This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Subject: Middleburg Humane Foundation – Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM13-MA005); Rezoning (REZN13-MA-004); Category 11 Special Permit to Allow an Animal Shelter (SPPT13-MA-020); Category 13 Special Permit to Allow an Animal Shelter (SPPT13-MA-021); Category 13 Special Permit to Allow a Veterinary Clinic (SPPT14MA-007); Category 1 Special Exception to Allow a Residential Duplex (SPEX13-MA023); and a Category 31 Special Exception to Waive the Public/Central Water Requirement (SPEX13-MA-024) Date: September 26, 2013
Topic: The owner, Middleburg Humane Foundation, assisted by the Applicant, Grove Lane LLC, is seeking to develop the 23.07 acre site for an animal shelter. Project Update: The Planning Commission held a work session and Public Hearing on July 25, 2013. The Commission postponed action for up to 90 days with the public hearing left open. Since July 25, staff has received an additional Special Permit application for a veterinary clinic (SPPT14-MA-007). Staff also received text for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a resubmittal dated September 10, 2013, that included a proffer statement, elevations, the applicant’s suggested revisions to the draft conditions, and revised plans. All of these are attached. Staff also received comments from the Water and Sanitation Authority (WSA) and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and these are included within the staff report. Summary of Applications Received: 1. CPAM13-MA-005 - A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to permit an agricultural use within the Marshall Service District; 2. REZN13-MA-004 – Rezoning of approximately 23.0763 acres from R-2/R-4 (Residential) to RA (Rural Agriculture); 3. SPPT13-MA-020 - Category 11 Special Permit to allow an animal shelter (public and quasipublic); 4. SPPT13-MA-021 - Category 13 Special Permit to allow an animal shelter (commercial); 5. SPPT14-MA-007 - Category 13 Special Permit to allow a veterinary clinic; 6. SPEX13-MA-023 - Category 1 Special Exception to allow a residential duplex; and 7. SPEX13-MA-024 - Category 31 Special Exception to waive the public/central water requirement.
Topic Description: The Middleburg Humane Foundation is seeking to relocate its operations to this 23.07-acre site. The proposal includes an administrative building (main structure) of approximately 12,200 square feet that will include space for a veterinary clinic, retail shop, grooming/training services and kennel/shelter services. (Note: the number, location and sizes of the proposed buildings are no longer shown on the plans and are not proffered, so are not binding). The veterinary clinic will not generally be open to the public; it is planned to provide services for shelter animals, a spay/neuter program and special medical services for the low income client program, although these limitations are not proffered. The retail shop may be approximately 12’x12’ in order to sell incidental supplies to shelter customers. The proffer statement limits the use of the site for a humane facility and ancillary shelter purposes by a non-profit organization with the ability to construct two apartments in the upper level of the barn or a free-standing duplex structure, for the purpose of housing onpremises staff. Other likely structures, besides the administrative building and the barn, include three turn-out sheds in the paddock areas, a poultry area, a bunny barn, hay storage, a livestock area and an animal quarantine area. The barn may be 48’x34’ with eight stalls; two of the eight stalls may be 24’x12’ and used to store and sell donated tack. The Land Use Plan entitled “Concept Development Plan – Middleburg Humane Foundation at Cunningham Farm” prepared by Urban, Ltd., dated August 2013 and sealed September 6, 2013 is the only attached plan that is proffered. An area of primary buildings and parking is shown on the plan. “Primary Buildings” are not defined. The remainder of the site is labeled Fields. The Plan shows three potential access points; one on Salem Avenue extended and two on the future north/south road. While future streets are shown on the proffered plan, the applicant does not intend to build these, but rather to use the existing access road from Main Street with a Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance at Main Street directly across from Free State Road. The proffered plan also shows the approximate location of the proposed fences and potential initial SWM/BMP Facilities. A future trail, by others, is shown on the northern end of the site. The Middleburg Humane Foundation has 13 employees; four work full-time. It also has 80 active volunteers of whom between two and six are on-site on a daily basis. Proffered hours of operation are Monday through Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The owner estimates that care will be provided for not more than 200 animals per day. The Foundation does not intend to use the facility for fundraising events, which are normally held off-site. Past events had a maximum of 400 attendees off-site. The proposed facility may be used occasionally as an open house for fall stable tours and other community events, typically only a few times per year. The special events are proposed to have hours extended beyond 6:30 p.m. Architectural elevations and building materials entitled “Middleburg Humane Foundation,” prepared by Franck & Lohsen, Architects, and dated August 27, 2013 (the “Architectural Renderings”) are also proffered. It is assumed, but not proffered, that these represent the main structure. The building has the appearance of a large barn, with a variety of details and materials (such as wood siding, board and batten, concrete boards, etc.) allowed. The proffers state that all structures shall be designed and constructed in substantial conformance with the Architectural Renderings, and shall employ designs reflecting vernacular agrarian structures typically found in rural areas of Virginia. 2
