HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 12 85 PC MinutesFebruary 12, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, February 12, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. James Skove;
and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were: Mr.
James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner;
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Norma Diehl and Ms. Patricia
Cooke, Ex-Officio.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the January 22, 1985 meeting were approved as
written.
SP-84-88 Hester Whitcher - Request to locate a mobile home for
use by agricultural employee. Located on east side of Rt. 680
just north of Rt. 811 intersection. Zoned RA, Rural Area, Tax
Map 41, parcel 72B. White Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Hester Whitcher, the applicant, addressed the Commission.
She stated the mobile home was an integral part of her stable
area. She explained the unit would have wood siding and a pitched,
shingled roof. Though Ms. Witcher stated she had photographs
of the proposed unit, the Commission did not request to see the
photos.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was familiar with the location and
stated there was sufficient screening.
After pointing out that if the applicant were living on the farm
this would be permitted by right, Mr. Skove moved that SP-84-88
for Hester Whitcher be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval subject to the following conditions:
(1) Applicant must adhere to Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(2) Location and screening of mobile home to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
February 12, 1985
Page 2
Mr.Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on February 20, 1985.
ZMA-84-27 R.D. Wade (Willoughby) - Request to amend SP-534 and
SP-79-48, Willoughby Corporation, to reduce density from 208
dwelling units on 70 acres and delete internal road connection
to undeveloped commercial and high density residential area.
Property, described as Tax Map 76M2, parcels 48 (part), 63,64
(part), 65 (part), is located on the east side of Route 631
(Fifth Street)at Harris Road. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
Mr. Cogan asked if there was a conflict between the County
Engineer and the staff regarding the connector road.
Mr. Keller explained staff was recommending that a right-of-way
be retained in the event that development does occur in some
fashion where a connector road will be appropriate. However, he
stated he had spoken with a number of people about the possibility
of developing the adjacent property and no one indicated any
interest in developing it with a type of use which would require
direct access from the residential area.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the County Engineer feels that the
benefits of having the connector road are not equal to the damag-
ing environmental impact of having the road.
Mr. Cogan questioned the wisdom of leaving the right-of-way in,
since this would mean that at some future time the right-of-way
might have to be abandoned.
Mr. Keeler stated his comments were based on the PUD concept
that there should be internal access, but the Commission might
decide that this was not practical when applied to this situation.
Referring to the reduced density being requested, and the fact
that underdevelopment in some of these areas might result in
increased pressure in the rural areas, Mr. Bowerman asked how
many times this has occurred.
Mr. Keeler stated this had happened in most of the planned
developments and he indicated when the Comprehensive Plan is
reviewed it might be necessary to compensate for this someplace
else. He also confirmed that the market place is dictating the
type of structures that are being built.
Mr. Cogan, indicating his concern regarding the possibility that
the urban area would have to be extended to compensate for the
lower density development, stated that a reduction in density
19
February 12, 1985
Page 3
often occurs because of physical features of the land which are
discovered after construction begins, or because of the dictations
of the market.
Mr. Keeler stated that a certain type of development had been
called for in the Comprehensive Plan which is not occurring,
but a natural type of development is occurring. He suggested
that perhaps this type of natural development should be identified
and planned for.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated it was desirable that some decision on
the road be made at this time so that plans could be finalized.
He indicated his agreement with the County Engineer, i.e. that
the connector road was not recommended. He also stated the fact
that the suggested right-of-way might interfere with the storm
water detention basis that will be required. He indicated the
applicant had no objection regarding the recreation areas, pro-
vided the applicant could "flip-flop" (trade) a recreation area
with a building lot.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He questioned the adequacy of Harris Road. He
stated that in 1981 there had been a meeting between the County
Engineer and the Highway Department to determine the proper
road design. At that time it was agreed by all that 180 units
would be a reasonable level of development. He stated the cur-
rent proposal shows 191 units at the point where the development
goes from the County into the City, and he explained that a
conflict now exists between the Highway Department and the
developer as to whether that section of road is satisfactory.
