[00:00:01]
THE BUSINESS MEETING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 25.YOU CAN HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> MR. JOYNER IS ABSENT, AND MR. WAYMACK IS ABSENT.
>> IF EVERYONE WOULD PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US NOW FOR INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> LET US PRAY. DEAR LORD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CARE AND LOVE.
BE WITH THE SICK AND BEREAVED AND BRING THEM COMFORT.
AS WE DO THE WORK ASSIGNED TO US, LET US BE AWARE OF THE IMPACT TO ALL CITIZENS.
TAKE US HOME SAFELY IN HIS NAME, AMEN.
[ADOPTION OF AGENDA]
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE THE AGENDA BEFORE US FOR TONIGHT.
I NEED TO REVIEW AND MOTION. [NOISE]
>> I MOTION WE ADOPT THE AGENDA.
>> WE'LL NOW OPEN THIS UP FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS OPEN TO ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON TOPICS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH TO DISCUSS ANYTHING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
JUST NOTE THAT YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THERE IS A LIGHT UP THERE WITH A RED, GREEN, AND YELLOW LIGHT.
SO IF ANYONE DOES SPEAK, JUST PLEASE PAY ATTENTION THAT WE WILL HAVE TO STOP EXACTLY WHEN THE LIGHT GOES RED.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS REGARDING ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA? HAVING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OPEN COMMENTS THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TONIGHT?
[COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS]
SINCE WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, SERVING ON COMMISSIONS AND WHATEVER IN THE COUNTY IS REALLY A PRIVILEGE.
YOU ARE TO, ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG PEOPLE, GET INVOLVED IN WHAT'S GOING ON.
IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT MUCH OF YOUR TIME TO DO IT.
I THINK YOU WILL REALLY LEARN A LOT OF THINGS AND YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE COUNTY WORKS.
>> ANYONE ELSE? TONIGHT'S AGENDA,
[ORDER OF BUSINESS]
WE HAVE TWO ORDERS OF BUSINESS, TWO WAIVER REQUEST UNDER THE SUBDIVISION.WE CAN GET THOSE PRESENTATIONS, PLEASE.
>> GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, ANDERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THE FIRST ITEM IS SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST SW 2401.
THIS IS THE REQUEST TO WAIVE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 7 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AS AUTHORIZED IN ANOTHER SECTION, AND THAT'S TO PERMIT A SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO THREE FAMILY SUBDIVISION LOTS WITHOUT ADHERING TO ALL OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ARTICLE 7, SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A WAIVER OF CODE SECTION 7724D33, WHICH REQUIRES THAT PRIVATE ROADS SHALL MEET MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS AS GIVEN IN THE LATEST EDITION OF THE VDOT SUBDIVISION OF STREET DESIGN GUIDE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AND R2 LIMITED RESIDENTIAL, AND IT'S LOCATED BEHIND 5711 COURTHOUSE ROAD, AND IS IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAPS WHICH ARE PROVIDED THERE.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAT IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE A RED OUTLINE SHOWING THE PROPERTY OFF OF COURTHOUSE ROAD.
[00:05:09]
THERE'S TWO PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED HERE.ONE, THE LARGER PARCEL IS THE ONE THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO THREE LOTS.
THE SMALLER PARCEL IS WHERE THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE, AND IT WOULD BE CROSSED BY A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PRIVATE ROAD TO GET TO THE THREE LOTS PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED IN THE LARGER LOT.
HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SAME TWO LOTS.
AGAIN, THAT NEW PRIVATE ROAD WOULD CROSS ACROSS THE PROPERTY THAT HAS A HOUSE ON IT INSIDE OF THE NARROW RECTANGULAR LINE THERE TO GET TO THE BIGGER PARCEL.
THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT, WHICH SHOWS THE THREE LOTS BEING SUBDIVIDED OFF OF THE BIGGER LOT, AND IT SHOWS THE PATH OF A PRIVATE ROAD THROUGH THE EASEMENT ON THE FRONT OF THE FIRST PROPERTY TO GET TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES.
AGAIN, ONE LOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO THREE.
THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE ROAD LOOKING TOWARD THE EXISTING HOUSE.
THERE WOULD BE A ROAD ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTED ONTO COURTHOUSE ROAD, AND THEN THE ROAD WOULD CONTINUE ON PAST THAT HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY TO THE REAR, WHERE THERE WOULD BE THREE NEW HOUSES BUILT.
WE'LL GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE WAIVER REQUEST HERE.
AS I MENTIONED, A PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE A 20-ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE SMALLER LOTS, AND THAT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF A FAMILY DIVISION FOR THREE FAMILY MEMBERS.
VARIOUS DESIGN STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF A SUBDIVISION AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 7 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
SUBDIVIDER HAS REQUESTED A WAIVER OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO WAIVE IS THE ONE THAT SAYS THAT PRIVATE ROADS SHALL MEET DESIGN STANDARDS AS GIVEN IN THE VDOT STREET DESIGN GUIDE, BASICALLY THAT THEY NEED TO MEET VDOT STREET STANDARDS, EXCEPT THAT THEY MAY BE PAVED WITH GRAVEL.
ANOTHER SECTION OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AUTHORIZES THESE WAIVERS.
THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THIS WAIVER REQUEST WITH OR WITHOUT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND TO STATE THE REASONS FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL, DEPENDING ON WHICH WAY YOU GO.
THERE'S AN EXISTING 50-FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT, WHICH WE SAW ON THE OTHER SLIDE THAT CROSSES ACROSS ONE PROPERTY TO GET TO THE OTHER PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE, THEY HAVE AN ENGINEER, KBJW.
THE ENGINEER MET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE OTHER SMALLER LOT WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE IS.
THEY MET WITH HER TO REVIEW THE ROAD PLANS THAT WOULD MEET THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS.
IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS, THEY DISCOVERED THAT MISS BETLEY HAD CONCERNS OVER THE IMPACTS THAT THAT ROAD WOULD HAVE ON HER PROPERTY WHEN IT IS BUILT.