The property will be served by public water and sewer for all human use through the Fauquier County Water and Sanitation Authority (FCWSA). Water taps have been secured and are estimated to be less than five. One well for animal use is sought. Approval of the Category 31 Special Exception is required to allow use of this private well inside of the Marshall Service District. The applicant is also seeking another well, in addition to the one already on-site. The proffers indicate that one of the wells will be for animal use with no cross connections to any water supply for human consumption, and that the well not used to provide water for the animals may be used to provide additional potable water supply for the use of adjacent properties, if capacity exists. The proffers do not mention transference of such a well to WSA, and WSA has not yet commented on this new proffer. Staff would note that this property was gifted to the Middleburg Humane Foundation in December of 2012 by Grove Lane LLC. A restriction was placed on the deed that the site must be used “as a non-profit farm shelter, and for no other purpose.” In the event the property should cease to be used as a non-profit farm animal shelter for a continuous period of six (6) months, the property will revert in fee ownership to The Luminescence Foundation, Inc. Location, Zoning and Current Land Use: The 23.07-acre parcel is located on a private access road to the north of the intersection of Free State Road and Grove Lane, behind West Main Street (Route 55) in Marshall. Approximately 13.12 acres of the site is Zoned R-4, and 9.95 acres is zoned R-2. The site is currently used as agriculture for farming (hay and cows). Zoning Map
Surrounding Zoning and Current Land Use: The property is surrounded on all sides by a 122.85-acre parcel owned by Grove Lane LLC. To the south and east, the Grove Lane LLC parcel is zoned R-4. To the north and west, the Grove Lane LLC parcel is zoned R-2. The surrounding property is used as agriculture for farming (hay and cows). Beyond the Grove Lane LLC property to the south is West Main Street, which is zoned Commercial–Neighborhood (C-1) and contains a mix of commercial, residential and governmental uses, including the Marshall Volunteer Rescue - Station 09. Beyond the Grove Lane LLC property to the east is the Salem Avenue area, which is zoned C-1 and R-4, and contains the Marshall Ruritan Club, the former Lone Oak Swim Club (now owned by Grove Lane LLC), and residential uses. Comprehensive Plan/Land Use: The property is located within the Marshall Service District. The southern portion of the site is designated as part of the Salem Avenue Corridor and a small portion of the Western Gateway. The northern portion of the site is designated as Residential (North). In the Salem Avenue Corridor, the plan calls for a mix of uses, primarily residential and commercial (see sketch to the right). The Plan specifically calls for the extension of Salem Avenue westward and a new grid of streets connecting Main Street with existing subdivisions in the north end of the service district. In the Residential area, the plan seeks a variety of housing types interspersed throughout each neighborhood. The plan calls for a grid network and Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) throughout the Service District. Traditional Neighborhood Design includes a mix of uses, buildings placed close to the street, sidewalks and street trees. The plan further calls for architecture in keeping with the Piedmont Virginia vernacular.
Future Land Use Plan
Environmental and Historic Resources: There is no floodplain on the site. The property contains two streams, both unnamed tributaries of Goose Creek. Only the stream in the southwest corner shows up on county maps. However, the submitted plans do show the other stream on the north end of the site. Staff would note that the streams are deeply incised. While county maps do not indicate any wetlands, WSSI prepared a wetlands delineation study in 2011. Wetlands have been identified, and these are shown on the plans submitted by the applicant to the County. The site is near to, but outside of, the Marshall National Register Historic District and the Goose Creek/Cromwell’s Run Rural Historic District. The site is also near to the Strother-Utterback House, more recently known as Molly’s Folly. This 1783 house is on the adjacent Grove Lane LLC property to the west, but it should be noted that this house was moved to its current location in 1965.
Environmental and Historic Resources
CPAM13-MA-005 - Proposed Change to the Marshall Service District Plan: The owner is not proposing to change the land use designations for its property. Rather, it is requesting that the Marshall Service District Plan text be amended to permit a rural agricultural use within the service district at this location. Since the Planning Commission meeting in July, the following language has been proposed for inclusion on page 44 of the Marshall Service District Plan at the end the section titled “a. Residential – North”: The southernmost portion of the Residential North area, and a portion of the Salem Avenue Corridor and the Western Gateway, is a suitable location for a humane facility. Such a humane facility, appropriately sited, designed, and landscaped, would serve the wider agricultural area of Northern Fauquier County. It would also contribute to the strategy of reducing the residential buildout in this portion of the Service District. It is important to note that this is not a service district expansion, so many of the criteria used to evaluate Comprehensive Plan Amendments are not relevant to this case. With any Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission must consider whether a case is made for any of the following circumstances: a. Creative Concepts - presentation of innovative approaches to land use not currently contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. 6
b. Oversights - the subject property was omitted or misinterpreted in the original plan review process. c. Change in Circumstances - there has been a significant change in surrounding land use since the original plan review process. d. Goals - the goals of the plan would be better met with the proposed modification, or better implemented if such amendments are adopted. e. Hardship - an applicant has a unique hardship on the subject property not identified in the original plan review process. In this case, the applicant believes that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and is warranted due to the creative transition this use provides from the commercially designated uses between Salem Avenue and Grove Lane/West Main Street to the future residential development on the surrounding Grove Lane LLC property. The owner further believes that as compared to a residential use, the proposed land use also better implements the following goals from the Marshall Service District Plan: • • • Goal #1 – Provides an agricultural related use within the service center for the surrounding community; Goal #5 – Maintains an agricultural related use as the underpinning of the local culture; and Goal #20 – Provides environmental balance and sustainability by reducing land disturbance and increasing open space.
