HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 10 1992 PC Minutes3-10-92
1
MARCH 10, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, MARCH 10 , 1992, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter
Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs
Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill
Fritz, Senior Planner; -Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
SP-91-55 Charles & Shelvie Morris - Petition to locate a
single wide mobile home on 13.999 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 36, Parcels 41 and
41B, is located on the northeast side of Rt. 608
approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the intersection of
Rts. 645 and 608 in the Rivanna Magisterial Distirct. This
site is not located in a designated growth area. Deferred
from February 11, 1992 Commission meeting.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report.
In response to questions about the recommended conditions of
approval, Mr. Cilimberg explained that the first 4
conditions were taken directly from the Zoning Ordinance
(Section 5.6.2).
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, the applicant
explained that the Health Department had already approved
well and septic locations. Ms. Hipski stated that staff had
not received any written approvals.
The applicant, Ms. Shelvie Morris, addressed the Commission.
She explained that the acreage was a total of 17 acres (not
14 as stated in the staff report). The mobile home was to
be occupied by Ms. Morris' son. She asked for permission to
rent the mobile home once her son no longer needs it.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed his support fo
also supported Ms. Morris' request for
condition restricting the occupancy to
He pointed out the majority of permits
wide mobile homes are administratively
r the application. He
deletion of the
family members only.
approved for single
approved and have no
raa
3-10-92
2
restriction against rental placed on them. He felt this
restriction should be lifted, at least until the Board of
Supervisors has reached a final decision on the rental of
single wide mobile homes.
Mr. Grimm explained that condition No. 5 [ The mobile home
shall be occupied only by Charles and Shelvie Morris or
their family.] has historically been placed on single wide
mobile homes by the Board. He felt it had been agreed that
this policy would remain until the report of the Housing
Committee has been completed and the Board has resolved the
issue.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that SP-91-55
for Charles & Shelvie Morris, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval.
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of
the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and approval by the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current
regulations.
4. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die.
5. The mobile home shall be occupied only by Charles and
Shelvie Morris or their family. (NOTE: This condition was
later deleted.]
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion as stated
because of the inclusion of condition No. 5. He pointed out
that if this were a double -wide mobile home, it would be
by -right with no restriction against rental. He felt this
applicant, and subsequent applicants, should not be
"penalized" with this restriction while the resolution of
the issue is pending. He suggested the recommended
conditions of approval by replaced with the following set of
conditions which are placed on mobile homes in North
Carolina:
/.-70
3-10-92 3
1. Meets or exceeds the Manufactured Home Construction and
Safety Standards of the Office of Housing and Urban
Development.
2. Moving hitch, wheels and axles, and transporting lights
removed.
3. Exterior siding predominantly of vinyl or aluminum lap
(of a neutral earth color whose reflectivity does not exceed
that of gloss white paint), wood, or hardboard; comparable
in composition, appearance and durability to the exterior
siding commonly used in standard residential construction.
4. Mounted upon a continuous, permanent masonry foundation
or masonry curtain wall, or skirted with permanent ground
and weather resistant material.
Ms. Andersen asked Mr. Jenkins if he would amend his motion
by deleting condition No. 5. Mr. Jenkins expressed no
opposition to this suggestion. He recalled, however, that
it had been decided that the restriction would remain until
the recommendation of the Housing Committee has been
received. He noted that the condition was unenforceable in
any event.
Ms. Huckle felt that in the interests of consistency the
restriction should remain until the Board has reached a
decision on the issue.
Mr. Blue agreed that consistency was "a good thing, but if
we are consistently wrong, I don't agree with it." He
stated he supported Mr. Johnson's position.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Blue.
Mr. Grimm noted that Commissioners Jenkins and Andersen had
served on the Housing Committee which was studying the issue
of affordable housing and based on Mr. Jenkins' willingness
to amend his motion, he would support the motion.