THAT WOULD AFFECT THE SPACE THAT SHE HAS FOR HER HORSES AND THE PROXIMITY OF THAT ROAD WOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO HER HOUSE.
THERE'D BE SOME EXTRA IMPACTS THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF WHEN SHE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
THERE IS, OF COURSE, AN ACCESS EASEMENT, SO THE LEGAL RIGHT IS THERE TO BUILD A ROAD THERE TO GET TO THE PROPERTIES AND PROPERTY IN THE REAR.
BUT AGAIN, SHE WAS UNAWARE OF THOSE IMPACTS OF BUILDING A ROAD NEXT TO HER HOUSE WOULD HAVE.
SHE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WOULD BE A ROAD THERE.
THE ENGINEER ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE, THEY HAVE PROPOSED AN ALTERNATE ROAD PLAN THAT HAS A SMALLER SIZE OF ROAD BASICALLY.
TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT TO MISS BETLEY'S PROPERTY WHILE STILL PROVIDING SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, SPECIFICALLY, THEY WOULD WANT TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM CENTER LINE RADIUS, AND THAT BASICALLY IS PERTAINING TO THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD.
THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER IS HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE DETAILS.
THE MAIN OTHER CHANGE WOULD BE THAT THE TRAVEL WAY WIDTH, BASICALLY, THE PART THAT YOU DRIVE ON ON THE ROAD, THEY WISH FOR THAT TO BE 12 FEET WIDE INSTEAD OF 18 FEET WIDE AS IS REQUIRED BY THE CODE.
THAT'S IT. THEY WANT TO REDUCE THE SCALE OF THE ROAD BASICALLY TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPERTY THAT THE ROAD WOULD CROSS.
[00:10:12]
>> GOING OVER SOME PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE AWARE THAT THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED, THAT WAS ANNIE WALKER.
SHE PASSED AWAY AFTER SUBMITTING THE SUBDIVISION PLAT LAST YEAR, I THINK IT WAS WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED.
THE FAMILY TRUST SUBSEQUENTLY APPLIED FOR THIS WAIVER WHILE THEY'RE WORKING TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS TO GET THE LAND SUBDIVIDED.
INSTALLATION OF THE PRIVATE ROAD WOULD REQUIRE REMOVAL OF MS. BENTLEY'S FENCE.
WE SAW THE PHOTO FROM COURTHOUSE ROAD, WHERE THE NEW ROAD WOULD ENTER THE PROPERTY.
IT WOULD HAVE TO PASS THROUGH WHERE THERE'S A FENCE NOW AND THEN PASS ALONG PAST HER HOUSE.
IT WOULD ALSO NEED TO AVOID THE WELL THAT SHE HAS THAT WAS PRE EXISTING WHEN SHE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S ALREADY A WELL LOCATED INSIDE OF THAT ACCESS EASEMENT, AND THE ROAD WOULD ALSO NEED TO AVOID THAT WELL.
THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT A PRIVATE COVENANT ON THE LAND.
THAT BASICALLY WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT IF THE WELL NEEDED TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO BUILD A ROAD, THEN THE DEVELOPER OR BASICALLY WHOEVER OWNS THE LAND BEING SUBDIVIDED WOULD HAVE TO PAY THAT COST TO CLOSE THE WELL AND THEN CONNECT THE EXISTING HOUSE TO PUBLIC UTILITIES.
THAT'S ONLY IF THE WELL NEEDED TO BE REMOVED.
THIS WAIVER REQUEST IS TALKING ABOUT AVOIDING THAT WELL.
IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PRIVATE OWNERS TO RESOLVE AND TAKE ACTION ON THAT.
THAT'S THE COUNTY WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED WITH THAT PRIVATE AGREEMENT.
IF THE WAIVER IS GRANTED, THE ROAD AS THEY'RE PROPOSING IT IS SMALLER WIDTH WOULD STILL PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS TO THE NEW PROPOSED LOTS, AND THE PROPOSED PLAT MEETS THE REMAINDER OF THE COUNTY'S REQUIREMENTS.
THE COMMISSION HAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND GRANTED TWO WAIVERS REGARDING THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.
BOTH WERE FOR FAMILY DIVISIONS.
PLANNING STAFF ALSO HAS REVIEWED THIS AGAINST THE CRITERIA THAT'S PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THESE WAIVER REQUESTS.
YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST CRITERIA IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE EITHER AN UNUSUAL SITUATION OR A SITUATION IN WHICH STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE GENERAL REGULATIONS WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP.
STAFF'S OPINION ON THIS IS IT DOES APPEAR TO BE AN UNUSUAL SITUATION AND THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE AFFECTED BASICALLY DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR THIS WITH HER AWARENESS ANYWAY.
THEY WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
IT IS POTENTIALLY A SITUATION WHERE ADHERENTS WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL AND HARDSHIP TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER.
THAT'S UP TO YOU, WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE THINGS.
AN UNUSUAL SITUATION OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP.
THE OTHER MAIN CRITERIA IS THAT IT CANNOT BE GRANT SOMETHING THAT'S ILLEGAL, THAT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THE CASE HERE.
IT SHALL NOT PREJUDICE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY.
THE CRITERIA APPEARS TO BE MET HERE.
IN SUMMARY, THIS REQUEST APPEARS TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A WAIVER.
NOW IT IS UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE THAT CALL.
WE ALSO HAD COMMENTS FROM THE VIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THEY BASICALLY SHOW THAT THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH THIS FROM VIDA'S PERSPECTIVE.
THEY NOTED, AGAIN, THAT THE PRIVATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ARE COUNTY CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER FROM THE COUNTY.
IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE A VIDA THE SAME STANDARD THAT VIDA THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER FROM.
WE HAVE SENT LETTERS TO JASON PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WE HADN'T RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
JUST MAKING SURE I COVER EVERYTHING HERE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WE DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION PER SE ON THIS BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXCEPTION.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION OR A WAIVER TO THE ACTUAL STANDARD ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
[00:15:04]
OUR PRACTICE IS TO NOT OFFER A RECOMMENDATION.NOW, WE DID NOTE THAT IT DOES APPEAR TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A WAIVER, AND THAT THE ROAD PLAN, AS THEY PROPOSED IT, REDUCED IN SIZE WOULD STILL PROVIDE A SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE NEW LOTS.
