for the private streets would be owned by the owner of
each lot abutting the right -of -way or by an association composed of the owners of all of the
lots in the subdivision subject in either case to an easement for the benefit of all lots served
by the street. That is a standard requirement for a private street. Then 4, except as required
by the Commission to serve a specific public purpose the private street shall not serve
through traffic nor intersect the state highway system in more than one location. He asked
staff if it meets that standard.
Mr. Fritz replied yes.
Mr. Kamptner said that 5, if applicable, the private streets would be improved in
accordance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, which deals with Flood Hazard
Overlay lands. He asked staff if they have any of those.
Mr. Fritz replied that there is one street that goes over a dam, which is in the Flood Hazard
Overlay.
Mr. Kamptner said that is correct. With respect to that dam the Commission is directed in
34b, which directs the Commission to consider that absent compelling circumstances private
streets should not cross over dams or bridges that involve other infrastructure that would be
reasonably prohibited to maintain should not serve as the primary or sole interconnections
between the subdivision and the abutting property or serve through traffic by being the
connector between two or more public streets. He asked if any of those circumstances apply
in this case.
Mr. Fritz replied no, that it was just the dam. He pointed out that there was one additional
thing. That is a modification of the standard as permitted by Section 22.5.1 to allow the
design standard that they are seeking.
Mr. Brooks said that this is because if they grant the request for a private road authorization
that comes with a certain standard in the ordinance. The applicant does not want to use that
standard, but wants to go with a lesser standard. The private road standard is equivalent to
the public road standard in this instance, except they are using the Mountainous Terrain
Standard instead of the Rolling Terrain Public Standard. The ordinance allows you to make
that and step down.
Mr. Strucko asked what the Mountainous Terrain width is.
Mr. Brooks replied 18' with 4' shoulders. The applicant is asking specifically to use a 16'
pavement width and 2' shoulders.
Mr. Fritz noted that it was 13' pavement width in some places.
Mr. Brooks replied that it was smaller in some cases. If the Commission wanted to make a
condition with regard to the standard the roads are to use they could specifically refer to the
proposal where it is outlined.
Mr. Fritz noted that those standards are shown on the plats that the Commission has in their
documents for this proposal.
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to approve the request for the waivers
related to private street authorizations as set forth in the applicant's proposal in SUB -2006-
193, Bundoran Farm, on the basis of recitation by counsel as then later supplemented with
the further condition that the Commission reserve the right to review the final plat and
conservation easements associated with the development plan set forth by the applicant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
10
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the term "conservation easement" in this case may be
declarations proposed to be recorded that will maintain open space as represented by the
applicant tonight.
Mr. Cannon agreed, but noted that there is some room for discussion within that space.
Mr. Morris asked for one clarification based on the motion. He asked if they were going with
the standard of 18' road width or 16'.
Mr. Fritz said that the motion is worded so it would be the 16' and 13' as shown on the plans
that the Commission has before them tonight as presented by the applicant.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Edgerton and Joseph were
absent.)
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to approve the waiver request of
Section 14 -404 to allow Lot D 12 to access Plank Road directly as submitted by the
applicant in SUB - 2006 -193, Bundoran Farm, based on the stated finding under Section 14-
404, with the recommended conditions on page 22 of the staff report.
1. The use of Lot D 12 shall be limited to activities as permitted by Albemarle County
Code, Chapter 18, Section 10.2.1(3), 10.2.1(4), 10.2.1(5), 10.2.1(7), 10.2.1(12),
10.2.1(17), 10.2.1(20), as it exists on July 21, 2006.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Virginia Department of
Transportation to install any required improvements.
3. Access to Lot D 12 shall be limited to existing entrances except as they may
require modification as recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Any entrance shall comply with the design standards set forth in Albemarle County
Code, Chapter 14, Section 410(F) and 410(G)
4. The subdivider shall demonstrate to the agent prior to approval of the final plat
that the waiver does not violate any covenants to be recorded for the subdivision.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Edgerton and Joseph were
absent.)
Mr. Morris noted that the motion was approved. He said that the next motion was for the
critical slopes. The 12 requests are:
Building site location for Lot A6 (Staff recommends Denial)
Building site location for Lot F1 (Staff recommends Denial)
Building site location for Lot H1 (Staff recommends Denial)
Building site location for Lot H7 (Staff recommends Denial)
Building site location for Lot H10 (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Bundoran Farm Drive (Staff recommends
Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Gooding Road (Staff recommends Approval)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Sprouse Road (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Carpenter Drive (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Quartz Hill Lane (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Hightop Drive (Staff recommends Denial)
Street encroachment on critical slopes for Long Arm Lane (Staff recommends Denial)
Mr. Fritz pointed out that the critical slopes were for the roads and the building sites. In these
cases the building sites have the 5:1 ratio, but the 30,000 square feet includes some critical
slopes. On this particular modification the Commission needs to make certain findings. Staff
has outlined the language in the staff report. The Commission may modify or waiver any
requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
11
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the
purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare,
or that alternatives proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes of
section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the
property or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the
developer, the requirements of section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent proper ties. Such modification or waiver shall
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound
engineering practices; or
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of
greater import than would be served by strict application of section 4.2.
Mr. Strucko said that he had a question for the applicant.
