HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 01 81 PC MinutesDecember 1, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 1, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David
Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick;
Mr. Richard Cogan; and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Other officials present were
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the first item on the agenda was a deferred item, ZMA-81-28
William A. Lynch, Jr. She added that the applicant was requesting another deferral
to January 12, 1982. Mrs. Diehl asked for a motion to defer this petition.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral of ZMA-81-28 to
January 12, 1982. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the next item was a public hearing on:
_ZMA-81-29 North American Exploration, Inc. - Located approximately 1,000 feet
southeast of the intersection of Routes 743 and 606, off of 606, near the Charlottesville -
Albemarle Airport. Request to rezone 4.513 acres currently zoned RA Rural Areas to
LI Light Industrial. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 57A, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He announced that Forbes Reback represented the
applicant, and he passed out a letter from Mike Boggs, Airport Manager.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Reback if he wished to make a statement at this time. Mr. Reback
offered to answer any questions that the Commission might have.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was none,
she announced that the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked whether all the surrounding parcels to the applicant's property were
zoned RA. Mr. Keeler replied that they were. Mr. Davis asked if utilities existed,
and Mr. Keeler replied that they did not. Mr. Davis asked whether there was not
already considerable unused industrially -zoned land in the vicinity.
Mr. Keeler responded that according to the Comprehensive Plan, the Hollymead community
was supposed to be the major industrial area in the County. Mr. Keeler added that
most of the industrially zoned land was under one ownership. He added that there had
been no development to date in the airport industrial park, although some roads had
been graded.
Mr. Skove observed that light industrial zoning seemed more appropriate than residential
use, due to its close proximity to the airport runway.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he recalled a special use permit earlier where residential
use had been determined to be unsuitable at this location. He added that he believed
a water line existed within about 2,000 feet of this property.
Mr. Keeler said that he was unaware of any water line beyond the intersection.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he thought some line had been proposed running in the
direction of the fuel storage tanks.
Mr. Cogan asked whether there was any reason for light industrial zoning instead
of commercial office, since it was an office building the applicant wished to build.
Mr. Keeler responded that the Comprehensive Plan recommended light industry near
the airport.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether any future uses on this property would be subject to
review by the airport, for possible electronic interference or inflamable materials.
Mr. Keeler said that any site plan on the property coming before the Commission
would entail notification to Mike Boggs. Also, he added that performance regulations
in the Ordinance for light industry require engineer review of smoke, noise, electrical
interference report. Mr. Keeler clarified that this report was required in the
Ordinance as part of the site development plan, so that only if a site plan were
required for some future use of the property would such a report be submitted.
Mrs. Diehl asked about other recourses the County might have in the event that some
hazardous use materialized in the future.
Mr. Keeler responded that the airport overlay district had requirements that should
address concerns of safety.
Mr. Cogan asked to see the enclosure referred to in the letter from Mike Boggs.
Mr. Keeler removed it from the file and passed it around to the Commissioners.
Mrs. Diehl said, to confirm what had been earlier stated, there would be no lab or
chemicals on the site.
Mr. Keeler said that the application was a conventional rezoning and any statements
made by the applicant were not binding. He added that the applicant had not proffered
his application. Mrs. Diehl expressed concern that at some time chemical waste might
be discharged into the septic field.
Mr. Reback responded, explaining that some four or five years ago when the applicant
had come before the Commission for a special use permit, the company had included a
laboratory. Mr. Reback explained that North American Exploration, Inc. had spun off
from that lab, which was now known as Blue Ridge Analytical Laboratory and was
located on Berkmar Drive.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant was still negotiating with the airport for an
access.
Mr. Keeler said that he had talked with Mike Boggs and it had been determined that
this was a separate issue from the rezoning request, but the applicant did have a
deeded access to the property.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions. When there were none,
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of ZMA-81-29. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously with no further discussion.
00
SP-81-58 Frank Milton Miles, Jr. - Located at the intersection of Routes 660 and
662, adjacent to the South Rivanna Reservoir. Request to subdivide 40.8 acres
zoned RA Rural Areas into eight (8) lots with an average lot size of 5.1 acres, in
accordance with Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. County Tax Map 30,
Parcels 16F and 16C, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, adding a condition #3 that all lots be served by
the three entrances, access easements. He stated that this would include Lot 2.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time.
Mr. George McCallum, representing the applicant, explained the location of the
property, saying that it was quite isolated both topographically and functionally.
He suggested that the proposal was most compatible to the land. He pointed out that
almost any clearing or cutting of the existing forestal vegetation would be detrimental,
for agricultural or residential use, to the reservoir.
Mr. McCallum indicated his willingness to comply with Mr. Keeler's suggested condition
of approval that any graded area be stabilized and seeded immediately upon completion
of work. He added that entrances to Lots 1, 3, 4, and 8 were off Route 662. He said
that although he did not feel strongly, he would prefer that Lot 2 have a separate
entrance because having more than two parties share an entrance was often problematic.
Mr. McCallum explained that by right five 2� acre lots could be divided leaving a 21-
acre residue. He stated that the applicant was proposing a much better utilization of
land with the smallest lot being 3.008 acres, in keeping with the one to five acre
density of the area and a better proposal than agricultural or forestal use of the
property.
`46W
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment regarding this special use permit
request. When there was none, she announced that the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked whether the stabilization requirement would not be included under the
grading permit.
Mr. Keeler responded that it was his understanding that there was no time frame
established for stabilization on an approved grading permit. He pointed out that
soil could be lost as readily by wind as by water. He added that the Zoning Administrator
could require a correction of the situation if he so determined loss of soil.
