ZMA 2006-017 Buck Mountain Planned Residential Development Boundary Adjustments and Rural Areas rezoning (Signs 71, 72):

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 2.456 acres from RA Rural Areas zoning district (TMP 17-26D) which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density to become a part of TMP 17-60 Planned Residential District PRD (Buck Mountain PRD)  which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre)  Also, boundary line adjustments within the Buck Mountain PRD, 1.56 acres PRD Common Area (TMP 15-115) to TMP 17-60 and TMP 17-61, and 1.56 acres of TMP 17-26D added to Common Area (TMP 17-115).  No additional residential units proposed.


EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:  Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5  unit/ acre).


LOCATION: Southeast quadrant of intersection of Free Union Road (Rt. 601) and Davis Shop Road (Rt. 671).

TAX MAP/PARCEL: 17-60; TMP 17-61; TMP 17-115; TMP 17-26D.


STAFF:  Joan McDowell


Ms. McDowell presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report.


This is a request for a rezoning and boundary line adjustment within a planned residential development.  The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Reid inadvertently built some buildings and a fence over property lines into the common open space of the Buck Mountain PRD.  This is the reason for this application.

The area in Buck Mountain is characterized by a mixture of residential wooded areas, open spaces and agricultural uses.  As seen in the slide, there are some agricultural districts as well as the green easement.  The purple is the Mountain Overlay District.

The history of Buck Mountain PRD is quite interesting.  It was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1975.  It had been previously A-1, Agricultural.  Over time it became the Buck Mountain Planned Residential Development.  It was rezoned to that because the PUD no longer existed and because the Buck Mountain PUD did not develop as the owners had originally planned.  However, the portion on tax map 17, parcels 60, 61 and 26D are the three properties involved.  Parcel 26D is a rural areas property.

A portion of lot 60 built some buildings over the property line and a fence over the property line into the open space.  They did not know until they put the property up for sale. The title company found the mistake.  They are asking to pull a little over 2 acres of land out of the open space and place into lot 60.  Their driveway on lot 61 actually is the driveway for lot 60.  So they want to make adjustments with that.  All of the land that is taken out of the open space they would take out of lot 26D, which is rural areas.  It used to be part of Buck Mountain PUD.  So they want to replace it.  The good thing is that there is a gap in open space and it would close with this acquisition of land from the rural areas.

Factors Favorable:

1.       The amount of Common Open Space land placed into residential lots would be replaced by an equal amount of land.

2.       The existing gap in the Common Open Space at the junction of TMP 17-26B, TMP 17- 98 and TMP 17-60, would be closed to connect two parts of the Common Open Space.

3.       No additional dwellings will result from this rezoning.

4.       The land removed from the Rural Areas zoning district would be used as open space for residents of the Buck Mountain PRD.

5.       No additional demands for public facilities or services would result from this rezoning.


         Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.


         Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) 2006-17 and the request for modification from Section 19.6.1 of Section 19 Planned Residential Development (PRD) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the minimum 25% common open space.


A Boundary Line Adjustment application would be reviewed separately from this application, should the ZMA 2006-17 be approved. 


Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.


George McCallum, an attorney, stated that he represented Tim and Daphne Reid.  Ms. Reid is here.  Jeff Kilmer is here.  He would like to correct a couple of factual matters.  When the Reids bought the property in 1989 the fencing and shed which encroaches into the common area was already there.  Their survey done at the time that they acquired the property did not show these issues.  Mr. Jeff Kilmer when he built a barn on his property some years ago believed that he was wholly within his lot.  But, the structure is built partly in his lot and partly in the common area.  The driveway to their two adjoining lots indicates that it was to be a shared driveway, but nothing was indicated on the plat that said it.  The subdivision plat was done in the 1970ís.  The driveway built to the Reidís house is half on their lot and half on the other lot.  The issues that they are dealing with here came to light when they were approaching closing on a sale by the Reids of their property when a new physical survey was done by another surveyor who discovered these various fences and buildings and so forth.  The purchaser through her attorney objected and wanted her driveway solely on the property.  So the Reids went to the Kilmers and said that they would like to see if they could have the driveway put on their lot.  Mr. Kilmer said that he had discovered that he had a problem because he had a part of a building in the common area just as they had fencing and suggested that perhaps they could collaborate here.  So that was done.  In the packet there is an Exhibit A, which shows the various pieces and bits of land that would be traded about that cures these problems.  Exhibit C in the staff report shows the improvements on the Reidís lot 16 and the location of the building that encroaches that is on the Kilmerís lot 17.  They have the approval of the Buck Mountain Homeownerís Association, which required two-thirds of owners of lots to sign a declaration for the property line adjustment.  They have a bit over that and thought that they were in good shape and submitted the plat for administrative approval.  It was determined by zoning that because a part of the property was in this PRD and a part was in the Rural Areas the property that was in the Rural Areas could not be moved into the PRD without getting it rezoned.  So that is why they are here tonight.  This is a boundary line adjustment among two consenting neighbors  and the property ownerís association that owns the common land that removes these encroachments and has the benefit of connecting together two areas of the common space within this PRD that are currently disconnected.  You canít get from one to the other.  That is the exhibit that was both yellow and blue.  The staff report is accurate and thorough.  Staff recommends approval of this.  The applicants would ask for the Commissionís approval of this.


Daphne Reid asked the Commission to approve the request.


There being no public comment, Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.


Ms. McDowell noted that there was a request for a modification.  The PRD zone, which is generally something that happens in a more urban environment, requires 25 percent open space.  The PUD never had 25 percent and it is going to have a little less than that now.  Staff has recommended approval of the modification from Section 19.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.


Motion:   Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Morris seconded, to approve the applicantís request for ZMA-2006-017, Buck Mountain Planned Residential Development Boundary Adjustments and Rural Areas rezoning and the request for modification from Section 19.6.1 of Section 19 Planned Residential Development (PRD) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow less than the minimum 25% common open space. 


The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.  (Commissioners Zobrist and Craddock were absent.) 


Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2006-017, Buck Mountain Planned Residential Development Boundary Adjustments and Rural Areas rezoning was recommended for approval and will be heard by the Board of Supervisors on December 6.


Return to actions letter