HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199000119 Action Letter (2)
:~
--,,---
--r.1
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
235
Agenda Item No.6. SP-90-119. The Bocks. Public Hearing on a request
for a 43 lot Rural Preservation Development (10.2.2.28), and SP-90-120. The
Bocks, for a bridge in the flood plain of Ivy Creek (30.3.5.2.1). Property in
SE quadrant of 1-64 & Rt 637. Zoned Rural Areas & Entrance Corridor Overlay.
TM74,P18,18A,18B&23. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on March 19 and March 26, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
-
I
"Character of the Area: The property under review is a mixture of
pasture land and woodlands. There are currently three dwellings and
various farm buildings on the site. The lower portion of the site,
adjacent to Route 637, is in the flood plain of Ivy Creek. The
property then rises to the top of Bear Dan Mountain and includes land
on the eastern slope of the mountain. The land between the stream and
the top of the mountain is rolling with moderate to critical slopes.
The steeper slopes and stream valleys are wooded. The property
parallels I-64 for approximately 1.5 miles. The area proposed for the
development lots parallels 1-64 for approximately 0.6 miles and is
approximately 0.5 miles deep from I-64. The property adjacent and to
the south is Rosemont which is currently being developed with single-
family houses. Other properties in the area are used for pasture or
hay with the steeper slopes remaining wooded.
r
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing a 43-10t Rural
Preservation Development. A description of the applicant's proposal
is included as Attachment E (on file). A total of 39 development lots
are currently proposed and four lots/dwellings in the preservation
tract are proposed as future family division lots/dwellings. The
average acreage of each development lot is 3.46 acres. The preserva-
tion tract contains 383 acres. A 11S-acre open space tract is also
proposed which will be for the benefit of the residents of The Rocks.
The applicant is proposing to install public roads to serve the
development lots. The applicant is requesting a special use permit
for a bridge in the flood plain of Ivy Creek in order to construct the
access road to the site.
Summary and Recoumendations: During the initial review of the Rural
Preservation Development, staff recoumended denial due to: (1) con-
cerns for visibility of the proposed family dwellings/lots from public
roads, and (2) the potential impact on the watershed of the access
road to the family dwellings/lots. The applicant subsequently provid-
ed additional information on lot siting and agreed to conditions
addressing road impact on water quality. After review of this addi-
tional information, staff believes its concerns have been addressed
and recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to condi-
tions.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan makes provision for
smaller, clustered rural residential lots as provided by the Rural
Preservation Development. It is further stated that 'a special use
permit shall be required for clustering more than 20 lots'. This
requirement allows the County to review developments approaching
Village scale.
I
SP-90-119 - Petition for 43 lot Rural Preservation Develo.-ent: The
following is an analysis of the subdivision proposal for consistency
with Section 10.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which sets forth cri-
teria for Rural Preservation Development review:
10.3.3.2: The rural preservation development option is intended to
encourage more effective land usage as set forth in the comprehensive
plan than can be achieved under conventional development. To this
end, application for rural preservation development shall be reviewed
for:
a. Preservation of aRricultural and forestal lands and activities;
The applicant's proposal will result in the protection of approx-
imately 77 percent of the site due to easements on the preserva-
tion tract and the provision of open space. These areas repre-
~
-IT -'1
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
236
sent viable agricultural and forestal activities as evidenced by
their current usage. These areas currently receive land use
value taxation.
A comparison of this project to previously approved Rural Preser-
vation Developments is as follows:
r--
Project
The Rocks
Quiet Woods
Turner Mountain
Landfall
Beaumont
Wrenson
Lot
43
13
7
7
37
30
% Preservation/Open Space
77%
50%
58%
89%
47%
50%
b.
