Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-10 adjJune 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B, 19! (page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 10, 1992, at 4:00 P.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from June 3, 1992. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 4:10 P.M.), Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. ~tumphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin (arrived at 4:12 P.M.) and Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 4:08 P.M.). ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; Chief of Community Development, David Benish; and Senior Planner, Mary Joy Scala. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:09 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Open Space & Critical Resource Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked if the entire Open Space and Critical Resource Plan was to be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker replied "yes" Mr. Bowerman pointed out that letters have been received from Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Staff Attorney for the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC); the Republic Capital and McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe. He asked Mr. Benish if there are any portions of the letters that staff feels include oversights and should be incorporated into the Open Space Plan. Mr. Benish replied the staff has discussed the letters, but do not feel comfortable, at this time, recommending the suggestions be included in the Open Space Plan. He went on to say staff has discussed a couple of items with Mr. Steve Blaine, of McGuire Woods, Battle and Boothe. He said the letter (copy on file) that was given to Board members today, is in response to some of the things that the staff discussed with Mr. Blaine. He said staff has also just received an additional letter today, and is not prepared for such a discussion with this Board. Ms. Scala also mentioned that she had talked with Mr. Lindstrom about his comments, but the comments were not discussed with the staff. She said staff members have looked at the suggestions separately, but they have not talked about whether or not the recommendations should be included in the Open Space Plan. Mr. Steve Blaine interjected and stated that the last position of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association is in the letter, dated June 10, 1992, that he delivered to the supervisors today. He added that the Association is still not saying that it likes the proposed Open Space Plan, but with the suggestions included in the June 10th, letter, it would not object to the Open Space Plan. Mr. Martin stated that this whole Open Space Plan is a document with good ideas in it. He said the debate will start when it gets to the point of how these ideas can be accomplished and what goals are desired. He said the important part is how it will be implemented. Mr. Bowerman explained that the staff is asking this Board to go to public hearing with this document to incorporate the Open Space Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that, as he sees it, the second step will be to form the Committee and let the Committee look at some of these specific recommendations, along with the Planning staff, in terms of implementing any changes in the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. He said the document would then go to the next step in the process, with which all Board members are familiar. As he understands it, except as these items are currently referred to by the County's Zoning Ordinance or Subdiviszon Ordi- nance, none of them are law, until the Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance is changed. He said the document would be included in the Comprehensive Plan as a strategic plan for protection of open space and critical resources. Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Bowerman sees the Committee becoming involved after the Open Space Plan has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman answered, "yes." He said that an ongoing group needs to look at this issue with the idea of trying to correct and improve the preservation of critical resources and open space or implementing some of the policies which are in the Comprehensive Plan. He anticipates that someone from the Planning staff will be on that Committee, or the Planning staff will be a resource for that Committee. He added that the Committee will be making recommendations to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission will review these recommendations, and decide whether or not a Resolution of Intent is desir- able. At that point, Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board of Supervisors will become involved. Mr. Bain remarked that if the Open Space Plan is going to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, he thinks the Commission and others are looking for some direction from this Board as to what ms priority and what this Committee should be considering first. He pointed out that this Board may not come to a consensus on the open space document. He does not think that June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B. (page 2) forming a Committee will do any good, unless this Board can give the Committee some guidelines. Mr. Bowerman stated that one of the specifics mentioned related to mountainside protection. Mr. Bain responded that he thinks this is important, but he thinks that it is going to take some real work to put all the forces together. Mr. Benish asked if Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Bain are referring to the Agricultural/Forestal Committee. Mr. Bowerman answered affirmatively. He said the Committee is mentioned in the report. Mr. Benish stated that the intent of-the Agricuttur~l/~Porestal Committee, as far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned, is to support agricultural and forestal activities in the County. He thinks the Committee's input will be important with the Open Space Plan in identifying the areas of importance within the context of the Open Space Plan. He emphasized that the orientation of that Committee is more to promote industry and not to preserve property, per se. He said the recommendations from that Committee would support or make clearer recommendations of the Open Space Plan. Mr. Bowerman commented that the first paragraph of the second page of the letter from the Citizens for Albemarle outlines the charge of the Agricultural and Forestal Resources Advisory Committee, as that organization sees it. Mr. Bain asked what the time frame is for a public hearing on the Open Space Plan. He would like to have some recommendations back from staff relative to PEC and the Blue Ridge Homebuilders comments before the public hearing, or, at least at the public hearing. After the staff's input, this Board can make its decisions. Mr. Bowerman concurred. He does not want this Board to incorporate the suggestions from the different organizations into the Open Space Plan, without some discussion from the staff, as to the benefits and negatives of doing so. Ms. Scala commented that staff does not have any major disagreements on any of the items in PEC's letter. She added that there may be some confusion or misunderstanding about some things, but there are certainly no major differences, and she thinks that the differences that are there can be worked out easily. She next mentioned the letter relating to the Blue Ridge Home- builders' suggestions. She said the staff has already discussed ways to make clearer how plans are reviewed using the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that the Open Space Plan is not the only plan that is considered when something is reviewed. She added that Mr. Cilimberg has not seen some of these communica- tions, yet, so she cannot speak for him, but she sees nothing that would cause a problem. Mr. Bowerman stated that some of the suggestions seem to be aimed at making the recommendations more specific. Mr. Tucker remarked that if it is necessary to have another work session, the staff could address all of these letters and recommendations and any changes that need to be made, at that time. He said that if this Board completes its work today and decides to go to public hearing, the staff can make its recommendations at the public hearing. Mr. Benish stated that the staff's response to each comment can be provided to the supervisors very quickly, whether or not there is substantial disagreement. Mr. Bowerman said that normally the staff takes the opinions of the public and incorporates as much of the information as possible, which does not present a problem, into the document. The staff then brings back to this Board those things which the staff thinks are significant and which need some direction from this Board. He was unsure if the staff had already done this with the Open Space Plan, and he said that this was the only reason that he brought up the matter. Ms. Scala said the Agricultural and Forestal Resource Advisory Committee was mentioned in the letter from the Citizens for Albemarle, but the Open Space Plan does not specifically talk about that Committee. She thinks the Committee has been mentioned because it is a way to preserve agricultural and forestal land. She stated that in the Comprehensive Plan, it was mentioned as a means to further promote industry. She said there are two ways to look at this Committee, and that is why it was not mentioned in the Open Space Plan. She added that the staff plans to form this Committee soon, but the staff has always looked at the Committee as a way to promote agricultural and forestal land. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Citizens for Albemarle organization might recommend to the Commission and this Board that there be an official County fair grounds, and this would become a recommendation with which the Commission members and supervisors would have to deal. June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B. (Page 3) Mr. Marshall commented that he wished there was more input from the public. He thinks there is a large segment of this community that is unaware of what this document will do to them, and he believes that it will have a definite impact upon them. He has not seen anybody present at these meetings about the Open Space Plan, except special interest groups. He is concerned about that. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Marshall to whom he is referring. Mr. Marshall replied that he is talking about the working man who is on the job now, and has no idea what is going on. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Marshall what he sees in the Open Space Plan that addresses his concerns. Mr. Marshall responded that he is concerned about the whole document. Once this document is enacted, it will be viewed as law. He said that in the past, this Board has taken the Compre- hensive Plan to be law, and not a guide. He is concerned that this Open Space Plan might become the same thing. Someone else said earlier the Open Space Plan was a guide, and Mr~ Marshall agreed that-this is all it should be. Mr. Bain answered that the law says that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide. He stated that he has never known a Board member to look at the Comprehensive Plan as anything other than a guide. Mr. Marshall remarked that he will stand by what he said. He wished there was more input from the public, so he could hear more of their concerns. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marshall if he knows how incorporating the Open Space Plan into the Comprehensive Plan would affect him, personally, as a major landowner in a rural area of the County. Mr. Bowerman also wondered how specific application of this part of the Comprehensive Plan in a rezoning request or subdivision request could affect Mr. Marshall. Mr. Marshall responded that, since he has no desire to subdivide his land at this particu- lar time, it would not affect him at all. He added, though, that when he dies, it will definitely affect his wife. Mr. Bowerman next inquired if Mr. Marshall noticed anything in particular that raised specific questions in his mind when he reviewed the Open Space Plan. Mr. Marshall answered that he is frightened of the whole document. He tried to schedule a meeting yesterday with Mr. Lindstrom, so that he could review the Open Space Plan with him, but Mr. Lindstrom had to leave town. He stated that until he can go through the Open Space Plan in depth with Mr. Lindstrom, he will not support it at all. Mr. St. John suggested that there should be a synopsis of what will happen next, assuming the Open Space Plan is enacted and put into place. In his mind there are two separate directions of effect that this amendment will have on the Comprehensive Plan. First, this Board will have to make a decision as to whether or not the governing body will take certain general steps to make changes in the Zoning Ordinance, for example, for mountain protection. He said the Open Space Plan is a comprehensive change to the Zoning Ordinance, because it will mean that a new chapter is being added. He added that certain things will occur from adding this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, if it goes forward as envisioned. He commented that there will be public hearings held, and this Board may or may not enact a Mountain Overlay Protection Ordinance, but in the normal course of events, it will come before this Board for debate. Secondly, he said general actions such as an ordinance to make clustering mandatory might come before this Board, and the idea of acquiring open space might be a matter for this Board to consider, with a question of where the money is coming from and how much money is involved. He stated that the other category of effect that this will have immediately upon its being enacted into the Comprehensive Plan will be when individual requests by landowners for up zoning are considered. He does not think that down zoning is being considered in this plan. He commented, however, that when individual requests for up zoning are considered, that is discretionary zoning, and it is not by-right development. Mr. St. John stated that once this amendment is put into the Comprehen- sive Plan, the paragraph that Mr. Blaine has suggested, will come into play. He went on to say that this element of open space has become something that this Board will consider in a rezoning application once it is put into the Comprehensive Plan. He recalled that the supervisors had discussed a para- graph from Mr. Blaine's letter at the last meeting relating to balancing the need for housing and industry, etc., and the element for the need for open space. Me said that the plan, in that sense, would be self-executing, and he noted that there will be maps to accompany the text along with the Comprehen- sive Plan. He went on to say that the new ordinance will not be self-execut- ing, but he would think that the Board's consideration of this element would start taking effect immediately when individual requests are considered for up zoning. Mr. Bowerman responded that Mr. St. John's comments are identical to a matter which the Board will consider tonight, except the circumstances are totally different. He mentioned that this Board will consider a Zoning Text Amendment tonight, which in the review that staff made, was not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that if someone applies for a zoning text change before a rezoning request, this Board has to use the Comprehensive Plan in its consideration of that specific request. Mr. St. John replied that this is exactly what he is saying. He added that the supervisors would have to consider this issue as soon as the amend- ment is put into the Comprehensive Plan. He went on to say that the Board could not wait for a new ordinance before considering such things. He noted, however, that this proposal does call for consideration of new ordinances. He June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) 54.B. (page 4) pointed out that public hearings would have to be held on those matters which are not self-executing. Mr. Bain remarked that he believes one of Mr. Marshall's concerns is that the amendment and Comprehensive Plan will be self-executing. He said that it is not self-executing, and he explained that any new ordinance will have to have public hearings by the Commission and this Board, as well as debate. He agreed with Mr. St. John that a new ordinance might not be adopted by this Board, whether or not it involves a mountain top or a mandatory cluster situation. He reiterated that this Board may decide, after debate and consideration, that the benefits are not there to overcome the detriments. He sees the Open Space Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, in general, and yet, there are things in it that this Board is asking the staff to examine on new rezonings or up zonings of property located in growth areas or some of the rural areas. He said the Board would consider such things at that time, but that is in--the future. He added-that Mr. Marshall's concern about more public input will'happen at the time that up zoning meetings are held. He emphasized that this is a very general document. He believes landowners reading it, unless they are developers, will see it as being general in nature, just as the Comprehensive Plan. He went on to say that until landowners see a new ordinance or an amendment to an existing ordinance that gets into specifics, they are not going to have the interest that they will have unless something is affecting them. Mr. Bain explained that at the time new ordinances are considered, the people can see that it certainly will or will not affect them. Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. St. John that a synopsis of the Open Space Plan would be good. He would like to see certain examples shown as to what the effect of the plan will be. He noted that he is just an ordinary citizen, and he finds it very difficult for this proposed amendment to hold his interest. Some things he reads are very interesting, and he can comprehend them. He added, however, that it is difficult for him to grasp everything that is written in this amendment, the whole Comprehensive Plan, and the manual. It is hard for him to know what he is talking about, and he pointed out that he is representing the public. The fact that he does not know what he is talking about is frightening to him. The County has a large bureaucrat- ic structure which is responsible for all of these things, but most of the people in the County do not understand the written material. Mr. Bain next recalled an amendment which this Board started reviewing in 1987, but did not adopt until 1989 or 1990. He emphasized that he is speaking about an amendment, and not the original Comprehensive Plan. He added that the staff worked with the Commission a year or 18 months to amend the Compre- hensive Plan. He said the staff met weekly with the Commission, and then the amendment came before this Board, and this Board spent nine months working on it. He pointed out that the supervisors had numerous work sessions, as well as public hearings, and this was just