HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 01 86 PC MinutesJuly 1, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
July 1, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel;
and Mr. Richard Gould; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were; Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the June 17, 1986 meeting
were approved as submitted.
Northfields (Section 1, Block F, Parcel 11) Final Plat - Proposal to create
three (3) lots ranging in size from 1.1 to 1.4 acres, for an average lot
size of 1.2 acres. The proposed access for one lot is from Route 651, and
the other two lots are to be served by a joint entrance from Route
631 (Rio Rd). On the west side of Rio Road, adjacent to the north of the
Northside Baptist Church, and just south of Northfields Road. The property
has southern frontage on Route 651. Tax Map 62A1, parcel 1. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated that the "applicant
has not submitted all the information which was requested with Site Review
Comments" and the two issues which must be resolved by the Commission
are:(1) access; and (2) the provision of sanitary sewer facilities.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question regarding what information the applicant
had failed to submit to staff, Ms. Patterson listed the following items:
--A topographic map showing proposed lot lines and driveways, and
the delineation of any streams or critical slopes;
--Plans showing the provision for all utilities;
--Clarification of the intersection of the joint access easement
onto Rt. 631, and the driveway entrances for lot 11C.
Mr. Keeler explained that this proposal was before the Commission because
the staff needed the "framework" to review the application. He stated the
disposition of the plat would revolve around the Commission's determination
on (a) access, and (b) whether or not to require public sewer.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
His comments included the following:
--Only private septic systems were considered because it did not
seem to be justifiable to put in a pumping station for just three lots;
--It was felt by the developer that the proposed location of the three
lots would look better than having 2 lots on Wakefield and 1 on
Rio; the steepness of the lots had also been a consideration in
positioning the lots.
July 1, 1986
Page 2
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Edwards to explain the "road" that appeared to go
through the center of the lots. Mr. Edwards explained that it did not
exist, but was an old road bed many years ago. He stated it is not
a recorded easement.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the issue of access, Mr. Bowerman stated that, after viewing the
property, he felt there should be no access onto Rio Road from this site.
He pointed out the numerous roads that already access Rio Road in this
area and stated that adding another access "just didn't make good
planning sense." He added that "the topography of that site also doesn't
lend itself to serving three lots from Wakefield, because it's just
too steep." He stated the only conclusion he could reach was that it
should not be divided into more than two parcels, both served by
Wakefield. Regarding the issue of sewer facilities, he stated, "If it
was gravity I don't think I would have a problem with requiring public
hook-up. I think, ultimately, Wakefield, Huntington and Northfields will
all be served by sewer at some time, put in by the Service Authority,
at some indefinite time in the future. I think to require a pumping station,
for two or three lots just doesn't make a lot of sense if, and only if,
they can obtain Health Department approval for septic systems on the lots."
Mr. Cogan indicated he agreed with Mr. Bowerman on the sewer issue.
Mr. Bowerman added, "There are some lots, regardless of the zoning, which
just don't lend themselves to easy subdivision, and I think this is one
of them."
Mr. Gould indicated he agreed there should be no additional accesses onto
Rio Road.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the item be deferred with a direction to staff
that there be no access to Rio Road and septic systems would be acceptable
with Health Department approval. He stressed that there should be
coordination between the house site selection and the septic field locations.
Mr. Gould moved that the Northfields, Section 1, Block F, Parcel 11, Final
Plat be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Samuel Spangler Final Plat - Proposal to create five lots served by a proposed
public road. The property is presently improved with a single family detached
dwelling, to become part of lot 3. The average lot size is 2.4 acres.
On the south side of Route 737, approximately 0.3 mile south of Route 6.
Tax Map 130, Parcel 10. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She added that Lot No. 4 was
peculiarly shaped as a result of the location of the existing well and
septic tank/field on lot 3, and that the Commission must determine if
Lot No. 4 is a "peculiarly shaped lot" as defined in the ordinance
(Sec. 18-29 Subdivision Ordinance), i.e. that it "is not usable for
normal purposes."
K
�y
July 1, 1986
Page 3
Mr. Keeler explained there were two ways to deal with lot 4; (1) As proposed,
with the peculiar shape; or (2) With a septic system easement for lot 4 on
another lot (which staff does not recommend). He explained that the
original plat was drawn before an analysis of existing conditions of the
property had taken place (i.e. the existence of the well and drainfield
on lot 3 were not . known).
