HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 19 1995 PC Minutes9-19-95
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 19, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia
McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and
Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioners Huckle, Imhoff, and
Dotson.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of August 29, 1995, were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Keeler briefly summarized actions taken at the September 13, 1995 Board of
Supervisors Meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP-95-074 Charlottesville Self -Storage - Request for waiver of on -site stormwater
management facilities under Section 32.7.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, disturbance of
critical slopes under Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and allowance of one-way
circulation under Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Consent Agenda
be approved. 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. Deferred from the
August 29, 1995 Commission Meeting.
Because this proposal had been open to public comment at two previous Commission
meetings, the Chairman explained that public comment would not be taken at this
meeting, unless there was entirely new information to be offered.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She explained how the amendment had been
revised to reflect the Commission's direction to staff at the August 29th meeting. Ms.
Scala said the definition had been further revised, to reflect concerns of the Zoning
7r
9-19-95
2
Administrator, after the staff report had been written. She read the following new
definition:
Stable, ^ommercial: A building, group of buildings, or use of land, or any
combination thereof, where, for compensation, whether monetary or
goods, provision is made for more than ten (10) horses or ponies for hire,
instruction in riding, or for boarding when the horses or ponies are also
used for hire or instruction.
It was staffs recommendation that commercial stables be "allowed by right in the
Rural Areas, with the new definition and supplementary regulations proposed."
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who felt they had new information to
offer.
Mr. Venable Minor asked how the amendment would impact an operation such as
Montfair Farm where there are more than 10 horses which are available for hire for
rides through the mountains on weekends. Mr. Blue advised Mr. Minor that the issue
of Montfair had been addressed by the Commission at a previous meeting. Mr. Blue
said the number of horses will be discussed by the Commission later in the meeting.
.4,40, Dr. Reynolds Cole said he wanted to amplify staffs recommendation to exclude strict
boarding because that "would impact the breeding industry in this county in a major
way if included."
Ms. Ruth Dosky said she had a question related to the "l0 horse requirement as it
applies to boarders having lessons...." Mr. Blue said he understood the question.
Having heard the brief comments made by the public, Mr. Blue asked the other
Commissioners if they wished to open the public hearing. Mr. Nitchmann said he
wanted the questions raised to be answered, but he could see no reason to open the
public hearing. Ms. Vaughan agreed.
it was decided public comment would not be taken.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the amendment makes a distinction between horse breeding
farms and commercial stables. In his opinion, a horse breeding operation is different
from a commercial stable. Ms. McCulley responded: "I agree with you. A horse
breeding operation is generally considered to be under the umbrella category of
agriculture and is considered a use by right in the Rural Areas District. There are no
special supplementary regulations, nor is there a special permit, which applies to a
breeding operation." Mr. Nitchmann asked: "So someone could have as many as 25
horses on his place, and as long as that individual is in a breeding operation and has
Owl
9-19-95 3
mares that may come in and stay for a couple or three months, and even may stay until
they foal, that's perfectly within their right to do so and this doesn't prevent them from
doing that." Ms. McCulley responded: "That is my opinion and I believe that has been
a consistent opinion by prior Zoning Administrators." Mr. Blue asked if Mr. Kamptner
agreed with Ms. McCulley's statement. Mr. Kamptner replied: "I would certainly agree
that horse breeding operations would be separate from a commercial stable."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the adoption of this amendment would have any impact on
functions such as 4H Club or Junior Quarter Horse Association Club activities which
might be held at an individual's farm. He asked if such a function would be considered
a horse show or a club meeting. Ms. McCulley replied: "I think we would need to look
at exactly what activity occurs on the property --whether or not they are a member of, or
lead to, a club. I would have to understand a little more about the (situation)." Mr. Blue
thought the situation described by Mr. Nitchmann was not related to the amendment
before the Commission. Ms. McCulley added: "I think this whole issue gives rise to a
lot of other questions. The definition in our Ordinance of Club speaks to something for
which there is private membership. It has a self perpetuating membership and there
are other activities such as dining or golf. (She gave as an example Farmington
Country Club.) I think it is not uncommon to have 4-H meetings at farms throughout the
County, so I don't say that would necessarily render your property a club. There is a lot
of activity which occurs between friends who get together in an intimate setting, such as
soccer, etc. I would have to understand a little more about the organizational structure.
