HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 05 83 PC MinutesApril 5, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, April 5, 1983, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 7, Second Floor,
Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David P. Bowerman,
Chairman; Mr. James R. Skove; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. Allan B.
Kindrick; Mr. Timothy Michel; Mr. Richard P. Cogan, Vice -Chairman;
and Mrs. Norma A. Diehl. Miss Ellen V. Nash, Ex-Officio, was
absent. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney; Mr. William Brent of the Albemarle County
Service Authority; Mr. Andrew Evans, Deputy Zoning Administrator;
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Ms. N. Mason
Caperton, Senior Planner.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order after establishing that a
quorum existed. He proceeded to explain the procedures for holding
a public hearing to the public - that Staff would present a report,
the applicant would have an opportunity to speak, and then the public
meeting would open. He asked that anyone wishing to speak identify
himself for the record and direct questions and concerns to the
Commission. Finally, he stated, the public hearing would close and
the matter would be before the Commission for review and action.
The minutes of June 22, 1982, were approved as submitted.
Briarwood, Phases III and VII (portions), Final Plat - Located off
the west side of Route 29 North and north of the Rivanna River in
the Briarwood Planned Residential Development; proposal to divide
in Phases III and VII 9.787 acres into 126 lots (average lot size of
approximately 3,383 square feet) with 4.033 acres in common open
space and 133.0 acres in residue. Rivanna Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 32E, portion of Parcel 1). Deferred from March 22, 1983.
Ms. Caperton gave the Staff Report.
Mr. Wood asked the Commission to allow him to use the twenty-six or
twenty-four lots that have existing blacktop, water and sewer. He
said that it would be a hardship to have to wait for an entrance
approval to Route 606 from the Highway Department and that plans for
Austin Drive had already been approved.
Mr. Wood explained further the problem of a steep bank at 606, saying
that if it were lower they could utilize the existing right-of-way
of Route 606. Mr. Wood said that the entrance would probably be
moved approximately ten to twenty feet west. He asked that this
requirement be extended to a later date.
Mr. Wood said that the existing lots were needed at the present time
and he did not see that this would cause any detriment to the County
or its citizens. Mr. Wood contended that the extension of Austin
Drive would have no bearing on the existing lots.
0
Mr. Wood said that he was aware that no building permits would be
issued until sewer was available. He explained that he was
working out an agreement with General Electric whereby he could
use some of G.E.'s available sewage capacity until the new
treatment plant is completed in September.
Mr. Wood said that the first-time homebuyer seemed to be receptive to
Briarwood; he pointed out that these houses were eight to ten
thousand dollars lower in price that comparable housing in the
County. Mr. Wood said that his subdivision was meeting a need and
that it was put an extra hardship on him to have to extend Austin
Drive at this time, rather than in sixty to ninety days.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Wood whether he was specifically requesting
that conditions a., b. and c. be deleted.
Mr. Wood responded that he believed condition a. had been met
already.
Mr. Bowerman said that he was trying to target just exactly what
Mr. Wood was requesting. Mr. Wood answered that they were not
asking to be allowed to delete these conditions, only that they
be allowed to utilize the twenty-six lots.
Mr. McKee said that he believed a letter from the Highway Department
about two years ago represented approval of l.a. Mr. McKee said
that plans for Austin Drive had been included in the Phase II
application. He added that the entrance location at 606 had not
yet been approved, but the road plans for Austin Drive had been.
Mr. Skove asked whether then the applicant was only requesting a
waiver of condition l.b. Mr. Bowerman replied that he was going to
clarify that matter with Ms. Caperton after the close of public
comment. He opened the meeting at this time for public comment.
Mr. Bill Bailey identified himself as a sales representative at
Briarwood. He said that this subdivision provided moderate -income
housing that was needed. He said that probably as many as fifty
units in Phase II had already been sold. He mentioned that financing
was available from FHA, VA and VH&'I and he believed the subdivision
would continue to grow in an attractive fashion.
Mr. Bowerman asked for further public comment and when there was none,
declared the matter to be before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Caperton to address the issue of condition
l.a. She referred to the Highway Department letter of March 30,
1983, from Byron Coburn, Jr., in which he refers to partial Highway
Department approval of road plans by a letter dated February 24,
1981. She mentioned that it is still not clear to what point the
road plans were approved, but if that could be established possibly
condition l.a. could be deleted.
On condition l.b., Ms. Caperton advised that approval would have to
be sought of the entrance up to wherever the approved road ended.
She stated that this work would have to be bonded, as required by
the County. She said that condition l.c. had not been met.