to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out, also, to Mr. Marshall that nobody understands the Comprehensive Plan or amendments in one reading. He said this Board, the Commission, the staff and the public spend a lot of time going over the issues, and it is an ongoing process. He noted that it is mandatory that the Comprehensive Plan be reviewed every five years. He stated that the Commisszon and staff, beginning in January, will start reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, again. He noted that Albemarle County has tried to, at least, review parts of the Comprehensive Plan on a yearly basis, but the whole document has to be reviewed every five years. He said the Comprehensive Plan is a big document, and it says a lot. Mr. Marshall commented that the average person does not understand what the Comprehensive Plan is all about, until that person buys a piece of land and tries to do something with it. He wondered if County officials are making it so difficult that a poor man cannot live in Albemarle County. He said that a person buying property is going to have to have a group of lawyers to inform him whether or not to sign a contract for a piece of property. Mr. Martin remarked that he has a lot of the same concerns as Mr. Marshall, in terms of how the amendment will affect the affordability of housing, etc., and whether or not middle class people are being driven from Albemarle County. He sees this document, however, as describing some things that County officials are going to consider. He went on to say that matters are considered to find out what type of impact these particular things will have on open space. He said all this means is that the Board has considered the issue, and then, possibly during the next year, this Board will take the next step. He emphasized, though, that he looks at this amendment as a way for this Board to consider what impact particular projects will have on open space, etc. He then posed certain questions to try to explain how this amendment should be viewed. He asked what this Board will do after a project is considered, and if the amendment means that a particular project cannot be done. He answered his own question by saying that this document is not saying that. He asked if this document implies that more money will be involved. He answered, "no." He asked if it means that the Comprehensive Plan has to be changed. He added that this is not being indicated. He said that if changes are required, they will be developed in the future, because, at this particu- lar time, the Board is just considering certain things. He added that this is how he views this document, and, from that perspective, Mr. Martin stated that he thinks the document is harmless. Mr. Marshall responded that Mr. Bowerman has implied the same thing as Mr. Martin, which is that affordable housing, jobs in this community and June 10g 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 195 (Page 5) zoning have to be considered. He said that if this Board will consider all three of these things when the vote is taken, then he feels safe voting in favor of the motion, because there are at least three people on this Board who will be thinking along the same lines. Mr. Bain said that he is sure the other Board members are thinking the same thing, also. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that watershed protection has an important determination in rezoning requests and for development in watershed areas. He stated this is one of the criteria, when someone comes in with a subdivision plan in the rural areas, which is considered in terms of a recommendation to this BOard. All that is being said about this amendment is that open space and critical resources are an area of interest to the supervisors and to the citizens of the County, and the supervisors have an interest in preserving those open space areas which need to be preserved. He noted that when the supervisors review a zoning application or a Zoning Text Amendment, all that the amendment is saying-.~is~that this is one of the criteria that the Planning staff reviews and which the Board is responsible to consider in that rezonlng request, along with other things, such as low cost housing. He pointed out that there is a Housing Committee which makes recommendations, and consider- ation for economic development has to be reviewed, along with trying to get growth in the urban areas, and to have a lack of it in the rural areas. He said that all of these things become a part of every decision this Board makes, and this open space amendment just broadens the things that are considered by this Board, in terms of what is of interest and importance to this community. Mr. Martin stated that, at some point, this Board will probably enact ordinances that will enforce parts of this amendment or, on the other hand, this Board may not enact such ordinances. He added that, currently, the only thing the proposed amendment does is bring open space and critical resources to the Board's attention. He reiterated that there is nothing to indicate what the Board will do, after the amendment is considered. Mr. Marshall commented that he feels compelled to study every word that is written in the proposed amendment, because he is concerned that there will be something written in it that will be detrimental to someone. He said, though, that he realizes the Board cannot please everyone. He asked if the other Board members understand what he is trying to say. Mr. Bain replied that he thinks the other supervisors understand what Mr. Marshall is saying. Mr. Bain then gave an example of what happened when this Board adopted the cluster provision that is now in the Zoning Ordinance. He mentioned that there could be a 30-acre tract of land with six development rights, which would amount to six two-acre lots, with the remainder of the property in open space. He said that now, since the County has had some experience with clustering, the Board is considering whether or not it is important enough, after looking at open space, critical resources and econom- ics, to change this cluster provision from a voluntary provision to a mandato- ry one. He added that the clustering provision is important because it saves the developers some money when they are building subdivisions, but, in addition, there has to be consideration given as to whether or not it is important to the County for the preservation of open space and mountain top protection. He then mentioned a place near Ragged Mountain, where he said the developer, at first, had a plan that did not include clustering. He noted, though, that when the developer looked at the cost and expenses and the roads that would have to be built, the developer came back to this Board voluntari- ly, with a different plan, because it saved money and protected mountain tops. He pointed out that the developer's plan was not even included in the ordi- nance, but it was beneficial to the developer economically. He said the Board will consider the importance of an amendment, and whether or not it should be made mandatory, when it seems to be cost effective to the development communi- ty and protective of the resources in the County. He added that then a debate will be held and all of these things will be weighed. Mr. Bowerman commented that the decision will probably be based on increasing the density in the urban area and allowing more industrial area for development. He said this should be part of a package, which, in total meets the best interest of all of the citizens in Albemarle County. He added that all of these factors need to be considered together and not separately from one another. Mr. Marshall stated that if this amendment will achieve everything to which Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowerman referred, he will be happy. Mr. Bain reiterated that each amendment has to be considered. He thinks this Board, as in the past, will continue to think about an amendment's effect totally on the whole County. Mr. Marshall mentioned a situation in his district where an individual had a piece of property with eight development rights. He said this particu- lar person sold 25 acres, but he kept the eight development rights himself, when he sold the 25 acres. He noted that the individual who bought the 25 acres now wants to build two houses for each of his daughters on this proper- ty. He said this person bought the piece of land for this purpose, but now he finds that this cannot be done. Mr. Marshall predicted that this problem will constantly be before the supervisors. He wondered what will the supervisors do, when they have to make such a decision. He asked if the man will be allowed to build the two houses, or will he be told that he can only put one June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 6) M.B. 41, Pg. 196 house on the 25 acres. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the person, to which Mr. Marshall referred, bought this property with the understanding that it was not dividable. Mr. Marshall responded that the person claims that when he bought this property, he did not understand that the property could not be divided. He went on to say that he (Mr. Marshall) has, personally, seen such a state- ment written into the deed. He added, though, that this individual relied on attorneys to find out this information for him. Mr. Bowerman stated that all of this information is available to everyone when they buy property, and the price of the property is based on it. Mr. Perkins commented that some of the language in this amendment concerns him, because it gets specific, at times. He added that this Board has different groups giving their points of view, but he thinks the group which has been the most affected, has been the least vocal. He said that only the letter from the Farm Bureau has expressed this group's concerns. He gave a similarity between himself and ~the citizens of Albemarle County by saying that he would like to share in the Rockefeller Foundation's inheritance. He noted, though, that he does not have anything to do with that, and he stated that it seems to him that the County officials are taking away the rights of the people who own this land, and that the County officials have a share of the County citizens' inheritance. He said County officials really do not have a share of this inheritance, but they can make laws and regulations that affect the citizens' inheritances. He said that some people want this amendment to have more strength, and some people want it to have less. He pointed out that there are specific plans in the amendment for controlling the density of development and the extent of forestry activities. He has seen previously that once something gets printed, it becomes a mandate that this Board approves. He reiterated that this part of the amendment concerns him, but he does not know how such things can be eliminated. He said it seems that this Board needs to control everything, and he does not think that this is necessary. He believes that incentives are needed for this amendment, rather than taking things away from the citizens. He went on to say that if there is going to be an amendment toward mandatory clustering, then why not give the citizens two more rights for every ten that they have, so that the mandatory clustering can be done. He added that there are specific areas in this amendment that he will need to discuss, as the Board works through the plan. Mr. Bain suggested that the Board go through the plan page by page. He said this is what the work session is all about. He added that decisions do not have to be made today, but all of the Board members can express their views, so that they can be considered. He asked Mr. Bowerman if this is what he had in mind. Mr. Tucker commented that the first 31 pages are, basically, existing data, techniques, uses and resources that the County already has. He said that these 31 pages identify, in one location, the County's techniques and methods that are currently in place for preserving open space. He said the Board members can discuss this first part of the proposed plan, if they want to do so, but they really need to start with Page 32, where the amendment begins to relate to potential techniques and actual recommendations. Mr. Perkins responded that he has some questions pertaining to the first 31 pages, also. Mr. Tucker replied that is fine. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he had not thought it would be necessary to discuss every page. Mr. Bain stated that he did not think it would be necessary to go through every page, because Mr. Tucker had already indicated that the action, with which this Board needs to be concerned, is at the end of the document. He believes, however, that it is worthwhile to go through the document, if the supervisors have questions, comments and concerns. At this time, Mr. Bowerman suggested that the supervisors begin their discussion. Mr. Bain called attention to the last sentence in the first paragraph of Page Four, where he said there was a spelling error. He said the word, "compliments," shown in this sentence, should be changed to, "complements,"and he said this word needs to be corrected in several other places in the document. Mr. Perkins mentioned the use of the terms, "preservation" and "conserva- tion'' on Page Seven. He said these terms are used interchangeably. He wondered if the terms mean the same thing, and if they do not, he asked what is the difference between the two words. He noted that his definition of the word, "conservation," is the wise use of natural resources. He said the meaning of the word, "preservation," is to keep the natural resources as they are. He is unsure how the staff meant for these words to relate to open space. He added, though, that open space is the same whether it is an open field or a dense forest. Ms. Scala replied that staff agrees with Mr. Perkins definition of the words, "conservation," and "preservation." She said the word, "conservation," used in relation to the rural areas, relates to conserving the land to be used for the agricultural and forestal industry. She stated this is indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, and it is certainly the intent with the Open Space Plan. She reiterated that the intent is to make active use of the land for June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B. Pg. 197 (Page 7) farming and forestry purposes. She next indicated that the idea is for the preservation of open space in the growth areas because, when development is encouraged, the areas of open space will be very specific, such as the Rivanna Greenway. She said these areas will be used specifically for such things as recreational purposes. She added that these open spaces are intended to be left in their natural state. She emphasized that staff does intend to make a difference between the words, "preservation," and "conservation." Mr. Benish called attention to the fact that the last sentence on Page Seven is underlined. He said this sentence notes that clearing of land for agricultural and forestal purposes is in the staff's mind, and, it is consis- tent with the Open Space Plan, which would allow this resource to be utilized. Next, Mr. Perkins mentioned the first paragraph on Page Eight, and said he thinks this whole paragraph should be eliminated. He believes the agricul- tural and forestal prac~ices-~estrict~ions should be left.to-the appropriate State and Federal agencies which oversee compliance with the Best Management Plans. He said that County restrictions would discourage agricultural and forestal activities, and would probably violate the State's Dillon Rule. He emphasized that the Virginia Department of Forestry is a large organization, and it oversees forestry activities in the State. He noted that the State also has cost sharing programs, etc., and there are several State and Federal agencies which are in place to help farmers to farm better. He does not think the County should get involved, at this particular time. Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Perkins has indicated that County officials cannot prevent clear-cutting, anyway. Mr. Bain read the last sentence of the paragraph, to which Mr. Perkins referred, to the supervisors. He said this sentence recommends further study of the visual and environmental impacts of forestry activities on mountains, and consideration of those findings in the Mountain Protection District. He sees the whole paragraph leading to this particular sentence, which indicates that this issue will be studied and considered. Mr. Marshall stated that this document needs to include the definition of the word, "mountain," and he wondered if he, personally, lives on top of a mountain or hill. Mr. St. John remarked that a mountain is defined in the proposed ordinance. He also noted that topographies are involved with elevations, etc. Ms. Scala responded that every mountain is given a contour. Mr. St. John commented that a Mountain Protection Ordinance will have details of mountains included. Mr. Marshall was concerned that some people might want to build a house on what they consider a hill, but they might find out that the County ordi- nance has defined the area as a mountain. Ms. Scala emphasized that mountains are defined, beginning on Page 17. She said they are also shown on the large map with purple lines around them. She noted that the contour was chosen for each mountain by enclosing as many of the critical slopes as possible. She stated that the line was drawn on a contour above which most of the critical slopes were located. She said the idea is that this is the point in which, environmentally, the mountain becomes more sensitive and also, visually, the mountain becomes more important as the land begins to rise steeply. Mr. Marshall asked if he could have built his house in the same location, if this ordinance had been in effect at that time. Ms. Scala and Mr. Perkins replied, "no." Mr. Perkins-then changed his answer by saying that he believes Mr. Marshall would have been allowed to build his house where it is currently located. Mr. Bowerman commented that the proposed amendment would not allow 15 houses to be built along the top of the mountain. He then asked if the County would have authority to do anything in an overlay district which is prevented by the State government. Mr. Bain replied that the County does not have the power to affect clear-cutting under the State law. Mr. St. John stated that this has been discussed before by this Board, and he noted that not just the Dillon Rule is involved. In his opinion, if there is an area that is designated for forests, then he does not believe the County can supersede or exceed the State or the Virginia Division of Fores- try's regulations. He said this is a question of State pre-emption of the law, and he noted that this is different from the Dillon Rule. He went on to say that the County, within reason, can control development on mountains, and he thinks this is the primary purpose of the Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said when you go beyond this ordinance and prescribe rules for Best Management Practices for forestry operations, then he thinks this is one step beyond the County's power. He does not think the County can prevent clear- cutting