HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 30 90 PC MinutesOCTOBER 30, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, October 30, 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. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms.
Yoland Lipinski, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning
Administrator; 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
October 9 and October 16 were approved as amended.
ZTA-90-13 - Amend Sections 10.3 and 10.5 of the Rural Areas
to bring them into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as
it relates to agricultural and rural uses and resolve
ambiguities in those sections which are creating
administrative Rroblems. Deferred from October 16, 1990
Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report.
The main issue of discussion was whether to include or
eliminate paragraph (a)(1). The Zoning Administrator, Ms.
Patterson, whose job it will be to interpret, implement and
enforce these provisions, addressed the Commission and
explained what these two options would mean in terms
administration. She explained that she is frequently asked
to make determinations on multiple tracts of land --more than
shown on the Tax Map --but under one parcel number. She
stated that if the amendment is passed as presently
proposed, with (a) (1) included, she will have to make those
determinations much more frequently and that will involve a
good deal more staff time and possibly require additional
staff as well. She stressed that she had no comment on the
policy implications, only the practice. She explained: "If
you use only the Tax Map reference there will be many cases
where a person has the right to sell off property because
they have separate deeds, but there's only one parcel
number, therfore there is only one set of development rights
that they would be allocated and they have to determine how
that happens."
Mr. Rittenhouse attempted to understand how the process is
currently working. 11(a)(1) is what Amelia does now. We
would be going back to Tax Map definition. Does that make
it more complex?" Ms. Patterson responded: "That's
67
October 30, 1990 Page 2
correct. If you delete (a)(1) and go back to how the Tax
Map depicts the property-- Mr. Rittenhouse: "Then you're
faced with the situation you just described." Ms.
Patterson: "Exactly." Mr. Rittenhouse: "Whereas right now
you look at development rights as a function of the lawful
lots." Ms. Patterson: "That's right. That's still a
complicated process, but it's less complicated and there's a
good mechanism in place. It's going to be an individual
property owner coming into my office and saying 'Hey, I
think I have several tracts of land, I need to sell one
off.' It's not going to be a case where somebody's already
made a transaction and finds that they've got an odd number
of development rights to allocate with an even number of
properties...."
Mr. Keeler presented some graphics to explain the difference
in including vs. deleting (a)(1). He also explained that
currently staff (the Zoning Administrator) is only involved
in the division of land, but the inclusion of (a)(1) would
involve the Zoning Administrator in the sale of existing
tracts of land.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Keeler stated
there would be potentially more division possible with the
inclusion of (a)(1). He reminded the Commission that a
former Commission had recommended to the Board, as part of
the Comprehensive Plan review, that development in the rural
areas could be reduced by going from 21 acre tracts to 40
acre tracts. Mr. Keeler explained further: "If you go with
the Tax Map, you are saying that existing parcels do not
exist for the purposes of the rural areas zone."
Mr. Keeler explained that the original intent of the
amendment was two -fold: (1) To reduce the administrative
burden; and (2) To recognize that we can further reduce
development in the rural areas by going with the Tax Map
number. Regarding the latter, he explained: "But if we do
that it will significantly increase the administrative
burden."
It was determined the existing system has been in place
since 1980 and "that is a system which is not based solely
on Tax Maps." Mr. Rittenhouse added: "This system that is
in use, and is being contemplated to actually make its way
with language into the Ordinance, wasn't what was originally
envisioned by the Board back in 1980 when they set up the
Ordinance with development rights. ... What we're hearing is
that the Board didn't intend that ---the Board intended that
the development rights be based on the Tax Map that was in
place at that time. ... What we're also hearing is that
October 30, 1990 page 3
that may or may not be the case, but that's not what's
happened between then and now and there are serious
administrative problems in trying to implement such a scheme
based entirely upon the Tax Map."
Mr. Keeler pointed out: "The Tax Maps are maintained by the
Real Estate Department for their purposes. I have come
across cases where a parcel is shown as triangular on the
Tax Map and it's actually rectangular on the survey. The
Tax Map is not intended to represent parcels as they
actually exist. So if you go with the Tax Map and Ms.
Patterson has to compare a plat to the Tax Map, that's
another difficulty."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated there were two main questions to be
resolved: (1) "Does this language reflect what was
intended by the Board in setting up the whole concept of
development rights; and (2) "Are alterations to what is
being proposed --either of those permutations workable?" He
asked: "Or is there some other system that more closely
reflects what we think the Board intended which is more
workable, manageable and can be implemented... to control
rural development growth?"