For the benefit of the new Commissioners, Mr. Cilimberg
explained the history of the mobile home rental issue which
is currently being studied by the Housing Committee.
The Board had deferred action on a proposed zoning text
amendment which would have disallowed rental of all mobile
homes, whether approved administratively or legislatively,
and had formed the Housing Committee to study the entire
question of affordable housing. The Board had also deferred
action on two requests for relief from the restriction
against the rental of mobile homes. He explained that it
has been a Board policy "for years" to restrict mobile home
occupancy to family members only, but it was never written
into the ordinance.
Ja 4
3-10-92 4
Mr. Blue noted that the membership of the Board has changed
since the pending zoning text amendment was proposed.
Mr. Johnson also pointed out that another significant change
has been made in the State Code which allows the rental of
double -wide mobile homes by -right.
Mr. Jenkins clarified that it was his intent to amend his
original motion for approval by the deletion of condition
No. 5. Ms. Andersen agreed to this amendment also. Ms.
Andersen noted that she, too, had served on the Housing
Committee and was, therefore, comfortable with the amended
motion.
The motion for approval of SP-91-55 for Charles and Shelvie
Morris passed unanimously with the four conditions stated
previously in this record and the DELETION of condition No.
5.
SP-92-04 Robert & Doris Oliphant - Proposal to locate a
single wide mobile home on 5.0 acres [10.2.2(10)] zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 48, Parcel 77A
(part) is located on the east side of Rt. 640 approximately
3/4 mile north of Rt. 20 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated
growth area (Rural Area 2).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report.
The applicants, Robert and Doris Oliphant, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Oliphant stated it was his intent to follow
all regulations. Ms. Oliphant explained that the site is
naturally screened, the mobile home will be placed on
cinderblock footers; the septic system has been approved by
the Health Department, and well approval is anticipated.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed his support for the request. He
once again requested that the restriction to occupancy by
family members only be lifted.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann stated he had visited the site and the
applicant has done a good job with the road and seeding. He
noted also that the mobile home will not visible from the
road.
Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-04 for Robert & Doris
Oliphant be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
/.;?S-
3-10-92 5
approval subject to the following conditions (deleting
proposed condition No. 7):
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval.
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of
the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and approval by the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current
regulations.
4. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located.
5. Landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required
screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced
if it should die.
6. Mobile home is to be located as shown on plat initialled
WDF and dated February 24, 1992.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion, but he again
recommended the alternative set of North Carolina conditions
(as described previously).
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-92-01 Paran United Methodist Church - Proposal to amend
SP-89-104 to permit day care/nursery school [10.2.2(5) and
10.2.2(7)1 in an existing chruch. Property, described as
Tax Map 21, Parcel 16, is located on the east side of Rt.
606 approximately 0.2 miles north of its intersection with
Rt. 763 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
zoned RA, Rural Areas and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. This site is not located in a designated
growth area (Rural Area 1).
Mr. Bowling noted a possible conflict interests.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Approval of this request will almost triple traffic on a
non -tolerable gravel road. Staff opinion is that approval
of this request under such circumstances is inappropriate.
/.?6
3-10-92
0
Staff may be able to support the request at such time as
Route 606 is improved. (At this time Route 606 is not
scheduled for any improvement). Staff recommends denial of
SP-92-01."
Regarding the monitoring of the septic system, Mr. Fritz
explained that the current system is adequate for the
existing church and 11 day-care children, but if there is an
increase above 11, then the system will have to be monitored
to make sure that it is adequate. He confirmed that the
Health Department is comfortable with the monitoring
process.
Mr. Fritz did not know how the zoning violation had been
initiated.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ed Childress. His
statement is made a part of this record as ATTACHMENT A. He
explained that the proposal was for "a pre-school
cooperative which meets from 9 a.m. to 12 noon, three
mornings a week." Mr. Childress responded to Commission
questions. Those responses included the following:
--Church day-care operations have the option of being
licensed by the State or to go through a process of being
exempt from licensure. Exemption requires Health Department
and Fire Official approval.
