Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 01 83 PC MinutesM n M FEBRUARY 1, 1983 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February 1, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Jim Skove; Mr. Allen Kindrick and Mr. Mike Davis. Other officials present were: Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. ZMA-82-14 T.E. Wood - Request to rezone .93 acre from RA Rural Areas to HC Highway Commercial. Property is located on the eastern side of Route 29 North, approximately 4,500 feet north cf North Fork Rivanna River. County Tax Map 33, Parcel 1G, Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from January 4, 1983. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Prior to the presentation of the staff report, Mr. Keeler explained that the existing zoning on the property should be C-l. He explained that it had mistakenlybom changed to RA in 1980 because staff viewed the use on the property at the time (a Palmist) as a home occupation, whereas the Zoning Administrator had determined the use to be a commercial one. He stated that if the Commission agreed that a mistake was made, staff had prepared a resolution to pass on to the Board. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bud Treakle. He briefly explained the history of the request which basically was a repetition of Mr. Keeler's explanation. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the mistake which had been explained was separate from ZMA-82-14. Mr. Payne explained further: "What Mr. Keeler is telling you is that he thinks there was an error in background leading up to the Board's action. That's not the kind of error which is curable by administrative action. (He explained that this was not a case of a map being colored wrong or something of that nature.)... It may have been that the Board really wanted this property to be C-1 and it should have been C-1, but there's no doubt that that's the property we're talking about and that's going to be RA. ... They did say it was not C-1 and they did not intend in their action for it to be C-1. ... That being the case, I think this matter is to be considered by you and by the Board as to whether or not this zoning category is to be changed. ... If you feel this is an appropriate action, that's fine, but you still have to take formal action to change it and that means you have to have a public hearing. ... If you're going to act on this tonight, the only way you can do it is under this ZMA-82-14. This action Mr. Keeler has suggested is not an inappropriate action based on that ZMA. What he's saying is we're not considering the merits of the case, we're considering it in I February 1, 1983 Page 2 light of what we feel, in our view, should have been done in December. But you would still be doing it procedurally under that action. In my opinion that's the only action you can take to have substantive recom- mendation on this matter tonight." Based on Mr. Payne's statements, Mr. Bowerman concluded that the Commission could not act on the recommendation read by Mr. Keeler and therefore he instructed Mr. Keeler to proceed with the staff report for ZMA-82-14. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff did not recommend favorably on the rezoning request. (See staff report of December 7, 1982 for reasons.) The report also stated that if the Commission and Board chose to approve the commercial designation, that a C-1 designation would be more appropriate than HC, and that said C-1 be on only a limited portion of the property so as to reduce the possibility of filling in the flood plain. Mr. Treakle again addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the property has been in commercial use since the zoning clearance was granted in 1978. He stated the applicant was willing to accept a C-1 designation. He urged the Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intent to restore the property to C-1 zoning as it should have been, and thereby correct an error made by staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler stated that the Corps of Engineers' map shows almost all the site to be in the floodplain. He added, however, that he doubted if the building itself ever actually flooded. Ms. Diehl stated she would be reluctant to take any action which might mean that the floodplain might someday be filled in. She felt that when the zoning clearance had been given for the home occupation, which in effect made this commercial property, it was under th premise that there would be no further development of the site, i.e. no further devel- opment in the floodplain. She stated she could agree to continuing commercial use at the present site, but she was not in favor of seeing that use intensified. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He asked if the action could be limited to just the portion currently being used. There was a discussion as to how to delineate this area. Mr. Payne described the boundary lines as follows: "VEPCO line, the northern boundary line, the western boundary line and the line drawn with the back line of the house extended to the northern property line." Mr. Kindrick expressed some concern about such a small parcel of C-1 land in the middle of RA zoning. Mr. Michel noted that since a commercial activity has taken place on the property, he had no objection to some low -intensity commercial use continuing. 