HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 10 84 PC MinutesApril 10, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 10, 1984, Meeting Room 5-6, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr.
Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard
Gould; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Jim Skove. Other officials present were:
Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Planned and Mr. Keith Mabe, Chief of Community Development.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a
quorum was present. The minutes of August 31, 1982 were approved as submitted.
SP-84-8 Leslie A. Reaser - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(7) to locate
nursery school in residence on 5.525 acres zoned Rural Areas, Tax Map 57,
Parcel 67, White Hall District. Located northeast side of Rt. 680, +k mile
north of Beaver Creek Reservoir.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report.
The applicant was present but offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked that if at some future date the applicant wishes to
expand the operation to 20 children adjacent property owners be notified
and if there is public concern the Commission will hear the request.
Ms. Scala responded affirmatively.
Mr. Cogan indicated he had some concern about the road and asked that staff
notify him before approving an expansion administratively.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-84-8 for Leslie A. Reaser be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable;
2. Supplementary regulations 5.1.6 shall apply and-5.1.6(a> is -waived;
3. Staff approval of site plan including fenced play area and parking;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private
street commercial entrance permit;
5. This approval is valid for ten children with administrative (including
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation) approval required for
future expansion to twenty children maximum;
6. Fire Officer and Building Official approvals;
7. Health Department approval to be based on twenty children.
Ms. Diehl included in her motion the requirement for re -notification of
adjacent property owners in the event a request for expansion is made.
/to 9
April 10, 1984 Page 2
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-84-9 Paul D. Summers, Jr. and Jill F. Knole - Request in accordance with
Section 10.2.2(2) to locate Farmington Hunt Club on 55.63 acres zoned Rural
Areas, Tax 'lap 16, Parcel 26, White Hall District. Located on northwest
side of Rt. 671, approximately one :Wile south of its intersection with Rt. 601.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The report stated: "Staff _opinion is that
this proposed use is compatible with the character of the district and with
site plan approval will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties."
Ms. Scala noted that the Zoning Administrator had determined that a special
permit for a commercial kennel was not required because this kennel was
not of a commercial nature. However, Ms. Scala stated that because of the
number of .dogs which would be boarded, she had reviewed the application
under the commercial kennel standards.
In response to his. Diehl's questions, GIs. Scala explained that it was her
interpretation of the Ordinance that a 6-foot wall is required if the
facility is not soundproofed and if it is within 500 feet of the property line
soundproofing is required.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Forbes Reback. He explained the reason
for the relocation of the club. He stated. the applicant was willing to
abide by "reasonable regulations." He noted that the club could not
afford to build a soundproof building, nor could it afford to air condition
the building so the animals would be sleeping outdoors during the summer.
He pointed out there was only one close residence and the occupant of
that residence has been spoken with and has no opposition to the proposal.
He asked that the Commission not require soundproofing and not require
that the animals be kept inside during the summer.
Mr. Reback confirmed he was requesting that condition (5)--All dogs shall be
confined in an enclosed soundproofed building from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.--be dropped.
He also stated he would prefer that conditi6rr (3)-Fennel sliall be -located five
hundred feet (500') from, all property lines or two hundred feet (200') if
soundproofed such that noise.measured at the property line will not exceed
40 decibels --be dropped. He pointed out that the kennel would be placed
toward the "mountain side" of the property and there were presently no
residences close to that location and that the one dwelling in the area was
approximately 1,000 feet away.
There being no public comment, the Natter was placed before the Commission.
It was determined the Commission had no objection to deleting condition 5
and the last part of condition 3.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-84-9 for Paul D. Summers, Jr. and Jill F. Knole be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Administrative (Technical Review Committee) approval of site plan.
April 10, 1984
Page 3
2. Building Official and Health Department approval to insure the kennel is
designed so that all washdown water is directed to an approved septic system.