--The applicant objects to conditions 1(a), requiring
state licensure, and 2, related to enrollment. The
applicant was agreeable to a 20 student limitation (rather
than 11 as stated in the condition).
--There will be 2-3 care -givers, one paid staff member
and one or two mother volunteers on a rotating basis.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle felt this was an example of the problems the
County encounters "when approving churches in the rural
areas where water, sewer and good roads are not available."
Mr. Nitchmann stated that the road was in very good
condition. He also agreed with the applicant's estimates of
vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Slue did not think that traffic would be a significant
problem. He asked for futher explanation of the Health
Department's monitoring system. Mr. Fritz explained that
the monitoring is to insure that the present and future
usage is not "overtaxing" the existing system. He added
that once flow rates have been established it may be
determined that additional drainfield is not required. He
stressed that he did not know for certain if this would be
the case. It was his understanding that the present
/P 7
3-10-92 7
monitoring was to ensure that the 11 children could be
accommodated.
Mr. Blue agreed with the applicant's assurances that the
church would not want to create a health hazard and based on
the Health Department's monitoring of the situation, he
stated he felt the request should be approved as requested
by the applicant.
Ms. Huckle felt that monitoring by the Health Department
should be added to the suggested conditions of approval.
Mr. Fritz noted that that would be covered through condition
1(c) .
In response to Ms. Huckle's request, the applicant pointed
out the location of the well.
Mr. Blue asked if staff felt the "road that goes south,
that's less than a quarter of a mile" is a safety hazard.
He noted that that there did not appear to be any problem
with sight distance. Mr. Fritz agreed that the road was
flat and straight, is 14 feet wide, and allows two cars to
pass; however, it is staff's opinion that the road is
inadequate to serve the volume of traffic that this use will
be generating. (Mr. Fritz explained how the traffic
generation figures had been determined.) Mr. Blue
understood that the original road requirements had been for
a 400-seat church, but the present church has only a
200-seat capacity. [Mr. Cilimberg interjected that the
400-seat approval is still valid so there is still the
possibility that the church could expand.]
Mr. Childress pointed out that a condition of the special
permit requires an amendment to the permit if there is any
expansion of the sanctuary or classroom space. [Mr. Keeler
felt the applicant was confused. He stated that an
amendment would only be required if there was expansion
beyond 400.]
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the staff tries to be
consistent in its review process in terms of traffic
generation figures.
Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission was being asked to
approve other non --worship uses. She quoted from the
existing permit conditions: "...expansion, or daycare and
other non -worship uses, will require amendment to this
petition." Mr. Keeler responded: "You're approving what's
before you which is a day-care center. There is no request
to strike that condition or change that condition, and I
don't believe Bill has reviewed it in that regard. . Other
non -worship uses are not permitted under that condition."
Mr. Keeler added that the Zoning Administrator would have to
/a9
3-10-92
8
make determinations as to whether some types of uses are
worship related or not, e.g. boy scouts.
Mr. Keeler briefly explained how staff reviews churches, day
care centers --uses that have a moral and educational value
to the community, i.e. "the review is restricted solely to
the physical effects of those uses, traffic, noise, water
consumption, etc." He confirmed that a church is considered
in the same fashion as any other type use which would
generate the same amount of traffic.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that the only request at present was for
a day-care facility. Mr. Grimm agreed that the discussion
should be limited to the day-care request.
Mr. Johnson summarized three main issues: (1) the road; (2)
the septic field adequacy; and (3) the question of
licensure. Noting that the applicant has already widened the
road, he questioned whether the request could be denied on
the issue of road adequacy. He again described the road as
being flat, and straight with no sight distance problems.
Regarding the septic system, he noted that it has only been
determined that the drainfield may require enlargment.
