Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 17 90 PC MinutesAPRIL 17, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 17, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr..Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. George St, John, County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 3 , 1990 were approved as submitted. Mr. Rittenhouse extended the Commission's sympathy to the family of Janice Wills, Administrative Secretary in the Department of Planning and Community Development, at the death of her husband. - - The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 19.54 acres from R-1, Residential to R-6 Residential. Property is located on the north side of Jarman's Gap Road (Route 691) approximately 3/4 mile east of Route 684 in the White Hall Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 86 and B8A and is currently zoned R-1, Residential. Mr. Rittenhouse moved to the last item on the agenda, ZMA- 90-03 for Barclay Development. He explained that he had been informed that it was the applicant's intent to request a deferral of this item. He asked for the applicant's confirmation of this understanding. After the applicant was made aware of the Commission's policy of not entertaining new information unless staff has had time to review said information, he requested that the item be deferred to April 24, 1990. (The applicant was represented by Mr. Will Smith.) Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the item be deferred to April 24, 1990. The motion passed unanimously. SP-9Q-17 Patricia and Richard Charles - The applicant is Petitioning the Board of Supervisors to allow for a 20 cottage Day Camp, boarding camp on 36.2 acres [10.2.2(20)1. Property is located on the east side on Route 20 South at Camp Viewmont in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 102, Parcel 22A and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. 94 April 17, 1990 Page 2 The applicant was requesting withdrawal_ (The Commission took no action.) - - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a home occupation Class B to allow for a consulting business in an accessory structure [5.2]. The property is 10.8 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 254 is located four -tenths of a mile south of the intersection of Rt. 786 and Rt. 637 in the Springhill Subdivision, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, including the addition of a condition related to VDOT requirements for entrance improvements. Mr. Johnson asked if there was justification for VDOT`s requirements, given the fact that there will be no employees and the existing entrance is functioning satisfactorily. Mr. Fritz explained that the existing entrance did not have adequate sight distance, and this is an opportunity to correct that situation. Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation as to how the request is reviewed, i.e. he stated: "I see nothing under Section 10.2.2, under special use permit in the RA, that has anything to do with operating a business in you own home." Mr. Keeler explained that this is considered a Class B Occupation because it involves an accessory structure and falls under Section 10.2.2.31. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Charles Larsen. He asked for an explanation of the VDOT recommendations. He did not understand why the improvements would be necessary when VDOT's comments had indicated that improvements would be needed if 3 or more properties had access from this private driveway. He pointed out that only two properties use the road. Mr. Keeler explained: "In the past, we have suggested to you that for a special permit that the conditions address the special use permit itself and this has been recommended by the Highway Department as a corrective measure. It has nothing to do with a Class B Home Occupation as has been described. I don't know if you want to include it as a condition or not. Mr. Larsen stated he was simply seeking clarification. Mr. Rittenhouse responded that it would appear that the state is attempting Q6 Apr-il 17, 1990 Page 3 to get the minimum 250 feet of sight distance_ The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Ethan Miller, representing the Spring Hill Land Trust, owner of the residue of the property, addressed the Commission. He gave a history of the property. He felt the Proposed use was incompatible with a residential subdivision. He felt the applicant would not be able to obtain sight distance because it would require a sight easement from Spring Hill Land Trust and that would not be obtainable. He called the Commission's attention to a court decision which had enjoined the applicant from using his dwelling for anything other than residential purposes. He felt that approval of this request would be a violation of a court order. He acknowledged, however, that this was a Private matter. (Note: After inspecting the document referred to by Mr. Miller, Mr. St. John determined that the operation of a Bed and Breakfast was the only use which had been found to be a violation of deed restrictions, and nothing else.) Mr. Larsen again addressed the Commission and referred to the same covenants mentioned by Mr. Miller. He noted that those same covenants did not prevent a lot owner from having an antique business in his home. He stated he was aware of at least one other consulting business which was operating from the Spring Hill Subdivision. In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, he stated it was not his intention to have clients come to his home. He explained the nature of his business. He also noted that the court order had addressed the issue of a Bed and Breakfast operation only. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it is the consistent policy of the Commission not to become involved in private legal issues. He explained that the only question before the Commission is whether or not this application meets the criteria for a special permit. Referring to Mr. Miller's comments about problems with obtaining a sight easement, Mr. Keeler suggested that if the Commission chose not to include VDOT's recommendations, then it might be desirable to reword condition No. 2 to restrict clients and customers from the premises. Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant if this was acceptable. Mr. Larsen stated it was not his intention to have clients come to the house. However, he explained that some of this 9( April 17, 1990 Page 4 friends are also his clients whom he entertains socially and he asked that he not be restricted from entertaining his friends. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that what was contemplated was that clients would not come to the home "as part of the method of operation of the business." Mr. Larsen stated he would have no problem with such a restriction_ It was decided condition No. 2 would be amended to read: "No on -site sales; no clients or customers on premises; business shall be restricted to phone and correspondence only." Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-12 for Chiles & Suzanne Larsen be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff, including No. 2 as stated above, and No. 5 relating to VDOT recommendations for the entrance. Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion if the requirement for upgrading the entrance was included. He felt such a requirement would ruin the atmosphere of the subdivision. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Johnson moved that SP-90-12 for Chiles & Suzanne B. Larsen be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. No employees; 2. No on -site sales; no clients or customers on premises; business shall be restricted to phone and correspondence only; 3. No change in the exterior appearance of the building or premises; 4. Use shall be limited to the summer kitchen as shown on Attachment C. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed (6:0:1) with Commissioners Grimm, Andersen, Huckle, Wilkerson, Rittenhouse and Johnson voting for the motion, and Commissioner Jenkins abstaining. (Mr. Jenkins noted he was abstaining because he had entered the meeting late and had not been a part of all the discussion.) SP-90-15 Crossroads -Waldorf -School - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to operate a private school at the existing Camp Holiday Trails -site (Section April 17, 1990 Page 5 10.2.2(5)]. A maximum of 100 students from kindergarten through Grade 8 will utilize the 20 acre site. The property is located at the end of Route 702 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 75, Parcel 47C and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Based on comments of the Department of Transportation and staff observation, this request does not appear to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-90-15 Crossroads Waldorf School." The applicant was represented by Mr. John Koehne, Chairman of the Board of Crossroads Walddorf School. He stated the critical issue appeared to be the extra traffic on Rt. 702 as a result of the school. He felt a solution would be for the school to bus the children from a central collection point in Charlottesville and then to return them to the same point in the afternoon. He felt this would reduce traffic significantly. Mr. Koehne pointed out a mistake in the staff report, i.e. that the current enrollment of the school is 70 children (not 20). He explained the school's background and also emergency procedures which the school follows. (In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the type of emergency vehicle, Mr. Koehne explained that the school uses a station wagon as its emergency vehicle.) Mr. Robert Forsythe, Chairman of the Board of Camp Holiday Trails, addressed the Commission. He explained that it this request is denied, the Camp will have to seek site rental from other uses in order to bring in revenue to help sustain the camp. He stressed that this is a controlled use. He also stressed that the school is a very environmentally sensitive use. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Lennie Covington, a parent with a child attending the school, addressed the Commission. While she agreed that the road is inadequate, she stressed that all those who travel the road are aware of its limitations and therefore travel very carefully. She also noted that this was a temporary location for the school until property can be located for a permanent site. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. There was a brief discussion about Camp Holiday Trails, 99 April 17, 1990 Page 6 In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question about the proposed school bus, Mr. Keeler stated staff had discussed that possibility with the applicant. He stated it had been discussed as an interim solution until other facilities could be located. He noted that it would be difficult to enforce the use of the bus and its success would depend on parent cooperation. Mr. Wilkerson asked if a condition requiring that children use the bus could be attached. Mr. Keeler stated such a condition would be unenforceable. Regarding the condition of the road, Mr. Keeler explained that not only was the road one lane, it was further complicated by the curves in the road. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that it appeared for this to be a viable use for the property, extraordinary access means would be necessary. He felt one portion of the staff report stood out, i.e. "Route 702 is narrow and in places two vehicles cannot pass. Portions of this road are located in cuts which offer no shoulder or ditch to give drivers opportunity to pass. The alignment of Rt. 702 does not allow for reasonable access by emergency vehicles." He stated he could not, "in good conscience" support a school in a rural area for which an emergency vehicle access is not readily available. Ms. Andersen asked how staff defined "emergency vehicle." Mr. Keeler responded: "Fire and rescue, gust as in any other case.' Ms. Andersen asked "How do you deal with the logic of accepting the camp?" Mr. Rittenhouse responded: "I'm not comfortable with the camp, but the camp is not before us." He explained that the camp had been approved by a previous Board prior to the existing Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Reeler advised that Mr. Forsythe should check with the Zoning Administrator before leasing to any non -camp uses to make sure that the use is consistent with the Ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated he agreed with the Chairman's analysis. Mr. Johnson added that he had driven the road and it was completely non -tolerable. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-15 for Crossroads Waldorf School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. N April 17, 1890 Discussion: Page 7 Ms. Andersen asked how the road could be upgraded. She noted that there are many non -tolerable roads in the County and "we can't shut down everything." Mr. Rittenhouse felt it was a question of intensity of the use. He felt that an access which would accommodate 100 children per day was different than the access to an individual's property. Regarding the issue of upgrading the road, he explained this could be considered for inclusion in the Six -Year Secondary Road Plan. Ms. Andersen asked for a definition of "reasonable access_" Mr. Keeler explained this was an issue for the Commission to determine; however, staff is informing the Commission that "this is a road on which you would not reasonably anticipate two vehicles to be able to pass in all cases without incident." Mr. Wilkerson stated that approval of this permit would be adding to an already unsafe situation. The previously stated motion for denial passed (5:1:1) with Commissioners Grimm, Huckle, Wilkerson, Rittenhouse, and Johnson voting for the motion; Commissioner Andersen abstaining; and Commissioner Jenkins voting against the motion. SP-90-11 Kenneth V. Carroll - The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to allow a division of land into 8 parcels of 2 acres with a 834.8 acre residue [Section 10.2.2(28)]. Property is located on the west side of Route 800 at the Albemarle/Nelson County line in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 126, Parcel 31A and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that this request is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, Section 31.2.4.1 and the criteria for a special use permit found in Section 10.5.2.1. Therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-90-11 Kenneth Carroll." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented first by Mr. Robert Wood, attorney for Mr. Carroll. He stressed that Mr. Carroll's Purpose in making the request was to help other people. He explained that the cost of putting in some sort of septic I -4 April 17, 1880 Page 8 system for the houses was economically unfeasible based on the value of the structures. He explained the history of the houses briefly and explained that in some cases the houses have been occupied by the same family for as long as 57 years. He stressed that all the residents of the houses are economically disadvantaged. He explained that Mr. Carroll has spent a considerable sum ($14,000) of his own money in making improvements to the houses. He stressed that the houses pre -date the Zoning Ordinance and nothing is being changed. Rather, the purpose of the request is to provide the opportunity for those persons living in the houses to own them. He disagreed that the use was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance because nothing was being changed. He stated he was not aware of any community opposition. He stated that all the "possible problems" listed in the staff report are hypothetical because none of them exist. Mr. Carroll also addressed the Commission. He spoke at length about the history of the property, his interest in and plans for the property, and the reasons for this request. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Carroll if he would be unable to make improvements to the property, such as bringing water to the property, unless this request is approved, i.e. would an increase in rent not make this feasible? Mr. Carroll's response did not answer Mr. Johnson's question definitively. He explained he was uncertain as to his action if the request is denied, but he stated he would be unable to maintain the houses as rental units. He indicated he thought the owner would problably destroy the houses. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Kevin Cox, representing the Albemarle County Housing Coalition, addresed the Commission. He asked staff if the area which had been approved for septic drainfields was large enough to serve the needs of all eight houses. Mr. Fritz responded that staff has received no approval from the Health Department. However, he explained that in the Zoning Administrator's review it had been determined that the soils on Lot 8 (with the information provided by the applicant) were suitable for that unit only. He did not know if a reserve area had been located. He stated Mr. Carroll has been carrying the burden of trying to help these people for quite a while and he is seeking justifiable relief. He pointed out that VHDA recently appropriated several million dollars to assist in the installation of septic systems and bathrooms into low income dwellings. He felt this could be relevant to Mr. Carroll's problem. /D/ April 17, 1990 Page 9 Mr. Gary Stasko expressed a desire for a better understanding of the status of the property. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. St. John explained the basis for the Board of Zoning Appeals granting of the variances for this property. He explained that the term "extenuating circumstances" was not applicable. He stated that the BZA had simply applied the criteria for granting a variance, i.e. "(1) Is there a hardship if this variance is denied? (2) Is this a hardship that is shared by everybody in the same zoning district so that the solution is an amendment rather than a variance? (3) Is the granting of this variance going to be detrimental to adjoining property or out of keeping with the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance?" He stated the BZA had determined that "there was a hardship because if the variance was denied these people would be homeless, and that's a hardship." He recalled that if this transaction is not approved, the owner, Mr. Wilkins, is going to demolish the houses and treat the entire 600 acres as one tract. He recalled that the BZA found that the residents of the dwellings in question are accustomed to this type of lifestyle and therefore it is not a hardship to continue in this manner, but it would be a hardship to be homeless. He pointed out that this is a unique situation in that it is an old "company town," and it is an existing situation and not one that is being created. Mr. Johnson noted that the staff report had not included the information about the possible demolition of the dwellings. Mr. St. John felt this was a critical factor in the variance request, but was not as critical in a subdivision request. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the review was beginning "to stray." He reminded the Commission that the request should be evaluated on its merits. Mr. Johnson felt that this was such a unique request that no aspect of it should be ignored. Me. Huokle noted that the approximately $6,000/year rent which the houses were currently bringing in should be able to pay for some of the improvements referred to by Mr. Carroll. She stated that the County was being asked to give approval to a situation that is seriously non -conforming. She pointed out that approval of this request could result in these "flawed" lots being sold to unsuspecting individuals at some future time. There followed a discussion about other possible approaches to achieve Mr. Carroll's goals, e.g. a rural preservation /D9 April 17, 1990 Rage 10 development (which would still require Commission approval of a subdivision plat), a condominium regime of ownership (where the houses are sold but the property is not subdivided and lots are not created), or assistance from some of the Housing organizations in obtaining some type of financing. Mar. Rittenhouse expressed appreciation for Mr. Carroll's efforts and also empathy for anyone who might potentially be left without housing. However, he quoted the following from the staff report: "Approval of this petition will establish these lots as perpetual and lawful under the Zoning regulations." He noted that the lots would be established without septic facilities. He felt this was an "uncomfortable precedent for the Commission to entertain." He stated the Commission is faced with the requirement of sound planning in relation to the issuance of a special permit. He felt the provision for sanitary facilities was integral for the establishment of a subdivision. He stated he could not support a request to create additional lots which would not have sanitary septic facilities available to the lots, "with the full knowledge that those lots will then be created and will endure and will be recognized as viable lots for houses and we will have endorsed them without adequate sanitary facilities." He stated he was unwilling to accept the proposition that "the fate of the people who currently reside there rests with the us and our recommendation to the Board on the status of this special permit. He concluded he could not support the request regardless of the consequences. He stated he agreed with staff's assessment of the request. Ms. Andersen introduced the subject of "ground rents," which exist in other states. Mr. St. John commented on this issue. He stated there had never been a ground rent concept presented to the Commission or the Board. He presented the following senario: "Let's say the Board denies this special use permit and we found that the day after the denial Mr. Wilkins had leased this entire 16 acres to Mr. Carroll for 999 years and Mr. Carroll had divided it just like he wants to here only instead of a sale of subdivision, he had leased it to each of these tenants for 999 years. That's not a subdivision, that's a ground rent arrangement and 1 don't know what we would do. That isn't in our Zoning Ordinance." He stated he had given this issue considerable thought and he was unable to answer Ms. Andersen's question. Mr. Johnson stated he had visited the property and spoken with some of the residents. He explained that all those he had spoken with spoke very highly of Mr. Carroll. Regarding the issue of possible ownership of their dwellings, he /00 April 17, 1990 Page 11 stated they "had no idea of what it might mean to them." He stated one of the tenants had brought up the subject of leasing. He felt this was an "extreme" situation which deserved more than passing attention. He stated that while he supported the Chairman's position of not approving a violation, he was in favor of trying to assist the applicant in achieving his goals through some other approach if possible. He concluded he hated to see it "dropped because of technicalities, valid as they may be." Ms. Andersen agreed that she did not wish to set a precedent and did not want to violate sound planning practices, but at the same time she did not want to "close down negotiations for these people to accomplish what I see as a need to be accomplished." Mr. Rittenhouse painted out that the request was to create a subdivision, and a denial of the request would not prevent the current arrangement from continuing. He stated the County could not influence what takes place between the two applicants (Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Carroll). He also noted that it was the applicant's decision to request this subdivision --it had not been requested at the direction of the County. Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with all that had been said and because he felt approval of the request would be precedent setting, he moved that SP-90-11 for Kenneth V. Carroll be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously - (She noted that she had great sympathy for the residents of the property in question, but she felt there were other avenues which could achieve the desired result.) RP-gn-23- The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to permit a Body Shop with a Wrecker Service on 1.7 acres [Section 27.2.2(11)1. Property is located on the west side of Route 742 adjacent to Astec in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Property is described as Tax Map 77, parcel 8A and is zoned LI, Light Industry. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He explained that the use currently exists and the request is to bring it into compliance and if the permit is not approved, the use will be in violation, as it currently is. He also explained that the use of auto sales may continue because it was approved in 1977 /OA1 April 17, 1990 Page 12 Ms. Huckle noted that there was no condition addressing the issue of VDOT recommendations related to sight distance. Mr. Fritz stated that was an oversite and a condition could be added as follows: "VDOT approval of commecial entrance permit." He stated also that this would be addresed by staff approval of the final site plan. The applicant was represented by Mr. Wade Jacobson. He explained that the applicant was not requesting an intensity in the use but only wished to bring the use in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He stated when the applicant had purchased the property in 1980, it was already being used for auto sales, painting and storage of vehicles. He explained that the AAA service had been in existence for approximately 5 years. He stated the applicant was willing to comply with the suggested conditions of approval. He felt the use would not be a detriment to adjacent properties because of the nature of adjacent uses. In response to Ms. Huckle's concerns, Mr. Rittenhouse noted that performance standards would address issues of water and air pollution, noise, glare, etc. Ms. Huckle asked for a definition of "storage area." Mr. Jacobson explained the storage area would be used to store vehicles towed for AAA until they can be evaluated by an insurance adjustor. He stated it would not be used for disabled cars, or as a junk yard. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Phyllis Zimmerman addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the number and condition of cars which are stored on the property. She stated some are completely rusted and have been on the property for some time. She felt these should be removed within a reasonable time. Mr. Keeler explained the screening which would be required. Ms. Zimmerman determined that the vehicles would still be visible until the screening matured, and therefore she asked that an opaque fence be required. Ms. Huckle asked if a condition could be added addressing the length of time a vehicle could be stored. Mr. Wilkerson stated it would be difficult to enforce such a condition. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt it was important to differentiate between temporarily or permanently stored vehicles. Ms. Zimmerman stated that some of the vehicles are permanent because they are in such a condition that they could not be moved, e.g. they have no wheels. She stated the property resembles a junk yard. 105 April 17, 1990 Page 13 Mr. St. John stated that a use of this type should have no permanently stored vehicles, i.e. they are either there to be repaired, appraised or they are being used for salvage. Ms. Zimmerman suggested the use resembled a salvage yard. Mr. St. John recommended that a use could be added that "Under no circumstances will the property be used as a salvage yard and there shall be no storage for salvage purposes. He explained that the State does not allow the operation of a salvage yard without a State Salvage License and such a license is not obtainable unless the zoning permits such an operation. Mr. Jenkins stated that after all discussions have taken place, the bottom line is "try to be a good neighbor." He stated he was tired of being in the position of having to tell people to be neighborly. Mr. Floyd Artrip, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He presented photographs of the subject property (some recent, others several months old) and neighboring properties. He stated that the previous owner of the subject business had been in violation of several County ordinances. The pictures presented by Mr. Artrip indicated the property was being used as a junk yard. He stated he was surprised the application was being heard by the Commission since the use is currently in violation of the Ordinance. He thought it was policy that requests not be heard under such circumstances. He pointed out that the present occupant of the business was cited for operating a junk yard and wondered why no mention had been made of this in the staff report. He felt the use was of substantial detriment to adjoining properties. He stated the owner of the property (not the tenant) had assured him that the violations would be