HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 08 1994 PC Minutes2-8-94
FEBRUARY 8, 1994
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, February S,
1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were:
Mr. V, Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr.
Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
January 25, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
Jacob's Run Ag_nq W1 ural/Forestal District Review - Review of the Jacob's Run
Agricultural/Forestal District which consists of 1.123 acres located on Rts. 743, 764, 664,
665, and 664 near Earlysville. The existing district is proposed to be continued for six years.
(Citing a conflict of interests, Ms. Huckle excused herself from hearing this item. She left
the meeting.)
Mr. Blue chaired the meeting in Ms. Huckle's absence.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of the district, but for
a four-year, rather than a six -year time period.
Ms. Imhoff attempted to understand the difference between the four-year and six year periods.
Ms. Scala explained that a four-year period would bring the item under consideration sooner,
and more in line with a Comp Plan review in the event the Board may want to consider
expansion of the Earlysville Village.
Mr. Dotson asked what effect the A-F district would have on a possible expansion of the
Earlysville Village, if it were in place at the time the expansion was under consideration.
"Would the district automatically be cancelled? Would it simply run out and couldn't be
renewed, that part in the growth area?" Ms. Scala explained that it would not cancel the
district, but it would create a conflict. She explained that it is a statewide policy not to
approve A-F district's within growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg added: "It would also create an
area which could not be more intensely developed, that would be in the growth area, until the
district was, in fact, discontinued in that area."
Ms. Imhoff pointed out: "Even if that were the case, if the landowner's choose not to develop
it, it doesn't matter what you zone it or call it." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed Ms. Imhoffs
statement was accurate. He added: "The other option would be if someone chose to develop
because they are going to be in the growth area, they could ask for withdrawal from the
district."
23
2-8-94
The Chair invited public comment.
2
Ms. Anne Mallick, Dr. John Huckle, and Mr. Jim Heyward, participants in the district,
addressed the Commission and urged the Commission to approve the district for a six -year
time period. Ms. Mallick described her farm. Regarding the possibility of the expansion of
the Earlysville Village, both Ms. Mallick and Dr. Huckle expressed concerns about
groundwater availability.
Ms. Karen Strickland, an Earlysville resident, expressed support for the district and for the
maintenance of the rural quality of the area. She also commented on the issue of protection
of Jacob's Run because of the future possible use of Chris Green Lake as a water supply
reservoir. In the interests of protecting Chris Green Lake as a potential future reservoir, and
in so doing, saving taxpayer's money by not having to create another reservoir, she
recommended that the district be approved for the maximum of ten years.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was
placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked for further clarification as to why staff recommended four years rather
than 6 as requested by the applicants. Mr. Cilimberg again explained that the timing is
related to the Comp Plan review and the question of the possible expansion of the Earlysville
Village.
Ms. Imhoff noted that though a six -year period might result in a "conflict", it would not
actually be a hinderance, i.e. "it would not automatically drop the land out of the A-F district
and when it came up, whenever the Comp Plan review came up, it could be corrected at that
time." She explained she was trying to figure out if there was some "hidden flaw or problem
or if this is simply a matter of trying to match up dates."
Mr. Cilimberg explained that it was a matter of "consistency." Mr. Blue added: "The key
word is consistency, because I think staff has always recommended that if the Comp Plan
review is coming up, on various other issues, it's 'wait until we get the Comp Plan before we
go foward with any more long term arrangement.' That is the main (point) I got out of the
report."
Regarding the possible expansion of Earlysville, Mr. Cilimberg explained there had been no
"master scheme of expansion" during the last Comp Plan review. In the upcoming review,
there is at least one one request for possible expansion.
Referring to the idea of "consistency," Ms. Imhoff stated: "Usually we use that argument
when we are looking at increasing density.... So I think it is not the same rule when we are
looking at something which is basically a holding, or low, or undeveloped area." She felt part
of the Comp Plan review discussion would be about the meaning of "rural area" and "are
there things which need to be differentiated in the rural area?"
3I/
2-8-94 3
Mr. Dotson commented: "In terms of consistency, another issue we are going to have to face
is, if we're saying 'let's not develop this area,' then we also have an obligation to say where
we are going to develop and that might be this area, if it's expanded, or some others."