Regarding licensure, he suggested that condition 1(a) be
amended to state that the use may not operate without any
"required" licenses. He also suggested that the enrollment
be limited to 11 students only if required by the Health
Department, with a maximum of 20 allowed if approved by the
Health Department.
After a brief discussion concerning rewording of conditions,
Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-92-01 for
Paran United Methodist Church be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.16 of the Zoning Ordinance:
(a) No such use shall operate without any required
licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a
copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption from
licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to notify the
Zoning Administrator of any license expiration, suspension,
or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure
to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
(b) Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
3-10-92 9
(c) These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health, Virginia
State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency.
2. Maximum enrollment shall not exceed 20 students or such
lesser number as may be approved by the Health Department.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-92-05 James & Sue Willis - Proposal to amend SP-90-115 to
increase the number of students permitted in an existing day
care from 30 students to 40 students (10.2.2(5) and
10.2.2(7)] on 2.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C2, is located on the
south side of Rt. 738 west of and adjacent to Murray School
in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not
located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant, Mr. Willis, addressed the Commission.
Answers to Commission questions, included the following:
--The building has a floor area slightly in excess of
2,000 square feet.
--An authorization for 45 children would be preferable
to 40 since that was the "first realistic limitation," and
provided the Health Department would approve 45.
Ms. Huckle asked if re -advertisement would be required if
the approval were to be changed to 45, since only 40 was
requested. Mr. Bowling felt that the extra 5 did not
constitute a significant change and therefore
re -advertisement would not be necessary. Mr. Fritz noted
that the Health Department representative had not been sure
if the drainfield would support 45 children.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed his support for the application.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
There was a brief discussion about rewording of condition
No. 7. The following was agreed upon: "Enrollment shall be
limited to forty-five (45) students or such lesser number as
may be approved by the Health Department."
Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-92-05
for James & Sue Willis be recommended to the Board of
/1-7O
3-10-92 10
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. No expansion of the existing building.
2. Access shall be established at a point as far on the
west of the parcel as will be approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
3. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance permit.
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It
shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to
transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original
license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning
Administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or
revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to
do so whall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this oridnance.
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made
by the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health, Virginia
State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency.
5. Administrative approval of site plan.
6. Enrollment shall be limited to forty-five (45) students
or such lesser number as may be approved by the Health
Department.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson noted that the Health Department (letter dated
February 20, 1992) "has, in my estimation, approved the
situation for 40 students."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-92-08 Robert bee Frazier - Proposal to operate a public
garage [10.2.2(37)] on 2.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas.
property, described as Tax Map 114, Parcel 48 is located on
/3i
3-10-92
11
the east side of Rt. 795 approximately 0.4 mile north of Rt.
727 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is
not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions including the addition of No.
8: "No employees."
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about setback
requirements, Mr. Fritz explained that the required setback
is 75 feet and the existing structure does not meet that
requirement. (Mr. Fritz was uncertain as to the actual
distance. He estimated it to be greater than 25 feet but
less than 75.)
Ms. Huckle asked if a condition should be added requiring
that cars awaiting repair be screened from the state road.
Mr. Fritz felt that condition No. 4 would address this
concern. He added that it was not the applicant's intent to
store vehicles on the property.
The applicant, Mr. Robert Frazier, addressed the Commission.
He described the nature of his business. He also described
his plans for disposing of waste materials.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed his support for the proposal. He
expressed the feeling that Mr. Frazier is very knowledgable
about the methods of handling hazardous waste materials.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
After stating that he had received positive public comment
regarding this application, Mr. Nitchmann moved that
SP-92-08 for Robert Lee Frazier be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing
and equipping of vehicles. No bodywork or spray -painting of
vehicles shall be permitted. No gasoline sales or sale or
rental of vehicles shall be permitted.
2. All work shall be conducted within the existing garage.
3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and
junk cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in
appropriate containers.