or any other kind of operation that is permitted and approved by the Division of Forestry, once an area has been designated as an area in which forestry is encouraged. Mr. Bain read from Paragraph One on Page Eight, and he said he thinks the language in this amendment is addressing Mr. St. John's comments. Mr. St. John emphasized that the County does not have any legitimate business in debating the virtues and vices of clear-cutting, because it is something that will have to be debated with the Division of Forestry. He reiterated that this is not a subject for this Board to debate. June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B. (Page 8) Mr. Martin stated that he believes Mr. Perkins is asking why the pros and cons need to be put into this plan, when they are not debatable. Mr. Bain responded that the language in the plan is just a general statement. He added that perhaps the last sentence could be reworked, but he said it depends on what will be allowed in the mountain protection district. He wondered if this district is going to be limited specifically to what will be allowed in terms of development. Mr. Perkins commented that State regulation controls will be placed on mountain tops, anyway. He is not in favor of a person building a white house on top of a mountain, but he is not sure how to encourage people to use earth tones. He noted that if only one house is put on a mountain top, just about any kind of road can be used. He stated, though, that after three or more houses are built, roads have to be built to certain standards. He added that in that type of terrain, the cost of the road is so prohibitive, that the chances of this much development on a mountain topare slim. Mr. St. John remarked that in Roanoke, Nashville, or Chattanooga, Tennessee, where Lookout Mountain is located, there are plenty of people who will pay the money necessary for development on these mountains. He said these places are choice sites. He thinks this is a legitimate subject for zoning, but he does not think that such things as clear-cutting are appropri- ate subjects for this Board to discuss. Mr. Perkins mentioned that building cannot take place on slopes more than 25 percent. Mr. Bowerman responded that building can take place on slopes more than 25 percent, if a variance is issued. Mr. Bain commented that building can take place on top of the mountain, because there may be only slopes of 18 percent or less, but the mountain will have to be disturbed for this to take place. Mr. Bowerman stated that if, in the public interest, County government officials are concerned about the visual impact and the visual appearance of mountainsides, as far as tourists and residents are concerned, then he thinks it is important to include this terminology. He went on to say that if it is not an issue, then he thinks this is something that this Board needs to determine. He stated that the plan is indicating that these are legitimate concerns. Mr. Bain stated that he can accept the staff changing the language of the proposed amendment, and he understands why Mr. Perkins is wondering why the language is included, if this Board cannot affect the activities involved. He noted that maybe the fact that this is a general statement should be more emphasized, and the language should indicate that the Board is not attempting to do such things with this ordinance, or at any time in the future. Mr. Benish remarked that he did not know to what extent an ordinance could have incentives or bonuses included to encourage the industry potential, and he does not know the ability that the County would have to implement those in an overlay district. He said an ordinance would not have to be entirely restrictive, if density bonuses are used. He added that the staff has not explored this matter. Ms. Scala commented that clear-cutting was mentioned in the paragraph, to which Mr. Perkins referred, because sometimes there has to be a distinction between forestry and residential areas. She added that if it is true the County does not have any control over forestry operations, then maybe this issue does not need to be discussed. She went on to say that the staff was not writing a Mountain Protection Ordinance, at this point. She said the staff was trying to identify things that might be issues in the ordinance so that they could be discussed in general terms. She stated that one thing which was discussed was whether or not the County could prohibit clearing around a residence, even though clear-cutting could not be prohibited. She stated that this matter was questionable during the staff's discussions, and the staff felt it was an area that needed to be addressed by this Board, before the ordinance is developed. She reiterated this is why it is mentioned in this paragraph. Mr. Benish stated that the paragraph could be eliminated, because the discussion will be held at some point. Mr. Bowerman stated this was the staff's way to be on the record that it has looked at the question of clear-cutting and did determine that there was a difference between clear-cutting for development and clear-cutting for agricultural and forestal uses. He said the staff is setting a groundwork for this matter. Ms. Scala responded that the staff is indicating it needs to be deter- mined whether there is a difference between clear-cutting for forestry and residential purposes. She noted that staff ~s raising it as an issue, but the did not decide anything in this paragraph. She emphasized that staff certain- ly did not say it is recommending a regulation to prohibit clear-cutting. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates the opposite, because it promotes forestry operations. She reiterated that if a Mountain Protection Ordinance is developed, this is one thing that needs to be determined, and that is why it is mentioned in this plan. June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B., 41, Pg. 199 (Page 9) Mr. Tucker remarked that this is already addressed in the recommendations on the potential techniques. He said this is another reason the sentence is not needed at this point, because it is already mentioned later. Mr. Bain stated he understands what the staff is saying. He mentioned that he has, personally, developed some covenants for a certain subdivision which address these kinds of issues. He said the County staff suggested the wooded areas not be fenced and they should be maintained, so the wildlife could continue to use the whole area. He went on to say that part of this subdivision is on a mountain. He emphasized that he was not involved with this matter, and he stated the staff worked directly with the developer. He noted that the developer is happy with the arrangement, even though this regulation is not in any of the ordinances. He said this is not only going to be beneficial to the public, but it will be beneficial to the people who will live there. Mr. St. John mentioned that there is another thing which leans toward leaving the statement in the amendment, at least, temporarily. He said the staff is saying there are certain high priority areas in this plan where preservation rather than conservation is needed. He stated this means that there are certain areas where it might be desirable not to designate them for forestry, per se. He noted that this is already the case in growth areas and certain zones where trees cannot be cut. He thinks the staff is saying that there are certain high priority areas where consideration will be given to leaving these areas open to forestry, in its entirety. He believes this can be done. He said this is not necessarily accomplished through regulations. He added that Ms. Scala has put together a group of alternatives, and one alternative relates to acquiring easements and properties. He said one idea is to buy the high priority areas which are designated and are now located on mountain tops, to keep people from clear-cutting them. He went on to say that this is an option which may not be accomplished solely through the Mountain Preservation Ordinance. He mentioned that on Page Eight, the staff is not addressing the Mountain Preservation Ordinance, alone. He asked Ms. Scala if he is correct. Ms. Scala agreed that Page Eight relates to more of a general discussion. Mr. St. John commented that this statement is not the first step in taking anyone's rights away. He reiterated this statement is an indication that there are certain high priority areas, which should be studied. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Keeler, Chief of Planning, had something to say. Mr. Keeler replied that he thinks Mr. St. John has already made this point. He said the plan is a guide, and the staff will have more specific recommendations in the future. He noted that the mountain top protection discussion points out the fact that there are not going to be simple solutions to some of these issues. He gave an example by saying that if he owns 100 acres in a mountain protection area; he can clear cut it. He noted that when he applies for a building permit to build a house on that property, the obvious best way to allow development within this area in a visually compati- ble manner, is to preserve the trees around it. He said if he has the right on Monday to cut those trees, but he comes to the County office on Tuesday to get a building permit, then all of this is lost. He said this is part of the difficulty of trying to deal with some of the issues that are in the Open Space Plan, and he thinks the supervisors can appreciate this fact. He emphasized his comments by saying that Mr. Smith is a forester, so he can cut the trees, but Mr. Jones is going to build a home, so he cannot cut the trees. Mr. Keeler asked how this issue can effectively be controlled. Mr. Perkins mentioned that there is usually more high grading done on steep slopes than clear-cutting. He said the logger will cut out the best timber on these steep slopes, and he will leave everything else. He said usually clear-cutting is done only on land that has a better terrain, and what is not removed, is burned or gotten rid of in some manner, so that reseeding, etc., can be done. He stated that there has been a lot of timber cutting on mountains, but he would not call it clear-cutting. He said it is usually a selective cut, and the logger does the selecting. Mr. St. John remarked that if he owned the land, he would rather have it clear-cut. He said that selectively cut property looks good at a distance, but, at close range, it is not attractive. He added that it is almost impossible to walk through most of these places. Mr. Perkins agreed. He said usually, after selective cutting, the only trees that are left are the species which are not in high demand, such as Maples, Black Gums and Hickories, etc. He mentioned that a.man who owned some land near Crozet had told him he had his property logged in the 1930's, and all that was left were Black Gums and Hickories. He added that the man said the next time the place is logged, the Black Gums and Hickories will probably be left again, because no one wants them. Mr. St. John stated that a good point has been made at this meeting, but he does not see why the paragraph cannot be left in the plan. He does not believe that the paragraph will result in encroachment. Mr. Perkins next called attention to the first paragraph on Page 20 where it appeared the paragraph was indicating that Loblolly and Virginia pines were hardwoods. He suggested the paragraph state: "The Soil Conservation Service District Conservationist has identified the best forestal soils in Albemarle June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) 54.B. Pg. 200 (page 10) County for the commercial production of various hardwoods and conifer spe- cies.'' He went on to say there is a list in the back of the plan which identifies the soils. Mr. Bain mentioned there is a list of soils shown on Page 14. He asked if the Soil Conservation Service personnel have reviewed this list with County staff. Ms. Scala responded that the list of soils was prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Bain then asked where the Fern Brook Natural Area is located. Ms. Scala answered that the Fern Brook Natural Area is near Stony Point on the North Fork of the Rivanna River. She said the property used to be owned by the Paschalls. Mr. Marshall next mentioned that Monticello officials are concerned about the management of the property on Browns Mountain because they have 40 apartments located there. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the property to which Mr. Bain referred is different from the Browns Mountain~'property spoken of by Mr. Marshall. ' Mr. Marshall then wondered, if the Open Space Plan is approved, what will happen to the apartments on Browns Mountain. He asked if these apartments could be rebuilt, if there was another fire there. Mr. Tucker replied that, as a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance, the apartments on Browns Mountain could be rebuilt. Mr. Bain explained that it would be possible to rebuild the same number of apartments that are already located on Browns Mountain, if they were rebuilt within a certain time frame, but the project could not be expanded. Mr. Tucker concurred. Mr. Marshall wondered if the Open Space Plan would affect orchards on the tops of mountains. He mentioned that packing sheds, etc., are also located near the orchards. Mr. Tucker replied that sheds, etc., are in the category of accessory uses to agricultural activities. Mr. St. John noted that he believes these types of sheds are exempt even from the Building Code. Ms. Scala stated that the Mountain Protection Ordinance has not actually been formulated yet. She said it is not known, at this time, whether develop- ment can be prohibited above a certain contour, or whether it would just require architectural review of development above that contour. She added that this makes it hard for the staff to answer questions when Board members ask if certain things will be permitted. Mr. Marshall wondered if agricultural uses would be exempt from architec- tural review, such as building a packing shed. Mr. Benish replied that packing sheds could be exempt from architectural review, but he explained that the ordinance has not yet been drafted. Mr. Marshall commented that he is not against a Mountain Protection Ordinance. He is against apartments being built on top of mountains. Mr. Bain said this is the issue. He stated that the supervisors will need to know what can be controlled and what they want to be controlled. He said if this Board is given the right to control certain things, then the supervisors will have to decide how much control they actually want, and if they will go so far as to buy some of the property, so they can have more control. Mr. Keeler stated there is no draft for a Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said the staff's intent is to come to this Board for its guidance as to precisely what the supervisors want from protection districts. He does not intend to write an ordinance and bring it to this Board without the Board's guidance. He went on to say that if the supervisors want uses and goals of agricultural activities exempted, this can be done. He can write whatever type of ordinance the supervisors tell him they want. One of his concerns of even mentioning the Mountain Protection Ordinance in the Open Space Plan was this would be concluded as a solution to the protection of mountains. He remarked this is why there is wording in the Open Space Plan relating to complements with other approaches. He has already examined the areas that have been designated as mountain areas and has compared them to the tax maps. He found there are a lot of properties that are wholly within the mountain areas, so the staff will not be able to predict all development within the mountain districts. He reiterated that he will come back to this Board for guidance as to exactly what they want to accomplish with a Mountain Protection Ordinance, and what types of uses will be continued or established, and which ones should be curtailed and discouraged. Mr. Bowerman stated that beginning on Page 32, there are a number of potential preservation techniques. He asked if Board members had any ques- tions about these techniques. Mr. St. John wondered if the use of the term, "preservation" techniques, on Pages 32 and 34 is correct, or if it should be "conservation" techniques. Mr. Bowerman commented that the staff will be asked to look at both of these terms and to be consistent throughout the plan. Mr. Benish stated that both terms should be used, as far as techniques are concerned. Mrs. Humphris next called Ms. Scala's attention to a typographical error on the second line of the sixth bullet on Page 26. Mrs. Humphris said the word, "from," should be used, instead of "form." She then mentioned that in line five in the fourth paragraph on Page 32, the word, "that," should be used, instead of "than." June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) 54.B. Pg. 20! (page 11) Next, Mrs. Humphris asked Ms. Scala to add the word, "is," to the end of the third line in the second paragraph on Page 34. Mrs. Humphris then noted the word, "is," should be used instead of the word, "in," in the first line of the fifth paragraph on Page 36. Mr. Marshall asked what is meant by the words, "purchase by development right." He wondered who will be purchasing development rights. He did not know the supervisors had this power. Mr. St. John replied that the Virqinia Outdoors Foundation can go to a landowner and tell that person that if-he or she will have the development rights on that piece of property appraised, then that person will be given the appraised value. He added that another alternative would be for this person to take a tax deduction for donating open space either through the County or a Foundation. Mr. Marshall commented that, if this-is done, no ~one in the future can develop this property. Mr. St. John concurred. Mr. Marshall said this sounds good, but when it comes time to transfer development rights, there could be problems. Mr. Tucker said that development rights could not be transferred on this property. Mr. St. John explained that this is why development rights are taken from one place and then put on another piece of land. He said that with the purchase of development rights, they cannot be transferred to a different piece of property. He said those rights are extinguished when the property is purchased. Mr. Marshall commented that there is not a lot of difference between transferring and purchasing a piece of land. He said either way, that piece of land is still being taken out of development. Mr. Tucker responded that when land is being transferred, it is not being taken out of development. He said, instead, that piece of land is being shifted into another area. Mr. Marshall stated that he realizes that when land is being transferred, it is being shifted to a higher density. Mr. Bowerman commented that when land is transferred, it still has the same economic value. Mr. Perkins wondered if it is legal for land, which has conservation easements, to be exempt from local taxation, such as property taxes, or to be taxed at a lesser rate for County services. If he has no development rights on