HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 06 82 PC MinutesApril 6, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 6, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 7, Main Lobby, Second Floor, Albemarle
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice Chairman;
Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. Carl Williams; and
Ms. Ellen Nash, Ex-Officio. Mr. Richard Cogan was absent. 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.
The minutes of June 9, July 7 and August 25, 1981, were approved as submitted.
zMA-82-4 Higgins Engineering, Inc. - Request to rezone 10+ acres zoned RA Rural
Areas to HI Heavy Industry. Property is located in northeast corner of intersection
of Routes 800 and 602, near Schuyler. County Tax Map 126, part of Parcels 31C and
31D, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and explained that late today the applicant had
amended his rezoning application to include a proffer to restrict the use of the
property to Higgins Engineering's current operation, a machine shop. Mr. Keeler
added that the applicant's attorney, Mr. Joseph M. Serkes, would further explain
the applicant's proffer. Mr. Keeler also stated that the Health Department had
indicated that the soil at this site had a very slow perc rate.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant or his representative wished to speak at
th'_s time.
Mr. Joseph M. Serkes stated that his office represented Higgins Engineering, Inc..
He explained that the rezoning request was being made because one of the five lathe
machines operated above the horsepower permitted in LI Light Industry. Mr. Serkes
said that Higgins Engineering, as mentioned by Mr. Keeler, was in the business of
fabricating flange pipes. He further explained that the applicant currently rented
property in poor condition from Alberene Stone Company in Schuyler. Mr. Serkes
stated that Higgins Engineering wished to relocate in order to be more efficient,
have greater control over its pipe inventory, and more secure, since leasing would
become uncertain should Alberene ever be sold. Mr. Serkes added that relocating
near its present location was a desire of Higgins Engineering. He said that Higgins
employees all lived in the vicinity and the Company wished to maintain its close
working relationship with Alberene Stone Company.
;sir, Serkes said that at present there were ten employees at Higgins and in the event
of expansion five additional employees might be hired. Mr. Serkes described the
site as being basically flat, in a "no -growth" area, surrounded by woods and distant
from any residential dwelling. Mr. Serkes stated that Route 6 would continue to be
the primary route used, both for employees and pipe deliveries from Higgins.
Mr. Serkes suggested that any nuisance from noise would be minimal, since the closest
residence was probably three-quarters to one mile away. He additionally clarified
` that only 6.21 acres were being requested to be rezoned. Mr. Serkes described the
Butler LRFIR pre-engineered building that would be erected on the site. He stressed
U-Mi
this construction would be an improvement to the site, that at present appeared
to be an unauthorized public dump. Mr. Serkes said that Higgins Engineering had
searched for an appropriate site in Nelson County but had been unsuccessful. He
suggested that this use would enhance the area and offered Albemarle County an
additional revenue source.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time.
When there was none, she asked the Commission whether anyone had questions or
concerns with regard to this rezoning request.
Mr. Davis stated that he had visited the site and found it inappropriate for HI
Heavy Industry zoning, located as it was in the middle of RA Rural Areas district.
He added that he would recommend denial.
Mr. Skove said that he agreed; although he was certain Higgins would be a good
neighbor, he pointed out that nothing in the Comprehensive Plan recommended
such a zoning in the middle of the Rural Areas district.
Mr. Davis moved for denial on the basis of nor -compliance with tree Comprehensive
Pisan. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further
discussion.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Higgins where the facility would be built if this request
were denied.
Mr. Higgins replied that he did not know. He added that this construction would
be an improvement to the site, as well as what was planned around the actual
building.
Mrs. Diehl permitted the applicant to pass around a picture of the proposed
building, but said that she was reluctant to allow a further statement from the
applicant since a motion was currently on the floor.
Mrs. Diehl observed, from a positive point of view, that she liked the idea of
providing employment to people in the area. However, she added that she did have
a problem with rezoning so large an area.
Mr. Davis remarked that if the proposed use were more indigenous to the area he
could look favorably on the application. He added that he would like to have the
operation in Albemarle County.
Mr. Kindrick observed that although it might not be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, he did not believe that its presence would hurt anyone and it
would provide employment locally.
Mr. Davis stated that he saw it as breaking up open space, an inappropriate use in
the middle of a long tract of woodland, surrounded by trees.
Mr. Williams suggested that those trees would act as a buffer.
Mr. Davis countered that a building would still be visible from the roads.
Mr. Williams stated that in the Staff Report mention was made of quarries. He
asked whether an industrial use had existed on this site previously.
lj.R
Mr. Keeler confirmed that quarrying activity had occurred in this area, along
both sides of Route 800. He added that this land was owned by the Nelson County
Industrial Development Authority.
Ms. Nash asked about the acreage total for both parcels. Mr. Keeler replied that
altogether there were a few hundred acres and that the proffered rezoning now had
been reduced to around six acres.
Mr. Payne remarked that this rezoning would not affect or use a development right.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not have any problem with the rezoning, since it
would provide employment which he would like to see and in his opinion would not
necessarily change the character of the area.
Mr. Skove concurred that it would probably be a good use, but if approved would
make a denial in the future, based on non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,
difficult.
Mr. Davis again stated that the site was in the RA district and because of this
should be preserved, as one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. He added that
he did not believe that any industrial land existed in the area.
Mr. Williams agreed that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan should generally be
adhered to, but suggested at the same time the Commission should be able on
occasion to make an exception. He stated that this use would provide jobs for
people close to their homes. Mr. Williams suggested that it would be appropriate
for the Commission to approve this request, based on its own merits and since
Mr. Higgins was a local resident.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether the only zoning allowing a pipe storage area
was Heavy Industry.
Mr. Keeler replied that he believed it came down to a question of Light Industry
or Heavy Industry, the horsepower level of one lathe exceeding that allowed in the
Light Industry district. Mr. Keeler added that six or so acres were needed in
order to meet the setback requirements from the agriculturally zoned adjacent
property. He stated that in the past the Zoning Administrator had ruled that pipe
storage areas were part of the main usage.
Mrs. Diehl asked about the content of the applicant's proffer.
Mr. Keeler replied that it agreed to limit use to the machine shop with no limitation on
increased intensity of use or size of the shop. However, Mr. Keeler said that the
applicant's current plan to build about a 10,500 square foot building would not
pose a problem. The Fire Official requires a sprinkler system for buildings of
12,000 square feet in area, Mr. Keeler added, a factor that might preclude the
applicant greatly increasing his floor space, although he could put up additional
smaller buildings.
Mr. Skove asked how far the site was from Nelson County. Mr. Higgins replied
about eight tenths of a mile.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commissioners were ready to vote. She repeated the
motion, which was for denial. A vote was taken, and the motion failed with two
ayes, Messrs. Davis and Skove, and four nayes, Mrs. Diehl and Messrs. Bowerman,
Kindrick and Williams.
1 3_D
Mr. Williams moved for approval of the rezoning request, subject to the applicant's
proffer. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed 4 - 2, with Messrs.
Skove and Davis voting against the motion.
Public Hearing on Planning Commission's Resolution of Intent to amend the
Zoning Ordinance to provide for hydro -electric power generation by special use
permit in the RA district and in the floodway of the Flood Hazard Overlay District,
Sections 10.2.2#38 Hydroelectric Power Generation, and 30.3.5.2.1#6 Hydroelectric
Power Generation, and additionally to add a new section to Supplementary
Regulations: 5.1.26 HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION. ZTA-82-3.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He told the Commission that it was probable
that these amendments would not spark a lot of applications for major projects,
but smaller ones such as the Atkins petition, which would be reviewed later.
Mr. Keeler further explained that construction of dams was generally prohibitive
in cost. He added that a further constraint or discouragement to building dams
was a recent finding by'a district court judge that dams were point source
pollutants. Mr. Keeler said that the Environmental Protection Agency intended to
challenge this ruling, which also required a permit for dams identical to that
required of service authorities discharging from sewage treatment plants.
Mr. Keeler also said that it was generally believed that there were no major rivers
in the County adequate to encourage a lot of dam activity.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment concerning these Zoning
Ordinance amendments.
Mr. Atkins asked to speak, as a member of the Virginia Hydroelectric Association. *4100
He suggested that the Commission would see projects other than just his own come
before it and he pointed out that with all the State, Federal and agency
requirements that had to be met by any applicant, he hoped that the County might
relax some of its proposed regulations and streamline the process.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. When there was not,
she asked Mr. Payne or Mr. Keeler to clarify how County approval of a hydroelectric
project would dovetail with State, Federal and other agency approvals.