WWI
Mr. Bowerman determined from Ms. Caperton then that really the
issue to be addressed was compliance with conditions l.b and l.c,
since the assumption could be made that the Highway Department
would not leave unapproved a segment of road between Austin Drive
and the entrance location. It was ascertained that condition l.a
had probably already been met.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Brent of the Service Authority whether there
was actual capacity today for these twenty-six lots.
Mr. Brent replied that there is capacity at the plant presently
and that the Authority had granted approval for ninety-six lots in
Briarwood. However, he added that if all of these came on line at
the same time as Camelot subdivision, G.E. and the Powhatan plant,
there would not be adequate flow for these additional lots.
Mr. Bowerman tried to ascertain from Mr. Brent whether, if the
applicant came to the Service Authority in ten days with the twenty-
six lots, having met all conditions and lacking only sewer, he
could connect them on a first -come, first -served basis.
Mr. Brent indicated that the Service Authority and Mr. Wood had been
working out as agreement and he hoped to have a contract in hand by
the end of the month for the expansion of the Camelot plant, but as
the situation stood now there was not enough capacity for the
additional twenty-six lots.
Mr. Skove asked for a clarification on whether there could be any
juggling of building permits. Mr. Brent responded that as long as
capacity existed, it did not matter to the Service Authority whether
lot x, y or z was served. Mr. Skove ascertained from Mr. Brent
that originally sixty-three lots were approved for Briarwood and
this was amended to ninety-six.
Mr. Michel asked when it was estimated that the new facility would be
completed. Mr. Brent responded that it was supposed to be on line
in September, as he had indicated earlier.
Mr. Davis remarked that this would be subject to the plans and
contract being approved, which had not yet been accomplished.
Mr. Brent concurred that this was correct.
Mr. Bowerman said that his question was whether, in order to sign
the plat, if all other approvals were in place, except for sewer,
if sewer capacity existed for only five of the twenty-six lots,
could the plat be signed for those five or did it have to be signed
for all twenty-six.
Ms. Caperton responded that a proposal for such would have to be
made. She said that in Phase II there were two plats and neither
was signed until capacity for sewer was determined to be available.
She said that more recently the Commission had made a condition of
approval the determination of sewer capacity on a further thirty lots.
Ms. Caperton said that although Mr. Payne could better address this
issue, she did not believe that any plat had ever been approved
without sewer capacity being available.
%/
Mr. Bowerman stated that this actually was a question for the
Service Authority, determination of whether capacity existed.
He pointed out that the real question before the Commission was
whether or not on these twenty-six the Commission was going to
require the approval of the entrance design for Austin Drive at
606, which Mr. Wood so requested.
Mr. Cogan said that the feeling he was getting was that it was a
timing element - to have the lots available and sold to the public,
not necessarily meaning that houses would be built and occupied before
September. Mr. Cogan continued, saying for example, the twenty-
six lots could be approved with a condition requiring that
conditions l.b and l.c be met within thirty or sixty days from the
date of approval. He said that such action would permit the
applicant to continue marketing the lots and permit construction
to take place closer to the time when the plant would have capacity.
Mr. Bowerman said that it was his understanding that no construction
could take place with these conditions in place.
Mr. Davis asked Ms. Caperton about condition l.g. Mr. Bowerman
said that he saw that as a responsibility of the Service Authority -
the determination of whether or not sewer capacity was available.
Mr. Davis and Messrs. Cogan and Skove determined that no further
building permits could be issued unless sewer capacity was available.
Mr. Bowerman once more tried to determine from Mr. Brent whether
these twenty-six lots could be served with sewer, should all other
conditions be met and the plat be ready to sign. Mr. Brent said
that if all the previously approved ninety-six lots came in and
were served, there did not exist at present sufficient capacity for
the additional twenty-six. It was determined by Mr. Cogan that as
worded, under these conditions, no approval could be given until
capacity existed. There was general discussion over whether the
original platted ninety-six lots would be constructed and served
prior to the twenty-six. Mr. Bowerman said that this could be
assumed and therefore capacity did not exist for these twenty-six.
Mr. Davis said this issue of sewer capacity had been an issue for
as long as Briarwood had been around; he said that he remembered
it from previous meetings.
Mr. Bowerman said that this clarified the situation somewhat, since
it was a condition of approval, whether capacity existed tomorrow or
not until completion of the plant expansion. Mr. Bowerman said this
left the Commission with condition l.b. Mr. Davis added, among other
items.
Mr. Brent asked to inform the Commission that 25,000 gallons of the
available capacity had been built by General Electric, part of which
was not being utilized at this time. Mr. Brent said that Mr. Wood
had indicated that he was negotiating with General Electric the
use of some of this excess capacity, until the new plant came on
line. Mr. Bowerman ascertained from Mr. Brent that this possible
agreement was another way in which Mr. Wood could meet the condition
l.g.
