Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 11 77 PC Minutes/ �41 October 11, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, October 11, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice - Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were Mr. Paul Peatross and Mr. Leslie Jones. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. to order. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting SP-77-65. Evernghim Blake: At the request of the staff, Mr. Easter moved any discussion and action be deferred indefinitely until the necessary engineering data is presented to the County Engineer for review. The motion seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously, with no discussion. SP-77-66. Evernghim Blake: At the request of the staff, Mr. Easter moved any discussion and action be deferred indefinitely until the necessary engineering data is presented to the County Engineer for review. The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously with no discussion. SP-77-67. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority: At the request of the applicant, Mr. Easter moved that the Commission accept the request for withdrawal without prejudice. The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously with no discussion. ZMA-77-21. Joseph W. Wright, Jr., and Frank A. Kessler: At the request of the applicant, Mr. Easter moved that the Commission defer any discussion and action on the request until October 18, 1977. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously with no discussion. Ivy Farm Phase I - eight lots, average size, 3.0 acres: Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room. 177 Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the request had been deferred in order to investigate the possibility of a Hessian cemetery on this site. She noted that the staff has obtained the following information: 1. BY walking the site, between Ivy Farm Drive and the drainage easement on lots 40 and 41, there are possible evidences of graves in the form of indentations, unmarked fieldstones and periwinkle. 2. A grave was uncovered on lot 40 in 1971 by Colonel Huntington; Charles Carr; his son, Thomas Carr; and Harry Garth. There is disagreement about what was found at that time. One source indicates a 19th century grave ( collar button, decorated coffin handles ). 3. Mr. Robert Humphris, a dowser, was requested to dowse the entire area which he did in the company of Mr. Goodell, Mr. Garth, and Mrs. Scala. He indicated that there were about 238 graves in definite rows on lot 40 from Ivy Farm Drive back about 150 feet; and about 49 graves on lot 41. He estimated the dates of many of the graves to be the late 1700's; there were also graves dating in the 1800's, these being on lot 41, near Ivy Farm Drive. He did not find graves on any other of the eight lots except lot 45, which he thought contained about seven graves dating in the early 1800's. 4. A school paper dated about 1900 written by Harry Garth's brother refers to a Hessian burying ground in this area. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff also met with Mike Gleason, who coordinated several meetings on the subject. In one meeting with Dr. Hurt, he agreed to permit excavation, if otherwise legal, on lot 40 only in the area which the surveyor has designated as a cemetery on the plat. Apparently this area which is about 60 feet square was never recorded on previous plats, but was determined by the surveyor from field observation and word of mouth. If anything of "historical significance" is discovered Dr. Hurt is willing to reconsider permitting further excavation. His agreement, however, is contingent upon his subdivision receiving approval and being recorded before the excavation can occur. He stated that although there is presently a contract on lot 40, his intent is to permit excavation before the title passes hands. Mr. Goodell has already arranged for Mr. Holland, an archaeologist with the Department of Anthropology at U. Va. and Mr. Kelso, the head of the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology in Williamsburg to supervise the opening of the grave. The staff's main concern is whether each lot contains a building site. If the cemetery is as extensive as the dowser indicates, then lot 40 may not be buildable unless the graves are moved. Staff requested the owner to combine lots 40 and 41, but he would not. Unless it is done voluntarily, staff does not feel that legally there is sufficient evidence to withhold subdivision of this parcel. Recommended conditions of approval are as follows: 1. Highway Department approval; 2. Waiver of frontage granted for lot 45; 3. Road bond for Foal Lane; 4. 