4 February 1, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Payne pointed out that when the previous Zoning Administrator had granted the zoning clearance for the Palmist he had considered it as an office use and there can be no more intensive use than an office use. (He noted that it could have been permitted in the A-1 zone as a home occupation, but the Zoning Administrator had not considered it as such.) He noted that since the use had continued until May 1982, the lawful nonconformity can continue so long as it is not discontinued for a period of two years, in which case the lawful nonconformity would cease. Mr. Keeler pointed out that in order for any fill in the floodplain to take place, a special permit would have to be approved. Mr. Treakle interjected that he felt all the Commission's concerns were valid, but noted that those concerns would be controlled through site plan review at a subsequent time. Mr. Skove stated he felt the recommendation of staff was adequate to corrent the mistake. Mr. Michel indicated his agreement, particularly in view of the topography of the site. Mr. Skove moved that .93 acres currently zoned RA, described as County Tax Map 33, Parcel 1G, Rivanna Magisterial District, be rezoned C-1 as set forth in the following resolution: The Planning Commission has concluded from information presented by the staff and applicant at its public hearing on February 1, 1983, that an error was made on the Zoning Map adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 10, 1980, regarding property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 1G, consisting of 0.93 acres and subject of rezoning petition ZMA-82-14 T.E. Wood. The Commission recommends that the Board designate said property as C-1 Commercial and that said property be added to the list on the Zoning Map which states that "due to existing development and/or approved plans, zoning designations of the following properties may not comply with land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan." This recommendation is based solely on the representations regarding error in previous action. No consideration was given to the staff report and recommendations for ZMA-82 -14. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if this was an acceptable motion. Mr. Payne responded affirmatively and explained: "What you're saying, as I understand it, is that you're recommending C-1, not based on ordinary land use considerations, but on an extraneous consideration which is peculiar to this property or a very limited group of properties of which this is one." Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Payne's statements at the beginning at the meeting had based on the fact that he had failed to open the meeting v to public comment. Mr. Payne responded: "Yes --on a procedural matter." /O February 1, 1983 Page 4 Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Commissioner Davis casting the dissenting vote. SP-82-77 Roger or Marian G. Fuller - Request to locate a mobile home on 4.0 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, County Tax Map 93, Parcel 15C, Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is located 0.5 mile off Route 53, approx- imately two miles from Simeon. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The applicant was represented by Mr. Fuller. He offered little comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Ralph Heinery expressed his support for the request with the time limit recommended by staff. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Discussion centered on the length of the permit. It was finally decided the permit would be granted for two years with the applicant advised that any requests for extension beyond that time would not be viewed favorable. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-82-77 for Roger or Marian G. Fuller be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. This special use permit is intended to permit the use of the mobile home as an interim means of housing during the construction of a permanent dwelling; 2. The mobile home shall be removed from the site no later than February 5, 1985, or at such time as a Certificate of Occupancy is obtained for the permanent dwelling, whichever shall occur first. Mr. Davis seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ricultural Forestal Districts Act - Discussion Prior to discussion Mr. Keeler presented a brief staff report on the Hatton and Totier Creek districts. The Commission was being asked to refer the applications to the Advisory Committee. There followed a discussion of the Ag/Forestal Districts Act. Mr. Payne explained the implications of the statute. Mr. Keeler explained that the districts afford certain protection which cannot be afforded through zoning. There was discussion about the review process and the Commission's latitude in denying requests. February 1, 1983 Various scenarios were discussed. Page 5 At the end of discussion Mr. Skove moved that the Hatton and Totier Creek Agricultural Forestal Districts be forwarded to the Advisory Committee. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Commission expressed the hope that some of the questions in relation to these districts will have been worked out before the Commission must hold public hearing on the districts. 1982 Annual Report - The Commission reviewed and commented on a draft of the 1982 Annual Report. At the end of the meeting there was a brief discussion about the definition of a "borrow area." This topic was discussed in relation to the Scottsville levee project. Staff was to review the definition and report back to the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. M V. '14ayne; ilimberg, Secr ary Recorded by: Stuart Richard Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 7-90 Is /a