Board of Supervisors Meeting Date:


Priscilla Craig, Owner

K. Hovnanian, Applicant


October 27, 2005

Staff Lead:


Melissa Dargis, Assistant Chief of Planning



Community Development


Magisterial District:









An Ordinance to Approve the Craig Rezoning REZN05-LE-010, A Rezoning Request for 13.09 Acres of Land from Rural Agricultural (RA) to Residential (R-4)


Topic Description:


The applicant wishes to rezone approximately 13.09 acres of land from RA to R-4 to permit a proposed residential development of 26 homes (a density of 1.99 units per acre).  The property is located within the Bealeton Service District.  The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be Low Density Residential with a permitted density range of one (1) to three (3) units per acre.  The applicant has proposed a series of draft proffers to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development upon public facilities.  The draft proffers include monetary contributions for fire and rescue, sheriff, schools, parks and open space and library.


Project Information:


On October 27, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item.  The public hearing was closed and the item was forwarded with a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.  A public hearing on this item was also held on April 26, 2005 and the item was postponed to work out project refinements.


The site access for the development is now proposed via (future) inter-parcel connections to the north, west and south.  No access is shown to Route 28 (Catlett Road), per referral agency comments and request.  Construction traffic (only) would utilize direct access to Route 28, but this ingress/egress would be temporary and closed off upon completion of the development.   


Since the Route 28 access has been removed on this plan, the parcel currently has no public road access since its proposed primary access (via an inter-parcel connection) using Southcoate Village’s roads, are not yet part of the state system.  The referenced road connections in Southcoate Village are constructed, bonded, and eventually will become public streets.  It should be noted that this impairment is not the fault of the applicant; it is the result of another development’s failure to have its roads accepted into the state system.  Resolution to this issue seems plausible although the timeframe is currently unknown.


Proffers have been received that address this transportation issue.  Along with monetary contributions for impacts to public facilities, the applicant has proposed $115,000 towards the future Bealeton Connector or other transportation improvements along Route 28 between its intersections with Route 17 and U.S. 15/29.


At the October 27, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioner’s forwarded this item with a recommendation of approval under the assumption that the proffers would be modified to indicated that one of the three (3) proposed inter-parcel connections would be accepted into the state system by VDOT.  The applicant indicates that, because this situation is out of its control, and it would not allow for a timely transfer of the property, that this is not acceptable situation.  Instead, it has been suggested that the proposal read:


“No building permits shall be issued for construction of dwellings on the property prior to the construction of one or more points of access into the property by way of secondary roads dedicated for inclusion in the State secondary Roads System.  The term “construction” as set forth above means to build the applicable road to a level of completion where it is usable by and open to the public.  Construction and Maintenance Bonds shall be used to assure completion of final construction details for such roads prior to their acceptance by VDOT into the public system.”


The applicant indicates that this proposed proffer would allow for residents to use roads not yet adopted into the state system, but those that are open to the public, bonded and pending acceptance.  However, VDOT does not have the jurisdiction or ability to grant access for this proposed subdivision off these streets (that are not accepted into the state system).


The site will also have to connect to public water and sewer facilities.  The cost for the construction and the connections is the responsibility of the applicant.  These services should be coordinated through the Fauquier Water and Sanitation Authority.


The Plan shows the VDOT required 60-foot dedication of right-of-way for future improvements to Route 28.  The proposal has also set aside 2.58 acres of open space (exceeding the required 15 % or 1.96 acres).


Staff Report:


Although there is no 100-year floodplain on the site, the soils present can have an intermittent high water table, low bearing capacity when wet, and possible shrink-swell clay in the lower horizons.  These soil types also are indicative of wetlands.  The applicant’s engineer advised that there are no wetlands on the site.  However, if wetlands are found during the Jurisdictional Delineation, the applicant must comply with the appropriate federal regulations.


In addition, the County recommends that no below grade basements be constructed on soils with high water table due to wetness unless the foundation drainage system of the structure is designed by a licensed professional engineer to assure a dry basement and preclude wet yards and recirculation of pumped or collected water.  The applicant is conducting soils testing to determine how to proceed with this matter.