He further explained that Loma Lane has 13 units, and sub-
tracting this from 191 units puts it below the original 180
units for which the road was approved. On that basis, he said
it would seem the only area that needed improvement was about
50 feet, at the entrance to Loma Lane. He explained the
applicant's plans for improvements to the road, i.e. an additional
12" of S-5 over the existing pavement which will provide the
necessary strength. He stated it has not been established by
the Highway Department what design they are going to approve,
though the applicant has been trying to secure this information
for some time. He added that it was not unreasonable to pave
the entire length of the road with an additional layer of S-5,
but he questioned if this was really necessary since the only
area that is over the 180 units is the 50 feet at Loma Lane.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this matter had been brought to the
attention of the Commission because it is something the Commis-
sion can deal with, or is this a problem to be worked out
between the applicant and the Highway Department.
February 12, 1985 Page 4
Mr. Osborne stated he would like for it to be established
whether or not Harris Road is in reasonable condition now or
what needs to be done. He asked that the Commission request
that the Highway Department provide an answer to this question.
It was determined that the applicant had been awaiting a response
from the Highway Department since before the holidays.
Mr. Bowerman invited comment from Mr. Echols of the Highway
Department.
Mr. Echols, referring to the applicant's letter of January 26,
stated it was simply a matter of replying to that letter. He
stated that what the applicant was proposing (12" of asphalt
overlay on the section of Harris Road that is currently in
the state system) would be acceptable to handle the development
as currently proposed. He confirmed that this would be recom-
mended for the entire 500 feet.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Regarding the deletion of the connector road, and the proposed
reservation of the right-of-way, Mr. Bowerman asked in what status
this would put the rest of the PUD,in relation to the other two
portions of Moores Creek.
Mr. Keeler replied that this was a very old PUD and he stated he
questioned the coehesiveness of the plan given all the constraints.
He indicated that the areas across Moores Creek would have other
access to the area without the connector road. Mr. Keeler stated
that the PUD would remain as shown on the plan even with the
deletion of the connector road.
Mr. Michel, referring to the fact that the uses are very different,
and given the negative environmental impact of the connector
road, indicated he saw no problem with deleting the road.
Mr. Skove asked what would happen if the other areas were not
developed commercially.
Mr. Bowerman stated it could not go back to the existing road
structure because of the design standards for that road. He
stated it would have to be improved all the way out (i.e. Harris
Road) .
Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of removing the connector
road and Mr. Bowerman agreed.
It was determined that, regardless of what type of development
should occur on the other side, the connector road was still
not necessary since there were alternative routes.
44,0
Mr. Michel stated the question of Loma Road and Harris Road should
nnq
February 12, 1985
Page 5
In
be left up to the applicant and the Highway Department to work
out.
Referring to staff's condition No. 9--Planning Commission approval
of active recreational facilities to comply with the 50 square
feet per unit requirement in the Zoning Ordinance prior to final
plat review --Mr. Skove suggested that this be changed to "Staff
approval". The other Commissioners agreed.
It was also determined that conditions 6 and 16 should be deleted.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-84-27 for R.D. Wade (Willoughby) be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
(1) Approval is for a maximum of 130 single-family detached
dwelling units. Open space shall be dedicated in
proportion to the number of lots approved on a final
plat.
(2) Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect all changes,
approved land uses, road alignment, recreational uses,
etc. Submit three copies to the Planning Department
in accordance with Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(3) County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval of road plans for accep-
tance by the State, including upgrading of Harris
Road in accordance with Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation letters of February 9, 1981
and December 14, 1984, if necessary.
(4) Compliance with the Stormwater Detention provisions
prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission.
(5) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water
and sewer plans. Dedication of water and sewer lines
to the Albemarle County Service Authority, including
such easements as may be requested by the Authority.