In evaluating the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the adopted Marshall Service District Plan is a key consideration. As noted earlier in this report, in the Salem Avenue Corridor, the plan calls for a mix of uses, primarily residential and commercial. The Plan specifically calls for the extension of Salem Avenue westward and a new grid of streets connecting Main Street with existing subdivisions in the north end of the service district. In the Residential area, the plan seeks a variety of housing types interspersed throughout each neighborhood. A number of more general policies in the plan both promote and discourage the proposed use. Three of these are included in the Applicants’ Statement of Justification and are already noted above. Among others: • • Areas designated as service districts are designed to accommodate the highest density residential, commercial, and industrial uses in the County. The service districts should also provide sufficient land for future commercial and industrial growth and for public facilities such as schools, roads, and parks.
In the year 2050, Marshall will be known as “The Town That Works.” It will be the service center for the surrounding agricultural community, where agriculture and history-based tourism underpins the local economy and culture. If Marshall’s ultimate build-out is to be reduced to 5,000 residents, while maintaining the policy direction for mixed use in the Main Street and Salem Avenue corridors and TND incentives in the residential neighborhoods, it will be necessary to reduce the byright residential development potential on the periphery of the town. The most likely areas for such reductions are on the undeveloped northern periphery in the Residential – North neighborhood, and in the Residential – East neighborhood where significant undeveloped land remains. Identifying viable institutional uses for some of the residentially zoned land in the Residential – North and Residential - East neighborhoods also would reduce the sheer number of potential residential units.
When considering in-fill development within service districts, the Planning Commission should also consider the effects on adjacent properties; methods in which the in-fill development may be buffered to alleviate interface problems with adjacent properties; and whether development is occurring in a consistent, orderly manner. This is an unusual case because the immediately surrounding property is undeveloped. The Planning Commission must assume that the surrounding neighborhood in the future will be composed of by-right development consistent with the R-4 and R2 zoning regulations. The applicant has applied for a Preliminary Plat for a portion (Windy Hill Foundation) of the Grove Lane LLC site, and the Commission will likely review this plat next month. The applicant has also provided a Conceptual Plan of how the wider Grove Lane LLC property will develop (see attached), but this is not a proffered document and all details have not been formulated. (Buffering of adjacent properties is considered in the rezoning analysis below.) As to the orderly development of the service district, this again is an unusual case; the applicant is seeking to allow an agricultural use within the service district. Had the applicant sought a rural designation on the edge of the service district, the boundaries could have been correspondingly reduced. The transportation network is also an important consideration in the review of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. While the roads surrounding the site (which are shown on the plans) are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, they are not a part of this site and the applicant and owner are not intending to build any of these roads. The roads and trails are discussed in greater detail in the rezoning evaluation below. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment requires a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed use. In this case however, staff did not require this analysis as an agricultural use has a lower financial impact on the county than the currently zoned residential use.
REZN13-MA-004 - Proposed Rezoning to Rural Agriculture: The applicant is seeking to rezone the property currently zoned Residential (R2 and R4) to Rural Agriculture (RA). By-right RA uses include a livestock farm, cattle feed lot, greenhouse, etc. 8
However, as noted above, the proffer statement limits the use of the site for a humane facility and ancillary shelter purposes by a non-profit organization with the ability to construct two apartments in the upper level of the barn or a free-standing duplex structure, for the purpose of housing onpremises staff. In the last staff report, greater detail on the building locations and landscaping was sought. The location of the buildings is still general. Proffers now require that open off-street parking and loading areas be constructed no closer than 25 feet from any lot line of residentially zoned property and to be screened in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Also, not less than 15% of the Area of Primary Buildings and Parking on the proffered plan shall consist of tree canopy sufficient to comply with the coverage requirement of Z.O. §7-603(1)(b). As noted previously, the proposed zoning is not consistent with the adopted plan, so the applicant is seeking to change the language in the Marshall Plan to support this use. Given the surrounding residential zoning, staff strongly suggests that the applicant considers proffering enhanced landscaping and setbacks to mitigate the impacts of an animal shelter on future neighbors. Providing the sidewalks and street trees called for in the plan would also serve to continue the proposed pattern of Traditional Neighborhood Design and give continuity to the streetscapes. The Marshall Plan calls for architecture in keeping with the Piedmont Virginia vernacular. As described previously in this report, elevations and design proffers are now included. The Marshall Plan calls for a grid network throughout the Service District and specifically calls for the extension of Salem Avenue westward and a new grid of streets connecting Main Street with existing subdivisions in the north end of the service district. These roads are shown bordering the Middleburg Humane Property. The owner and applicant are not intending to construct these roads. Staff is concerned that these roads may not get built. The applicant is only intending to provide a gravel driveway to the site until the roads are constructed by others. The Marshall Plan calls for Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) throughout the Service District. Traditional Neighborhood Design includes buildings placed close to the street, sidewalks and street trees. As with the roads, the owner and applicant are not intending to provide the sidewalks and street trees. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required for this development; the anticipated traffic counts are too low. Staff would point out that the applicant has agreed to prepare a TIA for the entire Grove Lane LLC Property, and will be including the Middleburg Humane site in this TIA. The Marshall Plan and the Connections Plan show trails in this area. Trails are shown bordering the property, but the owner and applicant are not intending to provide these. See Parks and Recreation comments below on the location of these trails. The Marshall Plan calls for a regional study of stormwater management. This site could be part of a regional stormwater plan. The Marshall Plan also seeks to go beyond merely protecting key environmental resources included in the Zoning Ordinance (floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes), and seeks to carefully integrate environmental features into new development. Improving and protecting the streams would be consistent with these goals. The applicant has proffered to maintain a 35 foot 9
undisturbed stream valley buffer measured from the stream bank for the interior of the Property. In connection with such stream valley buffer, the Applicant proffers to construct a fence adjacent to such buffer, provided that such fencing shall be constructed on the approximate interior line of such buffer. While well–intentioned, this proffer needs clarification. Additional fencing, to the extent necessary to secure animals on-site is also proffered. Additional proffers not already noted above cover animal and medical waste and are further analyzed below with the relevant Special Permits.
Special Exception Analysis: The Special Permit and Special Exception applications must comply with General Standards for Special Permits and Special Exception Uses, found in Section 5-006, of the Fauquier County Zoning Ordinance. 5-006 General Standards for Special Permits and Special Exception Uses In addition to the special standards set forth hereinafter for specific uses, all special permit and special exception uses shall also satisfy the following general standards: 1. The proposed use shall be such that it will not adversely affect the use or development of neighboring properties. It shall be in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations and the applicable provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The location, size and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and the nature and extent of screening, buffering and landscaping shall be such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and/or use of adjacent or nearby land and/or buildings or impair the value thereof.
The applicant is seeking a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as part of this suite of applications. The surrounding properties are planned for residential and mixed-use, and all are zoned residential. An agricultural use, particularly one involving animals, is not typically promoted in a Service District. As stated elsewhere in this report, the county will need a strong assurance that the project would not negatively affect surrounding residential properties. 2. The proposed use shall be such that pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated will not be hazardous or conflict with the existing and anticipated traffic in the neighborhood and on the streets serving the site.
The pedestrian and vehicular traffic, estimated at 32 vehicle trips per day, associated with the proposed use are low and will not conflict with the surrounding neighborhood. The owner and applicant are not proposing to build any roads or trails. The county will need assurance that these will be built. 3. In addition to the standards which may be set forth in this Article for a particular category or use, the BZA and Board may require landscaping, screening, yard requirements or other limitations found to be necessary and appropriate to the proposed use and location. 10
Given the unusual request for an agricultural use involving animals within a service district, the Planning Commission will want to carefully consider landscaping, screening, setbacks and other restrictions to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. 4. Open space shall be provided in an amount at least equal to that specified for the zoning district in which the proposed use is located.
Open space is not required with the proposed use. 5. Adequate utility, drainage, parking, loading, and other necessary facilities to serve the proposed use shall be provided. Low impact development techniques are encouraged by the County and shall be incorporated into the site and facility design when deemed appropriate by the applicant after consultation with appropriate county officials. Parking and loading requirements shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.
All required facilities will be evaluated at the Site Plan stage. 6. Signs shall be regulated by the provisions of Article 8, except as may be qualified in the Parts that follow for a particular category or use. However, the BZA and the Board, under the authority presented in Section 007 below, may impose more strict standards for a given use than those set forth in this Ordinance.
No signs are proposed at this time. All signs must conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Given this agricultural use in a service district, the Planning Commission may want to reflect upon signs allowed in the RA District to see if these are applicable in this location. 7. The future impact of a proposed use will be considered and addressed in establishing a time limit on the permit, if deemed appropriate. Existing and recent development, current zoning and the Comprehensive Plan shall be among the factors used in assessing the future impact of the proposed use and whether reconsideration of the permit after a stated period of time would be necessary and appropriate for the protection of properties in the vicinity and to ensure implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
No time limit is proposed. 8. The proposed use shall be such that air quality, surface and groundwater quality and quantity, are not degraded or depleted to an extent that would hinder or discourage the appropriate development and/or use of adjacent or nearby land and/or buildings or impair the value thereof.
The proposed well must meet County and Health Department standards. Conditions have been proposed to address this. The applicant has proffered fencing along the streams and the disposal of animal and medical waste. The Planning Commission should consider mitigation of the deeply incised streams. 11
Except as provided in this Article, all uses shall comply with the lot size, bulk regulations, and performance standards of the zoning district in which located.