WE REMIND YOU THAT IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO DENY THE REQUEST, THEN YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A REASON FOR THE DENIAL, AND IF YOU WISH TO APPROVE IT, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU FIND THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE AND OTHERWISE PROVIDE WHATEVER YOUR REASONS ARE FOR APPROVAL.
WE'VE PROVIDED SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR YOUR USE, AS WELL AS A DRAFT RESOLUTION, IF YOU WISH TO APPROVE IT.
ALSO WE HAVE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR THE APPROVAL IF YOU WISH TO APPROVE IT.
THE FIRST ONE IS JUST SPECIFYING WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE REDUCED, WHAT REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE REDUCED THERE, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
THE SECOND CONDITION WOULD BE REASSERTING, WHICH IS ALREADY THE CASE THAT THE ROAD WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED WITH LOCAL OR STATE FUNDS AS THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY SOMETHING THAT THERE'S ANY PROGRAM FOR OR LAW FOR THE COUNTY TO PAY FOR THAT.
NUMBER 3 IS THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD SHALL BE GOVERNED BY A RECORDED ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.
THAT'S US RECOMMENDING THAT THE OWNER AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE SUBDIVIDING IT, COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT SO THAT IT'S KNOWN IN THE FUTURE TO ALL FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT THEY NEED TO SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THAT ROAD OVER TIME, SINCE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THE COUNTY DOES.
FINALLY, CONDITION NUMBER 4 THAT WE RECOMMEND IS THAT THE PLAT THAT SUBDIVIDES THE PROPERTY WOULD REFERENCE THIS WAIVER REQUEST NUMBER AND THE APPROVAL DATE IF IT IS APPROVED, AND OF COURSE, THE PLAT WOULD NEED TO MEET ALL OTHER ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS.
ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO COME UP.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD ON IN DETAIL WISE AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION?
>> IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE CAN TAKE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS, IF YOU HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS.
>> TIM, JUST FOR CLARITY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ALIGN.
YOU SAID IF THE ROAD IS REQUIRED PER THIS AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPER AND THE PEOPLE THAT OWN I'M JUST CONFUSED BECAUSE IT'S LIKE DONALD HUNTER AND ROBERT HOCH.
>> DONALD HUNTER ONCE OWNED THE LAND THAT NOW IS OWNED BY THE WALKER FAMILY AND HE ALSO OWNED THE LAND THAT'S NOW OWNED BY ALTA BETLEY, WHICH IS THE ONE WHERE THE HOUSE IS.
HE OWNED ALL OF IT. WHEN HE SOLD IT TO HE SOLD ONE PARCEL TO ALTA BETLEY, THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE ABOUT THAT WELL.
IN CASE THAT WELL EVER NEEDED TO BE REMOVED.
AT THE TIME, THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THE LARGE PARCEL WOULD BE DEVELOPED WITH A BUNCH OF LOTS, NO LOTS, SOME LOTS.
THIS IS HERE WE ARE TODAY, AND THERE IS THAT PRIVATE COVENANT IN THE DEED.
BUT THAT'S A PRIVATE COVENANT.
IT'S REALLY SEPARATE I THINK FROM YOUR DECISION, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I CAN SEE.
>> I WAS JUST PERFECTLY TRYING TO CLARIFY JUST FOR MYSELF BECAUSE I NOTICE IT SAYS, DONALD HUNTER, HIS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNEES BEAR THE EXPENSE OF CONNECTING THE WELL.
YOU MENTIONED IT WOULD WHOEVER BE DEVELOPING THE BACK LAND WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELL.
[OVERLAPPING] WHICH LAND ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
>> I'M SURE THERE'S MORE NUANCES TO THAT, BUT THAT'S A PRIVATE AGREEMENT.
THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE TWO LAND OWNERS TO RESOLVE.
REALLY, THEIR PLAN IS TO NOT MOVE THE WELL, SO THEY SHOULDN'T NEED TO ENGAGE THAT THOSE PROVISIONS OF THAT PRIVATE AGREEMENT IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED.
>> THEN THE REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION IS STRICTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGREEING TO THE WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENTS.
THE SIZE OF THE ROAD [OVERLAPPING] FOR THE DIVISION OF THE FAMILY.
>> IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THAT PRIVATE RESTRICTION.
IT WOULD NOT OVERWRITE THAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
[00:20:01]
>> EACH NEW PARCEL OWNER WILL BE A MEMBER OF THE SAME FAMILY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS, BUT YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
EACH PARCEL OWNER WILL BE A MEMBER OF THE WALKER FAMILY.
>> YES. MY NAME IS YURI TUPPINS.
I'M THE OLDEST DAUGHTER OF ANNIE WALKER.
SHE IS A 20 YEAR VETERAN OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, ALSO A 20 YEAR VETERAN OF THE VIRGINIA STATE GOVERNMENT.
UNFORTUNATELY, LIKE TIM SAID SHE PASSED AWAY IN NOVEMBER AND SO THIS WAS HER DREAM TO PASS THIS DOWN TO MY SISTERS AND I.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? CONCERNS. NOW, TIM, I KNOW THIS IS NOT A HEARING, BUT WE STILL DO OPEN FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, CORRECT?
THIS TIME, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
SAME RULES AS PRIOR, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.
WHEN YOU DO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
YOU WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE LIGHTS ON THE TOP OF THE PODIUM SO THAT WHEN IT TURNS RED, YOU'LL NEED TO PROMPTLY STOP TO GIVE OTHERS A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS ALTA BETLEY.
I'M RETIRED 32 YEARS LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I LOOKED FOR TWO YEARS TO FIND THE PROPERTY WHERE I LIVE AT 5711 COURTHOUSE ROAD.
I REMODELED AND RENOVATED 30 YEAR OLD LOG HOME, PROPERTY AND THE HOUSE ITSELF, AND I LOVE LIVING THERE.
