Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 05 1991 PC MinutesMarch 5, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 5, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; 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. The minutes of February 21, 1991 were approved as submitted. Mr. Fritz presented a brief preview of the March 12 Consent Agenda. No action was required. SP-91-02 Garrett & Eleanor Thomas - Request for a permanent sawmill on 5.314 acres zoned Rural Areas. Tax Map 26, Parcel 31C is located on the west side of, Route 673 approximately 0.3 mile south of Route 672 near Montfair. This property is not located in a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions, based on the following reasons: 11(1) The sawmill is currently operating on -site and this permit would have no direct effect on the level of activity; (2) The use is consistent with the other uses in the Rural Areas District; and (3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." A letter of objection had been received from an adjacent property owner (Ms. Docherty). It was later determined that Ms. Docherty is an absentee owner and no one currently resides on her property. In an attempt to clarify the last sentence of condition No. 1 ["Trees and vegetation within these setbacks shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties and uses, provided that during the last three months of operation such trees may be removed."] Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "The special permit would have no time limit and is not tied to this applicant, so if we issue the special permit and this applicant chooses to terminate the use and cut the trees--?" Mr. Fritz replied: "A month prior to terminating the use he can cut trees --that would mark the end of the use." Mr. Rittenhouse asked: "Then would the special permit remain in effect if he sold the property and someone else came in to March 5, 1991 Page 2 utilize the same--?" Mr. Fritz explained that the condition could be worded so that "as such time as the trees are removed within the buffer, this permit shall expire." (Note: No change in wording was ever made.) Referring to condition No. 2 related to a 6-foot high fence, Mr. Rittenhouse asked how this height compared to the height of materials which will be stored. Mr. Fritz could not answer this question definitively. Mr. Rittenhouse wondered if the height of storage materials should be limited. Mr. Fritz replied that the height could be limited if so desired. Regarding reduction in setbacks, Mr. Rittenhouse asked what the setbacks had been reduced to in the Augusta Lumber application (SP-82-09). Mr. Fritz replied that one setback, adjacent to the state road, had been reduced to 110" and other setbacks had been "reduced significantly." Mr. Fritz added that not only had storage of materials been allowed within the 100-foot setback, some mechanical operations had also been allowed. Mr. Johnson asked if there was any relationship between the saw and the pole barn, i.e. does the saw have to be in the pole barn? Mr. Fritz replied that the conditions did not currently require that the saw be placed in the pole barn, though it was his understanding that if the pole barn is constructed, the applicant would probably want to place the saw in the barn. Mr. Johnson asked if any permit would be needed for the construction of the pole barn. Mr. Fritz did not know what building permits would be required, but he noted that the setbacks would still have to be met. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the following issue: "Notwithstanding that we can put a time limitation, or an ownership limitation, on this special permit, even though it involves a certain investment relative to the pole barn, is there any danger there of assuming a vested right?" Mr. Bowling responded: "It's possible, depending on what type of pole barn you're talking about." Mr. Johnson concluded: "But this would really come up to a judgment factor later downstream. There's no way that we could say it terminates so many months or years after his departure and be sure that that would stand under challenge?" Mr. Bowling responded: "I think that's a fair statement." There was a brief discussion about the difference between a temporary and permanent sawmill. Mr. Fritz noted that there is no definition of temporary in the Zoning Ordinance so it is a judgment call on the part of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Grimm added that a temporary mill is usually defined as one which can be picked up and moved from site to site, as opposed to permanent mill which cannot be moved. March 5, 1991 Page 3 It was determined that "temporary" in this case, did not necessarily relate to a time duration but rather is a characteristic of the facility. Ms. Huckle questioned why the reqeust for a permanent if the applicant was operating legally now as a temporary use. Mr. Fritz explained it was his understanding the applicant just wanted to avoid any possible problems which might arise in the future. (The applicant later explained that he had been advised to apply for a permanent permit by the Zoning Administrator.) Mr. Rittenhouse expressed confusion as to why a permit is required if none is required for a temporary sawmill and the ordinance does not differentiate between permanent and temporary mills. Mr. Fritz explained that it was his understanding the permit is being applied for so as to prevent future problems in the event the use takes on a "permanent nature" at some future time. (A permanent sawmill does require a special use permit.) The applicant, Mr. Garrett Thomas, addressed the Commission. He explained that the permit for the pole barn had been applied for prior to the existence of the sawmill and was not related to the mill. (The pole barn was for farm use.) He explained that he did not intend to put the sawmill in "that particular barn." He noted that he did intend to apply for a permit to "put a roof over" the saw. He stated the saw would still be movable. (He presented a picture of the saw.) He explained that he had moved the saw so that it is "a little more" than 100 feet from each line, behind the house. It was determined Mr. Thomas had been operating the mill since October, 1990. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Garrett why he was applying for the permit if he can operate a temporary mill by -right. Mr. Garrett explained that he had been advised to apply for the permit. He noted that a neighbor had complained and he wanted to be sure that if other complaints were made he was operating legally. He said he "just wanted to do things right." Mr. Garrett explained that the wood he was currently working with had been obtained from adjacent properties and he had enough for approximately five years' work. He stated he had no plans to cut the wood from his own property. Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant if he had any objection to the setback being increased to greater than 25 feet (as recommended by staff), i.e. how "critical" is the 25 feet? Mr. Garrett explained that he did not have much storage area and though 25 feet was preferable, he could possibly work with a 50 foot setback if necessary. ;q March 5, 1991 Page 4 Ms. Huckle asked if there was a time limit as to when the fence was to be installed. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the fence would have to be installed within a reasonable time (as determined by the Zoning Administrator), as a condition of the issuance of the special permit. There was a brief discussion about placing a time limit on the installation of the fence. It was noted that the objecting property owner did not reside on the property. It was decided the timing of the fencing was not critical. Mr. Johnson again questioned the reason the applicant was applying for the permit since he apparently understood that his temporary operation was completely legal. Mr. Garrett replied: "But for how long?" Mr. Johnson determined that the applicant would be operating in exactly the same manner, whether as a temporary or permanent sawmill. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he understood why Mr. Garrett had been advised to apply for the permit, i.e. if he makes an investment and then someone objects because the operation has continued for some time and the Zoning Administrator determines that it is, indeed, a permanent operation, then a special permit would be required at that time and if the permit was then denied, a considerable investment would be lost. Mr. Johnson agreed but stated: "But no investment is being asked for at this time or anticipated." Mr. Rittenhouse disagreed because he felt the applicant would have invested his dedication to some type of operation. Mr. Johnson did not feel there was any additional monetary investment planned with the exception of a shed over the saw. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the applicant had a monetary investment in the saw. Mr. Cilimberg stressed that the applicant had been advised by the Zoning Department to apply for the permit "to avoid any problems down the road --whether it be two weeks or two years from now --that his best bet would be to make a formal application and get approval from the Board of Supervisors and be established as an allowed and conditioned use." He stated that the applicant had taken that advice and it was his choice to apply for the permit and he had done so in good faith. Mr. Garrett also presented a petition of support which had been signed by his neighbors. .130 March 5, 1991 Page 5 There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse expressed concern about the issue of precedent in relation to the reduction of the setbacks. He felt the suggested reduction in the setback from 100 feet to 25 feet was severe. He felt there should be good reasons for granting the reduction. He noted that staff had referred to a permit for Augusta Lumber as a precedent, but he was not familiar with the particulars of that application. Mr. Bowling confirmed that if the applicant wished to expand the use, he would have to apply for an amendment to the special use permit and approval of this permit would have no bearing on any subsequent permits. It was noted that the conditions of approval limited the operation to one saw and one employee. Ms. Huckle stated she could support the request, but she felt the setbacks should be increased. Mr. Jenkins noted that this is a very narrow site and the applicant is already being required to install a fence. He did not think increasing the setback would accomplish anything meaningful. Mr. Rittenhouse wondered if perhaps the site might be too restrictive for the use. Mr. Grimm noted that a limitation of only one employee would significantly limit the impact of the operation. Mr. Johnson stated: "I'm not satisfied that I recognize what's going on." He again questioned the need for the permit. He stated: "If we pass this, we have established, perhaps for perpetuity, a permanent sawmill on this site. The question then becomes vested interest as I understand it. If he puts up something related to that he has a vested interest and any time limitations would be unenforceable. I was very concerned when I came in here with these matters, but I am convinced now, in my own mind, that he can continue on now with the current authorization as a temporary sawmill. He has the same restrictions, operating hours, noise, etc. according to the code --this is nothing new. He doesn't need this for a pole barn --he already can do that. So the only thing this does is make it permanent and change the setback." Mr. Rittenhouse stated he did not think there was any guarantee that the use could continue forever because the Zoning Administrator, or some future Zoning Administrator, V,?