Mr. Skove asked how this might be worded as a condition.
Mr. Keeler suggested any area that is graded or disturbed should be stabilized and
seeded as soon as work or improvements are completed.
Mrs. Diehl asked about the 30,000 sq.ft. Mr. Keeler said building areas had not been
delineated yet. He added that Lot 4 might have about an acre with less than 25 percent
slope. Mr. Keeler said that he wished to make another statement concerning Lot 2,
which was that the Subdivision Ordinance requires it to have access over the easement,
since it is adjacent to it. He explained that if the Commission allowed Lot 2 to have
its own entrance, at the time of a subdivision plat, this requirement would have to be
waived.
1%r Mr. Skove expressed concern over limiting accesses on Route 660. He asked how the
Commission should go about taking care of this matter.
FAREFE
�1
Mr. Keeler suggested that to be absolutely certain, such an i.ndjcatiQn of accesses
should be made on the plat, the condition should be made that such was required to
be shown on the plat, including or excluding Lot 2, as the Commission should decide.
Mrs. Diehl expressed concern over the access off of 660, saying that it looked as
though it were quite a steep grade. She questioned why there could not be an
easement from above down to these lots and avoid an extreme cut.
Mr. Keeler explained that he and Bill Norris had visited the site and actually the
grade difference was minimal. Mr. Kindrick established that a driveway had existed in
close proximity some time ago.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions. When there were not,
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the special use permit application, subject to the
conditions as outlined by Staff and including two additional conditions addressing
limiting access easements to the three shown on the plat and stabilizing and seeding
disturbed areas. Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mr. Keeler asked to make a suggestion, that the condition on stabilizing and reseeding
be tied into the grading permit.
Mr. Davis wondered why it should not encompass more than just the grading, but include
actual construction.
Mr. Skove asked what the advantage was of attaching it to the grading permit.
Mr. Keeler replied that it was more enforceable. He added that the roads might be
put in and lots sold later. He stated that driveways to single family dwellings
did not require a grading permit, but within a subdivision those driveways do
require a grading permit.
Mr. Davis said that he wanted this condition of stabilizing and reseeding to apply to
both driveway/road disturbance as well as to all construction. Mr. Bowerman offered
appropriate wording for condition d. Mrs. Diehl determined that the Commissioners
were in agreement with this additional condition as worded. She asked Mr. McCallum
if he wished to make a brief remark.
Mr. McCallum voiced concern about inhibiting household gardens. Mr. Payne reassured
Mr. McCallum; and Mr. Cogan pointed out that construction sites were the primary concern.
Mrs. Diehl asked for a vote on the motion before the Commission, for approval of
SP-81-58, which passed unanimously, subject to the following conditions:
1. Subdivision shall be limited to 8 parcels and shall be in general accord with
the plat by William Morris Foster, File Number 638, dated September 15, 1981;
2. County Attorney approval of deed restrictions limiting tree removal to the following
areas:
a. designated building sites as required by 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b. access easements as shown on referenced plat;
c. access easements to be limited to the three easements shown on referenced plat,
such three easements to serve all lots;
d. any area that is graded or disturbed is to be stabilized and seeded as soon
as work is completed.
00
Mrs. Diehl announced that the next item on the agenda was a public hearing on the
Resolution of Intent, adopted by the Board of Supervisors, to amend Section 10.2.2
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow farm wineries by special use permit in the RA Rural
Areas district.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, explaining that Staff after discussions with Mr.
Michael Bowles, a local grower, had come up with a different approach to farm wineries
from that of the Board. Staff suggestions, Mr. Keeler continued, were contained in
the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time.
Mrs. Joan Graves asked whether there was any legal problem in having advertised the
proposed amendment as 10.2.2, when now the amendment was being proposed for a different
section, 10.2.1.
Mr. Payne asked to consult the statute, when Mrs. Diehl asked for his comments.
Mrs. Diehl said that she wondered whether the Commission should take action on both
of these proposals. She asked whether there was additional public comment.
Mrs. Diehl said that Commissioners could ask questions, while Mr. Payne continued to
research Mrs. Graves' inquiry.
Mr. Davis said that he liked Staff's suggestions better than those of the Board,
since he believed wine -making was a natural practice for a farm and should be a use
by right.
Mr. Skove agreed, as long as the fruits used were naturally grown on the site. He
mentioned some reluctance to have produce brought in from another site, however.
Mr. Skove said that a predominant amount should be grown on site.
Mr. Payne said that he believed the definition of farm winery given in the Staff Report
was closely derived from the Statutary one. Mr. Keeler concurred.
Mr. Gloeckner said that this issue would be regulated by the Board, as spelled out in
d under 5.1.XX FARM WINERY.
Mr. Davis observed that in the southern part of Albemarle County five or six vineyards
were being established. He said that he believed that due to the cost factor, one
person would probably handle the fermenting for several people around.
Mrs. Diehl said that she would have no problem with a small local establishment, but
agreed with Mr. Skove that there was a loophole that would allow turning a one -acre
farm operation into a commercial establishment. Mrs. Diehl said that if there were a
way to close that loophole, she would have no problem with leaving part of this use
as a use by right, as Staff recommends.
Mr. Gloeckner expressed his concern as well as all of the Commissioners' that such
an operation could become commercial without really being a vineyard and not having
fruits grow in mass quantity on site, but a token growth.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler what guidelines were given in the State Code.