4. Not more than two (2) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall
be parked on the property outdoors at any time and these
shall be located behind the garage.
/,;KR
3-10-92 12
5. Fire and Building Official approval.
6. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
commercial entrance. [NOTE: THIS CONDITION WAS AMENDED
LATER IN THE MEETING as follows: Compliance with
recommendations described in VDOT letter dated February 25,
1992, EXCEPT for the last sentence.]
7. Hours of operation shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
on Saturday and no operation of the garage on Sunday.
8. No employees.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson expressed support for the motion but noted that
he "took significant exception to condition No. 6." He felt
that the installation of a commercial entrance would be very
expensive and would serve no purpose. He suggested that
condition No.'6 be modified so as to require adequate sight
distance, but not to require a commercial entrance.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Nitchmann (and Mr. Blue)
agreed to amend the motion to include the modification of
No. 6 as follows: Compliance with the recommendations
described in VDOT letter dated February 25, 1992, except for
the last sentence.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-92-03 James River Baptist Church - Proposal to operate a
church [10.2.2(35)] on 14 acres zoned RA, Rural areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 130, Parcels 35A, 35A1 is
located in the southwestern corner of the intersection of
Rt. 737 and Rt. 726 in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural
Area 4).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
There was some confusion as to what type of approval was
being sought. Ms. Hipski explained that the request was "to
allow the temporary use of the existing church at a smaller
scale ... until such time as the applicant will build a church
as originally approved. If they do not commence
construction of a new church within 6 years the approval for
the new church will expire." Mr. Keeler pointed out that
under the proposed conditions of approval, the applicant
/153
3-10-92
13
would be able to continue to use the dwelling even if they
don't construct a new church, but if a new church is
constructed the use of the dwelling will discontinue.
Ms. Huckle noted that this permit has been requested for 6
years though approvals (for new construction) ordinarily
expire after 18 months "if nothing has been done on it."
The applicant was represented by Mr. James Jetton, Pastor.
He explained that the dwelling which the church proposes to
use temporarily for services once served as the parsonage.
The church has a membership of 60 with 30-35 regular
attendees and is presently meeting in the old Scottsville
School.
In response to Mr. Grimm's question about adequate parking,
Mr. Jetton indicated that the parking area would have to be
constructed and VDOT has already approved plans for a
driveway to the back of the house. He confirmed it was the
church's goal to begin construction of a new church within 6
years.
It was determined Health Department approval was still
pending.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Richard Schaffer, owner of property across the street
from the church, expressed opposition to the request.
Reasons for opposition included the following:
--Inadequate setback from Rt. 726;
--Lack of definition of improvements to Rt. 726;
--Lack of requirement that entrance on Rt. 726 be
closed;
--Changing the property from residential usage to
"other usage" will change the character of the area;
--Even if another church is never built, approval of
this request would allow the use of the existing structure
as a church for "eternity;"
--The congregation is too small to ever be able to
finance the construction of a new church;
--The adequacy of the septic system has not been
determined.
Mr. Schaffer also expressed a lack of understanding of the
approval being sought, i.e. 1) the current structure be
allowed as a permanent church? or 2) approval of a new
structure which will require specific conditions of
approval? He stated that if the latter is correct, then it
is difficult to understand staff's recommendation that "if
construction does not commence within 6 years, permit for
the new structure will expire." He interpreted: "This does
not say that this permit will expire. Again, staff leaves
no doubt but that the current structure can be used from now
3-10-92
14
to eternity." He concluded: "It is absurd to think that
this Commission would recommend the issuance of a permit
that grants any developer 6 years to commence construction."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about Health Department
approval, Mr. Keeler explained that the term "sketch plan"
was used in the staff report because staff feels there is no
need to require a "full-blown site plan;" however, all
normal requirements still apply.
Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to comment on the issue of sight
distance. Mr. Keeler explained that issue would be covered
under condition No. 1. Mr. Keeler added that the Commission
could specify that the entrance be located on Rt. 737 if it
so chose. [Mr. Cilimberg noted that the previous approval
had required that access be from Rt. 737 only.]
Ms. Huckle called the Commission's attention to the church
application heard earlier in the meeting during which
problems with locating churches in rural areas without water
and sewer were identified. She stated she had no opposition
to the request for the use of the existing structure by the
church, but she felt it was "premature to approve a new
church when we don't know in five or six years what the
conditions are going to be."
Mr. Jenkins expressed a lack of understanding in the way the
request was being made, i.e. why have two requests been
integrated? He asked if approval of this request would
"resurrect" SP-88-96 which has expired. Mr. Keeler
responded that this was a new permit and was not a
resurrection of SP-88-96. He explained that the previous
permit had granted approval for construction of a church but
did not include an approval to use an existing dwelling in
the interim. This permit will give them approval to meet in
the existing dwelling and gives them six years to build a
church. He again noted that if they do not construction a
new church, this permit will allow them to continue to use
the existing dwelling indefinitely for a congregation not to
exceed 60.
Mr. Jetton addressed the issue of available water. He
stated the church had just granted an easement to the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Cilimberg noted
that the church should be aware that in order to tap in to
the water line, this property would have to be included in
the jurisdictional area.
Mr. Nitchmann wondered if it would be proper to place a time
limit on the permit.
/,5
3-10-92 15
Mr. Grimm agreed that the indefinite use of the dwelling by
60 people was of concern to him.
There was a discussion as to whether the use of the house
should be separated from the approval of construction of a
new structure, with a time limit being placed on the use of
the house. Mr. Grimm suggested the possibility that the
approval be granted as requested but with the approval for
use of the house expiring at the end of six years whether or
not a new structure has been constructed.
Mr. Johnson noted that an entrance on Rt. 726 would require
a sight easement on adjoining property. He suggested that
the entrance on Rt. 726 be closed and that access be from
737 as discussed earlier. Mr. Johnson also expressed
concern about granting a 6-year approval (for a new
structure) when the normal approval is for 18 months. He
suggested the possibility of approving the use of the
existing structure only, for a period of 6 years, subject to
conditions 1,2, 5 and 6.
Mr. Blue pointed out that if the church were only requesting
a permit for use of the existing structure, with no plan for
a new structure at any time, then there would be no 18-month
limitation--i.e. the permit would be forever (unless a time
limit were placed on the permit).
Mr. Keeler explained that the 6 year time frame had been his
idea. He also pointed out that approvals are for 2 years
(not 18 months) if construction is involved. He stated that
the Board has the power to "impose such alternative time
limits as may be reasonable in a particular case." Staff
had felt that 6 years was reasonable because that was the
church's time frame. He explained that, historically, in
this type of situation, if shorter time frames are imposed,
the applicant will have to come back to the Board to ask for
extensions. At that time, staff reviews the request for
extension to see if there have been any changes in
circumstances "that would militate against granting an
additional period of time." He stated the 6-year period was
intended to avoid that process.
It was determined that requests for extensions would involve
addtional fees with each request.
The possibility of approving the request as proposed, but
for only a 2-year time period, was considered.
Mr. Blue felt the applicant's preference for the options
being considered should be heard. (Options: To approve the
request as proposed for a 2-year time period with
re -application being necessary at the end of each 2-year
period; or, to approve the special permit for the use of the
existing structure for a period of six years, with no
«G
3-10-92 16
guarantee of approval for new construction at the end of the
six -years.)
Mr. Jetton stated that a six -year time frame was more
realistic than a two-year time frame. He wondered what
would happen if at the end of six years the church proposes
to build a new structure but finds that because of
regulation changes, or whatever, the property which the
church already owns cannot be built on.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested the approval of the request as
proposed but with the use of the existing building expiring
at the end of 6 years if construction of the new structure
has not commenced (as suggested previously by Mr. Grimm).