Residential rezoning applications are expected to be presented at the low end of each density range for the specified service district location. For example, in the Comprehensive Plan designated residential locations where low density development is proposed (1-3 dwelling units per acre), any application above 1 dwelling unit per acre must justify those increases with the:


1.                Provision of affordable housing (low/moderate income housing); and/or


2.                Elimination of lot subdivision potential through easements (Purchase of Development Rights) on: (a) Rural Agricultural (RA) and Rural Conservation (RC) zoned properties generally located within the service district’s magisterial district; (b) property designated as parkland or marked as a hard open space edge along the service district boundary within the service district plan; or (c) a critical future transportation corridor designated by the Board of Supervisors needing protection from further development; and/or


3.                Implementation of unique town-scaled designs consistent with the adopted service district plan; and/or


4.                Other combinations other than cash/material contributions to the needs of the County.


Staff notes that this parcel is within the Bealeton Service District, identified in the Comprehensive Plan as low density (1-3 dwelling units per acre).  However, today that area is zoned Rural Agricultural and may or may not have any by-right divisions.  The maximum and by-right units available to this property would be one new lot and the residue parcel.


The proposal is consistent with the land use identified in the Comprehensive Plan and with development on adjoining properties.  The applicant has proffered the full monetary contributions for public facilities as well as identified and additional $115,000 for the future Bealeton Connector that is identified in the Comprehensive Plan.  The amount proffered per dwelling unit is $19,098.00; for a grand total of $496,548.00.


This submittal has reduced the original proposal by five (5) dwelling units.  The proposal is now at a 1.99 unit per acre density, which is an improvement from the previous proposal (31 units with a 2.37 dwelling units per acre). 


Land Area, Location and Zoning:    


The property is located on the west side of Route 28 at 6658 Catlett Road at its intersection with Edgewood Drive.  A map of the property (outlined in orange) is shown below.



Neighboring Zoning/Land Use:


The property is bounded by Residential (R-4) to the north and east; Residential (R-1) to the south; and Residential (R-2) Conditional to the west.


Action Requested of the Board of Supervisors:


Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of the attached Ordinance.



Planning Commission Recommendation:


On October 27, 2005, the Planning Commission forwarded this item to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval.


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 available upon request.


Engineering Considerations


The Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced plan and has the following comments:


1.                  All applicable State and Federal permits, including wetlands permits, shall be provided prior to final construction plan approval.


2.                  The County recommends that no below grade basements be constructed on soils with high water table due to wetness unless the foundation drainage system of the structure is designed by a licensed professional engineer to assure a dry basement and preclude wet yards and recirculation of pumped or collected water. Unless, in the opinion of the County Engineer, the topography of the lot in relation to the overlot-grading plan precludes grading the site to drain the basement to daylight, all basements shall be designed to gravity daylight without assistance from mechanical means. All discharged water (mechanical or gravity) must be conveyed to the subdivision stormwater collection system and discharged through the stormwater management facilities. Drainage easements, where necessary, shall be placed on the final plat. A note shall be placed on the final plat stating that “Basements are not recommended in mapping units 74B, 78A, and 79A. Basements in these mapping units are subject to flooding due to high seasonal water tables. Sump systems may run continuously, leading to possible premature pump failure.”


3.                  An overlot grading plan is to be provided as part of the Final Construction Plans. It is to show downspout discharges and sump pump discharges.


4.                  Proof of provisions for adequate fire flow will be required with the first submission of the Final Construction Plans. It is to be based on the guidelines issued by the Office of Emergency Services.


5.                  Lot 31 should also be included in the restricts indicated in General Note #33 if “future Wakefield Drive” is not complete at the time of construction of this subdivision.


Soil Scientist


After reviewing the Fauquier County Soil Survey for the rezoning stated above, this office has the following comments:


1.                     The soils on this parcel are rated fair to very poor for general development using central sewer and central water.