He replied that there were no limits on off -site fruit brought in from within the
State, but there were limits on fruits brought in from out of State.
Mrs. Diehl wondered whether the Commission could establish limits on the amount of
materials brought in for a farm winery.
Mr. Cogan suggested some formular such as fruits brought in should not exceed twice
the amount grown or cultivated on site, or no more that 50% of the total fruit processed.
Mr. Skove suggested that this might be accomplished by placing a period after the
wording, on such farm, in the definition of Farm Winery given in the Staff Report.
Mr. Davis wondered whether this stipulation might not be too restrictive.
Mr. Skove pointed out that the definition as written requires that the wine be made
predominantly from fresh fruits or other agricultural products grown or produced on
such farm, which would be at least 50%. He said that further language might therefore
not be necessary.
Mrs. Diehl said that the special use permit approach might allow someone to increase
the amount of fruit to be brought in, under special circumstances.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not believe that he personally had the expertise
necessary to determine an arbitrary limit to what fruit could be brought in, but
would be willing to limit it in some fashion as long as there was recourse, such as
through the special use permit process to increase the amount.
Mr. Cogan said that this sounded like a good approach.
Mr. Skove said that he would go along with the predominantly grown on -site by right.
Mr. Payne said that he gathered the Commission was approaching this issue in a manner
similar to a dairy operation. He would suggest that the Commission then follow
Mr. Skove's advice to require at least 50% of the grapes to be grown on the farm winery
or to keep the language as prepared, which came from the Code. Mr. Payne said that
if the Commission was not considering farm wineries as an agricultural use similar to
a dairy, the Commission was then talking about an industrial use.
Mr. Cogan said that he did not want to get into any discussion of farm wineries as an
industrial use and that he was opposed to making farm wineries by special use permit.
He agreed with Mr. Skove and recommended cutting off the end of the definition as given,
with a period after on such farm.
Mr. Davis wondered whether it might not be easier to regulate by limiting production.
He suggested, for example, any farm winery producing more than 100,000 bottles of
wine a year might go into another kind of category as a much larger operation.
Mr. Cogan responded that he was opposed to this approach because a farm winery was
still an agricultural use, regardless of the growth of the operation. He compared
it to a dairy, which might produce a certain number of gallons of milk one year and
increase significantly another. Mr. Cogan said the use had not changed, even in
the event of increased production.
Oz
lrr Mr. Keeler recommended to Mrs. Diehl that the Commission consider putting a limit,
if the Commission wished to do so, under supplementary regulations, what could be
done by right and then have the special use permit as a safety valve. He gave as
an example a farm winery struck by blight that would be forced to import fruits in
order to survive.
Mr. Payne said that he agreed with Mr. Keeler and was working on language for the
proposal.
Mr. Skove asked about whether farm wineries had warehouses in which they stored
bottles of wine of a certain year.
Mr. Payne replied that the wine industry varied enormously, but wine cellars were
common.
Mr. Skove wondered whether such warehousing would require a special use permit.
Mr. Cogan said that it would be no different than a barn on a farm. They decided
it was really an accessory use.
Mr. Payne explained some of the history of wine classification, which for estate -
bottled had the requirement of a certain percentage grown in a specific region of
France, on the premises of the bottler/wine grower. Mr. Payne discussed the 1865
classification system in Bordeaux.
Mrs. Diehl observed that the local wine industry would develop somewhere inbetween
the estate -bottled classification and that bottled from fruits of several growers.
Mr. Payne stated that he had new language ready, suggesting that under
5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
a new d) be added to permit by right:
d) wine shall be produced predominantly from fresh fruits or other agricultural
products grown or produced on such farm.
Mr. Payne said that this change would make the current d) become new e) and under
e) a new 4) should be added under activities requiring a special use permit:
4) production of wine from fresh fruits or other agricultural products grown or
produced elsewhere than on such farm.
Mrs. Diehl observed that this would still allow some use of fruit from other sources
than the _farm winery.
Mr. Bowerman asked to have predominantly defined.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he had made a determination on whether the advertising
should be of any concern.
Mr. Payne answered that he believed there was no problem with how the proposed
amendment had been advertised.
Mrs. Graves stated that while she was not concerned about farm wineries, she believed
that members of the public with possible concerns would from reading the advertisement
and believing farm wineries to be proposed under special use permit, perhaps not
respond by coming to the public hearing. Mrs. Graves said that she doubted the
Commission had even considered what the Board was requesting.
693
Mrs, Diehl replied that the Commission was familiar with the Staff Report.
Mr. Payne responded by explaining that in fact what was being proposed would
in part require special use permit, while other activities would be allowed by
right.
Mrs. Diehl asked how the Commission should act on the Board's Resolution of Intent,
since there were two approaches being considered.
Mr. Payne answered that the Commission would be adopting in essence one part of
the Board's recommended amendment and the other, being recommended as use by right,
is accessory to agriculture. He, therefore, advised Mrs. Diehl that two separatie
actions were not in his opinion necessary.
Mr. Skove asked, then, if Mr. Payne viewed wine -making as an accessory use to
agriculture.
Mr. Payne replied that he did.
Mrs. Diehl announced that the public hearing was closed at this time.
Mr. Skove reiterated his concern about warehouses.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that any storage of wine was underground. He suggested that
a farm winery's storage would have less visual impact than most agricultural uses.
He observed that he had visited several wineries and would judge them to have less
impact from structures than most local farms. Mr. Cogan explained that the largest
building on a farm winery usually housed the bottling operation, with the fermentation
operation outside with storage facilities.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions or comments. 14
Mr. Bowerman stated that he wanted to pin down the definition of "predominantly."