I WANTED TO MOVE THERE FOR THE PEACE AND QUIET OF THE COUNTRY HERE IN THE COUNTY AND ENJOY MY ANIMALS AND MY FAMILY.
I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE EASEMENT.
I DID NOT BUY THE LAND FROM MR. HUNTER.
I BOUGHT IT FROM MR. HOCH, WHO OWNED IT A YEAR, WHO HAD BOUGHT IT FROM MR. HUNTER.
I WAS NOT AWARE BECAUSE WHEN I CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED AT CLOSING, WAS THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS, BYLAWS, OR ANYTHING THAT THEY NEEDED TO MAKE ME AWARE OF.
I KNOW IT'S IN WRITING, BUT I THOUGHT IT PERTAINED TO THE MAIN ROAD, COURTHOUSE ROAD.
I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE EASEMENT.
THEN AFTER I PUT THE FENCE UP BY PROFESSIONAL FENCE COMPANY, WERE QUITE EXPENSIVE, SO FOR MY HORSES, MR. HUNTER STOPPED BY AND TOLD ME, YOU DO KNOW, THERE'S AN EASEMENT, AND IT INVOLVES YOUR WELL IN IT.
I SAID, WELL, THEY CAN STILL DRIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE, BUT IT WON'T MEET THAT REQUIREMENT THAT V DOT IS ASKING.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT UNTIL NOW.
I UNDERSTAND THEN THE 20 ACRES BEHIND ME WAS SOLD, AND THEY NEED TO GET ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY, AND WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT.
BUT BY APPROVING THIS PROPOSAL, I DON'T HAVE TO MOVE THE WELL BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BIG PROBLEM FOR ME, NOT JUST THE WATER, BUT THAT'S WHERE MY HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING.
I HAVE A THERMO SYSTEM, TWO SYSTEMS THAT COOL AND HEAT THE HOUSE THAT'S FED OFF OF THE WELL.
I REALLY DON'T WANT TO MOVE THE WELL SO THAT WAS AN ISSUE.
PLUS THE FENCING HAS TO BE MOVED.
MY ANIMALS HAVE TO BE MOVED, AND OF COURSE, THE TRAFFIC AND THE NOISE, IF YOU HAVE THE OTHER ROAD, IT'D BE SO CLOSE TO MY BEDROOM WINDOW TO THE HOUSE.
BY THIS NEW PROPOSAL THAT THEY'VE ASKED, IT HELPS TO KEEP THE ROAD NOT SO CLOSE TO MY HOUSE AND TRYING TO LIMIT HAVING TO TAKE DOWN ALL THE FENCING AND EVERYTHING INVOLVED.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS, BUT I'M TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT.
I LOVE LIVING THERE SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW EVERYTHING INVOLVED. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M WILLIAM GRIFFIN, 5601 COURTHOUSE ROAD HERE IN PRINCE GEORGE.
WHEN I BOUGHT OUR HOUSE, IT'D BEEN EMPTY FOR 10 YEARS.
I HAVE BEEN FLIPPING HOUSES FOR QUITE A WHILE.
I HAVE QUITE A BIT OF KNOWLEDGE HERE COULD HELP PEOPLE.
ONE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 20 ACRES BACK THERE.
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT OTHER PIECE WITH THE FORMER DON HAMAS, CORRECT?
[00:25:02]
>> THE DONALD HUNTER HOUSE THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE PASSED OVER BY A NEW ROAD NEXT TO THE HOUSE TO GET TO THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK.
>> YOU WANT TO SPLIT UP INTO THREE LOTS.
THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT THAT PIECE FROM THE HUNTER HOUSE COMES ALL THE WAY BY AND THREE MORE HOUSES UP TO ME.
WHY IT WAS LAID OUT LIKE THAT MAKES NO SENSE, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION.
YOU BUILD IT ON THE 20 ACRES BACK THERE, CORRECT?
>> THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ON THAT 20 ACRES BACK THERE, CORRECT?
I WANTED A PIECE OF PROPERTY ON 20 ROAD LITTLE WORSE.
ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS SPLIT IT IN HALF, GIVE HER DAUGHTER ONE HALF, RETAKE THE OTHER HALF.
THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS IT WAS IN THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING COMMITTEE DISTRICT.
THEY HAD A OLD HOUSE ON IT, IT WAS FULL OF BLACK MOLD.
THEY WOULDN'T EVEN HEAR A VARIANCE ON THAT.
MAN WE'RE GOING TO SPLIT THIS UP THREE TIMES WITH ALMOST NO CONTEST, CORRECT.
ALSO, IF WE GO STRAY FROM THE SUBDIVISION RULES, WHICH IS REALLY BOTTOM LINE OKAY WITH ME.
IF WE GO STRAY FROM THE RULES ON THAT, WHAT TYPE OF HOUSES WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN THERE? WE'RE GOING TO BUILD SKIP HOUSES, MODULAR HOMES, MOBILE HOMES, I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
AS FAR AS THE ROAD GOES, IF YOU WANT TO DEVIATE FROM VI PUT IN MORE THAN ONE ROAD IN MY LIFETIME.
WHEN YOU WHEN YOU VARY FOR ME, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE WIDTH.
I'M TRYING TO BE HELPFUL HERE.
YOU SCRAPE OFF THAT GRASS ON TOP OF THE GROWTH ON TOP OF DUMP GRAVEL ON IT, YOU'LL BE FIGHTING THAT SONG GUN THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
DIG IT DOWN TO HARD PAN, PUT BACK NUMBER 3 YEARS ON IT, AND COME BACK UP WITH GRAVEL ON IT.
YOU MAY HAVE TO GRADE IT ONCE IN A WHILE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BEAT YOU TO DEATH EVERY YEAR YOU DID IF YOU JUST DUMP GRAVEL ON TOP OF THE GROUND.
YOU SEE WHY I'M SAYING, I'M TRYING TO BE HELPFUL.
AS FAR AS THE COUNTY WATER, COUNTY WATER IS ON THAT SIDE ON HUNTER SIDE OF COURTHOUSE ROAD.
YOUR SEWER LINE IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE ROAD.
