HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 29 1995 PC Minutes8-29-95
AUGUST 29, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August
29, 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 Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala,
Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent:
Commissioner Jenkins.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of August 15, 1995 were approved (4:0:2) as amended. Commissioners Imhoff
and Nitchmann abstained from action on the minutes because they had been absent
from the August 15th meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
*Akmw► Milton T., Jr. and Patricia J. Edgerton - Request for waiver of Section 18-36(f) of the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow two entrances to be maintained onto Route 676.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA-95-03 Farm Sales - Proposal to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas 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.
Deferred from August 15, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The staff report, and staffs oral presentation,
explained changes made to the proposed amendment to address concerns expressed
by the Commission at the August 15th meeting.
Referring to ARB approval, Mr. Blue asked: "What if they are converting an existing
building that was originally exempt?" Staff response: "That would still require a building
permit. Chances are they would be making some revisions. A building permit or a site
plan is required."
7O&A
on
8-29-95 2
Mr. Dotson asked the County to describe a revocation proceeding. Mr. Kamptner
responded: "Generally, when a permit is issued, the permitee is required to comply with
certain conditions. If it is believed they are not in compliance a hearing is conducted
and if they are found not to be in compliance, the permit can be revoked." Ms.
McCulley said this happens very rarely. She could recall only one instance of a
revocation. She explained: "Basically, it is flagrant, willful, non-compliance, where
repeated attempts at compliance have not been successful. The person is notified that
if they don't comply, there will be a hearing and at that point they could have the permit
revoked. If they continue the activity, further action would be taken, including an
injunction, or some other legal action."
Ms. McCulley explained the inspection process. She said there will be an initial
inspection before issuance of the zoning clearance. Thereafter inspections would occur
in response to public complaints, or if there is a bond to be released. She was
uncertain as to how measurements and calculations of the percentages would be
made. She said she would need to check with her inspectors before answering. She
doubted that measurements would actually be made with a ruler "unless the area was
very visibly out of sorts." She confirmed that she favored limitation to one building. She
felt multiple buildings would compound enforcement problems.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Scott Peyton addressed the Commission. He quoted from the Comp Plan: "For
agricultural and forestal resources to be successfully preserved from a land use
standpoint, they must be successful as a businesslindustry. " He said what he proposes
is indeed a commercial operation, as it must be if he is to be successful as a farm. He
expressed the following specific concerns about the proposed amendment:
--He thought the 1,500 square foot limitation was much too small. He asked that
2,000 square feet be considered, which he felt was a fairer compromise.
--He asked the percentages be put back at what was originally proposed, i.e.
50/50, and that it be "considered over the entire growing season, rather than at every
point in time." He explained that he hoped "to extend his seasons to the more marginal
seasons --spring and late fall." He said it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to
meet the 75% ceiling at all times.
--He was very concerned about the restriction against greenhouses being open
to the public. He explained that his pick -your -own fields (strawberries and pumpkins)
are production areas, as is his greenhouse. He said: "My request to you is to not
exclude that from being open to the public, that once that crop, as it were, is ready to
harvest, that my customers can, in fact, walk to the greenhouse, pick out a flat of plants,
bring it to my wayside stand, and purchase it." He gave as an example a poinsettia
crop which is grown in the greenhouse. If those plants had to be transported to an
unheated farm sales structure, they would not survive.
4. st
8-29-95
--He asked that the term "produced on the farm" contained in the definition, be
changed to read "produced and/or grown on the farm."
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the
Commission. She read a statement (Attachment A to these minutes) which expressed
support for all three amendments before the Commission (Farm Sales, Farmers'
Market, and Commercial Stables). Additionally, she expressed support for Mr. Peyton's
request that greenhouses not be excluded from the public.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson said he thought the proposal for 2,000 square feet was reasonable. He
noted that it was half of what was originally proposed. He said he found it reassuring
that the square footage could be waived during the special permit process.
Ms. Imhoff said she was comfortable with the 1,500 square feet because it "ties in with
what we've done with wayside stands and if more than 1,500 is needed a waiver can be
requested." As a compromise, she said she would favor remaining at 1,500 square
feet, but allow the mix of products to be changed to 50/50, and allow the greenhouses
to be considered part of the production area not to be counted in the square footage.
She said she was a little concerned about whether the 50/50 is over the course of a
growing season, because she thought it would be impossible to enforce.
Mr. Dotson said he could support Ms. Imhoffs suggested compromise. He expressed
some concern about the wording which would allow the greenhouses to be considered
as production areas. He said: "I wouldn't want someone to say, 'this has been built as
a greenhouse (so) now I can use it as part of my sales area,' because it appears to be a
greenhouse --it's a glass structure, etc." He thought it should be very clear that it is
intended that it be greenhouses that are actually greenhouses. He also thought there
should be some allowance for part of the greenhouse to be used as the retail sales
area, with the rest used for raising plants. He thought this should be worded carefully.
There was a discussion of the interpretation of the floor area percentages. Mr. Dotson
said he understood it to mean: "If we want 50%, any time you walk in, up to half the
floor area could be in merchandise not grown or produced on the farm, and there might
not be one single thing else in the rest of the building --it might be empty, or it might
have one bin of corn in it, or it could be full. But what we're saying is half that floor area
is for these other items." Ms. Imhoff said she hoped it meant: "The building is full and
50% of those things are grown or produced on the farm. I have not been so caught up
with floor area. I understand it to mean, within the structure, 50% of what is being sold
can be companion items." Mr. Blue felt this would be difficult to enforce because it
would be difficult to measure. Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Dotson's interpretation, i.e.