He explained that he thought it should be clear when a special use permit was required.
There was a concensus that "predominantly" meant more than fifty percent.
Mr. Gloeckner said that regardless of the percentage to be required of fruits
produced on the farm, this whole issue would be awfully difficult to police. He
wondered who would determine the percentage being used, for example.
Mr. Davis said that by number of bottles, one would be surprised at the yield from
just a couple of acres and once the fruit were crushed it would be hard to know
whether a certain percentage was cultivated on the farm or brought in in the dead
of night.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether most small cultivators of grapes for wine making had
their own crushing and fermentation facilities or whether they took the grapes
elsewhere.
Mr. Cogan replied that the majority went elsewhere to have the grapes crushed,
unless they were producing only for home consumption. He added that the maximum
number of vines that could be grown on one acre was 600.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not want to discourage any agricultural activity in
Albemarle County, but his only concern was having a commercial establishment or
industrial -type operation in the rural areas devoted solely to the production of
wine.
Mr. Cogan stated that he believed this situation was taken care of through the
Oy
proposed supplementary regulations and thereby adequately covered.
Mr. Bowerman then observed that it might be overkill to require a special use
permit of all those producers using fruit from other sites. He said that he
understood that most growers would be taking their fruits elsewhere for crushing
and fermentation.
Mr. Payne said that he believed there was some confusion over the crushing and
fermentation facilities. He said that for farm wineries of five acres or more it
would be common to have their own crushing and fermentation facilities. Mr. Payne
said that he believed Mr. Cogan had been speaking of small mom and pop wineries of
perhaps less than two acres, when he suggested that they take their fruit elsewhere.
Mr. Bowerman concluded, then, that Mr. Payne did not foresee the proposed regulations
as prompting multiple special use permit applications. He observed that a large
farm winery might well buy fruit from several small growers without approaching the
limit on the "predominantly grown on site" requirement.
Mr. Gloeckner observed that the Commission had addressed the concerns of the Board
and been fair to the wine makers and owners of vineyards, as well as having
protected the County. He stated that he went along with the proposed regulations.
Mr. Payne asked to amend his new condition 4) to include the word predominantly:
4) production of wine predominantly from fresh fruits or other agricultural products
grown or produced elsewhere than on such farm.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that she had wondered about this omission. She asked the
Commissioners if there were further questions or comments.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the proposed amendments relating to farm wineries,
with the changes and language suggested by Mr. Payne:
1. In 3.0 DEFINITIONS
Farm Winery: An establishment located on a farm with a producing vineyard,
orchard or similar growing area and with facilities for fermenting and bottling
wine on the premises where the owner or lessee manufactures wine predominantly
from fresh fruits or other agricultural products grown or produced on such farm.
2. In the RA district, 10.2.1 BY RIGHT
17. Farm Winery (reference 5.1.XX)
3. In 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
5.1.XX FARM WINERY
a) Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling of wine shall not be established
until the vineyard, orchard, or other growing area has been established
and is in production;
b) On -premise sale of wine may be established in accordance with 5.1.19
WAYSIDE STAND;
c) On -premise consumption, including wine tasting, by the general public shall
not be permitted. Tours, festivals, and the like, open to the public, shall
not be permitted;
�A
d) Wine shall be produced predominantly from fresh fruits or other agricultural
products grown or produced on such farm.
e) The foregoing notwithstanding, the Board of Supervisors, in accordance
with 31.2.4 may authorize through issuance of a special use permit any or
all of the following:
1) Establishment of fermenting and/or bottling facilities prior to
establishment of a vineyard, orchard, or other growing area;
2) A floor area for on -premise sale of wine greater than permitted under
under 5.1.19 WAYSIDE STAND;
3) On -premise consumption of wine by the general public. Tours, festivals,
and the like which are open to the general public;
4) Production of wine predominantly from fruits or other agricultural
products grown or produced elsewhere than on such farm.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Public hearing on the Resolution of Intent adopted by the Planning Commission to
amend Section 4.10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to height of parapet
walls.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He explained that this amendment was to bring
an inconsistency into conformance within the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was public comment on this proposed amendment. When
there was none, Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Kindrick, at the time the Commission adopted the Resolution,
had asked whether the BOCA code addressed different types of buildings. Mr. Keeler
said that it did not give a range of heights depending on the type of building.
Mrs. Diehl observed that this proposed change had been fairly well discussed at
the time of the adoption of the Resolution of Intent.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the amendment:
4.10.3.3 PARAPET WALLS, CORNICES, ETC.
A parapet wall, cornice or similar projection may exceed the height
limit established for the district by no more than three {3} four (4)
feet, but shall not extend more than three J3} four (4) feet above
the roof level of any building.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Public hearing on the Resolution of Intent adopted by the Planning Commission to
amend language in the Comprehensive Plan concerning development at rural interstate
interchanges.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, explaining that the deletions and additions were
due to Board action which had intended to eliminate rural interstate interchanges
for development. He explained that the language adopted by the Board had inadvertently
(0 9�
failed to reflect this intent. Mr. Payne concurred that these amendments were not
substantive changes, but actually correcting the action of the Board to reflect the
Board's original intent.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. When there was not, she announced
that the matter was before the Commission.
When there was no discussion among the Commissioners, Mr. Cogan moved for approval
of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (Given on opposite side of page.).
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Request for Site Plan Waiver: Richard M. Brandt
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He said that the Highway Department had notified
him today that the entrance was adequate for the third dwelling, so he was deleting
the one recommended condition of approval.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to make a statement.