THAT 20 ACRES BACK THERE, OVER HALF OF IT IN THE WINTERTIME, NOT ANY ONE OF TIME, OVER HALF OF IT AND I RESEARCHED IT BECAUSE I WANTED THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE.
THE REASON I DIDN'T BUY IT IS UNDER THE FEMA FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
I FOUND THIS OUT AT THE HARD WAY WHEN I BOUGHT A HOUSE IN COLONY HEIGHTS.
THAT INSURANCE IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, DON'T HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE. THAT'S SEPARATE.
YOU DON'T GET IT IN THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, THEY SAID, WHAT AM IN HERE.
YOU AIN'T BEEN BUYING A FLOOD PROGRAM.
THAT'S A TERRIBLE PENALTY ON THAT.
PLUS, YOU GOT TO GO BACK AND PAY IT OFF.
I'M JUST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL YOU GUYS.
LET'S DO IT RIGHT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO GET IT HALFWAY IN THERE AND SAYS, OH, NO.
WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS. YOU KNOW, DO YOU RESEARCH, GUYS, BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF STUFF BACK IN 19 ACRES.
THAT CAN REALLY COST YOU SOME MONEY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OH, I'M SURE DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS ANYTHING? I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING.
DID ANYONE ELSE WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS? NO.
>> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THEN.
COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR PROPERTY OWNERS OR ANYONE?
>> HAVE THE [NOISE] PRESENT OWNERS CHECKED INTO THE FLOODPLAIN THEORY?
>> WE'VE ACTUALLY LOCATED ALL OF IT FLOODPLAIN WET LANDS, ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED, ALL OF THE ACTUALLY SIGHTED HOUSES,
[00:30:02]
DRAIN FIELDS AND WELLS ON ALL THE FUTURE THREE LOTS, AND ALL OF THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE LOW PLAIN AND WETS PLAINS.THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT TO ANY OF THAT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAIVER REQUESTED IN APPLICATION SW-24-01.
THERE IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION SPECIFICALLY THAT AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION ACROSS HER PROPERTY.
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE GENERAL REGULATION IN THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER WILL LOSE THE USE OF A GREAT PORTION OF HER PROPERTY IF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOLLOWED CLOSELY.
THERE IS NO PREJUDICE TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE SURROUNDING CITIZENS, AND THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND WAIVER REQUEST.
>> GOOD EVENING, HOW ARE YOU ALL.
>> BEFORE YOU HAVE SUBDIVISION WAIVER NUMBER 24-02.
THIS WAIVER HERE IS A REQUEST TO WEIGH STANDARDS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 7 OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
AS AUTHORIZED UNDER CODE SECTION 70-208.
THIS IS TO PERMIT THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO FIVE LOTS WITHOUT ADHERING TO ALL THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ARTICLE 7.
SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A WAIVER OF CODE SECTION 70-724-D3, WHICH LIMITS THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PRIVATE ROADS TO NO MORE THAN THREE LOTS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE LOTS TO SHARE A PRIVATE ROAD.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL AND IS LOCATED ON COURT ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2,600 SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH OAKRIDGE LANES.
IT IS IDENTIFIED AS THE TAP MEETS NUMBER THERE.
THEY DO HAVE A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLOT FILED WITHIN OUR OFFICE UNDER P24-07.
THERE YOU HAVE AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PARCEL IN QUESTION.
HERE IS A SCREENSHOT OF THE CURRENT PLOT WITHIN OUR OFFICE SHOWING THE LOTS WILL THE EASEMENT COMING THROUGH LOT 2 TO SERVE 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6.
LOT 3 WOULD HAVE ITS OWN ENTRANCE OFF OF THE FRONTAGE OF COURTLAND ROAD.
HERE'S A GOOGLE STREET VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
THE BACKGROUND, PROPERTY ONCE AGAIN, MINED THE PLATFORM REVIEW WILL SHOW THAT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL IN THE FIVE LOTS.
LOT 3 PROPOSED TO USE A PRIVATE ENTRANCE ON COURTLAND ROAD, WHILE EXISTING LOT 1 AND PROPOSED LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6, ARE PROPOSED TO SHARE A 50 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT PRIVATE ROAD THROUGH LOT 2, THAT WILL BE THEIR PRIMARY POINT OF ACCESS.
ARTICLE 7 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN STANDARDS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT APPLY TO NEW SUBDIVISIONS PROPOSED IN THE COUNTY, INCLUDING SUBDIVISIONS AS THAT WHICH IS PROPOSED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THAT ARTICLE, WHICH IS 70-724D.
IT DOES NOTWITHSTANDING A MEAN ABOVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MAY OCCUR ROADS, NOT IN THE STATE SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
NUMBER 3 LAYS OUT THAT TO SERVE NO MORE THAN THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN A1 AND RA ZONING DISTRICTS.
SECTION 70-208 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AUTHORIZES THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WAIVE THE STANDARDS
[00:35:05]
OF ARTICLE 7 AND SPECIFIES THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING APPROVAL IN CASES OF UNUSUAL SITUATIONS OR WHERE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE GENERAL REGULATIONS AND ITS ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP.NO WAIVER SHALL BE GRANTED, WHICH IS ILLEGAL, OR WHICH WOULD PREJUDICE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY.
TO GO A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND, THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION THAT THEY PROVIDED WITHIN THEIR STATEMENT, THEY DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION AND PROVIDED TWO MAIN REASONS FOR THAT.
ONE BEING THAT REQUIRES A LOT TO TO USE A SHARED ENTRANCE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS ROAD FRONTAGE AND COULD USE A SEPARATE PRIVATE ENTRANCE IF THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THROUGH SHARED ENTRANCE.
TO ALSO ADD A NOTE TO THAT THERE IS A COUNTY REQUIREMENT AS WELL.
THAT REQUIRES A LOT TO USE A SHARED ENTRANCE.
THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PRAYER FOR A LOT 4 TO BE ACCESSED BY A SHARED ENTRANCE WITH LOT 3, WHICH WERE REQUIRED AN ADDITIONAL PRIVATE ROAD, AND THIS ONE SERVE MORE WETLANDS THAN A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY DUE TO THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD BEING WIDER.