Mr. Payne replied that what he assumed was contemplated by Staff was the conditions
of approval for a special use permit would include approvals from the various
State, Federal and other agencies. He added that Mr. Atkins' comments illustrated
the procedure: if it were not possible to obtain a final approval from a certain
agency until County approval, the Board could act on the request, subject to
obtaining final approval from all the outstanding State and Federal agencies.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the proposed amendments primarily addressed environmental
concerns and that preliminary review from many of the agencies could be obtained
early in the process, enabling Staff to write a comprehensive report on the proposal.
Mr. Keeler said that in previous cases of the County giving approval, subject to
subsequent approvals from other agencies, problems with regard to jurisdiction
have arisen. Mr. Keeler cited two cases on the Rivanna where a State agency had
refused to act because it did not have authority, saying that the river bottom
was privately owned. Mr. Keeler added that in some cases agencies might make
recommendations rather than take authoratative action. Mr. Keeler pointed out
that if in fact it were known initially that a certain State or Federal agency
i3/
did not consider itself as having authority, it would give the County an opportunity
to address the possibility of requiring certain appropriate conditions. He stressed
�4wr that projects related to rivers and streams were of primary concern.
Mrs. Diehl stated that it seemed essential to her to have this preliminary information,
prior to reviewing a particular application, from the various agencies.
Mr. Williams suggested that the amendments required approvals from the agencies
prior to County approval and that the applicant had stated that in many instances
the Federal agencies will not grant final approvals until all County approvals are
obtained.
Mr. Keeler reiterated that the amendments speak to recommendations and comments
from the various agencies (see item 3)b) on attached ZTA-82-3), not final approvals.
He added that most agencies would be most willing to review proposed projects and
make comment and recommendations.
Mr. Skove remarked that in any event the applicant would be required to go through
other permit applications to State and Federal agencies.
Mr. Payne added that in any event he was certain the Staff would not be comfortable
preparing a report on any application without having this data in hand, whether it
was obtained by the applicant or secured by Staff.
Mrs. Diehl suggested that the word "approval" had been misused and perhaps confused
the issue, but that the Staff language did not make mention of any approvals, only
comment and recommendations.
When there was no further discussion, Mr. Skove moved for approval of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance amendments. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously.
ZTA-82-3. Attached.
Em
. 29.
ZTA- 82- 3. 1) Amend the RA district to provide for hydroelectric power generation
by special use permit:
10.2.2 438 Hydroelectric Power Generation (reference 5.1.26)
2) Amend the Flood Hazard Overlay District to provide for hydroelectric
power generation by special use permit in the floodway:
30.3.5.2.1 #6 Hydroelectric Power Generation (reference 5.1.26)
3) Add a new section to Supplementary Regulations:
5.1.26 HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
a) These provisions are intended to encourage the use of water
power as a natural and replenishable resource for the
generation of electrical power. While serving energy
conservation and natural resource goals, these provisions
are also intended to limit such use so as: not to be
objectionable in the area in which it is located; not to
interfere with the passage of boats, canoes, fish and other
aquatic life; not to degrade the riverine and aquatic
habitat nor water quality, in general;
b) The applicant shall submit with his application for special '
use permit plans, profiles, studies, and other supporting
information addressing the issues in (a) above. No such
application shall be approved until comment and recommendation
have been received from the S;VCB, the Commission of Game and
Inland Fisheries, and other appropriate Federal, State and
local agencies;
c) Whether or not a site development plan is required, the
applicant shall submit to the County Engineer a certified
engineer's report as described in 4.14.8. In review of such
report, the County Engineer shall be particularly mindful of
the requirements of 4.14.1 NOISE and 4.14.7 ELECTRICAL
INTERFERENCE;
d) Except as specifically permitted in a particular case, no
auxiliary or accessory method of power generation shall be
permitted nor shall any pump -storage or rechannelization be
permitted.
19
SP-82-7 C. H. and Josephine Atkins - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2#38
and Section 30.3.5.2.1#6 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a hydroelectric power
generating plant on 5+ acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property is located at the
intersection of Routes 743 and 641, in Advance Mills. County Tax Map 20, Parcel
15A and part of Parcel 14, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and told the Commission that he had been in touch
with various agencies, none of which had any particular problem with this application.
Mr. Keeler stated that he had requested the agencies to keep him informed as they
reviewed Mr. Atkins' proposal further.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Atkins if he would like to speak at this time.
Mr. Atkins responded that for those not familiar with his project, it was first of
all a matter of cleaning up the headway of the raceway, which had become overgrown
over the years. He explained also that the gates would be raised and repaired and
the old turbines replaced with new or rebuilt ones. The major portion of the project,
he continued, would be the installation of these turbines and a generator, along
with the wires to Vepco's lines. Mr. Atkins told the Commission that the plant
would have a 100 kilowatt capacity, probably operating below that level at 80
kilowatts, some three hundred days of the year. Mr. Atkins told the Commission
that this project was no major power plant installation. He said that originally
in 1830 it was established as a wooden dam, later becoming concrete at the time
of renovation, in 1925.
Mr. Atkins described the site as it had been before he bought it, a public nuisance
with trespassing at night. He told the Commission that he had cleaned up the site
considerably and enclosed it with a fence to prevent further unauthorized use of
the site. Mr. Atkins said that he was seventy-two years old and hoped to amortize
the project in twenty years. Speaking to the suggested conditions of approval,
Mr. Atkins said that he must object to the idea of having to build steps out of
the pond and to provide a walkway and signs. Mr. Atkins said that only a couple of
times a summer did a canoe or flat boat come through and the cost of a portage
trail would be prohibitive. Secondly, Mr. Atkins objected to the idea of upgrading
the fish ladder and installing fish screens. Mr. Atkins said that these
improvements had to be judged as to whether they would be cost-effective. He
suggested that perhaps just cleaning out the existing fish ladder might be called
upgrading, but that he would not be planning on replacing it. Mr. Atkins said
that replacing it would entail drilling through about twelve feet of concrete.
He said that he assumed when it was initially installed it was done in accordance
with the Fish and Game Commission. And in that case, he continued, he wondered
why the Planning Commission would object.
Mr. Atkins asked to comment on the drawdown question. He estimated that the pond
was filled up badly, about eight or ten feet, and extended up for about three-
quarters of a mile. He added that he expected that there was just enough water
present to run the turbines for one or two hours a day. Mr. Atkins said in answer
to the question of a resident in the area, he guessed that the depth of the raceway
was five feet, which would provide a minimum velocity to turn the turbines.
Mrs. Diehl said that the other question that had been asked was whether Mr. Payne
should address the legality of raising the height of the dam. Mr. Atkins responded
that he had no intention of raising the dam.
Mrs. Frances Sims, an adjacent property owner, asked whether anything had been
constructed on the property to retain water.
/;?kl
Mr. Atkins replied that nothing had been built in the stream for this purpose.
Mrs. Sims expressed concern over conditions in the event of a flood, saying
that she had known the stream to overflow. She asked whether the dam would
have an adverse effect during a flood, causing overflow over the highway.
Mr. Atkins replied that there would be no such problems caused by the dam or
this installation. However, he said that in times of flood he had seen water
over the raceway and therefore the structure would have to be built high enough.
Mrs. Sims asked about how the proposed facility would affect water level during
times of low water level. She said that there was continuing development
upstream and she voiced concern about how this installation might deplete the
general water supply.
Mr. Atkins replied that it might draw the level down a foot, but the turbines
could be cut off in that event.
Mrs. Diehl asked that the earlier issue of draw -down be addressed. She said
that in her opinion it would be advisable to include a condition on the draw -
down as a protective measure for people upstream.
Mr. Atkins responded that he believed the only way to know about what the draw -
down would be would be to install the turbines, which he said were designed
with a minimum head of eight feet. Mr. Atkins that this meant that if the water
level dropped below eight feet, the turbines would stop. He said that he doubted
it would ever be a problem and reiterated more would be known after installation
of the equipment.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. When there was not, �W
she declared the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler asked to clarify the Staff conditions (a) and (b). He explained to
Mr. Atkins that Staff was not suggesting the construction of steps and clearing
of a path, but rather suggesting that looking downstream on the righthand side
where the spillway was located, it would be necez�sar,, to have a pathway around
the dam in the event that someone canoed down the river. Mr. Keeler stated
that it would probably be to Mr. Atkins'advantage to have a sign to direct
people to the path side of the dam, rather than by chance have them start around
the side of the dam where his equipment was located. Mr. Keeler added that Staff
was not suggesting fencing all the way down to the dam so that there would be no
way for passage through.
Mr. Atkins asked to clarify this issue quickly by stating that there were no
plans to change that side of the river whatsoever.