Mr. Brandt explained that he wished to convert part of the barn to an apartment.
He stated that his residence and a cabin inhabited by his son existed on the same
property. He added that this barn was originally a dairy barn and later used for
a while for the manufacture of artificial limbs. He offered to answer any questions.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners if they wished to ask Mr. Brandt any questions.
When there were none, she asked for public comment. There was no public comment.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to waive the site plan requirement; Mr. Davis seconded the
motion.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant could build a third residence or whether
his letter was binding. Mr. Keeler replied that the applicant could not construct
another building in another position.
The motion passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Request for Site Plan Waiver: Whiting oil Corporation
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Scott Blankenship told the Commission that he would be happy to answer any
questions.
When the Commission had no questions of the applicant, Mr. Davis moved for approval
of the site plan waiver request, subject to the condition recommended by Staff:
1) Staff approval of landscape plan for the frontage of the property.
Landscaping shall be replaced should any die.
07
Y
w
ro a -
a uo 0
W > a1 0
.C. a m :5
N N O 13 m
O La t O
7 E H aWa G
c H
•-`°aua o
0fZ viz
C S C U O
N a v •.+
t,
d�o�w1
.A•1
E
>
2
m
21
C4 >,
N O
4 y 0 N
OU +1
z W t
u \ W
C C
wF - 00
Z a U
W > N
c H'. a
� ti 'n W
H C N
N rn O q
rna c
N W N
0 E+ 4 N
r s c r
E u a
w 0
41 x
O 1
w
ro
tT ro O
C H O ._
N
♦1
�� c• v aJ
N
'a N tl
V
ut
A N
0 0
A
O
is N A
N U� JNJ '0
Y> O
Q N ., 0
11
+N-+
c .w ❑
O 4
m m
m 4 +
c N
C
U w O
'0
N C
N Ha O .i
C
4 N C
a
A C tT -
a::
v
O
o
0 u
ro C 4 ro
m a)ro N Y
U 0 4:. 0 0 -•
ti
'� 1-1
} 4 •.1
N U C O 1J. U
O S w
.r °. W
'0 w ro' 0. 0
W 1U
ro
m m 14 4 H .c. cn
7 ro.I m G
N
-.I
s:.�
cr
wr
4 "
ro m
N O u
w H faN
0✓ •• +
VI L
N i
N
N O W
A N y c m C
A a m 0
1n U C 7- r
N •.•� A U
a
0. "J
m r.w
N
N O
u u
u •.
- m N 7 m 11
.r rn
7 m C w O C
c
u
ro U
N 01 O
ro C U ro ro W
4 u U w
7 >. 4 O O C
A ^� U L 'A
O.a O .-+ 0 01
A 7 C +/ N '••
ro
N 4
E '0
ro 0 m m
N ro m N
m N O W> +� •H
+� a1
.•1 ro
a1 •.1
C N .-I N w
0 JJ I '0 aJ
N> 4 N
U '.1 .n m 0 .0
, N q1� a)rt' 10
T > U E '0 « -i
ro C
W N
r O
•.I 4
•a4
oCUc•�
m NE+�
N4
m Ei m
0 0> .'J
> 7 0 m
•./ M L N O a
H O ••
O
N N m
H O m
.+ O w C O ro
.y 0 •.� 4 U
w .•I u w 14 w
O U N O O
4 ` U LP 0. A
a, A • 7 '0m
O •'+ m
.1 T '0
O
ro w 0
H a 0 0 0. O
m X r1 C
4)u O m J.1 r '0
C c 4
m W U
N
3 r .•+
.•I N ro E l
O •.J n ro
>. EE m O
W a • C O r m
C N •.1 m 0 /+ ro C
•.+ ..+ '0
m
C
6 7 T 4
•ti •-' m H N w
C C
ro
.-Ni JOJ C
.1 7
Ill W O
r 0 >+
7 0 .0 11 m C
(1)w A A ro
J= +•+ w
N w N
U • m w w N U
ro ro m
JJ
m
'O O
A C
•� '.� >.
tT ro ` 'O N
-� W m '0 N N a, C
w T m
N U
0 0 0
E •.1 JJ
.i O '0 U N 01
ro N H ro C
.E U LT "+ N c
A o r ro w aJ
r 0 '0 m t ro 0
O N U ro 4 W C U
O A
tT
'0 C
C ro
O 41 0
N -.1 40
r w a 0. 0 •.1
O ro +1 N
'� •4 U ro
W 01 •.� L C
t E 0 N O U
N 0. w '0 > 'A u
4) '0 C
.i N •.1
4)w
w
m'0
- .a :� u •4
o N c N m •.�
m o a .+ N '0 In •.a
a 4 r 1J
-.I
E .'•I O
O
c
ro 4)U
+� E
O m• 1
A ro U
C 40 m m
N
ro N a1 O ro ` O
> 14
U
p•
In C
4 +� W 4 C
N '7 ro 0 •./
O '0 w m N
•.1 H m 0. N m
> c C w x 4
'0 N N O
N
O .-I
Raw
O H
k
w H '0
ro u) A 7 W E
41 7 N U m
C ro W N
.\/
•.4
N H
W a
7 1T C
w O O •.a n
ro 0 11 W U O
U .0 •.� O ro u
m '0 b E.'U
4 O C ro 9 N
C W N
O U
l4 w
C • O
O N 0• '0 ••I
O m m C U
•+ O H ro O w 0
••+ •.1 .0
ro 4)
N .•� 3
U JJ
W t C ro 0 -A
iJ1 N S .0
.� N ro
N C N O•
row 0 w 'n O
r > .-•
A N
C W
0+ N C
m W JJ 3
N w U 0
.� N O •.1 row
O
O m Y C N CJ1 •
•.1 C '0 . 0 U C 01 '0
-.1 m
3 0
N
U U
C E N
C O w O N
a s u1 c C
u O --I -� ro C w
U •.�
r
- 0.