Water supply protection;
-
The proposed preservation tract includes a significant portion of
the entire Ragged Mountain Watershed. The entire development is
located within the South Fork Rivanna watershed. The applicant
has agreed to voluntarily comply witb the regulations found in
the proposed Water Resource Protection Ordinance. The plan also
provides for significant areas of open space adjacent to Ivy
Creek and the road alignment has been designed to minimize stream
crossings wherever possible. The Watershed Management Official
has provided additional comments regarding the development's
impact on the watershed, and has provided comments intended to
directly address the access road to the family dwellings/lots (on
file). The Watershed Management Official states 'Incorporation
of the types of Best Management Practices outlined in this memo
and attachments can effectively mitigate any impacts on water
quality. I The applicant agrees with these recommendations and
staff will require appropriate conditions to insure water quality
protection.
c.
Conservation of natural. scenic or historic resources;
No official study has been prepared, but it is believed that the
remains of the stone house in which Edgar Allen Poe wrote The
~ are located near the top of this property in the area
included in tbe preservation tract. Staff will recoumend that
the protection of this site be provided in the preservation
easements in the event that the location of the structure is ever
verified. This protection shall be provided for by the standard
historic easement on the Rural Preservation Tract as may be
amended by the Recreational Facilities Authority. The layout of
the proposed development restricts all but a limited amount of
activity to the lower elevations of the site. This design will
result in a significantly lower level of visibility from 1-64 and
other public roads when compared to conventional development
which could result in development at much higher elevations which
would be visible,from great distances.
More specifically. in accordance with desiRO standards of the
comprehensive plan and where deemed reasonably practical by the
commission:
d.
Development lots shall not encroach into prime. important or,
unique aRricultural or forestal soils as the same shall be shown
on the most recent published maps of the United State Department
of ARricultural and Soil Conservation Service or other source
deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice;
r--
I
I
This item will be discussed in detail later in this report.
e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope
or flood plain and shall be situated as far as possible from
public drinkinR water supply tributaries and public drinkinR
water supply impoundments;
,"
~TI'
- ------rr-!
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
237
-.
I
!
Significant areas of critical slopes are present on this site.
Large portions of development lots include these areas. Building
sites have been located so as to avoid encroachment onto critical
slopes by the dwellings or the access ways. However, the slopes
and soils located on the mountain side are more sensitive to
development and the proposed lot layout avoids these areas. No
lots. other than the open space, include any flood plain lands.
Several streams are located on this site and are included in the
development lots. The applicant has field verified that all
septic drainfield areas are located 100 feet from any stream or
wetland area. The Open Space and Preservation Tract include
significant stream areas and the Open Space provides for signi-
ficant protection of Ivy Creek. The preservation tract provides
for the protection of a large portion of the Ragged Mountain
Watershed, approximately 202 acres, or 16 percent of that water-
shed.
f.
Development lots shall be so situated and arranRed as to preserve
historic and scenic settinRs deemed to be of importance to the
Reneral public and natural resource areas whether such features
are on the parcel to be developed or ad1acent to such parcel; ,
The potential historic value of this site has been discussed
earlier in this report. The development lots have been located
on the lower slopes of the site and this should reduce the
potential visibility from 1-64 and other public roads when
compared to other methods of development. This concentration of
development may increase visibility in the immediate area. As
seen from a distance, this lot layout should reduce visibility.
However, this site will be visible from I-64 when travelling
eastbound. Visibility of the site from the westbound lane of
1-64 will be reduced by topography and vegetation.
r--,
g.
Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and
shall be situated so that no portion of the rural preservation,
tract shall intrude between any development lots;
Development lots are confined to one area of the site. However,
the applicant is proposing four family dwellings/lots which would
be located at the top of Bear Den Mountain.
h. All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal
street in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle;
All lots have been restricted to internal roads.
Section 10.5.2.1 related to issuance of a special use permit states
that: 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 ordinance, 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:
1.
