ZMA 2004-017 Wickham Pond (Sign #64) – Request to rezone 20.52 acres from Rural Area, R-A zoning district, to Neighborhood Model – NMD to allow a combination of 107 single –family detached and condominium/townhouse residential units.  The property, described as Tax Map 56 Parcel 92 is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on 5023 Three Notch’d Road (Route 240) approximately 1,000 feet from the intersection of Route 240 and Highlands Drive, which is also known as the entrance to The Highlands subdivision. The Crozet Master Plan of the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Development Area Preserve [CT-1], Urban General [CT-4], and Urban Edge [CT-3]. (Claudette Grant)


Ms. Grant summarized the staff report by highlighting the following items:  



Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and proffers with conditions: 



Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for staff


Mr. Rieley stated that he had several questions for clarification.  He asked if the proffer issue was not a matter of staff proposing language that the applicant has not agreed to, but rather that staff is trying to figure out a mechanism to achieve what it wants to, and Ms. Grant agreed that was correct.


Mr. Rieley stated that from the staff report he understood that the overall density of the project on most of the site was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but that one area in which affordable housing is concentrated exceeded the density and that put it over.  He asked if that was correct.


Ms. Grant stated that was correct.


There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.


Vitto Cetta, of Weather Hill Homes, stated that they filed this request in October of last year. There have been many meetings.  He pointed out that they have met several times with the neighbors, and in fact have revised the plan several times addressing their concerns.  He stated that they were very pleased and proud of the existing plan that reflects the Neighborhood Model concepts.


Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Cetta to elaborate on the statement in the proposed proffer that “the owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing affordable units to any subsequent purchaser of the subject property.”


Mr. Cetta stated that they were not the only people that will be dealing with this issue.  The issue of “for sale housing” has been resolved.  The wording has been worked out through Ron White, which is universal throughout any of these affordable units if it is for sale.  There is a period for offering the property to the public with the price range, which has all been worked out.  They are perhaps one of the first people to offer something that are for rent.  He pointed out that Ron White’s comment was that they simply did not want to monitor it.  Mr. White has seen the product and very much liked it. The rental units are very small, compact accessory units in the townhouse unit.  The townhouse units are three stories.  The idea is that a family would live in the top two floors and rent out the bottom.  There are no stairs that attaches to it.  Down the road there is exactly the same plan, but the lower level is in fact accessible to the family and they can use it.  One would have to go around the building to access these units.  He felt that it would work well and was an efficient use.  He pointed out that Mr. White felt that the market would take this over and there was no need for control.  He stated that they were only one guy in the process and were prepared to do anything that would work out for them and the public.  They were prepared to place a deed restriction on the units.  He felt that it was going to take some time to figure out what would work for housing and for our community.  Also, the solution is that they are air-conditioned and nicely designed units.  He felt that when the units are placed on the market they would be affordable because of their small size.  The one problem with a lot of the affordable projects that they were currently working on is it would cost over $200,000 to deliver the unit, but they would have to sell it at $180,000.  In this case it is not like that.  But, it is the fact that it is by its own nature something that was going to be affordable and there are no controls over it.


Mr. Edgerton asked if they would continue to own them or if those units would be sold.


Mr. Cetta stated that there was a buy benefit to it.  The person who bought the townhouse would have a rental unit in it.  They would be able to afford the townhouse because they would be able to get rent from the lower unit.  It could be an older couple that does not need the space.


Ms. Higgins stated in the permitted land uses by block under the accessory block it is listed in blocks 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and checked on page 9 of 32 in the Code of Development.  She pointed out that she was trying to figure out where this goes in the plan.  There is a footnote under accessory apartments and it says accessory apartments allowed only if this block is developed as single-family detached dwelling - establishment of accessory apartments requires the creation of a third on lot parking space.  Therefore, she lost what he was saying because this means that you could only put accessory apartments in the single-family detached.  She asked if he could help her understand the model. 