200' setback line for septic systems shown on lots 43, 44, 45; 5. Septic tank permit issued on lot 43 prior to signing of plat. Mrs. Graves reported that she has done an extensive search through the records of Albemarle County, as preserved, and has not been able to locate any recorded cemetery on the Ivy Farm property in question. / %� She stated that physical evidence however, would seem to substantiate a more extensive burying ground than that proposed on the plat for reservation. The indentations in the ground are more widespread, as are the limits of the periwinkle. These two circumstances seem to be accepted as general evidence in identifying old burying grounds. She noted that the County is preserving possible grave sites at the Ivy Landfill, not because of any markers, but because of sunken ground and periwinkle. Mrs. Graves stated that surveyors seem to use that as evidence. Mrs. Graves stated that a body was exposed several years ago on land included in the proposed subdivision and several artifacts were retrieved. This grave was outside the proposed limits of the cemetery shown on the plat. She also noted that a dowser who claims he is able to divine the presence of buried bodies had volunteered his services and has dowsed a large area measuring about 150' by 190' on lot 40, with another area on lot 41. Mrs. Graves continued to note her concern about the cemetery and asked that the County make some attempt at reservation beyond what is shown on the plat. Mr. Carr stated that he had received a letter from Mrs. Jean Prince, representing the Daughters of the American Revolution. He said that the DAR is interested in this site to the extent that they would like to place an historical marker in the vicinity of this cemetary. Mr. Carr stated that the DAR does not desire to reserve the entire site of the proposed subdivision, though. Mr. Mike Gleason addressed the Commission, stating that he is involved because of his involvement in the Bicentennial. He noted that Dr. Hurt has been very cooperative in this matter. Mr. Gleason told the Commission the history of the Hessians and noted that this is likely the general vicinity of the Hessian graveyard. He said that only exact information regarding this can be obtained through the sophisticated work of an archaelogist. Mr. Steve Helvin, representing Harry Garth and the Sons of the American Revolution, stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Gleason in that this is a matter for archaeologists. With time, it can be determined if the site is the old Hessian burying ground. Mr. Helvin felt that such a discovery would be historically and medically significant. He asked that the Commission give at least ninety days for this to be determined by the appropriate persons. Besides, he felt that otherwise the developer might find himself with two lots that cannot be developed. Mr. Helvin said that he is not opposing,on behalf of his clients, the development. He asked that the subdivison be approved except for lots 40 and 41, and he felt the necessary data could be obtained in 2-3 months to proceed with approval for these lots as well. Mr. Harry Garth gave a history of the circumstances surrounding the opening of the grave discussed in the staff report. He stated that he had talked to Thomas/onriy the preceding night, and what is thought to be buttons is very likely parts of a coffin. He pointed to the plat in consideration, and showed the Commission the location of the grave that had been opened, in relation to what is proposed to be reserved as a cemetery. Mr. Grant Goodell felt that the possible cemetery should have every possible professional scrutiny, and asked that the Commission not endorse the plat with the cemetery as shown. OR /79 Mr. Stuart Carwile stated that he feels the Commission has an obligation to consider the subdivision as it complieswtEe Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. He said that the Commission has no legal basis to deny the plat on what MIGHT exist. He cited Dr. Hurt's agreement of the previous week that someone would be permitted to dig in the area designated as a cemetery as soon as the subdivision is approved and prior to any title passing hands. He felt that Mr. Garth, as a previous owner of the property, could have reserved the land in question as a cemetery when he held the title, however noted that Mr. Garth had not chosen to do so. Mrs. Graves said that she agrees with Mr. Carwile as to the function of the Commission. And though she stated that the history of the property is exceedingly interesting , her primary concern is that the Commission might approve a lot which does not have a building site. She questioned if the county could issue a building permit on land that might have an extensive cemetery. She also noted for the record that the Smithsonian Institute is aware of using dowsers for locating graves. Mr. Payne stated that he knows of no law that prohibits subdivision of land that has graves located on it, however no well can be located within 100 feet of a grave. However as long as a building site exists on the property, one can still build on a lot with graves, as long as there is no encroachment. Mr. Easter asked who would take the financial loss if graves are actually located on the property, if the title had passed hands. Mr. Payne felt it might be a breach of the seller's general warranty. Mr. Carr said that one point remains unresolved, and that is the exact location of the graves. He said that the owner's permission to dig would certainly be necessary in his opinion, and feared this might not be possible if the land did change ownership. Mr. Carr said that he feels it is in the interest of all concerned that professionals look at the site. Mr. Easter was agreeable to approving the subdivision, provided that an archaeologist has the opportunity to look at lots 40 and 41. He said that he certainly hopes all interested people have the cooperation of the developer to do this. Otherwise, if this could not be agreed upon or if the subdivision is approved, he proposed some sort of reservation of these two lots. Col. Washington stated that