HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 05 90 PC MinutesJUNE 5, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 5, 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. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief
of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda
Lipinski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County
Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May
15, 1990 were approved as submitted.
ZTA-90-06 County of Albemarle - To amend the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance in Section 32.7.9 Landscaping and
Screening Requirements to require minimum tree canopy.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report. The staff report
explained: "With the passage of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Board of Supervisors has requested that several ordinance
changes be provided which would address resource protection.
one such provision would be for the requirement for
preservation of trees in developments. This requires
amendments to the site plan provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance. Use of such provisions is enabled through
Section 15.1-14.2 of the Virginia State Code." Mr.
Cilimberg concluded that staff feels the recommendation made
to the Commission "is totally consistent with the Resource
Protection Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
and we are recommending approval."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the Blue Ridge Home Builders
Association, addressed the Commission. He stated that his
organization supported the amendment "in spirit." He
suggested, however, that the proposed amendment follow the
same language as the enabling legislation as follows: "tree
canopy or tree cover shall include all coverage by plant
material exceeding 5 feet in height." He noted that as
^ 5-
June 5, 1990
Page 2
proposed, the ordinance speaks only of "trees," which he
felt could be construed differently. He also asked that the
Commission defer action to allow time for him to do some
research on existing developments in order to understand
more clearly the implications of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Keeler pointed out to Mr. Wagner that staff had revised
the "generic planting list" to show the area coverage at 10
years maturity.
In relation to Mr. Wagner's concern about the difference in
the State Code wording and the staff's proposed wording, Ms.
Huckle asked if this difference was "by design." Mr.
Cilimberg explained that it was staff's intent to place the
emphasis on trees. He agreed that there could be a question
when the State Code references something specifically, but
indicated he was uncertain whether staff's reference to only
trees would be inconsistent. Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr.
Bowling's opinion as to whether or not the Ordinance should
be changed to read exactly as the State Code. Mr. Bowling
responded: "You can do that but you're still going to have
the ambiguity. It's an ordinance about trees and basically
trees are defined by the specifications of the American
Association of Nurserymen. That would ultimately be how you
define the words 'plant material,' i.e. if the plant
material is defined as a tree by the American Association of
Nurserymen, then it's a tree under your Ordinance. If it's
a weed that grows 12 feet high and has big leaves, it may
not be (a tree as defined by that Association), though it
certainly is a plant material. ... If it's your intent to
have plant material other than trees as defined by the
American Association of Nurserymen, then I think you are
outside the parameters of the enabling legislation."
Ms. Huckle asked if these amendments would effect only new
developments, or if they would be retroactive to existing
developments. Mr. Cilimberg indicated they would be applied
only to projects approved after their adoption, though they
could act as a guideline to existing developments which wish
to improve their sites.
Ms. Huckle asked it was intended that a lot of the trees be
placed in the parking areas. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
could be one approach. Mr. Keeler added that presently the
-7^i
June 5, 1990 Paqe 3
ordinance requires 115% pervious area within parking areas,"
but the plantings in those areas are left up to the
applicant. He explained further that the current
landscaping provisions are intended to address specific
objectionable aspects of a site (primarily intended as
screening) and also to "break up" parking areas. He
explained that as a result of the proposed amendments, "if
(a project) meets all the other requirements of the
landscape ordinance and still does not have 10% coverage,
then that will have to be made up."
Mr. Wilkerson asked if Mr. Cilimberg felt Mr. Wagner's
concern about the height of a bush vs. a tree warranted a
deferral or if the staff could address this question before
the Board hearing. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the
Commission could go ahead and act and staff would look into
this issue prior to the Board hearing.
Mr. Al Yancey addressed the Commission and asked about the
reasons for the 5 foot requirement. Mr. Bowling explained
that was a "minimum" requirement recommended by the State
Code.
Mr. Johnson asked for a definition of the specifications
referred to in the State Code and wondered why they were not
referred to in the proposed amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that local reviews of a developer's
tree cover proposal would be limited by the specifications
in the State Code. He stated those specifications were not
repeated in our local ordinance.
Mr. Johnson noted that any provisions are subject to future
interpretation. He felt the terms of the Code should be
repeated in the local ordinance verbatim, where possible.
He also felt that the evaluation should not be left to
developers, but rather the "option" should be with the Board
of Supervisors. He also felt the definition of "tree cover"
should be repeated verbatim in the ordinance.