Mr. Cilimberg noted: "The 40-acre option would still not
eliminate this interpretative question. As long as you have
development rights, you have this question of interpretation
and administration. The easiest answer is to eliminate
development rights, obviously from the standpoint of what
you have to interpret. But that has never been considered a
realistic solution from the standpoint of the County."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "If the impetus is to reduce
development rights, then there are other ways to tackle it
other than to eliminate (a)(1). The idea is to try to
reflect literally what the Board envisioned. If the Board
was saying 'I'm basing development rights on Tax Map
parcels' then one way to get closer to that is, perhaps, to
eliminate (a)(1). If it hopelessly confuses the
implementation of that Ordinance then one would have to ask
'Is it a good Ordinance?' even if it more closely reflects
what the Board intended. Implementing a bad ordinance for a
good intention, perhaps, doesn't make a lot of sense
either."
Mr. Wilkerson stated that based on what he had heard, he
would not support the elimination of (a)(1).
The Chairman invited public comment.
0
I )
October 30, 1990 Page 4
Mr. Wilson Cropp commented briefly that he agreed with Mr.
Wilkerson, i.e. that the elimination of (a)(1) would be
opening a Pandora's Box, because if a person buys a piece of
land and then discovers he can't build on, "everybody is
going to be suing everybody."
Mr. Richard Carter, representing Mr. David Bass, and Ms.
Sherri Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environment
Council, expressed their support for the deletion of (a)(1).
They felt that (a)(1) would increase development in the
rural areas which is against the intent of the
Comphrehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. (Mr. Carter
quoted several sections from the Plan.) Mr. Carter felt the
Commission had a third option, in addition to either (1)
leaving in (a)(1) or (2) deleting it, i.e. to refuse to
recommend the amendment as presented and to say to the
Board: "You set the policy, you tell us what to do." He
felt the Board should be making the decision as to the
implementation of the policy, not the Commission.
Mr. High Ewald addressed the Commission. He was opposed to
the deletion of (a)(1) because he felt it would be taking
away property owners' rights. He felt there should be more
public discussion before this type of change was made. He
felt very few people were aware of the effect this change
could have on their rights. He felt it was "arbitrary to
change something which has been around for ten years, ...and
whether it was the intent of the Board or not, the actual
practice was different."
Mr. Dave Bass addressed the Commission. He stated he was
sympathetic to the administrative aspects of the issue. He
felt the biggest concern was policy, i.e. "What does the
County want to have happen in the Rural Area?" He stated
that the inclusion of (a)(1) would clearly create more
developable lots. He felt it would be appropriate for the
Commission to send a message to the Board that it was
concerned about the amount of development which is taking
place in the rural areas.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Comments on this issue were as follows:
HUCKLE:
"1 fear that if we don't delete (a)(1) the situation of
rampant growth in the rural areas is going to become much,
much worse."
70
r' )
October 30, 1990
Page 5
BOWLING:
"A Tax Map system can be used to designate
rights for the purposes of zoning as long
reasonable and rational and being rational
has to be perfect."
development
as that system is
doesn't mean it
He felt the simplest way to address the issue, from a legal
standpoint, was as recommended by staff, with (a)(1)
included as written. He felt both options were legally
defensible though there were many administrative problems to
deleting (a)(1). He explained that there would be more "ad
hoc" determinations by the Zoning Administrator if (a)(1) is
deleted.
JOHNSON:
He wondered if the simplest way would be to delete (a)(1),
go with the Tax Map number, and deal with challenges as they
arise.
RITTENHOUSE:
He expressed concern about the lack of knowledge of the
Board's discussions related to the establishment of
development rights, i.e. what were the perceived
circumstances, what made it fair, what made it appropriate,
what was the impact of the formula on the development
potential of the rural areas? He was concerned because the
Commission's action would either be in line with what the
Board envisioned, or at "cross purposes" with what was
envisioned. He stated: "I feel we're being called upon to
make a recommendation on language that in the final anaylsis
will effect development potential. It's got to be a
workable ordinance. It doesn't make sense to suggest an
ordinance that's going to be unmanagable. I'm not sure what
we're accomplishing along those lines. ... I have concerns
because I don't know if this language fits the formula.
Does it fit the idea of 21-acre residue or not? Does it
magnify rural development over what was intended when the
ordinance was written in the first place? We're not being
asked to change the whole ball of wax. We're not being
asked to re-examine residues and development rights and then
how to interpret it. We tackling a small one facet of this
thing and I don't know how tackling that one facet effects
the overall scheme. That's my difficulty with it. I would
feel foolish passing along something that I thought was just
unmanagable and could not be implemented well. At the same
time I don't think it's appropriate to pass along something
that we don't know is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan."