Mr. Cetta stated that he did not have the entire answer.  But, they have identified exactly where these 14 units go.


Ms. Higgins stated that those units were in a townhouse three-story structure, and Mr. Cetta stated that was correct.


Ms. Higgins asked if the Code of Development table was wrong.


Frank Pool, with Weather Hill Homes, stated that the strict definition of an accessory apartment is a single-family detached unit. 


Ms. Higgins stated that 33 percent of the gross area of that is limited to that, too.


Mr. Pool stated that because an accessory apartment cannot be a part of a townhouse is the reason why it is not checked as a use for a townhouse.  Therefore, these units are not accessory apartments and they are actually counted as units when looking at the total density.


Ms. Higgins stated that she understood it in regards to the overall density, but she was trying to look at the implementation of what they were proposing.  She noted that someone has to read the rules about what the use is when you apply for the building permit and they would have to go to this table to figure out where the different uses could be put.  When she reads the table it is not consistent with what he was saying.  She asked for clarification on this issue.


Mr. Pool stated that they have been working with staff for three months on how to define these units.  The units cannot be defined as accessory apartments because they were townhouse units, but they are an individual unit within the unit.  The term duplex was brought up. 


Ms. Higgins stated that for the Code purposes they wanted to use the interpretation of a duplex. 


Mr. Pool stated that was a staff request because of the Building Code.


Ms. Higgins stated that in reading the table and using the footnotes for accessory, you limit it to only allow them in certain blocks. Then they have limited them to those blocks which are limited to single-family detached.  She suggested that they work on some consistency.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that what was getting confused was where an accessory unit can be used in association with dwelling unit type.  He thought what they were doing was noting the blocks where accessory apartments can be provided, which are only those where there are single-family detached, and  under the ordinance is the only place it can be done.  The units they are talking about that would be the underneath, over/under kind of units are not accessory.  Therefore, those units will not get defined in the Code of Development.


Ms. Higgins asked if those units were multiple family dwellings.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that they would be a second unit within a unit of townhouses.  He noted that this had been worked out with Zoning so there would be no misunderstanding at the time of Code of Development interpretation.  Staff can go back and make sure it is clear before the Board takes this action.  But, he thought it was to reflect what Zoning thought would work for the purpose that she had just identified.


Ms. Higgins stated that this seemed to identify the accessory apartment being limited to certain blocks, but what he was proposing was above and beyond that.  There could actually be more than 14.  They would be required to do 14 units, but if they developed these other blocks with single-family detached there could be more accessory apartments than the 14 units.


Mr. Pool stated that the 14 units are affordable units and are not accessory apartments. He agreed that in all of the single-family detached homes they could have accessory apartments by nature of the definition.


Ms. Higgins asked which definition does the affordable apartments fall into in the Code of Development.


Mr.  Pool stated that the affordable apartments were under the multi-family dwelling unit and in blocks 1, 5 and 7. The rental units would still be considered as a multi-family dwelling.


Mr. Craddock asked if the rental unit would be finished by the builder or if it would be left up to the purchaser.


Mr. Pool stated that was part of the deed restriction that they were proffering. They were working with staff to come up with some language that would offer this deed restriction that would help enforce that.


Mr. Craddock stated that the purchaser would have to rent it and could not just own it and allow the unit to sit vacant.


Ms. Higgins asked who would enforce it.


Mr. Pool stated that the homeowner’s association would oversee this.


Ms. Higgins asked if they had considered that the main unit or one of the units has to be owner occupied.  She asked what would prevent all of those from becoming multi-family rental units.  She asked if that would change the neighborhood by someone buying a unit and renting both units.  In the City there are locations that require that you can’t have two non-owned rental units and one of the units has to be owner occupied.  She asked if the rental restriction would only apply to one of the units.


Mr. Pool stated that he was not sure how to answer that question. 


Mr. Rieley stated that as it stands now there is no requirement to allow that.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that both units could be rented, but one unit has to meet the condition of the proffer.