Mr. Keeler said that on condition (b) the final approvals had not been received
and the requirement of a fish ladder and other improvements would only be made
in the event the Game and Fisheries agency so advised. He explained that this
requirement would be made by the County Engineer after review of the various
agency reports had been reviewed.
Mr. Atkins asked for a clarification, inquiring if approval from Game and
Inland Fisheries would mean County approval.
Mrs. Diehl explained that the condition (b) as written allowed for inclusion
any recommendations from the Game and Inland Fisheries Department.
/-515-
Mr. Payne, speaking as a canoeist and clarifying that it was not a legal
matter, advised that he believed it to be quite important to direct people
to the righthand side of the dam. He said that he had put in near the
spillway and recognized the need as recommended by Mr. Keeler to have appropriate
signs away from the side of the dam with equipment as protection to both the
canoeist and to Mr. Atkins' installation.
Mr. Kindrick stated that Mr. Atkins had fenced in all of his side of the
river and the other side would not be affected by this installation.
Mr. Payne said that although it was not extremely important, there should still
be a sign directing people to the righthand side of the dam, particularly for
the benefit of those who had never been to the site before. He also mentioned
that this river was included in a basic canoeist text with reference to the dam
as a hazard.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions or comments. She
asked whether the Commission was satisfied with the explanation given by
Mr. Atkins on the draw -down.
Mr. Skove asked if the draw -down was determined by the turbines cutting off
when the head dropped below eight feet.
Mr. Atkins responded that wind determined this and the turbines would be cut
off by hand or automatically at that point because they would stop operating.
Mr. Skove wondered whether six-foot turbines would be feasible.
Mr. Atkins replied that eight feet was the minimum in order to be economically
practical.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the upper gates closed when the head dropped below
eight feet, so that water did not continue to run down over the non -operative
turbines.
Mr. Atkins replied that the upper gates were supposed to be closed and that
it might in fact mean a lapse of a half an hour to do so if it were manually
operated. He added that it was important to close off the water flow so that
debris did not fill the turbines. He also mentioned self-cleaning turbines.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether it would be to his advantage to have a method for
shutting off the water at the head immediately so that the level could be
brought back up.
Mr. Atkins said that it might be, but as a practical matter it would not be
known until the design phase and actually operation of the facility. He
assured the Commission that this operation would not cause a draw -down
unnecessarily and would not have any detrimental affect.
Mrs. Sims started to offer comment, and the Chairman advised that the public
hearing was closed.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Bowerman whether his question was answered. He responded
that he was not certain, since it appeared that not everything had been worked
out at this point.
Mr. Bowerman expressed his concern about the continuing flow of water and
consequent loss of water level when there was a drop below eight feet and a
cut-off of the turbines. He suggested that a significant drop in water level
could still occur with no electricity being generated and in fact the loss of
a lot of unused water. Mr. Bowerman said that some automatic means of
cutting off the water flow as the turbines stopped could be an important device.
Mr. Atkins said that he appreciated Mr. Bowerman's point. He said that there
were gates in existence now and he recognized that it was to his interest and
everyones that the water be kept from going down the raceway except when
generating electricity. He said that it was an operational problem that would
have to be controlled and that eight feet might even be a conservative estimate.
Mr. Bowerman observed that it appeared there was an economic advantage to not
having the draw -down go lower than one foot and therefore this issue would be
taken care of.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further questions. When there were none,
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the conditions
recommended by Staff:
1. The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a development
permit by the Zoning Administrator as required by Section 30.3.3.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
a. Staff approval of a portage trail and appropriate signage;
b. County Engineer review and approval of final reports from appropriate
State and Federal agencies. In such review, the County Engineer shall be `Mw
mindful of the provisions of 5.1.26 and may require such measures as deemed
appropriate to accomplish the objectives of 5.1.26, including but not limited
to upgrading of the fish ladder, installation of fish screens and the like;
c. Any construction or other improvements within the 100-year flood plain
shall be accomplished in compliance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
SP-82-9 Augusta Lumber and Supply, Incorporated - Request in accordance with
Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a permanent sawmill on 27.930
acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property is located on the western side of
Route 712, opposite Route 813 and approximately 600 feet northwest of the
Southern Railroad, at the existing Augusta Lumber site near North Garden.
County Tax Map 99, Parcel 49A, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and showed the Commission an aerial of the
property. He added that Staff was not recommending a site plan since it was
an agricultural/forestal use, which customarily had been an encouraged use.
He specifically mentioned the storage shed and pointed it out on the aerial,
saying that it was quite close to Route 712 and that lumber was stored between
the shed and Route 712, a practice that Staff was recommending be discontinued.
Mr. Keeler added that he did not know where Mr. Carr intended to store the
existing lumber while constructing the new building, although there were
approximately twenty-eight acres of property. Mr. Keeler remarked that with
this much acreage available certainly the lumber could be stored further from
the road.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to clarify the drawing contained in the Staff
Report packet, so that it could be determined which were the existing buildings
and which were proposed. He did so and added that the cut-up plant and planer
shed were not included in Staff recommendations now and would require review.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant, Mr. Howard Carr, if he wished to speak at this
time.
Mr. Carr passed out a letter to the Commission requesting relief from all
conditions of Section 5.1.15 SAWMILL, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT of Supplementary
Regulations of the zoning Ordinance, except for condition (d.). Mr. Carr
also asked that the Commission consider the planer shed as part of this
application, because it was possible that construction on it would start in
about a year. He said that it consisted of nothing more than a building
around a planer saw.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Carr had no further statement to make after
he confirmed the request for all conditions except (d.) to be waived, under
Supplementary Regulations. He added that he only sought to continue his
existing operation, legally. Mrs. Diehl asked whether it was not a non -conforming
use. Mr. Carr responded that it would depend on which came first, the mill or use.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment at this time.
Mr. Samuel Henderson said that he lived on the north side of this property
14rr' and experienced considerable problems with sawdust and pollen that was blown
over from this property. He suggested that increased truck traffic would
further the problem with additional dust. Mr. Henderson asked what would be
done about the smoke that would be generated by the running of the kiln.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further comment. When there was none,
she asked Mr. Carr if he wished to respond to Mr. Henderson's remarks.
Mr. Carr replied that the dust would be burned in the boiler and that
hopefully with a building covering most of the yard, it would be cleaner.
He also addressed the stacking of lumber close to the road and storage shed.
Mr. Carr said that this stacking had been a practice for as long as he
could remember. He said that the only other practical area for stacking would
be behind the hill and he could not be certain that employees would comply
with such a requirement.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Carr whether he had been able to contact Mr. Cortez with
regard to his recommendations as contained in Mr. Cortez' memo of March 30.
Mr. Carr replied that he had not yet been able to meet with Mr. Cortez, but
that he expected to when he reached the building permit stage. He added that
he would certainly be willing to work with Mr. Cortez; he mentioned that the
fire chief of North Garden worked for his firm and that they had discussed a
dry hydrant. Mr. Carr said that it was possible that a sprinkler system could
be installed if other alternatives were not adequate.
Mrs. Diehl declared the matter to be before the Commission. She asked
Mr. Keeler whether he had had sufficient time to consider the applicant's
request in light of the letter received tonight regarding relief from those
four conditions.
Mr. Keeler replied that he had not, in regard to noise limitation. He added
that it was not clear from the applicant's letter of March 11 whether the hours
of operation might involve machinery starting up at 6:00 a.m. or trucks loading
at that hour. Mr. Keeler said that it appeared the applicant was seeking no
restriction on noise level and that it would be necessary to confer further
with the applicant and the County Engineer.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was certainly concerned about the request to waive all
these conditions prior to Staff review. She said that she believed further
information was needed on this application, as well as further comment from
Mr. Cortez.
Mr. Skove said that he would be willing to modify the wording of some of the
regulations, rather than eliminating all of them.
Mr. Davis observed that when you are faced with a non -conforming use you would
like to see it brought into conformance. He added that perhaps it should be
deferred in order to give the applicant an opportunity to seek some middle
ground.
Miss Nash asked what the objection was to the stacking of lumber.
Mr. Keeler replied that the lumber was even closer to the road than the
shed and this defeated the intent of setback regulations. He added that
the whole idea of setback regulations was as you encroach on public roads
you distract motorists. Mr. Keeler said that it was at least a distraction
if not a safety hazard. He added that the same sort of situation existed at
Yancey Mills.
Mr. Skove moved for deferral of this special use permit application until
May 4. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
Mrs. Diehl told Mr. Carr that it was the Commission's desire that he confer
with Staff to a greater extent on his request for relief from Supplementary
Regulations, allowing further Staff review of the application.
