Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300015 Staff Report 2013-07-16b ARM' ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP2013 -00015 Mahone Additional Staff: Andy Sorrell, AICP, Senior Planner Development Rights Request Planning Commission Public Hearing: November Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBA 12, 2013 Owner(s): William & Irma Mahone Applicant(s): William & Irma Mahone Acreage: 21.03 acres Rezone from: Not applicable Special Use Permit for: Section 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land, as provided in section 10.5.2. TMP: Tax Map 89 Parcel 62B By -right use: RA, Rural Areas Location: 1688 Dudley Mountain Road (Rt. 706), approximately 1.3 miles south of the intersection with Old Lynchburg Road (Rt. 631). Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers /Conditions: No Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: 1 additional lot DA - RA - X and 1 additional dwelling unit Proposal: Request for two additional Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas - preserve development rights to permit a family and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and subdivision. natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots) Character of Property: The property is largely Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is wooded with an open pasture at the center of the characterized by a mix of rural residential parcel. A dwelling and an adjacent outbuilding are development and larger farm and forest parcels. located in the wooded area to the rear (western) portion of the parcel. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The proposal can be accommodated without 1. The request would increase development in the significant health or safety impacts on the Rural Area, which is contrary to the County's land use goals as expressed in the area. 2. The limited scale of the use would avoid Comprehensive Plan. impacts on adjacent properties and critical 2. Approval of the request would not be consistent with previous actions on requests for additional resources. development rights in the Rural Areas. 3. Approval of this request would not be consistent with previous actions on requests for additional development rights in the Rural Area. 4. The applicant did not submit additional information necessary to complete staff's technical review of the application. Recommendation: Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends denial of SP201300015. SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 1 STAFF CONTACT: Andy Sorrell, AICP, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: November 12, 2013 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD PETITION: PROJECT: Two additional development rights on 21 acres for 1 new unit with a density of up to 0.5 dwelling units per acre on the new lot. ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit /acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in Section 10.5.2. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas — preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) LOCATION: 1688 Dudley Mountain Road TAX MAP /PARCEL: 08900- 00- 00 -062B0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The area is located to the east of Dudley's Mountain and is characterized by a mix of rural residential development and large areas of forest and pasture. The property is adjacent to property in an open space easement. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: The applicant purchased the subject property in October 1985 from the previous property owner who had divided a 54.096 acre parcel into five parcels in February 1984. With this subdivision, the parent parcel (89 -62) was subdivided using all but one of its allotted development rights and 21 acre lots (the last development right from the parent parcel was used to create parcel 89 -62F in 1986). The applicant's parcel, 89 -62B, was a 21 acre lot created when the previous owner subdivided the property in 1984. The subject parcel has not had development rights since the applicant has owned the parcel. A Minor Home Occupation clearance (HO 2013 -25) for an online retail business was approved for the parcel in early 2013. Since 1981, 25 applications for additional development rights on various RA parcels have been considered, of which 14 were approved (9 of which for family divisions), and 11 denied. The Board of Supervisors has typically based its past approvals on finding that the applications adequately met the criteria of Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, such as for an immediate family member, or some unique circumstance. The last two applications approved by the Board were to permit family subdivisions in 2011 (SP 2010 -34) and 2013 (SP 2012 -28). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Area, where land use policies focus on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources. The Plan states that: To be consistent with the Guiding Principles, the County's land development policies must be changed to stop the ongoing trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character. New policies should focus on protecting existing large parcels from fragmentation, preserving a general pattern characterized by farms, forests, and habitat corridors, and reducing the potential overall level of residential development and loss of rural character. This proposal is not directly supportive of the Rural Area policies. SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 2 Past decisions by the Board of Supervisors on similar requests for additional development rights in the Rural Area have followed a consistent pattern. The requests have generally been approved in cased where all the development rights on a parcel have been used to provide parcels for family members and there are more family members to be accommodated. Requests for any other type have generally been denied. In this case, the land was subdivided by a previous landowner before purchase of the lot by the applicant. Approval of additional development rights in this case would therefore be inconsistent with past decisions. The applicant purchased this 21 acres parcel without a development right. This applicant/ family was not involved in the prior subdivision of the parent parcel creating this 21 acre lot. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION The applicant is requesting the right to build an additional dwelling upon their parcel by way of a family subdivision. Since the existing parcel is 21 acres two development rights are needed since the resulting two lots would be less than 21 acres, if permitted. The applicant has lived on the property since 1985. The applicant desires to provide for a building lot from the existing parcel for their daughter who would live on the property and assist in running a small family farm. The applicants have contacted adjacent property owners to determine the suitability and availability of land with development rights that could be added to their existing parcel via a boundary line adjustment. Discussions with adjoining property owners were not successful in obtaining additional land with development rights. The applicant notes that adjacent lots on Dudley Mountain Road mostly range in size from 2 -6 acres each though there is also a mix of larger parcels adjacent too. The applicant feels the addition of a new lot and dwelling is consistent with the density and character of the neighborhood. See Attachment C for the applicant's written justification. See Attachment D for a sketch plan showing the proposed building site area. (Please note that, if this special use permit is approved, a more detailed subdivision plat meeting the County's subdivision requirements would be required before the lot could be created.) ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an application for a special use permit: No substantial detriment. The proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots. Residential uses are permitted by -right in the Rural Areas zoning district. However additional lots /dwellings when parcels have no additional development rights require approval of a special use permit. The addition of a lot /dwelling could lead to a small increase in impacts generated by increased population density (water demand, septic capacity, and traffic). Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the proposed special use. Uses not related to agriculture or forestry tends to change the character of the Rural Areas. Due to the limited scale and visibility of this application, the proposed use would minimize such impacts. The addition of one parcel and dwelling will not significantly change the pattern of land use in the area; however, staff has concern that this application does have the ability to affect the character of the Rural Area Zoning District because such request set precedents for future ones. Each new approval would contribute to the incremental fragmentation of land and loss of rural character referred to in the Comprehensive Plan. SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 3 Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter, The purposes of the RA zoning district are: • Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; • Water supply protection; • Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and • Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. The proposed use does not directly support the goals of the RA zoning district. However, the limited scale of the use does not create significant disharmonies with those goals. Section 10.1 ( "Intent ") makes it clear that residential development is not a preferred use in the Rural Areas zoning district, this proposal is intended to provide an additional lot for a family member on land for which there are no remaining development rights. No development rights have existed on the parcel since the applicant's have owned it. Because the parcel is 21 acres in area and any division of it would result in two parcels less than 21 acres each. Therefore, two (2) development rights would be required. While staff cannot provide a favorable recommendation for this application, if the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval, staff recommends two conditions: 1) requiring that the subdivision only occur through the "family subdivision" provisions of the subdivision ordinance; and 2) Extend the four (4) year holding period found in Section 14- 212(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance to require that the land remain in family ownership for at least fifteen (15) years after the recordation of the subdivision plat. The applicants have stated that their intention is for the new parcel to be used long -term as a residence for their child. The fifteen (15) year holding period is the maximum allowed by State law and was also a condition in previously approved applications for additional development rights that permitted family subdivision. ...with the uses permitted by right in the district As proposed, the use would not conflict with residential or agricultural uses. Residential uses are permitted by -right in the district. ...with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable, There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 for this use. However, section 10.5.2 requires an analysis for special use permits requesting additional development rights in the Rural Areas zoning district. This analysis is found later in this report under the subheading Additional Special Use Permit Criteria. ...and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff completed a review of the submitted application on October 3, 2013. Rather than respond to staff review comment, the applicant's preference was to go directly to the Planning Commission without a resubmittal. Currently the applicant has not submitted the necessary information to confirm the proposed site could meet subdivision ordinance requirements. The 21 acre size of the existing parcel makes it more likely that the location of the proposed lot could meet family subdivision standards. Specifically staff requested the following additional information that has not SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 4 been provided: 1. Please revise the submitted sketch plan showing the approximate location of the proposed parcel. The sketch provided with the application shows a proposed building area, but not where parcel lines may be. This is important to show so staff can ensure setbacks would be met (minimum 25 feet from existing dwellings). Also, per VDOT comments, please provide a note on the intended access. 