a o>
N N W w In
E m W c a
•0 J-1 u O 4
+ x c ro 4 u
u -.� N W > •c •.i 0
c J t ro w u 4 LJ
'0 U 3
c ro
ro O
aJ JJ
O N
N '0 C N N
> U •'i O W A
a ro JJ U N 4 0 0
Idm
V1
0 0 .7 3
4 0 N Q)•.�
b� N
0 O H
�0 to Q. W N
W U '.•1 m N W H
+1 W
.i N Y
N •.a
•.I N
'0 0+
A > N x
m
•./ O
a
C
O
'O 0)•m
LTC ro m
•.I U)0 w
O 0. W O •.I `A •.+
ro
O C a
4) U r W
4 •.1 O '0 U O
m N
1O
0 O 4>
O. m
N ro O O �+ d• G
C 7
.ti
8 .-1
ro-C 0
w L ro a
E O U N O
U LT W m O C 0
O U
3 0
.c •., U W
ro -.I o m
o o+ U a1 w
c w ro •.+ a 4 •�+ •.1
-+ v
o +1
4 W a ro
O U JJ 4 Tf
n7 ro 0 N O
NZ
ro O- +1 E w °. W
m 1. . (0'1)
m N C
•.I W O
✓•1
0 C m bJ
O m
w O r u•1 O
ro a N ro O O
C 4 a 4
ro a r .10 •.�
N 3 O N m u .N
> 4J -.'I
.•1
O m
'O
m A 4 C C
w U E O U ro F�.
°i N O '0 N
r •.N1
E N
w 0
0 m 0
•.1 m N 4J
N
�J N •n v 0 0
N m 6 N ro C
.T
•H > 11 N U U C •H
A� U
2
N +1
•u
�
F
c lni a •H
iu ar3 m o w
F V Loi H
E w N a m 0 .y 0
!A G.
•.C,
i
N w
'30 M
s wn
to
W y.a 11
W IA
O O 0%
N N m N
N %0
O O\ C N 4 n
JJ m •n .•I O m 1T U > .0 4)1 O
N N O N •.1 m 'O •.+ 1 11 N m H 4 C
E+ +1 v N .c m n v U
m 0 m •.+ C A C b U I O m N +1 '0
4 w m A •• O N -.1 m .0 N a aQ. C .•/
N ro N H m E w m> 4 LI 4'•H a
1J J•1 4 U 7 0 N 1 L m •.I m l O N
C m W ro Y 4 N A 4 •.I .H U m y W I U T
-.i N N W • W N 4 a 4 n N 4 C C N y m V
N x 1n In C> CT 4 C OT N ro ro O {{{I
N 7 4 4 '0 O O O C ro 0 a W 4\ I i1 m
C ro N O U [P ^• - • U •H n C a L U m N 0
r O ro o m U •.i row O N m N
C C C: In U ro C U U y W ro 0 U m C
W ro Y •.I C ro I m 0 -.1 R O N m 4 N C N C
° H N N C .Oa O d .-N1 •, w c J= N U U L C N
N w U J= ro CL -.1 C+ O N ro -M V 4 J\-1 V I N H
> O N W 0 01 4 ,C U 4 N m C- w 1T A a 0
•.1 N N ro 3 0 JJ V 0 O m •.1 1 c A
W m 4 r H ;n 4 H .-+ I ro '0 '� 0+ 4
1 n >.4 0 N O 0. '0 - ••1 I T N O 1 O
O .. 01 O .-1 .. 'C C L m 4 N y U
O. 4 4 T7 N ro m C ro 0 0 0 0 0 0 C IO tl -.I '101 .%1 N O N y .a
m N W C .. 0+ O. I T 1 y N .•I
W 4 Y 0" C m C 4 w 0-
0 O H m N t n m
'0 ro '0 N O w -0 O O ro 0 �.+ H N U •H O
r U w 4 U O m> -n U 4 0 4 •H N >. w
ro N '0 N U 7 ro ro O N ro W O C D. ro 4
0 1e H> ✓ r O w E A U E O a1 2 0 ;
0 3 C a 0 • C N a 1 A X U1 1 N ✓r J;
aJ W O O E m N U 0 0 0 T V 4 h >Q tT U
••+ 3 ro. 4 m ro V, 0. 7 U C. •.1 •.1
'0 b1 H C ro, m E C •. U O -0✓; G
O T O T ro m 0 0 3 ro ro O .c: LA r 0 1 3
+.+ H 4 �-1 U N H •H JJ .c U C O v U 4
ro a O m O. W upl 0 C U +. N 91 O m
N u ro Y li a N N ro
4 -.a C 0 C .0 > .I O 0. y .•+ > it N
LL1 O U' O 0- r 4 U+ N O C m U C D 2 m
N -.1 N C] ro 0 W i1 .-1 •H N r 0 A 1 0 0
.0 C N
4 7 O•1 >
V1 11 U m '0 m m C Ul 1J 'O 11 c 1 N •H V 4
0 F. W
O .0 '0 H 'N Y -.i C H U m x O N E .0O
.c 4 U G r U C 1J W ro y 7 w 1J U O iT
m o N o r .ti c r i m- u cq ro m 0 1, v n
i A •r1 •.1 \ N [n J -.i W .H E 1 U 4 C4
m 3� y1 m u •� 4 C N N -.4 D. D ro
N Y U '0 m .] +J N 4)41 u ro u O O w C
N m V C .-a N --1 �1 u 11 .H 7 i 'n 0 •'4
a C N .1 1 7 c '1c ro -a I1 > m 4 .0 I w
O m> w 0 -a c 0 +1 m N la ro A Ln mC
O m m Y 1 N H O N •..
