HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 31 1992 PC Minutes3-31-92
1
MARCH 31, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, March 31, 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 Blue; Ms.
Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March
17, 1992 were approved as submitted with a clarification
made by Mr. Bowling. In reference to the 250 square
foot/employee figure used in the County Government section
of the Community Facilities Plan, Mr. Bowling stated that it
was his intent to say that the figure could be changed --that
it was not fixed. He had not meant to imply that the figure
had "no legal standing" because "about everything (the
Commission) does has legal standing."
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed the actions taken by the
Board of Supervisors at their March 18 meeting.
SP-92-06 Blaise Gaston - Proposal to operate a home
occupation Class B [10.2.2(31)] to permit a custom furniture
business in a proposed structure of 3,500 square feet on 5.9
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map
30, Parcel 15C, is located on the south side of Rt. 662
approximately 0.5 miles west of Rt. 660 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
Mr. Bowling noted a potential conflict of interests.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
denial of the request for the following reasons:
(1) The size of the structure exceeds the limits
specified in Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
(2) Use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and
with other uses permitted in the Rural Areas;
(3) Approval would permit additional activity adjacent
to the reservoir.
Mr. Johnson noted an error in proposed condition No. 2, i.e.
the Section referenced should have been 4.14 (not 4.1.4).
16 a
3-31-92
2
It was determined that the owners of parcel 15B (adjacent
property) had signed the petition of support.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Fritz described
the proposed building site as "sloping and wooded but not on
critical slopes."
Regarding the future use of the structure, in the event the
applicant should cease to use it as proposed, Mr. Fritz
explained that the home occupation permit would be for the
applicant only "unless another individual comes in and
operates it in the same manner."
The applicant, Mr. Blaise Gaston, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Gaston gave a lengthy presentation which described his
background, the history of his business, and the nature of
the work he intended to perform as the home occupation (i.e.
the creation of individual pieces of furniture on a
commission basis). He presented a model of the proposed
building. He disagreed with the staff report in the
following respects:
--Traffic impact will be minimal since only two
employees are proposed. Very few delivery trucks will be
able to visit the site due to access limitations. The
applicant will pick up most materials in his own truck
(pickup). There will be little customer traffic since most
business transactions will be conducted at the home of the
customer.
--The business is not "furniture manufacturing" but
rather "an artist producing work."
--The structure could be converted to a dwelling at
some future time if desired.
--Furniture making supports the timber industry, which
supports forestry as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
--All finishes used are water based thus there is no
threat to the reservoir.
--A series of noise tests, using a decibel meter, had
determined that at 45 feet outside the building no noise
registered on the meter (Note: The meter measures only
noise above 50 decibels.) and 120 feet away from the
building no noise at all could be heard.
--The elevation of the building will be lower than the
house.
Mr. Gaston responded to particular Commission questions as
follows:
--He was uncertain of the chemical make-up of the
water -based materials (Hydro Coat) he would be using. He
felt strongly that the materials would not be harmful. He
noted that no respirator was required during use.
--Clean-up waters will be disposed of in the septic
system. Rags will be removed from the site and disposed of
properly. [Mr. Blue wondered why this would be necessary if
the materials used were non -toxic as described by Mr.
3-31-92 3
Gaston. Mr. Gaston explained that presently the rags are
collected and disposed of, but he was not certain if this
would be necessary with the new finishes.] Waters used for
cleaning brushes will be disposed of in the septic system.
Mr. Gaston again stressed that the materials used are
water -based and are cleaned with water. He offered to
provide additional information on the Hydro Coat products.
--It is intended that the new structure will use the
same septic system and drainfield as the existing house.
[Mr. Blue was very skeptical that the Health Department
would allow this.] Mr. Gaston stated that he would not be
able to have the shop if he cannot use the house septic
system. He explained that there is no room for another
drainfield.
--Sawdust will be collected and taken away (by the
owner of a stable).
--The exterior of the new building will be "Dryvit" (a
stucco treatment) and will match the applicant's dwelling.
[Mr. Johnson described the applicant's dwelling as being
very environmentally compatible.]
--The building will not be visible from the reservoir
during the summer months and may not be visible during the
winter months either.