Regarding A-F districts, Mr. Dotson commented: "The A-F districts are a very valuable tool.
They are not a regulatory device --the fact that they are voluntary; the fact that they offer an
incentive to a property owner; the fact that they really impose little in the way of public cost
in terms of services, are things very much in their favor. I also appreciate that we have
people like these property owners, with their values and attitudes and a willingness to
undertake some risks to continue farming in a growing, expanding environment. So, I am
very sympathetic to it. However, in my own value scheme, I would probably support the
staff recommendation because of the consistency reason, fully expecting that there's a very
good chance that this will continue in agriculture, that the village wouldn't expand. But just
for consistency sake, I think on principle, I would support 4 years, rather than 6 or 8 or 10."
Mr. Blue expressed agreement with Mr. Dotson's comments.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed his support for a four-year period.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that the Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval with a time period of four years.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Imhoff stated she was more in favor of the Advisory Committee's recommendation for a
six -year time period. She explained: "I don't think consistency quite works the same way
and I think the advantages of the district outweigh --particularly since farming is a long-term
activity --would for me push me over into the six -year period."
Mr. Blue stated: "I, personally, doubt that the Earlysville growth area is going to be
expanded in the Comprehensive Plan. Nevertheless, I do think that consistency is important,
and I do think it's the same. There are people that are arguing for more density and we're
putting them off, and we're putting them off and saying 'No, wait until you have the
Comprehensive Plan review,' and I think that the same thing happens. And I think that the
people who are here and wanting a longer term committment, if they don't change their
property, it's not going to change. So, I don't see that we're doing a disservice to anybody"
Mr. Jenkins noted that the participants had asked for six -years. It was his belief that
historically, requests for withdrawals from districts have been approved. He stated he was
having "trouble realizing what the magic is in 4 or 6."
Referring to Mr. Jenkins comments, Mr. Cilimberg explained that with the exception of one
2-8-94 4
instance where a piece of property was in the path of the By-pass route, requests for
withdrawal from districts have "not gone forward due to lack of support." He stressed: "For
the record, I wanted it to be clear that withdrawals are not a normal occurance and, in fact,
have not been encouraged, and the Ag-Forestal Advisory Committee has not looked favorably
upon them."
The motion for approval of the district with a 4-year time period passed (5:1) with Ms.
Imhoff casting the dissenting vote.
(Ms. Huckle returned to the meeting.)
SP-93-41 Pagebrook Farm - Petition to locate a total of six (6) impounding structures in
floodplain on 315.86 acres [30.3.5.2.1.1] zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. Property, described as Tax Map 50, Parcel 34, is located on the east side of Rt. 231
approximately 0.25 miles north of the Rt. 231/640 intersection at Cash's Comer. This
property is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area II).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if all downstream property owners had been notified (in addition to
adjacent property owners). He was concerned about downstream owners who might possibly
be dependent on this water. Ms. Hipski explained that this gets into the area of riparian
rights and that the "applicant, before obtaining engineering approval, is going to have to
demonstrate that the downstream properties will not be negatively effected by the
impoundments." She explained that the weirs would not actually be dams because water
would actually flow over the top. Mr. Nitchmann noted that, even so, as water levels drop,
the water would not flow over the top of the weirs and the downstream flow would be
impacted. Mr. Nitchmann wanted some assurance that property owners, for a reasonable
distance downstream, had received notification.
Mr. Blue expressed concern about the fact that the Corps of Engineers and VMRC "declared
this to be an intermittent rather than a perennial stream, then got out of any responsibility for
it." He did not think that was the definition that has been used "all these years." Mr. Hipski
explained that VMRC would consider this an intermittent stream if the watershed is less than
5 square miles. This watershed is approximately 2.8 square miles. (Mr. Blue noted that the
county does not use that definition.)
Ms. Huckle asked if staff knew what the water was to be used for. Ms. Hipski stated that the
applicant is presently unsure as to the exact use.
