HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 01 1995 PC MinutesI-SWOR
AUGUST 1, 1995
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August
1, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials
present were: Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
& Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg -
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Vaughan.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of July 18, 1995, were unanimously approved as amended.
Consent Agenda
Jefferson National Bank Loading Space Size Reduction
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Consent Agenda
be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-95-17 University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation - Applicant petitions the
Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a hospital on approximately 49
acres zoned CO, Commercial Office [23.2.2(1)]. Property, described as Tax Map 76,
parcel 17B and 17131 is the location of the Fontaine Research Park located on the
south side of Fontaine Avenue in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Office Service in Neighborhood 6.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Doug Furstenburg. He offered to answer
Commission questions. He described the facility as "an acute medical rehab hospital."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he said there will be no emergency services
provided at the hospital. The facility is part of a network which ties in with Woodrow
Wilson Rehabilitation Center and the Augusta Rehabilitation Center.
There being no public comment the matter was placed before the Commission.
Referring to a Virginia Department of Transportation comment that a "signal will be the
responsibility of UREF," Mr. Dotson asked if the signal was an issue. Mr. Fritz
confirmed that the previous proffers are in effect and those proffers envisioned not only
8-1-95
this type of use but also by -right permitted uses." He confirmed there is no dispute with
VDOT.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that SP-95-17 for the University
of Virginia Real Estate Foundation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Use is limited to 60 beds.
2. Use shall not commence until such time as appropriate state and federal approvals
have been obtained.
3. Site plan shall not be signed until fire official approval has been obtained.
4. Use shall be for in -patient medical rehabilitation and shall not provide emergency
services.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-95-12 Montessori School - Petition to amend the existing proffers of ZMA-80-03
which limits the building size on approximately 6.3 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office
and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel
12A, is located on the north side of Route 250 approximately 800 feet west of State
Farm Blvd in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High
Density Residential use (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3.
and
SP-95-22 Montessori School - Petition to permit a private school on approximately 6.3
acres zoned CO, Commercial office and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
[23.2.2(9)]. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 12A, is located on the north
side of Route 250 approximately 800 feet west of State Farm Blvd in the Rivanna
Magisterial District.
and
Montessori School Preliminary Site Plan - Request for approval of one-way
circulation and the use of private septic.
Mr. Fritz presented a combined staff report. Staff recommended approval of the ZMA,
the SP and the preliminary site plan.
M
8-1-95
Mr. Blue asked if the applicant owns the property or if the property is leased. He felt
this information might have some bearing on the private septic request. (The applicant
later answered this question by explaining that a new 5-year lease was recently
negotiated, with a purchase option at the end of the lease time.)
Mr. Blue asked if staff had identified any safety issues related to the shared use of the
entrance with the Luxor development. Mr. Fritz explained that the" intersections will be
relatively far away from any of the areas where children will be in or around the
buildings, or their play areas."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Chris Halstead. He offered to answer questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Commission discussed the ZMA request first.
Ms. Imhoff noted that this is an area which staff has identified (at Comp Plan work
sessions) as a potential transitional zone. She said: "Based on that discussion I have
been more open-minded about looking at this rezoning request. I am very concerned
that everybody's final use of land along Rt. 250 seems to be commercial office, or
something of that nature, and we are, yet again, losing the potential for residential
property. But recognizing that Montessori has been there for a while and feeling it does
a good job there, ... if we go ahead and do this I hope we also update our new Comp
Plan and note this as a transitional zone."
Mr. Fritz noted that it has been determined that this application will not be subject to
ARB review because it is not visible from Rt. 250 and therefore does not impact the
entrance corridor.
Mr. Dotson expressed agreement with an earlier statement of Mr. Blue's that this is a
very unique site in the county in that there are very few areas which not only look down
on the city, but also have a view of the Blue Ridge mountains. He thought this property
might ultimately be residential at some future time and that this may well be an "interim"
use. He concluded that even if there is a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, it is
very minor.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that ZMA-95-12 for
Montessori School, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with the
deletion of all proffers approved with ZMA-82-03.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission then discussed SP-95-22.
