HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 30 86 PC MinutesSeptember 30, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 30, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and
Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director
of Planning and Community development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Cogan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a
quorum was present. The minutes of the September 16, 1986 meeting were approved
as submitted.
SP-86-43 All Saints Anglican Church - All Saints Anglican Church petitions the
Board of Supervisors to modify condition No. 3 of SP-85-100 to reduce building
setback from U.S. Rte. 250W. Property, described as Tax Map 58, parcel 91E
(part of), is located on the south side of Rte. 250W, east and adjacent to the
Greencroft Country Club near Ivy in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report explained that during public hearing
for SP-85-100, and upon agreement of the applicant, parking area setback was
increased from 50 feet to 150 feet. The current request is for a reduction of
building setback from 170 feet to 150 feet. The report stated:
"Parking would meet a 150 foot setback. A church is not deemed visually
incompatible by staff. The applicant has agreed to landscaping measures
recommended by staff. While the applicant's proposal does not meet a literal
interpretation of Section 30.5.6.3.1, staff opinion is that the proposal would
be consistent with the objectives of the scenic highway provisions. Staff
recommends that condition 3 of SP-85-100 be amended as follows:
3. Building setback a€-149-€eet and parking area setback of 150 feet."
Mr. Keeler also stated that condition No. 1 of SP-85-100 requires
site plan approzal and that the Commission may wish to review the plan and
authorize staff approval once the Board has acted on this petition. He
reviewed the following comments and requirements made by the site review
committee:
--Health Department approval;
--Fire Official will require a fire hydrant;
--Service Authority has made comments about the public water line;
--Highway Department will require a 200-foot taper and 200-foot turn
lane along Rt. 250 in addition to a left turn lane;
--County Engineer has basically approved the drainage and runoff control
provisions;
--Zoning Department has approved the parking schedule;
--Mr. Dbrris commented: "The use of a loop road around the structure
appears to be excessive. A large amount of soil disturbance and
grading activities will have to take place to establish such a road.
Construction of an access road through the floodplain and to the
building should be done in such a manner as to preserve and promote
area water quality and quantity." Mr. Keeler was unsure whether or
not Mr. Morris was recommending that there not be a loop.
e;�l
September 30, 1986
Page 2
Mr. Keeler stated staff would have Mr. Norris' comments and recommendations
clarified if administrative approval should be granted by the Commission.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that only the special permit had been advertised for
public hearing, not the site plan.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ben Watkins, representing the church, addressed the Commission. He
stated the applicant does not agree with Mr. Morris' comments regarding the loop
road nor does the applicant agree with the Highway Department's requirement
for a decel lane coming from the direction of Ivy. He stated the issue
regarding the 150-foot setback had been fairly presented by staff and he
had no additional comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-86-43 for All Saints Anglican Church, reducing the
building setback, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval,
thus changing condition 3. of SP-85-100 as follows:
3. Building setback and parking area setback of 150 feet.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Regarding the issue of administrative approval of the site plan, it was
determined that due to the number of questions the applicant has about
the site review comments and the number of unresolved matters, the
Commission would review the site plan.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1986.
ZMA-85-27 S.L. Williamson (Proffer)
and
SP-85-77 S.L. Williamson - S.L. Williamson, Co., Inc. petitions the Board of
Supervisors to rezone ±14.7 acres from R-4 Residential to R-4 Residential with
NR Natural Resource Overlay District and to issue special use permit in
accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(3) to allow a sand and gravel removal operation
in the floodway of the South Fork Rivanna River. Property, described as Tax
Map 62, Parcel 16 (part), is a portion of the Dunlora Estate located
on the east side of Rio Road (Route 631) across from the VOTEC Center in the
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report included the following
statement: "The applicant's proffer proposes among other things that all area
southward of Site B to and including approved Site C on Attachment A be
rezoned from R-4/NR to R-4 and that SP-81-10 as it relates to Site C be abandoned."