3. Kennel shall be located five hundred feet (500') from all property lines.
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance
permit.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-84-10 Louis S. Eaton - Request in accordance with Sec.30.3.5.2.1 to locate
low-water bridge over Little Ivy Creek, 20.350 acres zoned Rural Areas,.Tax
Map 58A(2), Parcel 24, Samuel Miller District. Located on north side of
Rt. 250 West in Ivy, behind Exxon Station.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The report summarized: "This stream crossing
would provide improved access to Route 250 West for two properties. Following
the writing of this report, the applicant changed the design from a culvert
to a span bridge, which is reflective of the Watershed Management Official's
comments. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has made comment
which would require more expensive design, the participation of the Mullers in
this petition and re-advertisement/additional hearings."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Eaton addressed the Commission. Regarding the Highway Department recommda-
tions, he explained that exiting the property from the existing driveway
was extremely dangerous and had been the site of several accidents. He
explained that closing the entrance as suggested by the H;.ghway Department
would have the following results: (1) No access to the property during
floods; (2) Difficulty accessing the property during periods of inclement
weather;. and (3) The construction of a bridge as recommended by the
Highway Department would involve considerable expense and would have to
involve the Mullers. He pointed out that the request was actually for a
private driveway and should not be subject to Highway Department
specifications. He noted the Mullers were not willing to close their
driveway but were willing to participate otherwise. Mr. Eaton confirmed
he had no objection to the condition that no further development would have
access to the new bridge. He stressed that the dangerous situation which
exists at his existing driveway was the result of the grading of Rt. 250.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
addressed the Commission. He gave the background of the pumping station. He
explained that the Highway Department's recommendation was that this entrance
would be better in terms of sight distance than the existing entrance. He
noted, however, that the Highway Department could not require that the
existing entrance be closed, but he stressed that the new entrance would be
safer.
Mr. Skove felt the proposal was an improvement over existing conditions.
/l40
April 10, 1984
Page 4
Mr. Cogan indicated he was supportative of the applicant's request and added
that he did not think conditions 4 and 5 were necessary. He saw no reason
to close the existing entrance.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-84-10 for Louis S. Eaton be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in floodplain
in accordance with S30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading
permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined
by the Watershed Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan and State Water Control
Board.
3. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies.
4. No further development without Planning Commission approval. (Note: This
condition was added later and agreed to by both the maker of the motion and by
the second.)
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
CPA-84-4 - Amendment of "Map.25: Albemarle County Service Authority Project
Areas 1982-2002" of County's Comprehensive Plan as it affects property on
south side of Garth Road (Rt. 601), just north of Farmington, for water service
only. (Property involved known as Inglecress Subdivision, formerly Berta Jones
Estate.)
Mr. Mabes gave the staff report.. He stated the Commission was being.asked to
consider the impact of the proposed change on the Comprehensive Plan.
The staff report stated that though the property was not located within a
growth area, the "Inglecress Subdivision was, however, 'approved.for 43 lots
by right and recently the Board of Supervisors had approved an amendment to the
water service area in Ivy, based upon the number of existing development
rights." Therefore, "if water service.is .extended to this previously approved
subdivision, no additional impact from development would occur because the
subdivision has by right the same number of lots --forty-three."
(The meeting recessed for 10 minutes.)
After the recess, Mr. Michel disqualified himself from hearing this item and
left the meeting.
Mr. James Gercke was present to represent the applicant. He gave a brief
history of the property and stated the applicant was readily agreeable to
restricting service to these 43 lots only. He also noted that the Fire Marshall
had authorized him to advise the Commission that he (the Fire Marshall) was
in favor of fire hydrants being included.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
/l/
April 10, 1984 Page 5
Ms. Diehl stated she was reluctant to alter the designated service area
because she felt the development could continue without the extension of
public water.
Mr. Skove agreed and stated he was not in favor of changing the jurisdictional
area without a good reason. He added, however, that if water should become
a problem in this area he would "certainly consider extending the boundaries"
at that time.
Mr. Mabe pointed out that it is generally felt.that_.public water is not as much
a "promoter of development" as is public sewer.
Mr. Cogan indicated he viewed this request as one of "loss vs. gain."
He noted the question of precedent as opposed to the fact that extension of
public water would result in better fire protection and some relief of the
burden on the groundwater supply.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the amendment because the property
was not located within the growth area, nor was it contiguous to the growth
area, and also because it was "before the fact of any proven need for water."
Ms. Diehl moved that CPA-84-4, to amend the Comprehensive Plan as it affects
property on south side of Garth Road, north of Farmington, be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion (to get it on the floor).
Discussion:
Mr. Bowerman felt Mr. Cogan's points were good ones; however, he pointed
out that the Jursidictional area has not been extendedoto other than
existing dwellings in the past and though this might not increase development,
it would still be a change in policy.
The motion for denial passed (4:2) with Commissioners Bowerman, Wilkerson, Diehl
and Skove voting for the motion and Commissioners Gould and Cogan voting against.
(Mr. Michel was absent.)
IBM Final Plat - Request to delete condition l(a) (Tax Map 60, Parcel 48).
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. (Note:. No written report had been prepared.)
The condition from which the applicant was seeking relief was as follows:
"Written agreement between property owners regarding the western property line."