Mr. Keeler asked Mrs. Diehl whether the Commission wished to entertain the
other uses mentioned by Mr. Carr when the application was reconsidered on
May fourth. Mr. Keeler reiterated that these other uses had not been reviewed
because it had not been clear initially that they were included in the
application. He mentioned the planer shed and cut-up plant, which might
contain machinery that Mr. Carr would not necessarily yet be certain of.
Mrs. Diehl told Mr. Keeler that she would not be comfortable having the
Commission address any item that Staff had not been adequately informed of
and had sufficient time to review and make recommendation on.
Mr. Payne clarified that consideration of the other uses was at the discretion
of the Commission and that he did not believe readvertisement was required.
There was a five-minute recess at this time.
-1Q
SP-82-10 Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Incorporated (Blue Ridge Forest, Phase 2)
Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to subdivide
125.83 acres zoned RA Rural Areas into 15 lots with an average lot size of 8.39
acres. Property is located off of north side of State Route 660, approximately
one and three-quarters miles southwest of its intersection with Route 743, in
Earlysville. County Tax Map 30, part of Parcel 27, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and added that should the special use permit
be approved, there were four items that he would like to recommend concerning
physical design. Mr. Keeler pointed to the exhibited plat as he explained the
following:
1. As currently platted, a public right-of-way is shown and should be
abandoned so that the private road would come directly off the State
road.
2. Because of slopes and a stream, two lots should be served off
Route 660.
3. There could be a little better lot design for Parcel 28 by moving
the lot line over, thereby increasing the building area and allowing
for an easier transition off the private road onto a driveway.
4. One lot as currently designed would require crossing of Fishing Creek
twice; extending an easement would provide direct access to this
property and allow for future development of the lot.
Mr. Keeler completed his review by stating that he had tried to be as brief
as possible and that Staff opinion was that this special use permit should be
approved because not only were potential runoff problems of this particular
development adequately addressed, but existing loadings to the reservoir would
actually be reduced by this project, barring a 100-year flood or such.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant or his representative had any comment
at this time.
Mr. Payne asked the Chairman if he could speak. Mr. Payne stated that although
his firm represented a resident of the area affected by this application, he
did not have any conflict of interest in the review of the special use permit
and did not intend to disqualify himself.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Payne and addressed Mr. Ed Bain. Mr. Keeler apologized
that he had neglected to read a letter received from an adjacent property owner,
William Massey, Jr., voicing support for this application due to the size of
the lots.
Mr. Bain told the Commission that he was present to represent the applicant,
Haley, Chisholm and Morris, that additionally Mr. Michael Boggs and Mr. Marvin
Pastel of Haley, Chisholm and Morris were present, and Mr. Mark Osborne,
professional engineer of the firm Gloeckner, Lincoln and Osborne, Inc. - all
of whom could answer any questions or go into further detail on the runoff
control provisions set forth. Mr. Bain said that he would be brief, as the
Staff Report had been lengthy and fully addressed the nine criteria of the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bain said that he would like to go directly to Staff
recommendations. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Keeler whether under Condition 2.a. the
reference to Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance also required adherence to
the hillside development standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keeler responded that Section 4.2 of the critical slopes provisions
states that a given parcel of land must have 30,000 square feet of building
site and slopes of less than twenty-five percent. Mr. Keeler said that this
recommendation spoke to limiting any clearing on these lots to a building site
of 30,000 square feet and a driveway to serve the building site. He added
that Staff would probably be coming to the Commission with something to
incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan on this subject, replacing the hillside
development standards. Mr. Keeler spoke of an example of a property owner on
the reservoir who cleared seven acres without a grading permit because he was
constructing a single-family dwelling for which no grading permit is required.
Mr. Keeler stated that he did not believe it was the intent of the Soil Erosion
ordinance to burden the individual home builder with the requirement of obtaining
a grading permit, but it was not necessary to clear seven acres in order to build
a single-family dwelling.
Mr. Bain explained that five more lots were being requested than what would be
allowed by right and that the eleven -acre lake would not only add to the
enjoyment of residents as a recreational facility, but would also limit the
pollutants going into the reservoir.
Mr. Bain spoke to the last page of the Staff Report, saying that although it
would be a requirement of the homeowners to maintain the lake, he did not believe
as Mr. Keeler had pointed out that such activities as dredging of the lake would
be a responsiblity of the homeowners, because most of the pollution was coming
from the Earlysville area and was not related to this development. Mr. Bain
asked Mr. Keeler whether he was correct in assessing from Condition 2.c. that
Staff was not burdening the homeowners with this requirement (of dredging out
the lake of pollutants originating elsewhere and not related to recreational
use of the lake), whether it be in ten, fifteen or whatever number of years hence.
Mr. Keeler concurred with Mr. Bain.
Mr. Payne added that, unless the Commission so desired a condition permitting
the runoff control officer or watershed management official to require periodic
dredging of the lake, he would draw up the maintanance provisions for this lake
as for any other lake. He said that such a requirement would be appropriate if
the runoff control ordinance applied but that he did not believe it did.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment at this time.
Mr. Keyes spoke as the owner of Lot 7, located he explained, at the intersection
of Forestvue and Route 660. Mr. Keyes said that he was pleased to see this
development and that he had absolutely no objection to it, but that he had a
twenty -foot grading easement across his property and he wanted to know when
plans for Route 660 would be known.
Mr. Keeler asked whether anyone from the Zoning Department had contacted
Mr. Keyes, and he replied that no one had contacted him. Mr. Keeler said that
after a telephone conversation with Mr. Keyes, he had gone to the Zoning
Department and looked at a grading plan on file there for the road. He pointed
out on the displayed plat what the improvements would entail and apologized
that nobody had called Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes said that he understood a change had been made from a year ago,
when he had moved a lot of scrubbery. He asked who was responsible for approval
R
A//
of the road plans. Mr. Keeler said that the grading plan could be reviewed in
the Zoning Department and that probably Mr. Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer
err of the Highway Department, could answer any questions Mr. Keyes might have.
Mr. Coburn explained that he believed the grading plan for Route 660 was for a
turn lane into Forestvue Drive. He added that the only change he could think
of might be an increase in the length of the turn lane required.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this issue was related to the special use permit request
before the Commission. Mr. Keeler replied that it was not. Mr. Keyes objected
that it had to be part of the application before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keyes whether Mr. Coburn had answered his question. He
replied that he had not, but he apologized to the Commission since it was
apparent to him that it was not a matter of Commission concern, but an issue
he must take up with the Highway Department. He reiterated his support of the
proposed project.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment on this special use
permit request. When there was none, she declared the public hearing closed
and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Skove observed that he felt overwhelmed by the mass of data contained in
the Staff Report.
Mr. Davis asked whether the roads would be private. Mr. Keeler replied that
they would be, coming off a State road. Mr. Davis asked how many lots would
be between the State road and the beginning of the private road. Mr. Keeler
clarified that the private road would come right off the State road and that
15 lots were proposed, with two other lots fronting on the private road, two
lots previously approved, leaving 13 lots to be served by this private road.
Mr. Keeler said that the Commission would have to make a determination as to
whether two of the lots had access off of the State road or the proposed private
road.
Mr. Skove asked whether the road issues would not be addressed when the
subdivision came before the Commission. Mr. Keeler replied that they would,
but Staff attempted in the case of a major change to apprise the applicant of
the situation at the time of a special use permit request. Mr. Skove said that
he liked to review large developments as a whole package.
Mr. Skove asked Mr. Keeler whether he believed condition three took care of all
the concerns addressed by the watershed management official. Mr. Keeler replied
that he did.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that a condition had often been written in prohibiting any
land disturbing activity on critical slopes or hillsides. She asked whether
this issue had already been covered by one of the recommended conditions.
Mr. Payne replied that he believed so in the condition limiting tree removal
to the lake site, building sites and driveways. Mrs. Diehl observed that the
wording of the condition was "tree removal," and did not include all land -
disturbing activity.
Mr. Keeler said it could be included because he was not certain of the status
at this point of the runoff control ordinance, the soil erosion and sedimentation
/44?
control ordinance. He said that a change had been made in several of the
ordinances and that the three of them at this time were not properly meshed.
Mrs. Diehl observed that she would be more comfortable with a condition that
specifically spoke to the critical slopes, since a high percentage of the
property consisted of such slopes. She said that she could not remember the
language that had often been used in the past for such a condition.
Mr. Keeler suggested a condition that read: no earth -disturbing activity on
slopes greater. than 25 percent, except those necessary to establish roads or
driveways.