he feels the agreement of the developer is not broad enough. He suggested that with the dowser it might be possible to locate the four corners of the graveyard, excavate there, and determine the limits of the graveyard. However, the permission of the landowner would certainly be ncessary. Mrs. Graves said that the graveyard is not as extensive on lot 41 as on lot 40, and with an entrance from Foal Lane a building site is possible without any encroachment. Mr. Helvin reminded the Commission that nothing can be done after the property passes ownership, and felt that the requirements should be placed on this developer. Mr. Jim Hill, representing the developer, stated that permission to dig in the area designated on the plat as a cemetery has already been given. If anything of importance is revealed in this excavation, then Dr. Hurt will be willing to proceed from that information. Mr. Carwile advised the Commission that the application should be dealth with under the confines of the subdivision ordinance. M Mr. Carr agreed that the Commission is somewhat in the middle here. He said that he feels the Commission is concerned that the area set aside by Dr. Hurt is the right place. He said that it might well be the right place and the County appreciates his offer to dig there, but if a house is put there, and it is later discovered that the boundary placed on the plat is insufficient, then there is a problem. He said that in his opinion it is fair to permit that exploration, in the interest of Dr. Hurt, Ivy Farm Subdivison and those interested in historical matters. Mr. Easter said that he is concerned about tearing up the graves, whether the historical people have a chance to dig in them or not. He said it would be a shame to disturb the land in view of what seems to be a number of reasonable opinions that graves do indeed exist on this land in a large area. He said that he is willing to approve the subdivison requested as long as the graves are protected on lot 40. Whether that involves someone visiting the site, reserving them on the plat, review by archaeologists, or whatever, he did not want to specify. However, he did state that the area certainly needs some protection. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne,if the subdivison is approved as proposed, and lot 40 goes to record, the duty of the buyer. Mr. Payne said that if no one is sure the graves are there, if a house is built and nothing is found, or if no one chooses to disclose that something is found, there is obviously no way to establish that anything was disturbed. The only question there is if the County finds that something is being disturbed. Mr. Payne said that it is conceivable that there might be a cloud on the title if there is indeed a cemetery there. That would make it ( the part used as the burying ground ) unbuildable. It would certainly be in the buyer's interest to have that matter cleared up. Mr. Barksdale asked if it is in the legal right of the Commission to exclude a lot in the approval of a subdivison. He said that he is suggesting excluding lot 40 from approval, and requesting an additional setback line of 50 feet on lot 41. Mr. Payne explained that it could not be done in this instance since lot 40 is the edge and would therefore be the residue, and is therefore a lot either way. that can be placed Col Washington asked what are the restraints/on residue acreage. Mr. Carwile interjected at this point what he considered to be fair. On behalf of the applicant, he is willing to place a note on the plat that lot #40 is subject to possible existence of cemeteries, or something to that effect, and that section "so and so" of the Virginia Code makes it a criminal offense to disinter the cemetery without the approval of the circuit court of Albemarle County. Mr. Barksdale questioned the front edge of lot 41. Mr. Carwile stated that this could be addressed with conditional setback. Mr. Carr asked if this includes a right to explore lot 41 in cooperation with whoever "others" are - some official group, like the DAR, SAR or some group with status. Mr. Carwile said that if Dr. Hurt were here he might respond differently but on Dr. Hurt's behalf, he made the following statement: "He has previously indicated his willingness to cooperate. I do not believe this Commission has the power, nor do I believe that it is desirable that you begin to exercise powers that you don't have." /8l Mr. Carr replied that he is not even suggesting that. He said that he is attempting to reason. Mr. Carr said that he sensed that the Commission would defer this so that somecne can work it out. He expressed the desire to work out something that is fair. Mr. Carr said that his problem is that Dr. Hurt has stated that digging can take place only in the bounds which have been artifically placed on the plat. Good scientific data may be available for placing it there, but Mr. Carr stated that he is not yet aware of that. Therefore, he feels that this group wants permission to dig outside those bounds. Mr. Hill stated that Dr. Hurt has agreed that if there is anything of historical significance within that plot, he is willing to permit digging outside that plot. Mr. Carr said that the problem with that is that if there happens to be nothing within that plot and it is all on the outside, then nobody got anywhere. Mr. Carr hypothesized that perhaps the cemetery might be/ entirely and that is his