this property, and the land has a conservation easement, it would fall under land use taxation. He said that even with land use taxation, the property would probably not earn enough each year to pay for that. He asked if it would be possible, to encourage conservation easements, where the County would only tax the property one dollar a year, for instance, to cover fire control, police and such services. Mr. St. John answered that the basic rule is that everything has to be taxed at its fair market value,- as established by the County appraisers. He said there are statutory exceptions, however. He went on to say that one exception relates to charitable churches and institutions, and another exception is the land use tax. He reiterated that, except for these excep- tions, land has to be taxed at its fair market value. He reminded Board members that the land use taxes are acquired after the fair market value has been established. He stated that the fair market value of the land is shown in the records, anyway. He noted that in assessing the fair market value of a piece of land, the appraisers are going to look at its highest and best potential use. He went on to say that if development rights are given up, then that will have an effect on the fair market value, as far as what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller on the open market. He pointed out that land which has given up its development rights is certainly dimin- ished, so appraisers will consider this when they make an appraisal. He has dealt with a couple of cases where the fair market value was substantially lowered by an open space easement that was put on the property, but the land use value was still lower, so the actual tax on this land remains the same. He stated that if this land did not have land use taxation, the taxes would have been lowered substantially by giving up the development rights to it. Mr. Perkins said he believes Mr. St. John has answered his question, by saying that taxes on a piece of land without development rights, will be less than land use taxes. Mr. St. John stated that if the supervisors create a special category of low taxes for people who give up development rights, that would not be legal, and would require special legislation. Mr. Bain remarked that there is nothing to prevent the supervisors from asking for special legislation. Mr. Marshall stated that he does not want any part of trying to get such legislation. Mr. St. John agreed that he thinks it would be very difficult to get special legislation for a different tax category. He noted that people will be paid either through a tax deduction or in money for the development rights they are giving up, and even though the land does not have any more developz ment rights, it is still worth a certain amount of money. Mr. St. John reiterated that he does not think that it would be realistic to expect this kind of legislation. Mr. Perkins remarked that tax breaks would certainly be an enticement for people to have conservation easements on their properties. The land could be used for nothing but forestry purposes. Mr. Marshall noted that the people who live in high density areas will have higher taxes, because they will have to pay for all of the people who are June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B. Pg. 202 (page 12) getting tax breaks. Mr. Perkins responded that he does not believe many people would be willing to have conservation easements. Mr. St. John emphasized that people get paid when they have conservation easements. He said a piece of land without development rights is worth a certain amount of money, and land with development rights is worth more. In return for giving up the development rights, Mr. St. John said the owner gets a certain amount of money for the value of those development rights. He wondered how it could be justified to give the landowner more than the development rights were worth in the beginning. Mr. Perkins commented that the people he knows who have given up their development rights, have done it voluntarily, and have not gotten any compensation for it. Mr. Tucker remarked that Mr. Perkins is looking for an incentive to encourage people to put their land into conservation easements. Mr. St. John said Mr. Perkins is probabtylooking for a way that landowne~s~could get more by giving up development rights than they could by developing the land. Mr. St. John said he knows this cannot be done through a future reduction in taxes, under the present law, and he would be very skeptical about getting such legislation. He said the landowners would have to be paid more in the beginning than the development rights are really worth. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board members had any more comments about the potential techniques to protect open spaces. If not, Mr. Bowerman said the supervisors could move forward to recommendations, which begin on Page 40. Mr. Martin mentioned the Historical District Ordinance on Page 36. He added there would have to be more work done on this ordinance before he could support it. He then read number two at the bottom of Page 38, which states: "The Authority can investigate methods of funding open space acquisitions and long term management costs." He pointed out that the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, was shown as an example, and he is not supportive of Raleigh's method of funding open space acquisitions. He realizes, however, that this is not what is being proposed, at this time. Mr. St. John asked Ms. Scala if she envisions the references to Raleigh, North Carolina, etc., as being put into the Comprehensive Plan, or are they an appendage in what is shown as to how the amendment can be implemented. He did not believe a paragraph referring to Raleigh, North Carolina, would be put into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martin stated that he understands the intent, and that is why he is not making a big objection. He knows what the staff is trying to do by putting the paragraph there. He was just calling attention to the fact that he would never vote for anything such as the reference to Raleigh, North Carolina, if it was ever presented to this Board. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Benish noted that these are potential techniques to be considered. They indicated that these references were not recommendations, and would not be included in the actual plan. Mr. Tucker reported that staff has already started working on the Historical District Ordinance, to which Mr. Martin referred. He said this ordinance will be based on a draft developed by Citizens for Albemarle. He said the language can be changed to suit Board members. Mr. Martin responded that he has no desire to change the language. He was just calling attention to the two paragraphs to which he had referred. When he sees the real ordinance, if he has concerns, then he will voice them at that time. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board was ready to proceed with comments about the recommendations. Mr. Bain stated that the staff has incorporated the comments into the plan which have been received from other groups concerning the recommenda- tions. Mr. Bowerman agreed that the recommendations can be highlighted in places where the Board or others feel changes are appropriate. Next, Mr. Bain called attention to Number I, "Recommendations Under Current Comprehensive Plan," on Page 40. He asked if all of the recommenda- tions, short and long term, are under the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Scala replied that the idea was to distinguish the recommendations from Number II, ,,Recommendations Requiring Policy Changes," shown on Page 49. She said the staff wanted to emphasize that all of the recommendations, except for the last two are consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. She added that the last two recommendations are things that cannot be done under the current plan, and they should be discussed when the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, beginning next year. Mr. Bain wondered if the staff is suggesting that the last two recommen- dations be reviewed, before discussions begin, relating to amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish clarified Ms. Scala's comments by saying the recommendations shown on Page 40 relate to current policies which are outlined in the Compre- hensive Plan, so the staff is not recommending any changes that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives. He said June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) ~4.B.41, Pg.203 (Page 13) anything which would require a major change in County policy should be considered during the next Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to what would happen if the Board had a public hearing and adopted this amendment, and six months from now there was a rezoning application in a rural area. He asked if the criteria shown in this Open Space Plan would become some of the criteria the staff would review. Ms. Scala answered that if the Open Space Plan is adopted by this Board then the part of the plan shown under "Open Space Plan Maps" would be part of the criteria reviewed by staff. She said the staff would begin to use the maps right away. She added that for site development plans, the growth area maps would be used, and the concept maps and growth area maps would be used for the whole rural area and for any type of discretionary application. Mr. Bain mentioned ~hat the Fontaine-~Avenue project is shown on the agenda tonight. He has read the staff report, etc., which stated that the applicant worked closely