T2
Ms. Caperton asked to clarify to the Commission that until
conditions a through n were met, no building permits could be issued.
She stated that none of them were tied to the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Mr. Davis asked whether this was the first time the Commission had
dealt with anything in Phase VII. Ms. Caperton concurred that it
was, as well as the first time for Phase III. Mr. Davis remarked
that this was then a partial phasing of both of these phases.
Ms. Caperton responded that this was correct. Mr. Davis asked whether
any acreage for open space had yet been dedicated. Ms. Caperton
replied not at this time. Mr. Davis asked whether it had been
Commission policy to mix phases or approve piecemeal parts of
different phases. Ms. Caperton established that Phase II was
fully approved, consisting of the earlier ninety-six lots; she said
six or seven remained of those. Ms. Caperton said that these
current 126 lots were part of the phases that came before the
Commission last month.
Mr. Skove concurred with Mr. Davis about the confusion in mixing
up phases and thereby defeating the purpose of consecutive phasing.
Mr. Davis further questioned whether it was a valid concept, if pieces
of one phase were approved and then another.
Mr. Bowerman said that he believed the issue before the Commission
tonight was whether or not to grant any disposition on condition
l.b, concerning the entrance on Austin Drive. He asked Mr. Payne
in terms of the original requirements of the entire development,
what options the Commission might have. He asked how Phase II could
have been approved without the complete design standards having
been submitted for Austin Drive and Route 606.
Mr. Payne agreed that it should have been required at the time of
Phase II. He added that he concurred with Staff that the condition
four of the original PUD required road plans, certainly those that
connect with public roads. Practically speaking, Mr. Payne continued,
he saw no way to handle this requirement other than to have the road
plans in hand before signing the plat; Mr. Payne suggested, however,
that it was not practical to bond the design of a road, because it
was subject to all kinds of variations. He stated that he believed
the plans had to be required before the plat was signed, because
otherwise it would be a question of enforceability.
Mr. Skove agreed that this was his problem with waiting; in effect,
he said,you would have nothing concrete to bond and would be removing
that condition altogether if you did not require the actual plans.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Caperton whether a representative from the
Highway Department was present. She replied that there was no one
at the meeting but that she had spoken with Mr. Coburn today and had
been informed that as long as everything was submitted properly, road
plans could be reviewed and approved by the Highway Department in no
more than two weeks' time. Ms. Caperton added this included engineering
`73
and drainage plans. Mr. Bowerman asked how much time Ms. Caperton
estimated it would take for the applicant to meet all of the other
conditions and provide for thorough Staff review. Ms. Caperton
replied that she did not believe it would take much time at all.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of the applicant's request, subject
to the conditions outlined by Staff, l.a through l.n, condition two
and an additional condition three encouraging the developer and/or
builder to utilize a driveway and parking design similar to that
proposed in alternative "B" (sketch submitted on March 14, 1983, and
prepared by Robert McKee). Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, after
Mrs. Diehl additionally included as part of her motion, Planning
Commission agreement with the Highway Department's granting of a
variance, on the fifty feet.
Mr. Skove asked on condition two whether these items were not
normally required without making them a condition of approval.
Ms. Caperton concurred that this was correct, but that it was made
a condition of approval in this case because the Service Authority
had had problems of this sort in Phase II.
Mr. Skove said that he did not like to clutter up an approval with
a lot of conditions, especially one which he believed should be
enforceable anyway. However, Mr. Skove said that he would not want
to change the motion at this point.
Mr. Davis asked whether condition twelve of the original ZMA,
which requires that no more than two phases be under simultaneous
development in plan B, would be violated by this approval.
Ms. Caperton explained the past phasing history, saying that two
Phases had been deleted from the plan that was submitted in January
or February. She added that because Phase II was almost completed,
it was thought permissible to start parts of two additional phases
and still be in compliance with that condition of the ZMA.
Ms. Caperton stated that the phasing plan had not yet been amended
to show the actual phasing occurring, although she had discussed the
need to do this previously with Mr. Wood.
When there was no further discussion of the matter, Mr. Bowerman
called for a vote on the motion:
1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following
conditions:
a. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval of road plans for the extension of
Austin Drive out to Route 606 in compliance with requirements
for acceptance into the State Highway System; this shall include
the provision of sidewalks where required; (bonding required)
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
the entrance location and provision for entrance improvements at
the intersection of Austin Drive and Route 606;
C. Land for the extension of Austin Drive out to Route 606 shall be
dedicated to public use;
9
9
9
74-
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's approval
of private entrance locations (Planning Commission agreed
with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's
granting of a variance in this case);
e. County Engineer approval of grading for lots 11, 12, 65 and
66 (Phase III);
f. Open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of
lots approved;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority written approval of water
and sewer service availability and of utility easements to
be dedicated where needed;
h. A "no parking" sign shall be posted at lot 68 (Phase III) in
accordance with the Fire Marshall's regulations for parking
restrictions near fire hydrants;
i. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval of the dedication, plans and
construction of that portion of Austin Drive extending to
serve up to lot 72 (the dedication should reach to the end of
the joint driveway);
j. County Attorney approval of homeowner's agreements to include
the maintenance of open space, stormwater drainage and
appurtenant structures;
k. The date by which the iron pins shall be set and the proper
zoning notation shall be noted on the plat;
1. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
M. Compliance with the conditions of ZMA-79-32 shall be maintained;
n. Staff approval of the proper notations on the plat referring
to the limited lot approval.
