|
Staff
Analysis:
Staff and the appropriate referral agencies have reviewed
this request for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance, and other relevant policies and
regulations. Staff and referral agency findings, comments,
and recommendations are summarized below. The actual
responses from referral agencies are included as
attachments.
Code Requirements
Since the site is within the FEMA
100-year floodplain, the uses there must be consistent with
the Fauquier County Zoning Ordinance Section 5-2300,
Category 23 Floodplain Uses and the general standards set
forth for those uses:
PART 23 5-2300
CATEGORY 23 FLOODPLAIN USES
In addition to the general standards as set forth in Section
006 above, the following standards shall apply:
5-2301 Standards for All Category
23 Uses
1. No such use shall cause an increase in the level of
flooding or velocity of flood waters.
2. No such use shall create a potential hazard of
debris subject to movement by flood waters which might cause
damage downstream.
3. The John Marshall Soil and Water Conservation
District shall be given the opportunity to comment on such
uses.
4. The applicant shall have obtained and shall present
evidence attesting any applicable approvals by State and
Federal authorities concerning such a use.
5. Materials and equipment stored in the floodplain
shall not be buoyant, flammable or explosive, and shall not
be subject to major damage by flooding or such materials and
equipment must be firmly anchored to prevent flotation or
movement and/or can be readily removed from the area within
the time available after flood warning.
6. Special exceptions shall only be issued after the
Board of Supervisors has determined that the granting of
such will not result in (a) unacceptable or prohibited
increase in flood heights, (b) additional threats to public
safety, (c) extraordinary public expense, (d) create
nuisances, (e) cause fraud or victimization of the public,
or (f) conflict with local law or ordinances.
7. Special exceptions shall only be issued after the
Board of Supervisors has determined that the special
exception will be necessary to provide the applicant with
reasonable use of the parcel of land in question, taken as a
whole.
8. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant
for a special exception in writing, at the time of filing,
that the issuance of a special exception to construct a
structure below the one hundred (100) year flood elevation
(a) will increase risks to life and property, and (b) will
result in increased premium rates for flood insurance.
9. A record of the above notification as well as all
special exception actions, including justification for their
issuance, shall be maintained and any special exceptions
which are issued shall be noted in the annual report
submitted to the Federal Insurance Administrator.
Zoning and Land Use
The property is currently zoned
RA where the predominantly uses are agriculture. The
majority of the current uses are not consistent with this
zoning category. The only uses that would be consistent
with the RA zoning would be the agricultural based
businesses that remain. The property is next to a site that
has been rezoned to Industrial- General (I-2). Additionally
the entire site is within the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
Engineering
Considerations
The
Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced plan
and has provided the following comments:
- The entire property is in the
100-year floodplain. A LOMA was issued in 1998 and
states that two grain bins (old buildings?) are not in
the floodplain, but other buildings are in the
floodplain. An adjacent parcel to the east (PIN
7808-31-8892) has a LOMA that states that the flood
elevation is 280.5’ (NGVD29).
- Accessory structures and storage
of materials in a floodplain require a Special
Exception.
- A commercial entrance is typically
required for this type of activity.
- The soils type indicates that
wetlands may be present. The expansion of any use should
warrant a wetlands investigation.
- The wash area should be directed
into some type of BMP facility.
- Building 1 appears to have been
constructed after the 1998 aerial photo for GIS was
taken. This building also appears to be in the
floodplain. It does not appear that a Special Exception
was granted.
- What provisions were made to
protect Brown’s Run from contaminates, such as
fertilizer, gasoline, etc., that would enter the water
due to flooding?
Zoning
Considerations:
The
following are a summary of the Zoning staff comments:
This site has been in violation for
several years. During this time, we have worked with the
Applicant to encourage him to secure necessary approvals to
authorize the various uses located on his property. Yet,
during this time the Applicant has continued to add
additional unauthorized uses. Examples include 1)
constructing additional auto wash facilities; 2) Chick’s
equipment; and 3) a rag storage/repackaging operation to the
site.
Staff reviewed the uses at the site and
compared them to various zoning categories;
Commercial-Highway (C-2), Industrial Park (I-1), Industrial
General (I-2) to see where the existing uses fit. No
category allowed for all of the existing uses. Further,
almost all of the uses require site plan, special permit and
building permit approvals, which may raise various
requirements related to construction, stormwater management,
landscaping, etc. One of the uses, Mullins, is located in a
building that cannot meet setback requirements.
Finally, the entire site is located
within the floodplain. Staff is in the process of
determining whether some of the existing buildings were
constructed prior to the floodplain regulations in the
zoning ordinance, making those buildings grandfathered. The
County has limited authority to approve certain uses in the
floodplain by special exception. Not all of the existing
uses may be authorized pursuant to the Floodplain overlay
district restrictions. A Letter of Map Amendment
(Removal) LOMAR or other approval from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) may be required to “legalize” some
of the buildings.
Virginia Department of
Transportation:
The Warrenton Residency staff reviewed the above referenced
rezoning dated February 9, 2004, and has the following
comments:
1.
The traffic counts indicated appear as if they may be
a little low for the number of businesses that are indicated
being operated from the property. Even with the number of
employees indicated they have 65 to 85 trips per day
figuring in 3 trips per day per employee. It is not clear
if the trip count includes deliveries. Are there a large
number of tractor trailers?
2.
If the property is rezoned to industrial, can there
be a restriction limiting the usage to the current usage?
We have concerns about the traffic to the site being
increased with additional businesses without going through
any site plan review to determine if the entrance is
adequate.
3.
The plan submitted does not show the existing
entrance. The entrance should be constructed in accordance
with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways
that may include a taper or a turn lane. A sight distance
profile should be submitted showing that the entrance meets
the minimum sight distance requirements. The plan should
indicate the distance to the intersection of Route 17 from
the entrance.
Summary and Recommendations:
Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission postpone action of
this item to allow the Applicant to create a series of
proffered conditions including timelines to reach
compliance. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission
decides to take action today, staff would have to recommend
of denial. The basis for the recommendation to postpone is
that the rezoning cannot be afforded to the property unless
the zoning violations and other outstanding issues are
resolved in a timely fashion. Staff has been diligently
working with the Applicant for over a year and some slow
progress has been made.
Preparation
of a proffer statement is highly recommended. The Applicant
needs to list the permit and other mandatory actions, and
the timelines to which he will commit; otherwise, the uses
that are in violation will have to cease. The Planning
Commission should also review the proffer statement and
provide recommendations for the Board of Supervisors
consideration
The
ultimate goal is to bring this property into compliance with
the County’s land development regulations and state
permitting requirements. Over the past few months, the
Applicant has demonstrated positive progress in trying to
bring the site into compliance. There are many procedural
steps that the Applicant must initiate and complete, along
with the request for Rezoning. Examples are special
permits, needing BZA approvals, and site plan requirements,
as well as bringing structures, not grandfathered, into
compliance with the FEMA 100-year floodplain and county
floodplain regulations.
Although
the implication of deferring this action would mean that the
Applicant would continue to operate the site in continued
violation of the Zoning Ordinance, with the new staff
request for a Proffer Statement, it is reasonable that the
Applicant be allowed adequate time to prepare that
document. Staff can assist the Applicant in the preparation
of that document.
|