,,. "50% could be items from Hong Kong and the rest could be empty." Ms. Huckle said
"44
8-29-95 4
she did not interpret it that way. Referring to item 4 in the staff report, Ms. Huckle
pointed out that it says: "The requirement for agricultural or horticultural produce or
merchandise produced on the premises should be a certain percentage of the indoor
area at all times." Ms. Scala said staff had attempted to address this concern by adding
the phrase at all times. Ms. Scala explained: "So the way this is worded, at all times, at
least 75% of the retail sales area inside the farm sales structure shall be agricultural or
horticultural produce or merchandise produced on the premises. At any time you would
have at least 75% of it agricultural and then the remaining 25% would be companion
items. That is how we tried to address your concern. If you want it to be like Mr.
Peyton wants it, then we'll have to re -word that." Mr. Dotson said: "So the way it is
written here, this says that it has to be essentially full at all times in order to have the
maximum proportion of off -premises merchandise." Ms. Huckle addressed Mr.
Dotson's comment: "Otherwise, it would just be any other retail commercial store."
Slightly later in the meeting, Mr. Cilimberg addressed this percentage question further.
(See below.)
Mr. Blue said the Commission could get caught up in the technical details of the
amendment, whereas he thought the discussion should be about the principle of the
amendment. He said: "If we are going to consider agricultural industries in keeping
farming as something that is not only good for the farmer, but good for the community
and the whole county, and the only way the farmer can do that is to be able to sell
these items plus some companion items --if we adhere to that principle, then I don't think
there is much reason to nit-pick this because I can't see it being economically viable for
a Wal-mart or something similar to produce 25% or 50% of what they sell and make
money on the rest. I don't think that's going to happen. On the other hand, if our
principle is that we don't want any commercial sales in the agricultural areas, then we
ought not to allow anything other than agricultural produce to be sold. It seems to me
the purpose of this ZTA, as it was originally proposed, was to give farmers an economic
advantage so that they could keep their farms. If we agree with that principle, then I
don't see that these percentages and that sort of thing are too important."
Ms. Imhoff disagreed with Mr. Blue. She said: "It's nice some things are black and
white, but I think a lot of things are thresholds. Since I was the person who expressed
a lot of concern of not competing with people who buy commercially zoned property
and subsequently pay taxes for commercially zoned property, I feel the staff has done a
good job of hitting a threshold that makes me comfortable that this is supportive of
agriculture while not being competitive with commercial property. And the size of the
structure and the mix of the product is important. It is not nit-picking in my mind. For
me to be able to vote comfortably on this text amendment, I need to see it stay at 1,500
square feet, go to a 50-50 mix, and add language that the greenhouses will not count
as part of the floor area."
En
8-29-95 5
Mr. Blue responded: "Suppose it were possible for a farmer to prove to you that if he
didn't have at least 50% (of companion items), he couldn't sell enough items to be able
to keep himself in business, and to be competitive with people in the business. (So)
he's going to have to sell his farm for residential purposes. Would you still feel that
way? That's my point. It just boils down to a simple issue to me --are we going to try to
help the farmers by letting them have a commercial advantage in their rural area
district, or are we not willing to do that because we think it ought to be strictly
agriculture?"
Ms. Imhoff thought that most Commissioners appear to be supportive of giving the
farmer this option for the farm sales, but not carte blanc. She pointed out that the fact
that the Commission can waiver supplementary regulations makes this even more
flexible.
Mr. Cilimberg returned to the earlier topic of the interpretation of the mix of products.
He said: "I believe what Mr. Dotson said is correct. The way I read the language, we
are talking about percentage of the retail sales area in the farm sales structure which at
all times must be devoted to agricultural and horticultural produce or merchandise
produced on the premises. It's not a percentage of what you have in there; it's a
percentage of the area. I just want to make sure that Ms. McCulley understood it the
same way because she is the one that is going to be enforcing that. If you decided at a
particular point in time that you want, in the 50% of that area that is devoted to the
outside products, that you want to load up, but in the other 50% of the area you don't
have anything to sell, it still meets the requirement of this supplementary regulation."
He asked Ms. McCulley if he was correct. (Ms. McCulley indicated he was correct by a
nod of her head.) Mr. Dotson clarified: "The way I was interpreting at all times is a
person couldn't say today it is 75% of the area and tomorrow it is 25%, so that averages
to 50%. This would say 'at no point could it exceed 50%, or whatever the number
was."' Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Exactly." Ms. Huckle added: "There are times,
maybe, if you are more successful with your selling manufactured items then you
wouldn't have to sell any produce at all, as long as you had your square footage set
aside for pumpkins, or something, and the other square footage set aside for flower
pots. You would be adhering to the regulation." Mr. Dotson thought the last sentence
in section (a) --The farm sale structure shall not be established until the agricultural or
horticultural produce growing area has been established and is in production. --
addresses this question. He said: "You have to be bone fide --you may not have
harvested yet, but it's got to be under way and will be filling up inside the sales area."