Mr. Keeler explained: "Currently the applicant can withdraw sand and gravel
from sites B and C. His zoning proffer says that if site A is approved,
site C, and this intervening area, will be abandoned, with no extraction
activity in that area." Mr. Keeler explained that these petitions were
originally before the Commission in November, 1985, at which time the Key West
residents voiced complaints about the operations primarily related to
excessive noise and erosion. (Note: Staff was unaware of these complaints
prior to the time of the hearing.) The Commission had deferred the application
September 30, 1986 Page 3
ER
to allow time for more information to be gathered and to allow the applicant
time to meet with the Key West residents. Such a meeting took place in August,
1986, and the current proffers are a result of that meeting. The applicant's
proffer is as follows:
"l. Abandon the existing downstreams approved site (shown as Site C).
2. Limit dredging, screening, and hauling operations to Monday through
Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This would not limit us from
performing maintenance and otherwise being at our sites and performing
miscellaneous duties which we deem necessary for our sand and gravel
operations at other times.
3. Do all that we can within the limits of practicality to minimize noise
(i.e. run equipment with backup alarms in a circular pattern when possible)."
The staff report stated: "While the applicant's proffers may not satisfy all
concerns of Key West residents, staff opinion is that the proffers constitute
improvement over existing zoning." Mr. Keeler stressed, "We have not reviewed
this for all the normal criteria of a rezoning petition." Staff recommended
approval of both ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77, subject to the original conditions
of SP-81-10, plus a new ninth condition.
Mr. Keeler added the following statement at the end of his report:
"There was some question as to whether or not the Board of Supervisors would
be prepared to remove the natural resource zoning and revoke the special
use permits in that area in their entirety and simply take the natural resource
zoning off the map. I have discussed this with the Zoning Administrator and
his opinion is that if the Board did that, they would simply be making the
current operation nonconforming. The applicant could continue to operate
there, but would not have to meet the restrictions of the ordinance or the
special use permit that he is operating under now. ... I think to cause the
operation to be removed from that area, would take some type of court action."
Mr. Keeler explained the following options for dealing with this petition:
--The applicant's proposal, or some modification thereof.
--Denial of the request and the zoning and activities would remain as
they currently exist.
--Some action by the County to remove the zoning, which could simply
make the operation nonconforming. (There would have to be actions
beyond that to cause the operation to cease.)
Ms. Diehl expressed some confusion and asked, "But if this were approved
with the applicant's proffer, the proffer would override the natural resource
district?"
Mr. Payne responded, "It would supplement it." Ms. Diehl asked if it would
still cause an abandonment. Mr. Payne replied, "Yes, in that case, because
the applicant is agreeing that he will stop the activity. The issue of it
being nonconforming wouldn't apply because the applicant would agree to
relinquish whatever rights he has."
_�O &
September 30, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Keeler confirmed that this rezoning request included a request to
"take the zoning away" from Site C.
It was determined the proposed operation would be approximately 1,000
feet farther from the nearest residence than the current operation.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question about reclamation plans for site C,
Mr. Keeler read the following from the State Water Control Permit
requirements: "All denuded areas associated with the project's construction
shall be provided with adequate ground cover or seeding upon completion
of the project to arrest soil erosion."
Mr. Gould asked if, under this request, the applicant would have the
authority to remove sand and gravel from the entire natural resource area.
Mr. Keeler responded, "Under the existing approval, no. Under the proposed
one, yes. It would increase the acreage available."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Clyde Gouliman, representing the applicant, addressed
His comments included the following:
--The operation is of benefit to the County because
for asphalt to be obtained locally.
--Regarding reclamation , the company is required to
the Department of Mines and Land Reclamation , and
provides a natural reclamation process.
--If the application is denied the applicant will be
continue the operation as it currently exists and
of the Key West residents will go unaddressed.
--Moving the operation upstream will result in less
Key West residents.
--He questioned the accuracy of the accusation that
causing excessive erosion.