7/
I i
October 30, 1990
Page 6
KEELER:
"The language of (a)(1) is not
basically what is currently in
was adopted in 1980."
new language. It is
the Zoning ordinance as it
(Staff explained that the language in the existing ordinance
related to this issue is basically the same as being
proposed in (a)(1), but the amendment adds language which
makes it more specific and more detailed, thereby providing
more definition and specificity.)
Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Keeler if he could recall what the
Board's interpretation of "a parcel of record" had been in
1980. Mr. Keeler explained: "I think the final
determination was 'We think anybody ought to be able to do a
certain number of small lots and then after that you do
these larger tracts of land.' Actually small lots were the
exception. ... I've always viewed the Rural Areas lot size
as being 21 acres and everybody was entitled to 5 exceptions
to that." He could not recall any discussion about what
would occur if there were six tracts of land. He pointed
out: "The language that was adopted is before you and it
speaks to lots of record at a specific time and specific
date...."
(Ms. Huckle recalled that Tim Lindstrom, a Board member at
that time, had stated that the Tax Map was what was being
considered.)
Mr. Keeler stated that though that may have been the case,
that was not the language which had been adopted and what is
being considered at this time is the addition of language
that refers to the Tax Map.
Mr. Cilimberg added that before the Resolution of Intent for
this ZTA had been passed, it was the consensus of the Board
that the Tax Map reference was always intended and that was
the reason the Resolution of Intent was structured as it
was.
JENKINS:
He felt that either the amendment should be passed on to the
Board as presented by staff, or staff should be asked to
study it further. He didn't think much progress was being
made with the discusison.
?�Z
'I.
October 30, 1990
Page 7
MOTION
Mr. Jenkins moved that ZTA 90-13 to amend Sections 10.3 and
10.5 related to the Rural Areas be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval as proposed by staff (ATTACHMENT
A) with the inclusion of paragraph (a)(1) a part of that
amendment.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was concerned about two issues:
(1) Rural Growth. He stated that though the 1980 Board may
have intended that Tax Map numbers be used, they may not
have foreseen the rural area growth pressures which were to
take place. (2) Does referring to Tax Map definition to
implement this Ordinance make for a good Ordinance? He felt
a "lawful lot" definition was a better measure for
definition. He questioned whether the concern about growth
in rural areas could be fixed with a Tax Map definition.
Mr. Johnson felt the Tax Map definition was a good one
because it was unique. He felt the alternative was an
almost impossible -to -define concept.
Ms. Huckle stated she did not feel the Board would have sent
this to the Commission if it did not anticipate a change.
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the amendment has many
changes. He interpreted that the Board was seeking a better
definition within which the Zoning Administrator could work.
Mr. Johnson stated that he supported the motion but his
"personal preference and recommendation would be that (a)(1)
be deleted."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he shared some of Mr. Johnson's
concerns because he was not comfortable with the impact, but
he was not sure that deletion of (a)(1) would solve the
problem. He stated he would support the motion because he
thought the Commission was being asked to "define the pieces
of the puzzle —but he was uncomfortable with the allocation
of the pieces of the puzzle." He felt the lawful lot
definition of the "piece" was a better one than the Tax Map
parcel definition of the "piece." He added, however, that
he did not want his vote to imply to anyone that he was
comfortable with the possible increase in the development
rights beyond the number which was envisioned by the Board
when the Ordinance was adopted.
Ir3
October 30, 1990 Page 8
Ms. Huckle stated she would not support the motion with the
inclusion of (a)(1).
Mr. Wilkerson stated that presently the landowner's know
where they stand, but with the deletion of (a)(1) there will
be a great deal of confusion and the effect on the landowner
will have been disregarded. He stated he would support the
motion.
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner
Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
SP-90-89 R.B. & Carolyn P. Sweeney W.S. Fi att
a Piicant - The applicant is requesting renewal of
SP-85-78 to allow the continued removal of sand on 530.618
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map
94, Parcel 17 is located on the east side of oute 53
approximately one mile east of Route 729 in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a
designated growth area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-90-89
be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-90-22 - Rick L. Beyer - Request in accordance with
Section 33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone 25.333
acres from RA, Rural Area, to PRD, Planned Residential
Development. This property is to be added to the existing
Ashcroft PRD. Property, described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 85,
(a portion) is located adjacent to the northern section of
the existing Ashcroft Planned Residential Unit. The site is
located within the Rivanna Magisterial District and is not
located within a growth area.