Mark Keller, of Terra Partners, stated that they have worked on the planning and engineering on this project.  To that point, he lives in Forest Lakes and two doors away there is a rental unit that is a single-family house.  They have lived in that location for nine years and have had good and bad neighbors.  In his experience it has not been bad.  He stated that they have spent a lot of time on this project, particularly in how they make their intent clear in the charts and tables for implementation in the future. There are many aspects of this proposal that are very exciting that have to do with the Neighborhood Model.  They are really trying to apply a Neighborhood Model urban development philosophy to what he would call a quasi-urban or suburban setting because this is not in the core of Crozet.  Sidewalks run throughout the entire development.  There is not a single person who can’t come out their front door and not get directly to the front door of a neighbor on anything but a sidewalk. The sidewalks interconnect everybody.  The sidewalks connect with the adjacent property.  A wide sidewalk is proposed along Route 240, which will eventually be able to be extended down into the urban core and could also be attached to the Highlands and other areas further to the east.  They also have a trail system that comes in off of the road in the top center of the property.  It comes around the back of several single-family homes and then includes a view or interaction with the existing pond.  They intend to enhance that area as well.  For safety reasons, they don’t have a lot of straight roads and urban intersections here.   A couple of the earlier plans that they came up with had a lot of little spurs going off to little pockets of 8, 10 and 12 units.  They realized that they were coming up with 8 to 10 intersections.  These are things where vehicles and pedestrians interact and not necessarily in such a great way.  They have created several blocks with a minimal number of intersections and in some cases only crossing the road two times to get from one end of the project to the other.  They feel that this is not only pedestrian oriented, but it is safe and friendly as well.  They also hope to combine the lower speed limit and the stop signs at these very few intersections to make it very safe for children in the community. 


Mr. Keller stated that there is open space preserved and set aside in the 100 to 120 feet of the frontage of Route 240.  They hope that area would be utilized for open space activities.  Coming off of that in the center front of the property you can see the promenade area that leads right in the front door of the existing farm house, which will serve as a meeting house for the community.  They would not be creating a community center for Crozet at large, but creating a center for the neighbors to gather for special events, such as a picnic on the fourth of July and things of that nature.  That house and the smoke house, which would be made an integral part of the tot lot, would be preserved.  He passed around some photographs that were a part of a historic resource study.  He called their attention to photographs 1 through 6, which was the meeting house, and 15 and 16, which were pictures of the smoke house.  In the center of the property would be the second large open space, which represents a pavilion or a bandstand of sorts.  This is where they would want the community to gather for other special events.  Soccer games could happen in the open areas there as well.  There is at least 100 feet from the water’s edge at the pond in the back that is being preserved and set aside for the enjoyment of the neighbors.  It will be something that you will view as you travel through the community.  Parking along the streets is available to these areas without creating a traffic problem in creating this neighborhood in this way.  The last item is site planning that respects terrain.  Of the entire project they have been working on over the past couple of years, this one will probably require the least earthwork, but it is one of the bigger sites that they have worked on.  Fortunately, this is a site that is very gently rolling.  He felt that they have the opportunity to create the roads that respect the existing terrain and to lay the units into the property so that they walk out on nearly virgin grade.  He felt that the grading costs would be a very small component of the construction cost estimate. 


As far as the stormwater management, Mr. Keller stated that he wanted everyone to understand that not only have they worked with the adjacent property owner in getting the easement, but this stormwater facility has been engineered and designed preliminarily and has been engineered to handle the complete development of the adjacent property.  That is why they are alluding to the fact that they have a verbal agreement with this neighbor.  This neighbor understands the value of their property and is familiar with land use and land sales.  These people recognize that they are trying to compliment and accommodate future development of their property as well with it being in the growth area.


Ms. Higgins questioned why there is no written agreement with the adjacent owner if they have been working on this since last October.


Mr. Keller stated that they had to have a significant study done of the culvert under the railroad to see if it would carry that, how much of the pond dam could be altered or did it have to be taken out.  He felt that ran them through Christmas.  He stated that they have nothing in writing from the adjacent owner about the use of the pond at this point.