2-8-94 5
Regarding notification, Mr. Cilimberg noted that the requirements of the Ordinance have been
satisfied, and "beyond that next property which Ms. Hipski pointed to, there would not have
been notification for the special use permit." He added that the County would not be getting
into a notification process which was connected with riparian rights. He was uncertain as to
whether any of the other agencies involved in the permitting process would notify
downstream property owners.
Mr. Bowling briefly explained the meaning of riparian rights: "It is a Common Law concept
which exists in the Commonwealth of Virginia which says you as a landowner, if you have a
stream or a body of water running across your property, you have the right to use that
property in conjunction with other downstream property owners, who also have the right to
use that water which may run across their property." He added that it is a common law right
and there is no formula attached which says what can be withdrawn. He stated that usually
riparian rights violations are related to diversion of a stream or "making it go away." He was
not aware of (in legal literature) instances were small farm ponds were in violation of
riparian rights.
Mr. Blue called attention to a discrepancy in the staff report, i.e. in one instance two existing
ponds are mentioned, while in another place four are mentioned. Ms. Hipski explained that
the applicant's letter refers to "four small ponds," but she had only been able to locate two
small ponds when she visited the site.
Ms. Huckle asked "what are the options if this doesn't work out on the ground as well as it
does on paper." Ms. Hipski reported that the Engineering Department did not feel a bond
would be necessary. Ms. Huckle called attention to condition No. 3 which requires
"provisions for maintenance of stream water quality and quantity, i.e. water temperature,
dissolved oxygen content, base flow during low flow periods." Ms. Hipski explained those
items would be part of the preliminary approval but would not be monitored by Engineering
afterwards. She noted, however, that those items would be tied in with the Water Quality
Impact Assessment under the purview of the Water Resources Manager (condition No. 4).
Mr. Blue questioned whether the Engineering Department would be able to enforce condition
No. 3.
Ms. Hipski pointed: "This is a special use permit and the County does have the ability to
enforce those conditions."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee, engineer for the project. (He was
accompanied by Mr. Steve Driver.) Responses to Commission comments and questions
included the following:
--Fairly exhaustive, though preliminary, hydrologic studies have been submitted to the
County Engineering Department.
--"We believe, and the Engineering Department concurs, that the impact to upstream
properties will be negligable."
17
2-8-94 6
--"We believe, using normal and rational flow data ... the impact on the eastern side of
231 would virtually be nil."
--"Based on our calculations, any upstream flooding on 231, west of 231, is the result
of constriction of the box culvert under 231 and not a result of anything that might happen
downstream. That's happening now and will probably continue to happen unless something is
done to that box culvert."
--"Concerning the effect on downstream properties, it is the intent of the owner that
pumping, or use, of this water will be restricted during low flow conditions.... It is not the
intent to use this water in an irrational manner."
--"It is the intent to use these impoundments as a source to replenish the four existing
ponds for agricultural use" during those months of the year when these ponds might dry up.
"It is not the intent to use these ponds to water cattle directly. It is really just to be used as a
supplemental source to the existing farm ponds."
--"If the reservoirs (in these impoundments) are full, the amount of water flowing to
downstream properties will be the same regardless of whether the reservoir is there or not ... the
only exception being some loss due to evaporation."
--The owner of the farm to the south (Mr. Taylor) has been contacted and he
expressed no concerns.
--The impounding structures have been designed so as to minimize impact on the
floodplain. The weirs will be lower in height than the natural creek bank. The creek, in the
vicinity of each weir, will be widened by approximately 10 feet on either side, allowing the
water to pass across the weir and approximate the volume that would pass in the natural
channel.
--The box culvert is controlling the backwater on the upstream side of the culvert. It
is not being controlled by anything that is occuring downstream.
Mr. Blue agreed with the applicant's engineers regarding the upstream flooding. Regarding
the intended use for the impoundments (to pump water into the existing ponds during dry
seasons), Mr. Blue noted that if the water Ievel in the ponds is low, the water level in the
creek will be low also, so water will, "obviously," be taken out of the creek during a low
water time because that is when it will be needed. Mr. McKee explained that it would be the
intent to replenish the ponds before the drought season. Mr. Blue also expressed the belief
that during a flood, the "weirs are either going to go out or they are going to silt up and
nature is going to take over, unless the owner is prepared to go in there after each flood and
clean the silt up and re -do it." Mr. Blue concluded: "It seems to me, just from a practical
standpoint, it's probably a waste of money."