Mr. Payne offered two additional alternatives: (1) Eliminate the lot line
and instead of a two acre lot, make it a four acre lot; or (2) Use the
existing septic system for the new lot and put a new system on the old
lot (he did not know if this was feasible engineering -wise).
Mr. Payne pointed out that if the Commission determines that Lot 4 is a
"peculiarly -shaped elongation," then it doesn't meet the Ordinance.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Sam Spangler, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated
he felt the proposal, as presented,was the most feasible option. In
response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to whether or not he had
considered abandoning the existing drainfield, rather than drawing the
lot lines around it, Mr. Spangler responded that the drainfield was
relatively new (4-5 years old).
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Because of the restricted building area on Lot 5, Mr. Cogan asked if
it was going to be possible to get a gravity flow septic system.
Ms. Patterson responded, "I don't recall, but the Soil Scientist's report
says that pumping will be required, depending on housing locations, in a
lot of cases."
Mr. Cogan stated he definitely felt Lot 4 was unusually shaped, and he
added he was somewhat concerned about Lot 5.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt there were alternatives which would allow
normally -shaped lots.
Mr. Stark expressed a lack of understanding of the term "normal" but added,
in regard to Lot 4, "It appears, from the shape of it, that it doesn't
meet anything."
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt Lot 4 had been shaped "that way" purely as a
convenience to obtain two acres.
Mr. Payne stated, "That's the letter of the ordinance."
Mr. Gould indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl, i.e. that there are alternatives.
Mr. Cogan indicated he felt the applicant was trying to do too much with
the land, i.e. get 5 lots on 12 acres. He stated, "That's a real squeeze,"
considering the topographic features of the land.
t%r1
July 1, 1986 Page 4
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the lot shape was for the convenience of
the applicant and is being dictated by the present location of a drainfield.
He felt that either option suggested by staff would not be good planning.
Mr. Payne stated, "I would not recommend that you approve it subject to conditions,
unless you just want to let staff approve it administratively." He stated
there were too many changes that need to be done.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Samuel Spangler Final Plat be denied because
Lot 4 does not meet the criteria of a normal -shaped lot as defined by
the Ordinance.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
Mr. Horne asked for direction from the Commission as to what might be
acceptable.
Ms. Diehl responded, "I would look more favorably on a proposal that had
4 lots in the same given area or one in which the existing drainfield was
moved or abandoned or the existing drainfield was used for Lot 4." Mr.
Cogan added that there were also concerns about the location of a
septic system for Lot 5.
The motion for denial of the Samuel Spangler Final Plat passed unanimously.
The Chairman asked the applicant if he understood why the plat had been
denied. Mr. Spangler indicated he did understand. He commented
additionally on the staff's recommendation that the road be paved
and indicated he did not agree with this requirement.
Mr. Bowerman stated, "Mr. Spangler, we have requirements in the Ordinance.
Staff cannot always predict the outcome of the advice that they give
to an applicant before the Commission. You have heard our concerns;
I think, if those are addressed, I can't make any comment about what
we will do with it, but I think you know what our concerns are and the
way that they can be addressed."
Mr. Spangler, "Do I understand that you did say that you thought five
lots were too many?"
Mr. Payne stated he did not think that was an appropriate question.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that there are a number of ways that the plat can
be made approvable and advised the applicant to work with staff on
a revised proposal.
Wendall Wood Final Plat - Proposal to divide a 4.04 acre parcel into four (4)
lots averaging 36,949 square feet. Located on the west side of Rt. 29 and
north of Hilton Heights Road, adjacent to the Hilton Hotel site. Tax Map
45, parcel C, 68D4. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
r7
July 1, 1986 Page 5
There was a brief discussion about the history of the property. It was
concluded the status of the plat, before this review, was that it
had access to the Hotel access road. Mr. Bowerman added, "The
difference is that we don't have a feasible design that can have
access to the Hotel access road."
Mr. Michel expressed a lack of understanding as to why there is no
feasible design.
Mr. Bowerman explained, "It was already graded when we approved it,
but we were assured at the time that that was a feasible access point.
He stressed that the property was graded to its present condition
at the time the subdivision was approved. He recalled, "It was a
difficult situation, but we were assured that one way or another it
could be obtained."
Mr. Stark asked by whom that assurance had been given, staff or the
contractor.