(6) County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreement to
include the maintenance of recreational equipment;
open space; and sidewalks/pedestrian ways and drainage
and appurtenant structures not accepted for maintenance
by Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation.
(7) No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval.
(8) Staff approval of active recreational facilities to
comply with the 50 square feet per unit requirement in
the Zoning Ordinance prior to final plat review.
zza,9
February 12, 1984
Page 6
(9) A building separation of 30 feet shall be maintained
unless reduced by the Fire Official in accordance with
Section 4.11.3 A minimum building setback of 25 feet
shall be maintained.
(10) Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fireflow.
(11) Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
(12) Only those areas where roads, utilities, buildings, or
other improvements are located shall be disturbed;
all other land shall remain in its natural state.
(13) Evidence of an adequate building site on each lot shall
be provided prior to Planning Commission review of the
final plat.
(14) No buildings shall be constructed on slopes greater than
twenty-five (25) percent.
(15) Driveway entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed
with the final road plans. Off-street parking should
provide side -by -side as opposed to end -to -end parking
spaces to discourage on -street parking.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on February 20, 1985.
SP-84-91 Spring Hills (Laurel Ridge) - Request to redivide 5
lots into 7 lots ranging from 2 to 4 acres, with an average
2.8 acres, to be served by proposed State road Hawkwood Court.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 58,
parcels 65B2, 70F, 70G, 70H, and 70I; is located on the north
side of Rt. 676 west, about 0.3 mile west of the intersection
with Rt. 678. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report.
Referring to staff's condition No. 2--Construct a new private
road in the relocated easement to private road standards --Mr.
Bowerman asked if this would require an agreement between those
persons who currently have the existing right-of-way and the
owners.
Ms. McCulley confirmed this and stated that it was her understand-
ing that re -locating the easement would require an agreement
with signatures of everyone who has a right to that right-of-way.
She also confirmed that it was staff's opinion that re -locating
the entrance and the right-of-way would result in a safer access
to the site for all parties. *400
February 12, 1985
Page 7
In answer to Mr. Michel's question, Ms. McCulley stated there
were 13 or 14 parcels on the easement.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He indicated the applicant had no objections to
the conditions of approval. However, he stated that at the
time of site -review with the Highway Department a turn lane had
been suggested and the applicant does not feel that a turn lane
is justified at this time, but would have no objections to dedi-
cating whatever is necessary to accommodate this in the future.
Mr. Lanahan, the applicant, indicated he had contacted all
of the owners except one, and there had been no opposition to
the proposal.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, it was determined that Lot
8 would be considered double frontage, and would require a
waiver. Mr. Payne indicated this was not unreasonable. He
added that the waiver was not required at this time but should be
requested when the site plan comes up.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was in favor of the plan since he felt
it was superior to the previous plan.
Mr. Morris stated that the applicant is requesting staff approval
of the final plat, and therefore to expedite the matter, it
would be helpful if the waiver could be incorporated into this
approval for the special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission did not have to see the
preliminary plat in any event.
Mr. Payne said that, in essence, this special use permit is
a preliminary plat (though not technically), since it serves
the same purpose. He indicated that while it is unusual for the
Commission not to see a preliminary plat, it is not absolutely
necessary that they do so.
Mr. Michel asked if it was inappropriate for the Commission to
require that the applicant secure the approval of all the
other people involved with the right-of-way.
Mr. Payne explained he felt this was the intent of staff's
provision, but the Commission could add a condition if it
wanted it to be unmistakably clear.
The Commission requested that Mr. Payne compose language that
would handle this .
Q-?n
February 12, 1985
Page 8
Mr. Foster pointed out that whether the other people agreed or
not, the applicant could still proceed with his plans, leaving
the right-of-way exactly where it is with no re -location and
no improvements.
It was ascertained that the Commission was not in favor of
this plan unless the right-of-way could be closed at the entrance
on Route 676.