1�
8-1-95 4
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-22 for Montessori School be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
1. The use is limited to a maximum of 120 students or such lesser number as may be
approved by the Health Department.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission then discussed the Montessori School Preliminary Site Plan.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that Montessori School Preliminary Site Plan be
approved, including the approval of the use of one-way circulation and the use of
private septic, and subject to the following condition:
1. Connection to public sewer shall be required prior to the use of the second proposed
modular classroom.
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
There was a brief discussion about a letter received from the American Legion, an
adjacent property owner. The letter suggested that the applicant be required to
construct a safety fence around a well which is located on the American Legion
property. Staff said the applicant has been made aware of the letter. It was determined
that the well in question presently has a cement cover. Ms. Imhoff felt this was an issue
to be worked out between property owners. She said she was reluctant for the
Commission to require fencing between landowners. Ms. Huckle asked if the County
could be held liable in the event of a well -related accident. Mr. Kamptner replied: "The
County, generally, does not have liability under these circumstances." It was noted that
this school has existed for many years and the well has never created a hazard.
The motion for approval of the site development plan passed unanimously.
CPA-95-03 Use Value Taxation for Open Space - To amend the Comprehensive
Plan, Chapter Four, to establish the consistency of the various park or recreation uses
with the land use plan, for purposes of qualifying for use value taxation as open space
use. The Plan would provide that land being devoted to specifically designated uses,
either will or will not qualify for the Open Space category. This amendment would
evaluate and decide the status of each specific park or recreation use, including golf
courses, as well as uses such as fairgrounds and athletic fields. (Resolution of Intent
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 5, 1995.)
8-1-95 5
[Background: This issue was raised when the County recently received two
applications to permit private golf clubs to qualify for use value taxation under the Open
Space category of the use value assessment and taxation, or "land use tax," program.
Though the Board considered eliminating the Open Space category as a method to
prevent golf clubs from qualifying, at its meeting on June 14, 1995, the Board voted not
to adopt an ordinance which would have repealed the special classification for real
estate as devoted to Open Space use. The Board received arguments from members
of the public that it is important for the County to continue the Open Space category,
and that other means should be taken to prevent local golf courses from qualifying for
reduced assessments under the use value taxation program.]
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
Mr. Dotson asked Ms. Scala to summarize comments made at the July 5th Board
meeting regarding the value in retaining Open Space as a category. Ms. Scala
explained: "I think they felt that by eliminating that category it would be eliminating
something that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes and wants to promote, which is
protection of the open space areas. And although not many people have applied for
that category does not mean that it might not be useful in the future. It specifically does
what we say we want to do with the Comprehensive Plan. I think that was the major
argument."
Staff clarified that this present Comprehensive Plan Amendment deals only with
recreational uses. Ms. Imhoff explained: "The language (in the Manual of the State
Land Evaluation Advisory Council) specifically says that it has to be for public or
community use. We are trying to interpret that and also make it work for us as far as
what we want to do with golf courses."
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Judy Jordan expressed the opinion that golf courses being considered as open
space (for use value taxation purposes) is "ludicrous." She felt the purpose of the Open
Space category is to 'leave land in its natural state and to protect the environment."
Mr. Walter Johnson addressed the Commission. He said the whole subject of land use
tax is being opened up with this one proposed change. He recommended that this is
the time, with the review of the Comprehensive Plan taking place, to consider the entire
subject of Land Use Tax. He suggested it be considered in the following ways: (1)
How effective has it been historically? (2) What has been the socio-economic impact?