2. No concrete pads, building corners, porches, decks or any
part of a structure shall encroach on utility easements.
3. The staff encourages the developer and/or builder to utilize
a driveway and parking design similar to that proposed in
alternative "B" (sketch submitted on March 14, 1983, and
prepared by Robert McKee).
The vote taken was 6 - 1, with Mr. Davis voting against the motion.
The final plat was thereby approved with conditions.
SP-83-5 David Lee or Mary Jean Spradlin - Request to amend
Condition #9 of SP-77-83 to allow office trailer on 5.514 acres
zoned RA Rural Areas, County Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1, Scottsville
Magisterial District. Located on the northwest side of Route 620,
approximately 3/4 mile north of the intersection of Routes 620 and
728. Deferred from March 8, 1983.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that staff had been unable to
find any provision in the Zoning Ordinance authorizing the use of
a mobile office trailer as a permanent structure. He mentioned
that in the seventies there had been a few instances of approvals
of office trailers as accessory uses during construction or
temporary bank branches, both cases having time limits. Mr. Keeler
75
suggested that the Commission might want to consider whether
this application was properly before it.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether Mr. Vaughn was saying in his memo
of March 1, 1983, that he could approve this office trailer as
a permanent structure if it met the requirements of the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code.
Mr. Keeler responded that he was not certain of the intent of
the memo; he explained that although many mobile homes were built to
the requirements of the BOCA code, they were still subject to
mobile home regulations in the Ordinance. Mr. Keeler stated
that he did not believe the memo spoke to the question of whether
this was a permitted use or not.
There appeared to be a consensus among the Commissioners that
if approved, the office trailer had to meet the requirements of
the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the
special use permit request be heard.
Mr. Michel remarked that he had some problem with the idea of a
permanent office trailer. Mr. Davis agreed, saying that he did
not believe the Board of Supervisors ever envisioned such a
practice.
After some discussion of the standards to which mobile homes
are built, Mrs. Diehl suggested that if the Commission had the
authority to hear this petition and decide for itself on the
issues raised, then it would be appropriate to proceed with the
Staff Report.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant whether he wished to speak at
this time.
Mr. Spradlin stated that the purpose of the office trailer was
in order to secure a salvage license. He said that the office
trailer had to be in place before a salvage license could be
issued. Mr. Spradlin explained State regulations that require a
salvage license in order to use parts from old cars to repair
other cars. Mr. Spradlin passed around photographs of the office
trailer. Mr. Bowerman asked him how long the trailer had been in
place, and Mr. Spradlin answered about four or five months.
Mr. Davis ascertained from Mr. Spradlin that he had relocated
the office trailer within the last month. Mr. Bowerman determined
from Mr. Spradlin that office space was required by the State in
order to obtain a salvage license. Mr. Spradlin explained that
in his original special use permit, he could only have a certain
amount of square footage and could not expand or add onto his
existing building. Mr. Bowerman further determined from
Mr. Spradlin that the State would not accept ;Dart of the existing
interior of the garage as office space. He stressed that he
badly needed Commission approval for this office trailer and would
be glad to work with the Commission to secure it.
C
R
%/1
Mr. Keeler remarked that he had visited the site in February and
it would appear from the snapshots that the applicant had removed
a substantial amount of debris from the property since that time.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was public comment. When there
was not, Mr. Bowerman requested the applicant to hand the pictures
to Mr. Andy Evans of the Zoning and Inspections Department.
Mr. Bowerman declared the matter to be before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether consideration could be given to
changing the square footage permitted on the original condition,
which allowed only 2,500 square feet, so that perhaps office space
could be obtained within the existing garage. She indicated that
the idea of a permanent office trailer disturbed her somewhat.
Mr. Keeler responded that he believed Mr. Spradlin had discussed
this possibility with the D.M.V. and that it was for some reason
not acceptable. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Spradlin's lawyer,
George McCallum had been requested to pursue the matter with the
D.M.V., but that he was no longer representing the applicant.