--State agencies continue to regulate the operation.
the Commission.
it allows raw materials
post a bond with
the river also
forced to
the concerns
noise for the
the operation is
Mr. Williamson addressed the Commission. He stated that when the site was
originally chosen he had been unaware of the proximity to the Key West
residences because they sit up on a bluff. He stated he understands the
nuisance value of site C, thus the proposal to move the operation farther
away.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. John Dezio, an attorney representing several Key West residents, addressed
the Commission. His comments were as follows:
"First I would like to respond to a couple of points that were raised
either by Mr. Gculdman or by Mr. Williamson. First, Mr. Williamson
and Mr. G dman both talk about either staying at the old site, or
moving further from Key West. I think the presentation that the
residents have will be clear to the effect that the only reason
Mr. Williamson is moving his operation is that there is no sand
in sites B and C. I think that if anybody in the Planning staff
or any member of the Planning Commission has been to the site,
and I think nobody has been, it would be quite evident. There
91
IVi)17
September 30, 1986
Page 5
will be pictures tonight to show that there is no sand in that
area. And all they're saying is what I would say to you,
'I promise I won't sing, because I can't sing,' and they're
saying, 'We won't take sand out of the area because there is
no sand in the area.' No matter how much I try to sing, it
won't come out as a song. No matter how much they try to
remove sand from site C, it won't come out as sand. It's just
as simple as that. Mr. Gouklman talks about scientific facts
of hydraulics. I don't know what those facts are scientifically,
but you'll see from the presentation tonight that there has been
clear erosion. Two particular sites that will be discussed
are sites that in 1981, and each of these people, and the pictures
will show, saw, and I saw these sites again yesterday, I had
not seen these sites since 1981, and at these sites there were
beaches. Our kids played on those beaches in 1981. Today there
is no beach. Despite what Mr. Couldman says about the water
replinishing those beaches and the sandbars, it hasn't happened.
There is no beach there; there is a cliff in both places. In
a third place there is a big wash and the land is eroding.
This is land where Mr. Couldman says, 'Hey, on that east side
of the river, things are going to be better.' Well, things
are worse. And anybody who would walk that land can see it --
things are worse. Trees are falling; the bank is eroding,
the beaches are gone; everything is gone. So when Mr. Ckutman
and Mr. Williamson tell you that 'Hey, things are good on that
side of the river,' the facts just don't support that. Mr.
Williamson also said that he didn't know what the distance was
rr,r to the houses in Key West in 1981. Well the staff report clearly
sets forth that the nearest house to the operation in Key
West is 400 feet. It's in their report --the report from the
County staff. It clearly sets forth 400 feet. In my presentation
I would first like to tell you what the situation is under the
current permit. First of all I tell you that because I think
it's important to know as best we can for predicting what will
happen under a new permit, if we look at what has happened under
the old permit. First of all, the old permit said that dredging
can only occur during certain times of the year. No dredging
was permitted between March 1 and June 30 of each year. The
evidence in the presentation tonight will be that even after
Mr. Williamson's company was here in November of 1985, they
violated that limitation. In March of 1986, we have a specific
date when pictures were taken, the trucks were down there in
the water, in the river, removing sand, in violation of the
seasonal limitations. There were requirements that there be
settling ponds constructed. None were constructed. There was
a requirement that there be a commercial entrance on Rio Road
according to the terms of the Highway Department. None was
ever constructed. Again, today, the same requirements are being
set forth that staff says 'We think these ought to be the
requirements.' They're asking for something that should have
been done in 1981. There was no follow-up on it by the County
staff in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986. No follow-up, and
they're saying today that if this permit is granted, they have
to put that in. It should have been done five years ago and
it wasn't. One of the reports from the regulatory agencies
��Q
September 30, 1986 Page 6
was to the effect that the only amount of sand that could be
removed was 528 cubic yards. That's what they said could be
removed --approximately 26 truckloads. When you hear the
presentation tonight, and I'm not being sacrilegious, if you
think the loaves and fishes was a miracle, wait 'til you
hear this one. Twenty-six truckloads is what would have been
taken out. In one year, I think the report will be 1,800
truckloads. Also, in July of 1985, without authority, the
applicant was outside the permitted area. And the applicant
doesn't deny that. There is a letter in the file to the
effect that the applicant admits the applicant was outside
the area. Also, there was not supposed to be dikes built,
or ramps built. The evidence will be that that happened
in violation of the permit. The results of the dredging