In response to Ms. Huckie's question, Mr. McKee explained that the four existing ponds are
used as a watering source for livestock. The ponds are not used for irrigation purposes. Mr.
McKee did not think livestock would have access to the impoundments. He explained that
the reason for the ponds is to keep the cattle away from the creek. (Mr. Blue commented that
unless the cattle were fenced out of the creek, "it looks to me like you're building 6 watering
holes for the cattle.")
2-8-94 7
Regarding backing water over 231, Mr. McKee explained: "Based on calculations using a
certain coefficient and runoff for the watershed area that we were able to determine, with the
existing box culvert situation, and the impoundments as we've laid them out, using that flow,
water would inundate 231 by approximately 2 feet, and in so doing raise the backwater
condition by .4 of a foot." Mr. McKee explained that he felt "that's too conservative," i.e.
"that number is too high and if that number were to be reduced, that backwater might be 112
inch to an inch." He concluded: "Ragardless of what the number is, the design would be
such that we would not have a backwater condition caused by these impoundments. I think
there already is a backwater condition caused by 231 and the box culvert."
Referring to condition No. 3, Mr. Dotson asked the applicant for an example of the kinds of
provisions that are planned for achievement of the three goals (water temperature, dissolved
oxygen content, base flow during low flow periods). Mr. McKee responded: "They can all
be monitored. I would hope that we wouldn't have to monitor this after these facilities were
installed. All of those water characteristics can be measured and reported and documented to
the appropriate agencies but I would certainly hope that we wouldn't have to do that. If the
Commission and Board approve this special permit, it still requires a permitting by the
Department of Environmental Quality and that would be the State agency that would make
the decision as to what had to be done to ensure compliance."
Mr. Blue felt it would be difficult for the County or any agency to monitor those conditions.
Mr. Nitchmann felt this was a great deal of expense for the intended purpose. He questioned
how the cattle would be kept out of the impoundments if there was no plan to fence the cattle
out of the creek. He again expressed concern about effect on downstream properties. He did
not think there would be any overflow over the weirs during low water times if water was
being pumped out. He felt the same result could have been achieved by "just drilling a well
to keep the ponds full." He concluded: "Something tells me there is something to this other
than trying to keep some ponds filled up with water."
Ms. Imhoff asked what assurance there was that the first weir would be located "no closer
than 800 feet." Mr. Driver explained that the locations would need to be more fine tuned in
the field, but "as far as the first weir is concerned, we feel that it should be a certain
minimum distance from St. Rt. 231, so as not to impound water that would change...." Mr.
Driver expressed no opposition to an additional condition restricting the first weir to "no
closer than 800 feet."
Mr. Cilimberg explained it would the responsibility of the Zoning and Engineering
Departments to inspect the location of the weirs. He was uncertain how that inspection would
take place.
Mr. Dotson asked if the Water Quality Impact Assessment (condition No. 4) would consider
off -site as well as on -site impacts: "Would it consider wetlands, fisheries, habitats
downstream, perhaps, and would it include provision for either avoiding or mitigating any
-3,7
2-8-94 8
adverse impacts that the Impact Assessment discovered?" Mr. Driver replied: "That would
be the purpose of the Water Quality Impact Assessment. David Hirschman, the water quality
official, would review that, but it would include those items that you mentioned. That is the
purpose of that."
Ms. Huckle asked: "Do you have information on the base flow during low water periods?"
(Mr. Driver responded negatively.) Ms. Huckle interpreted: "So you don't really know then
yet what you would be trying to maintain during low flow periods if you don't know what it
is beforehand." Mr. McKee explained that the applicant feels that field measurements are
not necessary at this stage of the process. He added that this request is for a special permit,
and provided it is not detrimental to adjacent properties, does not change the character of
the district and does not harm the general public health, safety and welfare, it is an acceptable
use for agricultural land. He pointed out that the conditions suggested are "pretty thorough."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. James Green, "owner of the property contiguous to Pagebrook Farm to the west,"
(upstream) addressed the Commission. Responding to a question asked earlier, he explained
that Mechunk has only a trickle of water during drought conditions. His concern was that the
weirs, during flood periods, "would back water under 231 and over (his) lowlying pasture."