(3) "Are there any instances where land use tax has not prohibited a development or
some other activity?" He said the only place where land use has been effective is in
relation to the family farm. He agreed that the family farm should be protected, "but not
at the expense of so much more of the community." He felt the vast majority of the
8-1-95 6
beneficiaries of land use tax are the most affluent residents of the county. He said:
"The land use tax is a tax shelter ... (and) the most affluent are being supported by the
balance of the population." He made the following recommendations:
--"Make a comprehensive effort to evaluate the history of the land use tax in this
county. How effective has it been?"
--"Identify the socio-economic impact."
--"Consider possible changes to the Land Use Tax provisions which might
improve it."
Mr. Johnson concluded his comments with this statement: "As this subject is reviewed,
I think counsel should consider the possibility of conflict of interests for any member
sitting in review who is availing themselves of land use tax." [NOTE: Mr. Kamptner
addressed this question later in the meeting.]
Mr. Steve Runkle addressed the Commission. He said he was, in general, "an
opponent" of land use tax. He encouraged the Commission "to go the route of Open
Space only and pick and choose by virtue of the Comprehensive Plan what qualifies."
He felt the goal should be to make "it consistent with the Land Use goals." He felt land
in the growth areas, unless it meets one of the specific criteria, should not be eligible for
land use taxation. He suggested the way to allow farms to qualify for land use taxation
is for the owners to ask that they not be included in growth areas. This approach would
also result in a more realistic idea of what is actually available for development in
growth areas. He expressed a lack of understanding of the "public vs. private issue in
this category when in every other category they are all, basically, private uses with
people getting private benefits." He said: "It's designed to serve a public goal (and) the
open space issue ought to be designed that way as far as I'm concerned. I don't know
that the private vs. public issue is any more pertinent here than in some of those other
use categories." Mr. Runkle asked if a privately owned golf course which was open to
the public would qualify for land use, under this proposed amendment. Ms. Scala
responded: "Under the proposal it wouldn't qualify because the Community Facilities
Plan doesn't mention golf courses."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Addressing the issue of conflict of interests raised by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Blue asked Mr.
Kamptner: "Since we are discussing only a CPA Open Space proposal, I would make
the assumption that those of us who are availing themselves of land use land for
agricultural purposes would not be confronted with a conflict of interests in this
particular instance." Mr. Kamptner responded: "I agree with that. We will look at this
conflict of interests question further when it gets to the Board. Generally, there is a
$10,000 threshold and unless anyone sitting here has an interest in a park or
recreational use which will be affected by this, I would say there is no conflict in this
case."
R
8-1-95 7
Referring to Mr. Runkle's suggestion that persons owning farms could request that their
land not be included in the growth area, Ms. Huckle asked if it is true that a property
can be excluded from growth area designation simply by asking. Ms. Imhoff answered
the question: "Mr. Cilimberg has already answered that question. The County had tried
to get enabling legislation so it could make this decision to say if you are in a
designated growth area you won't get use value, but that authority was not given to the
County." Ms. Huckle asked: "So, if a person is included in the growth area when they
don't want to be, they have no say so on this?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I don't know
that right now there is a relationship. If, in fact, that legislation had passed, then, yes,
they could have said 'I don't plan to develop my property and I would like not to be
included.' Then it would be the Board's decision whether or not they were included."
Ms. Huckle asked again: "But at the present time it is not possible for somebody whose
land is up to be included in the growth area to say that they don't want to." Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "Again, it is the Commission's recommendation and the Board's
decision. The circumstances of asking really don't change other than the fact that you
might have been able to benefit from use value under the proposal if the State enabling
legislation had been amended."
Ms. Imhoff cautioned the Commission against "getting off target" on this request. She
said: "The Board has given us a straightforward amendment. I think it meets the
County's Comprehensive Plan Open Space element. I think the staff and Board have
done a very good job of dealing with this one specific issue. I would like to ask that we
stay on point."