The Chairman called for additional public comment; there
being none, the matter was placed before the Commission.
June 5, 1990
Page 4
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized some of the issues which had been
brought up: (1) The suggestion by Mr. Wagner that action
be deferred; and (2) The question about the definition of
tree in terms of plant material vs. tree canopy.
Mr. Bowling pointed out that there was no precise definition
of tree in the Code, so including the Code language would
not resolve any ambiguity.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt the definition used, i.e. "all trees to
be planted shall meet the specifications of the American
Association of Nurserymen," was "about as close to a
definition of trees as we are finding in the Code."
Mr. Johnson felt that referring to only "trees" in the
Ordinance was only "reacting to a certain portion of the
Statute."
Ms. Huckle supported staff's specification of trees because
they generally last longer than bushes and also are not as
likely to obscure sight distance as they mature.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that except for that one reference to
plant material, the State Code uses the term tree throughout
the Statute. He added, however, that if it was the
Commission's desire to include the Code wording, the best
place to insert it would be in Section 32.7/9/5(b),
replacing the first sentence as it presently exists.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt the Commission was "quibbling over the
definition." It was his feeling that the Ordinance clearly
contemplates a tree and the issue should not take up any
more agenda time.
Ms. Huckle was in favor of additional language which would
encourage developers to include trees in parking areas. She
was not in favor of it being a mandate, but rather a
suggestion. Mr. Rittenhouse responded that if it was
included in the ordinance, it would have to be a mandate
rather than a suggestion.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that after implementation of these
requirements staff may become aware of other issues and
possibly needed changes to the landscape requirements as a
result of these changes.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA 90--06 to amend Section 32.7.9
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in relation to Tree
Canopy be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as follows:
Ind
June 5, 1990
32.7.9.9 TREE CANOPY
Page 5
The foregoing notwithstanding, a minimum tree
canopy shall be provided in accordance with this
section. "Tree canopy" or "t'ree cover" shall
include all areas of coverage by trees exceeding
five (5) feet in height at a maturity of ten (1.0)
years. Existing trees to be preserved in
accordance with 32.7.9.4b. together with trees
rewired under 32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7, and 32.7.9.8
shall count toward satisfaction of minimum tree
canopy.
The following minimum_.reguirements shall apply;
a. Ten (10%) percent tree canopy for a site to
be developed with commercial, office, or
industrial uses;
b. Ten (lot) percent tree canopy for a
residential site to be developed at a gross
density of twenty (20) dwelling units per
acre or more;
C. Fifteen (15%) percent tree canopy for a
residential site to be developed at a gross
density of more than ten (10) but less than
twenty (20) dwelling units per acre;
d. Twenty (20U percent tree canopy for a
'residential site to be developed ata gross
density of ten (10) or fewer dwelling units
per acre.
In calculation of land area_sublect to this section
the following areas may be deducted at the option of
the developer:
Recreation areas as required under 4.15;
-- open space areas as required under 4.7;
Land dedicated to public use;
Playing fields and recreation areas attendant to
schools, day care, and the like;
Ponds or lakes deemed by the commission to constitute
a desirable open space amenity; and
,209
June 5, 1990
or other applicable law.
Page 6
Deductions provided above shall be cumulative but shall not
be duplicative.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he supported the general philosophy of
the amendments, but could not support the motion "in view of
the inconsistency between the terminology used in the
proposed ordinance and the Statute and the fact that it
gives this authority to the developer rather than to the
Board of Supervisors and because it omits reference to the
specifications as in the Statute."
The previously stated motion for approval passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
SP-90-40 Curtis and D-abbie Mundie - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit for a Home Occupation Class B [5.2 and 10.2.2(31)] to
allow a hauling operation for sand, dirt, and gravel with
two employees. Property consists of 4.7 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 23
(part), is located on a private road, 1/4 mile south of Rt.
641 and 1/2 mile east of Rt. 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This property is not within a designated growth
area.
The applicant was requesting deferral to June 19, 1990.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-90-40
be deferred to June 19, 1990. The motion passed
unanimously.
In
June 5, 1990 Page 7
r
SP-90-38 Edward A.and Betty J. Hunt - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit to change a temporary single wide mobile home to a
permanent mobile home (5.6 and 10.2.2(100] on 19.22 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 56,
Parcel 111, is located on the south side of Route 250
approximately one mile east of Route 635 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This property is not within a
designated growth area.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ed Hunt. He explained
that it was his original intent to build a conventional
dwelling, but that has come to be financially impossible.