Ms. Higgins asked where the parking for the meeting house was located.


Mr. Keller stated that there are at least two spaces right along the street adjacent to the side of the building that are not required for meeting the parking requirements for the guests of the units.  Handicap accessibility they feel from those parking spaces they can accommodate.  The County is asking them to develop a pedestrian oriented development, which creates a problem.


Ms. Higgins stated that the use would still be an activity that might have a zoning requirement for a certain number of parking spaces.  She wondered how that ties into it if they approve this plan with excluding that parking.  She asked if that was the applicant’s intent.


Mr. Keller stated no, that they have been working with staff on what activities they were going to exclude from the meeting house.  In other words, you would not be able to have a dinner party there and invite all of your friends.  This is for the community people to meet and play cards, have tea and that sort of thing.  One or two people from out of the community may come.


Ms. Higgins asked what mechanism they have used to exclude all of those activities. 


Mr. Keller stated that was going to be in the covenants and restrictions that are going to be developed.


Ms. Higgins suggested that it needs to be in the proffer, too.  She questioned using the house as a community meeting house because someone living in the rear might not be able to walk to it at night or in the rain.  She asked if they should exclude it and say no parking because everybody will walk.  Or will they crowd the parking on both sides of the streets when only one side was meant for parking and cause a safety issue right at the main entrance of a significant development. 


Mr. Keller stated that they have batted that issue around with staff.


Mr. Cetta stated that the house only had 2,500 square feet.  Therefore, they would not be able to get very many people in there in the first place.  There is no way that you could get 50 people in there.  Also, if you take all of the street parking they would be way over parked.  So if for some reason you did have 50 people in there they could certainly park down the street and walk to it. 


There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Edgerton stated that there were several persons who signed up to address the Commission.  He invited the first speaker, Diane Robertson, to come forward and address the Commission.


Diane Robertson, an adjacent property, publicly thanked Mr. Cetta for going above and beyond in listening to their requests and altering the plan.  Short of not building in that lot, which they all would love, he really has been very good in hearing what the adjacent property owners have asked him to do and adapting the plan to that end.  She pointed out that her home is in the back area of Wickham Pond, but in Highlands.  One of the requests that they made as adjacent property owners regarded preserving their lovely views of the Blue Ridge Mountains.  They requested that the homes that were built along that property line not be built directly in back of an existing home so that their views would not be cut off.  They are willing to share them, but certainly would still like to see them a little bit.  The plan that Weather Hill Homes has come up with has successfully done that.  She requested the Planning Commission to stipulate that an individual builder who might come in to build a particular home would build it on the plot area that is shown on this map.  That would ensure that another builder would not come in and shift the home’s location on the property and block the view of the homeowners on Highland Place. 


Tom Loach stated that he had one question for Ms. Grant.  In the staff report it says that the fiscal impact of this project is $85,000 to the negative and the proffers are for $93,000, which makes a difference of $18,000.  He asked what methodology she used to come up with an $18,000 cost against the overall infrastructure cost of the Crozet Master Plan of about $17 million.   He stated that the bottom line was that they did not.  What they have here is what the people knew was going to happen in Crozet.  When the Master Plan was completed the County said that they were not going to sit down and discuss the long range funding.  Therefore, if you don’t discuss long range funding at the County level, then the only place that you have to do it is at the rezoning level.  And what they have heard now is that the County has not applied any kind of methodology as to what impact or what the cost of this would be that the developer should proffer towards the total cost of the infrastructure.  The Crozet Community Association’s stand has consistently been that we will not support a rezoning unless and until there is a methodology developed and they know that the infrastructure funding is going to be there for the whole Master Plan.  This has been their position all along.  Mr. Rieley and Mr. Edgerton both know because he was on the DISC Committee with them and this is why he did not vote to go to the next Master Plan in Mr. Morris’ area until there was a methodology set up on how the County was going to do this in the growth areas.  This is not a bad plan.  He stated that he did not fault the applicant at all.  This is the County’s problem now to deal with. 