The size. shape. topoRraphv and existinR veRetation of the
property in relation to its suitability for aRricultural or.
forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department
of ARriculture and Soil Conservation Service or the VirRinia,
Department of Forestry;
r-'
, I
2. The actual suitability of the soil for aRricultural or forestal
production as evaluated by the United States Department of
ARriculture and Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed
of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service;
The applicant has stated that the site is comprised of 642.1
acres. There are approximately 188 acres of open land which are
currently being used for hay and pasture. The balance of 454
acres is forest land. The proposed rural preservation develop-
ment will insure preservation of all but 1.5 percent of the Class
,
__. ------1-_ ~
_n_ Ir-~
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
238
II soils found on the site. Virtually all of the forested land
is to be included in the rural preservation tract. The majority
of the open land within the development tract is not suitable for
crop production due to slope. field size and shape. Grazing of
cattle on severe slopes has caused serious erosion problems.
Field evidence reveals evidence of sediment and nutrient loading
of Ivy Creek and tributary streams caused by overgrazing and
destruction of stream bank vegetation by cattle.
r--",
I '
3.
The historic commercial. aRricultural or forestal uses of the
property since 1950 to the extent that is reasonably available;
The applicant has stated that the property has been a cattle farm
since before 1950.
4. If located in an aRricultural 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 aRricultural or forestal area if 50 percent or more of
the land within one mile of the border of such property has been
in commercial. aRricultural or forestal use within five years of
the date of the application for special use permit. In makinR
this determination, mountain ridRes, major streams and other
physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area
shall be considered;
Staff has determined that 64 percent of the land within one mile
of this property is in agricultural or forestal use. Therefore,
this site is deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area.
In addition, another 10.3 percent of the land within one mile of
this property is in public ownership for the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir. Development has direct and indirect effects on
agricultural and forestal activities.
..-
I '
I '
I
Staff does not intend to imply that this development will result
in negative effects. The County has experienced requests for
leash laws and leaf burning ordinances in rural subdivisions.
s.
The relationship of the property in reRard to developed rural
areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be
deemed to be located in a developed rural area if 50 percent or
more of the land within one mile of the boundary of such property.
was in parcels of record of five acres of less on the adoption
date of this ordinance. In makinR this determination. mountain
ridRes. ma;or streams and other physical barriers which detract
from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered;
The development is not located within a developed rural area as
only 2.7 percent of the land within one mile was in parcels of
five acres or less on the adoption date of the ordinance.
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existinR and
proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A
property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximi-
ty to the area or use described:
,.-.,
I I
I
h Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary
as described in the comprehensive plan;,
This site is located approximately four miles from the Urban
Area.
~ Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community bound-
ary as described in the comprehensive plan;
This site is located approximately six miles from Crozet.
~ Within one-half mile roadway distance of a villaRe as
described in the comprehensive plan.
~.,,--_..
i:
I '
r
,'-"
I
, ---[r-----,
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
239
This site is located approximately five miles from the
Village of North Garden.
7.
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital,
improvements proKrauminR in reltard to increased provision of,
services;
This development may generate the following school enrollments:
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School - 22 additional students;
Henley Middle School - 11 additional students; and Western Albe-
marle High School - 13 additional student;s.
The proposed Rural Preservation Development will not generate
more students than could be generated by conventional develop-
ment.
8.
in
The proposed Rural Preservation Development will generate approx-
imately 430 vehicle trips per day. This is not greater than the
number of trips which could be realized by conventional develop-
ment. The current number of vehicle trips on this portion of
Route 637 is 2713 vehicle trips per day. Route 637 is currently
listed as non-tolerable.
9.
With respect to applications for special use permits for land
lyinK wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed
of any public drinkinR water impoundment. the followina addi-
tional factors shall be considered;
The applicant has provided responses to the following:
!.:. The amount and quality of existinR veRetative cover as.
related to filtration of sediment, phosphorus. heavy metals.
nitroRen and other substances determined harmful to water
quality for human consumption;
The 144 acres which is proposed to be developed into lots
and roads is currently in a poor quality vegetative cover.
The 114.9 acre open space is currently being grazed by
cattle and has some areas of severe erosion. The hay fields
on this parcel are in good condition effectively filtering
sediments and assimilating nutrients. The 382 acre rural
preservation tract is in forest which is the most beneficial
land use for water supply protection.