Mr. Payne suggested that an insertion of and land -disturbing activity after
tree removal in condition 2.a. would suffice.
Mr. Skove asked whether the lake could become eutrophic eventually. Mr. Keeler
replied that it could; he referred to some figures Mr. Osborne had calculated as
one half acre per foot lost to sedimentation annually. Based on those
calculations, Mr. Keeler continued, and barring a catastrophic storm, it would
take 400 years for the 11-acre lake to fill up.
Mrs. Diehl said that she found if difficult to put this into perspective
because she could not imagine a lake of this size in such terrain staying open
for 400 years. Mr. Keeler said that of course it would depend in part on what
else happened in the watershed up above the lake.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Osborne to give the Commission his figures on how much
sedimentation in inches on the pond surface might be expected.
Mr. Osborne said that he had recalculated his figures and arrived at an
estimated one inch loss per year for the whole lake area; he also suggested
that 100 years would be a more reasonable length of time in which to expect
the lake to fill up. Mr. Osborne said that as mentioned by Mr. Keeler most of the
sedimentation process would primarily occur from the upstream area and would
manifest itself as a swampy condition in the upstream area. He added that if
this condition were not taken care of by dredging, a great change would take
place over a period of twenty-five years to the pond itself.
Mr. Osborne said, speaking of the eutrophic state,that he did not believe such
a condition would materially affect the trap efficiency of the pond and would
not occur for twenty-five to fifty years. Referring to the Browne Studer pond, which
he explained was done for Rivanna, Mr. Osborne said it was smaller in proportion
to its drainage basin in Ivy Creek and had been found to be free of outgrowths.
Mr. Osborne said that he would expect the same condition to prevail in this pond.
Mrs. Diehl observed that these were natural stages in any pond, accelerated by
adding materials.
Mr. Skove asked what the stage aligatrophic meant. Mrs. Diehl replied the state
of being relatively free of nutrients. Mr. Osborne gave Lake Tahoe as an example.
Mr. Osborne said that mesatrophic and eutrophic were more commonly found in
Virginia.
Mr. Bain said that he had some problems over the potential of being so
restrictive that the lots would not sell, referring to county attorney
/.12
approval of deed restrictions. He assured the Commission there would be no clearing cr tree
removal on critical slopes, but as worded this condition was too prohibitive.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether any of the Commissioners had any comments. She added that
personally, since the property was in the reservoir runoff area, in close proximity
to the reservoir, she believed greater restrictions were appropriate in this case.
Mr. Mike Boggs asked to speak, explaining that he did not believe it was reasonable if
someone was going to buy a twelve -acre lot, to restrict any clearing of that acreage
to only 30,000 square feet. He added that the dam offered protection and a home owner
might want to put in an outbuilding or stable, which would not be allowed as written.
Mr. Skove asked whether the language under discussion was condition 2.a. Mrs. Diehl
confirmed that this was so.
Mr. Skove said that to him the condition sounded flexible enough to allow construction
of an outbuilding.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne for his interpretation of the condition as written.
Mr. Payne remarked that it was quite restrictive. He added as he read it, any
clearcutting or land -disturbing activity was prohibited except in designated areas.
Mr. Payne said, for example, it would appear that clearing a couple of acres for
pasture would not be permissible.
Mr. Skove suggested that it could be done if approved by the Run-off Control Official.
�r✓ Mr. Payne replied that he did not believe so, from the way he read the language. He
added that he was not certain that this was the intention of Staff.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if this had been Staff's intent.
Mr. Keeler replied that it was because as currently written in the Ordinance, anyone
building a single-family dwelling could clear a hundred acres without a grading permit.
He suggested that another alternative might be to restrict clearing to those designated
areas unless a grading permit were obtained. Mr. Keeler cautioned that attractive plans
were seen frequently, showing large wooded lots with a home nestled among the trees,
but no controls existed that would govern what a buyer could do. Mr. Keeler said that
someone buying those twelve -acre lots could,and in the past had, clear a large part of
the total acreage. Mr. Keeler said that especially for a special use permit in the
reservoir, he believed the suggested restrictions were appropriate. He reminded the
Commission that similar conditions had been placed on the Frank Milton Miles application.
Mr. Keeler stressed that Staff in the review of applications for Rural Areas
development and in the placement of conditions tried to be as consistent as possible.
Mr. Skove asked whether there had been any other applications in the watershed for a
special use permit.
Mr. Keeler replied that the Miles application he had been referring to, had come before
the Commission a couple of months previously and the Commission had recommended
approval with the same wording in the condition addressing tree -removal. Mr. Keeler
mentioned that the Miles application had requested a change in lot size but was for
an eight -lot subdivision, which would have been permitted by right except for the lot
size desired by the applicant. Mr. Keeler added that there had been Commission
discussion of limiting clearing and requiring grading permits during that review.
/4441
Mr. Keeler indicated that the problem arises often when lots are sold over a period
of years, there being no controls exercised over the buyer and no guarantee that a
development after the construction of homes will look like the original illustrated
plan.
Mr. Boggs suggested that it would be fair to the applicant to simply restrict tree -
removal and earth -disturbing activity on critical slopes, but leave some leeway
otherwise. He said that certainly the applicant did not want to see the site cleared
indiscriminately, either.
Mr. Payne said that if a person clears two or three acres for pastureland, he would
be subject to the soil erosion ordinance. He read specific language out of the Statute
which indicated a person clearing for the purpose of constructing a single-family
dwelling was not subject to the soil erosion ordinance. Mr. Payne said that agricultural
clearing of forested land for the purpose of planting crops was subject to the soil
erosion ordinance. It was determined that just tree -cutting was not subject to the
soil erosion ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether as the condition was currently written, a lot -owner
could get a soil erosion permit. Mr. Payne replied that he could not.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners how they felt on this issue.
Mr. Skove said that the big advantage of such a condition was to reduce runoff and he
would be inclined to leave the condition as written.
Mr. Davis said that he would be inclined to leave some leeway with guidelines
because it would be better to clear pastureland according to guidelines that otherSod
-
wise would just be cleared.
Mr. Bowerman said that it was reasonable to expect some of the buyers of these lots
to want to do something with them, since they were so large, such as a stable or
pastureland. He suggested that it would be preferable to have a course of action
written-in,to follow, rather than to have them undertake clearing activities anyway
with no controls. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne for some guidance on how best to
address this issue; Mr. Bowerman suggested that he might favor a deed restriction.
Mr. Payne responded that it depended on what the objective might be. He said that
if the concern were that a soil erosion plan be filed, the language should be in
those terms, to govern any activity on the site. He suggested that this could be
accomplished within the framework of the special use permit, which could exceed the
requirements of the soil erosion ordinance. Mr. Payne said that if the intent was
to maintain tree cover, that was another problem. He said that there appeared to
be a wide range of possibilities, depending on what the Commission wished to do.
Mr. Payne suggested that Staff in addressing tree cover was directing concern for
limitation of sedimentation and control of nutrients and runoff.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if condition 2.a. were changed, whether Staff would
not support the application.
Mr. Keeler replied that would not be the case and indeed the condition was one
the Commission had previously placed on another application. Mr. Keeler said that
he agreed that some sort of safety valve was desirable to allow for clearing of a
pasture, but that experience had shown that in the past some considerable clearing
/4�-5
had taken place under the guise of clearing for a single-family dwelling. Mr. Keeler
suggested that perhaps a condition could be worded to require any clearing other
than for a dwelling to be accomplished under an approved grading permit.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Payne that a soil erosion permit and a grading permit
were one and the same.
Mr. Payne suggested that the applicant had in mind a condition that would reflect
Appendix A of the Soil Erosion Ordinance, relating to restricting activity on slopes
of twenty-five percent or more but not addressing tree clearing activities. Mr. Payne
said that this provision pertained to the Rivanna watershed and exempted excavation
or land -disturbing activities related to installation of utilities and roads. He
pointed out that this provision was tied to the topography of the land, but did not
prohibit tree -clearing.
Mr. Skove established that in fact the purpose of condition 2.a. was in his opinion
to assure that most of the forested area of the site remain forested. He added that
this provision was designed to control the flow of nutrients into the reservoir and
appeared essential to the application, if he were to support it.
Mr. Mike Boggs asked to speak and was recognized by the Chairman. He stated that he
believed some tree cutting could take place on the lots and still reduce runoff.
Mr. Payne suggested that this concept, as contained in the runoff ordinance, could
be applied in a similar condition. This condition, he continued, would allow for
clearing as long as the water below the dam contained fewer, or no more, nutrients
than were present before such clearing activities. In an answer to a question on
who would measure or make this determination, Mr. Payne responded that the County
Engineer was the Runoff Control Official but he would not be authorized to apply
this ordinance in this fashion unless the Commission so designated.
