HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 03 85 PC MinutesDecember 3, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, December 3, 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; and Mr. James
Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community
Development; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; and Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Ms.Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the November 19, 1985 meeting were approved
as written.
SP-85-81 Timmy Wyant - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10)
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide
mobile home on property described as Tax Map 26, parcel 41, White
Hall Magisterial District. Property is located on the east
side of Route 673, ±1 mile northwest of its intersection with
Route 674.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He pointed out a mistake in
the staff report, i.e. the acreage should be 9 acres, rather
than 100 acres as stated. The reason for the change being that
a subdivision of the original 100 acres was approved after this
application had been filed.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Timmy Wyant, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
stated he felt the mobile home would be located far enough
away from surrounding properties so as not to create any
problems. He expressed surprise that his neighbors had
objected to his proposal.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Elizabeth Knightaddressed the Commission and expressed her
opposition to the proposal. In addition she presented letters
of opposition from other neighboring property owners (McNeely,
Butterfield, Fingers). Ms. Knight also presented photographs
showing the proposed mobile home's site in relation to
surrounding properties. Reasons for opposition included the
following:
--Devaluation of surrounding property;
--Would extend the property zoned for mobile home use;
--Mobile home is not compatible with surrounding property;
--There are no other mobile homes in the area;
--It is not possible to screen the mobile home adequately
because of the topography of the site.
pw
December 3, 1985 Page 2
Mr. William Butterfield, an adjoining property owner, addressed
the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. His
reasons were the same as those expressed by Ms. Knight. He
also was concerned that allowing this type of development would
invite more mobile homes to the area and would worsen traffic
problems on already inadequate roads. Though Mr. Butterfield
stated that the Wyants had been good neighbors and that he
respects their right to live on the property, he asked that
this application be denied because of the precedent it would set.
Ms. Erleen Wyant, the applicant's mother, addressed the Commission.
She explained that she had been forced to sell most of the family
land after the death of her husband, but that she had reserved
a small portion of the property for her children. She stated
that while she, too, would like for her children to be able to
build conventional homes, this was not financially possible, and
she felt it was unfair that those who are more fortunate should
be able to prevent her from using her land.
Mr. Henry Reeves, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Fred Landess, attorney representing C.W. McNeely, III, a
neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He
explained that his client had been the purchaser of the majority
of the Wyant land and the property is intended to be used
primarily for farming purposes. He indicated he sympathized
with the applicant but felt the desires of so few should not be
allowed to adversely effect the property of so many others.
His client was opposed to the special use permit.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Keeler explained that
a subdivision has been approved for the residue acreage (approx.
20 acres). He explained there are five tracts, but he was unsure
as to how many the Wyants still own. Mr. Landess added that
"these are not new subdivisions. Those are division lines from
former parcels, i.e. at the time the new Zoning Ordinance was
adopted these were seperate tax map parcels." Mr. Keeler
stated the Wyants own 9 acres on one side of Rt. 673 and
12-13 acres on the other side.
It was determined that the proposed unit would be visible from
the Knight property, but not from the road. Mr. Cogan added
that the proposed site is a high, open area making it visible
from a considerable distance. He also stated this particular
area is free of mobile homes, the closest ones being those
at the intersection of Rts. 673 and 674.
Mr. Cogan explained that he had "mixed emotions" about the
request. He stated he sympathized with Mrs. Wyant's desires
that the land be used by her children, but he was concerned
that allowing one mobile home in the area would invite others.
A41
December 3, 1985
Page 3
Mr. Cogan stated that, after weighing all the factors, he felt
that some areas must be reserved from mobile homes due to
certain features of the area, e.g. economics, topography,
visibility, etc., and since this is one of those areas, he
could not support the request.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Cogan explained that
some of the surrounding parcels are "built on" and others
are in the process of being improved. Mr. Cogan added that
someone has invested a lot of money and effort in improving
this area and he felt this effort should be protected. He
stated the Commission is supposed to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the public, and he felt this would
fall under welfare.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he agreed with Mr. Cogan and stated
that a mobile home in this area, because of the topography
of the site, would significantly change the visual character
of the area. He emphasized that the other mobile homes
that do exist close to the area do not have the visibility
that this site has. He felt allowing mobile homes in this
area would be a significant degradation of the scenic beauty
of the area as well as a potential economic depreciation of
some already improved properties.
Mr. Cogan emphasized that he sympathized and respected the
Wyants' desires, but he felt the "other side" weighed more
heavily against the request.
Mr. Gould stated the Commission has heard the same arguments
before, i.e. effect on land values, allowing one unit will
invite more, etc., but the Commission has approved such
requests in spite of these arguments. He added that he
would have to "look very hard to find a rationale to disapprove
this request" on the basis of everything the Commission has
done over the last two years.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out the following differences in this
request and previous requests: (1) The site is cleared
and highly visible; and (2) The character of the area is
visually unique.
Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Gould indicated they understood
each other's points of view.
Mr. Cogan added that he felt most of the requests that have been
approved have been in areas where there were other such units
in the vicinity.
Mr. Gould stated he was concerned with the applicant's right
to have a home though it might not be the home the Commission
would like him to have.
112.
December 3, 1985 Page 4
Mr. Skove pointed out that a crucial difference is that in
other cases the Commission has been able to mitigate adverse
effects by requiring additional screening, but that is not
possible in this case.
Mr. Cogan stated he was not sure whether or not the mobile home
might be repositioned on the site so as to make it less
visible, but regardless of whether that would be possible or
not, he still felt allowing this unit would be setting a
precedent for the area.
Mr. Cogan again stated he understood Mr. Gould's point of
view, but he felt each request must be dealt with on its own
merit, and that is the propose of the special use permit.
He added that it is very difficult to tell a person that
they cannot use their property the way they want, but at the
same time, it is difficult to disregard the adverse effects
to surrounding properties that would result if such a
request were approved.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-81 for Timmy Wyant be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Skove stated that in his seven years on the Commission he had
never voted against a mobile home, but this is a unique situation
and a special use permit is not automatic.
Mr. Gould stated that while it would be easy to vote on either
side of the issue, based on the Commission's past actions, he
stated he could not support the motion for denial.
The above -stated motion for denial was passed (4:1) with Mr.
Gould casting the dissenting vote.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on
December 4, 1985, at Jack Jouett Middle School.
CPA-85-5 Southern Regional Park - Request to amend the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 Chapter 14: Community
Facilities and Utilities Plan with respect to a Southern
Regional Park consisting of 290.47 acres with a proposed 40-acre
lake. This proposed park is located south of Rt. 708, west of
Rt. 20 South and in the vicinity of the Walton Middle School.
The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan currently recommends
rural area land use for this property, a change to public land
use is requested. Tax Map 101, parcel 59. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report.
VMOO
111
Dcember 3, 1985 Page 5
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Ms. Imhoff explained that
the water quality related primarily to bacteria content in relation
to swimming. She also stated the proposal was primarily for a
swimming lake. She added that a larger lake is being considered
(50-75 acres rather than 40) to compensate for the poor water
quality. Ms. Imhoff confirmed that this site had the worst
water quality of the five considered, but it still was not as
bad as many of the others. In an attempt to give the water
quality rating some meaning, Mr. Pat Mullaney (representing
Parks and Recreation) explained the Rivanna Reservoir has a
rating of 70 and Chris Greene Lake has a rating of 27-29. This
proposed lake has a rating of 40. He confirmed that the main
problem is putrefaction which can be controlled with chemicals
and by making the area of the lake larger.
It was determined that cost estimates for building the project
would increase if the size of the lake were enlarged.
Mr. Skove stated he was concerned about how this would effect
other land use in the area, e.g. would land use controls have
to be instigated in the drainage basin.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. James Murray, representing Barbara White, Thomas Ward and
Connie Houchens, owners of Lake Renovia, addressed the Commission.
He introduced Ms. Houchens to the Commission.
Ms. Connie Houchens addressed the Commission. She made the
following comments:
--The land on which Lake Renovia is constructed has
been in the family since the 18th century. The lake was
built in the mid-1940's.
--The land surrounding the lake was recently sold.
--The Lake Renovia Subdivision which has been proposed
is not connected in any way with the lake.
--The lake provides a quality service to the community.
--The lake provides free services to the community, e.g.
Children's Rehabilitation.
--The lake also provides camping and is
the major tourist attractions in the
--The lake suffered a 50% reduction in
when Chris Greene opened.
--The lake has suffered from a lack of
has not been able to compete with the
which the county parks receive.
--The proposed.Southern park will have
on Lake Renovia's business.
--Southern Albemarle cannot support two
convenient to
area.
"take at the gate"
advertising and
free advertising
a disasterous effect
lakes.
Mr. Tom Ward, Ms. Houchens' brother, addressed the Commission. His
comments were as follows:
December 3, 1985 Page 6
--Lake Renovia has always had to compete with an unfair
pricing structure of the County lakes since the
County lakes do not have to show a profit.
--The County lakes have always operated at a loss.
--The Southern Park will lose between $55,000 and $60,000
a year in operational expenses. County taxes will
be used to cover the losses which puts Lake Renovia
in the unique position of being taxed to support
its greatest competition.
--The proposed park is only 6.5 miles from Lake Renovia,
and is 4 miles within its service area.
(Mr. ward presented a map showing Lake Renovia's service area
in relation to the proposed lake.) He quoted the following
from page 247, Chapter 14, of the Comprehensive Plan: "Consid-
eration of programs for providing swimming facilities to County
residents in the extreme southern portion of the County
lying outside the 10-mile service radius of Lake Renovia."