He explained that his son currently occupies the unit and
will continue to do so.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-38 for Edward A. and Betty J.
Hunt be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located;
3. 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;
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
June 5, 1990 Page 8
7. This special use permit is to be issued for use by
Edward A. and Betty Jane Hunt and their family only.
(Note: The word only was added at the suggestion of Ms.
Huckle after the motion was made)
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-43 Dana Lynn Capps and Robert Lee Sprouse - The
applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a
special use permit for a single wide mobile home [5.6 and
10.2.2(100] on 3.68 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 114, Parcel 57A6, is located on the
north side of Rt. 708 approximately one mile west of Rt. 620
in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This property is
not within a designated growth area.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Sprouse. He stated the
unit would be 400 yards from the road and 100 yards from the
power line adjacent to Mr. Purcell's property. He did not
feel the mobile home would interfere with Mr. Purcell.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-43 for Dana Lynn Capps and
Robert Lee Sprouse be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from gound level to base of
the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
4. 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;
� t�
June 5, 1990 Page 9
5. 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 it it should die;
6. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
driveway entrance;
7. Mobile home is not to be rented;
8. This special use permit is to be issued for use by Dana
Lynn Capps, Robert Lee Sprouse and their family only.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-42 Kathleen Pearson - The applicant is petitioning the
Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a
Home Occupation Class B [10.2.2(31) and 5.2] with two part
time employees. Use is an off -site indoor plant maintenance
with small flower delivery only. Property consists of 1.5
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map
62B1, Parcel B10 is located at 353 Key West Drive in the Key
West Subdivision in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This
property is not within a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The staff report
stated: " This special use permit involves an agricultural
use (horticulture) proposed in an area recommended as Rural
Area. Therefore, this use is considered consistent with the
goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. Regulation
of such uses should only address issues specifically related
to public health and safety. ... Staff has reviewed this
request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval subject to
conditions."
The report also noted that 27 letters of opposition and 4
letters of support had been received.
The applicant, Ms. Kathleen Pearson, addressed the
commission. She presented a drawing of her floorplan and
explained the proposed use in relation to the house. She
June 5, 1990 Page 10
explained in some detail the nature of her business. She
presented photographs of her existing dwelling and business.
Additional comments included the following:
--The office will be located above the carport.
--An additional small shed will be added to house a
riding lawnmower, garden tools, potting soil, etc., at some
future time.
--Most of the work is performed off -site.
--The business will remain small; there are no plans to
expand it.
--A future greenhouse will be a "lean-to" and will not
be a "structure off on its own."
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question about delivery
vehicles, Ms. Pearson explained that her employees use their
own vehicles. Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the applicant
contemplated a delivery van with a logo. Ms. Pearson
responded that she may at some future time have a
family -type van which would also be used for business. She
stated that she would not have vehicles dedicated solely for
business use, but she did have a small temporary logo on the
vehicles.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding the possible
location of a future greenhouse, Ms. Pearson pointed out the
possible location, on the east side of the house (the back)
and that it would be visible to neighbors but not from the
road. (Mr. Rittenhouse noted that such an addition as
described by Ms. Pearson could be applicable to any
residence so long as it meets building code regulations.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons, residents of the Key West community,
expressed their opposition to the request: Mr. Harold
Bushy; Mr. Kent Sinclair; Mr. Jack Schwabb; Mr. William
Roberson; Ms. Marjorie Cardino; Mr. Edward Smith; Mr. Ken
Boyd; Ms. Ena Cruzman; Ms. Pat Keats; Ms. Eileen Rutschow;
and Mr. Jim Ross. (Approximately 50 persons attending the
meeting indicated their opposition to the proposal by
standing at Mr. Sinclair's request. Mr. Sinclair also
presented a petition of opposition containing 83 signatures.
June 5, 1990
Page 11
A copy of the petition is made a part of this record as
Attachment A.) Reasons for opposition included the
following:
--The use will change the character of a strictly
residential neighborhood;
--The use is in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance
directive that says a home occupation shall be "harmonious
and appropriate" with the neighborhood;
--A residential subdivision in a rural area should not
be definied any differently than a residential subdivision
in any other district;
--Possible contamination of groundwater caused by
chemicals used in the business;
--Fear of precedent which would allow other businesses;
--Drain on central well;
--Insufficient parking;
--Increased traffic;
--Staff's support is based on a "twisted"
interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan because though
zoned RA, Key West is a residential neighborhood and NOT a
true rural area;
--Devaluation of property values.