Mr. Dotson asked: "Is that the intent? Does that seem workable?" Ms. Scala
responded: "Yes. Definitely. The problem is in months such as March, when produce
is not yet coming in. But we definitely anticipated that he would have things growing
and in production before he establishes the structure. Otherwise, what would be the
purpose of it?" Mr. Dotson asked it that would be true each year, i.e. "The first year it is
active and thriving but after that, for some reason...." Ms. Huckle finished Mr. Dotson's
nwl
8-29-95 6
sentence: "...it was easier to unpack the boxes than to plant the plants." Mr. Dotson
said: "I assume this would be annually true." Mr. Cilimberg said: "This has to do with
establishing the farm sales structure itself. So, if you build the structure and establish it
for that use, and then you go out of production ... (sentence unfinished)." Mr. Dotson
asked: "Can this be written to say 'initially and each year'?" Ms. Scala responded:
"That was the intent." Ms. Huckle pointed out that there seem to be several
interpretations of the intent. Ms. Imhoff concluded: "I think this is one of those areas
where we are just going to have to see how it goes and if someone really abuses it that
is when you appeal the special permit." Ms. Imhoff asked if Mr. Dotson had some
language in mind which would clarify the intent. Mr. Dotson suggested adding to the
end of (a): "Such growing areas shall be re-established on an annual basis."
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZTA 95-03 Farm Sales be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff with the following changes:
--Add to 5.1.35(a): Such growing areas shall be reestablished on an annual
basis.
--Change the second sentence in 5.1.35(b) to read: Greenhouses shall not be
counted as part of the total retail sales area, unless one is designated as the farm sales
structure. (The phrase shall not be open to the public, and therefore, is to be deleted.)
--Change the percentages in the third and fourth sentences of 5.1.35(b) to be
"' 50% (in the third sentence) and 50% (in the fourth sentence).
cm
(Ms. Imhoff motion did not include a change to wording in the definition as suggested
by Mr. Peyton'.)
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle commended staff for their work on this amendment. However, though she
said this was "probably a good motion," she could not support the motion because she
felt an agricultural -forestal district is not an appropriate location for a commercial retail
store where half the stock would be items not produced on the farm. She said this will
be time consuming for the Zoning Department and will compromise agricultural -forestal
districts. She said: "There are other farm producers who seem to be doing all right and
for the little amount of money that will be realized from the sale of these other items, we
would be opening the door to some people who might not be as conscientious as the
original applicant. I could support this if all the products were farm produced, though
they would not have to have all been produced on the farm where the store is located,
because I think that would encourage agriculture."
447-
on
Etb.4s OU
7
The motion passed (4:2) with Commissioners Blue and Huckle casting the dissenting
votes.
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
market by right; and to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning
Ordinance, to permit farmers' market by special use permit. Deferred from August 15
Commission Meeting.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The staff report, and staffs oral presentation,
explained changes made to the proposed amendment to address concerns expressed
by the Commission at the August 15th meeting.
Mr. Dotson asked if it is possible for individuals to lease County property as a possible
location, and if, so, would that mean the event would be County sponsored. Ms.
McCulley said the County would have to participate in some way (more than just though
a lease agreement). Mr. Dotson said: "So with County involvement, it could go on a
school site, otherwise not." Mr Cilimberg explained that the possibility of a token lease
amount, such as $1, had been discussed. He thought such an arrangement, i.e.
"almost a free lease," could qualify as County participation. Mr. Kamptner explained the
School Board's policy regarding usage of their property: "A request is made to the
Superintendent's Office and they simply allow uses and they have certain fees for the
costs, and if it's deemed to be public I don't think there is any cost. I don't think the
School Board will likely get into the business of leasing parking lots for a particular
event. There may just be on -going granted permission to use a particular parking lot
for particular hours." Mr. Dotson asked if such an arrangement would be considered
County sponsored. Mr. Kamptner responded: "I think it is a slightly different question
that goes back to the level of participation that the County has in the market." Mr.
Cilimberg said the schools have a "rate of lease" which applies to private individuals
asking for the use of a facility. If the School Board were to give the facility ... (sentence
completed by Mr. Dotson) "then it's a public -private partnership." Mr. Cilimberg
responded affirmatively.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Joseph Harding, who introduced himself as "the regional petitioner" for this request,
addressed the Commission. He explained his successful experience with the
establishment of farmers' markets in other areas.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
1/9
En
8-29-95 8
Mr. Dotson said it was hard to argue with this proposal because it is a commercial
activity proposed in commercial areas. Referring to comments made by Mr. Harding
about musicians at these markets, Mr. Dotson asked if there are controls in Commercial
areas which would address issues such as noise, acoustics, music, etc. Ms. McCulley
said that at a certain point a musical activity could be deemed to be a public dance hall
and would require a special permit by the Board of Supervisors. Other than that, there
are new noise regulations which are being proposed. She suggested that this could be
addressed in the text of the amendment if the Commission desired. Mr. Dotson said:
"If they apply generally in commercial districts, I don't see any reason for special
attention." Ms. Huckle pointed out that noise could be a concern if a market were to
locate on a school site, such as Albemarle High School, which is surrounded by
residential area.
Ms. Imhoff said: "However, I would note that (the supplementary regulations) actually
wouldn't apply if it was on a school property, because, as staff noted, that would then
be considered a part of a public use, and would just be an agreement between the
County and the farmers' market. I don't see how these supplementary regulations
would be triggered if it was on school property." Ms. Scala said: "I would think that it
would be used as a guide, but I don't think they would be required to use them."
Addressing the noise issue, Ms. Imhoff pointed out that there are other uses in
commercial areas, such as auto sales, which often have promotions using "balloons,
banners, and music."