Mr. Benish stated that the application had been deferred once and then
voted on a month or so later. At that time the County Engineer had
stated that an access would be difficult and he was not sure whether
or not it would be feasible. However, Mr. Benish stated nothing in
the minutes indicate that an access was impossible.
Mr. Bowerman added that Mr. Roudabush, the engineer at the time, had
indicated that it would be possible to do. He stated that he
specifically remembered Mr. Roudabush giving that indication.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Bowerman again confirmed
that the grading had already been done when the subdivision was approved.
Ms. Diehl stated, "It seems callous, but the applicant did the grading, why
can't the applicant fix the grading to allow for the entrance as it was
originally planned?"
Mr. Benish pointed out that Mr. Pack (County Engineer's office) has
stated the grading is not the only problem, but also the turning
motions involved.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
His comments included the following:
--This proposal will require the least number of U-turns on Rt. 29.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that as originally approved, there were
no U-turns. Mr. Bowerman also suggested the possibility of
an easement from the Hilton which would allow the road to go
"up the side." Mr. Edwards indicated that while this might be
physically possible, it would never meet the private road provisions.
--Regarding vehicle trip restriction, he stated it would be vgNTdifficult
to indicate on a plat how many trips would come off each lot.
Mr. Keeler stated there was no alternative to this requirement.
n /7
July 1, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Bowerman agreed and added "It's first come first served
as the lots are sold and developed." Mr. Horne pointed out
that concept was agreed to by the owner. Mr. Edwards indicated
he understood, but stated he did not want to make that decision,
rather the owner would have to authorize him to make such a
statement on the plat.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler stressed that this would "lock" the applicant into a
traffic generation of 3,200 trips, and that could not be increased at a
later time.
In response to Mr. Stark's question, it was explained how the traffic
generation would be controlled through the site plan process.
Mr. Michel asked what would happen if there were a change of use. Mr.
Horne explained that a change of use would require a a Change of Use
Permit which would have to be obtained through the Inspections Department
and would go through Zoning where the existing site plan would be reviewed.
He explained that if the change would cause the allocated traffic
generation to be increased, it would not be approved.
Mr. Stark asked what has changed about the proposal that is different
from the last time it was reviewed. Mr. Bowerman stated the only
difference is that this proposal contains a trip generation scenario and
comments from staff regarding the access to Rt. 29 and the access to
Hilton Heights Road. He stated that staff has indicated their feeling
that the proposed access is not an ideal situation. He added that
staff has also determined that plans that were submitted for a potential
road utilizing existing access are not feasible. Mr. Bowerman
concluded, "(This) doesn't change whether the site is subdivided or
not. If it was one lot still, which required this easement and the
use of it to get to the hotel access road, the problem we have would be
the same. They would still be back with these two access points
for one lot for the whole thing. So it appears to me that our original
approval was flawed from the point that we did not have an engineering
study done to determine the feasibility of the access road."
Mr. Cogan stated that, "in good conscience" he could not approve all
the U-turns. He felt he would be derelict in his duties as a
Commissioner if he approved this type of development. He pointed out
that as site plans were proposed for the lots, even more problems
would occur.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that, currently, it is unbuildable even as a
single lot because of the access road.
Ms. Diehl stated that she felt some more expensive solutions to provide
a safer access should be explored.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Wendell Wood Final Plat be denied because a
safe access to and from the lots is not obtainable in the fashion presented
by the applicant.
July 1, 1986
Page 7
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the motion, as stated, was sufficient. Mr. Payne
also stated, "The law is that a landowner abutting a public road has a right
to access to that public road, but that_right is subject to reasonable
police power regulation. It seems to me when the applicant told you in
'82, or whenever that other thing was done, that the access could come
off that other private road by a series of easements, then he is
estopped to deny that that access is adequate at this point."
He concluded, "So I think your action, if you approve Mr. Cogan's motion,
is defensible."
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
SP-85-25 Innisfree Village, Inc. - Request for the expansion of an existing
group homefacility for the developmentally disabled. Total area of the
property is 372.38 acres (for the group home and farm). Property is located
on Rt. 765 north of Mountfair and just west of Rt. 668 (approximately
one (1) mile from Brown's Cove).
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman .asked if the acreage for the two residences was consistent with
the acreage for other residences in previous approvals. Though Mr. Benish
did not answer this question directly, he indicated there would probably
be four or five residents in each building and the buildings would be
single-family in nature so as to make the land more easily subdivisable
in the future.