2. The new lot would require a building site outside of the stream buffer that contains a drain field, a reserve drainfield and a well. The building site was shown on the sketch plan (Attachment D) submitted with the application, however as noted by the Health Department in their comment, confirmation in needed that the proposed building site area is suitable for the necessary primary and reserve drainfields and water supply well. Traffic impacts are expected to be low (typical assumption is 10 vehicle trips per day for a single family detached dwelling). The Virginia Department of Transportation did not have concerns over the ability of the property or of Dudley Mountain Road to support the use. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The use is not directly supportive of any Comprehensive Plan goals, as it is not related to agriculture, forestry or conservation. The location of the application is outside of the Development Areas of the Comprehensive Plan and the area is designated as Rural Area by the Comprehensive Plan. In the Rural Area Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, eight guiding principles are identified: agriculture, forestry resources, land preservation, land conservation, water supply resources, natural resources, scenic resources, historical, archeological and cultural resources. These components are also affirmed in the Growth Management section of the Plan which states that these resources are to be protected and efficiently utilized. Principle four of the RA Guiding Principles states that the County should address the needs of existing rural residents without fostering growth and further suburbanization of the Rural Area. Principle five also supports the protection of rural land by directing the County to develop tools that would direct residential development into designated Development Areas where services and utilities are available and where such development will have minimum impact on rural resources and agricultural /forestal activities. The Growth Management and Facilities Planning Goals section of the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan corroborates the significance for the preservation of agricultural resources as they provide "an opportunity to conserve and efficiently use other resources such as: (1) water resources (with use of proper conservation techniques); (2) natural, scenic, and historic resources with the maintenance of pasture land, farmland, and forested areas; and (3) fiscal resources by limiting development and lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas of the County. In the interest of this growth management strategy, residential development is considered a secondary use in the Rural Areas." ADDITIONAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA Section 10.5.2 requires the following analysis for special use permits requesting additional development rights in the Rural Areas zoning district: 10.5.2 WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The Board of Supervisors may issue a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted under sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 5 boundaries for the watershed of any public water supply reservoir, and further provided that no such permit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 33.8 of this chapter, with consideration of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and, specifically, with consideration of the following: 1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. The portion of the property proposed for additional development (see Attachment D) is along the eastern property line which is adjacent to agricultural property. The existing property is 21 acres in area and has a dwelling and outbuilding. A 21 acre lot is not conducive to large -scale commercial agricultural operations; however, it can be conducive for small - scale, farm -to -table type agricultural activities, the parcel size can support agricultural activities common to the area and community. The proposal requests to create an additional lot from the existing 21 acre parcel for an additional dwelling unit. However, subdividing the 21 acre parcel makes it smaller and less conducive to agricultural activities. As a family division, the additional parcel and home could support small -scale additional agricultural uses because more help (family members) would be living on the property. Overall, while the proposed subdivision would make the 21 acre parcel smaller and remove additional land from possible rural production, it is not likely to make the property significantly less suitable for small -scale agricultural uses. In addition, the existing parcel is not within a watershed for a public water supply reservoir. 2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same is shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The soils on the parcel are listed as "Prime" in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan. This soil list was developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Prime farmland soils support cultivation for crops and hay. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. Aerial and topographic photos and maps show that through the 1960s the general area (and subject parcel) immediately adjacent to Dudley Mountain Road was in agricultural use (pasture) except for higher elevations of Dudley Mountain. By the 1980s, much of the area formerly in pasture was wooded. The existing dwelling on the parcel was built in 1985. The applicant notes the property has not been used for commercial agriculture or forestal purposes in the last five years however the parcel is currently with the land use tax program. 