HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 10 87 PC MinutesFebruary 10, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, February 10, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard
Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Could, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and
Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Planner; Mr. Pat Ford, Planner; and Mr. Fred 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 January 20, 1987
meeting were approved as submitted.
SP-86-93 Michael F. and Leah J. Barrett - Request to locate a single wide
mobile home on a 16.25 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property
described as Tax Map 47, parcel 26C is located 1/2 mile on a private
road off Rt. 20N, t.4 mile southwest of its intersection with Rt. 746.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Ford gave the staff report. The report explained that a temporary
permit had been issued to the applicant (for 18 months) on August 30, 1985,
the purpose of which was to provide the owner with temporary housing
while constructing a conventional dwelling on the property. The report
stated: "The mobile home is existing, and the applicant is applying for
a special use permit for the mobile home due to the fact that the house
will not be constructed by the expiration date designated on the temporary
permit." The staff report noted that one objection had been filed
against the application.
It was determined that construction on the permanent dwelling had not
yet begun. It was also established that the current application is for
a permanent permit.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Barrett addressed the Commission. He explained the reason for the
delay in beginning construction on the permanent dwelling was the
result of being required to construct a road which had taken a large
portion of his capital. He further explained that the County
would not allow him to build at the front of the property, as he
had initially planned, due to an erosion problem. Thus, when a
second building site was established farther back on the property,
the construction of the road had been required. He stressed that it
was still his intention to construct a permanent dwelling, and that
the site has been cleared and the septic system and well are in place.
Though it was determined Mr. Barrett had been advised by a "County
inspector" to seek a permanent permit, he stated he would have no
objection to a time limit being placed on the permit.
February 10, 1987
Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in favor of placing a time limit on
the permit even though the applicant's intent is clearly understood.
This was determined to be the consensus of the Commission.
Mr. Barrett was agreeable to a three-year limit being placed on the
permit.
Mr. Payne suggested that condition No. 2 be amended as follows:
"Mobile home shall be removed 36 months from the date of the issuance
of the special permit or 30 days after the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the permanent dwelling unit, whichever comes first."
Mr. Gould moved that SP-86-93 for Michael F. and Leah J. Barrett be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Mobile home shall be removed 36 months from the date of issuance of
the special permit or 30 days after the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the permanent dwelling, whichever comes first.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 18, 1987.
SP-86-96 Thomas C. Baber, Jr. - Request to locate a single wide mobile home
on 5.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 65,
Parcel 26, is located approximately 0.5 mile off the east side of Rt. 600,
approximately 0.25 mile south of its intersection with Rt. 22 at Cismont.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The staff report stated: "The
applicant states that the property owner's brother will be the occupant
of the requested mobile home. The existing mobile home (SP-84-16 Thomas
C. Baber, Jr.) was approved administratively on April 26, 1984, subject to
the applicant's statement that within three to five years the mobile
home will be replaced with permanent -type housing." Ms. Patterson
clarified that the applicant, Mr. Thomas C. Baber, Jr. is currently
living in the existing mobile home and that this application is to
provide for a mobile home on the same property which will be occupied
by the owner's brother. It was determined this request is for a
permanent permit.
The staff report also pointed out that though "the provision of legal access
to the site is not an appropriate issue for this request, the applicant
must obtain verification of this access prior to issuance of any other
permit for a dwelling."
February 10, 1987
Page 3
Ms. Patterson added that an adjacent owner has some concern about the
proposed location of the septic field since the property slopes
toward his property. However, this adjacent owner has indicated a
willingness to work with the applicant to find a solution to this
problem.
Ms. Patterson stated that a revised sketch would be required to show
the relocation of the mobile home in accordance with the septic
location. She confirmed this could be added as a condition of
approval if the Commission so desired.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Baber addressed the Commission. He explained that he is currently
in the process of trying to establish access to the property by acquiring
surrounding parcels. He also stated that he and the property owner
who was concerned about the septic location have reached a solution.
