HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 06 87 PC MinutesOctober 6, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 6, 1987, Meeting Room 5-6, Albemarle County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman;
Mr. David Bowerman; Mr. Tim Michel; 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; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development;
Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner;
and Mr. George St.John, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 22, 1987 were
approved as submitted.
Red Hill Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed district is
located on Rt. 29 South, 708, 710, 637, and 745. It is comprised of Tax
Map 73, Parcels 24, 38, 39B, 42, 42A, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 48; Tax Map
74, Parcels 26 and 28; Tax Map 87, Parcels 13A and 13E; and Tax Map 88,
Parcels 4, 5, 5A, 6A, 23, 24, 26B, 40, 41A, 42, and 42A. The
district contains about 2,599 acres.
and
Head of the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District - The proposed
district is located west of Rt. 29, north and south of Rt. 692 and
north and south of Rt. 696; and east of Rt. 29, south of Rt. 692;
and east of Rt. 29, south of Rt. 692 near North Garden. The district
is comprised of Tax Map 86, Parcels 13, 13A, 16C, 16D, 16F, 22, 22A,
23, 23A, 25, 26 and 27; Tax Map 87, Parcels 2, 3 and 10; Tax Map 99, Parcel
29. The district contains about 3,307 acres.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She explained that the Advisory
Committee recommended that the proposed districts be combined, to be called
Hardware District. The Commission was asked to comment specifically
on the following issues:
--The inclusion of several small parcels (in the Red Hill District)
which are currently being used residentially;
--The proposal to combine the two districts into one;
--The request for a ten-year period for the district;
--The North Garden/Head of Hardware Growth Area conflict (i.e. the
northwest quadrant of the Head of Hardware District which overlaps
into village designated area.);
--A general recommendation regarding the question of conflicting
land uses when a district is proposed within an existing Growth Area.
Regarding this issue, the staff report made the following statement:
"Staff opinion is that a district should not be approved within
a designated Growth Area. However, since the Comprehensive Plan
is under review, Growth Area boundaries may be subject to change."
October 6, 1987
Page 2
Ms. Scala pointed out that the Advisory Committee had recommended:
(1) Approval of the Head of the Hardware District; (2) The two
applications be combined; and (3) That Planning's village concept be
disregarded to allow the entire Scott parcel (the northwest quadrant)
to be added to the agricultural district.
The Commission's comments on the primary issues were as follows:
(1) The proposal to combine the two districts into one: - It was
the consensus of the Commission that this was acceptable.
(2) The request for a ten-year time period: - It was the consensus of
the Commission that this was acceptable.
(3) The North Garden growth area conflict: - Mr. Cogan pointed out
that if the line was drawn to include all the Scott property
(the northwest quadrant), a narrow strip along Rt. 29 would be
left as part of the designated growth area and this would result in
several small lots on Rt. 29, all requiring entrances. Mr. Horne
recommended that if the Scott property was to be removed from the
growth area, then the narrow strip adjacent to the Highway should
also be removed, thus keeping the ,_rowth area all on one side
of the highway. Ms. Scala agreed that it would not be good planning
to leave that narrow strip of lots. Mr. Cogan stated it should be
"all or nothing."
Ms. Scala confirmed that there is severe flooding in this area, from
two streams which traverse the property, and the Soil Conservation
Service also confirmed that the solis in the area are wet.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that the Growth Area boundary line in question
is not a "stable" one which has been in place for some time, but
rather has been a point of discussion for some time. She suggested
the possibility of replacing that property which is being represented
as unsuitable for development with property further north. She
indicated she was not opposed to allowing the Scott property to be
included in the agricultural/forestal district. Commissioners
Cogan and Michel agreed. Mr. Cogan also pointed out that there was
substantial expansion of the North Garden area recommended by the
Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee and thus the deletion of this property
would not be detrimental in terms of the designated village area. He
felt it had been more than compensated for, particularly since there
is some question about the developability of the land.
Mr. Cogan summarized the following reasons for allowing the Scott
parcel, which currently lies with the designated growth area, to be
included in the agricultural/forestal district: (1) The proposal
for the new North Garden Village Area is just a "proposal" at this
point; (2) This northwestern portion of the current North Garden
growth area would have limitations on developability; and (3) The
recent recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee is to
substantially expand the North Garden area and the loss of this
piece of property will not be detrimental to the intentions of
the growth area.
FAF
a
October 6, 1987
Page 3
Agreeing with staff's recommendation, Mr. Cogan also recommended that
when the Comprehensive Plan is finalized, this village area should be
kept to the eastern side of the highway as this will allow a better
transition from the village area to the agricultural/forestal district.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the Scott property be
allowed to be included in the agricultural/forestal district.