--The proposed park is well within the 10-mile service
radius of Lake Renovia.
--The extreme southern end of the county will not be
served by the development of the proposed facility.
He continued quoting from the same section of the Comprehensive
Plan: "Such programs are to include actual construction or
new, preferably self-supporting, swimming facilities in the
Scottsville, Esmont, Covesville area."
--Lake Renovia services an area far to the south of its
10-mile radius, and already is providing the service
to southern Albemarle that the proposed lake is
supposed to provide.
--Lake Renovia has a difficult time competing with the
county lakes that are located to the north and west.
--The proposed site has been clear cut and it will cost
approximately $240,000 just to repair the damage done
by the clear cutting.
--Lake Renovia cannot exist with increased direct competition
from County lakes which keep their prices below the level
that Lake Renovia needs to maintain its facility. The
campground cannot operate independently.
--The campground draws approximately 4,500 families to the
area yearly.
--Lake Renovia already provides quality facilities to
southern Albemarle and draws tourist dollars to the area.
--The proposed park will cost taxpayers approximately $60,000
per year and will drive Lake Renovia out of business.
--The County should not make the decision to run private
enterprise out of business by direct subsidized competition.
Mr. Murray once again addressed the Commission. He made the
following comments:
--The Board of Supervisors has already passed a resolution
of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan which puts
the Commission in a difficult position.
December 3, 1985
Page 7
--What is being requested is a major substative change in
r the Comprehensive Plan, since it currently calls for
a swimming facility in the "extreme southern part of
the county" not a central location. The Comp Plan
also states that such a facility shall be outside the
10-mile service radius of Lake Renovia.
--The Commission is being asked to do a "complete 180"
reversal."
--This request should be dealt with with the same rigid
standards as any other comprehensive plan modification
which might be requested by the public.
--The current proposal is a "far cry" from the $150,000
swimming pool in Scottsville that was originally discussed.
--Mr. Mulaney (Parks and Recreation) has told the owners
of Lake Renovia that the proposed park's primary function
will be to take city residents away from Chris Greene Lake.
--This is a family business which has been in existence for
35 years and the County is going to put them out of
business.
--Why doesn't the County buy Lake Renovia?
Mr. Don Fritz, owner of a KOA Campground approximately 1 mile
from the proposed site, addressed the Commission. He expressed
concern about the inadequacy of Rt. 708 for handling additional
traffic that would result from this proposal. He also felt
the park should be further south.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Pat Mulaney, representing
Parks and Recreation. He specifically asked him to explain
the differences between the services this park will offer and
those offered by Lake Renovia.
Mr. Mulaney explained that Lake Renovia offers camping and
the proposed park will not. The park will not offer any
services beyond what Lake Renovia already offers. Regarding
the question of water quality, Mr. Mulaney explained that
the County Engineer is still considering that issue, and he
did not know that it was a serious problem. He confirmed
again that it was the worst of the five sites, but pointed
out that the Rivanna Reservoir water quality is "double"
that of this site. He explained that part of the reason
the water quality rating for this site is so high is because
of the large drainage area (30 square miles). (It was
determined the drainage area of Lake Renovia is approximately
200 acres.)
Ms. Imhoff stated a question has arisen as to the impact of
Daily Craig's project on the water quality of Lake Renovia;
it will adversely effect the water quality.
W
December 3, 1985 Page 8
Mr. Cogan stated if that is the case, then the project will
"not go through" because the Commission is "not supposed to
let that happen."
Mr. Mulaney pointed out that the owners of Lake Renovia have
indicated that, regardless of where the Southern Park may be
located, there is a chance that they will not be able to
compete. Mr. Ward responded that "there is not a chance they
can compete with the current proposed location," but there
would be a "much greater chance" they could compete with
one of the other locations.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Mulaney indicated
this proposed lake would probably draw about 1/2 as many users
as Chris Greene Lake.
Mr. Cogan questioned whether the proposed location would
really draw people from the southern part. of the county and
stated it seemed to be directed more toward drawing from the
central portion of the county.
Mr. Mulaney explained sites had been considered based on an
"Interim" Comprehensive Plan and, considering the magnitude
of this proposal, he questioned how much reliance should be
placed on an Interim plan. He explained that it is difficult
to find a suitable piece of property which had topography
suitable for a lake, a water supply, and an owner who was
willing to sell. Meeting these criteria had greatly reduced
the choices for sites. He added that with such a large
investment, the lake should be able to serve as many county
residents as possible.
Mr. Cogan asked why the park had to be so large. Mr. Mulaney
explained that cost cannot be determined until a site is
selected. In response to Mr. Gould's question, he stated
that cost estimates had not been done for the other sites.