Mr. Evans told the Commission that he was going to meet with a
representative of the Division of Motor Vehicles concerning the
apparent requirement of separate office space for used car
operations. Mr. Evans said that he needed a clarification on
the meaning of separate and he did not know why a physical
separation of two operations was a requirement.
Mr. Skove wondered whether any public good was served by such a
requirement.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Evans whether he had any comments on the
applicant's snapshots. Mr. Evans replied that the site appeared
to be considerably cleaner and remarkably changed in appearance.
Mr. Evans said that he would like to address one aspect of the
office trailer, that after discussions with Mr. Vaughn it was
evident under the building industrial code that with the required
stamp with an identification number (as processed by HUD on mobile
homes), the office trailer designation applied. However, Mr. Evans
said that if the trailer was placed on a permanent base and no
longer mobile, it became a "building" - a permanent structure.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained from Mr. Evans that in this instance,
since the office trailer was an accessory use to an existing
building with septic field and sanitary facilities, another
sanitary drainfield would not be required. In conclusion, Mr. Evans
said that the Albemarle Bank and Trust trailer was a good example
of this same situation - a mobile unit that had been approved back
in the seventies but which could have its underpinnings removed and
be pulled away today.
Mr. Michel inquired whether the Department of Motor Vehicles
required a permanent structure. Mr. Evans replied that he did not
believe so, that it was the separation requirement that he intended
to further explore and clarify.
'77
Mr. Davis remarked that he had visited the site about a month
ago and the photographs today reflected quite a different picture
from what he had seen previously. Mr. Davis stated that with a
fence around the site, he saw no harm to the proposed use,
although he would prefer to see a two-year limit and not approve
an office trailer as permanent.
Mrs. Diehl concurred that she could agree with the proposed use
if it were temporary. Mr. Skove suggested that the Commission
might see more such requests for office trailers.
Mr. Cogan said that he would be more inclined to approve it
temporarily, considering the history of the property.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Davis if he wanted to require fencing.
Mr. Davis replied that he would all of the conditions recommended
by Staff. Mr. Bowerman suggested that ultimately the issue might
be resolved by amending the original special use permit to allow
an expansion of the existing building's square feet.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of SP-83-5, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Only one sign located in view of Route 620;
2. Building Inspections approval including appropriate building
permits for location of office trailer;
3. No automobile sales;
4. Approval is not for a junk yard. Not more than two inoperable
vehicles shall be located on the property at any time. Junk
yard shall mean "any land or building used for the abandonment,
storage, keeping, collecting or bailing of paper, rags, scrap
metal, other scrap or discarded materials, or for the
abandonment, demolition, dismantling, storage or salvaging
of inoperable vehicles, machinery or parts thereof."
"Inoperable vehicle" shall mean "a motor vehicle, trailer, or
attachment thereto, which is required by the State of
Virginia to display current license plates and/or meet safety
standards as evidenced by display of an approved inspection
sticker, which vehicle, trailer, or attachment thereto does
not display said license plates and/or approved inspection
sticker."
5. Eire Official approval of spray painting, if contemplated;
6. Existing wooded areas to remain in a natural state;
7. Development limited to existing building and office trailer;
provided, however, that office trailer shall be removed two
(2) years from the date of approval of this special use permit
by the Board of Supervisors; and provided further that upon
removal of said office trailer, the existing building may be
expanded to include equivalent space of said office trailer;
8. Opaque fencing, not less that eight (8) feet in height, shall
be constructed so as to fully enclose the office trailer and
the 90' by 80' parking area as shown on the approved site
WIN
plan, and such fence shall abut the rear corners of the garage
building. Opening in the fence to provide access shall not
*Awl be greater than twenty (20) feet. Such opening shall be
provided with opaque fencing gates which shall be closed
except during hours of operation;
9. All vehicles including tow trucks, employee vehicles; clientele
vehicles, inoperable vehicles, and parts therof shall be
located within the fenced area. Location of any such vehicles
or parts thereof outside the fenced area shall not be permitted;
10. Conditions Two, Four, Eight and Nine shall be met within sixty
(60) days of approval of this special use permit or this
special use permit shall be referred to the Board of
Supervisors for further disposition.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no
further discussion.
ZMA-82-15 J. G. Dawson - Request to rezone 8.28 acres from VR
Village Residential to HC Highway Commercial. Property is
located on the western side of Route 20 South, north of and
adjacent to its intersection with Route 6, in Scottsville. County
Tax Map 130A(l), Parcel 47, Scottsville Magisterial District.
DEFERRED FROM DECEMBER 7, 1982.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mr. George Allen, attorney for the applicant, explained that
*#awl he would like to address some of the issues point by point.
Mr. Allen stated that Mr. Dawson filed his petition back in
November of 1982, before hiring Mr. Allen to represent him.