C W N p .1 Y L1 4 4 O to 4 ., .c
•-1 r TN m
0 N C N O N aJ ..a T, C a1 •ry ro .-I 0 -H L' U J1 0.
•h W '0 0 4 „< lP U .� H C •.1.1 .M N.1 U 'O IP •-1 O
N r .+ O .0 N -.• N n O > JJ a+ H C a H
01 4/ LLa m U O. N C ID ; N N N n 11 m N
L ro C' N N ., ro a- r ro U U x >
'•+ 3 f.1- a H .c U O •N w '0 +1 '0 O x x+ m (U N U m N
U IS
i T Y
ax l) i i aya
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like to state that he did not believe the Commission
should set a precedent for waiving site plans for extensions of islands. In this
case, he continued, circulation was not a problem. He said that re -arranging gas
islands was another matter.
Mr. Cogan agreed with Mr. Gloeckner, saying that there had previously been such a
case.
When there was no additional discussion, a vote on the motion was taken and passed
unanimously.
Request for Site Plan Waiver: The New House Company Realtors
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He explained that in addition to the site plan
waiver, Mrs. Kirtley was requesting that the parking and access road not be paved,
as would be required since the property lies within the urban area. Due to its
temporary use, Mr. Keeler explained, Mrs. Kirtley would like to only gravel the
parking and access road. He stated that Mrs. Kirtley had signed a lease today and
expected the house to eventually, within a few years, be raised by Dr. Hurt when
he decided to further develop the property.
Mr. Keeler recommended an additional condition of approval to the one contained in
the Staff Report:
2. Parking areas and access roads shall be bonded prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy. Parking areas and access roads shall be constructed within ninety
days of granting waiver.
Mr. Keeler explained that currently access to the property existed from Riverbend
Drive. He stated that three parking spaces were adequate for the realty company.
He added that it was his understanding that Dr. Hurt was planning to pave the road
back to a certain point.
Mr. Keeler stated that the second floor of the building could not be used commercially
without certain improvements, including fire protection and access. He suggested
that a third condition might be desireable, stating that this waiver did not apply
to the second floor, but only to the first floor.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the County Engineer could approve a gravel surface for the
road and parking area.
Mr. Keeler replied that the County Engineer would recommend asphalt and that it would
be up to the Commission, if it deemed that due to the temporary lease of the house, a
waiver of the normal requirement of asphalt was in order. Mr. Keeler said that the
applicant's plan showed four inches of gravel and he believed that six inches of gravel
and prime and double seal were the normal requirement from the County Engineer.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant, Katie Kirtley, if she wished to speak at this time.
Katie Kirtley told the Commission that her proposed use was much less intense use
than the residential use the property had had previously. She said that she believed
it had been a fraternity house last year, with perhaps twenty students living there.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners if they had any questions.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if he had Health Department approval. Mr. Keeler
replied that he did not have a copy of the approval, which it was determined had
been given.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. When there was none, Mrs. Diehl
announced that the matter was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked how much space for future use existed - in the house. Mr. Keeler
answered about 800 square feet. Mrs. Kirtley replied three rooms. Mr. Keeler said
that eleven parking spaces would accommodate the additional space that might be used
for expansion or additional commercial use, new business.
Mrs. Diehl expressed concern about the road conditions, asking Mr. Keeler whether
she was correct in understanding that a waiver of the paving requirement could mean
that for a period of five years businesses in the house could use the gravel road.
Mr. Keeler confirmed her impression.
Mr. Bowerman asked how far the house would be from the end of the paved road.
Mr. Keeler estimated that the house was located about 300 feet from Route 250.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much prime and double seal cost.
Mr. Gloeckner replied about $1.75 a square yard.
Mr. Keeler stated that the site plan ordinance required twenty feet to be so treated.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the entrance had not yet been paved. Mr. Keeler said that
he understood Dr. Hurt would pave back to the right-of-way.
Mrs. Diehl said that she had no problem with waiving the site plan, but that she was
reluctant about a road waiver, especially for so long a time. Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether the request for a waiver of the road requirements
was incorporated into any of the recommendations of Staff in the conditions contained
in the Staff Report. Mr. Keeler replied that it was not really clear in the Staff
Report, but he believed that this issue was up to the Commission to determine.
Mrs. Diehl asked, then if the Commission should first address the site plan waiver
request with the three conditions as recommended by Staff and then separately address
the matter of a request to waive the road requirements.
Mr. Payne said that he did not believe that was appropriate. He said that the Commission
should make that determination before taking action on the site plan waiver request.
Mrs. Diehl asked the other Commissioners for their input.
Mrs. Kirtley asked to speak, and Mrs. Diehl recognized her.
