HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100034 Staff Report 2011-10-18COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
October 18, 2011
TBA
Owner: Glenn Hall
Applicant: Glenn Hall
Acreage: 6 acres
Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of
land as provided in section 10.5.2.1.
TMP: Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B
Existing Zoning and By -right use:
Location: 4399 Braxton Road, approximately
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
430 feet from the intersection with Gilbert
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
Station Road (Route 640)
in development)
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Conditions: No
DA (Development Area):
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 1
RA (Rural Areas): X
Proposal: Request for additional
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
development right
Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Wooded residential
Use of Surrounding Properties: Most
parcel
nearby land is in large farm and forest
parcels, with some residential parcels along
the roads.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. If the request is approved, the parcel has
1. The requested dwelling unit would
the necessary buildable space to
increase development in the Rural Areas,
accommodate the additional dwelling
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 with previous actions on requests
for additional development rights in the
Rural Areas.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this Special Use Permit.
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 1
Petition:
PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for the creation of a
new parcel for a family member.
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: 4399 Braxton Road, approximately 430 feet from the intersection
with Gilbert Station Road (Route 640).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B
Character of the Area: The surrounding area is largely made of up large farm
and forest parcels, but also has some small -lot residential development.
Specifics of the Proposal: The parcel does not have any additional development
rights. The applicant is requesting an additional development right in order to be
able to transfer a portion of the parcel to his daughter so that she can build a
home there.
Planning and Zoning History: In August, 1983, Mr. Hall purchased the subject
parcel from the previous owner, who had divided a 23.5 -acre parcel into four
lots. On the same date, relatives of Mr. Hall purchased the other three resulting
lots, which are adjacent to his property, to the north, south, and east. Neither Mr.
Hall nor other members of his family had owned this land prior to the
subdivision. The only remaining development right from the division was
assigned to Tax Map 34 Parcel 74D. The applicant has stated that that remaining
development right is not available for transfer to the subject parcel.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the
subject properties as Rural Areas, emphasizing the preservation and protection of
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as
land use options.
The Rural Areas chapter of 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."
And that the County should:
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 2
"Reduce the level and rate of residential development in the Rural Areas,
and minimize the impacts of permitted development."
Approval of this request would be contrary to these policies.
Past decisions by the Board of Supervisors on similar requests for additional
development rights in the Rural Areas have followed a consistent pattern. The
requests have generally been approved in cases 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 of any other type have
generally been denied. In this case, the land was subdivided by a previous
landowner before purchase of the lots by Mr. Hall and members of his family.
Approval of an additional development right in this case would therefore be
inconsistent with past decisions.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1 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 be adjacent to existing residential parcels. Addition of a
dwelling could lead to a small increase in impacts generated by increased
population density (water demands, septic capacity, traffic, etc.).
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The addition of one house to the existing grouping of homes would not
significantly change the pattern of land use in immediate surroundings. However,
it would contribute to the incremental fragmentation of land and loss of rural
character referred to in the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It
would also cause a small increase in density in a district not primarily intended
for residential development.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, "Intent," states that:
Residential development not related to bona fide agricultural /forestal use
shall be encouraged to locate in the urban area, communities and villages
as designated in the comprehensive plan where services and utilities are
available and where such development will not conflict with the
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 3
agricultural /forestal or other rural objective. Where development does
occur, rural residents should expect to receive a lower level of service
delivery than will be provided to residential developments in designated
growth areas. In relation to residential development, agricultural/forestal
activities shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public
health and safety.
This request would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the District.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Residential development is a by -right use in the Rural Areas district.
with the 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)
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 property is unusually small for most agricultural or forestal
production typical for this area.
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
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 4
other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation
Service.
The majority of the soils on the parcel are listed as "Locally Important"
in the Comprehensive Plan, and a small area is listed as "Prime."
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 land was forested and undeveloped in 1957,
1966, and 1974. By 1980, some forest had been cleared for a house site
on or just adjacent to the property. By 1990 the subject parcel had been
developed to its present state, with one dwelling.
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 j=ive (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.
Aerial photographs show that significantly more than fifty percent of the
land within one mile of the subject parcel is either in forest or in large
pastures, so this should be considered an "agricultural and forestal area."
The proposed development would split an already developed residential
parcel, and so would not create a major change in land -use patterns at the
mile- radius scale.
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.
This property is not in 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:
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 5
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. However,
increases in residential development potential are not consistent with the
Rural Areas policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
This proposal is not expected to change traffic patterns or occasion the
need for 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.
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 6
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
No significant impacts on health, safety, or welfare are expected from the
development of a single lot, provided that the lot is designed in such a way to
have sufficient groundwater supply and septic capacity. Staff has no information
suggesting any limitations on these capacities. Water - supply and septic -field
requirements are enforced by the Health Department and would apply to the
proposed division.
SUMMARY!
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. If the request is approved, the parcel has the necessary buildable
space to accommodate the additional dwelling
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. The requested dwelling unit would increase
development in the Rural Areas, 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 with previous actions
on requests for additional development rights in the Rural Areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends denial of
SP2010 -00034 Glenn A. Hall.
However, if the Planning Commission decides to recommend that the Board of
Supervisors approve this request, staff recommends that the following condition,
which has been used in previous approval, be applied in this case:
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 34 Parcel 74B shall only be
permitted as a "family subdivision" as provided by Chapter 14 of the
Albemarle County Code.
This condition would make the division subject to section 14 -212 of the
subdivision ordinance, which requires that land transferred by a family division
remain under the ownership of the family member for at least four years.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 7
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010 -00034 Glenn A. Hall subject to the
condition recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2010 -00034 Glenn A. Hall. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s)
for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A — Area Map
Attachment B — Site Map
SP201000034 Glenn A. Hall
PC October 18, 2011
Staff Report Page 8