(4) The inclusion of several small, residentially used, parcels: - Ms.
Scala pointed out that this issue had also been considered with
Mormon's River District, and the Advisory Committee had had no
objection to the property owners jJiiYng the district even if they
had just a residential use. Ms. Scala stated she felt small
parcels would continue to make application since there is no
minimum size requirement.
Some Commissioners questioned whether such parcels actually met the
intent of the agricultural forestal concept. Mr. Bowerman felt
allowing these parcels would be inconsistent because one of the
purposes of the district was to separate the two uses. He did not
see any benefit to be gained by their inclusion. Mr. Bowerman was
also under the impression that once the agricultural/forestal
district was approved all the participating landowners were auto-
matically granted land use taxation privileges. Ms. Scala stated
this was not correct --that each landowner had to qualify independently.
Mr. St. John confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Horne explained that in other localities a determining criteria
which has been applied in deciding whether or not to include these
parcels has been "intent," i.e. small home parcels that are in
conjunction with a farm going into the district might be allowed
whereas an independent parcel, principally used residentially, with
no farm connection, was not allowed.
With that in mind, Mr. Cogan stated he would be agreeable to
allowing the 10-acre parcel and the 9-acre parcel, but not the 5-
acre parcel with 3 dwellings (TM 73, parcels 45, 46 and 48).
He did not think this parcel had any connection to the agricultural -
forestal concept.
Ms. Diehl felt that if this situation had been allowed in a previous
district, then it should be allowed now.
Mr. Cogan stated he had not been aware that the situation existed
in the Morman's District,but in this case it has been pointed out.
Mr. Michel suggested that it might be proper to allow these lots
in this district, and to then address how to deal with this issue
in the future.
Mr. Gould agreed that from a consistency point of view, the parcel
should be left in.
Referring to a statement made earlier in the meeting by Ms.Tamera
Vance, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, Mr. Bowerman
stated that such parcels as these which join an Ag. District usually
October 6, 1987
Page 4
have something to give up, and the parcels in question do not meet
that criteria. He stated that just because such parcels were
allowed before, when the Commission was unaware of their existence, 1440
is not a good reason to "skirt" the issue at this time.
Ms. Diehl agreed that a policy should be established from this point
on, but she felt that the people who had applied for this district
had been working under the assumption that such parcels are allowed.
She felt it would be unfair to change the policy at this point.
Mr. Cogan stated he was not in favor of "letting this go" if
it was not the Commission's intention to allow such parcels'
inclusion hereafter.
Ms. Diehl pointed out that these applicants had been operating
under one set of assumptions and hereafter new applicants will
be able to operate under a different set of assumptions if a new
policy is set down.
Mr. Cogan stated this is a residential parcel with no agricultural
or forestal activity. He stated he did not want the agricultural
forestal concept to deviate from what was originally intended.
The Chairman polled the Commissioners and it was determined that
Commissioners Gould and Diehl were in favor of allowing the
5-acre parcel to remain, and Commissioners Michel, Cogan, Bowerman
and Stark were in favor of deleting it from the proposal.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the 5-acre residential
parcel, Tax Map 73, Parcels 45, 46 and 48, be deleted from the proposal.
Public Comment:
Mr. T.E. Wood questioned whether or not the parcels all had to be touching,
since they did not appear to on the map. Ms. Scala explained that all
the parcels had to either touch or be within one mile of the 200-acre
core. Mr. Wood was concerned that his property would be "cut off" as
a result of the district and the road to his property would consequently
never be improved. He was also concerned that this district would
cause property to be devalued.
Ms. Norma Barlow, a resident of North Gardens, asked for a brief
explanation of the benefits afforded those property owners who join
an agricultural/forestal district and how adjacent property owners
who do not join the district are affected. Mr. Cogan explained that
by -right development rights remain the same for property owners who
adjoin a district; however, if a non -participating, adjoining property
owner makes application for a special permit, the proximity to the
agricultural forestal district will be given careful consideration.
He stated that property owners in an agricultural/forestal district still
have family division and 20-acre division rights and at the same time
they are offered protection from certain things, e.g. it would be
very difficult for a transmission line, a highway, a sewer line, etc. to
obtain approval to cross such a district. He also stated that farm
activity which takes place in a district is provided some protection
FA
October 6, 1987
Page 5
from complaints related to noise, odor, etc. Ms. Scala added that the
agricultural/forestal designation has no effect on taxes, i.e. if a property
owner is under land use presently, he will remain so, but if a property
owner does not qualify for land use before joining a district, he will not
qualify after joining.