Mr. Blue agreed.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that CPA-95-03 - Use Value Taxation for Open Space be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Four, Implementing the Plan, page 225, as presented in
the staff report.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson said this was a complicated issue. He addressed the request from
Farmington particularly, saying: "When you look at the area on the map, it could,
potentially, were it not in the watershed, be considered as a future growth area. I don't
think we would be inclined to do that because of the watershed. Across the road is a
growth area. So, by its position, it is not really in the rural area so it is not helping to
preserve rural land, though we wouldn't want to designate it because of the watershed.
did note that County water is provided to the area, so it is not a pure rural type of use,
though it is zoned RA. There are no permanent restrictions. The golf course could,
1,
8-1-95 8
potentially --though it would be hard for us to imagine, be an interim use. It may not be
the perfect solution, but I think the one we have been offered which is the question of
'Does it help meet the recreational needs of the County as defined in the Plan,' is,
think, the best alternative we are going to come up with. So, for that reason, I would
support it."
Mr. Jenkins said the Board has asked for the Commission's recommendation on this
issue and this is probably the "cleanest" way to handle it. He said the question of
"fairness" invites significant discussion and it is appropriate that the Commission hear
the comments that have been made. He concluded: "But for tonight, I think it is best
left where it is right now and I think it is best for us to go ahead and vote on this item."
Mr. Blue commented: "I agree that staff has done a good job with responding to what
the Board of Supervisors has asked us to do. But I, personally, have some strong
feelings about this whole issue. I am going to vote against it. I do not wish to make a
big issue of it nor try to influence anyone else, because I think everything which has
been said has been correct. But I, personally, believe that the original intent of the
Land Use legislation was to protect family farming. Maybe it was worded improperly or
not tightly enough to do that, but I think that was the intent. I do have an agricultural
background and I suppose I may have a conflict of interests because of that, but I am
going to vote against this because I think the whole Open Space proposal is not in line
with the original intent of national legislation. It was intended to protect family farms
and there is no question it has become a tax shelter for the affluent, and there are some
community benefits to that. But that is why I am going to vote against it."
Ms. Imhoff responded to Mr. Blue's comments: "I strongly contend that it is absolutely
painting the wrong picture to say that it is a tax shelter for the affluent, that it completely
ignores the costs that some projects incur to society and that farms more than pay out
in property taxes what they require in services. So I think it has been very easy to
bandy about those words, but I think it is a much more complicated tax and service
picture out there in the real world."
The motion for approval of CPA 95-03 passed (5:1) with Commissioner Blue casting the
dissenting vote.
ZTA-95-03 Farm Sales - Proposal to amend Section 10.0, Rural Area District, RA, of
the Zoning Ordinance, to permit by special use permit the sale of merchandise not
necessarily produced on the premises, but directly related and accessory to agricultural
or horticultural produce which is grown by the owner or his family on their farm.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The report explained that a request was received
recently (from Scott Peyton), for the sale of accessory merchandise at a Greenwood
8-1-95 9
farm which currently grows fruits and vegetables, nursery plants, and greenhouse
crops, and which has a pick -your -own strawberry operation. A zoning text amendment
is required to permit the sale of items not produced on the farm.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Scott Peyton, a resident of Greenwood, addressed the Commission. He quoted
from the Comprehensive Plan: "For agricultural and forestal resources to be
successfully preserved from a land use standpoint, they must be successful as a
business/industry." He explained: "What I am seeking is flexibility in the County zoning
language to help me develop more competitive strategies to better help me survive in
the very dynamic marketplace in which I currently find myself." He asked the
Commission to consider the question: "What other commercial business must operate
under the mandate that it can only sell what it self produces? That is a very
burdensome and weighty mandate under which to conduct business in today's
marketplace. That is where my petition to the County is coming from. I am asking for
some flexibility."
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Peyton if the proposed amendment would give him an "envelop
from which he could work." Mr. Peyton said he had some specific concerns about
some of the language, e.g. the 50% limitation on items not produced on the farm. He
asked that the Commission consider flexibility. He did not think there would be many
requests for this type of use. Mr. Peyton was not in favor of a minimum acreage
limitation.