Mr. Allen stated additionally that the character of the area was
clearly commercial, containing an auto dealership, a restaurant,
a farm supply and hardware stores and a fire department. Mr. Allen
said that all of these operations were located further from
Scottsville than Mr. Dawson's property, which before 1980 was
zoned B-1. Mr. Allen contended that every property around that
of Mr. Dawson is zoned C-1 or Highway Commercial. Mr. Allen
passed out some photographs taken by Mr. Dawson's daughter..
Mr. Allen stated that Mr. Dawson had not been aware of the previous
downzoning of his property. Mr. Allen mentioned that the Board of
Supervisors subsequently recommended a commercial designation for
this property. Mr. Allen suggested that in the spirit of
compromise his client could live with a C-1 designation, although
such an approval would of course not give the applicant the same
value and rights that he had enjoyed previously.
"fir. Allen stated that a conference had been held in ^March with
Mr. Keeler and Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department. Mr. Allen
said that concern had been expressed at that time about the
inadequacN'7 of available water and sewer facilities for further
development in the area. Mr. Allen added that highway access was
another problem, even under Village Residential zoning, that
remained to be resolved. He said that there would be some impact
whether access were off Route 626, 20 or 6. Mr. Allen suggested
that it was difficult to determine how to obtain highway access
'7'4
when it would be dependent on the uses, several of which might
have different traffic needs. Mr. Allen also stated that the
Highway Department and the Planning Commission would have
different requirements. He explained that even under Village
Residential development of this property would increase
congestion. Per. Allen stated that at the time of development of
the property, access improvements should be determined and made.
Speaking to fire safety, Mr. Allen told the Commission that he
was a member of the Earlvsville Volunteer Fire Department.
Mr. Allen said that he advocated fire hvdrants and believed the
problem was County -wide and should be addressed. He suggested
that perhaps residential development under the circumstances
would be worse than some commercial development.
Mr. Allen stated that he did not believe anything that might be built
under C-1 would diminish the scenic highway designation of Routes
6 and 20. Mr. Allen said that this area was already commercial in
character and was no more scenic in many ways that Route 29 North.
Mr. Allen referred to his letter of '`March 29, in which he makes
clear that the applicant realizes that due to limitations on water
and sewer certain Highway Commercial uses would not be practical
until such time as public utilities become available. Mr. Allen
added that Mr. Dawson understands that any development of the
property_ or proposed use would_ require a site plan submittal and
further approvals.
Mr. Allen, in closing, told the Commission that this request was .400
not detrimental to the public interest anO would restore the
property to its previous commercial designation and be in compliance
with the amended Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was any public comment at this
time. When there was none, he declared the matter to be before
the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that he belived this property was located in an
appropriate area for commercial designation, but that he did not
know of any instance when eight and a half acres had been rezoned
without any idea of possible uses or without any plan for its
development. Mr. Davis stated that without more details, he could
not support the rezoning request as submitted.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether certain of these concerns would be
addressed at the site plan stage.
Mr. Skove said that he tended to agree with Mr. Davis and although
the Comprehensive Plan did designate this property commercial, he
had reservations about the water and sewer situation, as raised
during the CIP review.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Countv has tried to cet funds to
extend public water and sewer, since the shopping center has had
problems with both sewer and water. Mr. Keeler said that money
R
rff
for this extension has never been obtained and the Board has not
pursued it. Mr. Keeler said that attempts had also been made to
get individual property owners in the area to get together to bring
in public water.
Mr. Skove ascertained from Mr. Keeler that this funding was also
included in the CIP. Mr. Skove asked how many acres existed in
the shopping center. Mr. Keeler replied approximately seven acres
and that some 47,000 square feet ofcommercialbuilding space.
Mr. Skove remarked that as long as there was existing commercial
space available, he could not see approving a rezoning of this
magnitude.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Allen whether the applicant had any plans
for specific development of the property. Mr. Allen replied that
Mr. Dawson only wanted his privileges and rights restored.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that if there were a proposed use for the
property, he did not believe anyone was adverse to rezoning it.
However, he continued, the Commission has not generally in the
past advocated rezoning a large tract of land without a plan. He
suggested that perhaps the Commission could act favorably if the
applicant could come up with a plan, at least for a portion of the land.
Mrs. Diehl concurred it was not the uncertainty of possible uses
but without provision for utilities and the road problems, she
was reluctant to act on so large a rezoning.
Mr. Cogan wondered whether the applicant might be given the option
of withdrawing or requesting deferral until he might be able to
come up with a plan. Mr. Allen stated that C-1 zoning specifies
exactly what uses could be put on the property; he stated that
sensing the direction the Commission was taking, he would request
indefinite deferral.
