The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP197600100 Action Letter ....1__~__...;.J__._I_ I. sp_,(O-tOO 067 February 16, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held II on February 16, 1977, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. A. Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. r Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. Jolin; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No.1. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who asked if there were any items on the agenda which must be deferred because they had not been acted on by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said Agenda Items Number 6, 7 and 8. I: ~enda Item No.6. Public Hearing: An ordinance concerning fees for soil ~osion plans; this ordinance will amend and reenact Section 7-~(d) of the Albemarle County Code. (Advertised on February 2, and February 9, 1971;) Agenda Item No.7. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend the County Code by repealing Section 18-~3(c), said section concerning fees for soil erosion control plans. (Advertised on February 2, and February 9, 1977.) Agenda Item No.8. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by the amendment of Section 17-6-6 thereof concerning fees. (Advertised on February 2", and February 9, 1977.) Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by "Mr. Roudabush, to defer these public hearings until March 2, 1971. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ! A~enda Item No.2. SP-99-76. Shelter Associates. To locate" a professional office on 0.88 acres zoned A-l Agricultural. Property is located on the east side of Route 601, just south of Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel ~3, White Hall Magisterial District. (Ad- vertised on February 2, and February 9, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said though designated as a village cluster with a year 2000 population in the Comprehensive Plan, Free Union remains a "cross roads" community. Shelter Associates is the contrac. purchaser of the site, on which are a single-family dwelling and warehouse as well as some apparently inoperative autos and debris. The applicant s~ated that the exist- ing structures may be utilized or replaced. There are several single-family dwellings in the vicinity of the site. The existing dwelling or a replacement structure would serve as the design, drafting, and business office for Shelter Associates. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-99-76 with the following conditions: 1) 2) 3) ~" (!;"" ':/\l' ~) To be included in site plan approval for SP-IOO-76. Removal of inoperative autos and debris to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies inCluding Building Official and Fire Marshal. No retail sales from the premises. r Agenda Item No.3. SP-IOO-76. Shelter Associates. To locate a craft shop on 0.88 acres zoned A-l AgriCUltural. Property is located on the east side of Route 601, just south of Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel ~3, White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised on February 2, and February 9, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said though designated as a village cluster with a year 20~'population in the Comprehensive Plan, Free Union remains a "cross roads" community. Shelter Associates is the contract purchaser of the site, on which are a single-family dwelling and warehouse as well as some apparently inoperative autos and debris. The applicant stated that the exist- ing structures may be utilized or replaced. There are several single-family dwellings in the vicinity of the site. The applicant is essentially requesting relocation of a special use permit granted on Parcel ~lE at the intersection of Routes 601 and 665. Though the sta~ recommended denial of the petition, both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors chose to approve it. Staff was basically concerned about the potential of this use as a noise nuisance in a small-lot residential area. Other staff concerns were the small lot siz and general appropriateness of the use itself in this area. Though this site is about twice the size of the original site, staff remains concerned over these items, however, no object- ion by residen~B in the area have been made at this time. ' Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended by<a 7-1 vote approval of SP-IOO-76 with the following conditions: 1) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies, inCluding the Building: Official and Fire Marshall. 2) All wood~orking is ~o take place within the existing warehouse or rePlatement building. 3) No outsi e storage of materials. ~) Employee working in the building shall be limited to five full-time employees. 5) No retail sales from the premises. [, 068 5> f - 7(0 lO 0 February 16. 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) 6) A written statement requesting abandonment of SP-536 by both the applicant and property owner. 7) Site plan approval. 8) In the event the Zoning Administrator determines this use to be a nuisance to the surrounding residential uses, he shall refer this petition to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for further review. 9) Removal of inoperative autos and debris to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Tucker said in discussing condition Number 6 on SP-100-76 with the County Attorney, Mr. St. John feels this is a matter on which the Board can take action tonight since a letter has been received from the owner and the applicant is present. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Staff had recommended that Cond'ition Number 7 read "Site plan approval to include screening from adjacent properties", but the Planning Commies ion changed this condition because they felt this could be handled at the site plan stage. The Commission also under- stood the applicant is going to expand the acreage around this shop so a requirement for screening would not be appropriate at this time. Dr. Iachetta asked how the board can tell the applicant how many people he can hire. Mr. St. John said because this effects the size of ahd the traffic to and frqm the building. This is one condition that is customarily put on spec ill use permits. At this time, the pUblic hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Chris Halstead, said he is a general contractor doing oustom cabinetry work in this shop and he wants to set up his business office in another building. He had a special permit for another parcel where he was renting but the permit has never been used because he did not want to put money into someone else's building. Presently his office is up the street in the corner of another building. Mr. Henley asked if Condition Number 5 restricting retail sales from the premises was a problem. Mr. Halstead said no. Mr. Henley said he did not feel any screening is needed. The property has been greatly improved in appearance. Mr. Halstead said the old cars have been removed. Dr. Iachetta asked if the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Halstead said yes. They do not limit him in any way and he is interested in staying in the Free Union area. With no one else rising to speak for or against these petitions, the public hearing was closed. At this time motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-100-76 subject to the Planning Commission's recommendations. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabus~. None. """""""" Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve SP-99-76 with the Planning Commission's recommendations. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the fOllowing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. """".".. Mr. Fisher then inquired if the applicant was agreeable to the Board abandoning SP-536. Mr. Halstead said that would be alright since he was unable to put the shop in the build- ing for which the permit was issued and he is not using that special permit. He would rather have it abandoned so it would not be there for the landlord to use. Mr. Tucker said he had a letter from Mr. Caples who said that he had no objections to the abandonment of the permit. Mr. St. John asked that the record show that the Board had received a request for abandonment of SP-536 from both the owner and the applicant. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept thee,abandonment of",'the permit by the owner and the applicant and revocation by the Board of Superyisors of Special Permit 536. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the fOllowing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No.~. SP-I02-76. Worrell Newspapers. To locate an accessory dwelling accommodation on 50.56~8 acres zoned A-I. Property is located on the south side of Route 250 East at Pantops Mountain. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 20C, Scottsville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts. (Advertised on February 2, and February 9, 1977.) Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report: "This site is a portion of Pantops farm and contains the main house and several outbuildings. This is currently the offices for Worrell Newspapers. The applicant is requesting ~ accessory dwelling accommodations in two (2) structures to house out-of-town employees and clientel~. The cottage adjacent to the main house would have one accommodation as well as communal dining and living facilities. Three accommodations are proposed in the silo. l,; J [J ;-'l , i U I I L , i I '--