Ms. Scala noted that the other conditions attached to the plat had been met.
Ms. Scala explained that there was some question about the correct boundary
line on western side of the property. She noted that the adjacent property
owner involved was the University of Virginia. She continued that Mr. Payne
had advised against the deletion of the condition because: (1) This falls
under the Subdivision Ordinance and staff's signatures are required on the
plat; (2) If the plat is signed before resolution of theissue, the matter
might never be resolved; and (3) There are two other solutions. Ms. Scala
//,g
April 10, 1984 Page 6
explained the two other solutions were: (1) A Quit Claim, either one way or the
other; or (2) Not to subdivide at this time but rather go ahead and build
the building as proposed on a total parcel of almost four acres. She stated
that the plat could then be signed and recorded after the boundary issue had
been resolved.
Mr. Payne explained further. He stated that based on a quick assessment of
the problem he felt the University did not have a substantial claim. Mr. Payne
stressed that he felt the entire concept of Subdivision approval "is exactly
what this is all about."
The applicant was represented by Mr.. Chuck Rotgin. He explained that the
applicant was requesting the deletion of condition 1(a) because of some
deadlines that were approaching. He stressed that the applicant was confident
their property line was accurate, and was prepared to give the County a
certified plat as to the boundaries.
31r. Lucius Bracey, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He pointed out that building would take place on the eastern side of the lot
and the boundary dispute was on the western side. He felt that this type
of condition (la) was inappropriate because it was in effect putting the
Commission in the "title insurance business." .Mr. Lacey pointed out that
the surveyor had not been required to include the disputed boundary but
had done so for information purposes.' He also assured the Commission that
the surveyor did not believe there was a substantial problem.
Referring to some of 1%1r. Payne's statements, Mr. Bowerman asked Mr.. Buddy
Edwards (the applicant's surveyor) if he could submit another plat, with
his seal, with the property lines as shown, without the dotted line. Mr.
Edwards responded: "Yes." Mr. Edwards felt this was "an incorrect boundary
as shown on another plat."
Mr. Payne stated: "The problem I have with this is the developer is asking
the County to buy something that at least one of his advisors might not
buy himself. I wouldn't certify this. ... The question I have for Mr. Bracey
is 'Would you be prepared to certify the titleto this property based on
the solid lines?' If he is and Mr. Edwards is prepared to do it --and I'm
not asking -for a certification --if he says he is prepared to do it, then I
advise you to go ahead, accept the new plat without the dotted line, get
a statement of that on the record tonight, or in writing or otherwise, and
relieve this -condition."
Mr. Rotgin responded: "We did not employ Mr. Bracey or their firm to certify
title. We havealready gotten a title binder from Southern Title." Mr.
Payne pointed out that Southern Title insured the title but that was not the
same as certification.
Mr. Bowerman stated that, based on the assurances made by the applicant and
ylr. Edwards, and because of the fact that if Mr. Edwards had not included
the dotted line on the plat to begin with the condition would never
have been placed on the plat, he was not opposed to removing condition 1(a).
April 10, 1989
Page 7
(Note: Mr. Bowerman announced that Mr. Wilkerson had disqualified himself
from hearing this request because of a possible conflict of interest.)
Mr. Payne suggested the following amended condition l(a): "Provision of amended
plat including certification of accuracy of western boundary to the
reasonable satisfaction of the staff and the County Attorney."
Mr. Payne added: "I don't require anything in writing. If Mr. Bracey tells
me he is happy with it --and I don't even say he has to certify it --if he
would certify it that's good enough for me."
Mr. Bracey responded: "I'm not employed to check the title. I don't think
it's a possible requirement on this condition and I'm not going to check the
title. ... That's why we've got a surveyor and what we've got title insurance
for."
Mr. Payne replied: "I think the Commission knows the issue."
There was some discussion as to whether or not to include "County Attorney"
in the amended condition read by Mr. Payne. It was mentioned by a Commissioner
that the County Attorney was a member of staff. It was finally determined
that reference to County Attorney would be omitted.
Ms. Diehl moved that condition 1(a) for the IBM Final Plat be amended to read
as follows:
f Provision of amended plat including certification of accuracy of western
boundary to the reasonable satisfaction of staff.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Skove stated he apparently did not understand the issue, but the Commission
relies on Mr. Payne's advice and that's what he was in favor of.
The motion passed (6:0).
CIP WORK SESSION
Mr. Mabe led the discussion. Discussed were the following categories:
Library, Miscellaneous, Utilities and Parks and Recreation.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 3-89
f/