2.                     Hydric soils and soil map units with the potential for hydric inclusions are present on the property.  Therefore, it is possible to have jurisdictional wetlands on the property.  High seasonal water tables, shallowness to bedrock, and high shrink-swell potential negatively impact development under R-4 zoning.


Fauquier County Schools


The School Division comments that new residential development creates an impact on its operating and capital costs.  If the Rezoning for the Craig Property for 26 lots on 13.09 acres is approved, the subject development will impact the level of service for schools.  The impact on capital facilities is estimated to cost $11,890 per student.  In addition, the School Division will sustain an impact on annual operating costs at $9,495 per student.


The schools that will primarily be impacted by this project are Liberty High School, Cedar Lee Middle School, and M. M. Pierce Elementary School.  Liberty High School is currently over capacity.  Temporary trailers are being used for classrooms.  A new high school has not been approved at this time.  Pierce Elementary added temporary trailers for classrooms this year.  Funding for a new elementary school has been approved in the FY 2006-2015 Capital Improvements Program for fiscal years 2008/09 and 2009/10. 




The Library comments that in 2004, it opened a new branch library in Bealeton to serve the fastest growing population area in Fauquier County. The Library Board believes that the Board of Supervisors should request funds, as recommended by the adopted proffer policy in connection with rezonings, so that high-quality library services may be maintained in the community.




The Warrenton Residency staff reviewed the above referenced rezoning dated July 22, 2005, and has the following comments:


1.                  Currently none on the streets within Southcoate Village Subdivision have been accepted for state maintenance; therefore, VDOT does not have the jurisdiction or ability to grant access for this proposed subdivision off of these streets. It also has some concerns about construction traffic for the proposed lots being accessed from newly constructed streets.


2.                     The VPD shown on the plan is indicating that all traffic from the proposed lots will exit through Fox Haven subdivision, but it does seem reasonable that all of the traffic would exit in this direction.


3.                     Typical section needs to indicate a minimum of 3 feet from the back of the sidewalk to the right-of-way line.


4.                     CG-R is not acceptable within the right-of-way for use for the curb and gutter.


5.                     Constitution Way in Southcoate Village is 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb. The 2005 Subdivision Street Requirement Manual requires 28 feet for streets with an ADT (average daily trip) up to 400 and for an ADT of 401 to 1500 the width should be 36 feet. There are 13 houses within Southcoate Village which access this street and would generate an ADT of 130. The ADT of the proposed subdivision would be 310, but if this is split between the two subdivisions the street appears to be wide enough to accommodate the additional traffic.


6.                     When Route 28 is widened to a four lane divided road, these property owners may desire to have access through the subdivision which would enable them to exit their properties at a crossover.


7.                     Concept development plan includes a note that the connection with the adjacent subdivision is to be coordinated with that subdivision, but it does not identify who will be responsible for the construction. For instance, Constitution Way has an existing temporary turn around at the end of the street that will need to be removed after the street is extended.


8.                     The worksheet that was prepared for the turn lane requirements for the access to Route 28 indicated that full frontage improvements were required. This means that the developer should be paying their pro rata share of the widening of Route 28 to four lanes.


Summary and Recommendations:


It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors hold the public hearing on this item.  Should the Board consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval, an Ordinance has been prepared.


The applicant has proposed proffers to would allow for the development’s residents to use roads not yet adopted into the state system, but roads that are open to the public, bonded and pending acceptance.  This change to the proffers was done subsequent to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to forward this item with a recommendation of approval.  In addition, VDOT does not have the jurisdiction or ability to grant access for a proposed subdivision off streets that are not accepted into its state system.  If this issue cannot be resolved prior to the Board meeting, it is suggested that this item be postponed to work out refinements to the proffers.


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

Fauquier County Department of Community Development

Virginia Department of Transportation




  1. Statement of Justification
  2. Proffer Statement
  3. Response to Referral Agency Comments (8/26/05)
  4. Rezoning Plat & Concept Development Plan