He presented a video showing Mechunk Creek during flood stage (late February 1993). (It
was taken from the front porch of his home.) He also felt downstream properties would be
adversely effected during drought periods.
Mr. William Harris, owner of parcels 67 and 68, addressed the Commission. He expressed
the following concerns:
--The proposed use for the ponds has not been made clear.
--What will happen when flow is restricted during low -flow periods?.
--What will be the impact of construction in a stream in a "notorious flood time,
particularly in a 100 year floodplain?"
--No convincing data has been presented that there will be no negative environmental
impacts.
--No data has been presented to support the construction of 6 weirs, as opposed to 2 or
4or1.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was
placed before the Commission.
Referring to the engineer's statement that flooding on 231 is caused by restrictions of the
culvert, Mr. Dotson asked: "In deciding and calculating that these weirs would have no
effect, did you assume that that culvert would always pass the same amount of water that it
does today? In other words, if the property owners upstream were successful in convincing
the Highway Department to replace that so that it would pass all the water through, would the
weirs them have the effect of backing the water up and not allowing it to pass through?"
2-8-94 9
Based on high-water marks placed on the bridge by the Highway Department, Mr. Driver
stated: "There is nothing to indicate that the road has been topped by a 100-year storm since
the culvert has been in place." He added that it appears this culvert has been designed to
handle a 100-year storm.
Mr. Blue felt a larger culvert would result in the weirs having less effect on upstream
property. Mr. Driver added: "As far as the backwater is concerned, obviously, any effect it
may have on upstream properties will be different, depending on whether the road is topped
or it isn't topped...."
Mr. Blue interpreted from Mr. Driver's comments: "You're saying, that he (Mr. Dotson) is
correct --if they enlarge it so there isn't any head, it could have a negligable effect on the
floodplain upstream." Mr. Driver responded: "That's right."
Ms. Vaughan asked how 6 weirs had been arrived at, i.e. how had the number been
determined? Mr. Driver explained that the number was based on the quantity of water that
will be necessary, though no "hard calculations" have yet been performed. He added that the
Department of Environmental Quality will eventually require that the applicant substantiate
the number of weirs being requested. Thus, the number could change, based on DEQ's
review. He stated the location of the weirs shown were the result of a consideration of where
they could best be used, agriculturally.
Mr. Driver explained that the two existing ponds, because of their location, have very little
surface flow feeding them and they also have soils which do not hold water well.
Given the vagueness of the proposed use of the ponds, it was Mr. Blue's feeling that the
proposal was more an "aesthetic thing" if they were not going to be used for irrigation., i.e.
"It'd be nice to have your ponds full during dry years, all summer, and he is willing to spend
the money to pump out of the creek to do it."
Mr. Blue noted that it is usually his natural tendency to support a request for a special
permit if restrictions are placed on it to protect the public. In this case, he stated he was in a
"quandry," but he concluded he was tending to go along with staff. He expressed opposition
to the proposal because he felt it would "damage the stream and would not do the property
owner much good." He questioned whether the Commission had the authority to "make that
kind of decision."
Mr. Jenkins stated he could not support the request because he could see no practical purpose
"other than exercise." He also felt that once DEQ gets involved, "that will be the end of it."
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-93-41 for Pagebrook Farm be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. He explained that his opposition was based on the
J//
2-8-94
all
feeling that there would be a detrimental effect to property owners downstream.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle agreed with Mr. Nitchmann.