~ The extent to which existinR ve~etative cover would be
removed or disturbed durinR the construction phase of any
development;
The construction of roads will be the primary land disturb-
ing activity during the development of the site. This
activity will require the temporary disturbance of approxi-
mately 10.5 acres of land. The road system alignment has
been designed to minimize any negative environmental impacts.
~ The amount of impervious cover which will exist after
development;
It is estimated that approximately 0.9 percent of the site
will be impervious after development.
h The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area.
structure. or drain field to any perennial or intermittent
stream or impoundment; or durinR the construction phase. the
proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or
impoundment ;
,.....---------_.1. ..11':'
II
'-----II'
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
240
Roads have been designed to minimize stream crossings.
Housing sites and drain fields have been located at least
100 feet from any stream or wetland. Any drain field which
appeared to be close to the 100 foot stream or wetland
setback was field verified for compliance with all ordinance
requirements. All lots have been field checked for adequate
building sites on slopes of less than 25 percent.
n
I I
! ,
~ The type and characteristics of soils includinR suitability
for septic fields and erodibility;
Soil Service Inc., has conducted soil borings and located
suitable drain fields on each lot shown on the preliminary
subdivision plat. Soils on the steeper slopes have the
highest'potential for erodibility. These areas are not
intended for, nor will they be developed.
~ The percentaRe and lenRth of all slopes sub1ect to distur-
bance durinR construction or upon which any structure. paved,
area (pervious 'or impervious) or active recreational area
shall exist after development;
Of the 10.85 acres impacted during the road construction,
approximately 0.3 acre, in isolated small patches averaging
1900 square feet each, is located on slopes greater than 25
percent.
&.:..
The estimated duration and timinR of the construction phase
of any proposed development and extent to which such dura-
tion and timinR are unpredictable;
.-
I
I
I
Although no timing or phasing plan has been established,
construction shall be scheduled so that grading operations
can begin and end as soon as possible. Sediment trapping
measures shall be installed as a first step in grading and
shall be seeded and mulched immediately following installa-
tion.
h:..
The deRree to which oriRinal tOPoRraphy or veRetative cover
has been altered in anticipation of filinR for any permit
hereunder;
The only activity in anticipation of this permit to take
place on site has been soil borings for the drain field
locations.
.!.:.. The extent of which the standards of Chapter 19.1, et. seQ.
of the Code of Albemarle can only be met throuRh the crea-,
tion of artificial devices, which devices will:
1. Require periodic inspection an/or maintenance;
~ Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off
associated with anyone hundred year or more intense
storm.
The two wet ponds shown on the preliminary subdivision plat
and erosion and sediment controls are the only proposed
artificial devices designed to meet the standards of Chapter
19.1, et. seq. of the Code of Albemarle. The wet ponds will
be designed to accommodate a minimum one hundred year storm
frequency event. Soil erosion and sediment control practi-
ces will be constructed and maintained to the standards and
specifications of the VirRinia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook. The minimal maintenance required will be guaran-
teed by the homeowner's association to be formed upon
coumencement of the project. This development is exempt
from Chapter 19.1 due to the amount of impervious coverage.
This agreement represents voluntary compliance.
II
-'II' -,
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
241
~
I !
Summary: The applicant has requested that four dwellings/lots be
allowed on the top of Bear Den Mountain in the Preservation Tract.
These dwellings/lots are intended for future family divisions. The
access to these proposed sites involves a road which will include two
additional stream crossings. The access road to the proposed sites is
in the approximate alignment of old roads on the property. Signifi-
cant portions of the alignment will involve new road construction.
The alignment of the road on the top of the mountain follows an old
public road. Two additional stream crossings are necessary for the
construction of the access road. As stated previously, with appro-
priate conditions, the impact of this road can be mitigated. The
location of the family dwellings/lots is the approximate location of
an old orchard and, therefore, additional clearing should be limited.