Referring to another statement by Mr. Harding about the possible sale of t-shirts as a
promotional item, Mr. Dotson said he thought that was appropriate. He pointed out,
however, that the definition does not allow the sale of commercially manufactured
products. Ms. McCulley addressed this question: "I would say'no' that it does not
come within this particular use. In fact it has been my position that a flea market is not
currently permitted under the commercial districts, and it is different from general retail
sales."
Mr. Harding was allowed to comment further. He explained that t-shirts were used for
advertising, at an at -cost basis. Only acoustical music was allowed. No electrical,
amplified music was ever allowed. He stressed that community participation is
essential for the success of a farmers' market.
Mr. Blue said: "It seems some (of the Commission) have been scared by the possibility
of amplified music and selling of t-shirts. It is not addressed in the proposed
amendment and I would suggest that we leave it alone and if the market people decide
to advertise with t-shirts and somebody playing a guitar, unless there is a complaint, we
don't worry about it."
LFIVA
8-29-95
Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Nitchmann expressed agreement.
9
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZTA-95-04 Farmers' Market be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA-95-05 Commercial Stables - Proposal 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. The staff report, and staffs oral presentation,
explained changes made to the proposed amendment to address concerns expressed
by the Commission at the August 15th meeting.
Ms. Scala explained that the Zoning Administrator would prefer that the definition
include a level of intensity, i.e. a certain number of horses or ponies should be set. Ms.
Scala said staff suggested "a minimum of 10 horses or ponies, boarded or for hire."
(Horses belonging to the owner, which are not for hire, would not be counted in this
number.) She explained 10 is the number used by Loudoun County to differentiate
between a private and commercial stable. Without a set number, this would be a matter
for interpretation by the Zoning Administrator.
Ms. Huckle asked if Health Department approval should be included in the
Supplementary Regulations. Ms. Scala said she could think of no occasion where
Health Department approval would be needed. She noted, however, that Health
Department approval is a part of the site plan approval process, and Supplementary
Regulation 5.1.3(c) requires a site plan, (unless waived by the Commission).
Ms. Huckle asked about lighting. Ms. Scala said lighting will also be addressed through
site plan review and there is an Ordinance requirement that lighting not spill over onto
adjacent properties. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission has, in the past,
attached conditions to waiver approvals which address lighting and other such issues.
Ms. Huckle asked if the restriction against "horse show grounds" would also include a
rodeo. Ms. McCulley responded: "It would be my opinion that a rodeo is going to fall
within the special permit requirement for horse show grounds." She said there is
presently no definition of rodeo or horse show grounds in the Ordinance. She said a
rodeo would not fall under the exemption.
6-0
8-29-95
10
Mr. Nitchmann asked if entrance requirements would be covered in the site plan
approval process. Ms. Scala responded: WDOT is part of the site plan review --so
whatever they require."
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Christy Bollinger addressed the Commission. She said she supported the
amendment, "for practical purposes," but she felt parts of the amendment were very
nebulous. She thought the definition of commercial stable was unclear and likewise the
intention in relation to spectators. When asked how many horses she keeps, Ms.
Bollinger pointed out that if there are concerns about the vehicles trips on the road, then
the number of owners should be counted rather than the number of horses because
some owners have several horses boarded. Mr. Blue asked for the number of horses.
Ms. Bollinger said she presently has 12 horses, but the number changes from time to
time. She expressed concern about the number 10 which she seemed to understand
was a limit to 10 horses (rather than a minimum for the purpose of the definition). She
said a commercial stable could not survive financially if limited to 10 boarded horses.
Ms. Riz Dolsky (?) addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the use
of pine bark as a riding surface cover [as referred to in Supplementary Reg. 5.1.3(a)].
She said pine bark holds a lot of moisture and can be slippery and dangerous when
wet. She pointed out that most riding arenas try to keep dust at a minimum.
Addressing the question about spectators, she suggested the following replace 5.1.3(f):
"No events soliciting the general public shall be allowed without a special permit." She
explained such language would cover rodeos and polo matches. She too expressed
concern about the possibility of a 10 horse limitation. She explained: "If you make it
10 horses, that makes horse owners possibly subject to some of the commercial
regulations." Mr. Blue explained that the number would not apply to an owner's horses
kept on his/her own private property. He said: "It does not mean that everybody in the
County who owns more than 10 horses is going to have to (get a zoning clearance for a
commercial stable)." She said she supported the idea of the amendment.
In response to Mr. Blue's question about possible surface covers, Ms. Dolsky said she
has used a "non -dust, blue stone clay." Some facilities use a clay -sand mixture or
rubber filings. She did not think it was necessary to require a certain type of cover.
Mr. Charles Beagle addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the horse farm
industry is a very large part of the agricultural industry in Albemarle County. He hoped
the Commission would do all possible to encourage the horse industry. He supported
making commercial stables by -right. He agreed that pine bark was not a desirable
surface for a riding ring and recommended that the reference to pine bark be deleted.
sr/
8-29-95 11
'44w- Ms. Elaine Beagle expressed concern about the number 10. She suggested that the
number be tied to the acreage. [NOTE: Mr. Cilimberg attempted to clarify the number
issue. He explained: "Establishing the number is the point at which the commercial
stable provision would kick in. Anything below whatever number may be finally
established, the operation would not be considered a commercial stable and would be
an unregulated use of the land." Mr. Dotson added: "And the regulations that would
kick in are these supplemental regulations." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Yes. It (would
be) a by -right use but certain supplementary regulations would have to be met if you
had that many horses or beyond." Mr. Blue asked Ms. Beagle: "And you're suggesting
that the number should be higher than 10." Ms. Beagle responded: "That's right. It
should be higher than 10, like 25 for example (before these regulations would kick in).
