PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA REQUEST
Supervisors Meeting Date:
REZONING REQUEST #RZ02-L-07, DONALD K. BEAVER,
BEAVER PROPERTY LEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
owner originally requested that the Board of Supervisors approve a
rezoning for a 1.618-acre parcel in the Bealeton Service District
from RA (Agricultural) to C-2 (Commercial Highway) for the purpose
of constructing a fast food restaurant.
Now the applicant is requesting a C-2 zoning designation
with no use restriction specified.
The property is located at the northwestern quadrant of the
intersection of Route 17 (Marsh Road) and Route 28 (Catlett Road).
In addition, the property has a small amount of frontage on
Bowers Run Drive (Route 837).
the day of the Planning Commission required action, the applicant
submitted a proffer statement for consideration.
The applicant did not agree to postpone action in order to
allow Planning Commission review and analysis.
The current proffer statement offers no
limitation on the proposed C-2 uses for the site.
Some of the uses permitted in the C-2 zoning district
include retail uses, a convenience store, building material sales,
kennel, veterinary clinic, financial institutions, offices of less
than 5,000 square feet, fast food and other restaurants, service
stations, car wash, truck, heavy equipment, and farm equipment
sales, recreational vehicle parking, and an auction.
The Commercial-Highway District is designed primarily to
allow highway related commercial uses where vehicle access is the
In regards to location, the Zoning Ordinance states
that C-2 areas should be located to provide convenient automobile
access, while not overly congesting the existing transportation
general, primary highway access should be a prerequisite.
The minimum size for the C-2 district is five acres.
However, the Zoning Ordinance defines minimum size of a
district to be the "smallest contiguous amount of land, which
can be rezoned to any zoning district unless the area to be
rezoned is contiguous to an area already in the same zoning
district as that proposed."
The parcel meets the minimum district size since it is
adjacent to properties that exceed five acres in size and are
already zoned C-2.
adopted Comprehensive Plan for the Bealeton Service District
designates this property for Medium Density Residential uses, or
four to six dwelling units per acre.
It should be noted that the current Comprehensive Plan
contemplates only commercial neighborhood land use designations on
the west side of Route 17, south of its intersection with Route
28. The requested
rezoning designation and some of the uses permitted in the C-2
zoning district are not consistent with the currently adopted
the Board of Supervisors' information, the Bealeton Service
District Citizens Committee has submitted its proposed land use
plan for the Bealeton Service District to the Planning Commission
for its consideration and public hearing in July.
This draft plan designates the subject property for
Institutional/Office uses. It is staff's evaluation that a stand-alone,
highway-oriented commercial use as permitted in the C-2 district
is not consistent with this proposed designation.
A commercial use in concert with an office development
created through consolidation of adjacent parcels and not oriented
to the highway traffic would be more in keeping with the proposed
land use designation. Traffic access could also be developed more efficiently and
safely through a larger project with controlled access points
properly spaced from the intersection of Route 17 and Route 28.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) initially acquired,
through a "Quick Take" action, the subject property as
part of the proposed interchange at the Route 17 and Route 28
intersection. On June
2, 2002, the applicant's representative provided a copy of a June
12, 2002 letter from Commissioner Philip A. Shucet of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board.
That letter indicated that the VDOT attorney has been
instructed to invalidate the acquisition and return the property
to Mr. Beaver.
its review of the initial request, VDOT indicated opposition to
the request, due to conflicts with the proposed access point and
its proximity to the Route 28/17 intersection, and existing
traffic patterns. It
is further noted that under VDOT guidelines, no access can be
granted on Route 17 or Route 28 due to criteria regarding
allowable distances between a proposed commercial entrance and
primary road intersections. If
rezoned, access would only be permitted on Route 837.
Route 837 is currently in poor condition, and the approval
of any use with this road as its sole access will require
significant off-site improvements by either the applicant or the
use of public funds. The
applicant's proffers make no reference to Route 837.
proposed proffers indicate that the applicant will secure
dedication to the County of right-of-way or easements from
adjacent property owners for the delivery of interior on-site
travelways, as deemed necessary by the County, VDOT, and the
applicant, to provide safe and adequate ingress and egress to and
from Route 28 and Route 17. The
language of this proffer needs revision since it provides the
applicant the ability to void what the County and VDOT may
consider adequate interparcel access.
applicant has also proffered to dedicate right-of-way for
interparcel access to adjacent properties at the time of first
subdivision final plat or final site plan for the adjacent
properties. Timing of
this dedication to a future action on adjoining parcels is
somewhat problematic, and it is not clear that these necessary
interparcel connections can be delivered.
Further, the applicant proffers to construct temporary
means of access as required by VDOT, if the construction of the
actual interparcel connections is not done concurrently with the
proffers do not indicate who actually is committed to and will
build the interparcel connection.
The applicant has clearly not stated that he will build the
interparcel connection. In
addition, VDOT has indicated access to Route 17 or Route 28 from
the subject property will not meet minimum separation requirements
for issuance of any entrance permit.
The final transportation proffer indicates that
the applicant will dedicate right-of-way for future improvements
to Route 28 and Route 17 sufficient for deceleration and/or
acceleration lanes along the frontage of the property at the time
of first final record plat for any lot bordering Route 28 or Route
17, as deemed necessary by the County, VDOT, and the applicant.
This proffer may not be binding if the applicant does not
agree. In addition,
this parcel may not be subdivided, which might result in no
dedication. A traffic
impact analysis was not submitted, and would help clarify the
impacts of this proposed rezoning, what road improvements would be
necessary, and where those improvements are needed.
Applicant completion of such a study would help the Board
of Supervisors in its deliberations.
Action of the Board of Supervisors:
Hold a public hearing and take appropriate
action. Should the
Board of Supervisors choose to deny this rezoning as recommended
by the Planning Commission, an ordinance is presented in
Attachment 1. An
alternative ordinance for approval is included as Attachment 2.
For the Board of Supervisorsí information, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on April
25, 2002. The
Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of this
request on May 30, 2002.
financial impact analysis was required.
any other Departments, Organizations or Individuals that would be
affected by this request:
Ordinance for Denial
Ordinance for Approval