It was felt that this site was most centrally located to
all the different areas of southern Albemarle. He stated
he felt the future of Lake Renovia was uncertain regardless
of where the southern park is located. He indicated he
did not think the site should be determined by Lake
Renovia's location since this could mean that it might be
located in a compromise location and Lake Renovia would
end up closing anyway. He emphasized that he felt the site
would serve "all" of southern Albemarle and not just "central"
southern Albemarle. He added that he did not think the Lake
Renovia site, because of its distance from a large portion
of southern Albemarle, could serve as the southern regional
park of the future. He also added that Lake Renovia is
not currently relieving the overcrowding at Chris Greene
Lake. He stated that if this park could serve southern
Albemarle as well as draw some of the people away from Chris
Greene, it would eliminate the need for an additional park
in the northern part of the county in the near future.
9
December 3, 1985 Page 9
Mr. Mulaney also stated he was not personally convinced that
the construction of this park would destroy Lake Renovia because
a large part of their business is camping. He stated he did
not understand why they were not currently drawing more people
considering their location. He said the county is going to
continue to grow and he thought "there was room for all of us."
Mr. Skove stated he felt the County should adopt a more
comprehensive plan for these types of installations, since this
one seems to be handled in a piecemeal fashion.
Mr. Mulaney stated a southern park has been in the county
plans for a long time.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that it has been in the county's plans,
but he questioned how large a park was envisioned and at
what cost.
Mr. Mulaney stated he felt a park similar to Chris Greene
and Mint Springs was envisioned. He explained that Mint
Springs has 8 water acres and 400 land acres; Chris Greene
has 50 water acres and 200 land acres. He pointed out
that in those parks the water area already existed.
Mr. Michel indicated he was not opposed to the location, but
he was "having a real hard time jumping from a small swimming
facility way down in southern Albemarle to a million -and -a -half
to two -million dollar lake on a site with the worst water
quality of the five."
Mr. Bowerman stated this had been in the Five -Year Plan
at a cost of $500,000, cr $600,000 maximum.
Mr. Mulaney stated those figures were based on a different
site and were just a basis for a planning figure. It had
been pointed out that the cost could change dramatically
depending on the site chosen.
Mr. Cogan stated this proposal was a "monster" compared with
what was supposed to be done.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board had been aware that the cost
could go beyond the $600,000 when they had directed Mr. Mulaney
to study possible sites. Mr. Mulaney responded that he felt
some Board members had felt it would go beyond $600,000. He
added that the Board had been advised of the additional cost
later on and his office had been told to continue with their
work. He stated that the final costs might be lower than
the figures quoted.
The Commission did not feel the figures would be lower in view
of the fact that consideration was being given to increasing
the size of the lake from 40 acres to possibly 70 acres.
Mr. Cogan felt a low estimate would be $1,000,000. Mr.
Mulaney agreed this was possible.
ETA
December 3, 1985 Page 10
Mr. Bowerman stated the original intent was a small regional
park to serve primarily Scottsville, Keene, Covesville and
some of the smaller towns in that area and this proposal has
gone "totally beyond that."
Mr. Skove thought the primary purpose of the park was to provide
swimming, thus why is all the open space needed, and Mr.
Bowerman added, "Who needs 50 acres to swim in:"
Mr. Cogan stated he felt this was an exercise in futility
since the lake would have to be 50 acres to make the water
quality acceptable. Mr. Cogan added he was also concerned
about the time limitation, i.e. to save $70,000 a decision
must be made by December 31 which may result in spending
an additional $1,000,000.
Mr. Gould agreed this was a concern of his also.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this proposal was
not acceptable in its present state. The Chairman emphasized, however,
that the Commission was not opposed to a Southern Regional Park
but it was opposed to this proposal for the following reasons:
--Cost and scope of the project is much larger than
was originally intended;
--Size of the proposed lake is much too large;
--Service area is too large;
--Not centrally located to the southern part of the
county as was intended;
--Site had the worst water quality of those considered.
It was determined that the Commission's definition of "southern
Albemarle" was somewhat different than that which had been
used in the study.
It was also agreed that Lake Renovia was not a suitable solution
to long-term recreation needs in this part of the county.
Mr. Payne explained the Commission's position at this time, i.e.
to make a motion that the plan be amended in the way presented,
or that it not be amended as proposed. He pointed out that
if the Commission does not approve the proposal at this time
it does not mean that they are opposed to a Southern Regional
Park.
Mr. Cogan moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
the Comprehensive Plan NOT be amended to include Site No. 4
as the site for the Southern Regional Park.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
It was noted that the Commission felt they
flexibility in dealing with this issue and
a better understanding of what the County
with a Southern Regional Park, including a
had not had adequate
that they would like
is trying to accomplish
list of criteria.
ME