Regarding Highway Department comments, Mr. Benish stated he felt that
their comments had taken into consideration the proposed community
center usage (which would generate more traffic). He also stated he
did not know if the Highway Department was aware that the facility
has not yet exceeded the limitation on residents which was placed
on the original approval. Mr. Benish stated he did not think the
community center had been a part of the original proposal.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bruce Williamson, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated he felt it was anticipated when the original special use
permit was approved that there would be further requests for residences
in the future and the 75 person total included both staff and patients.
He stated there were no objections to the suggested conditions of
approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Heinz Krump, director of the Village, addressed the Commission. He
pointed out that the total of 75 persons was recommended by the Village,
and was not requested by the Board of Supervisors.
MIR
July 1, 1986 page 8
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark expressed some concern that condition No. 1 (Limit of seventy-five
persons (patients and staff) located at the village.) appeared to be
"setting a limit rather than reaffirming that the limit is 75."
It was determined this was not a problem and Mr. Payne stated, "I think
the record is clear that that is the intent of the Commission."
Mr. Stark moved that SP-85-25 for Innisfree Village, Inc. be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Limit of seventy-five (75) persons (patients and staff) located
at the village.
2. The Special Use Permit shall be limited to Tax Map 14,
Parcel 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10E and proposed parcels 10F, lOG and
3B as shown on plan entitled "Innisfree Village," dated November 7,
1984.
3. Staff approval of site plan(s) for the development of these
facilities. Residential facilities to be designed as
single family dwellings.
4. Staff approval of subdivision plat creating new parcel 10F, 10G, and
3B.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on July 16, 1986.
SP-86-33 John Kluge - John Kluge petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue
a special use permit for the location of a HELIPAD (10.2.2.19) at Albemarle
Farms. Property, described as Tax Map 102, Parcel 35A, is located west
of Route 627 about 2 mile from Route 727 in the Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
In response to Mr. Gould's concern, Mr. Keeler explained that the only
way of monitoring condition No. 2 (Usage limited to not more than ten (10)
flights per month. Not more than one (1) helicopter to be on the premises
at any time.) would be by complaint.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the helicopter would be based on Maryland. Mr.
Cogan asked if a condition should be added stating that the helicopter
was not to be based at this location. Mr. Keeler indicated this was up
to the Commission.
Mr. Payne added, "It seems to be the question, in that regard, as to what
you consider the problem to be. Historically, the problem has been
R411
July 1, 1986 Page 9
seen as a noise and potential crash/failure problem. So the nature of
the problem of these things has tended to be seen as the number of
flights. If you view it as something being related to the aircraft being
stored there, that's a different matter. But as long as you have a
limitation on the number of flights, if you are not concerned about the
aircraft being stored, then it seems to me it doesn't matter where it's
based."
Mr. Tim Wood, representing the applicant, explained that the design of
the helipad would be 50' x 50' and "it will not be kept on the farm at
any time."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-86-33 for John Kluge be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
(1) This Special Use Permit is issued to the applicant and is
non-transferrable;
(2) Usage limited to not more than ten (10) flights (i.e. take off
and landing) per month. Not more than one (1) helicopter to be on
the premises at any time;
(3) Landing lights to be shielded from adjoining properties and public
road;
(4) Approval/registration of FAA and Virginia Department of
Aviation.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on July 16, 1986.
SP-86-38 Anthony Boom - Anthony Boom petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit in accordance with 30.3.5.2.1 to authorize
roadway construction within the flood plain of an unnamed tributary
of the Mechum River. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 1B1, is
located on the north side of Route 676 about 12 miles west of Route 678 in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He stressed that the issue before the
Commission was the stream crossing, not the subdivision of the property.
Ms. Diehl asked if the various officials who had commented on the proposal
were aware of future subdivision plans. Mr. Keeler stated he believed
both the County Engineer and the Highway Department were aware of those
plans. Mr. Keeler again stressed that this issue was separate from
the subdivision issue. He called the Commission's attention to a
previous application (VEPCO) where the site plan was reviewed before
a special use permit for the tower which had caused some problems.
Thus, the special use permit is being presented first in this case.
M
July 1, 1986 Page 10
Ms. Diehl stated, "In that case then we would be quite free to deny the
subdivision if we felt that our floodplain should be crossed only by
one or two residents."
Mr. Keeler responded, "This is an awkward situation because the Board of
Supervisors prefers for you not to approve subdivisions that entail
their approval of a special use permit or site plan. That was an issue
on the Jerome Motel. It's kind of the 'chicken or egg' kind of thing.