operation, of what I said before, are not just erosion of the
beaches and banks, not just terrible erosion, but erosion
that would shock the conscience of even the least environmentally -
conscious person in the community. Now, as for the new application,
again, I pose the question, has anybody been to the site? Has
anybody been out there to see what has happened? If you've been
out there, then you know what the situation is. If you've been
along the Key West side, and you'll see the pictures, and seen
what has happened as far as the erosion; if you've been to the
Key West Club and seen that the beach doesn't exist, then you'll
know what the results have been, and that is a concern. The
people in Key West are not simply concerned about the noise,
they are concerned about the ecology of the this situation; they
are concerned about what is happening to the river, what is
happening to the beaches and the banks, what is happening to
the trees. They are concerned about violation under the prior
permit. What does that mean in the future? They are concerned
about noise pollution. If you'll review the minutes of the
November meeting, there was a comment to the effect that a decibel
test would be performed and in the ten months since that time,
no such test was ever performed at the new site. Nobody made
any effort to do that. The people in Key West are concerned about
the value of adjacent properties because that is one of the
things that the Code says that you should consider. They will
talk about how that will adversely effect the value of adjacent
properties, the market value. They will also tell you that the
use that is being proposed is incompatible with the area, and
what the proposals are for the area. Again, they will tell you
that the river is being ruined. I'll close simply by telling
you, again, the applicant is not giving up anything when the
applicant gives up site C. It looks good but it's a red
herring. I promise I won't sing, and that's all that they're
saying. I will, at this point, tell you that there are certain
residents of Key West who will make a presentation to support
what my comments have been, and then there will be other comments.
When these comments are made, and they've made their presentation,
I would respectfully submit to the Commission, this is not
appropriate for a rezoning and we would ask you to deny the
application."
19
.yn q
September 30, 1986
Page 7
The following residents of Key West also spoke against the proposal and also
asked that the existing permit be revoked. Their comments, including
documented evidence to support Mr. Dezio's statements, included the
following:
Ms. Pat Keats, nearest resident to the existing operation: She reported
that the dredging location had been changed in July, 1985, to a
location that was in violation of the existing permit. She had
reported the situation and upon investigation by the County it
had been found that the applicant was indeed in violation and he
subsequently moved the operation back to within its approved
boundaries. She stated the applicant had not responded to Key
West residents' request to test the noise level at the proposed
new site. She stated the applicant's proffer No. 3 was neither
adequate nor enforceable. She pointed out that the lack of
normal weather conditions over the last several years has occasioned
the need for additional removal sites since the river is not recharging
the materials that are being removed. She reported that the original
Corps of Engineers Permit for these two sites allow the removal
of existing sandbars that measured 140 feet x 25 feet by 3 feet,
with 3 feet meaning below the average water level. By volume the
Corps permit approves the removal of 264 cubic yards per area
(equivalent to 244 tons). She stated that though the permit is
ambiguous as to the timeframe for removal of the 264 cubic yards,
but it is a five-year permit for the existing operation. She
stated the approved quantity represents approximately 25 ten -ton
truckloads or a couple of days' work. Ms. Keats reported that
in 1985 the applicant extracted almost 18,000 tons of sand and
gravel from sites C and B. (It was determined later in the meeting
that these figures were documentable from receipts made available
from the owner of the property, the Dunlora Estate, to which the
applicant must pay $1/ton of materials removed.) She stressed that
represented a tremendous increase in activity from previous years,
'82, '83 and '84. Ms. Keats presented a chart comparing the
amounts removed from 1982 through 1985. Ms. Keats gave the following
illustration: The amount approved for removal would cover a
football field with material 1 inch deep; 18,000 tons would cover
the same field with material 88 inches deep or 7ft. 3in. of sand
vs. 1 inch. She also stated it was not physically possible to
harvest this tremendous amount of sand from the dimensions
approved in the Corps permit. However, the method used by the
applicant, i.e. building dikes out into the river, made this
possible. She presented photographs showing the applicant
"harvesting both sides of the river concurrently." Ms. Keats
pointed out that with three hurricanes in 1985, all the
sandbars should have been recharged, but the opposite is true.
She reported that 2,000 feet downriver from site C, the sandbar
and beach used by the Key West Swim and Tennis Club is gone.
She reported that the applicant had been asked to place quantity
restrictions on his extracting sites, but he had refused.
