HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000018 Legacy Document 2010-10-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2010 -00018 Matheny
Staff: Scott Clark
Development Right Request
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
August 24, 2010
TBA
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
without significant health or safety
generally inconsistent with the
impacts to the area.
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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with one condition.
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
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.)
Planning and Zoning History:
SP 2008 - 00048: On April 21, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request for an
additional development right (see Attachment D for Planning Commission minutes). On June 10, 2009, the
Board of Supervisors denied this request due to concerns with the proposal's inconsistency with
Comprehensive Plan goals for the Rural Areas (see Attachment E for Board of Supervisors minutes). The
current application is the same as the previous request.
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 of the Zoning Ordinance, 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 prior to SP 2008 -00048 that were intended to
provide lots for family members; SP 2008 -00048 was the first denial of such a request.
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 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 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 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 of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
The portion of the property proposed for additional development would be bordered on three sides by
residential properties. The existing property is just under 5 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 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 recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture 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 or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent
that is reasonably available.
Aerial photos show that the property was in agricultural use (pastures) in 1937, and was
becoming wooded by 1957. The existing dwelling was built in 1968.
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.
Approximately 84 percent of the Albemarle County parcels within one mile have been in
agricultural or forestal use, as indicated by enrollment in the County's use -value taxation
program. 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 iffifty (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.
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.
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
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.
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.
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.
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 5
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 2010 -18 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
Attachment D
— Planning Commission minutes, April 21, 2009
Attachment E —
Board of Supervisors minutes, June 10, 2009
SP 2010 -018
PC August 24, 2010
Staff Report Page 6