Board of Supervisors Meeting Date: 

Donald K. Beaver

August 19, 2002

Staff Lead:


Elizabeth A. Cook

Community Development





The owner is requesting 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) with certain uses removed by proffer.  A specific user has not been identified by the applicant.  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). 


Subsequent to the Board of Supervisorsí July public hearing, the applicant submitted a revised Proffer Statement.  This proffer statement provides that the property will not be developed with uses from the following Zoning Ordinance Categories:  3-308 Temporary Uses, 3-309 Outdoor, 3-310 Recreation and Amusement, 3-311 Public and Quasi-Public, 3-318 Agriculture, 3-319 Extraction, and 3-320 Public Utilities. 

As noted in the previous Board report, the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the Bealeton Service District designates this property for Medium Density Residential uses, or 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre; therefore, the requested rezoning designation is not consistent with the currently adopted Plan.  In addition, the draft Bealeton Service District 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 Routes 17 and 28.  

Staff continues to recommend that the applicant submit a traffic impact analysis (TIA) prior to Board action on the rezoning.  This TIA would identify the impacts of this development and the appropriate measures to mitigate those impacts.  With that information, the Board could more thoroughly evaluate the applicant's proposed proffers.  The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) advises that a TIA will be required during the site plan process.


VDOT advises that an entrance permit will not be issued for this property to have direct access to Route 17 or Route 28 due to entrance to intersection separation requirements defined by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and VDOT.  If rezoned, access would only be permitted on Route 837.  Route 837 is a residential road 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 current proffers provide for right-of-way dedication for future improvements to Routes 28, 17, and 837 sufficient for deceleration and/or acceleration lanes along the frontage of the property.  The applicant has agreed to secure and construct interparcel access.



Proffer Analysis:

The proposed proffers indicate that the applicant will secure dedication to the County of right-of-way or easements from adjacent property owners and will construct necessary improvements in conjunction with other landowners' 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 Routes 28, 17 and 837.

The 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.  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 development.  The applicant has committed to diligently pursue acquisition of any necessary right-of-way and/or temporary or permanent easements to construct the necessary interparcel access improvements.  As proffered, if the right-of-way and/or temporary or permanent easements are unavailable, the applicant will request that the County acquire the necessary right-of-way/easements through its powers of eminent domain.  Further, the applicant agrees to provide the necessary documents for that process including a Letter of Credit equal to the appraised value of the property to be acquired and of all damages to the residue and the costs incurred by the County in acquiring the right-of-way/easement. 

The final transportation proffer indicates that the applicant will dedicate right-of-way for future improvements to Routes 28 and 17 sufficient for deceleration and/or acceleration lanes along the frontage of the property at the time of site plan review for any lot bordering Route 28 or 17, as deemed necessary by the County, VDOT, and the applicant. 

As noted above, a traffic impact analysis was not submitted, which would help clarify the impacts of this proposed rezoning, what scale of 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.  Without a specific user identified, it is more difficult to analyze what impact a proposed rezoning would have on the neighboring properties and existing traffic patterns.


Requested 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, a resolution is included.  As an alternative, an ordinance for approval is included.

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.  It should be noted that the Planning Commission did not have adequate time during its deliberation to analyze the original proffer statement proposal, which was presented at the time action was requested.  The current proffer proposal is much different than the original proposal since it deals more specificially with access improvements and eliminates potential uses allowable in the requested C-2 zoning district designation.


Financial Impacts Analysis:

No financial impact analysis was required.

Identify any other Departments, Organizations or Individuals that would be affected by this request:



    Ordinance for Approval

    Resolution for Denial

    Revised Proffer Statement