It is hard to answer that question in general, but, more than likely, if it is not something
that is not a regular event, soliciting the public, and so forth, then it will not be
something we would regulate under zoning. ... Mr. Nitchmann said: "(So) it might be
permitted if it was on an infrequent basis....?" Ms. McCulley responded: "Yes. (But)
there are some circumstances where it is even more frequent than that. It's a real gray
area; it becomes very difficult to prove the point at which something becomes a club
that we do regulate vs. a gathering of friends involved in a common hobby."
Mr. Blue said: "But it certainly is not involved in this amendment for commercial
stables." Ms. McCulley acknowledged that Mr. Blue was correct. She added: "In my
opinion, there is no impact on that activity with any action you might take for what has
been advertised and proposed with this ZTA."
Mr. Nitchmann asked how staff had arrived at the number 10. Ms. Scala explained:
"Loudoun County uses 10 as a cutoff for what they call a private stable. A private
stable is, basically, not regulated. It is something that someone does on their own
property. That definition of private stable in Loudoun is a facility for the keeping of
horses for private use of the residents of the lot, such a facility may include the
commercial boarding of 10 or fewer horses and no more than one instructor engaged
for the purpose of educating and training students in equestration. I think the idea there
is that they have tied together boarding and instructor and they've also said if it is 10 or
14
9-19-95 4
1*1W fewer, there are no specific commercial requirements. So that is where we started, and
we looked at other areas. But no other area, that we could find, defines it by number so
possibly they don't have the same problem that we are running into."
Recalling comments made at the previous public hearings, Mr. Blue said 10 seemed to
be a compromise between people who wanted an infinite number and people who
wanted none.
Mr. Blue said: "I don't belive there is anyone on this commission, or any county staff,
who thinks that horses and allied activities are not good for Albemarle County. The
only reason we are involved in this (amendment) is because we are trying to protect the
residents from any objectionable aspects which might result from any commercial
application. I don't want anybody to get the idea that we are trying to discriminate
against or make it difficult for horse owners, because I know we are not."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Ms. McCulley if the proposed amendment satisfied her concerns.
Ms. McCulley responded affirmatively.
Mr. Nitchmann felt the amendment "goes as far as we can without getting on one side
or the other."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA-95-05, 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, be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors as presented by staff in staff report dated September 19,
1995, with change to definition as read by Ms. Scala at the beginning of the meeting
(see above).
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins asked if the questions raised by the public at the beginning of the meeting
had been answered. Mr. Blue said he thought they had. He pointed out that the public
will have the chance the comment again at the Board hearing on October 11, 1995.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-95-28 Church of God - Proposal to expand an existing church located on
approximately 1.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(35)]. Property, described as
Tax Map 9, Parcels 4 and 6A, is located on the south side of Route 663 approximately
0.7 miles east of Route 810 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This is the site of the
9-19-95 5
Nortonsville Church of God. This site is not located in a designated growth area.
(Rural Area 1). Deferred from the September 12, 1995 Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject
to conditions. He made the following change in the suggested condition of approval:
Condition No. 4 to read: Approval of this permit shall not constitute
approval of a day-care or nursery school.
Mr. Thurman Collier represented the applicant. He offered little comment except to say
that the sign which is on the property will be moved.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-95-28 Church of
God, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Relocation of the existing sign in order to achieve a minimum of 350 feet of sight
distance.
2. Paving of the entrance to the right-of-way limits.
3. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Addition to the
Nortonsville Church of God" dated June 2, 1995. Modifications to the site plan to
address the requirements and recommendations of the Site Review Committee shall be
permitted.