IF THE WAIVER IS APPROVED, THE LOT 4 WILL INSTEAD BE ABLE TO SHARE A PRIVATE ROAD WITH ALL THE OTHER LOTS EXCEPT LOT 3, THUS MINIMIZING THAT DISTURBANCE OF THE WETLANDS.
THE APPLICANT STATED THAT LOTS 5 AND 6 MAYBE POSSIBLE DEVELOPED FOR FAMILY USE.
THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THIS IS ONLY FOR ONE ADDITIONAL LOT ON THE PRIVATE ROAD.
HOWEVER, PER THE PLOT, THAT SHOULD BE FOR TWO LOTS.
THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING TO BUILD A PRIVATE ROAD.
THAT DOES MEET THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS LAID OUT 70-724D33.
ACTION FOR YOU ALL WOULD BE EITHER TO APPROVE OR DENY THIS REQUEST, PROVIDE REASONING FOR EITHER THE APPROVAL OR DENIAL, AND YOU MAY INCLUDE OR NOT INCLUDE CONDITIONS.
>> THE PLANNING STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS.
SOME NOTES THAT WE PROVIDED ARE THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES GENERALLY COMPLY WITH THE REMAINING REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE ORDINANCE.
IF THE REQUEST IS APPROVED, THEN THE RESULTING LOTS WILL STILL NEED TO MEET ALL THE OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL.
SINCE THE WAIVERS HAVE BEEN FIRST AUTHORIZED IN 2007, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOUR WAIVERS FOR THE SAME REQUIREMENT THAT IS REQUESTED BEFORE YOU TODAY.
IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER WAIVER REQUESTS, THIS ONE IS TO HAVE FIVE LOTS SERVED BY A SINGLE PRIVATE ROAD.
ALSO, THIS WAIVER REQUEST IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO AVOID PLACING A SECOND PRIVATE ROAD THAT WILL CAUSE MORE DISTURBANCE TO THE WETLANDS BECAUSE INCREASING THE LENGTH AND THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD.
STAFF NOTES THAT STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS WOULD RESULT IN THE DEVELOPER NEEDING TO INSTALL TWO PRIVATE ROADS INSTEAD OF ONE AND A PRIVATE ROAD CROSSING THE WETLANDS ON THREE WOULD RESULT IN MORE INTERMENTS TO THE WETLANDS VERSUS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY.
IF THE WAIVER REQUEST IS APPROVED, THEN IT WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO ONLY BUILD ONE PRIVATE ROAD, [INAUDIBLE] TWO, FIVE LOTS FROM SHARON PRIVATE ROAD INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM THREE ALLOWED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND DISTURBANCE TO THE WETLANDS WILL BE MINIMIZED.
STAFF REVIEWED THIS AGAINST THE WAIVER CRITERIA AND FOUND THAT IT IS UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHETHER IT MEETS THE CRITERIA PROVIDED.
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE'S THE WAIVER CRITERIA.
IN TERMS OF IN CASES OF UNUSUAL SITUATIONS WHERE STRICT ADHERENCE IN THE GENERAL REGULATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP, STAFF FINDS THAT IS UP TO YOU ALL TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES BELIEVE THAT IT IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU ALL STATE WHAT THAT SITUATION IS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
INITIALLY, IT IS UP TO YOU ALL TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU'RE THINKING IT'S A STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE REGULATION, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP.
[00:40:03]
TO FOLLOW AGAIN, IF YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE THAT, PLEASE PROVIDE THE REASONING FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.IN TERMS OF WHETHER ANY ILLEGALITY OR PREJUDICE STAFF DOES FIND AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR HAVE ANYTHING THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE PREJUDICED TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS.
I DID PROVIDE COMMENT THROUGH THEIR SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW.
THIS IS THEIR TYPICAL LOW VOLUME COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE, AS WELL AS A STOPPING SIGHT [NOISE] DISTANCE OF 490 FEET.
THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE LOCATION.
[NOISE] IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, NUMBER RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE STAFF REPORT OR THE MEETING.
THERE BEFORE YOU ARE THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO SHARE AN ACCESS EASEMENT, PRIVATE ROAD FROM COURTLAND ROAD BACK TO THE FARTHEST LOT.
THE PRIVATE ROAD WILL BE USED.
THE SHARED ACCESS WILL NOT BE IMPROVED NOR MAINTAINED WITH LOCAL OR STATE FUNDS UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD SHALL BE GOVERNED BY ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, WHICH SHALL BE RECORDED IN TANDEM WITH THE PLAT.
THE PLAT WILL REFERENCE THE WAIVER APPROVAL DATE AND MEET ALL THE OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS.
WE GENERALLY DO NOT PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A REQUEST OF WAIVER VARIANCES.
IF YOU ALL WISH TO DENY THIS, IT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE REASONS FOR A DENIAL.
IF YOU ALL WISH TO APPROVE THE REQUEST, IT IS REQUIRED TO FIND THAT THE REQUEST MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA PROVIDED FOR IN THE ORDINANCE AND OTHERWISE PROVIDE THOSE REASONS FOR APPROVAL.
WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU ALL WITH THE SAMPLE MOTIONS, DRAFT RESOLUTION, AND THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
I BELIEVE THIS APPLICANT IS HERE.
IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND TALK, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO, AND WE CAN TAKE QUESTIONS.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M ROBERT FORHAN.
MY WIFE AND I HAD MADE THE APPLICATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK FROM THE BEGINNING TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
WE PROPOSED THE ORIGINALLY TWO LOTS COMING IN THROUGH A LOT 3, AND WE WOULD SERVE TWO, AND WE PROPOSED COMING IN ON THE OTHER ONES AND SERVING THE FIRST COUPLE OF LOTS.
IT WAS MY THINKING THAT SINCE WE HAD 400 AND SOME FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE, THAT THAT LOT WOULD NOT BE COUNTED AS ONE OF THE PRIVATE ROADS.