with the County and City staffs to develop the project in accordance with some of the ordinances which have not even been developed yet. He then read from Page 41 where it stated that, "if a site is affected by significant resources which are protected by ordinance, the applicant should delineate certain things". He wondered if the applicant has not already done some of these things with the Fontaine Avenue project, even though it is not something the applicant is legally bound to do. He said the Engineering Department personnel and the applicant must have felt it was important that some things be done in terms of the overall project. He asked if this is a fair statement. Mr. Benish answered, "yes." He could give the Board two examples of how the maps will be utilized, and how the staff has already used the draft form of this plan, just to advise people. Board members asked Mr. Benish for these examples. Mr. Benish stated that one example relates to a property on Pantops Mountain. He said the staff has had preliminary discussions with the develop- ers and has shown the developers maps and considered the important areas to delineate and has indicated on the composite map the areas that are important for the County to protect. He pointed out that these areas are the stream valleys and critical slope areas. These developers now know what the staff is interested in, from a protection standpoint of open space, and are using that in the development of their plan. He noted that the developers' plan had already reflected certain areas which the staff had determined to be important in the Open Space Plan. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Benish is referring to the Glenmore property on Route 250 East. Mr. Benish answered, "no." He is speaking of the Worrell property to the east of the State Farm building. He added that the property is bounded by Interstate 64 and Route 250 East. He went on to say that he could also tell the supervisors what happened with phase one of Mill Creek, which is a development that occurred before the staff had completed the inventory of open space. He said, as the staff went through the process of approving the project, the important areas to protect were determined in negotiations with the developer, such as the stream valley areas of that property. He pointed out the residential areas and the industrial areas of the property on the map. He went on to say the Board can see that the staff has gone through the inventory of the critical areas and has come up with a composite map of areas that are of interest to protect. He reiterated that the stream valley areas were chosen as the ~mportant areas, and they were designated as open space. He mentioned that critical slopes and stream valley areas on Biscuit Run, which bordered the Mill Creek One property, were not proposed for development under the PUD, and he believes these areas are also dedicated to open space. He noted that the staff had also indicated a buffer area should be provided between the industrially designated properties to the north and the residential properties to the south. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Benish to point out the Fontaine Avenue site. Mr. Benish stated that the staff indicated to the developers of the Fontaine Avenue site that the stream valley, adjacent wetland areas and the buffer areas along the entrance corridors of Interstate 64 and Route 29 were important. He said the development does protect those areas. He believes that a pond is planned for one of the areas, but it will still stay as open space. Mr. Mart~n remarked that it seems to him, at this time, those areas are just being identified, since maps are now available. He stated that if the Board was to follow through with the I-A recommendation of the Open Space Plan, basically, this Board would be requiring that developers identify certain areas and present them to the County officials. He then wondered what the next step would be. He asked if just voluntary respect for these areas will be encouraged or will something be mandated. Mr. Bain commented that Mill Creek is a Planned Unit Development, and already included in the ordznance is the regulation that Mill Creek must have a certain percentage of the acreage ~n open space. He said the developers cannot build in the stream valley areas, so they get credit for putting open space in the areas shown on the maps. Mr. Martin agreed. He reiterated, though, that the only thing occurring now is the identification of areas of importance, and at this point, it is June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 204 (Page 14) strictly a voluntary situation. He said whether or not it will be voluntary, mandatory or impossible will be decided at a later time. Mr. Bain responded that, in a sense, Mr. Martin is correct. He stated that developers cannot voluntarily do certain things. He said the County ordinances would never allow building anything over a stream. Mr. Martin concurred. He added that a new list is being identified, and some things will overlap with previous ordinances. He noted that some things have already been identified as important and regulations have been made to prevent certain things from being done. Mr. perkins commented that now all areas will be identified, and develop- ers will have a better idea of what is important to the County when they are going through the planning process. . ..... Mr. Benish stated that, now, the staff has established a map which identifies the critical areas, instead of trying to identify them on an individual basis. He said when individual sites are considered, different staffs, as time goes on, could interpret things differently. He stated that a developer coming into the County to look at this map can see the areas of interest. He noted that in discretionary legislative reviews, special use permits and rezonings, if a person did not want to protect certain areas the staff has defined, then it would be left up to the Commission and this Board to evaluate the importance of protecting those areas. He pointed out that this Board would ultimately decide what is the most important in these discre- tionary areas. He added that at least the staff has indicated on a map, what it feels is important, from an open space perspective. Mrs. Humphris noted that it is also important for a developer to see the map before the land is purchased. Mr. Bowerman remarked that this allows a certain predictability to the process, which he says is one of the criticisms this. Board has heard in the past. Mr. Martin commented that he thinks this recommendation for the maps is great, and it needs to be done. His only concern will be spoken some time in the future, when actual ordinances are presented to the supervisors, which could prevent people from doing certain things. Mr. Bain called attention to number three at the bottom of Page 41, relating to a mandatory cluster provIsion within growth areas. He said one of the problems which he had mentioned with Forest Lakes South, is that zoning in the ComprehensIve Plan calls for slx to ten units in a certain area, but the developer only put in two units. He said this is not a real effective use of the growth area, because the area will fill up more quickly. He added that this means the area will be expanded because the density is not taking place that is really desired. He thinks this is something that needs consideration, although, this Open Space Plan does not make the regulations stricter. He asked if growth areas are going to keep on expanding because the desired density is not happening. He noted that market forces come into play, too. He recalled that the Forest Lakes representatives stated people would not buy the houses in high density areas, because they want the single family home on a two acre or one-half acre piece of property, and they will not buy anything smaller. Mr. Bowerman commented this Board needs another work session on the Open Space Plan. He said this work session will involve the staff's review of the letters that have been received, and the staff will need to ask this Board for its counsel in terms of what should and should not be included. He said the information from the letters should be presented to this Board in such a way that the supervisors can readily discern the comments made by the different groups of people and how the comments impact the Open Space Plan. He suggest- ed the work session be set for the July 1, 1992, day meeting. Mr. Bain suggested the public hearing on the Open Space Plan be set for July 15, 1992, s~nce August does not seem to be a good month for meeting attendance. Mrs. Humphris agreed that it would be good to have a public hearing on the Open Space Plan in July. She and Mr. Bain concurred that this would allow enough time, in case another public hearing on this same issue is necessary. At this time, Mr. Bain made motion to set a public hearing on July 15, 1992, for the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan amendment to the Compre- hensive Plan. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. June 10, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) 54.B. 41~Pg. 205 (Page 15) Roll was called,, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. Executive Session: Personnel. At 6:00 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the supervisors go into Executive Session for personnel matters ~elating to the discussion of the at-large applicants for the School Board. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins,~Bain, "B°werman' Mrs. Humphris~ Mr~ Marshall and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 P.M. Chairman