(It was later determined this solution was to move the location
of the mobile home across the road.) Mr. Baber stated that it is his
intention to begin construction of a permanent dwelling within the
next two years. He explained he has been delayed because of the
problems with access. He explained that it is his intention to
eventually divide the property so that he will own a portion and his
brother will own a portion. He confirmed the proposed mobile home
will be occupied by his brother and his family and that his brother
will be buying the mobile home himself. Mr. Baber clarified that
the mobile home which is to be occupied by his brother will be
permanent, i.e. his brother has no plans to building a conventional
dwelling in the near future.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Neil Benfer, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
(Note: It was Mr. Benfer who was concerned about the location of the
septic field.) He explained that he was experiencing the same problems
with access and was in the process of buying additional acreage. He
expressed concern about the permanency of this application because
he felt a mobile home would devalue the surrounding property. It was
determined Mr. Benfer's proposed home site overlooks the proposed
site for the mobile home as it is at a higher elevation.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan expressed some concern about locating two mobile homes on
a five acre parcel, even though one would eventually be removed.
He suggested, however, that when Mr. Baber acquires the additional
property, the proposal might be more acceptable.
There was some discussion about proposed screening. Mr. Horne pointed
out that the property is densely wooded so additional screening would
probably be minimal.
M
February 10, 1987 Page 4
Mr. Gould indicated he was sympathetic to the applicant's proposal and
was usually reluctant to deny anyone housing, but he was concerned
about the County being "backed into a corner" and approving a
situation which "we'll have to live with for a considerable period of
time." He stated he was uncomfortable with the proposal.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the applicant would have to show that the
property can be subdivided.
Responding to Ms. Diehl's question about the topography of the property,
Ms. Patterson explained that the parcel was relatively level. Ms.
Diehl expressed concern about the proposed site being so close to
the property line, particularly when there is other land available
on which to locate the mobile home. (Note: It was determined that
Mr. Baber is currently in the process of purchasing both parcels
25 and parcel 27, both of which adjoin this property, and will make a total 13 acres.)
It was determined Mr. Benfer was concerned about the visibility of
the mobile home because he intends to clear some of his property
when he builds his home. Mr. Benfer confirmed that he has been
working with Mr. Baber and it appears that if the site for the
mobile home is moved across the "road", an agreement can be reached.
Mr. Cogan indicated he could support the proposal since with the
additional acreage Mr. Baber is acquiring it will be possible to
locate the mobile home in a more acceptable location and also
because there are several other mobile homes which already exist
in the area. (Note: Mr. Cogan changed his position later in the
meeting.)
Mr. Gould asked if Mr.Baber's existing special permit can be extended.
Mr. Payne explained that it could not be extended beyond the five
years, but Mr. Baber could submit a new application, and if there are
no objections, it would be issued as the original permit had been issued.
Ms. Patterson suggested the following addition to condition 3:
"...and revised sketch to show actual location to be used for mobile
home."
The Chairman called for a motion.
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-86-96 for Thomas C. Baber, Jr. be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Screening shall be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator.
3. Approval by the Zoning Department of legal access to subject parcel
from the state road, and revised sketch to show actual location to be
used for mobile home.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
19
February 10, 1987
Page 5
cm
Further Discussion:
Mr. Gould stated he would oppose the permit, though reluctantly. He was
concerned about the fact that three years have lapsed on the existing permit
with no progress made toward the construction of a permanent dwelling and
he was also concerned that the existing permit could be extended. He
was opposed to two mobile homes existing on the property, one of which,
he was under the impression, would be a rental unit.
Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with Mr. Gould.
Mr. Cogan questioned whether or not the mobile home would be a rental unit
and pointed out that it was a family situation.
Ms. Diehl suggested that the application was premature considering the
negotiations that are taking place to acquire additional acreage.
Mr. Stark questioned whether Mr. Bowerman was withdrawing the motion,
since he had just stated he would oppose the application. Mr.
Bowerman responded negatively and explained that he had made the
motion "just to get it on the floor" but he could still vote against
it.
Mr. Cogan suggested that there might be other avenues after Mr. Baber
"gets his package put together" and it might be wiser to make the
request for the special permit at a later time.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was confused as to Mr. Baber's ultimate plans
and questioned how it would be subdivided. He felt the application
was premature.
Regarding the question of rental, Mr. Baber explained that the mobile
home would be purchased by his brother and "when the proper access is
(established), the lot which his mobile home sits on will be deeded to
him --I will not own it any more." Mr. Baber confirmed it was his
brother's intent to purchase the mobile home before the access issue
is settled. Mr. Baber explained that the access issue will take some
time to resolve, and his brother's family (wife and three children) have
outgrown the one -bedroom dwelling they are currently occupying. Mr.
