HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800048 Legacy Document 2009-04-14COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2008-00048 Matheny
Staff: Scott Clark
Development Right Request
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 21, 2009
June 10, 2009
Owner/s: Ronald E & Janie A Matheny
Applicants: Ronald E & Janie A Matheny
Acreage: 4.936 acres
Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of
land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
TMP: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
Existing Zoning and By -right use: RA -- Rural
Location: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635),
Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
approximately 2000 feet south of the intersection
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
with White Mountain Road (Route 736).
lots)
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1
Proposal: Request for one additional
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
development right for a family subdivision.
- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density .5 unit/ acre in development lots
Character of Property: Residential
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential
lots on west side of Craigs Store Road; large
forest and farm parcels in the vicinity
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposal can be accommodated
1. Additional development rights are not
without significant health or safety
normally in accord with the purposes of
impacts to the area.
the Rural Areas zoning district. Staff
proposes to address this concern with a
condition of approval that would require
the subdivision to be processed as a
family subdivision, which would keep
the land in the family for at least four
years.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with one condition.
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page ]
Petition:
PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for a family subdivision.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: 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 10.5.2.1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 2839 Craigs Store Road (Route 635), approximately 2000 feet south of the intersection with White
Mountain Road (Route 736).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Character of the Area:
The area is located to the northwest of Heard's Mountain, and is characterized by small residential parcels along
the road and large areas of forest and pasture.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicants are requesting an additional development right for the purpose of giving a grandchild
approximately 2 acres of land (out of their 4.9 -acre parcel) for a new home. The new parcel would be added to a
group of five small residential parcels on the west side of Craigs Store Road, all belonging to members of the
same family. Those fives parcels contain all the acreage of the single parcel that was distributed to family
members. See Attachment C for a sketch plan of the proposed division—an arrow indicates the location of the
proposed lot. (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.)
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as part of the County's Rural Areas, 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.
While this proposal does not directly support those goals, the addition of one dwelling to a group of family
residences is not expected to have significant impacts.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
Residential uses are permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district, and the additional lot would match the
existing pattern of the surrounding lots.
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 2
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The addition of one house to the existing grouping of homes will not significantly change the pattern of land use
in the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Although 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 accommodate a family member in an existing residential area.
In order to ensure that the additional development right would be used for this purpose, staff recommends a
condition requiring that the subdivision be done through the "family subdivision" provisions of the subdivision
ordinance. Section 14-212(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance would require that the land remain in family
ownership for at least four 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 grandchild.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential uses are permitted by right in the district.
with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 for this use. However, 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 B YSPECIAL USE PERMIT 10.5.2.1 The board ofsupervisors may
authorize the issuance of a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted under
section 10. 3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within
the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment, 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). (Added 11-8-89;
Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04) The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is
compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this chapter with reference to the
goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division
proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following: (Amended 11-8-89)
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 ofAgriculture Soil
Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The parcel to be divided is too small to be viable for commercial agriculture.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown
on the most recent published maps of the United States Department ofAgriculture Soil Conservation
Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service.
The soils on the parcel are listed as "Locally Important" in the Open Space & Critical Resources
Plan. This soil list was developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
3. The historic commercial agricultural orforestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that
is reasonably available.
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 3
County records indicate that this parcel was created in 1967. It has been in residential use since at
least that time.
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 iffifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border
ofsuch property has been in commercial agricultural orforestal use within five (5) years ofthe 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.
Approximately 84 percent of the Albemarle County parcels within one mile have been in agricultural
or forestal use, as indicated by tax records. However, the addition of one family dwelling to the area
is not expected to create a significant difference in the character of the area.
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 offive
(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.
Less than 3 percent of the land within one mile is currently in parcels of 5 acres or less. Therefore,
much less than 50 percent of that land must have been in parcels of 5 acres or less when the
ordinance was adopted in 1980. Therefore, this is not a developed rural area.
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; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one mile of an urban area boundary.
b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a community boundary.
c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan.
(Amended 11-8-89)
The property is not within one-half mile of a village boundary.
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 of existing family lots is not expected to require any significant
increase in service provision.