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the
Commission. Her statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A. The PEC
supported the intent of the three amendments before the Commission, but
recommended several modifications.
[NOTE: Referring to a statement made by Ms. Thorpe, Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the
farm sales structure would not be exempt from ARB review, i.e. "if it is on an entrance
corridor, unless the site plan review is waived by the Board of Supervisors, it will go
through site plan review and, therefore, would also go through ARB review."]
Ms. Imhoff disagreed with Mr. Peyton's statement that no other commercial use is
prevented from selling other than what it produces. She said she could think of many
uses, particularly industrial uses, where on -site sales of what is produced at that
location are not allowed. She said: "I have been struggling with this particular request
because we spend a lot of time talking about land uses in the urban area that are
expensive --they cost a lot because they have water and sewer and roads
--and subsequently we give them commercial zoning. This is a slippery slope for me in
that we are almost getting to a commercial level on some of these rural lands to the
IN
8-1-95 10
point where it is beginning to compete with some of the businesses that have followed
our guidance in the Land Use Plan and have paid a lot of money in designated growth
areas. So, I am concerned. I think some of the things PEC has suggested --reducing
the both the size of the building and the percentage of off -site materials ---might satisfy
me. But when I first read this request I thought this really begins to blur the lines of
commercial uses in and outside of designated growth areas."
Mr. Nitchmann said he agreed with many of Ms. Imhoff comments. He agreed that
25% was preferable to 50% and that 4,000 square feet is an "exceptionally large"
building. He noted that there was no mention of signage control. He favored some
type of annual review. He expressed concern about possible proliferation of other
items being sold, i.e. other than those produced on the farm. He felt the true intent was
to sell items produced or made on the farm. He felt some of PEC's recommendations
were good ones and he favored staff doing further work on the proposed amendment
before Commission action. He thought the current language was too lenient.
Ms. Huckle agreed with both Commissioners Imhoff and Nitchmann. She said she
might support the amendment if the sale of "agricultural products not grown on the
property were included." She said: "While this change might increase the profits of the
seller, I fail to understand how the selling of potting soil from Canada or flowerpots from
China is going to encourage agricultural production in Albemarle County. As presently
written, this type of operation would be in competition with hardware stores, grocery
stores and other commercial garden shops which are in commercially zoned areas, and
at the same time they would be paying less taxes and having less requirements...."
Mr. Dotson said he agreed that something similar to what is intended by this
amendment is possible, but he offered the following comments:
--Does the definition of "owner" include tenants and renters?
--"It says 'his family on their farm.' I think it ought to say'their family on their
farm."'
--"The definition says agricultural or horticultural produce or merchandise
produced by the owner. Do any of those adjectives go with that merchandise or is it
any old kind of merchandise produced?"
--"The Supplemental Regulations say 'one farm sale structure.' I'm not sure that
is an important restriction."
--"I have real trouble with the phrase 'directly related to.' One of the A-F
committee members used the term 'companion items,' which I sort of could understand.
It's things for use with the produce, like for planting or caring for the produce or
displaying, or combining with, or for canning and preserving. Maybe we could do more
to define 'directly related' using examples like that."
--"I also wrote down 25% rather than 50%."
--"I think some definition about the area needs to say'at all times.'
f0
8-1-95
11
--"I think for the greenhouses, we need to say'they are not open to the public,'
otherwise they become retail sales areas."
He also had a question about signage and agreed with PEC that it should be reviewed
by the ARB if in an entrance corridor. He concluded that he was prepared to make
"some half -way or three-quarter way changes," and then review it in a year or two to
see how it has worked.
Mr. Jenkins asked if this amendment would mean that existing orchard operations
would now have to obtain a special permit. Ms. Scala responded: "Not if they do a
wayside stand; that is still permitted by -right. It would be limited to 600 square feet, as
it is written now." She clarified that a zoning clearance is required, but not a special
permit.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZTA-95-03 Farm Sales be deferred to August 15,
1995.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
There was some discussion as to whether or not staff would be able to make the
i%W changes discussed in the time frame proposed. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the item
is scheduled to be heard by the Board on August 16, which means the Board will not
have read the Commission's minutes of August 15 prior to their hearing.
