Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP198700051 Minutes 1987-07-14 - Proposal to locate a 12,000 1/1 o ui ing an square f11.110.10011.11111.00t storage yard, served by eighteen parking spaces. The building is to be used as a contractor's office, with • . other undetermined tenants. 2.51 acres. Zoned LI, Light Industrial with proffer. Property, located near the end of Hunter' ,Way and adjacent to the north of Lowe's on Rt. 250E. Tax Map 79, Parcel 4K. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. A major item of discussion for this proposal was the proposed central well and septic field. The report explained: "Because the building is proposed for three (3) or more separate businesses, the Zoning Administrator determined that the well and septic field constitute central systems (Reference Section 3.0) . The present Site Plan Ordinance requires Board of Supervisors' approval of a central system prior to site plan approval. The applicant requests a waiver (Section 32.7.5.3) to permit the Com- mission to approve this site plan prior to Board of Supervisors' ap- proval of the central systems. This request is based on the fact that 'planning of this facility and consultation with the County began before the new ordinances were adopted on May 1, 1987. ' Further- more, with additional time, future tenants may be secured." July 14, 1987 Page 5 • Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. There was a brief discussion about suggested condition No. 3: "3. Future occupants may be limited by and/or subject to the following: a. Availability of approved parking spaces; b. Health Department approval for well and/or sewage usage; and c. County Engineering approval of Certified Engineer's report in accordance with Section 4.14." Mr. Cogan questioned whether this should be included as a condition since it is more a cautionary statement. It was the consensus of the Commission that the statement should occur "someplace." Mr. Horne suggested that it could be placed in the action letter to the applicant if the Commission felt it should not be included as an actual condition. It was finally decided that the condition would remain as part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Payne stated that it would not hurt to leave No. 3 in and it might have a marginal advantage since it would be more obvious to zoning inspectors. Mr. Michel expressed some confusion about the central well. He thought there was a "restriction on how many types of usage" were allowed on a septic system based on acreage. He confirmed that he thought it was tied to area requirements. Ms. Patterson responded: "You're right, but a central system, i.e. a system that serves three or more businesses, is considered just like a public system. Therefore, they don't have minimum area requirements except for what is applicable in that district and in this case there is no minimum area requirement." The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. John Rubenkonig. He stated the applicant has worked closely with the County staff and has abided by the County's "requests." He pointed out that an attempt has been made to save existing vegetation. He explained that two entrances are provided to provide for potential future problems and to make for a more smoothly operating plan. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the applicant's request for a waiver of Section 32.7.5.3, Mr. Cogan stated he was not too familiar with that section. Mr. Payne explained: "All that does is require that the Board of Supervisors approve the central systems before your approval. What you're doing, in essence, is approving this conditioned upon their approval." He did not think this was out of line. Mr. Cogan indicated he understood, but questioned the appropriateness of granting such a waiver. He was concerned about the "chronology" of the process. Mr. Horne explained: "The reason we wrote that in is that there July 14, 1987 Page 6 has been some confusion in the past with systems in certain circumstances as to whether the design of the system was going to be adequate for all contingencies. In this case, we consider this central system to be the simplest variety, (i.e.) you have one owner of the system (and) there may be other tenants, but it's on one site, in one building. . . . So we felt, in this case, what made it most appropriate is that we've got one owner, we've got one site plan, and we've got one piece of property involved, so it's the simplest version of a central system we're dealing with." Mr. Payne added that the worst that could happen is if the Board did not approve the system, then the building could not be built. Mr. Gould moved that the Wray Brothers Construction Preliminary Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: s 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Board of Supervisors' approval of central well and central sewage systems, in accordance with Title 15.1, Chapter 9, Article 7 of the Code; b. Issuance of an erosion control permit in compliance with approved conservation plan; c. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial entrance permit; e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan; f. Fire Officer approval. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Final Fire Officer approval. 3. Future occupants may be limited by and/or subject to the following: a. Availability of approved parking spaces; b. Health Department approval for well and/or sewage usage; and c. County Engineering approval of Certified Engineer's report in accordance with Section 4.14. 4. Waiver of Section 32.7.5.3 is granted to permit preliminary plan approval prior to Board of Supervisors' approval for central systems. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.