WE WORKED IT OUT THAT WE WERE GOING TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEP, THEY WEREN'T GOING TO COUNT IT.
WE HAD A TURNOVER, SOME NEW DIRECTOR, ATTORNEY, WHATEVER.
ANYWAY, A RULING WAS MADE AFTER 30 YEARS OF NOT COUNTING IT IF YOU HAD THE ROAD FRONTAGE.
NOW THE COUNTY OPTED TO START COUNTING THAT FIRST ONE IF IT CAME OFF IMMEDIATELY AS A PRIVATE ROAD EXIT.
WHEN THEY DID THAT, IT SCREWED MY NUMBERS.
THEN AS WE GOT FURTHER ALONG, WE DECIDED IF WE WERE GOING TO BUILD THE PRIVATE ROAD ALL THE WAY DOWN, IT MADE SENSE TO PICK UP LOT, I CAN'T READ IT, BUT I GUESS IT'S THREE OR TWO.
IT MADE COMMON SENSE TO PICK THAT UP OFF THE PRIVATE ROAD INSTEAD OF RUNNING A NEW DRIVEWAY ALL THE WAY THROUGH THREE AND ALL THE WAY HALFWAY THROUGH FOUR.
THAT'S HOW WE'VE COME UP WITH FIVE OFF OF THE PRIVATE ROAD.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THEY WOULDN'T COUNT THE FIRST ONE.
I KNOW THEY SAID SHARED DRIVEWAYS ARE COMMON, BUT IT WASN'T A SHARED DRIVEWAY, IT BECAME A PRIVATE ROAD.
TO BUILD A PRIVATE ROAD FOR THE FIRST 50 OR 60 FEET THEN GO ON IF THEY WANT TO DROP THAT.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE'VE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN THE WHOLE THING.
I'LL COMMENT THAT THEY'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL, AND THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO DO THEIR JOB, AND WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
ONE OF THEM SUGGESTED I DO THIS.
NO COMMITMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND I THINK THEY BORE THAT OUT TONIGHT.
IT MAKES SENSE TO TAKE THE TWO LOTS THROUGH THE WETLANDS AREA, WE WOULD HAVE TO CLEAR SOMEWHERE PROBABLY 40 FEET THROUGH THE WETLANDS.
TO DO THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY, WE WOULD HAVE ABOUT 15 FEET.
[00:45:01]
IT'S A VERY SUBSTANTIAL, LESS AMOUNT OF WETLANDS DISTURBANCE.WE'RE STILL UNDER THE THRESHOLD, WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR ANYTHING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT'D BE FAIRLY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED FOR IT.
WE THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BUY THE LOTS, AND WORST CASE SCENARIO, AND I HOPE THE BOARD DOESN'T DECIDE TO DO THAT, WE COULD PROBABLY LIVE WITH FOUR INSTEAD OF FIVE, I'M JUST BEING HONEST, BUT FIVE MAKES MORE SENSE TO ACCOMMODATE THE HOMEOWNERS THERE.
I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND WHATEVER.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> LOT THREE. THAT ONE, DOES IT HAVE ACCESS FROM 35 TO EXISTING ROAD?
>> [NOISE] IS THAT COUNTED AS ONE OF THE LOTS?
>> NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT EVEN IN THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE WE PROPOSE TO DO THAT LATER BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO GET WETLANDS PERMIT TO CROSS THE THING AND IT'S GOING TO BE DOWN THE ROAD AWAY.
WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN THE ASSESS.
THAT WILL BE A SEPARATE THING WE WORK OUT THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> YOU GOT LOT 2, 4, 5, AND 6 ON IT?
>> YES. BUT THERE'S AN EXISTING ONE THAT HAS A DRIVEWAY ALREADY.
>> THAT WOULD COME OFF THE PRIVATE ROAD.
THAT WOULD NEED TO BE COUNTED.
>> YES, MA'AM. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING, I MEANT THIS.
I PUT IN THERE THAT THE BACK LOTS MAY BE GIVEN TO MY FAMILY.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO MAKE THAT A CONDITION BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT BE.
I GOT ONE SON THAT LIVES IN KENTUCKY, ONE LIVES UP IN FREDERICKSBURG.
BUT AFTER THINKING ABOUT SAYING THAT, I DOUBT EITHER ONE OF THEM WOULD WANT TO LIVE THERE.
I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GIVING IT TO THEM, WAITING FIVE YEARS, AND ALL THAT.
ONE OF THEM MIGHT END UP WITH IT, BUT DON'T MAKE ANY CONSIDERATION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE.
I THINK THAT WAS A MISSTATEMENT ON MY PART.
>> IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A FAMILY DIVISION?
>> NO, SIR. I DO NOT WANT IT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A FAMILY DIVISION.
>> IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND PLEASE ADHERE TO THE THREE MINUTE RULE.
>> HELLO, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS JUSTIN NOBLIN, 8724 CENTENNIAL ROAD.
I AM A LOCAL BUILDER IN THE AREA.
I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH THIS LOT OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO THEM ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
BUT I DID WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS TONIGHT.
THERE REALLY IS NO VICTIMS IN THIS CONSIDERATION.
THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RISK AT THE PRIVATE DRIVE THAT HAS A CONTRACT FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE.
THE COUNTY WOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS.
IT'S NOT DESTROYING FARMLAND, LIKE WE SEE SO MANY OF THE OTHER DEVELOPERS COMING THROUGH AND DOING, WHERE THEY'RE CUTTING UP FARMLAND IN FIVE ACRE TRACKS AND JUST GETTING RID OF OUR FARMLAND IN THE COUNTY.
THERE IS A NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS IF HE IS REJECTED, I IMAGINE, WE'LL PROBABLY SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY TO PUT IN THE SECOND DRIVEWAY TO MAKE IT FEASIBLE FOR PROFIT.
BUT THE EXTRA EXPENSE WILL GO TO THE BUILDERS, WHICH IN TURN WILL GO TO THE HOMEOWNERS.
THIS WILL IN TURN INCREASE THE ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE OF THE SALE PRICES, WHICH WILL IN TURN INCREASE TAXES FOR ALL RESIDENTS.
