HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200900033 Legacy Document 2010-10-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2009 -00033 Coleman Morris
Staff: Scott Clark
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
August 24, 2010
TBA
Owner /s: Coleman R. Morris
Applicant: Coleman R. Morris
Acreage: 8.28 acres
Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of
land as provided in section 10.5.2.1
TMP: Tax Map 112 Parcel 32
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: The adjacent
properties are residential.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposal can be accommodated
1. Additional development rights are
without significant health or safety
generally incosistent with the purposes
impacts to the area.
of the Rural Areas zoning district. Staff
proposes to minimize 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 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200900033 Coleman Morris Development Right
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one additional development right to create a minimum 2 -acre parcel
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: Yes No _X_
LOCATION: 5391 Morris Knoll Lane; appx. 1600 feet west of the intersection of Rt. 720 Harris Creek Rd. and
Rt. 20 Scottsville Rd.; appx. 1.5 mi. north of Rt. 712 Plank Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 112 00000003200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Character of the Area:
The property's immediate surroundings are residential. However, the nearby land includes large farms and
large blocks of forest.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is requesting an additional development right for the purpose of giving a grandchild
approximately 2 acres of land (out of the 8.28 -acre parcel) for a new home. This parcel and four others next
to it were created through family divisions, and are occupied by family members. There are no remaining
development rights on the property. (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.)
Planning and Zoning History:
• SP 1976 - 00009: This request to locate a mobile home on the property was withdrawn on May 5,
1976
• SP 1982 - 00001: This request to locate a mobile home on the property was approved on February 18,
1983.
Since 1981, 21 applications for additional development rights on various RA parcels have been considered,
of which 10 were approved, and 11 denied. The Board of Supervisors typically based its approvals on
finding that the applications adequately met the criteria of Section 10.5.2.1, such as a location next to a
development area or existing development, for a family member, or some unique circumstance. The Board
approved all five of the applications that were intended to provide lots for family members prior to SP 2008-
00048 Matheny, which was denied in 2009.
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
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 2
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 is not directly supportive of this, the addition of one dwelling for a family member 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.
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 provide an additional lot for a family member in a
concentrated area of family dwellings on land for which there are no remaining development rights. In order
to ensure that the additional development right would be used for this purpose, staff recommends a condition
requiring that the subdivision only occur 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 applicant has stated that
their intention is for the new parcel to be transferred to a 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 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors 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)
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 3
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 thefollowing: (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 of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The portion of the property proposed for additional development would be surrounded by
residential properties. The existing property is just over 8 acres in size, which is small for the
types of agriculture common in the surrounding area. The property also has a home and other
structures. Overall, the proposed subdivision is not likely to make the property less suitable for
agriculture.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown on
the most recentpublished maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service.
Approximately 6.8 of the property's 8.28 acres (82 %) are in soils rated as Prime or Locally
Important in the Open Spaces and Critical Resources Plan. These ratings were developed for the
County by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service).
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent
that is reasonably available.
Aerial photographs from 1957 through 1980 appear to show that the majority of the property was
in agricultural use or forest. The next set of photographs, from 1990, show that residential use
was increasing —a new road had been built, and houses and/or building sites were being
developed.
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 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.
Within one mile of the property, approximately 70 percent of the land is enrolled in the County's
use -value taxation program, the usual indicator of current agricultural and forestal activity.
Therefore this area would be considered to be an "agricultural or forestal area."
However, the addition of one residence to a cluster of small family lots (which has already been
removed from agricultural production) is not expected to fragment the agricultural or forestal
lands, or to impede the use of that land for its current purposes.
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
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
Only 2.7 percent of the land within one mile of the property is currently in parcels of 5 acres or
less. Therefore less than 50 percent of the land within one mile was in such parcels on the
adoption date of the Zoning Ordinance, and 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 a development area.
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 listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
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 listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia
Department of Transportation: (Amended 11 -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.
Traffic counts for Route 720 are approximately 250 vehicle -trips per day. The Virginia
Department of Transportation estimates that one new dwelling would add 10 vehicle trips per
day, and states that this would not occasion 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.
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 5
The applicants have stated that they want to use an existing private road to access the proposed lot. The
Virginia Department of Transportation has confirmed that that driveway has sufficient sight distance.
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 generally inconsistent with the purposes of the Rural Areas
zoning district. Staff proposes to minimize this concern with a condition of approval that would
require the subdivision to be processed only 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 2009 -00033 Coleman
Morris with the following condition:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 112 Parcel 32 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
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 6