Ms. Mary Taylor addressed the Commission. Though very supportive of the horse
industry, she was opposed to allowing commercial stables by -right. She stressed that
commercial stables vary a great deal in terms of the types of riding offered, the number
of horses boarded, whether or not minors are involved, number of employees,
arrangements for payment, the physical layout of the land and buildings, etc. She was
concerned because a by -right situation does not allow for consideration of impact on
neighboring properties. She felt the best way to allow this use is through the special
permit system, which will allow examination of the particularities of a proposal and
regulate them on a case -by -case basis. She had researched the 7 commercial stable
applications approved by the Board of Supervisors and had found several conditions to
have been a common factor in all approvals. She thought these conditions, in addition
to a 100-foot setback and screening requirement, should be added to the Ordinance.
She listed those conditions:
--Planning Commission approval of site plan.
--Health Department approval in accordance with requirements for commercial
use.
--Fences maintained at all times.
--VDOT approval of commercial entrance.
--All riding surfaces to be covered with a material to prevent dust.
--Any grading plan to be reviewed by the Watershed Management Official in
addition to review by the County Engineer.
--Maintain screening from adjacent properties.
--No facilities for sale of goods to the public.
--No commercial activity except that associated with the stable.
Ms. Sue Highboard, a resident of Mechunk Acres, addressed the Commission. She
described the problems, primarily related to private road usage, the residents of
Mechunk Acres have experienced as a result of the stable business operated by Ms.
Bollinger. She was opposed to commercial stables being made a by -right use. She felt
the Commission should consider the issue of the status of the road which may serve as
the access for a commercial stable. She expressed the belief that Ms. Bollinger has
5z
8-29-95
12
always operated a commercial stable, even though the present and previous Zoning
Administrators have said that she cannot do so without a special use permit. (Ms.
Hubbard was accompanied by several other neighbors who shared her opposition to
the proposed amendment.)
Ms. Bollinger again addressed the Commission and described problems which have
been encountered with the road maintenance agreement. Mr. Blue advised her that
this was a private issue which could not be addressed by the Commission. Ms.
Bollinger said the point she wished to make is that it is for reasons such as this that
commercial stables should be made a by -right use in the rural areas.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff asked staff to refresh her memory as to Faquier County's regulations for
commercial stables. Ms. Scala said Faquier allows them by -right in the RA district, and
by special permit in the Rural Conservation District, Rural Residential 2 (2-acre lots),
the Village district, and the R-1 district.
Mr. Blue asked about the status of commercial stables presently in the County. Ms.
McCulley said they are allowed by special permit, but the definition has been
"problematic" as it now stands.
Mr. Nitchmann asked: "So the solution proposed is to make it by -right, rather than to
clean up the Zoning Ordinance?" Ms. McCulley responded: "I think there are two
solutions --either clarify the definition so there is a distinction as to at what point it goes
from being a private use of the land to a commercial operation, or decide, as a policy
point of view, that it should be made by right. Either way, I would ask that you clarify
the definition for commercial stable."
Ms. Huckle asked about setback requirements. Ms. McCulley responded: "A primary
structure setback is 75 feet from an external public road and 25 feet from an internal
public or private road. An outdoor riding ring itself is not treated as a structure and
would not have any setback at all. But anything that involves a structure like a stable is
considered an accessory building and can have a setback as little as 6 feet to a side or
rear property line." Ms. Huckle asked: "And that would include an indoor riding ring?"
Ms. McCulley replied: "That's right, without this requirement." Ms. McCulley explained
that if this amendment is passed the setback from the neighboring property will be 25
feet if on a private road, or 75 feet if on a public road. Ms. Scala added: "The way we
have it written, the farm -type structures, the stable building and the indoor riding ring
would meet the primary setbacks--75 feet front, 25 feet side and 35 feet rear. But the
outdoor uses, such as the outdoor riding ring and the parking area, we have said they
should be at least 50 feet from any adjoining property." Ms. Scala said this is greater
s�1
8-29-95
13
than what is required currently for a barn, which is 6 feet because it is considered an
accessory structure.
Acknowledging that it is easy to get caught up in neighbor conflicts, Ms. Imhoff said she
wanted to remind the Commission of the bigger picture. She said: "What we're talking
abpir is what uses do we do by -right in the rural area. You can do stock yards; you can
have poultry farms; you can have hog farms and there are absolutely no restrictions
whatsoever. So when we're looking at horse operations I want all of us to keep that in
mind. It seems to me that we are penalizing and carefully scrutinizing one part of the
agricultural industry and there are a whole lot of other things going one. I think Mr.
Beagle's comments about farming being a dusty business are very true. When people
are moving their cattle, haying their fields, discing up, spreading manure, that's what
happens when you live in a rural area. We keep saying that we want agricultural and
forestal industries in our rural areas and that they are the primary industry of our rural
areas. And we are trying to discourage residential development in rural areas. So let's
do what we can to make sure that we can be supportive of this kind of use."
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that a lot of the activities mentioned by Ms. Imhoff are
seasonal in nature and they will not generate as much traffic as a commercial stable
can generate.