Mr. Lanahan, the applicant, asked if the Commission would be in
favor of his building on the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman replied negatively.
The applicant stated that he felt he could do this by right on
some of these lots.
Mr. Bowerman stated the comments of the County Engineer had
indicated that a commercial entrance is needed but will be
difficult to achieve if more lots are added to the right-of-way.
Therefore, if is preferable, both from the County's point of
view and from a safety point of view, to move the entrance
to the one that is shown on this special use permit application.
The applicant stated this was putting him in the position of
being forced to use the old entrance (by right) for some of the
lots in the event that he is unable to secure the approval of
all of the other owners.
The Chairman stated the Commission was aware that the applicant
has a problem with the one unnotified owner that must be resolved;
however, the applicant should understand he cannot put any more
houses using the existing right-of-way without getting a
commercial entrance, and a commercial entrance will be difficult
to obtain in this location.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the staff report is based on the
plan that has been submitted and if there is an alternate plan,
that would involve another special permit and cannot be commented
on at this time. He also pointed out that it would be to the
benefit of the other property owners who are served by this
easement since if any of them might wish to subdivide at some
time in the future, a commercial entrance would be needed.
As previously requested, Mr. Payne read the following language
to be added as condition No. 3:
• Subdivider to provide evidence of agreement, satis-
factory to County Attorney, providing for relocation of
existing road rights -of -way by all parties having
rights to such rights -of -way, such relocation to be
substantially as shown on proposed plat and, specifically,
providing for the closing of the existing entrance of
State Route 676.
� �r
February 12, 1985
Page 9
It was determined that the section of the Ordinance to be waived
in regard to double frontage on Lot 8 was Section 18-34.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-84-91 for Spring Hills (Laurel Ridge) be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions, including approval of a waiver
of Section 18-34 to allow double frontage on Lot 8 and granting
staff administrative approval of the final plat, provided all
conditions have been complied with:
(1) The subdivision shall be limited to seven (7) parcels
and shall be in general accordance with the plat by
William Morris Foster, dated December 1, 1984.
(2) Construct a new private road in the relocated easement
to private road standards.
(3) Subdivider to provide evidence of agreement, satis-
factory to County Attorney, providing for relocation
of existing road rights -of -way by all parties having
rights to such rights -of -way, such relocation to be
substantially as shown on proposed plat and, specifical-
ly, providing for the closing of the existing entrance
of State Route 676.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on March 6, 1985.
E. Leroy Strickler Final Plat - Proposal to divide 19.24 acres into
two lots, one of 10.0 and the other of 9.24 acres. Request for
relief from Section 18-57(g) of the Subdivision Ordinance re-
quiring that Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
entrance requirements be met for a family division. Located on
the south side of Rt. 614, adjacent on the west of the Mechums
River and Whippoorwill Hollow. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax
Map 42, parcel 58A. White Hall Magisterial District.
Staff advised that the applicant had requested withdrawal of
this application.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Commission accept the applicant's
request for withdrawal.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Taylors Auto Body Shop Site Plan - Proposal to locate 8,000
square foot body shop with seven (7) service stalls, to be
served by twenty-one (21) parking spaces. Located on the east
IS 3
February 12, 1985
Page 10
side of Brookway Drive off the west side of Rio Road and adjacent
to Meadowcreek. Zoned Cl, Commercial. Tax Map 61, parcels
168D and 168E. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. McCulley to repeat the Zoning Administrator's
comments regarding whether or not this is a use permitted
by right in the C1 zone.
Ms. McCulley gave the chairman a copy of the Zoning Administrator's
letter and Mr. bowerman quoted the following:
"Although this use is not specifically indentified by
the Zoning Ordinance, it is my opinion that such use is
similar in terms of locational requirements and operational
characteristics to other uses permitted by right in the
Cl zone. This use is specifically similar to Section 22
(etc.) automobile service station, and Section 22 (etc.)
automobile/truck repair, in the Zoning Ordinance."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, addressed the Com-
mission. He stated he was concerned with staff's conditions
l(c) and (d)--(c) County Engineer approval of pavement speci-
fications and first floor elevation above the floodplain;
(d) Vacation of drainage easement by the Board of Supervisors.