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to agreements with the applicant. In
response to whether this proposal would result in more lots,
Ms. Lipinski explained that no additional lots were proposed
and the addition of additional lots would require a new
application.
Mr. Beyer addressed the Commission. He confirmed that he
was not requesting additional lots though the addition of
this land would allow for reconfiguration of some of the
lots on better land.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
'i4
it
October 30, 1990 Page 9
Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-90-22 for Rick L. Beyer be
recommended to the Board of Superivsors for approval subject
to the following agreements:
1. Compliance with ZMA-80-03;
2. Staff approval of subdivision plat showing 25.333 acre
subdivision;
3. No subdivision approval shall be given until the revised
application plan for the entire approval contained herein
has been submitted to the Department of Planning. Such
plans shall be submitted within sixty (60) days of the Board
approval of this petition.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-83 Juanita L. Wilson - Request in accordance with
Section 13.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance
of a speical use permit to allow a private dance school in
the existing Maple Grove Christian Church. Property,
described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 29C and 28 is located on
the south side of Rt. 649 at its intersection with Rt. 785.
Zoned R-1, Residential, in the Rivanna Magisterial district.
This property is located within a designated growth area.
The applicant was requesting deferral to November 13, 1990.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-90-83
be deferred to November 13, 1990. The motion passed
unanimously.
SDP-90-056 Paint ShoD Addition to Halls Body Sho
Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to add a 10,000 square foot
building on 5.67 acres zoned HI, Heavy Industrial.
Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 22C5 and 67, is
located in the Northside Industrial Park and at the end of
Northside Drive. This industrial park is located
approximately six miles north of Rt. 649 and is on the
western side of Rt. 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
This site is located within a designated growth area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that
SDP-90-056 for Halls Body Shop be indefinitely deferred.
The motion passed unanimously.
%-6-
October 30, 1990 page 10
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about possible zoning
violations which currently exist on the Halls Body Shop
site. (Ms. Patterson stated she was already aware of the
situation and it was being addressed. She explained that
part of the purpose of the proposed site plan was to achieve
compliance.)
Foster Well Company Site Plan Amendment - The applicant is
proposing amendment of the approved site plan in order to
modify parking and landscaping. The applicant is requesting
a waiver of Section 32.7.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance in
order to use a private well for water. The property,
described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E, is located on the north
side of Rt. 649 approximately ± 1/2 miles west of Rt. 29 in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. The site is located
within a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report explained
that the applicant was also seeking a waiver of Section
32.7.5.1 which would require that the applicant connect to
public water, if reasonably available. The report explained
that "the plat creating this parcel required connection to
public water." The report explained further that if this
waiver was granted then a variance of Section 4.1.3 would
also have to be granted to allow for a reduction in lot size
for a parcel not served by public utilities. Staff did not
support the applicant's request for a waiver but did
recommend approval of the applicant's site plan amendment
request subject to conditions.
The applicant, Mr. Donnie Foster, addressed the Commission.
He gave a history of the site plan. He explained that
though he had been required to connect to public water, he
had also been given permission by the Health Department to
drill a well on the property. He explained that at the time
of the site plan approval he had not been aware that "that
end of the cul-de-sac was full of rock." He explained that
he had tried to connect to public water from several
different places on the property, but has encountered "solid
rock". He explained that the cost of blasting to install a
water line approximately 150 feet will be $10,500 and that
is an expense he cannot afford. He stated that he is
currently using the well on the property and asked for
approval to apply for a variance to allow continued use of
the well, He stated the contractor he had consulted could not guarantee
that blasting would not damage his building.
It was determined the well -drilling operation uses
approximately 4,000 gallons of water per day.
The Chairman invited public comment.
74
i
October 30, 1990 Page 11
Mr. Henry Byzenski, an Engineer with the Albemarle County
Service Authority, addressed the Commission and explained
that the Service Authority does not support the request for
a waiver. He explained that if this request is approved the
applicant will be getting the benefits of fire protection
without paying any costs because he will not be connected to
public water. He stated the Service Authority feels that
public water is "reasonably available." He pointed out that
blasting through rock is a standard part of construction and
is not at all uncommon.