Mr. Morris asked the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Strucko said in dealing with the proposals currently for building does it disturb critical
slopes for residential construction.
Mr. Baldwin replied that the building envelope does, but the actual building does not except
in one case. But, they would agree to move it.
Mr. Cannon asked if it would be consistent with his plans with the one adjustment that he
just made. He asked if the Commission put a condition on it that said that although critical
slope waivers are necessary for some of these building sites the building in fact will not be
located on critical slopes.
Mr. Baldwin replied that is absolutely correct. That is a condition that they would be happyto
comply with.
Mr. Strucko said that his assumption was that there was no physical disturbance of the
critical slope. It is just that the 30,000 square foot site overlaps them.
Mr. Baldwin replied that is correct. In fact, it includes a yard, a garage, septic system or
anything like that.
Mr. Morris said that it was his comment that no building site will disturb critical slopes. He
asked if that was paraphrased correctly.
Mr. Strucko replied that was correct because there won't be any actual physical disturbance
with the critical slopes. It was just that the 30,000 square foot space overlaps.
Mr. Fritz noted that it was the dwellings, drain fields and driveways.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that the Commission can impose a condition that the construction
of none of those will disturb critical slopes.
Mr. Baldwin pointed out that the driveways might be a slightly different situation because
they did have some critical slopes. But the yards, the building and septic system will not be
in the critical slopes.
Mr. Kamptner said yes, that could be a condition. He asked staff if the waiver requested for
lot H1, which is the one that has the kernel rule problem, resolved in the resubmitted of the
plat.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
12
Mr. Fritz replied no, if the Commission grants the modification. If the Commission would turn
to page 29 through 31 the Commission can see the property. Lot H1 is a 4 acre parcel,
which has a triangular piece that sort of juts into it. They could see a dashed line that then
continues off from that just north of where the building site is. Lot H 1 is a 4.4 acre parcel. Lot
H1 is deriving its development right from the southern or western parcel in this particular
case. They allow parcels to do that and share acreage provided that there is a building site
within the parcel that is obtaining its kernel or development right from. In this case the
Commission is granting a waiver to allow a building site to exist where no building site would
otherwise exist.
Mr. Cannon asked if on the piece of land upon which this development right is derived there
is no buildable site.
Mr. Fritz said that is correct. That building site that they show does not meet the definition of
a building site unless the Commission grants the waiver. If the Commission denies the
waiver on lot H1, then lot H1 would have to be absorbed into adjacent properties and could
not be developed as a lot of less than 21 acres. That is one of the derivatives of the kernel
rule that one has to get the 2 acres and a building site from the parcel they are obtaining the
development right from. In the case the applicant is getting the 2 acres, but not the building
site unless the Commission grants the waiver. Then the applicant would get it.
Mr. Kamptner asked that to be highlighted to the Commission because that particular parcel
has a different situation on it.
Mr. Cannon said that the critical slopes waiver could be based on the finding under 4.2.3.
Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import and
would be served by a strict application of section 4.2, the greater public service being the
protection of established forested lands and agricultural lands and the avoidance of locating
building sites on or intruding into those lands or minimizing the impact on those lands.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it was section 4.2.5.b.3.
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to approve the twelve (12) critical slopes
waivers that have been requested by the applicant in SUB - 2006 -193, Bundoran Farm,
based on the previously stated finding under section 4.2.5.b.3 with the condition as to the
waiver for building site locations that there would be no disturbance of critical slopes for the
construction of buildings or septic fields in the construction.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Edgerton and Joseph were
absent.)
Mr. Strucko asked if that was just for the building. He asked if the Commission needs to
consider the streets at this point.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the streets are going to disturb critical slopes.
Mr. Cannon noted that the condition applies only to the homes.
Mr. Fritz noted that the next waiver request was for the building lot shape under section
4.2.2.a.1.
Mr. Cannon asked how many lots this applies to, and Mr. Kamptner replied for two lots.
Mr. Fritz noted that the modification was being done under section 4.2.5.
Mr. Strucko asked if these lots could contain the 30,000 square feet, but not to the
dimensions.
Mr. Fritz replied that these lots do contain the 30,000 square feet. Staff could have granted
these administratively, but did not have a preliminary report from the Health Department.
One of the criteria is that staff must have that in order to grant it administratively. Staff did
not have it and did not grant it. Therefore, staff referred it to the Commission. As part of the
final the applicant would have to obtain Health Department approval. It was simply a factor in
the review that made staff unable to grant it.
Mr. Cannon asked if the Commission was able to grant it without such a review now.
Mr. Fritz replied that the Commission could grant it now.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
13
Mr. Kamptner said that is required only for administrative approval. Therefore, the
Commission could grant it now.
Mr. Fritz noted that the Commission did not need to put a condition on it about Health
Department approval because that is an automatic part of final review.
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Craddock seconded, to approve a waiver for modification
on the two sites on SUB - 2006 -193, Bundoran Farm.
Mr. Kamptner said that based on the discussion, he assumed that the basis for that is under
section 4.2.5.b.3 because of the visual impacts as identified by the applicant.
Mr. Strucko modified his motion to include the basis as previously stated by Mr. Kamptner.
Mr. Craddock seconded the modification.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Edgerton and Joseph were
absent.)
Mr. Morris stated that the requests for SUB - 2006 -193, Bundoran Farm were approved.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 8, 2006
14