He stated the County Engineer's comments indicated there was
no problem with the first floor elevations and the applicant feels
that condition should be deleted. Regarding the drainage ease-
ment, he stated it was the applicant's desire that this be vacated
since there is no need for its further existence. Regarding
condition 2(b)--Planning staff approval of landscape plan --he
stated he would like to have more detail on this. He stated the
applicant had no plans to remove any of the existing large
trees.
Mr. David Wood, attorney for the applicant, addressed the
Commission. Regarding the road, he stated he did not feel
staff's recommendations were either equitable or reasonable.
He stated the subdivision plan had been approved in 1975 by the
County in contravention of the Ordinance, in that a bond was not
required for the completion of the road. He said that staff
had searched for a file that might explain why there was never
a bond required to guarantee the completion of the road, but
no answer has been found. He stated the suggestion that the
applicant bring the road up to state standards would be a very
expensive matter and is prohibiting his use of the lots in any
way. He stated the same situation was in existence within the
last 12 months when the County permitted an occupancy permit
for the present occupant of the old DMV building. He questioned
why that applicant, and previous applicants on this road, had
not been required to bring the road up to state standards.
233
February 12, 1985
Page 11
Mr. Wood referred to Section 18-19 of the Subdivision Ordinance
which deals with the requirement for bonding:
"All improvements required by the Board of Supervisors,
or its agents, to be dedicated to public use, shall be
bonded before the approval of the final plat."
He stated he felt this was very clear and he questioned the
staff's inability to explain why bonding had not been required
in this case. He stressed that he did not think it was reasonable
at this time to ask Mr. Taylor to bring the road up to state
standards.
Regarding the landscape plan, Ms. McCulley stated she did
not have any specific suggestions. She stated that the residential
section is on a higher elevation and some trees are present that
might provide adequate screening. She stated that possibly
a fence might need to be erected or some additional trees added.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Steven Busch, an adjoining property owner, addressed the
Commission. He gave a description of the area and the neighbor-
hood. He stated he was opposed to the proposal on two grounds:
(1) zoning issue; and (2) the proposed site plan. Regarding
the zoning issue, he indicated he did not agree with the Zoning
Administrators interpretation that an auto -body shop is similar to
other permitted uses in the C1 zone. He stated he intended to
appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision, and he asked that
the Planning Commission defer action on this proposal until such
time as the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) has made a decision
about the proposed usage. Mr. Busch stated he felt there is
a significant difference in an auto -repair shop and an auto -
body shop (a repair shop being permitted in the Cl zone, but
not a body shop specifically). Fie indicated he felt an auto -
body shop is totally out of character with other uses permitted
in the Cl. He noted major differences in a body shop and a
repair shop, i.e. use of spray paints, pounding and other noises;
wrecked vehicles parked on the lot; wrecker trucks coming and
going at all hours; bright security lights. He stated this
use is more suited to the HI zone, and referred to Section 28.2.1
of the Ordinance. He reserved the .right to make additional comments on
the site plan issue after others had had a chance to speak.
Mr. Jay Dalgliesh, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission. He stated he was in agreement with Mr. Busch's
concerns and offered the following concerns in addition:
(1) Non -tolerable traffic level on Rio Road; (2) Site has
a double orientation, i.e. facing both Brockway Drive and the
residential area; (3) What security measures will be employed,
i.e. fences, all night lights, guard dogs, etc.; (4) Noise --
what will be the hours of operation; (5) Water pollution in
relation to surrounding creeks; (6) Protection of existing
trees; and (7) Air quality in relation to the paint spraying
operation. He pointed out that this area is surrounded by
February 12, 1985
Page 12
single-family, owner occupied, residential dwellings.