Mr. Fred Scott disagreed that the property in the northwest quadrant
was undevelopable. He felt the small strip of land discussed earlier
should remain in the North Garden Growth Area. Mr. Cogan explained
this issue would be studied further before a final decision is made.
Speaking to the issue of the inclusion of the small, residentially used
parcels, Mr. Dave Bass pointed out that there are no financial benefits
to be gained by joining a district so if a small property owner is
sympathetic to the preservation and conservation of farms and forest and
wants the protection that the large district can offer, he should be
allowed to join. He felt excluding the small property owners would
be contrary to state law.
Ms. Tamera Vance, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, pointed
out that allowing small landowners to join sometimes entices neighbors to
join as an adjacent parcel. She also added that other benefits of an
agricultural forestal district is protection to the watershed and
wildlife, cleaner air, and preservation of the environment. Mr. Cogan
asked Ms. Vance what would happen if a subdivision should apply to
join a district. Ms. Vance responded that it would be acceptable if
the persons wishing to join were giving up development rights in order
to join.
Mr. Wood stated he thought the purpose of the district was to promote
farming and forestry and he questioned how it would be possible to
have a forestry or farm operation on 5 acres.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Hardware Agricultural Forestal District
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as applied
for, with the exception that Tax Map 73, Parcels 45, 46 and 48 should
be deleted.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Both Commissioners Diehl and Gould stated they would support the motion,
though they were in favor of the small parcels being allowed to remain.
The motion for approval passed unanimously. (Board Date: Nov. 4, 1987)
Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District Withdrawal Request - Application to
withdraw 10-25 acres from the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District. The
property located on the west side of Rt. 627 near Warren, described
as Tax Map 135, Parcel 30, Mount Warren Farm. The intended use of the
withdrawn property is to be five building lots. APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN
HIS PROPOSAL.
October 6, 1987
Page 6
Mr. St. John advised that no action was required of the Commission.
Regarding the discussion that had just taken place about whether or not
to allow the inclusion of small, residential parcels in agricultural
forestal districts, Mr. St. John pointed out that Code already
spells out the factors that are to be considered in determining
such issues, so all that is necessary is for the Commissioners to
read the Code. He stated he did not think it was necessary for a
separate policy to be adopted.
SP-87-79 Martin Schulman - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(18) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a
veterinary clinic on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described
as Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 40D is located on the south side of U.S. Rte. 250
approximately 1200' west of the intersection of Rt. 678 at Ivy. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Though staff recommended approval
of this application, subject to conditions, they stressed that "physical
constraints of this site present serious limitations to development."
The report explained: "The site is located in the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir Watershed and more than half of the site is compromised by
setback requirements from a stream which runs along the rear of the site.
The remainder of the property contains steeper slopes including areas
of 25%+ slope. ...A concern to staff is the development of this property
for any commercial use. In order to overcome topographic constraints,
substantial grading and site reconfiguration would be required to
accommodate building and parking areas. ...Staff will not be susceptible
to argument as to cost or environmental/reservoir degradation as compared
to safe and convenient access. These comments are intended to notify the
applicant, Commission, and Board that this is a poor physical site for
commercial use and that development of the site will be expensive.
...Detailed environmental safe guards will be required during and after
construction."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Martin Schulman addressed the Commission. He felt the proposal had
"excellent merit" and though the site is unique, he felt that sound measures
could be taken which would protect the environment. He also felt there
was a need for this type of service in the Ivy area. He explained that
his current practice has outgrown its present facilities. Dr. Schulman
pointed out that this parcel has more gentle sbpes than property to the
east and west. He stated he was confident that a site plan could be
developed which would address staff's concerns. He stated that a
Health Department official has confirmed that the site can meet
setback and drainfield requirements. He explained a special disposal
system for animal wastes which would prevent any of this material
from entering the drainfield or the creek. He pointed out that the
facility will not be visible from the highway and therefore should
not detract from the scenic highway designation. He stated the parcel
would remain wooded. Dr. Schulman explained that the clinic and
parking area represented only 10% of the parcel and a total of 15%
would be used, thus there would be a minimum disruption to the
environment. He presented a petition of support on which he had
I
October 6, 1987
Page 7
obtainEd 160 signatures, 35 of which were Ivy residents, and 3 of which
reside within 1,000 feet of the parcel. (Dr. Schulman's presentation
was quite lengthy, and most of it was not pertinent to the review
of the application.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mrs. Craft called the Commission's attention to a letter of opposition
she had written. (The Commissioners had previously received copies of
Mrs. Craft's letter.) She stated she was opposed to commercial develop-
ment in this location. She was particularly concerned about disruption
of the natural environment, wildlife, etc., of the property.