concern. missed Mr. Carwile stated that he has presented his proposal and what he considers to be fair. And he noted that Dr. Hurt is willing to cooperate with the historians and archaeologists in that corner of the property. Mr. Easter said that he is concerned about how this is presented in the staff report. He asked what would prevent someone from cutting a driveway through the property, digging a basement. He noted that not even the more recent graves are always caught, much less the ones that might be 200 years old. If there is some way to do this to everybody's best interests, he wanted to support it. He felt the comment on the plat is a step in the right direction, but it is still not going to solve the problem of someone perhaps cutting a driveway through the property and ruining the graves if they are not in the one little section designated on the plat. Mr. Hill said if a time schedule is needed for those to get on lot 40 and dig, he said he saw no reason why this could not be arranged. Mr. Carwile said that is all right provided the plat is approved now, with the notation he had suggested. Mr. Easter asked if 90 days were agreeable. Mr. Hill said yes, or 120, whatever it takes them to establish what they want to establish. Mr. Carr asked if the developer would hold lot 40, and not record it for ninety days. Mr. Carwile said that he does not feel that will accomplish much, since that would be another parcel by this subdivision anyway. Mr. Carr agreed that is the case. Mr. Carwile said that he is willing to put the legend on the plat. Mr. Carr said that the steam roller will run right over the legend of the plat, and who will check it. Mr. Hill said that he would, as well as Mr. Garth. Mr. Carr said that he feels perhaps the Commission should continue to work on this with another meeting to take place between the interested people. /8L Perhaps they should consider what is fair, and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Tucker stated that the time limit has run out and some action must be taken or the applicant has the right to request a ruling from the circuit court. Col. Washington again questioned the restrictions that can be placed on lots 40 and 41, if they are the residue acreage. Mr. Payne said that is a curious way to put it, to have a residue of less than five acres. If this happened, the Commission would be creating a four acre lot and the boundaries of that four acre lot would be very precise, since they are shown by negative inference on the rest of the plat. So if 40 and 41 were not approved, the Commission would be creating six lots and a four acre residue, which in his opinion could be sold individually. Col. Washington asked what restrictions could be placed on the residue. Mr. Payne said that no other restrictions, other than the ones set forth in the ordinance itself ( setback, the normal septic tank provisions and that sort of thing ) can be placed on that residue. He said that frankly, he did not think there is much the Commission can do. Col. Washington said that he would like to encourage the representative of Dr. Hurt to let those legitimately interested parties make the true effort to determine the boundaries of the cemetery in at least ninety days on lot 40 and Dr. Hurt agree not to transfer title to a builder or a property owner. But that would have to be a voluntary agreement. Mr. Goodell said that those who have worked on this very hard in the last few weeks are only concerned that they be given Dr. Hurt's complete assurance that they will have access to those lots, whether they are platted that night or not, in order to determine what is there. If Dr. Hurt will give that assurance and allow them to do that with no restrictions whatsoever, just on those two lots, Mr. Goodell stated that he would be completely satisfied. He said that is all they want. Mrs. Graves said that she thought so. Not only is there history involved here, but Dr. Hurt's integrity is involved, and the Commission's integrity is involved. There is enough interest in the community now that this won't die. She said that she moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, plus Mr. Carwile's note on the plat regarding lot 40. She asked that he repeat that again. Mr. Carwile said something to the effect that on lot 40 there exists the possibility of a cemetery. Section "so and so" of the Virginia Code provides that it is a criminal offense to disinter the remains without the approval of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Mrs. Graves questioned Mr. Carwile about lot 41, noting that he had established that there are numerous ones there, though they might not be in anyone's way who might want to build there. Mr. Carwile said that the applicant is willing to have an additional setback along the road. He felt that it would be necessary to agree on the amount of the setback. Mrs. Scala said that if the house is built to the rear of the drainage easement there would be no problem. Mr. Carwile said that he would agree that the building setback line would be to the rear of the drainage easement. Mr. Carr asked if he agreed that on lot 41 the setback line running from south to notth will go all the way to the drainage Swale, to the center of it. Mr. Hill said that is agreeable. Mr. Carr again asked for Mrs. Graves' motion. Mrs. Graves said that approval would be with the five conditions of the staff, that lot 40 is to have a note on it quoting the code ( as stated by Mr. Carwile ) and that lot 41 is to have the building setback line to the rear of the drainage easement as shown on the plat. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Carr said that the only thing wrong with the motion is that there is no right of anyone to excavate on those lots except in the designated area. Mr. Carwile said that there is no right of anyone to designate excavation even in the designated cemetery on the plat. However, Dr. Hurt is willing in the interest of historical interest, to... Mr. Carr agreed that there is no legal right of the Commission to do that, but once the Commission votes on that motion there is also no obligation on Dr. Hurt's part to permit that. Mr. Carwile said that he thinks that is correct. He said that he thinks that is the way that it should be. Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Carwile, as Dr. Hurt's agent, is unwilling to say that he will cooperate to permit digging on lot 40 as long as the property is not destroyed. Mr. Carwile stated that if Dr. Hurt were there he might address the matter differently, but to him it is a matter of principle. He said that he is willing to get with the interested people right after the meeting and give them whatever assurance would be necessary that the appropriate people concerned with the historical significance of Albemarle County be permitted to excavate in the manner consistent with respect to archaeological site. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Helvin if he voted for the motion, if Mr. Carwile's statement is an acceptable statement. Mr. Helvin felt that once it is approved it is gone, and felt that Mr. Carwile does not have the authority of his client. Mr. Carwile said that Dr. Hurt has previously told people that they can go onto the site. Mr. Carwile further stated that he does not feel it can be made a condition of approval. Mr. Carr said that he is lookingfor a gentlemen's agreement. Mr. Carwile said that the Commission has a gentlemen's agreement /8 f and he"doesn't have to raise his hand about it." Mr. Barksdale questioned if all that can be done is a gentlemen's agreement. Mr. Payne replied that he thinks that is all that can be done. The motion lost by a vote of 3-3, with Messrs. Carr, Washington, and Moore dissenting. Mr. Easter offered a substitute motion for the Commission's comments. He moved approval and required that the developer determine the boundaries of this graveyard and so mark it on the plat before it is recorded. Mr. Carr asked if this could be done. Mr. Payne said that there needs to be some way of determining how it is done. He has already done it. Mr. Easter disagreed stating that "he has not done it." Mr. Payne stated that he has shown a cemetery and the question is if it is correct. There ought to be some time when he knows he has done what he had to do. Mr. Payne said that he is not saying this is correct or incorrect, that he doesn't know. But clearly some people say that it is not correct. Mr. Easter noted that the Commission has heard a lot of discussion and opinion that it is not anywhere near correct. satisfaction. motion. Mr. Carr asked that Mr. Easter restate his motion. Dr. Moore asked if that could be extended to some independent authorities' Mr. Payne said that is what he is suggesting. Mr. Barksdale asked if the authority has to be named. Mr. Easter said that Mr. Payne could name the authority and that is his Mr. Payne said that there isn't any authority, - Mr. Goodell stated that there is an official Virginia state archaeology authority and it is located in Williamsburg. He said that it is whatever Mr. Kelso is head of, that it is in the staff report. Mrs. Scala replied that she had been informed by Mr. Goodell that it is the Virginia Research Center for Archaeologyy Mr. Tucker stated that if that motion is approved, or prior to its being approved, it might be wise to also add a condition that the staff might have to bring the plat back to the Commission. If the limits of that cemetery prove to be quite extensive the lots may be unbuildable. Mr. Easter said if they were found to be unbuildable he thought that would change the lot lines. Mr. Tucker replied that the developer could not sell the lots knowing that 155 the limits of the graveyard have been established. Mr. Easter said that he hopes his motion allows the developer to work out of this problem and not have the history destroyed, Mr. Payne asked if he could make a suggestion on Dr. Moore's comment. He suggested making it to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Staff. He said that he makes this suggestion since Mrs. Scala is familiar with the property and she would be in a position to evaluate all this. Mr. Easter said that he feels this is out of the field of the staff. Mr. Payne replied "that is true, but to some extent it is out of everybody's field." Mr. Carwile stated that it is outside the scope of the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Carr said that all he wanted to achieve here and all that is worthy of this site is that no graves be built upon and there is law that pertains to this. And then there are organizations which will, with the permission of the property owner, put a proper marker here. He said that this is all he wants to achieve here, and it is all that is necessary. He said that he feels it is unfortunate that the Commission