Ms. Imhoff agreed that traffic and the road is an issue, but she thought supplementary
regulation (e) addressed the concerns about road usage. She added that the site plan
process will require that VDOT be involved if it is a public road. She noted, however,
that there are other agricultural uses, particularly those involving livestock, were there is
a lot of in and out traffic.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the conditions listed by Ms. Taylor would be covered under the
site plan review process. Ms. Scala said that the Health Department and VDOT are a
part of the process and adjacent owners are notified of site plans. Mr. Cilimberg added
that grading will be covered by the Engineering Department and the Watershed
Management Official will be involved if the site is in the watershed.
Mr. Nitchmann thought the main question is at what point (what number of horses) the
commercial stable designation will apply. Mr. Nitchmann questioned why this matter
was brought to the Commission. He said he thought it should have been addressed by
fixing the zoning requirements. Pointing out that there have only been 8 requests in 25
years, he questioned whether there was a need for this amendment. He
acknowledged, however, that the horse industry is important in this community and that
there should probably be some type of by -right activity. But he was not sure what the
starting level for the activity should be (i.e. the number of horses).
6c/
8-29-95 14
Ms. Huckle said she was sure that were a lot more than 8 commercial stable operations
in the County. Mr. Nitchmann responded: "If that's the case, then I 'm surprised that
this room is not filled up with people that own stables, if there are so many of them (in
the county)." He noted that of those present, there was an almost equal mix of people
who are opposed and people who are supportive.
Regarding the riding surface material, Mr. Nitchmann suggested that Section 5.1.3(a)
be changed to read: "Riding rings and riding surfaces shall be maintained so as to
minimize dust and erosion."
Mr. Dotson compared this amendment to the one for farm sales. He said in that case
600 feet is allowed by right and more than that, 1,500 feet, requires a special permit.
He said this amendment for commercial stables seems to be a request for "open
season" on commercial stables. He said: "I think we need to clarify the definition. I'm
not sure whether it's 10 or not, but that would be a number. Then maintain the special
permit for commercial stables because it seems to me they do raise some issues that
ought to be looked at. I think that would be even-handed with the way we dealt with
farm sales. There is a certain size you can have by right --it's pretty small. Beyond that,
we need to take at look at it."
Mr. Blue said he tended to agree with Mr. Dotson but he wondered what type of action
such an approach would require. He said: "We have before us ZTA 95-05 which is to
make commercial stables by -right, and what you're suggesting is to clean up the
definition of it, but not allow them by right." Mr. Dotson added: "Clean up the definition
and have the supplementary regulations."
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Kamptner if the Commission could take such an action.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the action being contemplated by Mr. Dotson: "It is by
special permit currently, and was advertised to become by -right. Now you are raising
the issue of allowing it to become by -right, but only up to a certain level, which is more
restrictive than what was advertised. I know that in a Zoning Map Amendment, if we
propose an action that is more restrictive than what was advertised, we have to re -
advertise. I don't know about Zoning Text Amendments." Mr. Dotson said: "This would
be less restrictive than it currently is, but more restrictive than the advertised proposal."
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Right. The advertisement is the key."
Mr. Kamptner commented: "You are considering a revision that would be more
restrictive. It's a text change and doesn't pertain to a specific piece of property. It
would have general application throughout the County wherever it might apply. You
can make your recommendation based on the notice that has already been provided."
sl
8-29-95 15
Ms. Imhoff asked counsel: "I think that some argument could be made that the State's
Right -To -Farm Law, which talks about production agriculture, clearly covers poultry,
clearly covers hog farms, so subsequently all those things are now by -right. The
argument may be made that it could cover horse farms of certain scales. Do you know
of anybody who has questioned that or whether commercial stables would fall under the
Right -To -Farm legislation?"
Ms. McCulley said it was the County Attorney's opinion that this will not fall within that
language because it is not a production operation.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the recommendation be that commercial stables be
permitted by -right, up to 5 horses, and then the applicant could make the argument
before the Board as to the number. Along with that, those parts of the Zoning
Ordinance which are currently causing the problem could be considered. He thought if
hog farms have been approved as by -right, then it is only a matter of time until horse
farms will be also.
Mr. Dotson pointed out that this is not really a horse production operation. Rather, it is
an activity which is more commercial, it is more concentrated, it is more frequent, it
involves more traffic, and it involves more urban types of improvements.
lftw To achieve Mr. Dotson's recommended approach, Mr. Blue suggested that this ZTA
could be denied, which would result in the status of commercial stables remaining as it
is presently, until someone comes up with a different proposal. He pointed out that
presently it is by special permit, but there is apparently something lacking in the
definition, which could be corrected later.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that ZTA 95-05 be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval as proposed by staff, but with the following changes:
--Insert the number ten (10) in the definition.
--Do not allow commercial stables as a by -right use in the Rural Areas District.
--Retain (as it presently exists) commercial stables as a use by special permit in
the Rural Areas District.
--Add to Supplementary Regulations Section 5.1.3 Commercial Stables.
--Delete from Supplementary Regulation 5.1.3(a), the phrase "such as pine
bark."
Mr. Dotson felt this would improve the definition, would clarify for small operations
(fewer than 10 horses) that a special permit is not needed, and for larger operations,
whatever their present status, this now sets the rules.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
s4
8-29-95 16
Mr. Nitchmann asked Ms. McCulley if she felt it would still be necessary, to clarify
further other stipulations related to commercial stables in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms.
McCulley thought this action would make the situation better, but it still could be clearer.
Mr. Nitchmann said: "So what you think is we probably need to review the zoning
requirements for commercial stables." (Ms. McCulley responded affirmatively by
nodding her head.)