The applicant has agreed to limit clearing to that necessary for the
construction of dwellings and access roads. In addition, the appli-
cant has agreed to restrict the building types to earth tones. The
applicant has submitted sight studies which indicate that the family
dwellings/lots will not be visible from public roads. The family
dwellings/lots range in size from 2.05 to 4.3 acres.
The Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors to authorize more than one dwelling in the Preservation
Tract or more than one Preservation Tract. The minimum size of a
Preservation Tract is 40 acres. The applicant is proposing a Preser-
vation Tract of 382.82 acres, which is equivalent to nine minimum
sized Preservation Tracts. Staff notes that suitable sites for the
proposed family dwellings/lots may be found on the lower slopes where
fewer stream crossings would be required. However, staff notes that
the most probable sites would be in the area noted as open space, as
limited areas exist outside of the open space or on the mountain top.
which are not in slopes of 25 percent or greater. The proposed family
dwellings/lots are not located within the Ragged Mountain Watershed.
~
I
Summary of Rural Preservation Development: Staff has identified the
following items which are favorable to this request:
1. Preservation of significant agricultural areas;
2. Protection of water supply resulting from fewer stream crossings
than would occur with conventional development, provision of open
space adjacent to Ivy Creek and the inclusion of a large portion
of the Ragged Mountain watershed in the Preservation Tract;
3. Concentration of development lots in areas less sensitive to
development;
4. Development lots are located adjacent to similar sized lots in
Rosemont. The Preservation Tract is located adjacent to similar
sized properties;
S. The Open Space and Preservation Tract are located in areas of
high visibility. thereby reducing the overall visibility of the
project;
6. The Preservation Tract allows for the protection of a potential
historic site;
n
7. The site has good access to Crozet and Charlottesville due to the
proximity of 1-64.
Staff has identified the following items which are unfavorable to this
request:
1. Development of the family dwellings/lots will intrude into the
rural preservation tract;
2. Concentrated development will give the appearance of village
scale development;
3. Due to the scale of development, it is reasonable to assume
increased demands for services and regulations of a urban type.
II
'-----rr -~
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
242
r
I
The applicant has offered to plant ten trees per acre, use earth tones
for new dwellings and limit clearing to that necessary for roads and
dwellings. These items will help to reduce the overall impact of the
development. Development is of a scale that will give the appearance
of a Village. However, 'by-right' development may result in a similar
appearance and be more spread out over the site. The family dwell-
ings/lots will require additional clearing and stream crossings in the
watershed. Other more suitable areas at lower elevation, not requir-
ing stream crossings, would be more desirable for these dwellings/
lots. However, with the appropriate conditions, impact of these
dwellings can be mitigated. Much more intensive clearing for access
to lots in a conventional development is avoided with this design.
Staff opinion is that this request, on balance, provides a favorable
design alternative to conventional development, and does comply with
the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of Section
10.3.3.2. Therefore, staff recoumends approval.
Should the Planning Coumission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve SP-90-119. staff recoDmends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Not more than four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in the preser-
vation tract and shall be located as shown on the preliminary
plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0 acres and no greater than
4.3 acres in size. All dwellings/lots shall qualify as 'Family
Divisions' ;
2. A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the develop-
ment lots. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons
of the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
dwelling on the lot;
3. Dwellings shall be of earth tone materials and clearing shall be
limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of
access roads and dwellings.
SP-90-120 - Petition for bridae in the flood plain of Ivy Creek: The
applicant is request ins a special use permit to allow for a bridge to
be constructed in the flood plain of Ivy Creek. No other access to
the property is availa~le which does not involve the crossing of the
Ivy Creek flood plain., The applicant's proposed crossing is located
in the approximate loc~tion of the existing bridge which provides
access to the existingihouses on the property. The existing bridge
structure is inadequat~ for a public road and, therefore, must be
replaced in order for t public road to be built and accepted into the
state system. The Eng,neering Department has reviewed the request and
recommends approval. ~taff opinion is that this request is consistent
with Section 30.3 of t~e Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of
SP-90-120 subject to the following conditions:
!
a.
,I
i b.
I
c.