--The two employees will be local people.
--The equipment used will be much less than was used
during the noise tests. [It was noted that Section 4.14
(condition No. 2) addresses the issue of acceptable noise
levels. ]
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Paul Pazina expressed his support for the request and
his admiration for the applicant whom he described as
"honest, ethical, generous, highly skilled and
environmentally conscious."
Mr. Sandy Schenk, owner of property across the river from
the applicant, expressed concerns about the request. He
presented a photograph showing that the applicant's property
was highly visible from his home. He also presented a slide
showing the property. He did not think it would be possible
to shield the property from his view. He expressed the
feeling that because the area is so quiet, even 50 decibels
of noise may be noticable. [He pointed out that it is
possible to hear regular conversation from the applicant's
deck when standing on his deck and vice versa.] He
suggested that a study be done to determine the impact on
wildlife and a requirement that the project be of 110"
impact.
Mr. David Watson, an adjacent property owner, expressed
support for the project. He felt woodworking was totally
compatible with rural area.
%®
3-31-92 4
Mr. Paul Gaston, father of the applicant and an adjacent
property owner, expressed his support for the proposal. He
pointed out that the applicant has already sold his business
and to buy property elsewhere would create a financial
hardship. He felt the County should be encouraging
individuals to use their initiative and their talents "to
make their contributions to the County, rather than finding
abstract regulations that prohibit them from doing that
which they are good at."
Mr. Kevin Cox, a fomer employee of Mr. Gaston, expressed his
support for the request and his admiration for the
applicant.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Andersen expressed concern about the use of the septic
system and "the health and safety of the many rather than
the individual."
Ms. Huckle expressed concern that the Home Occupation
category "is being abused." She felt it was meant to be "an
occupation which is conducted in the home in an unobtrusive
way or in any existing building but not in a large new
building which is almost like a factory in this case." She
expressed concerns about the chemicals used in the process
and felt the applicant had demonstrated a lack of
familiarity with the chemicals. Based on her concern about
groundwater contamination, she concluded she could not
support the request.
Referring to the staff report, Mr. Grimm pointed out that
the average square footage for this type of use is 738
square feet (based on 6 previously approved applications).
He felt this was indication that the uses are meant to be
"small and quite limited in size in terms of the square
footage of building used." He also expressed concern about
the location of the building and felt that "it does not
contribute to the protection of our water supply." He
agreed with staff's assessment of the application.
Regarding the concerns expressed about the septic system,
Mr. Johnson suggested -the addition of a condition requiring
Health Department approval. He did not express concern
about the proposed size of the structure. He also saw no
public benefit to be gained by requiring the construction of
a commercial entrance (condition No. 4). He noted that the
closest neighboring property owner had raised no objections
to the proposal. He stated he could support the proposal
with the correction made to the Section notation in No. 2,
the deletion of No. 4, and the addition of a condition
requiring Health Department approval.
3-31-92 5
Mr. Blue noted that there would be little question about
approving this request if it were for an artist's studio in
the artist's home. [It was noted that a Class B permit
would be required even if no other employees were proposed
because the use involves an accessory structure.] He stated
that he was impressed with the applicant's reputation and
his environmental sensitivity. He noted that he did have
concerns about protection of the reservoir but he felt this
applicant would be very conscious of that issue. He also
noted concerns about potential noise problems, but it was
pointed out that Section 4.14 would address these concerns.
He concluded that he could support Mr. Johnson's position.
Mr. Blue was in favor of adding a condition limiting the
permit to the applicant only.
Though Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission might
want to add a condition requiring that the siting of the
building meet the building site requirements of Section 4.2
of the Ordinance, Mr. Blue did not want to create any
problems for the applicant in the event the Health
Department determines that the structure can share the
existing septic system.
Ms. Huckle noted that the applicant had stated that the
existing septic system requires pumping, which indicates
that there are limited possibilities for a septic system.
Ms. Andersen stated she agreed with staff's recommendation.
She indicated she could support the request if the Health
Department were to give their approval. [Mr. Johnson noted
that was the intent of the added condition requiring Health
Department approval.]