Mr. Loach stated that the County cannot come to the community and say that they are going to vote for this when they are fully aware that the total cost of the infrastructure is not included in this.  It is not fair and it is not acceptable.  Staff points out the two reasons.  The first reason is the affordable housing. Since 1993, the Crozet Community Association has had an affordable housing stance in their community plan.  There are Parkside Village, Waylands Grant, Bargeman Property and Gray Rock.  All of these developments were approved by this Planning Commission over the objections of the community for one reason that there was no affordable housing included in any of these.  He noted that he knew because he had asked for it.  Therefore, it would be the height of hypocrisy for any of the Commissioners to come back now and say we are going to vote for this because it has affordable housing.  The second one is if it does not go here, then it will go somewhere else.  He stated that he did not care anymore.  As a matter of fact, in the recent rural area plan that was passed by the Board of Supervisors there was not one rural area plat taken out of the rural area.  Therefore, if they were not taking any plats out of the rural area when they do that the only thing they do by putting 100 homes in here is add 100 homes to the total population of Crozet and the overall misery of traffic. The community stance is if the County has not come up with a methodology for funding, then they will take the 5 by right homes.


John Harvey, President of Highlands at Mechum River Homeowner’s Association, stated that there are two points that he would like to address.  The first issue is the over/under units proposed as affordable housing units. The second issue is the overall height of the townhouse units themselves.  They have had a bit of a problem in the Highlands with absentee landlords not attending to their property or their renters very well.  He pointed out that this could become a concern for this development if the over/under units are approved.  Pursuant to that, he would think that the suggestions that the over/under units be required to be owner occupied definitely be considered by the Commission.  In addition, if he understands the units correctly, the over/under units are proposed in several long blocks.  What is to keep an investor from buying one of those entire blocks and turning it into an apartment building?  These are all things to consider in their decision.  The other concern was the height of the units. Since the units are three-storied, what would be the impacts on the views from the Highlands?  He stated that their views at present were really something that helped to sell homes at very good prices against the market.  He stated that he was glad to hear about the sensitivity of the builder to pay attention to the homes that are directly above the proposed development.  As a further point he asked that the Commission look at the precedent of what is around the proposed site.  Neither the Highlands nor Rock Bridge contain these over/under units that are proposed for affordable housing.  He stated the he could see the positives in it that a first time home buyer could come in and buy a unit and have their mortgage paid for by the rent. Therefore, he could see the intention.  But, he felt that some controls need to be put on these to again avoid situations like the defacto apartment building status and things such as that.


Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other public comments.  There being none, he closed the public hearing.


Mr. Craddock asked if the owner occupied restriction could legally be done as a covenant or something similar to be controlled by the Homeowner’s Association. 


Ms. Higgins stated that they are doing this in the city under certain zoning restrictions.


Mr. Kamptner stated that he would want to look at that.  He felt that it started to get into the realm of socio-economic zoning, which the Virginia Supreme Court has repeatedly told us we cannot engage in.  If the owner wishes to insert those kinds of restrictions into their covenants, that would be perfectly fine as long as it was legal under general Virginia law.


Ms. Higgins felt that the proffer form needs some massaging.  She assumed that Mr. Kamptner had looked at this, but suggested that the cash contribution statement be reworded to say this cash contribution has not been “expended” rather than “exhausted.”  She felt that the intent was that if the money was not spent in ten years that it will be refunded to the owner, and she had every confidence that the County with its demands on schools will expend the money. She supported the rental unit, which was very much like the carriage house situation that was not viewed positively in our last action. This is worded very well, but she still questioned how the County’s goals were going to be met on the enforceability side.  It still leaves flexibility for if these units are built.  It says a total of 14 and there were 14 units in E and F.  She suggested that the 14 units need to be tied to something in this plan so that it is very clear to everyone when someone comes in and makes a building permit application.  She felt that the relationship between the plan and the proffers is still not as clear as it needs to be worded. She felt that the 14 affected lots need to be identified so that they clearly know where they are going to go and what the parameters are.  She suggested that the plan and wording be made very clear to avoid any misunderstandings as the builders come in and the developers leave. If there is a commitment made by the developer to actually put these houses in the format as they show on the drawing and if he is willing to do that, then she felt it should be proffered or the neighbors will have to understand whoever buys that lot will put whatever home a willing buyer wants on that lot. She stated that if it was the intent of the builder, then he ought to explain that to the Commission.