1. The bridge shall ~ot be constructed until the following approvals
have been obtaine~:
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit; :
Department ot Engineering approval of bridge design;
,
Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and
hydraulic caiculations to ensure compliance with Section
30.3 of the *oning Ordinance;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of bridge and
road plans."
11-----------
--If--'
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
243
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission. at its meeting on March 19,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of both SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 subject
to the conditions as recommended by the staff.
,..-.
I
Mr. Bowie asked why the applicant's offer to "use earth tones for new
dwellings" was not recommended in the conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg
said there was considerable discussion by the Planning Commission on the
meaning of "earth tone", and they decided that such a condition would not be
suitable because of various interpretations.
Mr. Bain asked what is meant by the condition reading "Not more than four
dwelling/lots shall be allowed in the preservation tract .... All dwell-
ings/lots shall qualify as Family Divisions". Mr. Cilimberg said the four
lots in the preservation tract must meet the requirements for a Family Divi-
sion in the Subdivision Ordinance. Although the lots subject to Family Divi-
sion are being specified, the actual division would have to occur the same as
any other family division. Mr. Bain asked if it makes any difference how
ownership is held for a family division; a limited partnership is not a
family. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the County Attorney address that issue.
Mr. Bain said he has a problem with this because in a family division, a
family member can sell the property after a year.
Mr. Perkins asked what size trees are to be provided on the development
lots. Mr. Cilimberg said the size of the trees was not specified, but require
ments in the Zoning Ordinance will be used as the guide.
Mr. Bain asked how the preservation tracts relate to a "Mountain Top
Ordinance" a requirement which has been discussed in the past. Mr. Cilimberg
said there is currently no Mountain Top Ordinance, nor have any specific
provisions for mountain top protection been identified. He does not know if
this proposal would fit the concept of the proposed ordinance.
-
I
The public hearing was opened and the applicant, Mr. Hiram Ewald, came
forward. Mr. Ewald said Verulam Farm Limited Partnership consists of himself,
his brother, his sister and his mother. Also present tonight are Mr. Bob
McKee and Mr. Pete Bradshaw, both of whom worked on the plan. Mr. Ewald said
they have made every effort to comply with the proposed Water Resources
Protection Ordinance and to voluntarily include the proposed wetponds which
were intended to mitigate any development impact on Ivy Creek. He noted that
77 percent of the property will remain in permanent open space. He believes
that improving the bridge will enhance the quality of the water that goes
through the bridge. Currently cattle roam through the bridge and the creek
bank is crumbling.
Mr. Ewald said his family has owned this property for 20 years. They
thought the rural preservation tract would be ideal in addressing the Compre-
hensive Plan. The reason for proposing the family division was because
development of four regular lots would require a road built to State stan-
dards. In addition to being expensive, such a road would badly impact the
face of the mountain. They have agreed to construct the road to County
standards. He cannot speak to the future, but it is the intent that the four
family members live on the lots in the preservation tract. Mr. Ewald said he
thinks this is a good plan and the County gains a lot by leaving this land in
permanent open space.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
r
Mr. Bain asked the County Attorney if restrictions can be put on the
"Family Division" through the special permit. Mr. St. John said he does not
know if "Family Division" status can be granted through a special use permit,
if the application does not qualify for that status. It was not his under-
standing that approval of the special use permit would guarantee family
division treatment of the lots. He interpreted the condition that approval of
the special use permit would create a preservation tract, along with the
creation of a small lot cluster. In order to divide the four lots, the
applicants will have to qualify as a family division. In his opinion a
partnership cannot be the grantor of a family division. If the partnership
holds title to the land, this cannot be done. It is unusual to have a family
division shown as part of a commercial subdivision. If these four lots are
.....--__'_'>'_"__ ~ C--n'un--'n'--
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
244
actually for sale as part of the subdivision, even though' they qualified under
Tbe family division, that would be a circumvention of the Ordinance and would
not serve the purpose of family division.