4. Approval of this permit shall not constitute approval of a day-care or nursery school.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
SP 95-26 Paul McGill - Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class B for a
blacksmith shop on 2.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(31)]. Property, described
as Tax Map 94, Parcel 28 is located on the south side of Route 250 approximately 600
feet east of Route 616 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant, Mr. Paul McGill, addressed the Commission. He said his neighbor, Mr.
Hunter, has expressed concerns about the request. He asked to be able to address
9-19-95 6
A&W those concerns after Mr. Hunter's comments. Ms. Vaughan asked Mr. McGill what type
of noise is produced by his operation. Mr. McGill said work with the iron would be the
only noise producing aspect of the work. He said he has taken steps to address noise
outside the structure through additional insulation. He did not think the noise would be
noticeable on adjacent property. He said his hours of operation would be between the
hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with no business work occurring on weekends. He pointed
out that some of his work is performed off site. He described his work as being
primarily "ornamental items" and repairs. He said he does not do farrier work.
Mr. Fritz said much of Mr. McGill's work falls under the heading of Agricultural Service
Occupation, which does not require a special permit. But enough of his work does not
fit that description so as to "push it over into the Home Occupation Class B."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Bruce Hunter, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He read a
prepared statement wherein he expressed his opposition to the request. His reasons
were as follows:
--The use will change the character of the district. This is a residential
neighborhood. The use proposed is of an industrial nature and the applicable
performance standards are those of an industrial district.
--The structure proposed for the activity is only 80 feet from his dwelling.
--He quoted from section 5.2.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance: The following
regulations shall apply to any home occupation: Any accessory structure which does
not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main structures in the district in
which it is located shall not be used for any home occupation. The required setback is
25 feet; the structure to be used for the activity is only 16 feet from the property line.
--Concerns about pollution from smoke and particulate matter.
--Concerns about noise. He doubted that the type of insulation being used
would be sufficient to significantly dampen the inordinate level of noise which will result
when steel hammers strike metal with a force sufficient to work it into a product. The
Performance Standards which address noise are not based on what can reasonably be
expected in a residential neighborhood. The Standards are based on a level of noise
that is acceptable in an industrial district. He quoted from Section 4.1.4 of the
Ordinance: No use shall hereafter be established or conducted in any industrial district
in any manner in violation of the following standards of performance: (Section 4.14.1)
Before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m. the permissible sound levels at an agricultural or
residential district boundary where adjoining industrial districts shall be reduced by 5
decibels in each octave band and in the overall band for impact noises. Based on
these performance standards, he said approval of this permit would mean "industrial
levels of noise are permitted 80 feet from my home between the hours of 7 o'clock a.m.
and 7 o'clock p.m., seven days a week, 365 days a year." He thought this was "an
absolutely unacceptable standard for a residential neighborhood."
'1(to
9-19-95 7
--Though not presently proposed, the fear that a power hammer could be added
to the operation at some future time.
--Decline in property value.
Mr. Hunter said the applicant has conscientiously attempted to belay his concerns and
fears and he wishes him success in his attempt to earn a living as a blacksmith.
However, he said he has no desire to "finance that initiative by a decrease in value in
his family's assets, and a decrease in the quality of life in his neighborhood."
Mr. Gordon Wheeler, a local real estate broker, addressed the Commission. He
expressed the professional opinion that approval of this permit will be "most
detrimental" to the value of Mr. Hunter's property and also to other properties in the
neighborhood.
Mr. McGill addressed some of Mr. Hunter's comments. He said he had not been aware
of the extent of Mr. Hunter's concerns until this meeting. He pointed out that the area is
zoned RA and the same occupation has been approved twice previously within 4 miles
of his property. He thought it is unfair to describe his work as being industrial. He
conceded that industrial type processes are used in his work, but he stressed that they
are limited in scope. He said he has no plans to ever use a power hammer in his
operation and he was not opposed to such a restriction being placed on the permit. He
explained he has worked in the proposed structure, on a hobby basis, for some time.