Mr. Foster noted that he was willing to pay the connection
fee and a monthly charge in order to have the fire
protection. He again stressed that he was aware that
obtaining water was possible engineering -wise, but that he
could not afford the cost.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse wondered what type of water usage had been
envisioned with this use, e.g. had it been envisioned that
public water would be used to satisfy 4,000 gallons of water
a day? He wondered why the Health Department had approved
the well on LI property in the first place. Mr. Fritz
stated there was no written record of Mr. Horne's comments
on this issue. He added that the Ordinance contains a
provision which requires a special use permit when water
consumption by a well exceeds 400 gallons per site acre.
He added that all the original approvals of this plan showed
connection to public water and there was no mention of a
private well.
Ms. Patterson stated she had been working with the applicant
since mid -August to correct several site plan violations and
Mr. Foster had been delivered an official copy of zoning
violations on August 14th citing three violations. She
explained: "He is in the structure now where he does not
have a certificate of occupancy, the site was developed and
did not comply with the current site plan, and he had not
connected to public water." She stated that the current
proposal is an attempt to bring the site into compliance.
She stated she had not felt comfortable issuing even a
temporary occupancy permit based on the public water issue.
She felt the first step was the determination as to whether
or not public water was reasonably available.
The possibility of combining this parcel with the parcel
across the road was discussed. It was finally determined
that even the combined acreage would not meet the
requirements, i.e. 100,000 square feet would be needed
whereas the applicant only has 80,000 in the two lots.
W
,ti
October 30, 1990
Page 12
Mr. Byzenski added that there
county where blasting has been
still been required.
are many other places in the
necessary, but connection has
Mr. Foster stressed that everything on the site has been
approved with the exception of the water. He again stated
he could not afford to install the water line.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated the applicant had documented, to his
satisfaction, the expense and non -availability of public
water. He also noted that the applicant had gone beyond
what is required to beautify the site and that should be
given some consideration. He stated he was in favor of the
request.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the issue of precedent.
She felt each time a variance is granted the Ordinance is
weakened.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that though he was sympathetic to the
applicant's predicament, he felt this was a policy issue.
He noted that this is industrially zoned and should be
served by public utilities. He stated the zoning
contemplates more intensive use and more intensive
requirements from a utilities standpoint. He stated he
could support staff's recommendation for approval, without
the waiver the request.
Ms. Huckle moved that the Foster Well company Site Plan
Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plan shall not be signed until the following
condition is met:
a. Removal of above -ground fuel tanks.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until
connection to public water is made.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
Montdomaine Cellars - Request for extension of trailer
permit.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The applicant was
requesting an extension of the current approval for a
temporary trailer. The report explained: "The applicant
7?
October 30, 1990
Page 13
sites as a justification financial difficulties in
constructing a permanent office and tasting room." The
staff report concluded: "Staff is unable to identify any
change in circumstance which warrants approval of the
request and therefore staff recommends denial of this
request."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Buck. He gave a
history of the winery. He stated that the use is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan because it attempts to preserve
the rural character of Albemarle County. He explained that
the plan to build an attractive, high quality tasting
building remains, but because of investor problems, this
still is not financially feasible at this time. He felt
this was a special situation because there is "a business
activity which is related to agriculture that's being
allowed in an agricultural area." He did not think the
continued use of this trailer was in opposition to that
situation. He suggested that the Commission consider a
zoning text amendment which would be "applicable to the use
of trailers on a permanent base in an agricultural
situation," or that the Commission consider waiving the
five-year limitation in this case and review this permit on
a periodic basis. He pointed out that a winery is not
possible without a tasting area. He stressed that this
particular business was a very long-term process.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Buck stated there
was not space within the winery for a tasting area and even
an addition to the existing building was financially
unfeasible at this point.
Mr. Buck also presented a letter of support from a
neighboring property owner.
The following members of the public, all associated with the
winery, expressed their support for the request: Mr. Bill
Grivey; Mr. Shepard Rouse; Ms. Lynn Bowles; Mr. Ruben Clark;
Mr. Robert Carter. Mr. Grivey presented a list of awards
which have been won by Montdomaine wines. Ms. Bowles stated
that the winery may have to close its doors if the extension
is denied. It was noted that this is a capital
intensive/low profit industry. Mr. Clark referred to the
winery as "a very attractive, benign, agricultural effort."
It was noted that 25% of sales are a result of the tasting
room. The winery representatives all stressed the desire to
construct a permanent tasting room as soon as possible.
There being no further comment the matter was placed before
the Commission.