Mr. Davis suggested that the developer submit a plan to the Runoff Control Officer.
Mr. Payne said that was a possibility, to have the developer do such a plan in
advance, with calculations on various possible activities.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Davis to repeat his suggestion. Mr. Davis responded that a
condition could be worded to say all land -disturbing activities shall adhere to a
plan approved by the Runoff Control Official. He then specified that there be a
stipulation for slopes of twenty-five percent or more, that there be no tree clearing
or land -disturbing activities except for construction of roads, driveways, and
preparation of the lake.
Mr. Williams suggested that as written condition 2.a. accomplished this purpose.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that it seemed to her difficult to submit a plan ahead of time
that would alot certain activities on the different lots.
Mr. Davis said that he did not see why someone could not resubmit a plan at any time
to the Runoff Control Official.
Mr. Payne suggested that this could result in a first -come, first -served arrangement,
with the nutrient load being determined after activity on one lot, thereby possibly
*414W' prohibiting further tree removal on another lot. He added that of course he had no
specific idea of how many trees could be removed before increasing the nutrient load.
/A14
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that according to the applicant's report, the figures given
were based on about one and a half acres of active use per lot, which was about
60,000 square feet. She stated that anything above that would cause an alteration logo
in the figures relating to runoff. She said that she believed she wished to see
condition 2.a. remain as written; she said that she did not like the idea of first -
come, first -served, but would like some way to provide for submittal of a plan.
Mrs. Diehl said that she did not like the idea of an owner coming in and grading a
large area, either.
Mr. Ed Bain asked about placing a percentage restriction on land -disturbing activity
or clearing on each lot, outside of the twenty-five percent slopes. He explained
that such a restriction could be based on the total lot size, for example, for twelve
acres, perhaps fifteen percent.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether he had ever dealt with a condition of this nature.
Mr. Keeler responded that there was not much control over such activities in any
event and that if included as part of the homeowners' agreements, enforcement would
be up to the other homeowners. He said that it appeared that once the County Runoff
Control Official had approved a plan, there would be no further County involvement.
Mr. Keeler did say that should a homeowner clear his entire lot, perhaps it could be
considered a violation of the special use permit and prompt County action.
Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Bain was referring to the hillside development standards in
speaking of percentages. Mr. Keeler said that using percentages would permit the
same amount of tree removal regardless of slopes; he said that it did not make a lot
of sense to him. Mr. Keeler said that a condition could be tied to the applicant's
own figure of one and a half acres of active use per lot.
Mr. Payne observed that the Commission had the right to place reasonable conditions
on the special use permit and the purpose of including these in the deed restrictions
would primarily be to put a potential buyer on notice. He said that it could be a note
on the plat such as is currently done to reflect development rights.
Mr. Payne ascertained from Mr. Osborne that his figures, based on clearing an acre
and a half per lot, would result in 95 pounds per acre per year of suspended solids.
Mr. Payne said that the maximum allowed in the Runoff Control Ordinance was a loading
of 135, or no more than was present before the activity. He said that he believed
this was what Mr. Keeler was referring to when he mentioned a condition holding the
applicant to his own figures of one and a half acres per parcel. Mr. Payne added
that such a condition would perhaps be easier to enforce.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant could designate on each lot what would be
appropriate for clearing. Mr. Mike Boggs replied that it could be done after some
study. Mr. Bowerman suggested that this would show the maximum allowable on each lot
for clearing. Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Skove's concern was well taken, since the
project was within critical slopes. Mr. Boggs said that the applicant wished to be
reasonable and would agree to limit clearing.
Mr. Bowerman suggested a condition that would limit tree removal as set forth in
condition 2.a., adding additional designated sites, which would be those designated
by the developer on the plan submitted to the Runoff Control Official. In response
to Mrs. Diehl's question as to whether Mr. Bowerman would include a maximum area to
be cleared, Mr. Bowerman said that he would consider such a provision. He suggested
the applicant should look at the terrain and slopes and be comfortable that the
clearing to be allowed per lot would not cause the loading of the streams to be worse
afterwards than it was before. Mr. Bowerman said that if the applicant were agreeable
to this, an approved grading plan in advance with designated clearing per lot, he
could go along with condition 2.a.
Mr. Davis suggested that restricting clearing to an acre and a half per lot might not
be the best approach. He pointed out that some lots might not contain any appropriate
areas for clearing and some might contain more than this. Mr. Bowerman agreed, but
said that certain lots without designated clearing areas would be known in advance by
a buyer.
Mrs. Diehl suggested an average, with no clearing to exceed an average of 1.5 acres
per lot. Mr. Payne observed that this would be the first -come, first -served method.
Mrs. Diehl responded that she understood this provision would be included in the plan
submitted by the developer for approval and then be adhered to by later buyers.
Mr. Bowerman said that if it were a deed restriction, an owner would just take his
chain saw and clear an acre regardless. Mr. Bowerman said that if a buyer knew in
advance that he was allowed to clear an acre and a half, under certain conditions,
with an approved grading plan, the County might be further ahead. He added that it
might be an approach for the future, a means to limit certain activities and when
allowed, under certain controls.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Bowerman was contemplating relating this to acreage or
load.
Mr. Bowerman said that he believed he would want it tied to load and specifically
to each lot. He added that otherwise he would stay with condition 2.a.
Mrs. Diehl voiced her concern that the applicant's figure of 95 pounds might be low.
She explained that this might make her reluctant to tie it to load. She also added
that the figures on designated, appropriate clearing areas per lot were not yet
available. Mr. Bowerman said that they could be available at site plan stage.
Mr. Payne said that his suggestion to use loads was based on using the same approach
for the special use permit as would be applied under the Runoff Control Ordinance for
a commercial development. As a practical matter, he continued, if he understood
Mr. Davis and Mr. Bowerman correctly, at the time of the subdivision plat, the
applicant would have to submit what would amount to a runoff control plan. He said
that although it was technically exempt from the ordinance, it would amount to the
same thing. The developer would state in advance that the buyer could clear x amount
of area on lot y, with the load not to exceed after such clearing what it was before.
Mr. Keeler suggested that since the County Engineer, or Runoff Control Official, was
not present tonight, he could only go along with the written statement by the
Watershed Management Official, that the "existing vegetation should be retained
where possible." Mr. Keeler went on to suggest that it appeared the Commission did
not wish any condition more restrictive than 2.a. and in fact appeared to be leaning
toward allowing more area for clearing. He suggested that perhaps rather than
continue to try to resolve the issue at this stage, the Commission and applicant might
want to suspend it until the subdivision stage.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this would mean removing the condition completely from the
special use permit. Mr. Keeler replied yes, with a substitute condition stating that
the Commission at time of subdivision plat approval shall approve those areas to be
cleared and graded. Mrs. Diehl stated that she believed the Commission should do
this.
Mr. Payne asked to make a suggestion, that was, to change condition 2.a. to read:
Notice of provisions of condition four of this permit; then put a condition four
that says: Vegetation removal and land -disturbing activity to be limited such that
maximum suspended solicb loading and maximum total phosphorus loading measured at
Fishing Creek below the proposed dam do not exceed loadings in existence prior to
development.
Mr. Skove asked whether this was an attempt to tie it to subdivision review.
Mr. Payne replied that it was and essentially put the applicant on notice that he
must submit a runoff control plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions on Mr. Payne's modification
of the conditions. She reread condition 2.a. as amended by Mr. Payne and the
additional condition four. Mrs. Diehl said that in effect this was spelling out the
Runoff Control Ordinance, so that at the stage of subdivision review it could be addressed.
Mr. Payne said that he did not mention the absolute limits contained in the Runoff
Control Ordinance, because he assumed them to be lower. However, he said that the
Commission could so state the limits.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further comments or questions from the Commissioners
or whether everyone was ready to take action.
Mr. Skove observed that the Commission had taken a step back and was ending up
with something at least as good as the original condition 2.a., but not an improvement.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there would still be a plan approved by the Runoff Control
Official. Mr. Payne responded that what he contemplated was that the plat would
state that the following areas could be cleared, with a list, so that each buyer
would be aware of what could be cleared.
Mr. Bowerman clarified that an approved grading plan would be on file and a buyer
could then check on what had to be done in the Zoning Administrator's office, perhaps
obtaining a soil erosion permit.
Mr. Payne ascertained that if Mr. Bowerman wanted more administrative control over
any activity along with inspections, another condition might be advisable. He
suggested a condition five: no clearing, grading or other land -disturbing activities
without permit from the Zoning Administrator in compliance with provisions of
condition four.