(Mr. Jetton indicated that would be acceptable.)
Mr. Nitchmann stated that he had originally been in favor of
separating the two aspects of the request; however, after
further consideration he "was having second thoughts." He
explained: "You own your property, and whether you are a
church or an individual, you save and save and finally get
in a position to build your house and someone comes along
and says 'I'm sorry, the ball game has changed and you can't
build your house there.' Now you're in a position where you
have to sell the property ... and if it's not a seller's
market you're kind of stuck behind the eight -ball."
Mr. Nitchmann was in favor of approval of the request with
the requirement that access be from Rt. 737 and the time
limit for the use of the temporary structure being for six
years.
Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-03 for James River Baptist
Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of sketch plan to include Health
Department approval, Fire Official aproval and Virginia
Department of Transportation approval of entrance. Locate
parking behind the existing dwelling.
2. The existing dwelling shall serve not more than a 60
member congregation and shall have a sanctuary area not to
exceed 460 square feet.
3. Expansion or construction of sanctuary area shall be
located at least 300 feet from Route 726 and 140 feet from
Route 737. Sanctuary area shall, in no case, exceed 1,200
square feet without an amendment to this special use permit;
Construction of new church shall commence within six years
or approval of the new structure, and use of existing
building, shall expire.
/37
3-10-92 17
4. Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new
church, the existing building shall cease sanctuary use.
5. The property may not be further divided.
6. Approval is for worship and related church use only.
Day Care or other such uses will require an amendment to the
permit.
7. Only those areas required for the church and appurtenant
improvements shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain
in a natural state.
8. Care shall be taken during construction to minimize
grading related to installation of improvements.
9. Access to the church shall be from Rt. 737 only.
Existing entrance on Rt. 726 shall be closed.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
SDP-91-079 Michie Tavern Site Plan - Proposal to relocate
eight existing log cabins to support exhibits and crafts.
Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 27 is located on
Rt. 53 behind the existing Michie Tavern site. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this
site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
This site is not located in a designated growth area.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Hipski distributed copies of a letter from the County
Engineering Department indicating that the grading and
drainage plans and stormwater detention plans have been
approved.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Brian Smith. He
offered to answer questions. He stated the applicant had no
opposition to the suggested conditions of approval. He
explained that the requested revisions to the landscape plan
had been made and would be re -submitted to Ms. Joseph (ARB
staff member) March iith. In response to Ms. Huckle's
request, Mr. Smith described the stormwater channels.
There being no further public comment, the matter was.placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson expressed concerns about "the way this has been
handled." He stated_ "For reasons unknown to we, a letter
dated 16 September of last year was sent to George St. John
from Mary Sue Terry. It addressed three questions which had
3-10-92 is
been posed to the Attorney Generals office. The third
question was: 'Whether the Architectural Review Board may
require an applicant to relocate his proposed building on
its site or otherwise alter a site plan previously approved
by the local planning commission.' The answer in part was
'local governing body could define the Architectural Review
Board's evaluation of architectural compatibility to include
a review of a proposed building or a structure's location in
a site plan. In the absence of such assignment, that board
would lack authority to overrule or modify a site plan
previously approved by the entity designed in the local
ordinance to perform that function.' What it is saying is
that unless unless the Board of Supervisors authorizes the
ARB to change something after we had passed the final site
plan, they have no authority. Our ordinance covers that by
saying in Section 30.6.4.1 'The Commission shall not approve
any final site development plan unless and until a
Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued. So our
local ordinance has pushed this function of the ARB prior to
the approval of the final site plan. I began to get
concerned as I looked at dates here. My concern was that
the ARB, as far as I know and I have checked in depth, the
ARB as a unit, or as an individual, has not seen the plan as
it exists now at least since the 5th of November. Their
last report was dated the 5th of November. At that time --in
my estimation and here it's a matter of interpretation, I
guess --they did not necessarily approve it, in my eye, but
'the Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of granting a Certificate
of Appropriateness....' Subsequent to that we... didn't
authorize administrative approval of the final site plan but
said we wanted it to come to us. That's where we are
now --the final site plan is brought to us in conformance to
our request as being concerned with the treatment of the
critical slope. My concern is, and continues to be, is that
the ARB, who has the aesthetic evaluation and concern over
the whole thing, including the treatment of critical slopes
from an aesthetic standpoint, has not, as far as I
know,...met on it. We have a purported approval here, by
the ARB, of something that they have never seen --the final
version they haven't seen. That concerns me. In addition,
when we discussed the Sign Ordinance, there was a request by
either the ARB or the BZA that the requirement to review
signs be included in any site plan. There are bound to be
some signs on this, I am sure, but there is no mention of
that. Basically, we're asked here to approve this, and I am
sure we will, but predicated on the information that the ARB
has seen it when they haven't. ... This concerns me; it
just doesn't seem like a very businesslike way to run an
organization."
