03SN0312-Dec 17.pdfDecember t7; 2003 BS
STAFF'S-
~QUEST ANALYSIS
AND
-RECOMMENDATION
03 SN0312
Victor P. Morrissette
REQUEST:
Matoaea Magisterial District
O.B. Gates Elementary SChool,. Bailey Bridge Middle,. School- and
Mat°aca H~sh School At;tendan-c
SoU~'line of!BeaehlRoad
Rezoning from-Residential (R-25) to Agricultural (A).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Agricultural and residemial uses are planned.
PLANNING COMMIS SIONRECOMMENDA~ON
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
STAFE!RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
A. · The proposed zo~g a!!dland use donot conform .with the Southem and Western
Area Plan whiCh'Stigg6sts;the prOperty-isapproPria~e for residential use of 1 to 5 acre
lots (suited for Resi'dential~(R-88)Zoning). .
The proposed zoning, and(land use do:not conform,to the'Thoroughfare Plan since
this type of development:Would nOt'require the owner(s)to pro.de transportation
improvements, as suggested by the Plan:
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION ~T MAY BE IMPOSED~!S 3. BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER oTHER cONDiTIONS:)
Providinga FIRST CHOICE :Community Through ExcellenCe in Public Service.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Fronts thesouth line
6868; 740'651-3549,
Existing ZOning:
Size.:
R-25 ' '
6T3 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single family dwelling-and-vacant
Adjacent. ZOning and Land Use:
North - A; Single family residenfi~-or vacant
South,A; Single famil~ r&~[denfiaI or vacant
East:-- A;:Single famil~'reSidential or vacant
West-'R'25; Single f~lY residential or Vacan
Public Water System:
UTILIT~S
2
038N03.12-DEC17-BOS':!"
Public wastewater System:
The public wastewater system isnot available to the request Site; The SoUthem and ~estem
AreaPlan designates this area for'anticipatedR-88 zoning with lots of 1 ~ 5 acres
Use' of a private septiC.system is permitted within this area.
Private Septic Systems:
The Health Departmem has.reviewed the soils and septic/drainfield designs.
ENYmONMENTAL
Drainage.and Erosion:
Theproperty drains southeast via~Iributaries to S,Wif~ Creek: There are curremly noon- or
off'site'drainage or erOsiOn problems, and. n°ne:are anticipated:with this!reZoni~g request:.
· PUBLIC FACILITIES
The need for fire, school, library~ Pa~k:!and transportation facilities iis identified in the,public
Facilities:Plan .the Thorouglffarepl~;and~:the CaPitali:Impr°vementiPr6gram.. This.reqUest:~
result in an increase in the numb.¢r:.of Pe-~tted dWeiling~ts, Y, there is no net increase
in the impact On capital facilities. - ~"
Fire Service:
The Winterpock Fire/Rescue;.station,: Comply: Number 19, currently proVides fire
protection and emergency:medium, serviCe, ms;request will have,minimal i~npm °nfire
and emergency medical :§critice. - '
Libraries: _ ·
Cons~sten w~th the Board of S¢perv~sors poIiey, the. unpact of development on libra!3t
services is assessed County-wide? 'Based :On ProjeCted Pog~ation.groWth, the CheSterfiei~1
County Public Facilities~landd~nfified a ne~d.~°r!.ad~ti;hal ~ibra~' sp'%e thrOughOut:the
CountY): Even if the fa~ili~ ments that:have be~nmdeiMnee th~Plan was ~Ubiifshed
.are taken into account,:tli~re isiStfll':an unmet needl for addifiDnalilib~ space throughout~the
County. · ·
Developmem o f this property woUld mostlikely :impact. the~ Clover':Hill Library; theCe ntral
Libr~ or a proposed neWl~r~eh- in the.west&m.~eaCh Road!iarea. ~e Plafi identifi% a
need for additional library, spacei(m this area ofiheCounty, .~sreqUest will, haVea al
impact On these facilities: - ~ '- '
3 03SN0312'DEC 17-BOS
Parks and Recreation:
The-Public Facilities. Plan identifies the need for four (4) new-regional parks In addition,
there is currently a shortage 0f community parkaereagein the Ctu~nty. ~The Public Facil~ie~
Plan identifies a need for 625 acres of regional park spaceand 116 acres 6fcommUnityP~k '
space by 2015. The PI~ also identifies theneedforneighb:0rhoOd parks and special purpose
parks andmakes suggeSti°ns for their locationS; This reqUestwiil have a:minimal in~Pa~t On
these facilities.