Mrs. Diehl reiterated her concern was not potential uses, but the
internal road designs that might serve several uses and the question
of providing adequate utilities. Mr. Bowerman mentioned additionally
the need for parking plans, access, etc. Mr. Allen continued to
point out that it would be difficult to submit a proposal unless
the specific use was known, i.e., a funeral parlor and a barber
shop would each require very different plans.
Mr. Cogan moved for indefinite deferral; Mr. Skove seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
SP-83-7 Calvary Baptist Church - Request to locate a church on
5.0 acres zoned Rural Areas, County Tax "lap 130, part of Parcel 25,
Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is located on the
west side of Route 20 South, +1.3 mile south of its intersection
with Route 626.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
911
The Reverend Beryl G. McKisic, representing the church,
explained that originally some twenty-five people in-1979 met in
a store front building on Route 6, In June of 1980 Mr. McKisic
explained that some twenty members called him to be their woo
minister. He said that the church had grown to about 100 and
church Sunday school had to be held in buses. Mr. McKisic said
that new quarters were needed desperately. He said that at
present the church was meeting in the school house along with
several other groups, causing problems with noise. Mr. McKisic
said that attempts to rent elsewhere had not worked out and
that in general it was difficult to find someone willing_ to sell
a small tract of land.
Mr. McKisic explained that it was the church's intent to leave
as much schrubbery and as many trees as possible. He stated that
with folliage on the trees no houses were visible from the Proposed
church site. Mr. McKisic stated the church's intent to upgrade
the property. He said that a sewer permit could be obtained and
that there would be church services on Sundav and Wednesdav with
perhaps occasionally a Fible week program.
Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment.
Mr. Richard Ward stated that he believed Mr. McKisic had done
more for the young people in the community than anyone else.
Mrs. Paula Wyant said that she had five children, four of whom
were teenagers, and she spoke highly of Mr. McKisic's
contribution to the communiLy in answering the needs of their
youth. *00
Mrs. Pat Andrews said that she and her husband had moved to the
area from Ohio and after visiting a number of churches had found
Mr. McKisic to be warm and interested in others, someone who
reaches out to others.
When there was no further public comment, Mr. Bowerman declared
the matter to be before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the special use permit, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Watershed Management Official's memorandum of March 24, 1983,
be specifically addressed at the time of site plan review;
2. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic drainfield
locations prior to Planning Commission review of site plan;
3. Any additional use of the building other than worship and
Sunday school activities shall require septic system re-
evaluation by the Virginia Department of Health.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no
further discussion.
Mr. Bowerman declared a break until 10:00 P.M.
*400
21
Proposed Totier Creek and Hatton Agricultural/Forestal Districts.
Comment will be received regarding the establishment of same and
proposals for any modification thereto. Proposed Totier Creek A/F
District, consisting of +6,138 acres, is located +4 miles northwest
of Scottsville along Route 6, extending northward to Keene area
and southward to Topscott area. Proposed Hatton A/F District,
consisting of +2,914 acres, is located along Routes 726 and 627 in
Warren, Hatton and Scottsville areas. The A/F Advisory Committee
recommended deletion of +30 acres of property known as "Donegal"
from the proposed Hatton A/F District.
Mr. Michel told the Commission that he is part of an active group
in the State promoting these districts.
Mr. Keeler gave an update on the status of the proposed districts,
reading through the Staff Report and adding that a disclosure
statement would be included on plats of properties within the
A/F districts.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there any questions or comments from
the public.
Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, speaking for the Piedmont Environmental
Council, said that a copy of her March 24, 1983, letter was included
with the materials attached to the Staff Report. Mrs. Van Yahres
told the Commission that some 270,000 acres are already in A/F
districts in the State and that Albemarle and Madison have still
to adopt districts.
Mrs. Van Yahres told the Commission that Mrs. Caroline Whiteside
wished to inform the Commission that the borrow area from
F. Pierson Scotts's farm "Donegal" was a one-time, temporary
operation. Mrs. Van Yahres said that Mr. Scott wished to keep_
this property within the A/F District.
Mr. Mark Branham spoke for Citizens for Albemarle, Inc. and read
a short statement in favor of the proposed A/F districts. (Copy
attached.)
Mr. Davis suggested that the owner of Valmont was probably someone
who wanted to farm and wanted protection. Mr. Davis pointed out
that it poses a problem for a property owner if his land happens
to jut up into surrounding land zoned differently. Mr. Davis
said that governments draw imaginary lines and parcel off land as
needed, even though the State has given citizens the right to
place their property into these districts.
Mr. Michel said that he did not agree that this property, Valmont,
should be included. He added, however, that the next time these
governmental lines were drawn, the existence of A/F districts will
have to be taken into account. Mr. Davis remarked that the districts
had limitations.