There being no futher public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson asked staff to comment on the following
statement taken from the staff report: "All decisions
concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of
the four major elements of the rural areas (with highest
priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal
activities rather than encouraging residential
development)." Mr. Wilkerson found this statement confusing
given the fact that the neighborhood in question is a
residential subdivision.
Mr. Cilimberg responded to this question and explained that
the intent in regards to the Rural Area is that agricultural
uses in those areas are of prime importance and residential
uses are secondary uses in the Rural Areas. He stated that
was a guideline of the Comprehensive Plan, and no statements
had been included in the Plan regarding existing residential
areas.
z16y
June 5, 1990
Page 12
Mr. Keeler added that a Home Occupation Class B is a
permitted use not only in the Rural Areas, but also in all
residential districts.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he felt this use would result in a
change in character to a residential neighborhood and
therefore he moved that SP-90-42 for Kathleen Pearson be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors fir_ denial.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle stated that this is a residential neighborhood
and though this area is zoned RA, it is in no way an
agricultural district. She concluded that though this
particular use may not be objectionable, it could set a
precedent. She noted that the first step in the decline of
any neighborhood is often the introduction of business.
Mr. Johnson agreed that the area in question had no
agricultural characteristics. He felt the use would have a
"definite effect on the current aesthetics of the area."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt the central issue was whether
or not the character of the area would be changed by the
proposed use. it was his feeling that the use could
potentially change the character of the neighborhood.
The previously stated motion for denial passed unanimously.
SP-90-27 Henry T. & Juanita Garrison - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit to allow for a Home Occupation Class B to allow for
the making of concrete lawn statues [5.2 and 10.2.2(31)] on
0.59 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as
Tax Map 14, Parcel 44A is located on the west side of Route
810 approximately 900 feet north of Route 668 in the White
Hall Magisterial District. This property lies within a
designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that, without a structure meeting minimum
yard requirements and allowing for all activities to occur
. 214
June 5, 1990 Page 13
inside, this request is inconsistent with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 5.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance. ... Staff recommends denial."
The applicant, Mr. Garrison, addressed the Commission. He
explained that his business would be very small, involving
only himself and his wife. He stated he could not store the
statues inside because he did not have a large enough
structure, but he stated he could cover them with a tarp.
He also stated he could paint inside if necessary. He
stated there was very little noise with the operation and no
additional traffic. He explained that he has never received
a complaint from neighbors. (A letter of support had been
received from an adjoining neighbor.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-90-27 for Henry T. & Juanita
Garrison be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. All activities including storage of materials shall be
performed inside;
2. No employees other than family members who reside
on -site;
3. Compliance with performance standards of Section 4.14 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
(Note: Mr. Jenkins deleted staff's original condition No.
2--[All accessory structures shall conform to minimum
setbacks for the Rural Areas. Those setbacks are 75 feet
from the edge of right-of-way, 25 feet from the side lot
lines and 35 feet from the rear lot line.]. He noted that
it is only a 1/2 acre lot and the next door neighbor has
written in support of the application.)
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
a0/7
June 5, 1990
Page 14
Mr. Johnson stated this is "truly a Ma and Pa operation,"
and any requirements placed on the applicant "can only work
to the detriment of his activity." Mr. Johnson noted that
the adjacent property owners have no opposition to the
proposal. Mr. Johnson suggested that conditions 1 and 3
also be deleted.
Mr. Rittenhouse cautioned that the Commission needed to
beware of basing a decision solely on the particular
characteristics of a particular application, e.g.
applicants' characteristics, neighbors' comments, etc. He
felt that was a dangerous practice, because "when we start
conditioning our recommendations to the Board on those
particular aspects, then we open ourselves up to such
interpretations on every special permit which comes before
use. When we start waiving Ordinance provisions which are
reasonable in one case, then we are faced with whether or
not to waive them on the next application, and by what
criteria do we waive them, and how do we evaluate where we
waive and where we don't waive. I think it's not to our
benefit and not to the County's benefit to start getting
very loose with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff's
recommendation here was for denial based on setbacks and
inside activity, but the recommended conditions of approval
would seem to bring the application into conformance, as I
read them." Mr. Rittenhouse quoted from the staff report
that the applicant had indicated a willingness to construct
a new building which would meet minimum yard requirements.