Baber anticipated that the access issue could take 2-3 years to resolve.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was very sympathetic to the applicant, but he
was unsure, with the present application, exactly what was being
approved. He felt the uncertainties connected with the property
should first be resolved.
Mr. Gould agreed and added that approval of this application could
result in even more problems, without solving anything.
Mr. Stark indicated he was hesitant not to approve the application since
it was two brothers working together to try to help each other. He
stated he was very sympathetic to this situation.
ST
February 10, 1987
Page 6
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for
approval of SP-86-96.
The motion failed to carry (4:3) with Commissioners Michel, Stark and
Wilkerson voting in favor and Commissioners Cogan, Bowerman, Diehl,
and Gould voting against.
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-86-96 for Thomas C. Baber, Jr. be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed (5:2) with Commissioners
Michel, Cogan, Bowerman, Diehl and Gould voting in favor, and Commissioners
Stark and Wilkerson opposed.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 18, 1987.
Solaris (Van der Linde) Final Plat - Request for Relief from Condition -
Request to relieve condition d of the August 13, 1985 approval.
This will allow direct access for the residue tract onto Rt. 641, instead of
restricting access to the internal private road, Helios Path Road. Proposed
new lot is 2.1.038 acres, with t300 acre residue tract. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Helios Path Road intersects at the Rtes. 640 and 641 intersection.
The residue has a 30-foot pipestem onto Rt. 641 approximately 0.5 mile
east of the intersection with Rt. 640. Tax Map 34, Parcel 50. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated that the applicant
cited no change of circumstance as reason to reconsider this final plat
approval, but rather claims that he did not fully understand the impact
of the condition at the time of the original approval. Staff made the
following recommendation: "Given the difficulty in making a decision on
the access point now, staff recommends that this be addressed at the time of
further subdivision requests. Therefore, staff recommends that condition
d be revised to note 'Access to the 21 acre parcel and to residential use
of the residue is restricted to Helios Path; at such time as future sub-
division of the residue is proposed, access will be readdressed by the
Planning Commission."'
Mr. Bowerman expressed a lack of understanding as to how access would
be achieved. He asked, "Tell me how the staff perceives those five
lots having access, vs. what the applicant is requesting this evening."
Mr. Payne responded: "The staff is telling you that they don't have
enough data to analyze whether or not they should approve some other
access. What they're recommending is that you reserve the issue as to
whether you would allow another access, other than Helios Path, to
such time as an application is submitted to divide this thing, and they
can do a full analysis. That is certainly a sensible approach and
I think that is what staff's amended condition means." Mr. Payne
added that he did not think the amended condition was any different,
since that is what was intended by the original condition.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
K
February 10, 1987 Page 7
Mr. Bruce van der Linde addressed the Commission. He stated that condition
l.d. "had gone right over (his) head" at the time of approval of the final
plat. He stated, "I'm really here just to take issue with the statement
that I need to access the development of this farm, of which I intend to
maintain the best working part as a farm, strictly from a road which,
historically, until Solaris came into being, was not the access to the
farm, but rather from the road frontage area."
Mr. Morris Foster, also representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He indicated he felt responsible for the present situation
because he had not been able to be present at the original hearing for
the final plat. He recalled that staff had been concerned about creating
"another pipestem situation over on 641." He explained: "When the
Commission acted on the plat we weren't concerned about the condition
of Helios Path because we wanted the pipestem eliminated anyway. ...
When Mr. van der Linde got the approval he thought the approval was to
limit the 21 acres to Helios Path, which was the concern of the staff
at our submittal. Even at that stage, long prior to that, he had
been down the road with the Highway Department getting approvals
of this entrance and negotiating with the neighbors and spent the money
for purchases of land, easements, and so forth, so that he would have
some means of doing some large tract division of a large portion of this
farm at a later date. Our concern was putting a plat to record with a
County condition prohibiting any review at a later date. As far as the
subdivision at a later date, that subdivision would have to be approved
by the County anyway. I don't know that that condition restricting
his 300-acre residue to Helios Path is really a necessary condition
at this time because anything that we would submit would have to be
approved the next round anyway. It's not like you're giving him an
open path to do anything he wants. He can't do anything without
Planning Commission approval. It just concerned me to have a condition
recorded in the deeds which could create some legal ramifications
when it came back that you had recorded restriction against that.
I would rather address that before this plat goes to record, rather
than have Mr. van der Linde in a legal problem trying to come back
and change recorded situations."