The use complies with applicable standards of the proposed RA Zoning District.
5-100 CATEGORY 1 RESIDENTIAL USES 5-106 Standards for Duplex Dwellings 1. Such a structure shall not be located on a lot smaller than twice the minimum lot size for conventional developments in the zoning district wherein the lot is located.
The minimum conventional lot size in the proposed RA District is two acres. Two times that is four acres. The site is 23 acres and meets this standard. 2. In any sensitive situation or those involving any possible detriment to the character of an existing community or subdivision, approval shall not be granted unless it can be assured that such problems shall not result. In a location where such a use is otherwise appropriate, conditions may be necessary and shall be imposed which will further preclude adverse impacts, such as the following: Architectural features of the structure shall conform with the single family character of the neighborhood (e.g., no additional front door, no second garage). Staff has very little information about the proposed duplex, other than that it is presumed to be in the Area of Primary Buildings and Parking. The proposal does not include enough detail to evaluate this standard. The proffers do state that all structures shall be designed and constructed in substantial conformance with the Architectural Renderings, and shall employ designs reflecting vernacular agrarian structures typically found in rural areas of Virginia. 5-1100 CATEGORY 11 PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC USES 5-1101 Additional Submission Requirements In addition to the submission requirements set forth in Section 001 above, all applications for Category 11 public uses shall be accompanied by a statement by an official or officer of the governmental body who shall be present giving the exact reasons for selecting the particular site as the location for the proposed facility, including any alternatives considered. The Middleburg Humane Foundation has a quasi-governmental function as it is used by Fauquier County Government for some animal rescue. The site was recently donated to the foundation, which operates its current 4-acre animal shelter on Whiting Road, immediately north of the Marshall Convenience Site. If the Planning Commission is supportive of the commercial shelter use (see below), then it makes sense to provide the limited public services at the same facility.
5-1102 Standards for All Category 11 Uses In addition to the standards set forth in Section 006 above, the following standards shall apply: 1. For public uses, it shall be concluded that the proposed location of the special permit/special exception use is necessary for the rendering of efficient governmental services to residents of properties within the general area of the location.
In order to recommend approval of this Special Permit, the Planning Commission must determine that the use renders efficient governmental service to the surrounding area. The Commission could make this finding if it concurs with the owner that an animal shelter at the center of a large agricultural community is appropriate. 2. In or abutting the Rural and Residential District, all open off-street parking and loading areas shall be no closer than 25 feet from any lot line and shall be effectively screened.
This has been made a proposed condition of development.
5-1300 CATEGORY 13 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND PERSONAL SERVICES 5-1301 Additional Standards for Kennels 1. The minimum lot size requirement shall be two (2) acres, except in the R-1 zoning district, where the minimum lot size shall be twenty (20) acres.
The property is 23 acres and meets this standard. 2. a. In all zoning districts other than R-1/Residential, no structure for the confinement, care or breeding of dogs, and no associated structure shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line, except that this requirement shall not apply to structures which are completely enclosed, adequately soundproofed, constructed, and maintained so that there will be no emission of odor or noise detrimental to other properties in the area.
This has been made a proposed condition of development. b. In the R-1/Residential zoning district, all dog confinement areas and dog runs shall be located within enclosed structures, adequately soundproofed, constructed, and maintained so that there will be no emission of odor or noise detrimental to other properties in the area, and no such structure shall be located closer than 200 feet to any lot line. Not applicable. 3. All dogs shall be kept in pens designed and maintained for secure confinement. 13
This is included in the proffer statement. 4. In consideration of an application for a permit, the BZA shall take into account the numbers and kinds of dogs proposed to be kept and the characteristics thereof and may prescribe conditions with respect thereto.
The Statement of Justification notes that “care will be provided for 25-30 dogs, 40 cats, and 15 equine. The total number of all animals on a normal day will be around 50, but may increase to 100 in emergency situations.” The Planning Commission may want to consider this as the upper limit. The applicant is now suggesting a condition that allows care for not more than 200 animals per day. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss this number further. 5. Maximum of ten (10) dogs per acre.
The site is 23 acres and theoretically could support 230 dogs. However, in staff’s view, much of the site will be used for other animals, so 230 is too high of a limit. See analysis above. 6. Waste from operations must be collected and contained so as not to pollute the environment.
The Health Department has suggested that the waste from all animals be handled and disposed of by meeting all standards and regulations required of dog waste. The applicant is proffering to contain and dispose of animal waste in conformance with the nationally recognized set of methods or standards equal to or exceeding those promulgated by the US Department of Agriculture Conservation Service or similar agency or organization, or as may be recommended by a professional management service and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 5-1302 Additional Standards for Veterinary Clinics 1. All such facilities shall be within a completely enclosed building, such building being adequately soundproofed and constructed so that there will be no emission of odor or noise detrimental to other properties in the area.