~
I
I
Mr. Bowie asked if approval of tbe special use permits means there is a
family division. Mr. St. John said he thinks that should be clarified. If it
is not the Board's intent that the four lots be created under the family
division provision then the condition should be amended. It is his opinion
that the first condition is ambiguous. Mr. Bowie suggested that a sentence be
added to the first condition that "Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee
approval of "Family Division". Mr. St. John agreed with the clarification.
r
I
Mr. Cilimberg said it was the intent of the staff that the proposed
family division be evaluated on the merits of a family division. Mr. St. John
asked if the four lots are shown on the plan before the Board. In response to
Mr. St. John, Mr. Bain replied "yes". They are shown because part of the
staff's objection was the location of the lots. The applicant has agreed that
the lots will be shown in accordance with the submitted plan. Mr. St. John
asked if this is the preliminary plat for approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the
preliminary plat was approved subject to approval of the special permit by the
Planning Commission and the Board. The preliminary plat is not before the
Board for approval. This plan before the Board meets the preliminary plat
requirements of showing the area and how open space would be delineated, the
lots and the preservation tract. He indicated on the plan the general area
for site building locations of the family division. Mr. St. John asked if the
Commission has already approved a preliminary plan of the family divisions
without knowing if the lots qualify for family division. Mr. Cilimberg said
he does not think so. In his opinion, that was not the intent of the Commis-
sion in their action. The special permit governs approval and development of
the preliminary plat. Mr. St. John said if the four lots qualify as family
divisions, they do not have to be shown on the subdivision plat; they are
exempt from being shown. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct and the lots are
only shown from a planning standpoint. The special permit specifies the
location on the plan.
Mr. Bowie suggested deleting the word "shall" in the last sentence of the
first condition to read: "All dwellings/lots must qualify as ...." He also
suggested adding a sentence to read: "Approval of SP-90-119 does not guaran-
tee approval of 'Family Division'." Mr. Bain agreed.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to support the request, but wants the issue
about the family divisions clarified.
Mrs. Humphris said the plan indicates a sight line from 1-64 and asked
who would have that view. Mr. Cilimberg said the view would come from the
west approaching 1-64. The property is visible at some elevations from 1-64,
approaching west from Ivy, but one of the high points on the preservation
tract is blocking the view of the house site.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she would prefer not to look across the
landscape and see more "white buildings" perched on the side of the mountain.
Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know which house or how many houses might be
seen.
I
I
Mr. Bowie asked again why the applicant's offer of earth tones was not
accepted. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission could not identify colors that
would be acceptable. Mr. St. John did not think there is a problem with such
a condition because "you know what earth tones do not consist of".
Mr. Bain said he will support this request because it is better than the
alternative. He emphasized that as long as he is a member of the Board, he
will not support extension of water to this property. Encouraging this
development does not mean that he would support the extension of water. Mr.
Way agreed with Mr. Bain and said such developments should not expect water
service.
Mrs. Humpbris suggested adding a fourth condition: "New dwellings shall
be of earth tones".
'Ir
.... -----n----'
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page l4)
245
~
Mr. Perkins asked for a response to his previous question about the size
of the trees. Mr. Ewald said some of the home sites in the development area
are visible from the highway. They intend to plant ten trees an acre as a
buffer. They are amendable to suggestions about the size of the trees. Mr.
Perkins suggested two-inch caliber trees. Mr. Bob McKee suggested one and
one-half to two-inch caliber. Mr. Cilimberg said the Zoning Ordinance re-
quires street trees to be one and one-half inches to one and three-quarter
inches minimum caliber. The Zoning Ordinance requires that evergreen trees
for screening be four to five feet in height. Mr. McKee suggested that it
might be best to require the trees to be as per the provisions of the Ordi-
nance.
r
Mr. Ewald asked if it is the intent to require that trees be planted on
all 39 lots or just the lots that are open and visible from the highway. Some
of the lots are already wooded. Mr. Bain said the purpose of the trees is to
provide screening from the public. He thinks it should be addressed per lot.