Mr. Horne asked Mr. van der Linde if he was satisfied with the
condition as rewritten by staff. Mr. van der Linde seemed uncertain.
Mr. Foster responded, "I would rather have the variance. I would rather
not have the condition on the recorded plat at all for the simple
reason I don't see why the condition is even necessary. Mr. van der Linde
can do nothing in the way of subdividing his property without the approval
of this Commission and the County of Albemarle. If at that time
the County of Albemarle says we refuse to approve this division,
it's a moot question anyway. I see no reason to put a hardship of a
recorded restriction on him...." Mr. van der Linde stated that
staff's rewording of the condition does not really change the condition,
but rather reinforces it. He recalled that the condition had
been addressed to the 50-foot pipestem serving that 27 acres.
Mr. van der Linde confirmed that he had misunderstood that the
restriction included the "residue" also. He stated that it
r had always been intended that the "parcel" be restricted to Helios
Path, but not the residue.
Z-�
February 10, 1987 Page 8
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne if the estate tracts, which are all over 21
acres, would have to be reviewed.
Mr. Payne responded, "Yes, one way or the other." He added: "Let me
tell you the way I view this thing. I think you are very close to
'six of one and half -dozen of the other.' The problem that I see with
it is that I do see a way, or I think I see it although I am a little
confused, that a plat could be drawn showing a division that I think
you would be required to approve which would not involve the use
of Helios Path. And I think the idea of this is that there is a restriction
that the Commission is reserving an opportunity to review this to see
whether it's appropriate to allow some other entrance based on what the
plan is at a specific time. The difference in the posture of it, as I
see it, I can see why Mr. Foster and Mr. van der Linde would be more
confortable... in having the 'monkey on the County's back', but, on the
other hand ... I think Mr. Horne feels more comfortable in having the
'monkey on the applicant's back' to show that another entrance should
be used, and I think that's the purpose of that section of the
Ordinance. I think there is a marginal difference --I think it's slight,
and I think it is likely that you would approve an application such
as the one you've heard generally described, but I really think it
would be appropriate for you to reserve hearing that until you know
what that division is."
Mr. Horne added: "What I am trying to get across, from the staff
point of view, we have a predisposition in all cases to try to limit
the number of accesses onto a road, period. If there are mitigating
circumstances, then we take those into account. I see no reason to
change that predisposition, which is essentially what this condition,
as amended says, that unless you review it with a subdivision approval
and are convinced that you should let them out the other way, then
our predisposition is that it all goes out Helios Path and minimizes
the number of connections to the road. But it's a clear recognition
that when a subdivision plat comes in, we're going to readdress that
issue."
Mr. Payne added, "And that predisposition is reflected in this
Ordinance."
It was determined there was no public comment on the issue.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt that staff's rewording of condition d.
did not say anything different than the original condition. He
stated that it was just a "recognition of a possibility" but it
did not change anything. (Mr. Payne agreed that was correct.)
He did not see any advantage, to anyone, in making the suggested
change in wording.
Mr. Gould stated that though he was sympathetic to the applicant, he
still felt the Commission had nothing to consider in terms of a
proposal. He felt it would be best for the Commission not to act
at all until such time as the applicant presents a proposal.
9
-57
February 10, 1987 Page 9
Mr. Foster stated he and the applicant were concerned that the
condition was "written in stone." He added that he felt better
1*400 about the situation, "knowing that the Commission is receptive
to the fact that we can come back with our plans."
Mr. Horne stated staff felt that their rewording would eliminate the
possibility of any future misunderstanding should there be
changes in staff before a proposal is finally presented. He
agreed, however, that Mr. Payne was correct, the suggested
rewording did not really change anything.
Mr. Payne explained the Commission's options: (1) Remove the
condition altogether; (2) Not take any action, thus leaving the
condition as is; or (3) Amend the condition to read as staff
has suggested. Mr. Payne stressed that he saw no substantive
difference between alternatives 2 and 3.
Mr. Michel moved that condition l.d. of the Solaris Final Plat
remain as originally stated, and that relief from said condition
NOT be granted.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Annual Report - The Chairman commended Commissioners Diehl and Stark for
their preparation of the report.
Mr. Gould moved that the annual report be adopted as presented.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Qv-� j P / �,, z
/*,97
John Horne, Secretary
DS
M
m