TransportatiOn:
(~T~Ae applicant is requesting rez0ning.on 67.3 acreS from ReSidential (R,25) to Agricultural
). In 1989, most ofthe property was rezoned (Case 89SN021i2);fromA'to R_25. As:,P~
of that rezoning approval;,the Board of supervisors imp0seda,buffer cOndition alongBeach
:Road that limits access 'throUghithe bUffer to approved public mad(s) and an ~xiSting
driveway which serves a single :family residence-on the pr0perty.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Beach Road as a major arterial'with a recommended right
.OfwaY width of ninety (9.0). feet~: The Plan also identifies a ProPosed nOrth/sOU ~thm~or
artenal.( orth/South Artenal~ )~th a recommended nght!ofw~y :w~dth of ninety (90) feet,
extending from Qualla:.Roadjust aorth of Beach Road, south ~0ugh:the:property toRiver.
ROad.' Direct access to maj°r :merials, sUCh as Beach Roadiand the NO Soutfi erial,-
should be controlled. TheSUbdivision Ordinance requiresi~PortatiOn;imprOvements.~:
accOrdance with the orou e:?lan,, as determined::by the i~Po~tion Dep~ent.
Typically, some of the:transPort//fi°n improvements that w0uld.be necessary to acidre~s.the
traffic impact of developing:the:PrOPerty would include .right;of ~aydedieation :along~Beach
Road and fOr the North/SomA terial, and construction: of mo (2 iianes the No S;m
Arterial. ::through the prOpe~ :with:mm lanes along BeaChlRoad based 0n TranspO~emfion
Department standards.
This request would allow theoWner(s) to "road~strip" the prope~ by creating lots that front:
and ~ttmt have dir.ect aecessto BeaCh Road..~s ;type ofdev~lopment ~0~d not reqUirethe
owner(s)..to prowde any tr~Sp0-mfi0n improvements, suchlas:the No,SOuth Arterial.; 'The
TransPortation Department:d°es;n°t sUpp°rt ~reZoning':that: iSnot in accordance, With the
Thorg:Ughfare Plan.
LANDUSE
Comprehensive Plan: '
Lies within the boundaries ofthe Southern and Western Ax-~ ea Plan _Which suggests, the
property is appropriate f°r residential use of l'to:Sacre lotS, ~s~ted for ReSidential
zomng.
4 03SN03 I'2;DEC 17-BOS
A key feature of this Plan identifies the need to locate residential development where it can
be most cost effectively serVed bY public facilities, such as public water. This princiPle
promotes orderly development which discourages "leapfrog" development that often places
unnecessary demands on pUblic facilities:
Area Development Trends:
The surrounding properties are characterized by. single .family-residential uses and vacant
parcels zoned Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-25).' It is anticipated that residential.
zoning and land use patterns will continue in the area.
Zoning History:
On May 24, 1989, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation from the
.Planning Commission, approved.the rezoning of the property from Agricultural. (A) to
Residential (R-25) subject to a condition establishing a buffer adjacent ti) Beach Road and.
acceptance of several proffered COnditions negotiated by County Staff (Case 89SN0212).