Mr. Bowerman said that either he would like to see this additional condition or go
back to condition 2.a.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant how he viewed the proposed new conditions of approval.
Mr. Mike Boggs replied that he believed the ultimate goal for the County and the
applicant was the same.
Mr. Payne said, frankly, the applicant was probably better off with these changes.
He explained that the original condition 2.a. was probably so restrictive that it
would force violations. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this had been his concern.
!�9
Mr. Skove moved for approval of special use permit SP-82-10 with the amendment
of condition 2.a. and additional conditions four and five, as suggested by
Mr. Payne. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion for approval, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Development limited to fifteen lots consistent with the preliminary plat
"Phase Two, Blue Ridge Forest" by William Morris Foster, dated 2-25-82."
2. County Attorney approval of deed restrictions:
a. Notice of provisions of Conditions #4 and #5 of this permit;
b. Requiring that any area of earth -disturbing activity be stabilized
and seeded as soon as work is completed;
c Providing for the maintenance of the lake by the homeowners and
providing for access to the lake by the Runoff Control Official or
other designated County agent for periodic monitoring of the lake.
3. It is the intent of the County that all reasonable measures be taken to
maintain water quality during construction. To this end, the applicant shall
obtain all approvals for construction of the private road and lake prior to
submittal of a final plat for Commission approval. Approving authorities
should be particularly mindful of the County's intent and of the comments of the
Watershed Management Official and County Engineering Department in making such
reviews.
4. Vegetation removal and land -disturbing activity to be limited, such that
maximum suspended solids loading and maximum total phosphorus loading
measured at Fishing Creek below proposed dam do not exceed loadings in
existence before development.
5. No clearing, grading or other land -disturbing activity without permit from the
Zoning Administrator, in compliance with provisions of Condition #4.
The motion passed unanimously with no further discussion.
ZMA-82-3 Dennis Ownby and Charles D. Kincannon - Request to rezone 6.532 acres
zoned R-15 to C-1. Property is located on north side of Route 250 East,
approximately 3,600 feet east of the intersection of Route 250 East and Route 20
North. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 12-A, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing the applicants, explained that the requirement of a decel
lane would be very expensive, running to about $50,000 or $60,000. Mr. Bain added
that in talking with Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department it appeared there would
be no objection to continuing the current usage on the property, but any increase
in usage would be a uroblem. Mr. Bain indicated that in talking with Mr. Tucker,
it had been determined that the maximum usable space, as measured inside the building
and considering the available, existing twelve parking spaces, came to 2400 square
feet. Mr. Bain stated that what would be done was really a rearranging of the space
within the building, a shifting of some walls. Mr. Bain added that the applicant was
willing to comply with all other conditions. He also stated that regardless of the
zoning of the property, any change in the existing office usage would require that
the applicant come back before the Commission. He explained that the purpose of C-1
/ 5-0 ' L—
or CO zoning was simply that it was more in line with what presently existed on
Pantops .
Miss Nash asked Mr. Bain to identify where the property was precisely located.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Kincannon whether he wished to speak at this time or simply
respond to questions. He indicated that he would answer any questions.
Mrs. Diehl next asked whether there was public comment on this application. when
there was none, Mrs. Diehl announced that the public hearing was closed and the
matter before the Commission. She asked Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department to
make some statement on the present status of this application.
Mr. Coburn remarked that the Highwav Department had first reviewed this property
when it was used as the State Farm drive-in claims center. He explained that a
full-blown standard commercial entrance could not be accommodated at that time
without extensive grading. Mr. Coburn continued, saying that at the direction of
the Planning Commission and taking into account the sight distance problem to the
west and certain features of the site, a modified entrance was designed that would
prohibit an east turn on exiting. He also stated that a painted left -turn lane
from the east into the site was designed at that time, shown in blue on the exhibited
plan.
Mr. Coburn said that when the Highway Department looked at a rezoning, it considered
all the legally, allowable uses within that certain zone and any restricted entrance
at all would not be adequate. He added that traffic being what it was today, the
demand for a right turn lane was not as great as it would be for some other use.
Mr. Coburn said that he understood the County could place any restrictions it so
chose or accept a proffer; he said that as he understood the current proffer, the
applicant e>,,a3 limiting the use to the current use, but any change is usage would
trigger the requirement t:o do the turn lane.
Mr. Coburn additionally stated that knowing how cooperative Albemarle County has
always been with the Highway Department, and the interaction between the two agencies,
he would not object to the County's accepting this proffer. He also recognized should
there be a change in use it had always been the County's practice to bring the
matter back for review; Mr. Coburn said that the Highway Department would not
recommend this rezoning if it were for a full commercial use. In summary,
Mr. Coburn explained that with the restrictions to be placed on the property and
given the current use, the Highway Department could accept the entrance without the
turn lane improvement. However, he indicated that in order to have an entrance that
met Highway Department approval forever the turn lane would have to be constructed
and the sight distance improved.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that if she were reading the proffer correctly, there was an
increase in square feet from 1,700 to 2,400, indicating to her an increase in usage
(site plan indicating 1,700 square feet and proffer refering to 2,400 square feet).
Mr. Kincannon clarified that the 1,700 square feet was taken from Dr. Hurt's original
site plan. He said that interior measurements of walls were taken on both floors of
the house and the garage, coming to a total of 2,300 square feet. He suggested that
the square feet could be limited to the interior wall space. He also stated that the
2,400 square feet figure complied with the twelve parking spaces.
Mrs. Diehl asked specifically what office space was being currently used.
Mr. Kincannon replied that the first floor of the building was occupied by the
ASCS (Agriculture Stabilization Conservation Service) and his own real estate office.
15/
Mr. Kincannon added that the garage was being used for storage downstairs and a
combination of storage and space. Mrs. Diehl asked about the second floor of the
house, and Mr. Kincannon replied that the Ownby Company was located there. In
addition, he mentioned that there was an attic and basement, housing only the furnace.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that both floors of the house were, then, presently in use. She
asked with the site plan and rezoning, Mr. Kincannon intended to convert the garage to
office space.
He replied that he did not. Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if there was no intent
to place any additional use on the property. Mr. Kincannon replied that the intent
was to limit the use of the building to the existing walls that were now constructed,
making no improvements.
Mr. Bain responded that it Mrs. Diehl was asking about a possible additionall tenant,
the answer was no, but Mr. Kincannon might employ an associate. Mr. Kincannon pointed
out that if the ASCS office vacated or gave up its lease, he would want to replace
them.
Mrs. Diehl asked if this current tenant did leave, whether any C-1 use could move in
if this rezoning request were approved, with no further review.
Mr. Keeler responded that he had wanted to point out this feature of the proffer.
He said that the way it was worded, it appeared that the applicant was limiting it
to 2,400 square feet and limiting usage to office use only. Mr. Keeler added that
the way he read it, office use was limited to 2,400 square feet but the proffer was
silent on intent with regard to other C-1 uses.
r`Ir✓ Mr. Bain said that the language and intent was to limit use on the property to office
use.
Mrs. Diehl said that she did not understand why the request was for C-1 instead of
CO. Mr. Bain replied that C-1 was more in conformity with the zoning in the area.
He added that regardless of the zoning, as the proffer was written, any change would
require the applicant to come back before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler offered to bring the zoning maps down, but told the Commission that in
this instance, where high density residential was recommended, CO acted as a kind
of transition zoning between heavier commercial districts and residential areas.
In the proposed zoning map, he added, the Commission had shown this property as CO
but the Board directed that the zoning map be drawn up more in line with the
Comprehensive Plan, resulting in the R-15 zoning. Mr. Keeler suggested that there
was not much difference between R-15 and CO uses, with the exception of perhaps banks
and doctors' offices, which might generate more traffic. Mrs. Diehl ascertained from
Mr. Keeler, however, that there was significant difference between C-1 and CO uses.
Mrs. Diehl asked where the nearest C-1 zoning existed. Mr. Keeler said that he should
probably bring the zoning maps. He said that Highway Commercial existed on the
north side of 250 East, primarily, and probably on either side of this property.
Miss Nash asked whether CO was more restrictive than C-1. Mr. Keeler replied that it
was, considerably, and that on a scale of one to ten, Highway Commercial would be at
the top and Commercial Office at the bottom, with C-1 ranking about eight, in terms of
intensity and traffic -generators. 14iss Nash suggested that should the building ever
be dismantled, there was considerable area that would remain C-1. Mr. Keeler concurred
that the entire 6.532 acres would carry this zoning. Miss Nash asked why the applicant
wished C-1 zoning instead of CO. Mr. Keeler replied that he had understood at one time
from talking with Mr. Kincannon that he might have in mind converting the building
into a restaurant such as the Ivy Inn or Hollymead Inn.