(Mr. Fritz interjected that it has not been determined if
there is sufficient area to locate such a structure.) Mr.
Rittenhouse stated that basically he is supportative of Home
Occupations and if he opposes a request it is usually
because of the feeling that the use would change the
character of the area. However, he stated he could not
support a motion which would waive Ordinance requirements,
though he was not "unsupportative of the applicant's posture
and his business."
Ms. Huckle stated she agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse.
Ms. Andersen asked what happens in an instance where an
applicant cannot meet Ordinance requirements because of the
limitations of the site. Mr- Rittenhouse responded:
2 /1?
June 5, 1990
Page 15
"That's what the Ordinance is about in part --it prescribes
minimum requirements to be able to conduct a certain
activity and under certain constraints. If those
constraints can't be satisfied, then the Ordinance would
deem that activity inappropriate for that site and
location."
Mr. Bowling stated that the applicant had the option of
seeking a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr.
Bowling also pointed out that the Commission can waive
requirements under the definition of Supplementary
Conditions.
Ms. Andersen also questioned the requirement for painting to
be done inside. She questioned what this would accomplish
since the building would have to be ventilated and thus the
odor would still be noticable to neighbors.
Mr. Keeler noted that under Supplementary Regulations, the
Commission could waive any provisions "in a particular
case." He felt the Commission might wish to consider the
intent of the regulations as they apply to Home Occupations,
i.e. that neighbors don't know that the activity is taking
place. He stated that in this particular case instead of
following the letter of the Supplementary Regulations,
determine if "there is some other way to skin the cat." He
suggested that a stockade -type fencing might meet the intent
of the Ordinance. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission of a
very similar business on Rt. 29 North, on which it had been
recommended that the storage area be fenced off. He noted
that the business on Rt. 29 had resulted in a Court case and
the eventual discontinuance of the operation.
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that Mr. Garrison's business is
different from the one referred to by Mr. Keeler because it
is not visible from the road and though it is visible to
neighbors, the neighbors have expressed support. Mr.
Jenkins added that he, too, was mindful of the issue of
precedent, but given the nature of this proposal, he felt it
would be a miscarriage of justice to disapprove it.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that Mr. Keeler had refreshed his memory
and though he had seconded the motion for approval, he would
not support the motion.
219
June 5, 1990 Page 16
Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Jenkins and added that he felt
"it is our mission to do everything we can to support the
residents and recognize that we have to make exceptions as
the case may be."
There was a discussion about the possibility of replacing
staff's original condition No. 2 with a requirement for a
fence. Mr. Cilimberg stated such a condition would
probably be a supplement to Condition 1. He stated a fence
would not be considered an accessory structure so setbacks
would not be a consideration.
Ms. Huckle asked if the permit could be issued to the
applicant only and not attached to the land. Mr. Bowling
stated that, with the exception of mobile homes, the general
rule is that special permits run with the land.
Mr. Grimm stated he was not comfortable with the motion on
the floor because he felt it could be precedent setting.
The previously stated motion for approval, with three
conditions (as stated previously) failed to pass (2:4:1)
with Commissioners Jenkins and Johnson voting in favor of
the motion, Commissioners Grimm, Huckle, Wilkerson and
Rittenhouse voting against, and Commissioner Andersen
abstaining.
The Chairman called for an alternative motion.
Mr. Wilkerson asked staff for an alternative condition,
requiring fencing, to replace conditions 1 and 2. Mr.
Keeler suggested: "The area devoted to the home occupation
shall meet the screening requirements of Section 32.7.9.8 of
the Ordinance including the fencing requirements of that
section."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-27 for Henry T. & Juanita
Garrison be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The area devoted to the home occupation shall meet the
screening requirements of Section 32.7.9.8 of the Ordinance
including the fencing requirements of that section.
a.2 0
June 5, 1990 Page 17
,.
2. No employees other than family members who reside
on -site.
3. Compliance with performance standards of Section 4.14 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked if the permit would allow any other type of
business on the property. Mr. Rittenhouse responded: "It
would allow the making of concrete lawn statutes."
Mr. Johnson stated: "Technically, we may be very accurate,
but the idea of putting a fence out there is absolutely
ridiculous."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Mr. Garrison questioned the function of the fence. He
pointed out that it would not prevent noise or fumes. Mr.