`err Mr. Cogan pointed out that in this particular case everything was
already in existence, meaning that the Valmont case was somewhat
unique and that he believed Mr. Michel was speaking to future
instances.
Mr. Cogan stated that there are two different alternative
recommendations - one to amend the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning map and one to delete that thirty -acre portion of
Valmont which is designated as part of the growth area of
Scottsville and zoned Village Residential.
Mr. Davis observed that the owner/applicant of Valmont did not
have this alternative in mind. Mrs. Diehl remarked that the
property was already divided into two parcels. Mr. Davis added
that the owner of Valmont owned several parcels. He stated that
his major concern was a feeling that these districts would give
a false sense of security to the participants.
Mr. Cogan suggested that the intent behind establishment of
the districts was good. He also said that he concurred with
Mr. Keeler's recommendation that these districts should be
regulated under the same rules and requirements governing the
current Rural Areas zones.
Speaking to Mrs. Van Yahres' concerns that potential participants
might be unduly alarmed over a statement from the County
pointing out possible disadvantages to inclusion in an A/F
district, Mr. Cogan suggested that any County notification
s'-iould contain both the pros and cons of participation in the
districts. He added that should the Board of Supervisors make
any future changes in the districts, participants should be
notified in advance of their becoming effective.
There was some discussion on how restrictive the districts
might be for an individual farmer. Mr Payne assured the Commission
that with or without the existence of A/F districts, County
ordinances would be enacted in any instances of runoff problems
or pesticide dangers. Mr. Davis expressed concern that individual
farming practices could be prohibited by regulations governing
the districts. Mr. Payne mentioned that it was possible that
the Board of Supervisors might make the A/F districts more
restrictive than what was currently proposed.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mrs. Whiteside if she knew how long the borrow
operation at "Donegal" might continue. She responded that
hopefully it would terminate by the end of the summer.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the Commission was generally in
accord with Staff recommendations. Mr. Kindrick left the meeting
at this time. _Mr. Skove moved to recommend Alternative One to
the Board of Supervisors for formation of both the Totier Creek
and Hatton A/F districts; Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously with no further discussion.
NEW BUSINESS
Rio Road Gas Line and Village Square Gas Line - Review for
compliance with Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
8Y
Mr. Bower -,man asked whether the proposed extension of a 4" gas line
.r was of sufficient sizing to handle a greater future demand or whether
it was designed for short-term service.
Mr. Keeler responded that he was not certain whether the Squire
Hill and Wood properties could be served by this extension. He
further explained that this extension request was to provide
service to existing development within the designated growth area.
Mr. Keeler ascertained from Mr. Bowerman that he believed points
two and three covered in the Staff Report, pertaining to having the
City of Charlottesville Gas Division participate in the Site Review
Committee of the County and in the Capital Improvements Program
process, should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman stated, however, that he had no problem with the Staff
suggestion that the Commission could make a general finding that
any extension of trunk or distribution lines within designated
growth areas to serve existing development would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, with the understanding that Staff would
review each such project and that any major transmission lines
would still require Commission review.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of Staff's suggestions as described
by Mr. Bowerman; Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which then passed
unanimously with no further discussion.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Keeler gave an update on the status of the borrow area
amendments, requesting that the Commission adopt a Resolution of
Intent to take the proposals to public hearing.
There was some discussion among the Commissioners on the origin
of the figure 50,000 cubic yards as constituting a borrow area..
Mr. Davis said the figure 20,000 cubic yards would be more palatable
to him. Mrs. Diehl asked what the original figure had been.
Mr. Davis responded 10,000 cubic yards; he explained that the Highway
Department had protested that this was a small amount and that almost
any Highway Department improvement would require more earth moving
than 10,000 cubic yards. Mr. Davis recalled that the 50,000 amount
had resulted from concerns of the Highway Department.
Mr. Bowerman observed that he did not know how an objective amount
could be chosen. There was a consensus that 50,000 cubic yards was
a substantial amount of dirt. Mr. Cogan suggested that 20,000 was
a more realistic amount. Mr. Payne remarked that a figure could be
calculated on the basis of truck traffic - how many truck loads a
day or by truck weight, a formular could be created relating it to
public health and safety.
There was a consensus for Staff to further investigate a manageable
method for defining a borrow area and to return to the Commission
with some alternatives.
a
Mr. Bowerman informed the Planning Commission that he had
received a letter from the University of Virginia inviting any
interested Commissioner to attent a meeting at 3:30 p.m., on
April 8, in Newcomb Hall, regarding the University's 1984 - 1986
Capital Improvements Program.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
exXe.,q 7/4//.
R bert W. Tucker, Jr.
S cretary
9
U