He said the process uses a coal fire which does not produce voluminous smoke. He
said wood stoves and trash burning produce much more smoke. He stressed he was
committed to maintaining the existing quality of life of the neighborhood.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Kamptner said special permits run with
the land. Mr. Fritz said Mr. McGill has offered that the special permit not extend beyond
his ownership of the property to any other individual or entity. Based on advice of
previous county attorneys, such a condition was not proposed by staff.
Mr. Blue said he was most concerned about the potential noise issue. He asked if staff
felt the Performance Standards were adequate to prevent the operation from being
objectionable to the adjacent property. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the applicant has
offered to prohibit a power hammer. Mr. Keeler thought a practical approach would be
for Mr. McGill and Mr. Hunter to get together and conduct some noise tests. (Mr.
Keeler offered no further answer to Mr. Blue's question.)
Mr. Jenkins said he was sympathetic to the applicant's request, but, based on the
objection of the adjacent property owner, he said he could not support the request.
71
9-19-95 8
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-95-26 for Paul McGill, be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue said he would support the motion, though he was sympathetic to the applicant.
He said: "I just feel this is a problem we get into because we have residential areas in
rural agricultural areas. It's something I've harped on for a long time. It seems we need
some other zone. You have 2-acre lots there and this activity might not be
objectionable if it were on a farm or a much larger area. But as close as it is to the
neighbor, and having to grant a waiver for the setback, I cannot support it. Though I
believe Mr. McGill is sincere in not wanting to cause trouble, it could sure happen and I
think it could make it very noisy for adjacent owners on either side."
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
SUB-95-076 - Montfair Estates Preliminary Plat - A rural preservation development to
create 19 development lots (average 2.8 acres) with 76 acres of open space/golf
course and a 72.7 acre preservation tract from four lots. All development lots are to be
served by internal private roads. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcels 33, 33A,
33B and 33F, is located on the northwest side of Route 673 approximately 0.3 miles
west of its intersection with Route 810 zoned RA, Rural Areas in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This property is not located in a designated growth area. (Rural
Area 1)
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report explained the request had originally
been approved December 10, 1991. Because approvals of both preliminary and final
plats expired, the applicant was resubmitting the application. The staff report
concluded: "Staff is unable to identify any changes to ordinances or changes in
circumstance which alter the original staff report prepared for this application. Staff
opinion is that the previous action by the Planning Commission was appropriate and
that no changes have occurred since the original review. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of this application with the same conditions contained in the December 10,
1991, action by the Planning Commission."
Mr. Fritz confirmed the item was before the Commission because "all Rural
Preservation Development site plans must come before the Commission."
The applicant, Mr. Phil Sheridan, was present. He explained that the original approvals
had expired because there had been a possibility the entire tract would be sold. The
sale had not taken place, but during the negotiation process, the approvals ran out. He
asked the Commission to re -approve the request.
78
9-19-95 9
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Montfair Estates
Preliminary Plat be approved, subject to the same conditions approved previously:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the
following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations.
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations.
c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit
d. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval of a rural preservation
easement.
e. Staff approval of a road name.
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of drainage plans and
calculations.
g. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit if required.
h. Health Department approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
Request for Resolution of Intent - To amend the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
to Reflect the Code of Virginia and Current Practice Related to Validity of Plans, Length
of Review Prior to Action, Notification, Appeals and Administration Procedural Matters.
Mr. Keeler gave a brief staff report.
MOTION: To serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning
practice, Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Albemarle County Planning Commission adopt
a Resolution of Intent to consider the amendment of the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances as follows:
1. Amend notification provisions for home occupations.
2. Amend notification procedures related to posting signs.
3. Amend to provide for family day home (fewer than six children) consistent
with Code requirements.
4. Amend to codify current administrative review process.
5. Amend to revise time period for site plan/subdivision review.
6. Amend to revise time period of validity of site plan/subdivision plats.
66
9-19-95 10
VAW 7. Amend to provide regulation of group homes consistent with Code
requirements.
8. Amend to clarify period of validity for establishing a use by special use permit.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Nitchmann asked that the Commission be brought up-to-date on the status of the
Ivy Landfill situation. Mr. Keeler said the Watershed Management Official is currently
working on a report.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
2