Mr. Kincannon stated he himself had no intention of putting a restaurant in at this
location. He added that his office had been located there for forty years and he
expected it to remain there another forty years. Mr. Kincannon indicated that there
was no intent to further develop this site and that the rezoning was sought to limit
the immediate use to the existing use. He reiterated that any future change would
require the submittal of another site plan and installation of the turn lane.
Mr. Keeler cautioned that as written, the proffer did not indicate any requirement
of submitting a site plan for additional uses; as written, he suggested that if approved
the proffer allowed office uses, period.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any other questions or comments.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Kincannon what his objections were to CO zoning. Mr. Kincannon
replied, to be frank, only as it affected the appraisal of the property. He added
that he would have to refinance the whole property in order to be able to make
improvements he had offered in his proffer. He said that a C-1 zoning would give
him a higher appraisal and thereby more equity in the building. Mr. Kincannon said
that he believed the proffer as worded limited what he could do with the property,
regardless of the zoning, whether it were C-1 or CO.
Mr. Davis asked whether the proffer would not have some affect on the appraisal.
Mr. Kincannon replied that he believed it would, on the cost of the decel lane.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether Mr. Kincannon contemplated some increase in use of the site
aortic Lime in the immedia�e future. Mr. Kincannon replied that he did not.
Mr. Bain said that he thought he had addressed this question with regard to the 2,400
square feet.
Mr. Bowerman said that what he was getting at was that the request asked for increased
zoning with a proffer which really limited use of the property to the use in effect
today, but which would allow for refinancing the property through a higher appraisal
which in turn would make possible the financing of putting in the decel lane.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that installation of the decel lane .=could not be contemplated
unless some intensification of use were envisioned.
Mr. Bain clarified that his understanding from Mr. Kincannon was that the refinancing
was necessary to make all improvements except the decel lane.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commission whether there was further comment or if the Commissioners
were ready to take action.
Mr. Payne cautioned that the Commission should be aware of the differences in C-1
and CO, as contained in the Staff recommendations, specifically, that regardless of
use, in terms of the overall plan CO is more compatible with this area, as a
transitional zoning between Highway Commercial or intensive commercial and high -density
residential. He added that C-1 was a rather intensive commercial designation and he
believed the integrity of the plan would be in question with C-1 zoning. Additionally,
Mr. Keeler pointed out that a year ago when the applicant submitted this request,
it had been in conformance with County ordinances, which it was not any longer.
Mr. Keeler explained that circumstances had changed since Staff's initial
recommendations of a year ago, which had been made on the strength of the applicant
/S'"3
being in conformance. However, Mr. Keeler said that Staff would still go along with
its recommendation of CO in order to resolve an issue that had been unresolved for
four years, as long as there was no increase in the present office use of the site.
He also _pointed out that CO was contrary to the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to go to the Planning Department to bring the current
zoning maps.
Mr. Payne informed the Commission that it should be aware that whether or not the
current use on this site could continue or not would be resolved within the next
thirty days. He stated that if the rezoning were approved, the matter would be
resolved in favor of the applicant and if not approved, would be resolved immediately
against the applicant.
Mr. Payne said that if the property had not been rezoned by May 6, he would pursue an
injunction, which he maintained would be upheld in the courts, because the facts of
the matter were already on the record. Mr. Payne said that the Commission should take
action regardless of this pending related action, acting independently as it saw fit.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the zoning requested on the proffer of C-1 could be changed
to CO.
Mr. Payne replied that it could; he explained that in a rezoning request, the zoning
could be changed to a downzoning but not upzoned to a higher zoning.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether if the move for approval were for CO, whether the proffer as
currently worded still be in effect.
I%W Mr. Payne responded that he believed that it was possible that the proffer would not
apply.
Mr. Bain said that the applicant could amend his proffer before it was heard before the
Board.
Mr. Payne suggested that if the Commission believed CO was appropriate, it could
recommend denial of C-1 with or without the proffer and recommend approval of CO if
the proffer were made to apply.
Mr. Davis and Mrs. Diehl asked whether it was permissible to take this action in the
form of a motion; Mr. Payne responded that it was.
Mr. Keeler returned with the zoning maps and pointed out the zoning in the vicinity
of this site, showing it located on the boundary of commercial and high -density.
Mr. Keeler said that this property could probably go either way, according to the
Plan, but Staff's original recommendation of CO zoning was because there was a valid
approved site plan that had not been picked up on the zoning map. Mr. Keeler again
stated that the circumstances at the present time were totally different.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions or comments.
Mr. Skove said that he would want to go with CO. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the
Commission should take action first on the C-1 request. Mr. Payne said that both
actions could be taken at one time and he suggested the wording.
M
Mr. Skove moved for denial of ZMA-82-3 WITH PROFFER, request for C-1 zoning, and
recommended instead Commercial Office zoning, provided that the proffer dated
March 23, 1982, contained in a letter addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker from
-440
the applicant's attorney, Edward H. Bain, Jr., be made to apply to CO zoning.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Ownby (ASCS) Office Building Site Plan - Located off the north side of Route 250
East on Pantops Mountain; a proposal to continue use of an existing two-story
building for 1,723 square feet of office space. Rivanna Magisterial District,
County Tax Map 78, Parcel 12-A.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne how the site plan could be considered, since the
rezoning request had been denied. Mr. Payne responded that since the site plan
would be subject to the Board's approval of the recommended CO zoning with proffer,
he believed the Commission could proceed with a review of the site plan.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He ascertained from the Commission that the
requirement of the decel and turn lane would not be made in the CO zoning with
the amended proffer.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Bain if he wished to respond to the Staff recommendations.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Keeler if condition two addressing location of fire hydrant
pertained only to connecting to public water for the purpose of the hydrant and
not the building. Mr. Keeler concurred that this was correct.
Mr. Bain asked about the County Engineer recommendation that the travelway be
widened to 161. He explained that there were some fifty -year -old boxwoods that
might prevent widening the travelway beyond 13 or 14 feet, at the entrance.
Mr. Bain said that otherwise the applicant had no problems with the conditions.
Mrs. Diehl wondered about transplanting the boxwood. Mr. Kincannon said that Snow's
had not recommended trying to move them. Mr. Bain ascertained that they were about
fourteen feet high.
Mr. Kincannon said that he would like to work with the County Engineer to try to
save his shrubbery. Mrs. Diehl said that she believed that as written, this condition
allowed such latitude and did not confine the applicant to absolute removal of
the boxwoods.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment on this site plan. When there
was not, she declared the matter before the Commission. She asked the Commissioners
for comments or questions.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the site plan, subject to the following three
conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with all of these conditions within six (6) months
of approval of this application. A building permit can be processed when
these conditions have been met:
a. Construction of driveway and parking area in accordance with plans and
specifications approved by the County Engineer;
,155
M
M
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance and construction of it as shown on the plan, with the exception
of the decel and turn lane, provision of "No Left Turn" signs and
restripping of a left -turn lane on 250 East;
C. Installation of bumper blocks and "No Parking" signs in accordance with
County Engineer approval;
2. Fire official approval of hydrant location, connection and fire flow once
public water is available.
3. This approval is subject to amendment of the Zoning Map as to subject parcel
to a district in which the proposed use is the sole use permitted by right.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed uanimously with no further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler about deferring the remaining items on the agenda
to the meeting on April 15, 1982. Mr. Keeler agreed, and Mrs. Diehl asked that
these items be placed on the agenda of April 15, after the work session.
Mr. Skove moved for deferral to April 15, Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, and it
passed unanimously with no further discussion. (Those items are listed below.)
(g) Public Hearing on Resolution of Intent, adopted by Planning
Commission, to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for
expiration of final plats. STA-82-1.
(h) Public Hearing on Resolution of Intent, adopted b_Y Planning
Carmission, to amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance
related to fees, locating all fees in one section 35.0 FEES,
and additionally to allow for payment by applicant of costs of
notice exceeding the base fee. ZTA-82-4.
(i) Public Hearing on Resolution of Intent, adopted by Planning
Commission, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide certain
activities in the Natural Resource Overlay District by special
use permit. ZTA-82-5.
(j) Public Hearing on Resolution of Intent, adopted by Planning
Commission, to amend Section 30.4.3 PERMIT REQUIRED of the
Zoning Ordinance, as it relates to Title 45.1 of the Cade of
Virginia. ZTA-82-6.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:10 a.m.