Mr. Jack Swabb, a resident of Key West: He presented photographs showing
the applicant's equipment in operation on March 6, 1986, in violation
of the current permit. He also showed photographs of equipment
removing sand from the middle of the river on March 7, 1986. He
presented an aerial flown in 1980 which showed the existence of
the sandbars downstream from the operation, and a second aerial
, n"-,
September 30, 1986
Page 8
flown September 29, 1986 showing the disappearance of these
sandbars. He stressed that these sandbars were located
downstream from the dredging operation. He also stated the
applicant had violated his approved boundaries not only by
operating too far upstream, but also by operating too far
downstream. He stated that nearly one -quarter acre of
his property has been cut away by the river. He presented
photographs of these situations. Mr. Swabb stressed that
pushing the operation upriver would not solve the situation;
the problems with erosion and noise will still be the same.
He stated that the applicant's operation has "shut off the
flow up on the top side and the sand is not coming down
below, therefore there is no replenishment." He stated these
are two incompatible situations. He questioned the
effectiveness of the conditions placed on the permit, since
the operation is not policed. He felt this was a major
commercial project right in the middle of a residential area.
Mr. Kent Sinclair, a Key West resident: He stressed,as did previous
speakers, his comments were not personally directed at the
individuals involved. Mr. Sinclair too was concerned about
the excessive noise of the operation and beach erosion. He was
particularly concerned about the fact the the commercial entrance
onto Rio Road has never been installed as was required by the
existing permit. He stressed the operation was contrary to Section
30.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance which requires
compatibility with adjacent land use and only where extraction is
unlikely to have adverse effects on public good and private land
values. He was concerned that the staff report did not make a
finding on the key issue of compatibility. He asked not
only that this proposal be denied, but also that the present
operation be investigated by the Zoning Administrator and
stopped.
Ms. Nan Baldwin, a resident of Key West and a local realtor: She
voiced her agreement with statements made thus far, and was
particularly concerned about the devaluation of property
both as a homeowner and a realtor. She pointed out that she
had lost several sales on properties because the Mr. Williamson's
operation.
Mr. Price Smith, a fish biologist with the Virginia Game Commission:
He explained his agency has an advisory position with "permitting"
agencies in the State. He explained that it was his agency which
recommended that "closed season" be set on the operation. He stated
his agency had also recommended that "holding or settling lagoons"
be constructed. He stated his agency is concerned that a lot of
these criteria have not been followed and is currently working with
the Army Corps of Engineers to investigate the matter. Pointing
out that he was not a hydrologist, he stated it was his feeling
that the changes he has witnessed at Key West and Pen Park are a
direct result of sand removal in the Rivanna River.
September 30, 1986
Page 9
Mr. Keeler asked Mr. Smith if his agency has made a report to the State Water
Control Board indicating that the applicant has not complied with their permit.
Mr. Smith replied negatively and explained that his agency is currently
reviewing the matter in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, which
is also one of the permitting agencies. Mr. Keeler asked if the Game
Commission were to notify the Water Control Board that the applicant is operating
during months when he is not supposed to be operating, will they revoke
their permit and cause the operation to cease. Mr. Smith replied, "Not
necessarily, no." Mr. Smith confirmed that his agency only "makes comment"
to the permitting agencies. He added that it was his understanding that
if a violation occurs, the permitting agency involved will step in and
see that there is compliance, but rarely is the permit revoked.
There being no further public comment, the Chairman allowed the applicant
to respond.
Mr. ODu)dman addressed the Commission. He stressed that a bond has been posted
for the entrance. He also pointed out that erosion takes place on all rivers
and felt that the applicant's operation had not caused all the erosion problems
referred to by the public. He also questioned that the Army Corps of Engineers
had ever required the construction of lagoons.