Mr. Blue said he thought staff had said the addition of a number to the definition would
clear up the problems Ms. McCulley has had in the past. Ms. McCulley said: "I'm still
going to have to deal with which cases are the commercial stables that will then require
a special permit." Mr. Blue responded: "Anything that is 10 or more horses." [Though
Ms. Imhoff added "...that are being boarded," Mr. Nitchmann said the motion had not
made that distinction. Ms. Imhoff was under the impression Mr. Dotson's motion had
intended that the number apply to horses which are boarded. Mr. Dotson later
confirmed that his motion had meant 10 boarded horses.] Ms. McCulley said: "As the
staff recommended, there would not need to be any distinction. Any case would be by -
right." Mr. Blue said: "Any case would be by -right, fewer than 10, but anything more
than 10, these supplemental regulations would apply, with a special use permit, as
proposed by Mr. Dotson. The question is, would that help you enough?" Mr.
Nitchmann interjected: "My question is, do you still want us to take a look at the
requirements for zoning of commercial stables, regardless of what we do here tonight?
Yes or no." Ms. McCulley responded: "Yes, it needs further clarification."
Mr. Dotson withdrew his motion. Mr. Nitchmann withdrew his second to the motion.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that ZTA 95-05 be denied. There was no second to this
motion.
ALTERNATIVE MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZTA 95-05 for Commercial Stables
be deferred to September 19, 1995, with the direction to staff that "there are two
thoughts on this --one to keep it by special permit and clean up the definition and make
sure that supplementary regulations meet some of the concerns raised by
Commissioners Dotson and Nitchmann, and the other that I (Commissioner Imhoff) still
believe this should be a use by -right but with supplementary regulations."
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle suggested that staff include some of the standards read by Ms. Taylor. Ms.
Scala questioned why these would be needed if they are already covered by site plan
approval.
6�?"
8-29-95 17
The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Vaughan left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Chisholm Site Plan Waiver Request - Request to locate a fourth dwelling unit on
approximately 488.20 acres, described as Tax Map 31, parcel 23.
Mr. Cilimberg gave a brief staff report. He explained the request is to establish a mobile
home in association with the wayside stand which already exists on the property. He
said the applicant has verified that "he can do the lots that need to go with the
residences, so a site plan, in (staffs) opinion, is not necessary." Staff was
recommending approval of the request subject to one condition.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the fact that the residence to be established is a mobile
home has no bearing on the request.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Davidson. He offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Chisholm Site Plan
Waiver Request be approved subject to the following condition:
1. Provide a gate or cable across the road to control access between the nursery and
the area used by Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Inc. to store equipment.
The motion passed unanimously.
Work Session (Continuation of 5:15 session)
Road Projects
Mr. Benish briefly described, and pointed out on a map, the major road projects
identified in the Land Use Plan and in the Six -Year Primary and Secondary Plan
priority list.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
4-81
8-29-95 . 1 18
N.
V. Wayne)Cilimberg,
MA
5:15 Work Session 8/29195
WORK SESSION
Albemarle County Planning Commission
5:15 Atigust 29, 1995
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation
Comments included:
[NOTE: The recording equipment was started after the meeting had begun.
Representatives of Forest Lakes and Hollymead were speaking.]
Representatives of the Forest Lakes (John MacDonald) and Hollymead (Denise
Kirschner) neighborhoods presented a report to the Commission which had been
compiled by committees representing Forest Lakes and Hollymead. The report
described scenarios which supported the final conclusion, i.e. that the majority of
residents 'object to the contention that always secondary connectors are positive"
(because) a reduction in traffic on the primary roads is achieved at the expense of the
quality of life in the effected neighborhoods. The speakers said that the residents of
both neighborhoods are opposed to the neighborhoods being connected by internal
roads. Ms. Kirschner said the Hollymead residents are primarily concerned about
traffic that will use Powell Creek, which will pass in front of the school, thereby
creating a very dangerous situation for hundreds of school children. The Forest Lakes
representative said Forest Lakes residents are more concerned about the additional
traffic that will be generated by the "commercial magnet" area.
Ms. Kirschner distributed a map showing a possible layout for a future parallel service
road which would keep access roads off the primary roads. She felt it is important to
plan for these service roads now, before further development makes them impossible.
Mr. Dotson thought the plan presented by Ms. Kirschner was a good one because it
gives equal attention to land use and transportation. He suggested that the map be
displayed as "one idea" during the county -wide public meetings to take place at the
end of the month.
(At the end of the meeting, Mr. Cilimberg said there is no argument that the
advantages of neighborhood connections must be balanced against the effects, nor is
there any argument that the concept of multiple service roads is an ideal solution.
However, it is a concept that is not always achievable because of the way land use
has actually occurred, the way ownership occurs, the costs involved, and the
existence of physical barriers (e.g. rivers, cemeteries, etc.)
5:15 Work Session 8/29/95 2
Ms. Imhoff asked if VDOT could verify some of the figures quoted by the Forest Lakes
representative, particularly that 40% of the traffic will be generated by the "commercial
magnet" area.
Mr. Benish led a discussion of the Transportation section of the Land Use Plan.
Issues raised by the Commission and suggested changes included the following:
--Mr. Dotson said he was satisfied with the principles stated in the CATS study.
He suggested that they could be paraphrased and used in the Transportation section.
--Ms. Imhoff wondered if the "iced tea" (ISTEA) projects should be mentioned
on pages 2 and 3.