corrected. He pointed out that the previous owner had never implemented an approved site plan and landscaping and paving had never been done. (Mr. Artrip answered an earlier question of Ms. Huckle's and stated that the property is not served by public sewer.) Mr. Artrip stated that the applicant has ignored County citations. He felt neither the applicant, nor the use, was appropriate for this site. He concluded: "Southside is not a stepchild any more. It's an up and coming area. It needs to have a little different attention." Mr. St. John commented: "Those pictures show a salvage operation." Regarding the status of the zoning violations, Mr. St. John explained: "This is one of the problems that arose prior to the present Zoning Administrator. ... Because this use was involved with something that had been there April 17.1990 Page 14 already, she called a halt to the process of this violation. The next step would have been to take this gentleman to court --to get a warrant against him. But there was some question --and he asserted that what he was doing was grandfathered under the Granger operation. it took quite a while for her to get this background together, which she has now done, or so much of it as she can get. And now she and my office are ready to prosecute, but since this special use permit has gone this far, she is not actually going to the magistrate to swear out a warrant until we see how this application comes out." Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Fritz if the photographs were an accurate representation of what is taking place on the site. Mr. Fritz responded that no crushed vehicles had been present on the site when he had visited it. He also stated he did not recall having seen tires, but there were disabled vehicles on the site. He concluded: "There.are things going on at the site which will need to cease, regardless of whether this permit should be approved." He stated the permit would not allow a salvage yard and some of the repairs being performed would have to cease. Neither Mr. Fritz nor Mr. St. John were aware of how many times the use had been cited for violations. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that the Zoning Administrator attempts to give violators the opportunity to rectify violations before instituting court proceedings. Mr. Johnson stated he had visited the site and made the following observations: --The operation qualifies, without question, as a public nuisance. --As of Saturday afternoon there were approximately 100 vehicles in various states of disablement on the site. --There is no credible evidence that there are automobiles for sale on the site. --Junk cars are are stored in the open, including tires and parts. --There is no evidence that any body work is taking place. --Screening of the property, other than a solid fence, would be totally ineffective. He concluded that he felt not only that this request should be rejected, but also on the basis of non-conformance with the original authorization for sales, the use should be removed entirely. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. �a7 April 17, 1990 Page 15 Ms. Andersen asked Mr. Artrip to read the citation which he had made reference to. Mr. Artrip complied and read the following: "At this time it is being used as a car lot, junk yard and wrecker service. This is in violation of Section 27 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and this office is hereby asking the removal of all junk vehicles and the wrecker service by August 15, 1988." Mr. Keeler added that the restriction on spray painting had been on the original site plan (1977). He read other notes which were included on the plan. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-23 for J.S. & Frances D. Barnett be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he was not interested in granting a special permit for a use that currently has an outstanding zoning violation. He noted also that the area has changed considerably since this use came into being. The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS There followed several brief discussions about various topics including the following: --Mr. Johnson asked the County Attorney's office to look into the possibility of the existing permit to operate the Granger Auto Sales being revoked on the basis that the use has been abandoned because it has not been exercised. Mr. St. John stated he would look into the matter. --Mr. Keeler asked the Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intent to allow the staff to automatically schedule for public hearing upcoming zoning amendments which will be mandatory as the result of recently adopted state legislation. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that staff be granted this authority. The motion passed unanimously. --Mr. Jenkins suggested consideration be given to the establishment of some type of public organization which would have the purpose of accepting gifts of land to be used for public open space and that the idea be publicized so as to encourage developers to participate. April 17, 1990 Page 16 The Commission agreed this idea had merit, but staff explained that they currently did not have adequate staff to handle such an idea. Other possible organizations were mentioned which might be able to get involved, e.g. Piedmont Environmental Council. --There was a discussion about problems involved with the enforcement of "minute or unenforceable" conditions which the Commission is often tempted to apply to permits. Mr. St. John pointed out that the Zoning Administrator does not have the staff to enforce such conditions. It was also noted that if a request seems to require these type of conditions to make it approvable, it is usually a warning that the request is a "forced fit." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. DS M