Mr. Williamson addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the river will
eventually replenish the sand. He also stated that lagoons are required
when hydraulic dredging is taking place, which is not the case in this
operation. He also stated that when Dunlora is developed this operation
will have to cease based on County regulations.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Williamson confirmed that the
statements made by members of the public regarding the volume of material
removed were accurate. However, Mr. Williamson did not feel the accusation
that the operation was working during the restricted months was accurate.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In view of the questions raised in relation to this application, Mr. Keeler
suggested that the Commission might wish to defer the petition and request
that the County Attorney's office investigate the matter in conjunction with
the Zoning Administrator, the County engineer and the various state agencies.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that there is a section in the ordinance which provides
for revocation of a special use permit by the Board of Supervisors for willful
noncompliance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance or conditions of
a special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman felt there were two separate issues involved, i.e. the existing
use and the current application before the Commission. He felt the matter
before the Commission was not contingent upon the applicant being able to
continue his existing operation in area C. He pointed out that the scale
of the operation was much greater than what was presented in 1981 and
is totally incompatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Mr.
Bowerman felt the current application should be dealt with since it is
separate from the existing use.
September 30, 1986
Page 10
Mr. Keeler stressed that the staff report had been based on a comparison
of what is being proposed to the existing use, and is not based on an analysis
of the criteria in the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman stated he understood Mr.
Keeler's concern.
Mr. Stark moved for indefinite deferral of ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77 for
S.L. Williamson. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Gould moved that ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77 for S.L. Williamson be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial because the proposal is contrary
to the criteria of Section 30.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
in that it is totally incompatible with surrounding uses.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
It was determined to be the desire of the Commission that the County Attorney
investigate the status of the current operation as suggested by Mr. Keeler.
Mr. Payne clarified that denial of these two applications would not cause the
existing operation to cease. He stated there would have to be an "affirmative
action" to change the status of the current operation. He stated there were
a lot of specific facts which he needed to discuss with the Zoning Administrator
before determining if there is a problem with the existing operation.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 15, 1986.
The meeting recessed from 9:20 to 9:30. Mr. Wilkerson
did not return after the recess.
SP-86-53 Warren K. and Janet Maupin - This is a request to divide a 19.156
acre parcel into 3 lots, for an average lot size of 6.3 acres (Section 10.5.2
of the Zoning Ordinance). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is
located at the intersection of Route 601 and Route 668, approximately one (1)
mile north of Free Union. Tax Map 17, Parcel 18H. White Hall Magisterial
District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the statement that
"by right, the property in question cannot be further subdivided. Therefore,
this is a request for three (3) additional lots than is allowed by right under
the Zoning Ordinance." The report also stated:
"If the Commission and Board choose to approve this request, it will be
difficult to deny other requests to divide parcels of land with no remaining
division rights. Staff does not support this request for two (2) additional
lots on this property (for a total of three (3) lots at an average lot
size of 6 acres). Property located on lands designated as important farmland or
within a watershed impoundment are recommended for development at one (1)
dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. This property contains both important farm-
lands and is located in the South Fork Rivanna River Watersupply Reservoir.
Staff opinion is that this proposal does not satisfy the criteria for granting
a special use permit. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the petition."
- I x �-3
September 30, 1986 Page 11
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Maupin addressed the Commission. He explained the lot was too large for
a single-family home, but too small to farm. He did not feel the proposal
would change the nature of the surrounding area since there are similar
residences already in existence.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Edward Bauer addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the rural areas
have already exceeded their growth targets. He felt it was inappropriate "to
exercise discretion to grant divisions."
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the
Commission. He stated he would like to see the Zoning Ordinance "maintained."
He asked that the Commission follow the recommendation of staff and deny
the application.
In response to Mr. Stark's request for some history of the property, Mr.
Maupin explained property was an annexed portion of his grandfather's
estate and he has/an option on the parcel since 1976. He explained that
Rt. 668 separates this parcel from the majority of the estate.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the motion because it does not meet
the criteria of the ordinance. She moved that SP-86-53 for Warren K. and Janet
Maupin be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 15, 1986.
Pantops Final Plat (AKA Jefferson Savings & Loan Final Plat) Request for
Reconsideration: Access - This property is located in the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of Rt. 250E and Riverbend Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. The property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 17F2, consists of 1.0 acre
zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report explained the current request
for reconsideration as follows:
"In addition to right -turn in and right -turn out at Riverbend Drive and
right -turn in at Rt. 250E, the applicant is requesting right -turn out to
Rt. 250E."