We are in the process, in accordance with the LURC Committee's recommendation,
of (developing) some written policies. I think one of the written policies
is going to be that no ministerial approvals be given until all legislative
approvals have been obtained; which would be, you don't approve the
subdivision until the Board has approved the stream crossing."
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it was important to know what was coming
next, so the first item could be reviewed in light of what is coming.
Ms. Diehl agreed that the sequence was correct, but added, "I don't
think we can separate the two knowing that there is going to be
future subdivision."
Mr. Cogan felt it should be made clear that if the Commission votes
favorably on the special use permit, that is not an indication
that it will vote favorably for a subdivision.
Mr. Payne stated, "I don't think there should be any question in
anybody's mind about that."
Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission might want to add a second
condition addressing this concern. However, it was determined this
was not necessary.
It was determined staff is currently studying possible amendments
to the ordinance which will authorize the County Engineer to approve
stream crossings where there is no public interest involved.
Those crossings which are of public interest will still require
Commission and Board approval.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained the process the applicant has followed in determining
the entrance location, and the type of road that will be constructed.
He indicated the applicant has planned the process in such a way
that three Commission reviews will be required: (1) Stream crossing;
(2) Use of the property; and (3) Soil types, road grades, final plat
lines. Mr. Osborne offered detailed comments on elevation of the road,
design of the road, piping, stream flow rate, etc.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. J.L. Mean, residing within 200 yards of the proposed access, addressed
the Commission. He expressed concern about possible future development
of the property and stated he did not think the property could support
five residences due to the steepness of the property and problems
with locating septic systems. He was also concerned about the negative
114 -Y
July 1, 1986
Page 11
M
effect of additional wells on existing wells. He asked that the Commission
postpone action on the proposal until the entire plan has been presented.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan again stressed that only the stream crossing was being reviewed
at this time.
Ms. Diehl asked for an explanation of the statement in the staff report
that "this special use permit is being sought to further divide the
property into a total of five lots ...." She asked if this was the
purpose of this special use permit.
Mr. Keeler responded, "In your packet is a copy of the plat that we
signed in 1985. There is a note on that plat that we asked to be placed
on there --'Any further subdivision of Lot 2 will require a private
street commercial entrance and will require Planning Commission approval
and may require installation of a public road to serve said lots; said
road will be subject to VDH&T approval.' As I recall, at the time we
signed this plat it was evident that the existing entrance location
wasn't going to met commercial entrance standards. Regardless of the
number of lots, one additional lot, out of a total of 20 acres, if you
went to three lots, would require a commercial entrance. Our private
roads ordinance doesn't speak directly to design standards for stream
crossings, but, to play it safe, under the Federal Flood Program, we
discussed employing the same standards as the Highway Department.
So, to make a long story short, if they divide one more lot out of
this, they would have to get a commercial entrance which means it would
have to be relocated. The stream crossing would have to be designed to
Highway Department standards unless you let them have a private road
and told the County Engineer you didn't want that."
Ms. Diehl again indicated she felt the staff report was confusing and
stated, "We are considering this special use permit only for building
a bridge in the floodplain." Mr. Keeler confirmed this.
Mr. Payne added, "If the permit is executed and the crossing is built
and the subdivision is denied subsequent to that, obviously for some
proper reason, then the applicant has a perfectly good special use
permit with a perfectly good stream crossing to serve two lots."
It was determined it would be premature to address the issue of the
closing of the other road at this time.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-86-38 for Anthony Boom be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
(1) Written Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
County Engineer, and Watershed Management Official approvals
for stream crossing and construction practices prior to
Planning Commission review of preliminary subdivision plat.
UTIA
July 1, 1986 Page 12
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Ms. Diehl asked if this means that if this is approved by the Board there
will be two entrances into the property. Mr. Cogan responded affirmatively.
Ms. Diehl asked, "Suppose the subdivision came back to us and he had the
sight distance on the upper road to put 2, or possibly 3, lots on that
road but not enough to support the whole intended subdivision. Does that
mean that both of those entrances would be utilized?"
Mr. Cogan stated, "He doesn't have any more subdivision rights on Lot 1,
but he does have them on Lot 2. What he could do is use the two entrances
and make two lots on Lot 2 which would not require a private street
commercial entrance. Yes, that could be done."
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on July 16, 1986.
