Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000018 Legacy Document 2010-10-15 (6)June 10, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) be installed before the certificate of occupancy is issued for the building identified on the Conceptual Plan as the "Multi- Purpose Building." This requirement for screening shall be documented in a screening plan that shall be submitted with the site plan application and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director or his designee and shall be a condition of final site plan approval. Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP- 2008 -048. Mathenv Development Right Request. 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. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 2009.) Mr. Cilimberg said that this request would allow one additional development right for a family member, and by conditions recommended by staff that would be through a family division. He said that this property is located in the southwestern part of the County, close to the Nelson County line, on Craig's Store Road. He presented a schematic of the proposed location of the second house — noting that the property of roughly two acres would be provided to a grandson. Mr. Cilimberg said that the other three lots have houses occupied by the children of the parents — who live on Parcel 4. He stated that the proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts to the area, and staff plans to address concerns about additional development rights — which are limited in accord with the purposes of the rural area zoning district — with a condition of approval that would require the subdivision to be processed as a family division, which would keep the land in the family for at least four years. Mr. Cilimberg reported that staff was able to identify 20 applications for additional development rights such as this one since 1981; 10 were approved and 10 were denied. The Board typically made findings in their approvals that the applications adequately met the criteria of Section 10.5.2.1 of the Ordinance. He said that in each case there was either a development located next to or near a development area existing development, or an additional right for a family member or other unique circumstance such as the additional land given for the North Garden Fire Station. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Board approved all five applications that were intended to provide lots for family members, according to the history staff researched. He stated that staff recommends approval with one condition. The Planning Commission was concerned about this application being inconsistent with rural area purpose as it adds development rights in the rural area; they have recommended denial of the special use permit with a 4 -2 vote. Mr. Dorrier asked for clarification of the site size. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the parcel is 4.9 acres, but the lot to be created is around 2 acres with the description from the applicant putting it at 2.17 acres. He said that the lot to be subdivided has one house on it now, and they are requesting another home that would be on the "new lot." Ms. Mallek asked about the opportunities to build an accessory use on the original lot. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it couldn't be done as a dwelling, as it would need a development right. Ms. Mallek asked how the Board would not be rewriting zoning on this property if it approves this request unless they do not find it unique. Mr. Slutzky said the Board in effect is being asked to upzone the property by adding a development right. They are being asked to view this as a special circumstance as a family subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg said that he recalls one family division increase request that was approved in the 1990s, and the most recent one was with the fire station in North Garden. Ms. Mallek expressed concern that there is not a situation here where there is a public purpose, uniqueness, or hardship. Mr. Cilimberg stated that with previous approvals there have been cases of hardship — where there are more family members than they had lots they could provide for. Ms. Mallek commented that there are thousands of families in that situation. At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing. June 10, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Ms. Janie Matheny said that she and her husband gave their children the four lots and now their grandson needs a place to live. She emphasized that it is the only other place that can be divided on their land here. She confirmed that the existing house is also being occupied by a family member. Mr. Dorrier asked about the roadway. Ms. Matheny stated that it is the longest site distance on the whole road from Batesville all the way through Route 635, and there is already a driveway that has been cut back onto the parcel. Mr. Ronald Matheny commented that 800 feet can be seen from either direction. Mr. Boyd asked how many houses are in the area. Ms. Matheny said the only people who live there are family members. There being no one else from the public to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that accessory apartments are allowed in all of the districts, and they are considered as "connected to the existing house" and thus do not require another development right. Mr. Slutzky asked if the applicant could add to the existing structure as an accessory unit and not create an additional development right. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said that it must be within the single - family detached dwelling to which it is accessory; it can't be a free - standing independent or detached unit — it must be physically attached and part of the main single - family dwelling. Mr. Davis read from the Ordinance that the definition of an accessory apartment "is a separate independent dwelling unit contained within the structure of, and clearly subordinate to, a single - family detached dwelling as distinguished from a duplex or other two- family dwelling." He clarified that it must be a unit within a structure; it couldn't be a duplex. Ms. McCulley noted the size limitations from the supplemental regulations: "the gross floor area for the accessory apartment shall not exceed 35 percent of the total gross floor area of the unit ". Ms. Thomas said that although this application is in her district, she is not going to vote for approval because she has never been in favor of increasing rural development rights. She visited the site and it is a nice place for the family to have all their houses together. She stated that there are many families in this situation, and the Board "has to think about hundreds of families and not just one." Mr. Boyd said he also worries about setting a precedent, but this Board also has to show a little compassion and use common sense at times. Considering the number of houses there, this would not be a detractor from the rural area