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-92-06 for Blaise Gaston be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Not more than two employees who are not family members
who reside on -site.
2. Compliance with the performance standards of Section
4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be
located as shown on plat initialled WDF and dated 3/19/92.
4. Health Department approval.
5. Special permit is issued to applicant only. (This motion
was added later.)
Mr. Blue seconded the motion.
3-31-92
6
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle expressed concern that approval would set a
precedent and would "open up that area to things which would
be difficult to stop and would definitely endanger our one
and only water supply."
Mr. Grimm agreed.
Mr. Blue acknowledged Ms. Huckle's concern and asked that a
condition be added limiting the permit to the applicant
only. (Mr. Johnson agreed to this change in the motion.)
Mr. Blue added that he was not concerned about precedent
because "as long as we are charged with giving advice to the
Board of Supervisors, then we call them as we see them."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the issue of
"vested interest" based on financial expenditure by the
applicant. She wondered if this would have any bearing on
the limitation of the permit to the applicant only. Because
he had earlier declared a possible conflict of interests Mr.
Bowling declined to comment.
Mr. Cilimberg responded to Ms. Huckle's question: "From my
understanding of the way these have been viewed, for a home
occupation you put a condition that is specifically for the
applicant, then no following property owner or interest is
entitled to that special use permit approval when you
include that specific condition."
Mr. Nitchmann indicated he was familiar with Mr. Gaston's
former business and he was impressed with the cleanliness
and lack of noise. Though he had had concerns about noise,
he felt that the construction of the building as described
by the applicant, and the concern shown by the applicant,
addressed his concerns. He felt that the requirement for
Health Department approval addressed his concerns about the
reservoir because the project could not proceed without said
approval. He concluded that he could support Mr. Johnson's
motion. In anticipation of a tie vote on the motion, Mr.
Nitchmann asked if a deferral might be preferable to allow
the applicant to get Health Department comments before final
action by the Commission. (Mr. Johnson felt his motion, in
essence, was a deferral because nothing could proceed
without Health Department approval, and if approval is not
granted, the proposal is not possible.]
Mr. Grimm stated he would not support the request regardless
of Health Department approval because it exceeds the Zoning
Ordinance maximum square footage by 50%.
Mr. Blue noted that the majority of neighbors support the
request. He stated: "I don't think we have to follow the
letter of this thing all the time when there are other
3-31-92
VA
mitigating factors and 'stare decisis' might be O.K. for the
Supreme Court but I prefer to call them as I see them."
Mr. Grimm pointed out that Albemarle County's ordinance is
already more liberal than other counties in terms of
allowable square footage.
Ms. Huckle felt the Commission should follow the Ordinance
and let the Board of Zoning Appeals deal with variances from
the Ordinance.
Mr. Blue stated that the Staff was perfectly capable of
going by the Ordinance and if every issue was black and
white there would be no need for a Planning Commission.
Ms. Andersen asked that consideration be given to requiring
an engineering study to determine the impact on wildlife and
also a restriction on hours of usage.
Mr. Johnson questioned how impact on wildlife could be
determined.
The motion for approval failed to pass due to a tie vote
(3:3) with Commissioners Blue, Johnson and Nitchmann voting
for the motion and Commissioners Andersen, Grimm and Huckle
voting against.
CPA-92-02 South Fork Land Trust - Hollymead - Resolution of
Intent - Proposal to amend the Hollymead Community to
include approximately 30 acres designated for low density
residential land use. Property, described as Tax Map 46,
Parcels 22C and 98A, is located on Route 643, 1 mile east of
U.S. Rt. 29. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Baker presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending that "the South Fork request be included in the
overall re-evaluation of the Expansion to the Hollymead
Community" currently underway.
Mr. Cilimberg stressed that the Commission was being asked
only to decided "whether or not we go through an analysis
for this area as part of an amendment study." A public
hearing will be held later and action taken on whether or
not to actually amend the plan. The decision made tonight
(if a resolution of intent is adopted) is merely to "allow
study" and may or may not lead to actual amendment of the
Plan.
