On October 9, 2018 the Board of Supervisors closed the public hearing and continued the case to the next scheduled meeting (October 23, 2018) in order to hold an additional meeting with the community to resolve concerns. A meeting was held with residents of River Meadows on October 17, 2018. The applicant has requested that this case be continued until January 8, 2019 in order to further the dialog, the request is attached.
Another meeting with the community is scheduled for Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at the Lee Hill Community Center at 7:00PM.
The applicant requests special use permit approval to develop a 125-bed assisted living facility on a 10 acre Residential 2 (R-2) zoned parcel. The unaddressed property is located at the end of River Meadows Way on the east side of Tidewater Trial. The property is located in the Primary Development Boundary and within the Airport Protection Overlay District. The property is within an area identified for Mixed Use development on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan.
The County’s Special Use Permit regulations state “The planning commission shall not recommend, nor shall the board of supervisors approve, the proposed special use unless it satisfies the following standards”. SUP General Standard 23-4.5.7.a.6 requires consideration of whether “…the proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, wastewater treatment, fire and police protection, waste disposal, and similar facilities”. Staff’s concern is centered around the location of the use, access to the site, and the impact of increased emergency vehicle traffic on the residential neighborhood. Assisted Living Facilities require frequent emergency response services, whether from the County or private providers. Those emergency response trips have only one way to reach the subject property, which is 1.2 miles round-trip through a residential neighborhood called River Meadows. During the Planning Commission meeting the applicant's representative questioned why staff did not object to three other Special Use Standards of Review. Staff considered the question and concurs that while staff focused on the location of the facility in Standard 6, the Standards 4 and 7 contribute towards the determination that the proposal’s location is inappropriate (Standard 6). The report has been amended to include expanded analysis of the Special Use Standards of Review. The Planning Commission did not have the benefit of this analysis when they voted. Should the Board wish the Planning Commission to consider the additional Standards the Board may refer the case back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
This matter is more specifically discussed in the attached Staff Report which has been revised following the Planning Commissions review and includes additional negative conclusions within the Standards of Review as well as a brief new section: "Update Following Planning Commission."
|