This has been made a proposed condition of development. 2. In a Residential or Rural District, the facility shall have direct access to a road designated as a major collector (or higher) in the Comprehensive Plan unless the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the type and amount of traffic generated by the facility is such that it will not cause an undue impact on the neighbors or adversely affect safety of road usage.
Neither Salem Avenue extended, nor the proposed north/south road adjacent to this site, are designated as a major collector (or higher) in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, in order to approve this Special Permit, the Board of Supervisors would need to make a finding that the type and amount of traffic generated by the facility is such that it will not cause an undue impact on the neighbors or adversely affect safety of road usage. Projected traffic, as noted above, is very low. 14
5-3100 STANDARDS FOR WAIVING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM AND CENTRAL WATER SYSTEM 5-3100 Standards for Waiving Requirement for Public Water System and Central Water System The requirements of Section 7-501 and 7-502 for a public water system and central water system may be waived to permit construction on a private central water system or individual wells on individual lots where: 1. The Fauquier County Water and Sanitation Authority refuses in writing to operate the proposed system or the applicant demonstrates to the Board that the provision of a public or central water system is technically or economically infeasible.
The applicant has requested a private well for non-potable use as a water source for the animals. The WSA understands that the applicant proposes to use a well solely for agricultural purposes and does not intend to connect the well to the Authority’s water system or any of the two structures to be located on this site. Therefore, the WSA has stated that this usage is permissible under the Authority’s Operating Code. Proffers now address this issue. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed central water system or individual wells on individual lots will not damage the wells of adjoining parcels or interfere with future development of adjoining parcels. This demonstration will be based on the results of a hydrogeological report and testing as outlined in Chapter 18 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Properties within the Marshall Service District are primarily on public water. The FCWSA noted that the well proposed by the Humane Society is in the vicinity of the Lawrence Well, a well of the Marshall Water System. Any interconnection between the Humane Society’s well and the Lawrence Well may diminish the available water in Marshall. The Authority recommends that the well be tested as a part of a yield and drawdown test to ensure that the Authority’s Lawrence well, that supplies Marshall, is not adversely affected. A condition requiring the hydrogeological report and testing as outlined in Chapter 18 of the Subdivision Ordinance has been prepared. 3. Where a private central water system is proposed, the applicant has sufficient financial resources and a business plan to insure the successful operation of the system for a period of at least ten years, adequate provisions will be made to provide for the continued successful operation of the system, and the system will be deeded to a homeowners association with all necessary authority and easements to operate the system in perpetuity.
Agency Comments: Staff and appropriate referral agencies have reviewed the application and have the following comments. Zoning 1. The subject property is split-zoned to the Residential District, 2 Dwelling Units/Acre (R-2) and Residential District, 4 Dwelling Units/Acre (R-4). Noted. 2. Section 7-501.3 allows for a private well for animal use only as a Special Exception use in the R-2, R-4 and RA Districts. 3. Section 3-301 Residential Uses (Category 1), use 5 (Dwelling Duplex) allows a duplex as a Special Exception use in the R-2, R-4 and RA Districts. 4. Section 3-313 Commercial Business and Personal Services (Category 13), use 1 (Kennel/Animal Shelter) allows an animal shelter as a Special Permit use in the RA District. 5. Section 3-311 Public and Quasi-Public Uses (Category 11), use 4 (Animal Shelter) allows an animal shelter as a Special Permit use in the RA District. All Special Exception and Special Permit applications have been submitted. 6. Section 5-006 General Standards for Special Permits and Special Exception Uses applies to the subject property. Zoning Staff defers to Planning Staff in the compliance assessment of these standards. Zoning Staff does note that a site plan approval is required for the Animal Shelter use at which time parking, loading and landscaping will be evaluated. 7. Section 5-3100 Standards for Waiving Requirement for Public Water System and Central Water System applies to the subject property. Zoning Staff defers to Planning Staff in the compliance assessment of these standards. 8. Section 5-106 Standards for Duplex Dwellings applies to the subject property. Zoning Staff defers to Planning Staff in the compliance assessment of these standards. Standards have been evaluated by Planning Staffing this staff report. 9. Section 15-1301 Additional Standards for Kennels applies to the subject property. Zoning Staff defers to Planning Staff in the compliance assessment of these standards. Zoning Staff notes that an area shown as proposed Dog Training Events is located closer than 75 feet to the property line. Standard 5-1301.2a requires that no structure for confinement, care or breeding of dogs shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line. Staff recommends the following condition to satisfy this standard “no structure for confinement, care or breeding of dogs shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line.” A condition addressing this issue has been drafted. 10. Section 5-1101 Standards for All Category 11 Uses applies to the subject property. Zoning Staff defers to Planning Staff in the compliance assessment of these standards. Zoning Staff 16