Ms. Imhoff stated part of her concern that "it might have a detrimental effect" was based on
the fact that "the agricultural use has not been defined." She, too, felt that pumping water out
would definitely have a detrimental downstream effect.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
ZMA-93-18 Forest Lakes Associates/Hollymead Citizens AA soociation - Petition to amend
ZMA-91-04 Forest Lakes Associates and ZMA-92-02 Hollymead to add 2.071 square feet
currently in the Hollymead PUD open space to the Forest Lakes South PUD as area for right-
of-way dedication. Property, described as Tax Map 46, parcel 26B 1 is located east of
Kendalwood Drive in Forest Lakes South and directly south of the Greens of Hollymead in
Hollymead. The proposed road will cross a tributary to Powell Creek. Zoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located in a
designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for medium density.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended modification of the Hollymead
open space and approval of ZMA-93-18.
Mr. Cilimberg explained the history of Hollymead and explained that the "shortage is
technically just a result of it's being an old plan."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He stated that if shortage of open space
is a problem in Hollymead, he would be glad to give them "whatever land is shown."
However, he stated he didn't really want to because of the expense involved and because it
"wouldn't make any practical difference anyway." He pointed out that there are 43 lots in this
area and it is in the process of subdivision.
In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Runkle stated there "are no real alternatives in
terms of access."
In regards to provisions for pedestrians, Mr. Runkle explained: "We will have a paved,
walking jogging trail that links to Forest Lakes down along the boundary of this section 15
and along Powell Creek. When that is done pedestrian access will go through this open
space. It is not necessarily in the same location as the road though it may go through in the
same location." Mr. Dotson asked if the road would interfere with pedestrian access crossing
the open space. Mr. Runkle explained the only place where the road will cross the open
space is in an area of steep terrain, which he could not conceive would be a jogging area.
401
2-8-94 11
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was
placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that modification of the Hollymead open space-- ZMA-93-18,
Forest Lakes Associates/Hollymead Citizens Association --resulting in an amendment to ZMA-
91-04 (Forest Lakes Associates) and ZMA-92-02 (Virginia Land Trust), in order to modify
SP-156 North Corporation/Hollymead Planned Community as follows:
Section B net density shall not exceed 4.81 dwelling units per acre.
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
ZMA-93-20 Albert DeRose - Petition to amend the Buck Mountain Planned Residential
Development (PRD) to allow the subdivision of a 5.9 acre parcel. Zoned PRD, Planned
Residential Development in the White Hall Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax
Map 601, approximately 0.33 miles north of the 601/667 intersection. This property is not
located in a designated growth area (Rural Area I).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that approval of
this request would set a precedent possibly permitting development of a portion of the Buck
Mountain development at a density greater than that originally anticipated.... Staff
recommends denial of this request."
Ms. Imhoff asked if there have been other requests to create additional lots within this PRD.
Mr. Fritz reported that he had not been able to identify any other requests. Ms. Imhoff
interpreted: "So this is the first time within this Planned Residential Development where
someone bought a lot that had one house on it, that this has come up?" Mr. Fritz explained:
"It's a modification of what the approved plan was."
Mr. Dotson asked if the request was to rezone this one lot or to modify the entire PRD, Mr.
Fritz replied: "It's to modify the PRD upon this one portion (lot) of the PRD. As a practical
matter, it's on this property only." Mr. Cilimberg added: "Any amendment to a planned
development, even though it's only a minor part of the whole planned development is an
amendment to the whole."
Mr. Dotson asked if all property owners had to apply since it technically amends the whole
PRD. Mr. Bowling replied: "No. Since it just effects this property, just this applicant has to
apply." Mr. Fritz explained that the adjoining property owners were notified and since one of
the adjoining properties is the open space, the Homeowners' Association was notified.