/ March 5, 1991 Page 6 might determine that the use is not tempoary. Mr. Rittenhouse felt Mr. Garrett had been correctly advised if it is his intent to be a permanent sawmill. Mr. Johnson agreed that there was no guarantee; however, he added: "But to go ahead on this size land and put a permanent sawmill, I cannot support and I cannot see that it is detrimental to the applicant since he can continue on, as far as I can see, in the current manner." It was determined that no formal complaints had been lodged against this use, but someone had made the Zoning Administrator aware of the use and the Zoning Administrator had then advised Mr. Garrett to apply for the permanent permit. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the main issue was whether or not the site was too small for the operation given the fact that it was apparently too small to meet the setback requirements without a waiver. Mr. Wilkerson noted that if the applicant could not store the wood on site he would have to bring it in on a regular basis and he did not feel that was a desirable alternative. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-91-02 for Garrett and Eleanor Thomas be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing lumber, logs, chips or timber storage shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any side lot line nor closer than 75 feet to Route 673. Any new construction, to include proposed pole barn, or storage areas shall not be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within these setbacks shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties and uses, provided that during the last three months of operation such trees may be removed; 2. Where materials are stored less than one hundred (100) feet from a lot line a six (6) foot high privacy fence shall be installed; 3. The use shall be limited to one saw which shall be located not closer than six hundred (600) feet to any dwelling on other properties in the area and not closer than 100 feet to any lot line; 4. No sawing or operation of other processing machinery shall occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/wood products shall occur between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.; 1031� March 5, 1991 Page 7 5. Submittal of a certified engineer's report to the County Engineer verifying compliance with the noise provisions of Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance; 6. Not more than one employee, other than the applicant; 7. Upgrading of the entrance in compliance with the comments of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Andersen noted that this was a "definite bona fide use in an agricultural/forestal area." Mr. Fritz pointed out that this use was very similar to a home occupation with the only significant difference being an increase in traffic over that for a single family residence. He also noted that a home occupation permit could not be permanent. Mr. Rittenhouse felt that was an important distinction. Ms. Huckle felt this would be an improvement over the current operation because of the addition of the fence and the change in setbacks. The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. OLD BUSINESS The Commission decided on Tuesday, March 19th at 4:45 for a work session on the development review process. NEW BUSINESS Briarwood - Mr. Fritz asked that staff be granted administrative approval of 12 lots located at the end of Finch Court. He explained that though it was originally intended that these lots be served by gravity sewer, it has been determined that "grinder pumps" will be necessary on some lots. He stated the Service Authority has received plans and though approval has not yet been granted, no problems have been identified. Mr. Fritz explained (confirmed by Mr. Cilimberg) that all other issues with this development have been resolved. .05 March 5, 1991 Page 8 Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the use of the pumps because she understood they were very unreliable. She indicated she could not support this type of system. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that these lots were approved as a part of the PUD and are totally consistent with what was approved with the plan. He noted that the Service Authority approves sewer systems and the system for the entire development has not yet been approved because approval takes places in phases. He noted that the Service Authority has given tentative approval to this type of system for these additional lots. Mr. Johnson noted that this is a "time honored" procedure where gravity flow cannot be accommodated. It was determined the maintenance of the pumps would be the responsibility of the individual lot owners. There was some discussion as to whether to take action on the staff's request or to wait until Ms. Huckle's concerns could be addressed more completely. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the use of the grinder pumps was not an issue which the Commission addresses because that falls under the Service Authority's purview. Ms. Huckle noted that this particular subdivision had a history of problems. She asked: "Is there any incentive for a developer to do what they are supposed to do because no matter what they do they get more and more approvals?" Both Mr. Fritz and Mr. Cilimberg stated there were no outstanding issues which would effect staff's administrative approval of the 12 lots. Mr. Cilimberg stressed that staff would not be requesting administrative approval if there were any remaining problems with the development. It was the consensus of the Commission to take action on staff's request. Mr. Johnson moved that staff be granted administrative approval of 12 lots at the end of Finch Court in the Briarwood Subdivision. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. The regular meeting ended at 8:00 p.m. There followed a Work Session on the Bike Plan led by Mr. Baker and Mr. Benish. The work session ended at 9:45 p.m. V. �/ Wayn�gY g, Cilimb �ecretary DB