4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 6 or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. The parcels with boundaries within one mile of the applicant's property include a total 3,754 acres. Of those, 2,037 acres (54 %) are enrolled in the land -use tax program, which is the standard indicator of current agricultural or forestal use. Therefore this is an "agricultural or forestal area" as defined in this section of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. Currently 54% of the 194 parcels of land within one mile of the subject parcel boundary are 5 acres or less in area which means the property is located in a developed rural area. A comparison of the 1979 tax map to 2012 tax map shows that many five (5) acre or less sized parcels have been created in this area since the ordinance was adopted in 1980. 6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; b. Within one -half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; c. Within one -half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. The property is not within one mile of an existing Development Area boundary (urban area 4). It is 1.8 miles from the Development Area. The property is 1.7 miles from the proposed boundary of the Development Areas that if ultimately approved would add the Whittington project to the DA. The property is not within a '/2 mile of a community or village. 7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. The addition of one lot to this area is not expected to require any significant increase in service provision. 8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to become a non - tolerable road; c. Increase traffic on an existing non - tolerable road. Traffic impacts are expected to be low, given the proposed hours of operation and scale of use. The Virginia Department of Transportation did not have concerns over the ability of the property or of Dudley Mountain Road to support the use. SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 7 VDOT has noted that the existing private entrance onto Dudley Mountain Road is adequate for the proposed additional lot and dwelling and both would be required to use the existing entrance onto Dudley Mountain Road. VDOT does not expect that the addition of one new lot will create the need for any road improvements. SUMMARY: Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal: Factors favorable to this request include: 3. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area. 4. The limited scale of the use would avoid impacts on adjacent properties and critical resources. Factors unfavorable to this request include: 1. The request would increase development in the Rural Area, which is contrary to the County's land use goals as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan 2. Approval of the request would not be consistent development rights in the Rural Areas. 3. Approval of this request would not be consistent development rights in the Rural Area. 4. The applicant did not submit additional information the application. with previous actions on requests for additional with previous actions on requests for additional necessary to complete staff's technical review of In summary, this request is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. There are no unique family circumstances consistent with the basis for prior Board approvals. The cumulative impact numerous similar approvals could lead to more significant impacts to the Rural Area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends denial of SP 2013 -15 Mahone Additional Development Rights. However, if the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of this application, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 89 Parcel 62B shall only be permitted as a "family subdivision" as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code; and 2. The family division period to retain the property, as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code, shall be extended to fifteen (15) years. Motions: A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit: I move to recommend approval of SP 20130015 Mahone Additional Development Rights with the conditions outlined in the staff report. B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit: I move to recommend denial of SP 20130015 Mahone Additional Development Rights (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial). SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 8 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Area Map Attachment B — Detail Location Map Attachment C — applicant Justification Attachment D — applicant Sketch Plan SP201300015 — Mahone Planning Commission: November 12, 2013 Page 9 Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 29, 2013 Attachment A - Area Map SP 2013 -15 , g�A M�Rp RAGGED MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR ( p514 702 @ @ @ e • f y Legend (Note. Some items on map may not appear in legend) �plR;R9..f�✓ �/J'/ '782- �/ ` •A Cha tIsMntify t6 - Use,the,Itle t fy taa',launch Ciiy, G1S View,e 41 c °°m,e a °a,°a c a a° Rosa ar a . a ,Z7. �` TM: 74 l=l�'Qnr,TO TM: 'TM.76 �1 © / /O YYYv 7 Q RDA;( l ld'I Q dLLOW'RD. `¢q., yl n ' F ^ " "� LAKE 'REYN•OVIA T. ` O 631 4u J z- ?R'=sT1LobGE,DR 4 n fm 48 r�� �T 9, �4V 1 ,I' cTM:90 \` \-sj) INN X1111 +7 a►v r1��.: .�/ ,� ?�• 642 � �" `' ' �� 1 1 � `vk'� lfkk q f J �� -ter �\ Ci0 3752 ft s_ TMs 100 7106 � 1 Q• 2Y ZN ` ��:P���_ tTM:- 101J� `� ^TM : 10 \� ��� \(�� iI GIS -Web Geographic Data Services �. (434) 296 -6832 Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 29, 2013 Attachment B - Detailed Location Map SP 2013 -15 C,S o��.� � ��89 -7ZA} O� ,��- � ���� � t. � �o moo, � �9 j Legend (Note. Some items on map may not appear in legend) GaRPORires, B couscunrvERSrtv ❑ rRE/aESCUE Srnnou oPOoE S.a. oN Pos,o.r E as��ooA,oNRORSM ,o.�oob.a —1 �� �_, z 18E 89-63C�4��MOUIyrA�N /SID 89 6 ro coon` ! \ v ez. Buffer d, ' f L,7_ oo 89_52C �, ��;� er coo 89 -1$ 1 � ,:• � � � � �. �c J 1-t \�% } 1, f � �� 99... l% 9 -81 13J i i✓ p r{C' M• '�`• 4% 'f "�1,��.,, 1, \ �\ a. � �,�! I !J 4 } m 524'K qo -81J2 89 -52A 89 -52A�1 , }i 89-6 I- > s } god ^V 89 -52 89 21.G1, �9 •� o ���p � °'�1.