The report also stated that staff was recommending, as an initial step, that
the Commission determine some basis to warrant additional consideration of the
access issue, i.e. (1) Has a change of circumstances occurred which would
warrant another review; or (2) Has any new information been presented which
would warrant another review?
September 30, 1986
Page 12
Mr. Keeler stated, "Staff remains of the opinion that adequate egress from
the site is available via Riverbend Drive; the presence of a raised median
in Riverbend Drive does not effect eastbound traffic leaving the site.
Therefore, our opinion has been that there has been no change in circumstance
in terms of restriction of access to this property for this turning movement
since the plat was originally approved in 1979."
Mr. Keeler stated, "The issue is whether or not reasonable usage of the
property is achievable under current access restriction." He explained
that should the Commission determine that the issue warrants reconsideration,
that is the issue to be considered.
Mr. Keeler explained there are three circumstances under which staff will
recommend a reconsideration: (1) If Highway Department comments warrant
additional consideration; (2) If the Commission feels there has been a change
in circumstance in the Free Bridge area that warrant additional access to
this property; or (3) If the applicant can demonstrate that this access is
necessary to make reasonable usage of the property.
Mr. Payne made the following statement regarding the "procedural posture" of
this request: "I don't think that the term 'reconsideration' is, in some
sense, an appropriate term. But in the technical sense that that term is
used in your rules, this is not a reconsideration of a previous action.
The rules allow you to reconsider youraction only at the same meeting or
an adjournment of that meeting. In this case I think you have another
reason why it cannot be a reconsideration and that is that since this matter
was appealed to the Board, the decision that you are being asked to
reconsider is the Board's decision, and I don't think you have the authority
to reconsider that in a strict sense. So I think what you're being asked
to do, on the contrary, is to change a plat that was already approved and
the ordinance does allow that to be done. Obviously you do it from time to
time. I would differ in one respect from Mr. Keeler's comments, and that is
that I think you only really have one issue to decide. That is, where the
circumstances, with respect to the property have changed since the last
decision was made, and they can have changed in one of two ways: (1) The
facts themselves could have changed; and (2) There could be new evidence
which was not presented to you (or the Board) at the time but which has
been developed since then. I think the fact that the property can or cannot
be reasonably used under the present scheme, if it involves the same factual
situation, has been resolved. You have decided that. I think you are not
free simply to say, 'We don't like what we did before, we're just going to
forget it and do something else.' The fact that you took an action and that
action is now final constitutes a decision by you, and, in this case, by the
Board, that there was appropriate basis for your action; you took that, and
I think in order to change the result that can only be properly based, if
it's based on new information either newly presented or newly existing."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bob Smith, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
indicated he was uncertain as to whether there were new facts. He asked
how the applicant could get relief.
September 30, 1986
Page 13
Mr. Bowerman explained that the previous action taken by the Board and Commission
is final "failing to have any new additional information about the site or
any facts that you can offer for us to consider changing what we have done
before in the past. We can't just do it arbitrarily, having made a decision."
Mr. Smith explained the applicant is trying to use the property in a different
manner. He stated a larger building than was originally intended is going
to be built and the applicant feels the traffic pattern is not conducive
to good planning. He pointed out that the use of the property is
encumbered by the presence of both a transmission tower and transmission lines,
and it is this restriction that has resulted in the current proposal.
Mr. Smith confirmed the lines were in place in both 1979 and 1984.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was of the opinion that there has been no change
in the posture of the situation.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission's action would be appealable
to the Board.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Pantops Final Plat Request for Reconsideration
in relation to access be denied because the applicant could not demonstrate
any change in circumstance or new information to justify a reconsideration.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Chairman advised the applicant that he had ten days in which to appeal
the matter to the Board if he so chose.
Moorman's Agricultural and Forestal District - Mr. Horne called the Commission's
attention to this application and explained that no action was required
at this time. He pointed out the location of the proposed district on the map
and stated that it contained approximately 3,345 acres and that the eligibility
of some parcels is still in question. A full report on the district was
scheduled to be heard on October 14, and again in November for action.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20.
-qIK��7-7F4V"
John Horne, Secretary
DS