Mrs. Kirtley explained that the reason she was requesting that gravel be accepted
was due to the property perhaps being developed a year from now. She further
stated that the property was adjacent to Hardee's and would have a paved road almost
to its driveway. She explained that the house was isolated, by itself, and would be
incorporated into some sort of commercial development of the larger area in the near
future. Mrs. Kirtley said that it was difficult to guess whether this development
would take place next year or three or five years from now. She said that adequate
parking was being installed for the proposed use, and that when the entire area was
developed the regular standards of the County Engineer would be met.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mrs. Kirtley.
Mr. Bowerman stated that in his mind commercial development had already started.
He said that he had no problem with waiving the site plan requirement, with the three
conditions as agreed upon, and an additional fourth condition that roadways to meet
County Engineer road requirements.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Bowerman how he felt about the parking area. Mr. Bowerman replied
that he had no problem with the parking area being graveled, but that starting from
day one there would be traffic and increased use of this road. He said that he did not
know how long it would take for Hardee's to be constructed or what might happen during
the next five years.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the Commission might want to consider a waiver of just
one year, reviewing a site plan a year from now to see whether the business is thriving
or something else had transpired, rather than burden the waiver now with multiple
conditions.
Mr. Payne suggested that the Commission could do as Mr. Bowerman had recommended,
allow construction of the roadway to gravel standards within ninety days and fully
asphalted within 12 months or whatever.
Mr. Gloeckner said, however, that if the business expanded or increased in intensity,
he believed that a full-fledged site plan would be necessary to provide drainage,
landscaping, etc. He said it was a waiver request for a temporary use.
Mr. Bowerman responded that it was being treated as a four-year temporary use.
Mr. Davis observed that he would not object to limiting it to one year.
Mr. Cogan said that if it were to be limited to one year, he would be more inclined
to not require paving the road. He pointed out that should the road be asphalted,
it might be torn up a year later.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval of the site plan waiver request, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Site plan waiver for limit of one year;
2. Parking areas and access roads shall be bonded prior to issuance of certificate
of occupancy; parking areas and access roads shall be constructed within 90 days
of granting of waiver;
3. Waiver not to apply for use of second floor;
4. Access roads and parking area to be graveled to the reasonable satisfaction of
County Engineer.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed 6 - 1, with Mr. Bowerman opposing.
OLD BUSINESS
Natural Resource Extraction Amendments
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, explaining that Mr. Payne had prepared appropriate
language based on the amendments discussed by the Commission during its work session
on November 12, 1981, which would provide two definitions (exploratory drilling and
7D/
natural resource extraction) and provide for exploratory drilling by special use
permit in the RA district.
Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commission that the public hearing on these amendments
had been closed at a previous meeting. She explained that action by the Commission
should now be in order. She asked whether there were any questions on the language.
Mr. Payne explained that the NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION definition before the
Commission was substantially the same as the original version, except that this
edition excluded exploratory drilling and other exploratory activities. He added
that the new definition of EXPLORATORY DRILLING excluded only two activities:
looking for water and drillings to check on foundation borings.
Mrs. Diehl said that of course any exploratory activity that was not earth -disturbing
was not included.
Mr. Payne replied that this was not true. He said that any sort of exploratory
activity for minerals was defined as EXPLORATORY DRILLING, except for water.
Mrs. Diehl asked about seismic exploration and testing. Mr. Payne said that any
activity not involving holes in the ground was not included.
Mr. Skove asked about making a distinction between the deep holes for gas and
petroleum extraction and mineral extraction. Mr. Payne responded that when the
special use permits were reviewed, different concerns and requirements would be
raised according to such items as depth and radius of the drilling hole. He indicated
that these issues would be addressed on a case by case basis.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the definitions as contained in language prepared
by Mr. Payne. (Copy attached.) Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed
unaminously.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any additional OLD BUSINESS.
Mr. Bowerman told the Commission that a memo had been received from Byron Coburn,
and he wished to take up the matter further because he still believed that it was
feasible to locate guard rails on Rio Road.
Mr. Kindrick agreed with Mr. Bowerman that the guard rails could be installed if
they dug down deep enough. It was determined that many of the cars leaving the road
did so at low speeds during icy, winter road conditions and well -installed guard
rails, such as exist on certain mountain roads, could act as a deterrent.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Bowerman for pursuing the matter further.
Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commission that it would be meeting December 8 for the meeting
previously cancelled due to a bad weather forecast.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
1 r'
Robe t W. Tucker, Jr.
Secr tary
6u
DRILLING, EXPLORATORY: The process of excavation, drilling, boring,
or coreboring of wells or other holes in the earth, by any process
whatever, for purposes of determining the presence of coal, petroleum,
natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals, other than water,
and not including the extraction of any soil, rock or other material
except for purposes of analysis. The term ex. dr. shall be deemed
to include all activities appurtenant or accessory thereto, including,
without limitation, the construction of access roads and disposition
of drilling spoil; but it shall not be deemed to include drilling
of holes, not more than 100 feet in depth, designed solely to
determine the geologic suitability of the site for the construction
of structures.
NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION:
The process by which coal, petroleum,
natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals is removed from any
open pit or any underground workings and produced for sale, exchange
or commercial use and all shafts, slopes, drifts or inclines leading
thereto and including all buildings, structures and equipment above
and below the surface of the ground used in connection with such
process. Natural resource extraction as defined herein shall not be
deemed to include exploratory activities designed to determine the
presence of coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other
minerals, including, but not limited to, excavation, drilling, boring
and coreboring; nor shall the term natural resource extraction be
deemed to include the drilling or boring of wells for the purpose of
obtaining water.
10.2.2 - 38 Exploratory drilling.
W' N0V 2"" 1981
73Y L