Mr. Al Garrett, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission and reiterated the concerns and feelings of Mr. Busch
and Mr. Dagliesh. He indicated his opposition to the proposal.
He also compared this type of use to a semi -junkyard. He
emphasized the extreme danger that would be created by wrecker
trucks using Rio Road. He stated this use was more similar to a
sheet metal and welding operation (FBI zone), because of the
processes used, than to a repair shop.
Mr. George Lyons, a neighboring property owner and owner of historic
Cochran's Mill, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was
opposed to the application for the same reasons as his neighbors.
Being very familiar with this type of operation, he pointed out
the excessive noise that is involved because of the hammering
and pounding that must be done.
Mr. Busch presented a letter from an additional property owner,
Mr. David Landon, who was also opposed to the proposal. He also
questioned the existence of adequate screening, particularly
during the winter months.
Mr. Wood, representing the applicant, indicated he was in sympathy
with the concerns stated, but he pointed out that all these
people had elected to buy their homes next to this Cl zone.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had ascertained that auto -body shops
are not specifically indentified in any zone. He also pointed
out that though the residences are on a higher elevation, they
are separated from the site by no more than 150 feet. He stated
he disagreed with the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator
in terms of this being a permitted use in the Cl zone. Putting
aside the question of the road, the bonding issue and the traffic
on Rio Road, Mr. Bowerman stated he was not in favor of putting
an auto body shop next to a residential neighborhood because
on the intense noise created by such an operation.
It was determined that a Resolution of Intent might be in order
to take a look at this issue to see where this type of use should
be specifically identified.
Mr. Bowerman stated that since the Zoning Administrator's
decision was going to be appealed (as had been indicated by
Mr. Busch) he would not be opposed to deferring the issue until
the BZA has had a chance to settle the question. He said this
would also allow time for the road and bonding issue to be
clarified.
February 12, 1985 Page 13
Mr. Keeler stated that Brookway Drive had originally (1966)
err, been proposed as a major road. He added that a final copy of
the plat is dated February, 1974, and the current Subdivision
Ordinance was adopted in August, 1974. He said he was not
familiar with the ordinance prior to that time. He stated if
the matter was deferred he would attempt to obtain some more
definitive answers on the bonding issue.
Mr. Payne indicated this was immaterial since, for whatever
reason, the bonding was not done appropriately and no evidence
exists of any existing bond.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that when the other applications were
reviewed along this road, this matter had not been uncovered
and the road issue had not come up.
Mr. Payne stated that the road may have been built to the
standards that applied at the time and it may have been
approved as built before the plat was recorded.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there are no provisionsfor a
turn around, or cul-de-sac, the road just stops.
Mr. Skove stated he agreed that this did not seem like an
appropriate place for an auto body shop.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the Commission could appeal the
Zoning Administrator's decision.
Mr. Cogan stated it should be done one step at a time, i.e.
appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the BZA, and then
address the question of the road. He pointed out that the
County Engineer had not suggested that the applicant upgrade
the entire road, but had suggested an alternate plan which
has to do with vacating the road with each owner owning their
own piece and paying for their own section.
Mr. Payne stated that this is possible but that a vacation process
would have to be followed.
Mr. Skove asked at what point this would become a junkyard.
Mr. Payne read a definition of a junkyard:
"Any land or building used for the abandonment,
storage, keeping, collecting or bailing of paper,
rags, scrap metals or other scrap or discarded
materials or for the abandonment, demolition,
dismantling, storage or salvaging of in -operable
vehicles, machinery or parts thereof."
February 12, 1985 Page 14
Mr. Payne stated the fact that wrecked cars will be on the lot
does not make it a junkyard unless those wrecks are kept
indefinitely for salvaging of parts. He added that a body
shop may have a car parked there for 2 or 3 weeks while it is
being worked on.