The following persons spoke in favor of the proposal: Ms. Yates Colby,
an employee of Dr. Schulman; Mr. Mayo, owner of the property across
the highway; , Dr. Schulman's builder, who stated
that this was a very buildable site and Dr. Schulman is aware of the
costs that will be involved; Ms. Yvonne Leveck, an Ivy resident.
Mr. Less Berlene expressed concern about the possible pollution of the
stream that runs behind the property. He did not object to the proposal
but because of the steepness of the land, he questioned whether it would
be possible to construct an adequate septic field which would not
impact the stream.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that adequate sight distance can be achieved
at some location along the front the property.
Regarding the possibility of a kennel being included in this request,
Mr. Keeler explained that veterinary clinics can normally have kennels
and if that is not agreeable to the Commission, then a condition should
be added prohibiting a kennel without amendment to the special permit.
Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned about a boarding kennel. Mr. Keeler
explained that would be determined by the Zoning Administrator, but
he did not feel that a boarding kennel, for healthy animals, would be
considered accessory to a veterinary practice.
Ms. Diehl stated that although she would like very much to see such
a use located in Ivy, she had seldom seen a site that was less suitable
for commercial development. She stated she had visited the site and
feels it has severe limitations. She was also concerned about the
fact that the property is within the watershed.
Mr. Michel agreed.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if he really felt that a site plan, which
meets the requirements of the ordinance and setback requirements, could
be achieved on this site. Mr. Keeler replied that if enough money was
put into the site, it could be done, but it would be contrary to other
County policies.
October 6, 1.987
Page 8
Mr. Cogan agreed with Commissioners Diehl and Michel. He added that
he felt it would be a disservice to the applicant to allow this
type of building on this piece of extremely marginal property.
Mr. Gould agreed and stated it would be inappropriate to approve the
special permit and then turn down the site plan.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-87-79 for Martin Schulman be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on. October 21, 1987.
The meeting recessed from 9:40 to 9:50.
SP-87-75 Montdomaine Cellars, Inc - Request in accordance with Section
5.1.25 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for an increase in sales/
testing area including outside deck area. Property, described as Tax
Map 112, Parcel 19 is located off the north side of Rt. 720, 1/2 mile
west of Rt. 20. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report concluded: "In staff
opinion, this petition complies with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and Comprehensive Plan by the continuation and expansion of agricultural
activity." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Shepard Rouse, the winemaker at Montdomaine, addressed the Commission.
He stressed that this type of business has a very low impact on the
environment. He confirmed that the temporary trailer would be removed
when this structure is completed.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-87-75 for Montdomaine Cellars, Inc. be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Public sales/tasting area shall not exceed 1,400 square feet,
including outside deck area.
2. Dedication of right-of-way to include 25 feet from the centerline of
Route 720 and area for turn -around.
3. Staff approval of site plan.
The motion was seconded by Commissioners Diehl and Michel and passed
unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 21, 1987.
►%
October 6, 1987
Page 9
SP-87-78 Ron Lewis - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2(5) of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow for warehouse facilities to be located on a
*ft"" vacant 6.39 acre parcel zoned LI, Light Industrial. Property, described as
Tax Map 90, Parcel 35P is located on the west side of Rt. 20, approximately
1,100 feet north of its intersection with Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742).
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report stated: "Staff opinion
is that warehousing of this nature would not be objectionable to the
area and is consistent with the current zoning." Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Wellborn. He explained that
the location had been chosen because it is strategically located between
the company's two distribution points, and is intended as an auxiliary
feeder location. He stated the building would be used for overflow
storage and light manufacturing, but would not be a primary shipping
point. He distributed brochures which explained the type of product
the company deals in.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question as to what type of binder is used
in production of the surfacing material, Mr. Wellborn explained that
gypsum and calcium sulphate are used and the product is entirely natural.
He confirmed no liquid binder is used.
Mr. Bowerman moved that SP-87-78 for Ron Lewis be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Building area limited to 24,000 square feet.
2. Planning Commission approval of site plan, to include screening of
outside storage arm adjacent to residential properties and along the
scenic highway. A 150 foot building setback from Route 20 and
a 30 foot buffer zone adjacent to residential zoning shall be main-
tained.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 21, 1987
Miscellaneous:
It was decided the Commission would not meet on Tuesday, November 3rd,
Election Day, but would meet instead on Thursday, November 5th.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10.
?��LJohn qorne, Secreta y
DS
19