�{�,�°• (({ ( -21 � o I8 �21 F fff r 1 f WD a �, / a 1p / 60 89 A cv r •/ $9 - I -- y 938 ,rf X89 � 89 -22 1 P r a $g 89 50 / 9- t 89 -37 Web flu Geographic Data Services www albemarle org 296 (434) -5832 Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 29, 2013 Special Use Permit Application Narrative Mahone Family Development Right Project Proposal The proposed additional division right is to create a buildable lot for our daughter to build her own home on the family property. We bought the family farm as a 21 -acre lot in 1985 and have lived on the property ever since. Our daughter Jaclyn was brought home from the hospital to this place that has been our home for 28 years. Over half of the lot is wooded and our home is situated right in the woods. This has been an ideal place for us to raise our family as we were able to enjoy the beauty of the rural setting and reasonable proximity to the city and jobs. Although we've had many dreams about developing our lot as a small farm, full -time jobs and other time constraints have limited what goals we've been able to accomplish. We have grown a garden every year, substantially increasing its size this summer when our daughter expressed the desire to participate. We have grown hay in the open meadow, and raised chickens for many years. With our daughter's renewed interest in agriculture and considering getting her college degree in agriculture, our goals now are to create a family farm, specializing in vegetable and berry production. We have conducted a thorough search of the adjoining properties to confirm if any additional development rights were available that could be added to our parcel via a boundary line adjustment. Unfortunately the neighboring properties were either unable or unwilling to part with a portion of their property that would allow us to obtain the development right needed for our daughter's home. While this application is primarily focused on our family, we do believe that maintaining a strong family tie to the land that passes the joys and responsibility of caring for the land from one generation to the next is an important public benefit. It is this joy of the land that gives the rural areas character and we know that our daughter will continue to contribute to those efforts if permitted to build a home on the property. Of the 7 lots adjacent to our property, only one is larger than 21 acres. The general pattern of development along Dudley Mountain Rd is 2 -6 acre parcels along the road with a mix of larger parcels. The proposed density of our application, 2 homes on 21 acres, is consistent with the density and character of our neighborhood and would have no adverse impacts or detriments to the adjoining parcels. Section 10.5.2 of the ordinance describes the conditions under which a special permit for an additional lot may be issued. We have reviewed these requirements and firmly believe that our application is consistent with the requirements of the ordinance and intent of the comprehensive plan. Each item to be considered is addressed as follows: 1. Our parcel is 21 acres, making it ideal for small family farms, but not suitable for forestall production. The agricultural potential of the property will be enhanced by the presence of our daughter on the property. 2. (See above) 3. There are no known commercial foresting histories or activities on the property. 4. The property is within a rural area, but not within an area that has been utilized for commercial agricultural or forestall area within the past 5 years. 5. While we do not have access to all of the records for properties within one mile, one can look at the pattern of development along Dudley Mountain Road and see that the proposed additional lot and home on our tract would be consistent with existing development patterns. 6. Our property is approximately two miles by roadway from the proposed Whittington Subdivision, which we understand is to be added to the comprehensive plan growth areas. 7. There are no foreseeable impacts to required capital improvements as a result of adding a building site for our daughter to the property. 8. There would be very minimal traffic generated from our proposal, in fact granting permission for our daughter to move to the property will remove the need for her to travel on state roads to visit us, and us to visit her. While we understand VDOT is to make the final say on this matter, we feel that Dudley Mountain Road is a tolerable road now and that condition would not be impacted by the addition of one additional home for our daughter. Our property is part of the Biscuit Run watershed and is not within a County defined public drinking watershed. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: Our property is within the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Our vision of the property is consistent with that of the Comprehensive Plan, preserving agricultural type uses in a family farm. Impacts on Public Facilities & Public Infrastructure: As noted above, we cannot imagine any impacts to public facilities or infrastructure that would come from the additional single lot for our daughter on the property. Impacts on Environmental Features: The proposed building site will have adequate space for the house, septic and driveway outside of any critical slopes or stream buffer areas. There are no foreseeable environmental impacts. Summary: We understand and appreciate that the Policies of the County are to keep the rural areas rural by limiting development of new lots. When we purchased our 21 acres 28 years ago, we could hardly imagine a day where our grown daughter would seek to move to our farm and start her own family. We believe that having her on the property is both best for our family, and best for the land. We firmly believe that the additional lot for our daughter will not be an impact on our neighbors, or the County as a whole. Ull n ` a ryw 5u 0 1 Q (D 0 co 6 0 0 NW w r z o I lu, n. > 00 F Cb V) E zw N N> in < w Lj J 0 1 .......... -CD an ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■