Commissioners Johnson and Nitchmann expressed a lack of
understanding as to why formal permission for a study to be
conducted was required. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it is
the Board's policy and is normal procedure.
16 f
3-31-92 g
The Chairman invited public comment (though staff had
pointed out that this was not a public hearing item at this
time).
Mr. F.A. Iachetta addressed the Commission. He supported
staff's recommendation that this area be included in the
overall study of the Hollymead area and ask that it not be
considered separately (which he felt would constitute spot
zoning) .
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton.
Addressing some of Mr. Iachetta's comments, he stressed that
it was the applicant's desire to connect to public sewer.
He also stated that there was no intent to develop the
property into "one -quarter acre lots." He asked that the
Commission vote to include the property in the Hollymead
comprehensive study.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Andersen moved that a Resolution of Intent, to consider
CPA-92-02 (South Fork Land Trust/Hollymead) along with other
outstanding amendments in the Hollymead area in a
comprehensive study, be adopted.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Sign Amendments and Role of the BZA - Mr. Johnson made the
following comments and suggestions:
--That the proposed amendments go to the BZA for study
and comment before final action by the Commission; [Mr.
Cilimberg was under the impression that the BZA had seen the
amendments. He offered to check to see if his understanding
was correct.]
--That final site plans identify the location and "sign
situation." [Mr. Cilimberg explained that signs have not
been subject to the review of the Planning Commission,
though they are subject to the review of the Architectural
Review Board on all entrance corridor roads. Mr. Cilimberg
explained further that the Entrance Corridor had been
established to deal with design questions and visual
problems that were occurring which "it was felt could best
be answered through a specific district and the Board felt
the ARB would be the ones to administer that district." ]
Mr. Johnson asked: "Is there some way that it can be put in
as a requirement of the final site plan?" Mr. Cilimberg
noted that even if that were the case, an applicant could
still appeal to the BZA. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the
mechanism already exists (ARB review) and he did not think
the system would be improved by putting a requirement for
169
3-31-92 9
sign approval in the Commission's site plan review "when, in
fact, there is already a body and a section of the Ordinance
that is responsible for administering that." Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the ARB delays issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness until the BZA has acted upon a variance
request and if the ARB refuses to issue a Certificate of
Appropriateness, then the final site plan cannot be
approved.
Mr. Bowling pointed out that the reason the BZA is "diluting
the sign ordinance" (as expressed by Ms. Andersen), is
because the existing sign regulations are "defective" and
that is the reason for the proposed new sign ordinance. It
is felt that the adoption of the new ordinance will result
in fewer variances because the BZA will not be inclined to
grant sign variances.
Mr. Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the way the BZA
has handled variances. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the BZA
has the authority to issue a variance on any aspect of the
Zoning Ordinance in which a hardship is claimed and neither
the Commission, the ARB, nor the Board can overrule the
BZA's decisions.
Non -conforming Signs - Mr. Johnson noted that some
localities have found a legal way to "eliminate
non -conforming signs progressively within a five-year
period." Mr. Cilimberg noted that though the proposed sign
ordinance had originally identified amortization as a
mechanism to eliminate signs, the County Attorney had
advised that it was not possible without enabling
legislation. Mr. Bowling commented that if so directed by
the Board of Supervisors, the County Attorney's Office would
be glad to write such legislation.
There was a brief discussion of the amortization process.
Mr. Johnson felt the sign ordinance would be ineffective on
Rt. 29 because a new merchant could prove a hardship, and
understandably so, because of all the existing
non -conforming signs.
City -County Planning Institute Pro osal - Mr. Cilimberg
called the Commission's attention to a proposal from the
City regarding the possible establishment of an ongoing
training program (quarterly workshops) for the City and
County Planning Commission combined. He suggested that a
starting point might be commissioner attendance at the
annual state meeting conducted by the Planning Institute
which certifies planning commissioners.
/7a
3-31--92
10
Concerns were expressed about exactly what type of training
was envisioned (specific agendas) and also about costs.
Mr. Cilimberg offered to look into the matter further.
Mr. Johnson suggested that consideration be given to using
graduate student assistance when working on various
projects. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that "interns" are
often used on projects.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:05 p.m.
DB
/I/