--Mr. Dotson questioned whether the MPO should be identified as the main
"transportation planning body" as suggested by staff. Ms. Imhoff asked if perhaps he
meant that the language should be softened somewhat, e.g. "...the MPO should take a
leading role in..., or "...in partnership with." Mr. Dotson said he was just trying to
figure out the county's role. Mr. Blue pointed out that MPO gives the county more of a
participation role, so that VDOT does not call all the shots as it did previously.
Referring to the section on page 3 which talks about "our efforts --the Comp Plan, the
Six -Year Primary and Secondary Plan, etc.", Mr. Dotson said: "Maybe when you re-
formulate this you could repeat that in some fashion so it appears in bold someplace,
so that it is clear that we have a significant role, not just a descriptive portion."
--Mr. Blue said he had underlined the last sentence at the top of page 5. He
explained: "We seem to think of the MPO, and even categorize it here, as being the
lead agency (but), for better or worse, VDOT is the one building, maintaining and
financing the roads." Mr. Cilimberg suggested it could be made clearer that, in the
urbanized area not a single VDOT-funded project can be built without the MPO
approving the Transportation Improvement Program." Mr. Blue added: "The MPO
can plan and approve all it wants and not a single one will be built unless VDOT funds
it." Ms. Imhoff said a map showing the MPO area would be helpful. She pointed out
there is a lot of area in the county which is not in the MPO, and VDOT is ultimately
responsible for those areas. (Mr. Benish said the map had been omitted in error.)
--Mr. Blue suggested that the words be spelled out for the acronyms MINUTP
and COMSIS on page 5. (Mr. Cilimberg later explained that COMSIS is the name of a
company.)
--Referring to public transit planning, Ms. Imhoff suggested that the private
sector plan adopted by the MPO several years ago, which describes how the private
sector will participate, be referenced by saying "For further information, this document
is available from the MPO." She said the fact that the document was "in all caps" had
given her the impression that it was an adopted document.
--Referring to a strategy on page 5, Mr. Dotson suggested the following
addition: "Future development and/or redevelopment of these existing areas should
take into account the traffic handling capacity of its major corridors." He explained:
"You look at what you can do, based on what you've got; you look at how much you
can expand it;
61
5:15 Work Session 8/29/95 3
you balance and make tradeoffs between transportation and land use. This just strikes
me as too one-way." Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Huckle supported this suggestion. Ms.
Huckle said she hoped there will be no future situations like that which currently exists
at Hollymead and Forest Lakes.
--Mr. Dotson felt the word redevelopment should be used each time the word
development is used.
--Ms. Imhoff felt strategies 6 and 7 should be changed to "mesh with one
another."
--Ms. Imhoff thought the role of the MINUTP should be made clearer. She
wondered if there should be another paragraph which says "On some development
projects individual transportation studies are sometimes required."
--Mr. Dotson asked if the Commission will have an opportunity to see the traffic
consequences of the proposed growth area expansion prior to final adoption of the
Land Use Plan. Mr. Benish thought the traffic model was going to be available in time,
though he was not certain. Ms. Imhoff suggested that at least the two major areas
proposed for expansion (north and south) could be looked at first, even if the all the
information is not available in time. Mr. Dotson thought it would be difficult to act, 'one
way or the other," without having a lot more traffic information. Mr. Blue disagreed.
Though he agreed it would be preferable to have the traffic analysis, he pointed out that
the proposal to expand the northern growth area had not been based on the question of
how it will be served with utilities. That was to be left to the Service Authority. He felt
this was the same situation. He explained: "We realize that when we are designating
this area as growth area there are going to have to be some transportation effects and,
most likely, some transportation improvements. But whether we are going to be able to
look at it in more specifics ... I view that as somewhat parallel to what we did with utilities
and we did not come up with a specific answer." Ms. Imhoff thought the transportation
issue was somewhat different because roads use a lot more land area.
--Ms. Imhoff said she liked the Design Standards section very much.
--Ms. Huckle asked if it might be possible for businesses who provide
transportation pools for their employees to receive tax breaks.
--In an attempt to reduce traffic generation, Ms. Imhoff said some localities have
used strategies such as reducing the number of required parking spaces. She
suggested this might be an additional strategy to be considered for this Transportation
section.
--Referring to traffic reduction strategies, Mr. Dotson wondered if there should be
another section dealing with "demand reduction" which would "talk about other things
we could do in how we arrange our land uses that would have the net effect of reducing
demand."
--Recalling statements made at previous meetings by the development
community that transportation standards raise the cost of housing, Mr. Dotson
suggested a statement "that there is a connection to housing costs and an action item
would be to (study that issue)."
5:15 Work Session 8/29/95 4
--Mr. Dotson suggested a statement be added saying the County supports the
"rails -to -trails" concept."
--Mr. Dotson thought there should be a reference to the fact that sidewalks may
be required in some developments. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if sidewalks are in a
public right of way, unless they are within a certain distance or a school or commercial
use, VDOT will not maintain them. They must be maintained through a contract with
VDOT and either a homeowner's association or the County, and the County has no
provisions, at this time, for such maintenance.
--Ms. Huckle suggested that bicycle riding regulations recently recommended by
the PAC committee should be posted in bike shops once the County has endorsed
them.
--Ms. Imhoff wondered if the Rivanna Greenway should be mentioned in the
Transportation section. She noted that it is another pathway system which is being
developed which could be an alternative for pedestrian access.
--Ms. Huckle asked if any progress has been made on the upgrading of the
AMTRAK station. She pointed out that this is an entryway into the area, the same as
the entrance corridors and the airport.
The work session ended at 6:50 p.m.
43