notes that the proposed parking lot shall be located no closer than 25 feet from any lot line and shall be effectively screened. This will be evaluated with the site plan. To be addressed at the Site Plan stage. Environmental 1. Although the Statement of Justification called for fencing both streams, only the northern stream has a fence and a buffer. It is highly recommended that the southern stream be provided with a buffer and fencing. The parking lot by the administrative building is approximately 5 feet from the stream. The stream is deeply incised, so it could pose a safety risk with the parking lot that close and no fencing provided. Also, a vegetated buffer area would help protect the stream from parking lot runoff. Applicant should keep in mind that the stream has been identified as waters of the U.S., so any impact would require a permit from USACE. A proffer now addresses the stream buffer. 2. The Salem Ave cul-de-sac is shown in an overlapping location with the southern horse field and its fencing. What is the anticipated construction time for the two structures? The applicant will need to address this timing. 3. It is recommended that a minimum of 1 acre of field per horse be provided to avoid denuding the fields of vegetation. The loss of vegetation will increase soil erosion and degrade water quality in the stream. The applicant is now requesting 200 animals per day, with no detail on the type of animals. Based on the environmental comment, the Planning Commission may want to consider a further limit. 4. Is the overhead electric line crossing the parcel to remain or is it to be removed or relocated? To be addressed at Site Plan stage. 5. Based on the Fauquier County Soil Survey and the Interpretive Guide to the Soils of Fauquier County: a. 56.1% of the soils are rated as prime cropland b. 25.1% of the soils are rated as secondary cropland c. 0.2% of the soils are rated as prime pasture d. 18.5% of the soils are rated as secondary pasture e. 12.7% of the soils are rated as “Good” for general development using central water and sewer. f. 46.1% of the soils are rated “Fair” for general development using central water and sewer. g. 10.5% of the soils are rated “Poor” for general development using central water and sewer
h. 30.6% of the soils are rated “Very Poor” for general development using central water and sewer. Information for the applicant. 6. Based on the USDA, NRCS web soil survey for Fauquier County: a. 86.7% of the soils are rated as Prime Farmland b. 5.3% of the soils are rated as Farmland of Statewide Importance Information for the applicant. 7. What is the anticipated water usage from the proposed well? The applicant is asked to supply this information to help guide the decision on the Special Exception for the private well. Health Department The Health Department has no problems with the waste from all animals being handled and disposed of by meeting all standards and regulations required of dog waste. Dog and cat waste are very hard to process. The on-site well can be used for the animals but no cross connections on service can be made. The well water must not be connected in any way to the existing water supply. It is also recommended that a water test be done on the existing well supply. Proffers now address animal and medical waste. Proposed conditions address water quality and quantity. Department of Fire Rescue and Emergency Services This office does not oppose the Comprehensive Plan/Rezoning/Special Exception/Special Permit applications. No items noted at this time. Department of Parks and Recreation The Department’s comments regarding the overall project, Grove Lane, of which this application is a part, were submitted in November 2012; excerpts of which follow: • • Facility quality – The department would strongly urge that any facilities constructed conform to any existing departmental design standards in order to assure their long-term usefulness. Future viability – The department requests an opportunity to review and comment on the covenants of the homeowners association to provide for continued maintenance of the recreational facilities, limited usage by the department, etc. HOA requirements should not apply to the department. The department would also like to recommend that issues related to ownership, construction, maintenance, etc. for any recreational facilities and related open space be resolved prior to 18
plat approval. Trails that are to be HOA maintained and open to the public should be included as a condition for plat approval. • • • Recreation facilities should be constructed as part of the development site work, not during construction of the actual residences and should be built as each phase is built. Any easements that cross or coincide with recreational sites including trails shall be subordinate to parks and recreation easements and/or rights. Please note that the department recently adopted the first initial guidelines for trail standards. See the attached guidelines.
These comments are primarily associated with residential development on the Grove Lane LLC property. Trail related comments are relevant though as the plans show Future Trail (By Others) on the north end of the Middleburg Humane site. It is unclear when and by whom this trail will be constructed and who will maintain it. Further comments specific to this phase: • The most important element of this parcel from a recreational perspective is the provision of trail connections. Trail connections discussed previously are not included on these plans. Those connections should include the following, at a minimum: o All along Salem Ave. a trail running the length of the main North South road with an outlet to the Northern boundary of the property o And a trail running the length of the East West connector from the North South road to the pool site o These should be trails rather than sidewalks to accommodate multi-modal transportation needs.
Parks and Recreation is seeking a trail along both the northern and southern border of this property. The proposed plans show a Future Trail (By Others) on the northern border of the site. The applicant preferred this northern location to a trail along Salem Avenue in order to keep a further distance between pedestrians/cyclists and the animals that will be fenced south of the stream in this location. Parks and Recreation is seeking to connect public facilities such as a school and pool site, which may be provided as part of the development of the wider Grove Lane LLC property. • It is important that the connections discussed at the previous meetings of the overall project regarding trails contained within this parcel be planned and implemented.
Described above. GIS The private access road off Grove Lane will need to be named. It will be serving at least 4 addressed structures. Street names should be agreed upon by Middleburg Humane Foundation and Grove Lane LLC. Please submit name suggestions to the GIS Department for review.
