The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAP200700005 Presentation 2007-11-26Board of Zoning Appeals November 13, 2007 �. Property Description ii. Background of Appeal iii. Zoning Administrator Determination iv. Grounds for Determination v. Appellants' Justification vi. Staff Response 2 i. Property Description • TM 61, Parcel 146. Zoned C1 and EC. Located at end of private road, Rio School Lane, off the east side of Rio Road East. • Vacant property • About 1.4 acres 3 I i. Property Description (continued) Subject of the appeal: Rio School Lane Private road with 20 ft wide easement serving several surrounding properties and owned by others. E ��. Background Proposed site plan by Van der Linde Housing Inc. (VDLH) to construct 8,000 sq ft building for truck repair. This use is permitted by -right in the ;1 district. 5 �� : 6 Looking east Looking west 7 � - _ _ _ . 8 i i. Background (continued) The road improvements, namely curb and gutter, can not be constructed within the 20 ft private road easement and would need to take place on private property owned by others. 0 in. DETERMINATION The County can not require installation of off-site curb and gutter outside the easement: A. The Ordinance does not require it; e. The State Code does not enable us to require it; c. It is not necessary for safe &convenient access. 10 Road Improvements ARE REQUIRE WITHIN 20 foot Private Road Acces! Easement. [It is considered onsite.] Road Improvements ARE NOT /CAI NOT BE REQUIRED OUTSIDE the Easement on Property of Others. [Outside the easement is considered site.] 11 -4W 11W iv. Grounds for Determination A. State Law /Enabling Authority (Dillon Rule) — Cannot Require 1) No explicit State Law provision for requirement Case law has found no enabling authority for off-site road improvements 12 T IV. Grounds for Determination (continued) B. County's Site Improvement Plan Regulations — Do Not Require Off -Site 1) 32.7.3 STREETS; ROADS In the case of any site plan involving multiple uses ,including multiple dwelling units, the principal means of access thereto shall conform to the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or, in the case of a private road, to the applicable standards for private roads set forth in the subdivision ordinance, whether or not the property is proposed to be subdivided. The commission may waive this requirement for access ways between adjoining properties and emergency access ways required pursuant to section 32.7.2. (Added 5 -1 -87) 13 LA IV. Grounds for Determination (continued) B. County's Site Plan Regulations — Do Not Improvement Require Off -Site 2) 32.7.2 SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS; CIRCULATION; PEDESTRIAN WAYS; PARKING AND LOADING Each development shall be provided with safe and convenient ingress from and egress to one (1) or more public roads designed to: reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street and on -site; minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic; and provide continuous and unobstructed access for emergency purposes such as police, fire and rescue vehicles. To these ends, the commission or the agent in the review of a site plan may specify the number, type, location and design of access points to a public street together with such measures as may be deemed appropriate to insure adequate functioning of such access points. (Added 5 -1 -87) 14 11W 11W iv. Grounds for Determination (continued) g. 3) Curb &gutter not necessary for Safe Access on Rio School Lane 15 2. 3. ZA determination NOT finding of safe access. Applicant must still demonstrate. *Safe access is a real concern of neighbors & appellants, although it is not before the BZA. Whether or not proposed use is appropriate — it is permitted by- right. Whether improvements within the easement can be required —they can. 16 (Staff does not dispute requirements within easement) Other argument falls into several categories: a. Improvements Needed for Safe Access — decision relates only to curb &gutter off -site. Appellants have not shown how c &g is needed for safe access. Safe access (not related to curb &gutter) still under review. 17 B. The Zoning Ordinance requires off-site improvements — 1) The State Code does not enable us to require off -site improvements; 2) The Z. 0. does not require off -site improvements. 18 The need for c &g is substantially generate by the proposed use —Rio School Lane currently serves several properties, includi, a business involving large trucks. C &g is used primarily for drainage and also to channelize traffic —these needs already exist. Case law does not recognize increased for improvement as legal basis for requirement. r-_ 19 V- - so 20 f _ 20 Section 32.1 allows the Commission or Agent to refuse to approve plan that constitutes a danger to public health or safety —This Ordinance must be appliec within enabling authority which does not "ow the requirement of off -site provements. 21 *The major concern relates to safe access on Rio School Lane. •The determination appealed is whether off-site curb &gutter can be required. 22 Appellants have not provided evidence that: State Code enables requirement of off-site improvement curb & gutter OR Curb &gutter is necessary for safe access 23 Due to the lack of enabling authority to require what the appellants suggest, the Boar must affirm the Zoning iinistrator's determinatior 24 77Each development shall be provided with safe and r.nnvP.niP.nt innrP.qq from anti PnrP.qq to nnP (1) nr mnrP public roads designed to: reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on the public street and on -site; minimize conflict with pedestrian traffic; and provide continuous and unobstructed access for emergency purposes such as police, fire and rescue vehicles. To these ends, the commission or the agent in the review of a site plan may specify the number, type, location and design of access points to a public street together with such measures as may be deemed appropriate to insure adequate functioning of such access points. (Added 5 -1- 87) 25 On -site parking and circulation shall be designed and constructed in accordance wit section 4.12, off- street parking and loading requirements, subject to county engineer approval in accordance with sound engineering practices, including but not limit to grade, drainage and paving specifications and agent approval of the safe and conveniE vehicular circulation patterns. 26 In the case of any site plan involving multiple uses ,including multiple dwelling units, the principal means of access thereto shall conform to the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or, in the case of a private road, to the applicable standards for private roads set forth in the subdivision ordinance, whether or not the property is proposed to be subdivided. The commission may waive this requirement for access ways between adjoining properties and emergency access ways required pursuant to section 32.7.2. (Added 5 -1 -87) 27 Intent Nothing herein shall require the approval c any development, use or plan, or any feature thereof, which shall be found by the commission or the agent to constitute a danger to the public health, safety or general welfare, or which shall be determined by the commission or the ager to be A departure from or violation of soun engineering design or standards. (32.5.24. 1980) 28