cannot go forward with the cooperation of everybody and have the proper person do it. "Find out where these graves are and then we make sure no one is building on these graves." Whoever the property owner is should give someone the right to put a marker there beside the road and basically, he felt that everyone would be satisfied. He said that he is still concerned that the Commission cannot get any assurance that digging can 1plkace anywhere, besides what is already marked on the plat. He said that if he could get this, his vote would be otherwise. Mr. Carwile said that he would give the Commission that assurance "right now" on behalf of the corporation, and this property is titled with he himself as trustee, that he would give assurance that there is the right to dig on this property by those with the proper credentials and to place the appropriate historical marker on this property. Mr. Carr asked those who were most interested in it if it is a fair proposal. Mr. Helvin stated that if that were a condition of the plat he felt that there should be some reasonable time limit for this to take place. He felt that 90 days is sufficient to delineate that graveyard on lot 40. Mr. Carwile said that he is not willing to have the subdivision plat held up for ninety days. He said that he would agree not to pass title. Then he stated that he could not agree to pass title, as such, since lot 40 is under contract. He said that he would agree to permit the excavation on lot 40 if it proceeds promptly before the passing of title. U? felt that is in the interest of the prospective purchaser. "We will agree that Iexcavation for the entirety of lot 40 discloses remains then an appropriate marker can be placed there." He stated that there are sales for three lots out there that are scheduled to be closed and there are contractors waiting to build. Col. Washington stated that title transfer could pass tomorrow. Mr. Carr said that if that took place, it is possible that the right would not travel with the title. NWO Mr. Carwile stated that the Commission has his word that he will not pass title on lot 40 until excavation goes forward. He said that he would see Mr. Carr before any deed is signed on lot 40. Mr. Helvin said that is agreeable, but he would also like assurance that he would not develop a house on lot 40 on his own in the name of the corporation or in his name. Mr. Carwile said that he would not do this. Mr. Easter withdrew his motion at this point. Mrs. Graves moved for approval subject to: 1. Highway Department approval; 2. Waiver of frontage granted for lot 45; 3. Road bond for Foal Lane; 4. 200' setback line for septic systems shown on lots 43, 44, 45; 5. Septic tank permit issued on lot 43 prior to signing of plat; plus: 6. Lot 41 to have a building setback line at the rear of the drainage easement shown on the plat 7. A note on the plat as stated earlier in the meeting by Mr. Carwile addressing the Code of Virginia. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion, which carried unanimously. ( Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting. ) ZTA-77-08. John H. Bailey has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend the A-1 Agriculture Zone of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for an accessory living accommodation as a use by right. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Bailey stated that he had visited the Planning and Zoning Offices and this is the route they had advised him to take, and now they recommend denial. He stated that he had requested this amendment in order that someone could live on his property and care for his kennel. Mr. Keeler stated that though the applicant was advised that this was perhaps the best and easiest route to follow, it did not guarantee that the staff would support the request. Mr. Bailey stated that he also needs a place to live while he is waiting to build a house. Mr. Tucker advised Mr. Bailey that if this is approved for an accessory living accommodation ( which is considered to be a dwelling ) that this is the only residential unit that can be on the three acres, unless after the house is built that the accessory living accommodation is torn down or converted to office space for the kennel. M 197 Dr. John Lange, a neighbor, stated that he speaks in behalf of the proposal, due to the fact that if it is approved, the mobile home will be removed from the property, thus eliminating 50% of what is objectionable to the neighbors ( he further stated that there is only one other mobile home in the neighborhood ). At this point Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that since it has been the policy to review zoning text amendments and special use permits in conjunction, he would present the staff report for the following: SP-77-64. John H. Bailey has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-531 ( a special use permit for a kennel ) to include an accessory living accommodation on 3 acres zoned A-1. Property is located approximately 1000 feet west of Route 758, and approximately 3/4 mile south of intersection of Routes 758 and 637. County Tax Map 69, Parcel 27, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler did present the staff report for SP-77-64. Mr. Easter asked if this is the only way to accomplish this, since the applicant wishes two residences and must therefore acquire another acre. Dr. Lange stated that due to circumstances beyond his control, Mr. Bailey is not able to purchase an additional acre. Mr. Bailey replied that as soon as he has the accessory dwelling he will remove the mobile home. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that if the applicant intends to tear down the accessory dwelling as soon as he builds a single family dwelling, the zoning text amendment and special permit before the Commission might not be necessary. He stated that the reason for this is that the unit he will use for the accessory dwelling could be considered a single-family residence if the mobile home is removed, and once construction on the house is begun, if the accessory dwelling accommodation is abandoned, only one residential use would remain on the property. Col. Washington suggested that there might be a problem with the septic field. Mr. Tucker stated that the Zoning Administrator has the final decision on what Mr. Bailey has the right to do, and thus Mr. Tucker recommended that the Commission defer any action until Mr. Bailey obtains a written opinion from the Zoning Administrator on this matter. He stated that another way to handle this would be for Mr. Bailey to present his plans to the Inspections Department for a building permit. In this fashion he would also be able to obtain a ruling from the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Easter moved that any action on ZTA-77-08 and SP-77-64 be deferred in order that the applicant could obtain a written opinion from the Zoning Administrator, and this matter would be on the Ocotber 18 agenda of the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. 19 The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 11-7 - PARKING REGULATIONS - which would reduce the dimensions of a parking space to provide for mid -sized and compact automobiles. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the staff wishes the Commission to take no action on this matter that evening in order that the staff could further investigate what other areas are doing in this matter. Mr. Carr noted that this would be workable only where there is enforced parking for employees, like State Farm Insurance. Mrs. Graves suggested this could be done in the CO zone. Mr. Tucker replied that it would have to be more restrictive and specific than that, since he did not feel it would work in such places as doctors' offices. Mrs. Graves said that she wants to make sure that with amendment that no more square footage is permitted for the business or office itself. She said that she does support the idea of making up the space not used in landscaping. this matter. indefinitely. The Commission agreed that it is willing for the staff to further study Mr. Barksdale moved that any further discussion and action be deferred Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF STREET LIGHTS: Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that the Board of Supervisors had requested that the Commission review its current policy to determine if it is adequate. For the moment, Mr. Tucker said that his opinion is that the provisions are adequate. He further stated that this could be addressed in a resolution of intent to amend the ordinance or it could be written policy only. Frankly, he stated, he prefers having anything of this sort in the ordinance in order to be consistent and in order to properly enforce it. Mr. Tucker read the following staff recommendations: 1. The need for lighting is indicated in the following locations: (a) along designated roads ( walkways or biketrails ) having high volume traffic count ( vehicular or pedestrian ); (b) in residential areas having a density of 2 unit/acre or greater ( staff previously recommended sidewalks in developmens to this density ); (c) in areas developed commercially or industrially for security purposes or nighttime activity; (d) in areas where determined necessary by the Planning Commission for reasons of public health, safety, or welfare. 2. Site Plan and subdivision ordinances should be amended to include the requirement of lighting in new developments; if lighting is not required, then utility easements along property lines should be required in anticipation of future installations; 3. Power companies should be requested to take an active part in the Site Review Committee; 4. The cost of installation of lighting in new developments if any, should be paid by the developer; i A 5. The present policy of County participation in the cost of installation of lighting in existing developments is reasonable; 6. Provision should be included in homeowners' agreements for the cost of operation of lighting which is not eligible for acceptance into the County system; 7. Underground services should be required in new developments where feasible. Mr. Gloeckner stated that in his opinion lighting should be discussed at least at the Site Plan Review meetings. Mrs. Graves said that she felt provisions should be included in the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. David felt that not everything should be in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that it is written policy and all persons should be aware of it in the consideration of site plans. The Commission, by unanimous vote, deferred any further discussion and action for a two week period until October 25, 1977, in order that the members could consider the various options. Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 9