Mr. Keeler indicated staff did not agree with Mr. Cogan's statements. He
stated, "It's our position that once you establish a subdivision with a
private road, that is your sole means of access including any subsequent
subdivision of the property." Mr. Payne agreed.
SP-86-36 Francisco & Caroline Davila - Francisco & Caroline Davila petition
the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for an equestrian
club (10.2.2) on 79.214 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. The property,
known as Auburn Hill Farm, is located across Route 732 from Auburn Hills
subdivision about 0.4 mile west of Route 729 in the Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that the Commission might wish
to add a fifth condition as follows: "Staff approval of temporary on -site
parking provisions for public events; for large events, the Zoning
Administrator may require that the applicant certify at least 10 days
prior to such event that adequate arrangements have been made with the
County Police, Fire and Rescue Squads, and the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health for the conduct of such event."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Francisco Davila addressed the Commission. He stated the basic idea
was to develop an equestrian club which will include horse training and
boarding, riding lessons, hunt and guest lodging. He stated it is his
desire to preserve the rural quality of the area. He stated the
use of the facility would be limited to 55 members. He stated the
entrance will be relocated to comply with VDH&T requirements. The
property owners across the road have given permission for necessary
grading and vegetation removal to obtain sight distance.
The Chairman invited public comment.
C
C?1�11
July 1, 1986 Page 13
Mr. James Edwards, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission.
He indicated he was in favor of the proposal.
Ms. Maude Henner, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission
and expressed she was in favor of the proposal. She did express concern
about the possibility of fox hunting and the noise which would be
generated by such a use. Mr. Davila indicated this type of hunting was
not envisioned. Ms. Henner also suggested that some type of fencing
might be necessary to contain any dogs that might be present on the
property.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Stating that he was familiar with the area and the benefit that would
be derived from the grading of the "S" curve, Mr. Wilkerson moved that
SP-86-36 for Francisco & Caroline Davila be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of private street commercial entrance;
2. Membership limited to 55 persons. New residential construction
will require amendment of this special use permit;
3. Not more than one (1) horeshow or other such event per year
open to the general public;
4. Compliance with 5.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on July 16, 1986.
NEW BUSINESS
Comprehensive Plan Review - Verbal Public Input - Mr. Bowerman stated he
continues to receive requests from the public on this matter. He
stated he felt it was advisable that a public hearing be scheduled to
receive verbal public comment. Mr. Bowerman felt this would eliminate
the possibility of further misunderstanding about the process. He
stated, "I do not believe that we want questions about the procedure
to become an issue which threatens to overshadow the actual review of
the plan itself." He called for a motion to schedule such a hearing,
to be held on either July 15 or 29. He stated, "I envision this
meeting to be one where all public input is recorded and categorized
by staff to include in our review process as well as a forum for
the Commission to be made aware of the public's concern and opinions
of what the revised plan should or should not contain." Mr. Bowerman
stated he felt the public has a preference to make their statements
in a public forum, verbally, rather than in writing.
It was determined the meeting would be advertised like a regular
public hearing, but would not be a "legal" public hearing.
M
July 1, 1986
Page 14
Mr. Payne stressed, 'One thing needs to be absolutely, 100% unmistakable
is this, and that is that this is not, cannot be, and cannot be understood
to be the, or a, public hearing on the Plan. I don't have a problem
with a kind of public forum for the public to air its view and to ask
questions, etc. The problem is that it has to be made unmistakabl clear
that the purpose for this hearing is for the Commission simply to hear
the concerns that the public has. It should be made absolutely
unmistakable that there is not going to be the usual public hearing
procedure where you have a document presented (and ask for comments).
The document will not exist in any form."
Mr. Payne stated the ad must be carefully written and the term "public
hearing" should probably not be used.
Mr. Horne stated the ad could refer to the meeting as a public forum
and would say that it is only to receive comment and no decision will
be made by the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he did not envision
any discussion by the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated the meeting would have no legal significance and the
only purpose would be to allow the public to present their views.
Mr. Keeler suggested that a news release might be more appropriate than
a legal ad. Mr. Horne stated that there was sufficient time to
get a new release in the paper before the 15th.
It was determined the public forum would be scheduled for the 15th
and staff would compose a news release.
It was also determined staff would present the priority list to the
Commission following the public forum. It was decided this would also
be included in the news release.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms
-7-7)4" 7//�-Z
John Horne, Secretary
/o/