Mr. Rieley asked to follow up on that because he felt that it was a legitimate point that Ms. Robertson raised and one that should indeed be nailed down if that is our intention.  If it is Mr. Cetta’s intention then it does not do any good to negotiate all of these view sheds and locate the houses respecting them if when it gets to the next stage there is nothing that nails that down.  Certainly within lots of site development plans they often say in substantial compliance with the development plan.  They don’t have the equivalent of that in a subdivision plan.  Therefore, his question is what mechanism they use to forward that.  


Mr. Benish stated that it appeared that the most important thing was to get the lot layout lines set with the platting with certain benchmarks. Once that is done then the lot sizes and setbacks pretty much minimizes how much the building can spread out on the lot.


Ms. Higgins stated that the house could be three stories and a basement so that it could get a better view.  If it is a commitment, then Mr. Cetta is going to have to struggle with how to comply or meet it.  Based on these setbacks, then you go to the chart of 14 of 32 as it applies to the larger lots.


Mr. Rieley asked if there was any reason why Mr. Cetta could not simply offer a proffer that the locations of the houses will be in substantial accord with the plan that they have before them as dated. 


Mr. Kamptner stated that it could either be proffered or be placed in the Code of Development.


Mr. Rieley suggested using words like “substantial accord” or “substantial compliance” in order to leave that view open. 


Ms. Higgins stated that the roads and a lot of details are looked at carefully on a concept plan, but a particular house plan on a particular lot has always had a lot of flexibility.  That is not necessarily a bad thing, except when concerns like this are raised.  On the minimum lot and yard requirements they have gone into a definition of primary and secondary.  She asked if that has been done before. Under the primary and secondary they gave a drawing, but it was not clear on page 15 of 32.  She questioned if the dotted line is a primary setback because it shows steps and other things over the setback.  It also shows a porch.  She asked if this would be difficult for zoning to enforce.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Code of Development is reviewed at some length by our zoning people because they are the ones who do have to make interpretations.  There are adjustments that occur in the Code of Developments to reflect what zoning feels are going to be necessary in the interpretation. 


Ms. Higgins asked if they have looked at having two different definitions for primary and secondary.


Mr. Cilimberg stated yes, that they should have done that.  He stated that he would yield to Ms. Grant because she has worked on this project.  But, that is what staff has the zoning people look for.


Mr. Edgerton stated that this was the exact issue that came up last week in the Briarwood session.  Now if this porch gets enclosed it would be his understanding that it would be in violation of the primary setback.  He stated that zoning deals with unenclosed structures that are exempt.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that a porch could protrude into the setbacks up to 4 feet, but it cannot be any closer to the lot line than 6 feet.  This is establishing those kinds of activities that are acceptable to be closer to the lot line than the back of the house.


Ms. Higgins stated that there was a 10 foot green strip along the rear of the lines.  She asked if someone wanted to reduce that could they request a variance from the Zoning Administrator.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that in the Planned Development District the setbacks are set by the action on the district.  Secondly, under the ordinance they can be modified by the Director of Planning based on the circumstance that exists in a particular case.  This is a starting point, but it allows some flexibility. 


Ms. Higgins asked if there were any concerns about the parking and the uses in the meeting house.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that for any activity that would be proposed for the meeting house that the use would be subject to a zoning clearance.   If there was not adequate parking for that and it is determined at the time of the zoning clearance, then they can’t have the use.  He felt that it was going to be self enforcing. 