Mr. Blue said he was sympathetic to the applicant. However, he agreed that the way
the proposed amendment is currently written it results in the introduction of a
commercial business into the A-F zone. He said: "I don't think we can have it both
ways. It seems to me that we would not be encouraging agriculture, we would be
helping farmers make a living on the farm by going into business selling other products.
think, even with re -wording of this it is going to be hard to get away from that fact."
The motion for deferral to August 15th passed unanimously.
ZTA-95-04 Farmer's Market - Proposal to amend Section 22.0, Commercial, C-1, and
Section 24.0, Highway Commercial, HC, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmer's
markets by -right; and to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning
Ordinance, to permit farmers' markets by special use permit.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
8-1-95 12
Referring to the definition, Ms. Huckle asked if "merchandise" could include such things
as craft items. Ms. Scala said the definition was taken directly from the definition of
wayside stand, and farmers are currently allowed, by -right, to sell merchandise
produced on their farms. The Zoning Administrator has said that craft items would be
permitted if they are made on the farm, but that is "a gray area."
Mr. Jenkins asked where an application to use a school parking lot for a farmer's
market would fit into this. Ms. Scala replied that it would depend on what Zoning
District the school is in. She added that if the County sponsored the event, then it could
be interpreted as a public use and no special permit would be required.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how many vendors are envisioned with this definition. Ms. Scale
said she felt 2 or more would be a farmer's market.
There was no public comment. The matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he had envisioned this as being held in a public place, such as a
school, where parking is already available, where farmers can go to sell their products.
He felt this proposed amendment is considerably different than what he thought it would
be. He said another question is "How many farmer's markets do you permit?" Ms.
Scala said she felt the business market and good business sense will determine the
number of these operations, their frequency, and their locations.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about allowing vehicles within 10 feet of a public
street or right-of-way. Mr. Cilimberg explained these will be subject to normal site plan
review for normal parking area. He said that a 10-foot setback from a public right-of-
way is standard for commercial operations.
Ms. Huckle felt Albemarle High School would be a good location for a farmer's market.
She said it is in the center of a densely populated area, is easily accessible and has
bathroom facilities available.
Mr. Jenkins said he was familiar with Fairfax County markets, which are scheduled in
different areas on different days, with limited hours. He said these are county -
sponsored and are located at school sites.
Ms. Imhoff said she found the word "structure" confusing. She explained: "I'm used to
the idea that you pull some trucks together and it rotates in different parts of the
county." She was familiar with only two "structures" of this type --one in Virginia Beach
(funded by the county or city), and one in Roanoke (funded by HUD). She felt the
problem with what has been proposed is the idea that "we are going to let 4,000 square
foot structures to be built randomly in the rural area." She wanted to "move away" from
the word "structure."
8-1-95 13
Mr. Jenkins favored the designation of a particular day. He said: "If we are going to get
this explicit, then we ought to go ahead and (set a time and a day). If that isn't good
enough, we can review it next year and expand it to two days."
Ms. Huckle questioned whether it should be held on the same days as the city's market.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that this issue had arisen from a private request. He felt it would be
difficult to set a specific time and day which will meet the needs for private applications.
He also pointed out that this proposed amendment is being set up to be a permitting
procedure for the private sector.
Mr. Nitchmann thought more work needed to be done on the amendment. He again
expressed the feeling that what has been proposed has been expanded from what he
had originally envisioned.
Mr. Blue asked why farmer's markets could not fall under the definition of Wayside
Stands. (Mr. Jenkins later supported this approach also.) Mr. Cilimberg replied: "If you
think that, then you need to go ahead and say that and recommend that to the Board."
He later pointed out, however, that with a wayside stand there is a size limitation. Mr.