17�
2-8-94 12
Mr. Blue stated: "We can assume everybody who bought Iots in the PRD knew what the
PRD requirements were." Mr. Fritz agreed that was a reasonable assumption. It was noted
there had been one commercial lot with the original PUD, but since it no longer exists, it had
changed to PRD in 1990. The property owner had instituted that change.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Riddle. She described the history of the
applicant's ownership of the property. She also described what had taken place during 1990
when several owners of the larger parcels had initiated a rezoning request to have their
properties rezoned to RA. Those parcels less than 10 acres were zoned PRD. She pointed
out that "it is conceivable that parcels to the rear of this property could be developed in as
small as 2 acres, by right." She called attention to other small parcels in the immediate
vicinity which were zoned RA. She felt the staffs analysis was inconsistent, explaining:
"After being told to initiate rezoning, we now have a staff assessment of this request as
though it were a special use request within the RA zone. Section 10 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which is frequently referenced in the staff report, applies to RA zoning. If the
DeRose property were zoned RA, we would not be here as this request would be permitted by
right. I fail to understand how this request can be evaluated under two separate zoning
designations." She agreed that the history of the property was confusing, but it was her belief
that "staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, in the past, recognized
that RA is the consistent zoning of the parcels within Buck Mountain, and perhaps if it were
not for the existence of a few noncomplying lots and some designated open space, this parcel
would have been designated RA in 1990." She noted that this parcel benefits neither from
PRD designation, nor benefits, in this case, by a RA zoning and it seems that these parcels
have been left somewhere in the middle." She concluded: "This proposed division is
compatible with the character of the adjacent parcels and is consistent with the original PUD
approval." She pointed out that the DeRoses have maintained the woods on their property,
limiting the view from St. Rt. 601 and will continue to do so. She also pointed out that
when the DeRoses purchased the land they were told by the mortgage lender that they could
build a second dwelling on the property, and it has always been their intention to do so. They
wish to build a small retirement home and sell the other dwelling. She was aware of no
neighborhood opposition to the request.
Mr. Blue asked questions about access for the parcel. Ms. Riddle explained there is an
entrance "south" which they would "either share or have a joint entrance."
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Blue stated that if it were possible for this to be a family division, he could support it.
However, under the circumstances, a family division is not possible and the request is not for
a family division even if it were possible. He stated that regardless of the reason the
applicant had kept the PRD designation, rather than going to RA, they had kept it. He
concluded he agreed with staffs analysis.
44
2-8-94 13
Ms. Imhoff stated she had tried to "second guess" the 1990 decision in trying to find some
other rationale, but at this point, she feels it is is not consistent with the PRD. She
concluded: "I would feel that we would have to address all the lots in the PRD and, on that
basis, I would support Tom's position."
Mr. Jenkins wondered if this was an area which should be studied --"Are there some inequities
here someplace?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It's a rural area and I really don't think any
study would be necessary. I think the reasoning for keeping PRD, very honestly, was based
on a portion of the plan that had been exercised and an assumption by the County and the
buyers that that was the way that that area would develop."
Mr. Blue asked: "Are you saying that when we look at the Comp Plan, that even though the
Comp Plan now says it's rural areas and we've got a PRD there, that we wouldn't
automatically look at that to see if we should make them conforming,.,. or are you saying that
if we didn't instigate that, the property owners would have to do it.?"
Mr. Cilimberg replied: "It could be instigated by the County or property owners but it would
not be a part of the Comprehensive Plan process. That's a rezoning process and I think that
that could be taken up today. The Camp Plan stands, and, I don't think, unless it has drastic
changes, it will change the analysis."
Referring to the 1990 rezoning, Mr. Blue asked: "Were most of the people involved at that
time --the lot owners --did they choose to keep the PRDT' Mr. Cilimberg: "With the applicant
and the property representatives we were dealing with, they agreed that that seemed to be the
most reasonable course." He noted that the DeRoses are an example of "property owners who
probably weren't really involved at that time."
Mr. Bowling asked: "Were the large lot owners zoned single-family in the PRD?"
Mr. Cilimberg: "Originally, those large lots were shown for smaller, single family lots."
Mr. Bowling: "When they transferred them to RA, did they automatically get development
rights?"
Mr. Cilimberg: "I'd have to ask the Zoning Administrator; but those RA parcels, as created,
were not parcels of record, in 1980. So, I don't know what rights they have for additional
development."
Regarding the applicant's statement that the lot behind the property in question is RA and has
development rights, Mr. Cilimberg could not confirm the accuracy of that statement. (Ms.
Riddle offered: "All of the total lot numbers analyses that they did talked about those parcels
developing with RA development. So it implied to me that they had development rights.)
Mr. Cilimberg continued: "That's right; we made an assumption at the highest possible
density. That has never been given to the Zoning Administrator for a determination."