Ms. Higgins asked where the use of the meeting house was addressed in the Code of Development.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that the use was referred to as the meeting house.  They will be asking for a particular use on the zoning clearance and the zoning administrator will determine if adequate parking is available for the proposed use.  If it does not, then they will not be cleared for that activity.


Ms. Higgins stated that based on that requirement they may need to include a parking lot in the open space.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that they could not put a parking lot there without the Commission’s approval.  They would basically be restricted to very minimal uses of that meeting house, which the applicant has indicated as their plan. 


Ms. Grant stated that the Code of Development lists the use as a community center/clubhouse.


Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant may be able to show in a parking study that they are meeting the parking requirements to the satisfaction of the zoning administration.


Ms. Higgins noted that the applicant did not describe the proposed use of the clubhouse/community center.  She pointed out that the applicant went back and forth with zoning on this particular issue and with herself because they agreed that there needed to be some parking.  In the end zoning was satisfied with the applicant providing two parking spaces on the street.


Mr. Benish stated that they should keep in mind that the parking requirements for residential parking includes visitor parking.  With the on-street parking that is available there is a capacity within the site for some visitation parking built in with the residential parking required.


Mr. Rieley stated that with that issue notwithstanding, it seems that the Commission has focused on two areas in which they would like additional work: 

1.       Clarification of the mechanism in the language relative to affordability and its long term application.

2.       A proffer stipulating substantial compliance with the plan as it has been presented to both the neighbors and to the Commission.

He felt that both of these issues are things that the applicant has worked in good faith with both staff and the applicant.  Therefore, he suggested that the Commission allow this request to move ahead and give the applicant an opportunity to have it all worked out by the time it gets to the Board.


Ms. Higgins suggested adding an item to the list regarding the resolution of the pond, and Mr. Rieley agreed that it should be on the list.


Ms. Higgins suggested that the affordable means being tied down should be worded more carefully concerning where the affordable units will be located and not just say as identified in the application plan.  


Mr. Morris pointed out that the condition for the pond is very clearly spelled out in the conditions.


MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Morris seconded, that ZMA-2004-017 for Wickham Pond be

recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following directions to staff:


  1. A written agreement between the applicant/developer and the adjacent property owner regarding the stormwater management use of the pond must be submitted prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing and final wording of the proffers will be worked out between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meeting.
  2. Critical slope impacts will need to be formally resolved with engineering and current development staff during the site plan stage.
  3. The proffers regarding affordability and the long term application of the affordable units need to be worked out and be acceptable to staff before it goes to the Board.
  4. The proffer stipulating substantial compliance with the location of the houses and the configuration of the units needs to be worked out between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meeting. 


Ms. Higgins pointed out that the applicant needs to come up and volunteer that because the Commission cannot make a condition to ask for a proffer that says that.


Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Cetta to come forward and address this issue.


Vitto Cetta agreed to the proposed revision to the proffers.


Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission was acknowledging that the applicant had said that the proposed proffers were acceptable and they were simply making the Commission’s directions state that the proffer language would be worked out between now and the time the request goes to the Board.


Ms. Higgins asked that the wording of proffer 1 be changed to remove the word “exhausted” because it sounds strange.


Mr. Kamptner stated that staff would look at some of the proffers done recently, but he thought that they have used the term “exhausted.”


Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the issue regarding critical slopes would be handled separately.


The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0.  (Commissioner Joseph was absent.)


Mr. Edgerton stated that ZMA-2004-017 for Wickham Pond would go to the Board of Supervisors on August 10 with a recommendation for approval as noted above.


Action on the Modification:


MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, to grant the critical slopes waiver as requested for Wickham Pond.


The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0.  (Commissioner Joseph was absent.)


Mr. Edgerton stated that the critical slopes waiver was unanimously approved for Wickham Pond.


Return to PC actions letter