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 4
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia
Department of Transportation: (Amended I1-8-89)
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road.
VDOT does not expect that the addition of one new lot will create the need for any road
improvements
9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the
boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional
factors shall be considered:
This section does not apply, as the property is not in the watershed of a public water -supply
impoundment.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The applicants have stated that they want to use an existing driveway to access the proposed lot. The
Virginia Department of Transportation has confirmed that that driveway has sufficient sight distance,
provided that some minor clearing of vegetation is done.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. Additional development rights are not normally in accord with the purposes of the Rural Areas zoning
district. Staff proposes to address this concern with a condition of approval that would require the
subdivision to be processed as a family subdivision, which would keep the land in the family for at least
four years.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2008-48 Matheny
Development Right Request with the following condition:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E shall only be permitted as a "family
subdivision" as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A — Area Map
Attachment B — Detail Map
Attachment C — Conceptual Plan
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 5
�at
SP 2008-48
Mheny Dervelopm t Right'Request
736
i
i"
i
4-1
Roads S Water Body
Driveways Parcels
Buildings Parcel of Interest
_- o 250 sooo Streams County Boundary
Attachment A
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 6
SP 2008-48
Matheny Development Right Request
84-14E �.€'
�; S�'d 1r snstr'.1 '�4icz Jtrs r8 $.4-i
f
Ld
3�
z
4
CC
til
2 3
uj
s
J
d
a
+ u
2
p Q a
C V G+
"�
CI~
CL
�; S�'d 1r snstr'.1 '�4icz Jtrs r8 $.4-i
f
Ld
>_
Q
4
CC
LLJ
46 C
P
"�
CI~
v
V
Ln
\ Lr
Cr
Q
—
_
C
Q
'p
Q
>
c !J
• r_J
>
co
a y
a
,-
LL
�-
�0
CM
x
v
0
❑
1
uj
N
ULUo
i
0
w
a
4',
J
LU
-
(r
1
a
L1'
cil
��y
V
0 4-
{I
f'�olib'bx7o7�Jii
x31
43ho�idsSq'
3trs 'o arc
-hi^�riC�
-$S �3S
3-!"C1VW34flP' �0 3��
h4.L C13-ui r[U77!
it
S7 `('�
��75ry3n
ZId�oY1 �4J SS3a7d 3'1S!{7Nv�,1y�
�c�ln�a� -nirx
1Sti3rv�SV� SS377v
O�
�Jl�i�
r
3�fY vn[CCnO T'VI iI f110 ii:1$ �nl �v No.1�3� sl f7� it J -1M 37n9a'a Vj,F h[ 1d47]t� Hof �V 0�o93jJ [ -
:::LOMLQa ZJVH0-. C1�) '-�ttu CIo7?u gel V 710,j o"3-a121��5li Sfby 79H L_.I
-Lord -]�snb sz,�'�nd�-.i�nr� .vsN[emc� e..oi��nti�4�+•�St-ir„n47'1T1vW'3419y L
ani -3 -'85 -=-AS nig•. 37xvoav»v iql�"Q'o ,[nrtJ f v;A v Sti sWA- :3i- "[
Jn r[ �,ry oTlsai.{iani a� i� iaoa arvr aL -avv i.a-16 yrAs a�_
6g xf�pv Si•.f�yd3lv�S ��9' "rL'-1 r.v 'z aar�ga v�nL Sv aha-15'�n ',�Sd ol. �3 -L *`[�+►�elm�n�p obi 1r•I�Ln❑ ,�
3-LnLr73 t71 3}1V32i�?�73 1. riV VSs-131..Snbl dn4 ��Q1917L s.[025G1 b�1�M6 [13fY'71 }It3 U*+i S"1 3r'.L y� �piS'�❑ 3rtL
fl llm-�i7T'1pC12iG7J9 i'1{ Und 1�'I�ST"[G` 3�b'f`' �n� n1iM sl �V I'�•j9'31'7 4•�4i1ti7S3tl �li'IaZ �o nVl SlAlG 3R7 -
SP 2008-048
PC April 21, 2009
Staff Report Page 8 Attachment C