79
October 30, 1990
Page 14
Ms. Huckle suggested a 3-year extension which would allow
the applicant time to construct some sort of permanent
structure, though possibly not such a grand one as
contemplated. She stated she would not be in favor of a
zoning text amendment.
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that under Sec. 5.8.1 the maximum
time period for a temporary non-residential mobile home is
five years. Mr. Keeler explained that the trailer at
Montdomaine was approved before that provision was placed in
the Zoning Ordinance. (Provision came into being in 1986 and
Montdomaine was approved in 1985.) He explained that
provision of the Ordinance has not been successful and
applicants have gone before the Board of Zoning Appeals to
seek variances from that section and the BZA has "basically
said 'We think the Planning Commission and the Board ought
to take a look at this provision because it is not working
the way it is intended'." He explained that a zoning text
amendment would be before the Commission on November 20th
that "would restrict the availability of temporary,
non-residential mobile homes." He stated that it appears
that further restrictions will be recommended.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the basis of the request was one
of financial distress. He noted that if this type of
request for extension is granted based on this justification
alone, "then the door's open and it stays open."
Ms. Huckle noted that this is an agricultural use and the
"whole purpose of our plan is to encourage agriculture."
She felt this business meets that goal and should be
fostered if possible.
Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted that Ms. Huckle felt the
extension should be granted for a reason other than
financial need.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the last extension which had been
approved had stated clearly "it is not intended that future
extensions for the trailer use be granted." He felt the
applicant was seeking a "legalization of this use, rather
than just an extension of a temporary use." He noted that
the applicant still does not know when the temporary
facility might be replaced with a permanent one. He felt
the applicant was hoping to be able to continue this use
indefinitely.
Mr. Johnson felt the request had to be evaluated on the
basis of the existing regulations and anticipated changes
should not influence the Commission's action. He felt
granting the request based on the justification of financial
RM
October 30, 1990
Page 15
distress would be setting a very dangerous precedent. He
noted there had been "no quantitative information to support
that claim."
Mr. Jenkins stated that if consideration is to be given to
the request for extension it should be on the basis of this
being a "fledgling agricultural product and the
Comprehensive Plan clearly is in favor of that." He felt it
could be justified on the basis of the agricultural
activity.
Mr. Jenkins moved that Montdomaine Cellars be granted a
three-year extension for the use of their temporary trailer,
with said approval being valid until October 30, 1993 or
until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
permanent structure, whichever occurs first, and trailer is
to be removed within 10 days after the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the permanent structure.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Rittenhouse questioned the basis for the three --year
extension when the applicant was only requesting a 6-month
extension. Mr. Jenkins explained it was his understanding
the applicant had requested a 6-month extension based on the
anticipation that the Commission would consider a zoning
text amendment granting permanent approval for the
structure.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he would support the motion but he
would not consider another request for extension favorably.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted he would not support the motion. He
pointed out this was the same type of direction that had
been given to the applicant at the time of the last
extension and he felt it had little meaning. He noted that
though he felt a case could be made for granting the
extension based on the fact that this is an agricultural
endeavor, this is not actually an agricultural building "per
se." He added that he was not comfortable with granting
this extension simply because there may be ordinance changes
in the making which would limit this type of request. He
stated he felt approval would allow a temporary use for
three more years without any incentive for the applicant to
replace the facility with a permanent structure.
Ms. Huckle stated the applicant should "be on notice that
we're not going to keep giving extensions so that they can
build this beautiful building; they're going to have to be
content with something much more modest and get on with it
within three years."
9/
October 30, 1990
Page 16
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would not support the motion
because he felt the three-year extension did not give the
notice referred to by Ms. Huckle.
Mr. Johnson noted that a tasting facility could be done on a
much less grandiose scale.
The previously stated motion for a 3-year extension passed
(5:2) with Commissioners Rittenhouse and Johnson casting the
dissenting vote.
State Farm Expansion - Additional 124,000 square feet of
building and 250 additional employees.
Mr. Keeler explained that expansion of the State Farm
building had been envisioned at the time of original
approval and preliminary drawings depicted future expansion.
He stated staff had been granted administrative approval of
any proposed expansion and he was notifying the Commission
that unless unanticipated problems were discovered during
site review, staff would approve the site plan amendment
administratively.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that staff be
granted administrative approval of the State Farm Site Plan
Amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
Joe Wright Development on 29 North - The Commission
expressed no objection to staff authorizing the issuance of
a grading permit to allow borrow to take place.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed to serve on the Education
Department's Long Range Oversite Committee.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
11:00 p.m.
MI&
19oZ