Conditions of approval of Case 89SN0212.inclUde the buffer adjacent to Beach Road,
minimum lot sizes, use of public water, confOrmity.with regulations of,a proposed:Septic
System Ordinance. It should be noted, ifthis'rezoningrequestis apprOVed, these previous
cOnditions would not carry forth with this. case: The 1989:d~se pred~t~es:the current Southern
and Western Area Plan which was adopted in :1993. At the time-of-the originalzoning~
however, the Plan was'beingdrafted and, asa result~ the:zoning conditionS reflected' some of
the philosophy of the Plan, which was ultimately adopted:
On August 22, 1990, the Board of Supervisors denied an amendment to proffered Conditions
of Case 89SN0212 relative tolot:size and use. of public utilities:: SpecifiCally, the requested
amendments, if approved, would:have increased the minimum 16t Size from 0.75.acre to.one
(1) acre and eliminated the ConditiOns requiring the use iofpublie wateratid compliance with
the. :proposed Septic System Or'ce. As stated'abo~e, ~the ;zoning cOnditionS reflected
some philosophy of the SoutheTM and Western AreaPlan whieh~was being drafted atthe time
and ultimately adopted in 1993.~
Use Limitations:
Should the request be approved~ uses permitted bY the Zoning Ordinance in an Agricultural
(A) District would be allowed:on:the request property.as oUtlined'in-the:Ordinance, '
These uses include typical.agricultural activities such as farming, keePing of livestock, etc.
Residential uses would also be permitted.
In this particular instance, the original parcel has now been:isubdivided .creating siX (6)
parcels on the subjeet.property~through the -Subdivision-Ordinanee~S Residential Parcel
Subdivision process. Of these Six' (6) parcelS, one (1) is a residential pared modification,
four (4) are neTM residentia! parcelg and one(I) is an illegal: divi~ionbec~use it doeS n°t.meet
the minimum Ordinance requirements fOr lot.area and road .fr0ntage and does not meet the
5 03SN031.2,DEC 17-BOS
exceptiOns as an immediate family division. It is important to note 'that dwellings cannot
currently be constructed ,on these Parcels unless public water is provided,-as required by
rezoning Case 89SN0212;.asdiseussed. above, Approval ofthiS rezoning would el~e
the previous condition req~gthe provisiOn of Public water to, serve'the request prOperty
and permit development 0ftheSe road, stripped lots UtiliZing private wells; Th~ use o~P~ivat'e
septic systems is currently permitted and wOuld 'still be permitted, shOuld this case be
approved.
CONCLUSIONS
The Southern and Westem Area Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential'use of t to 5
acre lots~-suited for Residential (R288) Z0~g. The propOsed zo~g:and land USedo nOt:conf°rm.t°
the use suggested by the Plan.-' F~er, the Plan:'s pdncipleSwhich~ encoUrage .residential'
developmem to be served by public facilities and discoUrages "leap!frog~?.development wherePublic
facilities .are not available would be compromised with approval.ofthiS request. '
Further, this request would allow;.:the owner(s) to "road.strip" the property without providing.any
transportation improvements, sueh as the North/South Arterial. 'Therefore, this request is not in
accordance with the Thorou.~.hfare plan~'-
Given these: considerations, denial of this :request is recommended. ·
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (8/19/03):
At the request of the applicant, the CommissiOndeferred this case to NoVember 18, 2003.
Staff (8/20/03):
The applicant was advisedin wd~g that any significant new or,reVised i~ormationshOuld
be .sUbmitted no later th~ seP~h~ber 15~ 2003, for consideratiOn at ",the Com~ss~onis
NoVember 18, 2003, pUbliC here. _'" '
Also, : the ' applicant was adViSed that a $250.00 deferral feemust be paid :prior: to the -
Commission' s public'hearing..
Staff (10/28/03):
To'date} no new or revised information has been received, norhas the deferralfee beenpaid2 '
6 03 SN0312-DEC 17-BOS
Applicant (11/10/03):
The' deferral fee was paid.
Planning Commission Meeting (11/18/03):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation.. 'There: was support present 'for
Agricultural (Pt) zoning: There was opposition present expressing concerns relativeto aceess
to Buckhorn Road, lot sizes and ~ainage.
On'motion of Mr. Stack, seconded by Mr. Cunninghami the .Commission recommended
denial of this request. .
AYES: Unanimous.
The Board 0f Supervisors, on Wednesday, December 17, 2003,-beginning at 7:00 p.m., will,.take
under consideration this request.
7
03SN0312~DEC17-BOS
~0