Mr. Grimm asked staff: "Has this plan changed significantly
enough to have merited another review of the ARB?" Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "The plan on which the ARB based its
approval, with the condition of staff approval of the
13?
3-10-92 19
landscape plan, indicated a general approach to grading and
the treatment of the area to be graded that were very
similar to what is now on the plan. It was the view of the
staff person of the ARB, who was essentially given final
administrative approval with the landscape plan, that this
plan, here, included all the necessary and critical elements
of the original plan that they approved. We can only go by
that, but that is a staff determination based on the
decision that the staff person knew that the ARB made."
Ms. Hipski confirmed this was an accurate assessment of the
situation. Ms. Hipski also stated that the plan that was
now being presented to the Commission had been reviewed by
the ARB's staff member "this afternoon" and she had granted
administrative approval, as she had been authorized to do by
the ARB on November 5th. Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "The
bottom line is that the staff person given that final
approval found this plan to be in substantial accord with
the plan that the ARB reviewed and approved. In her
determination, there was no reason to take it back to the
ARB and there is no plan to take it back to the ARB. It is
now an administrative item."
Mr. Nitchmann concluded that "we must trust the ARB's
judgment that it was well within the knowledge and the
expertise of their staff member to approve any minor changes
that might occur after they had essentially approved it."
Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's conclusion and
disagreed with Mr. Johnson's position. Mr. Blue also
questioned why the final site plan had come back to the
Commission. He felt it was the Commission's task to set or
revise policy but "we are not expert enough to get into the
little details of the grading and critical slopes." He felt
detail should be left up to staff.
Mr. Johnson stated he agreed with Mr. Blue, but he continued
to question the ARB's action. He stated: "On November 5th
they say they voted 4:1 'in favor of granting', they didn't
say 'we grant approval,' they just said 'in favor."' He
concluded: "But not approving it, never seeing, and just
having a statement by Marcia Joseph that she sees nothing
wrong with it ---the Architectural Review Board isn't doing
their part, in my estimation."
Mr. Cilimberg stated that is "the language the ARB is using
as their approval language."
Mr. Blue interpreted that the ARB had approved the plan
"subject to their staff having a final look at it."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that, early on, it had been decided
that ARB approvals would work much the same way as site plan
approvals.
1.410
20
Mr. Bowling asked staff: "The ARB has approved this
application --have they not?" Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes."
Mr. Johnson continued to argue that a step in the process
had not taken place, i.e. "they (did not) take action
between us reviewing the preliminary and the final."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Commission had reviewed
the preliminary on October 29, 1991 and the ARB met after
that date (November 5, 1991).
Without further discussion, Ms. Andersen moved that the
Michie Tavern Site Plan Amendment be approved, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The final site plan shall not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Staff approval of the landscape plan;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion
Control Permit.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Cilimberg brought the Commission up-to-date on the
status of the Sign Ordinance.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:15 p.m.
DS