Mr. Wood, representing the applicant, stated there was a
requirement for bonding well before 1975. He emphasized that
he felt there had to be some responsibility, other than on this
applicant, for that bond not having been posted.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he could not support the application
as presented.
It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission to
appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the BZA.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that regardless of the eventual use
of the site, a problem still exists with the road and now that
it has been identified, it should be dealt with.
Mr. Wood stated the applicant would be willing to pay his share
of the cost, but not the entire cost. However, he pointed out
there was no way the applicant could make the other owners
agree to a solution.
Mr. Payne stated the situation was a difficult one since there
is no way the County, or anyone else, can make the other
owners participate in a maintenance agreement. He further
pointed out that he felt it would be to the other owners
advantage to put up a certain amount one time to have the road
upgraded and taken into the state system, than to have to deal
with the perpetual maintenance of the road.
Mr. Bowerman stated he hoped these questions could be answered
before the matter was reviewed again.
Mr. Skove moved that the Taylors Auto Body Shop Site Plan be
deferred indefinitely in order to allow time to resolve the
question of the Zoning Administrator's decision.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The applicant asked what time frame was involved in deferral.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission is required to act, one
way or the other, within 60 days after the matter is first
presented, and if action is not taken within that time, the
applicant has the right to remove the matter to the Circuit
Court for appropriate action. He pointed out, however, that
it does not mean the matter is automatically approved (or denied)
if not acted upon within the 60 days.
-:)37
February 12, 1985
Page 15
Mr. Payne explained the
Administrator's decision
having been established)
or the staff to file the
Commission.
method for appealing the Zoning
was for the Commission (a consensus
to direct either the County Attorney
application on behalf of the
Mr. Skove moved that the Director of Planning and Community
Development be directed to appeal the decision of the Zoning
Administrator regarding the permitted use of azauto body
shop in the Cl zone to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
:1r. Payne stated he thought this would probably be heard by the
BZA at their next meeting, next month (second Tuesday of the month).
It was determined the advertising requirements were the same
as for a special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman stated his would allow some time for the staff to
look at the appropriate use of an auto body shop.
Mr. Keeler added that it might be desirable to look at all
auto -related uses in order to determine if a resolution of intent
is in order.
Mr. Payne suggested that the adjacent property owners proceed
with their appeal of the decision also, because even though the
1*W Commission seemed to be in agreement with the adjacent owners,
that position could change at a later time. Filing a separate
appeal would also assure that they would receive notification
of the BZA meeting.
Boars Head Inn - Gift Shop Addition - Proposal to increase the
existing tioor area by 1,390 square feet. Located south of
Rt. 25OW in Ednam Forest at the intersection of Ednam Drive
and Berwick Road. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Tax Map 59D(2),
parcel 1. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report.
The applicant addressed the Commission. He indicated the entrance
requirements had been met (Mr. Echols of the Highway Department
confirmed this).
The being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
It was determined this was an extension of what was originally
the Christmas Shop. It was also determined the entrance would
be completed before December.
,:; �3 1 Pk
February 12, 1985
Page 16
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Boar's Head Inn Gift Shop addition
be approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1) A building permit will not be issued until the
following condition has been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of the entrance to the Boar's Head Inn
property.
(2) A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until
the following condition has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant
location.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Rio Woods - Request for Site Plan Extension - Located off the
north side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) about 2 mile southeast of
the intersection of Rt. 29. Zoned R-10, Residential. Charlottes-
ville Magisterial District.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report.
It was determined that though the applicant was requesting a
4-month extension, the usual extension time is 6 months.
Mr. Skove moved that a 6-month extension be granted for
the Rio Woods site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Bowerman reminded the Commission of the Thursday meeting,
February 14, and it was determined a quorum would be present.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:55 p.m.
mak. �� -M
James R. Doln
lly, Secretary
DS
,_:;�39