IT'S A COST THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED TO THE RESIDENTS AND THE TAXPAYERS OF THE COUNTY.
[00:50:01]
THIS IF HE CAN GET THE LOTS THAT HE'S LOOKING FOR WILL HELP EVERYBODY AND HURT NOBODY.ON TOP OF THAT, IT PROTECTS WETLANDS, WHICH IS ANOTHER BENEFIT.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR, IT REALLY MAKES SENSE TO GRANT IT BECAUSE EVERYTHING ABOUT IS A POSITIVE AND THERE ARE NO NEGATIVES.
TO ME AS A BUILDER AND A FARMER, AND A COUNTY RESIDENT, EVERY ASPECT OF THIS LOOKS LIKE HE IS DOING WHAT HE'S CAPABLE OF TO TRY TO SAVE SOME MONEY AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND HELP THE CITIZENS WHILE MAKING SOME MONEY.
I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY SHAME OR HARM IN THAT AT ALL, AND HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONSIDER THAT IN Y'ALL'S DECISION AND APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH? WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? BEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY FOLLOWING COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF FOR ANYONE THAT'S MADE COMMENTS TONIGHT? I HAD JUST ONE FOR STAFF.
FOR THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND THE NUMBER OF APPROVED PREVIOUSLY, HAVE ALL OF THESE BEEN FOR FAMILY PURPOSES, OR ARE SOME OF THESE ALSO FOR NON FAMILY PRIVATE ROADS? ALL THE ONES THAT I'M AWARE OF WERE FOR FAMILY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
>> GIVE ME ONE SECOND. I'M LOOKING AT THE CHART.
ALL FOUR OF THEM ARE DONE PER FAMILY.
>> DID ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A QUESTION?
>> WELL, MY ONLY CONCERN IS, YOU HAVE THE CODE THAT ONLY ALLOWS THREE PLOTS ON A PRIVATE ROAD WHERE WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP HERE, THIS IS NOT FARMLAND.
IT'S GOT WETLANDS AND FOREST LAND, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT OTHER PARTS OF IT.
BUT IF YOU GET THIS AND ONCE YOU PASS THIS AND YOU START A PRECEDENT, WHAT'S GOING TO STOP ANOTHER BUILDER COMING IN AND SAYING, WELL, THIS IS A FARMLAND, BUT YOU'VE ALLOWED FIVE LOTS ON A PRIVATE ROAD? I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS FEEL, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.
>> THAT WAS MY FOUGHT AS WELL.
>> IF ANYONE, COMMISSIONERS, DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE WILL NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> FOR THAT REASON AND NOT WANTING TO SET A PRECEDENT, I WILL MOVE THAT WE DENY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAIVER REQUEST SW-2402 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THIS IS NOT AN UNUSUAL SITUATION AND IT'S NOT AN INSTANCE RESTRICT ADHERENCE TO THE GENERAL REGULATIONS AND THIS ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE OR HARDSHIP.
>> WE'RE TURNING TO OUR AGENDA FOR THE SESSION.
[COMMUNICATIONS ]
UPDATES, OR THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS?>> WE HAVE A FEW BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS.
FOR ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THERE WEREN'T ANY.
THE MEETING FOR APRIL WAS CANCELED BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CASES.
ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
I THINK WE HAD A MEETING TWO DAYS AGO AND DURING THAT MEETING, THEY APPROVED THREE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON.
[00:55:01]
ONE WAS FOR THE DESTINATION CHURCH CHILDCARE AND PRESCHOOL.ANOTHER TWO WERE FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
UPCOMING CASES FOR MAY 2024, YOU HAVE A PREVIEW OF THOSE CASES IN YOUR PACKET UNDER TAB 4.
ONE CASE IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR A SMALL PROPERTY OFF OF SAWMILL ROAD DOWN NEAR THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE ON COURTHOUSE IN SAWMILL.
BASICALLY, BEHIND THOSE EXISTING THREE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AT THE INTERSECTION WITH SAWMILL.
THEN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST NEXT MONTH IS FOR A DAY SUPPORT CENTER FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES.
THAT'S AT THE FORMER CHILDCARE LOCATION ON BRANCHESTER PARKWAY.
THOSE ARE THE TWO CASES SCHEDULED FOR NEXT MONTH FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN FINALLY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT ON.
MOST RECENTLY, THEY SENT US A DRAFT VERSION OF THE DIAGNOSTIC REPORT, BASICALLY WHERE THEY ANALYZED THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
WE'RE REVIEWING THAT WITH THEM IN A MEETING TOMORROW, AND THEN THAT'LL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ON MAY 14TH.
THEY'LL BE A REPORT TO THE BOARD ON MAY 14TH TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY FOUND ABOUT THE COUNTY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AND HOW MUCH OF IT COMPLIES WITH THE STATE CODE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THERE'LL BE A REPORT TO THE PLAN TO THE BOARD.
LIKE I SAID, MAY 14TH, THEY'LL DO A REPORT TO YOU GUYS IN JUNE.
THEY'LL ALSO IN JUNE, WE'LL HAVE A WORK SESSION ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IF I HAVE MY DATES CORRECT, THAT'S TWO MONTHS FROM NOW.
IN THE MEANTIME, YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.
WE ALSO HAVE COMING UP IN MAY, THE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ON MAY 8TH, 15TH AND 22ND.
THOSE ARE IN THE EVENING AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.
ALL THE INFORMATION IS POSTED ONLINE.
THE SURVEY IS STILL LIVE FOR FOLKS WHO WANT TO TAKE THE SURVEY AND PROVIDE THEIR INPUT ABOUT ABOUT THE COUNTY FOR THE CONFERENCE PLAN UPDATE.
WE'LL DO FOCUS GROUPS IN MAY AS WELL. A LOT GOING ON.
STAFF CONTINUES TO WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT ON THAT.
DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS OF STAFF?
>> ANYONE? NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANKS. THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMUNICATIONS.
>> THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT?
>> MEETING AND ADJOURNED. SORRY, ROLL CALL. THOUGHT WAS TIME.
>> I TRIED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.