416
2-8-94 14
Mr. Dotson noted that he felt other property owners, who had assumed this would be a single
family development, would want to be a part of any decision to change that. He viewed this
as "a spot -zoning kind of thing that is being asked of us, (which) could well devalue the
enjoyment of the rest of the property for others."
Mr. Blue continued to speculate on what might have happened or could have happened in
1990.
Ms. Imhoff noted: "It's a lot of applies, oranges and pears. We don't know this stuff. I think
the case before us tonight is, 'there was a contract.' In my sense this was a PUD to PRD;
people were told that they got one house per lot; there's a request to change it; I don't find
any grounds for changing it at this point."
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-93-20 for Albert De Rose be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
The motion passed (6:0:1) with Commissioner Vaughan abstaining.
ZMA--93-14 Rio Associates Limited Partnership - Petition to rezone approximately 1.6 acres
from R-6, Residential to CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 45, parcels
93A1, 109C, and 109 (pt) is located at the western intersection of Berkmar Drive and
Woodbrook Drive. This property is located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood
1) and is recommended for medium density.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending denial.
The applicant, Mr. Charles Hurt, Jr., pointed out an error in the staff report, i.e. that the
property under consideration is actually 3.9 acres (2 parcels), not 1.6 acres.
Mr. Bowling asked staff to check to see how the item had been advertised. While waiting for
staff to respond, the Chair invited applicant comment.
Mr. Hurt read a prepared statement which described the history of the property and the
proposed use.
Mr. Bowling stopped the hearing at this point after having determined that the item had not
been properly advertised. He confirmed that it would be improper procedure for the hearing
to continue.
Staff explained that the item would have to be readvertised.
2-8-94
15
There was a brief discussion as to how soon the item could be rescheduled.
Staff was unable to provide a date certain.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that ZMA-93-14 for Rio Associates
Limited Partnership be deferred indefinitely, with the understanding that it would be
rescheduled "as expeditiously as possible.".
The motion passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
There was a discussion of scheduling for upcoming work sessions. Mr. Dotson expressed the
hope that a "get -acquainted" session could be combined with the orientation work session.
The following decisions were made:
--The Orientation Work Session would be scheduled for 5:15, February 15 (as
previously agreed upon);
--The Survey will be mailed to the Commission. Commissioners will submit their
written comments to staff. A work session will be scheduled at a later date.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that he would be providing a report on the status of:
(1) Staffs Work Program; (2) The Comp Plan schedule; and (3) The Affordable Housing
report at the February 15 meeting.
Mr. Dotson asked that staff look into the possibility of "substantially accelerating" the Comp
Plan review. Ms. Imhoff expressed support for Mr. Jenkins' suggestion (made at a previous
meeting), that the Commission begin reviewing the plan. (NOTE: Ms. Imhoff suggested that
the Commission do this as a group, whereas Mr. Jenkins' suggestion had been that it be done
individually with written comments prepared by each Commissioner.)
Ms. Imhoff asked for a copy of the Ag and Forestal Industry Report. She also asked for
information on the RAW Water Study.
Ms. Imhoff asked if the Engineering Department could be represented at Commission
meetings.
1/7
2-15-94
lb
Ms. Imhoff expressed a lack of understanding as to why Commission meetings are changed to
Thursday nights during those weeks when staff has a Monday holiday. (Mr. Cilimberg
explained the reasons.) Ms. Imhoff felt it was "awkward" to switch to Thursday. Mr.
Cilimberg stated he would check to see if the Board had already adopted this year's schedule.
He stated an adjustment would be made, "if possible."
Ms. HuckIe asked if staff had begun to schedule Comp Plan review meetings in the
communities. She was aware of a meeting scheduled recently in Earlysville. Mr. Cilimberg
explained this was a meeting arranged by a citzens group, not by staff. Staff has scheduled
no meetings and will not do so without prior Commission knowledge.
Mr. Cilimberg report that he and the Engineering Department would be meeting with VDOT
on Wednesday, February 9 to discuss mountainous terrain standards.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p,m.
It •i
V. Wayne C' imberg, ecret
-Z/Y