Information for the applicant and owner. VDOT Following are our review comments of the first submittal of the above-referenced special exceptions, special permits, and comprehensive plan amendment, and dated May 17, 2013, with a Fauquier County, date-received stamp of May 23, 2013. Each of these applications has a preliminary site plan associated with it and since the content of the site plans are virtually the same as to VDOT’s interests, these comments apply to each of the types of applications. As discussed at the TIA Scoping Meeting for the Cunningham Farm property, the Humane Foundation intends to utilize the existing farm road “as-is”, more or less, until such time that a permanent, public road is constructed by others across the parcel’s frontage. There are notes to this effect on the plans. A commercial entrance, adequate for the Humane Foundation’s use, is to be constructed where the current farm lane connects onto Rte. 55, Grove Lane. 1. The site plan labels the proposed entrance onto Rte. 55 as being a VDOT, CG-11 entrance, which would be paved and have curb and gutter along the edge of pavement radii. For this case, a Moderate Volume Commercial Entrance (VDOT Road Design Manual, Fig.4-15, p. F-106) could also be utilized, which would be paved but would not require curb & gutter. This could be an advantage if the ultimate future entrance necessitated removal and reconfiguring of the entrance installed at this time. Incorporated into proffered plan. 2. At the entrance onto Rte. 55, the entrance radii are currently listed as 25’, which is the minimum radius for such an entrance. Due to anticipated horse trailer usage, the entrance radii should be increased to 35’, and preferably should be 50-feet. Incorporated into proffered plan. 3. Likewise, the radii at the entrances of the Humane Foundation onto the future entrance road and onto Salem Avenue should be increased to 35’ or 50’. To be addressed at Site Plan stage. 4. The site plan indicates the easement for a turnaround, assumed to be temporary, at the “Primary Entrance.” This should be further explained or detailed. Also, according to the topography provided, the existing farm lane departs from the proposed right-of-way and runs across the frontage of the Foundation, precluding the installation of the two site entrances shown. This should be clarified. To be addressed at Site Plan stage. 5. There is a cul-de-sac shown on the extension of Salem Avenue, which overlaps onto the southeast corner of one of the “horse fields”; this cul-de-sac also appears on the Windy Hill townhouse plans. The coordination of the cul-de-sac and the horse field should be clarified. 20
Applicant will need to address. WSA The Authority has two comments at this time. First, while no application has been filed with the Authority for the use of an “existing agricultural well,” we are aware that the applicant proposes to use a well solely for agricultural purposes and does not intend to connect the well to the Authority’s water system or any of the two structures to be located on this site. Therefore, this usage is permissible under the Authority’s Operating Code. Proffers limit the private well to use by the animals. Second, the well proposed by the Humane Society is in the vicinity of the Lawrence Well, a well of the Marshall Water System. Any interconnection between the Humane Society’s well and the Lawrence Well may diminish the available water in Marshall. The Authority recommends that the well be tested as a part of a yield and drawdown test to insure that the Authority’s Lawrence well, that supplies Marshall, is not adversely affected. Conditions have been drafted to address this issue. Planning Commission Action on July 25, 2013: The Planning Commission discussed this item at its work session and held a public hearing. The applicant and eight members of the public spoke at the hearing. One member of the public was concerned with animal waste disposal. A nearby resident was concerned with traffic. All others supported the Middleburg Humane Foundation in its effort to relocate to this site. The Planning Commission left the hearing open and postponed action. Summary and Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a second public hearing. Staff has reservations about approving these applications without an understanding of the development of the surrounding property, including the schedule of road and trail construction. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval, staff has prepared a number of conditions related to the Special Permits and Special Exceptions. (Note: Some of the previously proposed conditions are now contained in the proffer statement.) Conditions are listed below. 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the information and drawings submitted with the Special Permit and Special Exception applications, except as specifically modified by the conditions below or as may be necessary to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. Care shall be provided for no more than 200 animals per day. 3. The owner shall work with the John Marshall Soil and Water Conservation District to develop a riparian buffer plan. Based on this plan, fencing and associated plantings shall be installed on the property before the building occupancy permit is issued. 21
4. No structure for the confinement, care or breeding of dogs, and no associated structure shall be located closer than 75 feet to any lot line, except that this requirement shall not apply to structures which are completely enclosed, adequately soundproofed, constructed, and maintained so that there will be no emission of odor or noise detrimental to other properties in the area. 5. The veterinary clinic shall be within a completely enclosed building, such building being adequately soundproofed and constructed so that there will be no emission of odor or noise detrimental to other properties in the area. 6. The applicant shall demonstrate that any proposed well will not damage the wells of adjoining parcels, including but not limited to the Lawrence Well, or interfere with future development of adjoining parcels. This demonstration will be based on the results of a hydrogeological report and testing as outlined in Chapter 18 of the Subdivision Ordinance. 7. A water test with results satisfactory to the Health Department shall be carried out on any well before it may be used. 8. Abutting Residential Zoning Districts, all open off-street parking and loading areas shall be no closer than 25 feet from any lot line and shall be effectively screened.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.