Rittenhouse pointed out that a Home Occupation is intended
to be fairly invisible to neighbors and the Commission must
be as consistent as possible in applying the ordinance.
Mr. Johnson pointed out to the applicant that he would have
the opportunity to discuss the conditions of approval again
before the Board of Supervisors.
SP-90-45 Homestead Partners - The applicant is petitioning
the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a
pond in the Burruss Branch floodplain [ 30.31 on 42 acres,
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 29,
Parcel 1, Lots 11 and 12 of Logan Development are located on
the west side of Route 601 approximately one-half mile north
of Route 665 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This
property lies within a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
a2!
June S, 1990
Page 18
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Osborne. He
stated the applicant had no objections to the suggested
conditions of approval. He stated the pond would reduce
sediment that would normally go into the reservoir.
Mr. Grimm asked who would be responsible for maintenance of
the pond. Mr. Osborne explained that the owner of the
parcel on which the dam will be located will be responsible
for the maintenance.
Referring to comments from the Watershed Management
official, Mr. Rittenhouse asked if maintenance of the pond
was the same as maintenance of the dam. Mr. Fritz was
uncertain if Mr. Robertson was referring to the water
quality of the pond or maintenance of the pond by virtue of
maintenance of the dam.
Mr. Osborne stated he did not think maintenance would be a
burden because no dredging would be required.
Ms. Huckle asked about insurance or bonding in case the pond
"washes out and dumps a lot of stuff into the reservoir."
Mr. Osborne responded that he was not aware of any such
requirements. Mr. Osborne explained in some detail how the
structure would function. He felt the best insurance was "a
good healthy design." He stressed that this structure would
be very different than a small farm pond.
To address the Watershed Management Official's concerns, Mr.
Johnson suggested that the word pond be added to condition
No. 4, i.e. "Staff approval of pond/dam maintenance
agreement and flood easement." Mr. Osborn stated that would
be acceptable. Mr. Osborne also stated he did not think it
would be appropriate to require periodic dredging of the
pond as might be required with a runoff control structure.
Mr. Osborne pointed out that this structure is "an elective
recreational structure for this particular landowner" and
this subdivision has so little impervious coverage that it
is exempt from the requirements of the Runoff Control
ordinance.
Mr. Osborne commented on the siltation process and compared
this pond to the pond at Four Seasons.
June 5, 1990 Page 19
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-45 for Homestead Partners be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering approval of dam design to
include reinforced concrete riser and discharge pipe;
2. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
3. Compliance with all local, state, and federal permit
requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial
stream;
4. Staff approval of pond/dam maintenance agreement and
flood easement.
5. Staff approval of revised plat indicating 100 foot
septic and building setback from the edge of the
impoundment.
Mr. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Keeler made the following statement: "Some 10 years ago
there was a subdivision and zoning violation involving a
piece of property and by the time the staff became aware of
it most all the lots had been sold to individuals. We came
before the Planning Commission and said we were not prepared
to pursue a vacation of the plat to correct it, but we would
take a 'wait and see' position to see if other situations
like this were occurring. It was right around the adoption
of the Zoning Ordinance. At that time we did not have to
approve exempt plats and so we had no idea how many plats
were being put to record and how many other situations we
were going to come across like this. To my knowledge, this
is the only case that has occurred. One of the current
property owners is inquiring about development rights and
what she should do to subdivide her property. With the
;�23
June 5, 1990 Page 20
concurrence of the Commission, I will just treat it as
though it were conforming to the Ordinance in all respects
because we haven't seen any indication in the last ten years
that this was done with the notion of further benefitting
from the activity."
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the noncompliance would be
aggravated by the subdivision. Mr. Keeler responded: "No
sir."
The Commission expressed no concerns.
Mr. Johnson asked that a consideration of Section 33.4.4,
relating to Commission notification of BZA matters, be
scheduled on an upcoming agenda.
The Commission asked that the Board be made aware of the
Commission's concern about auto dealerships' illegal parking
of vehicles. Mr. Cilimberg suggested this would be a topic
that could be discussed at a joint meeting with the Board,
to be scheduled sometime in the summer.
The Commission asked Mr. Cilimberg to decide on a meeting at
which Resolutions of Appreciation could be presented to
former Commissioners.
The Commission was reminded that the Commission would not
meet on June 12th.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:15 p.m.
DS