Mr. Cilimberg said he does not think it is necessary to plant additional trees
on lots where there is sufficient screening. Mrs. Humphris said she does not
think the recommended condition is appropriate. Mr. Way said he does not
interpret the condition to mean that ten trees must be planted on each lot.
The condition states: "A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided
" If the trees are already there, then no additional trees need to be
added. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the size of the trees should be in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg suggested
rewording the sentence to read: "A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be
provided on the development lots in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the
Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from the public roads.
i.e., 1-64 and Route 637." Mr. Perkins agreed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded'by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve SP-90-1l9 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. with condition #1 modified to read: "... All dwellings/lots must
qualify as Family Divisions. Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee approv-
al of Family Division;" condition 112 to read: "A minimum of ten trees per
acre shall be provided on the development lots in accordance with Section
32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from
the public roads, i.e., I-64 and Route 637;" and adding a condition IJ4 to
read: "New dwellings shall be of earth tones." Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain. Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
(The conditions as approved are set out in full below:)
1. Not more than four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in the preser-
vation tract and shall be located as shown on the preliminary
plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0 acres and no greater than
4.3 acres in size. All dwellings/lots must qualify as "Family
Divisions". Approval of SP-90-1l9 does not guarantee approval of
"Family Division";
2.
A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the develop-
ment lots in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from the public
roads, i.e., 1-64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within
two planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the dwelling on the lot;
-
!
3. Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the
construction of access roads and dwellings;
4. New dwellings shall be of earth tones.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-90-120 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals
have been obtained:
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
246
a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design;
c. Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and
hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section
30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
,--
I
i
i
d.
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of bridge and
road plans.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-91-02. Garrett & Eleanor Thomas. Public Hearing
on a request for a permanent sawmill on 5.314 ac zoned RA. TM26,P31C. located
on W side of Rt 673 approx 0.3 mi S of Rt 672 near Montfair. White Hall Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress March 19 and March 26. 1991.)
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 7:55 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the
following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is developed with a single-
family residence. Approximately six dwellings are visible to the west
of this site. The site under review is mostly wooded. Uncut and cut
timber are being stored on the site at this time.
.--
I
I
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant currently operates a temporary
sawmill on this site. Both cut and uncut wood are stored on site.
The area adjacent and to the west of the existing house is used to
store wood while uncut wood occupies the area between the state road
and the house. The applicant operates a 25 horsepower band saw which
is on a trailer. The applicant is proposing to construct a pole barn
between the house and the existing well in which the sawing operation
will be placed. The current operation is exposed to the weather. One
employee, other than the applicant, is proposed.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in the Rural Areas of the
County. This type of use is considered to be a 'bona fide' agricul-
tural/forestal use and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary and Recommendation: The applicant is currently operating a
temporary sawmill on the site at this time. No permit is required or
has been issued for the current operation. No formal complaint has
been filed with the County. However, the Zoning Department has
received one call of concern. The caller did not lodge a complaint or
identify himself. The current sawmill operations do not meet the
minimum setbacks required by Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Those areas which would meet the required 100 foot setback found in
Section S.1.1S(a). The location of the saw in relation to other
dwellings does not meet the requirements of Section S.l.lS(b).
....-
r
Section 5.1 states in part 'In review of any use by special use
permit, the Commission and Board of Supervisors may vary or waive any
provision of this section as deemed appropriate in a particular case.'
The saw is on a trailer and is very mobile and staff recommends that
it be relocated so as to comply with the provisions of Section
5.1.15(b). Staff opinion is that the saw should also meet the 100
foot setback for structures referenced in Section 5.1.1S(a). Staff
has been able to find one precedent, SP-82-09 for Augusta Lumber, to
allow reduced setbacks for other items listed in S.1.1S(a). The
reduced setback in SP-82-09 was allowed due to the existing sawmill
use on site. Staff has reviewed the current request in a similar
manner and recommends that the existing storage areas for both cut and
uncut wood be allowed in areas closer than 100 feet to adjacent
properties. However, no storage shall be permitted closer than 25