Jenkins suggested: "Suppose you added a category saying 'also included under
wayside stand would be such a thing as we're talking about on a site that
accommodated multiple farmers who sell things they produce on a once -a -week basis,
or twice -a -week, with defined hours,' and see if we can't move it forward. If there is a
big enough demand, maybe we could make it bigger, (later)."
Mr. Dotson said he thought it was a question of size and the origin of the produce. He
understood that wayside stands are only for produce grown on the farm associated with
those premises. Mr. Cilimberg replied: "You can go to a commercial district and do a
wayside stand." Ms. Scala added: "You can go to a commercial district--600 square
feet would be about three trucks." Ms. Scala further explained that she had thought the
Crozet proposal was an excellent idea, i.e. to use a church parking lot when not in use
by the church, with the church having the control as to day and time.
Ms. Imhoff said: "Can we just take that idea and take out all the other stuff in here
because this opens it up to structures --it just kind of opens the floodgates a little too
much for our comfort level. We would like to accommodate those people who have
their trucks and want to park them (to sell their produce), too."
Mr. Blue asked why the County could not sponsor a farmer's market (as described by
Ms. Imhoff). Mr. Nitchmann added: "We all pay taxes on all the schools; there are a lot
of school sites in the County. Why can't they be permitted on a school site where there
is a good parking? Access to bathroom facilities might not be necessary for only a few
hours." (Ms. Scala thought the Health Department would require the availability of
bathroom facilities.)
%-1
8-1-95 14
Mr. Dotson asked what regulations presently exist for temporary events such as fairs,
festivals, etc. Ms. Marcia Joseph, representing the Zoning Department, said there are
regulations which govern temporary events. These types of events must receive a
Zoning Clearance. A sketch plan is required and items such as safe circulation and
adequate parking are addressed. She added: "One of the reasons this is here is
because we wanted to allow the wayside stand to happen in Crozet, but it's not defined
in the Zoning Ordinance, and if the Ordinance is silent, then we can't allow it to
happen." Mr. Dotson asked if it would be unusual to consider a "season long" event as
being temporary. Ms. Joseph replied: "That's when (the Zoning Administrator's)
interpretation is that it becomes more permanent." Mr. Dotson felt approaching this
from the idea of it being a "temporary use" is another possibility.
Ms. Huckle said she would not want the County to build a structure, not knowing if it
would be patronized or not. She suggested that this be "tried out" on a school site with
County supervision. She did not think this would cost the County a lot of money and
would give farmers the opportunity to sell their produce.
Mr. Dotson agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that there will need to be some type of limit on
the number. He asked Mr. Kamptner: "Would it be possible, in approving a special
permit, to state that we will consider the market, the opportunity, how many of these we
already have? We are not trying to create a whole new category here we just want to
have the ability to create one, maybe two." Mr. Kamptner replied: "The problem with
looking at the market factors is that you are getting away from the local land use aspect
of the approval. If you can tie it somehow to the public interest --it would be contrary to
the public interest (to have a large number) --that is probably what you would hang your
hat on. But you have the problem that it is not related to land use, per se, unless there
is a concentration of these with resulting traffic congestion, etc. If you are looking at
just market factors, you are getting away from the land use aspect. You would have
problems imposing those types of conditions."
Ms. Imhoff agreed with Mr. Nitchmann that the amendment needed further work. She
said: "Maybe with limiting it by days and hours, that will, de facto, end up limiting how
many of them you get in the County. I think we've also expressed some concern, at
least indirectly, either on the scale or size of the structure."