character. He supports the request. He said that family subdivisions are a .,great thing" for families, and are worth accommodating in this case. Mr. Slutzky said that generally he would be in favor of family subdivisions, but he does not want to accommodate families at the expense of careful rural protection strategies. He said that it's a "slippery slope" to add upzoning in the rural areas to accommodate a particular situation. It gives rise to when you choose not to do it. Mr. Slutzky stated that it's bad policy from a planning perspective. Mr. Boyd noted that there have only been 20 applications in 20 years, and just because this is approved it doesn't mean everyone would start asking for them. Mr. Dorrier said that the family already has five residential lots, there is good site distance on the road, the additional lot would match the existing pattern of the surrounding lots, the addition of one home would not change that pattern of land use, and the proposal can be accommodated without significant health or safety impacts on the area. He does not see that the request is going to deviate that substantially from the Comprehensive Plan. He supports the request. At this time, Mr. Dorrier moved for approval of SP- 2008 -048 subject to the one condition recommended by staff. Mr. Rooker said that this particular family has a compelling story, but this approval would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan — which is focused on limiting development in the rural areas to protect natural resources and for other reasons. He thinks this is a slippery slope once you start down it. He will not support approval of the request. Ms. Mallek stated that there are valid alternatives within the Ordinance that would allow for all of the family's plans to be achieved without adding an extra lot, an extra well, and an extra septic plan, and also maintain zoning requirements. She is very concerned about zoning by parcel when the Board needs to be looking at the rules that apply across the entire area. County citizens rely upon the Board's consistency so that they feel protected. She is not in favor of this request. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. He commented that this is not a rezoning; it is a special use permit. Ms. Mallek said that it's changing the density. June 10, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Ms. Thomas added that it's requesting another development right. Mr. Rooker also mentioned that the lot size here is almost the minimum lot size allowed in the rural areas; it's not a 50 -acre parcel with someone seeking a five -acre piece. Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky. Ms. Thomas then moved for denial of SP- 2008 -048. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky. NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP- 2008 -058. Harris Garage. PROPOSED: Amend SP 00 -49 Thomas Harris Garage to expand the public garage on approximately a .60 acre portion of a 3.17 acre property. 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 (37) Public Garage. 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: 6929 Markwood Road, approx. one -half mile north of Davis Shop Road. TAX MAP /PARCEL: 008000000035A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 2009.) Mr. Cilimberg reported that the request is for amendment of a special use permit for a previously approved garage, located in the northwestern part of the County, near the Greene County line on Markwood Road. He explained that the special use permit was originally approved through SP- 2001 -049 to correct violations and bring into compliance Harris Auto. He said that in May 2000, Zoning determined that the garage addition to enclose an outside lift and provide storage would not constitute an expansion of the special use permit. There were new violations discovered in December 2008 and a notice of violation was mailed. He clarified that this request is to amend the original special use permit in order to correct the violations and make the plan current. He noted a comparison of aerial photographs of what existed in 2002 and then in 2007 — which shows the additions and increased activity with the garage. He also provided some comparative pictures of 2001 and 2009. Mr. Cilimberg said that there are a number of existing development features that would be part of the special use permit, and additional changes that would be proposed under the special use permit — including a new storage building. He said that a critical slopes waiver was also requested, and that was granted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there are a number of existing development features that would be part of the special use permit, and additional changes that would be proposed under the permit — including a new storage building. He explained that the particulars of this proposal include garage expansion, storage buildings, relocated dumpsters, an outside lift, carports, etc. — some of which already exist. Mr. Cilimberg noted that it is a public garage that provides service to the surrounding community, and at the Planning Commission hearing a number of people spoke in support of it. He stated that the applicant has made improvements to the garage and the parking area. The use can be consistent with the rural area if all impacts of the use are mitigated in the sense that it would be supporting the surrounding community and would no longer be in violation and some of the issues regarding how it's been improved over time be addressed. Mr. Cilimberg noted that unfavorable factors include a compromising of the character of the Rural Areas district, given the conditions at the garage, and there is a question as to how those are allowed to grow over time until their use is more appropriate in a development area commercial district. He stated that the Commission recommends approval with conditions. There was an original hearing held but signs were not posted so signs were posted at the site and a second hearing was held last night. Mr. Cilimberg noted that between the two meetings, the recommended conditions addressing hours of operation were changed, as the applicant originally requested the hours to be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. but modified them to be 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He added that under condition #8 a buffering requirement for cars that would be parked in the area that is "personal vehicle parking" has been removed; original conditions recommended screening that area as well as service areas. The Commission has recommended nine conditions of approval. Mr. Slutzky asked why the Commission modified condition #8 to remove screening of all the vehicles. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Commission agreed with the applicant that those were private vehicle spaces and why that would be different from other owner's cars that were parked on their property. Mr. Slutzky asked how many cars would be a part of the personal vehicle parking area.