There was again a discussion as to whether or not staff could bring this item back to the
Commission by August 15th. Mr. Nitchmann did not understand why there was an
urgency in dealing with these topics, given the 90 day period which the County has to
act. Ms. Scala explained that the Board has asked that this be dealt with as soon as
possible in an effort to accommodate the Crozet site. Mr. Jenkins said he had not
heard any more about the idea in Crozet. Mr. Nitchmann suggested: "I say just go
back to the Board and tell them it is not going to happen by August 16th." Ms. Imhoff
felt the deferral dates should be consistent (for this and the previous item), i.e. either
fLI
8-1-95 15
both deferred to August 15, or both deferred indefinitely. (Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that
the Farm Sales ZTA had already been deferred to August 15th in the presence of the
applicant.) Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the item could be deferred again if it is not
ready by August 15th.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZTA 95-04 Farmer's Market be deferred to August 15,
1995, with the understanding that, depending on the workload of the staff, the item may
need to be deferred to a later date at that time.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson suggested that language be added which says "and not flea market." He
said there should be some specific language saying this should be for produce and not
just for "stuff." Mr. Blue wondered about excluding such items as quilts, and similar
crafts. Mr. Nitchmann said he does not want to see "commercially manufactured
products" at this type of market. He agreed with Mr. Blue that quilts, woodcrafts, flower
arrangements, and similar handcrafts, should be allowed.
The motion for deferral to August 15, 1995, passed unanimously.
ZTA 95-05 Commercial Stables - To amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of
the Zoning Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all
necessary supplementary regulations related thereto.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
Public comment was invited.
Colonel David M. Taylor, owner of Cedar Hill Farm, addressed the Commission. He
described what he believed to be the definition of a commercial stable. He pointed out
that the Zoning Ordinance does not define a commercial stable. He said there are
presently no setback requirements for an outdoor riding ring because it is not
considered a structure. He also noted that horses are not considered as livestock in
the County Zoning Ordinance, though they are by the State.
The following persons, all involved in stable businesses, expressed support for the
amendment: Ms. Lynn Beagle; Ms. Christy Ballender; Ms. Christina Beagle; Ms. Janet
Haden; and Mr. Bronson Smith.
/5
8-1-95 16
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, expressed
support for the amendment. She felt the proposed supplementary regulations would go
a long way to meeting some concerns which have been associated with commercial
stables.
Ms. Mary Taylor expressed concern about the lack of discussion about outdoor rings
and riding areas. She stressed that it is in these areas where children riding are most
at risk. She pointed out that there is no mention of setbacks or screening. She felt the
safety issue is a very important aspect of a stable operation which needs to be
addressed with this amendment.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he had no problem with this amendment, "with a little more work on
the supplementary regulations." He agreed that the placement of outdoor riding rings
needs to be carefully considered and that the setback requirements need to be defined.
He felt both indoor and outdoor riding rings should be addressed. He also felt
screening should be addressed. He thought it might make sense to "push outdoor rings
a little deeper into the property."
Ms. Imhoff commented: "I think it is going to be very difficult to explain to people in
court why having horses, and doing things with horses, isn't going to be covered at
some point by that same agricultural by -right. I find it extremely difficult to distinguish
why a horse farm would be treated different from a Polled Hereford farm or any of
those."
Ms. Imhoff thought some of the language used by the Loudon County regulations might
address some of Mr. Nitchmann's concerns.
Mr. Dotson commented: "It seems that the reason to do this is partly a demonstration
of loyalty to agriculture as represented by horses. It's also to limit the NIMBY
opportunity and to reduce the site plan waiver costs. Those aren't, in my opinion, really
compelling (reasons). I would be interested in looking at a revision, but I've got some
reason for concern based on what I've heard tonight. Maybe at a certain point you do
need a special permit."
Ms. Imhoff agreed there is a lot of "NIMBYism." She said: "So it is compelling to me,
now that we've said all these other uses are by -right --agriculturally you can do a hog
farm or a commercial feed lot --but you are going to do a commercial stable by special
permit. This becomes almost ridiculous."
/�o
8-1-95
17
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZTA-95-05 for Commercial
Stables, be deferred to August 15, 1995, with the understanding that, depending on the
workload of staff, the item may be deferred again at that time.
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
19.
J
V. Wayn Cilimberg ary
%-7-