Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 02 79 PC MinutesI0 1 om January 2, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, January 2, 1979, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider the draft proposal of the zoning ordinance and the proposed zoning map for Albemarle County. Those members present were Col. William Washington; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeck ner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Donald Gaston, Senior Planner; Ms. Mason Caperton, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, member of the Board of Supervisors; and Mr. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator. Election of officers for the 1979 year was deferred until the end of the meeting in order that all Commission members could be present. Col. William Washington, Vice -Chairman during the 1978 calendar year, presided during the public hearing. Col. Washington opened the public hearing by stating that up until this time there has been very little public input on the draft proposal. He noted that it is in preliminary form, and the Commission, Board, and public will doubtlessly be making many changes prior to its adoption. ( Mrs. Graves arrived at the meeting. ) He stated that in its work sessions, the Commission has covered approximately 42 pages of the text and as yet not everything in those 42 pages has received a consensus. Col. Washington agreed that there is a need to put the zoning ordinance in step with the Comprehensive Plan, however he said that this does not imply that the draft proposal is ready to move forward in its current form. He asked that the public address itself to the text in the beginning of the meeting and time would be allotted later in the meeting for comments on the proposed map. Col. Washington asked that as many comments as possible be submitted in writing to the Planning Department in order that they could be forwarded to Commission and Board members. Mr. Charlie Smith, Jr., President of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission. ( See attached comments. ) Mrs. Graves questioned Mr. Hess about his committee's study of the ordinance and asked if members of the public were welcome to attend those meetings. Mr. Hess advised those present that members of the community are welcome to attend the meetings and participate. He said that three citizens have participated thus far, in addition to the committee which is composed of two representatives from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, two representatives from the Board of Realtors, and two representatives from the Chamber of Commerce. He said that input from anyone interested in the welfare of this community is welcomed. Mrs. Harriet Eddy from the Esmont area said -chat she does not understand the map showing Esmont Village, nnting that it does not include part of the area that is considered Esmont. She said that the residents of that area do not want the zoning changed to residential uses only, since many of the landowners maintain farm animals. Also she said that many of the property owners disagree with the large residential area being planned for that area. Mr. Tucker said that the only housing plans that he is aware of are the six units being planned by Albemarle Housing Improvement Program for low to moderate income housing. He noted that the Esmont Village residential zone does not prohibit agricultural uses. /'�o Col. Washington stated that during the past year several neighborhood committees have been active, however the County has not acted on these plans to date. He said that in his opinion it is not the intent of the draft ordinance to restrict or restrain agricultural uses in rural areas. Mr. Preston Stallings, President of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, said that the public has not had time to study this ordinance to show the cost to the individual. He said that more work sessions are needed in order that the citizens can begin to understand what is being considered for adoption. Also needed, Mr. Stallings reported, are individual notifications to the property owners of Albemarle County in order that they can understand the impact on their own property. Mr. Stallings further asked that maps be made more readily available, perhaps printing individual maps as had been done in 1975. Mr. Roy Ackerman addressed the Commission on the text of the ordinance. ( See attached comments. ) Mr. Tom Wyant, a local architect, advised the Commission that after reading the proposal he does not understand it because of its complexity. He said that it is the most complex ordinance he has dealt with in five states and feels, furthermore, in its current form it is unenforceable. Mr. Bill Gentry said that it takes a working individual a long time to read the ordinance, much less understand it. He said that important documents like this should not be complicated to the point that the average citizen cannot read and under- stand it. If one cannot understand the ordinance, one does not know what he is and is not permitted to do with his land. Mr. Gentry also addressed the inconvenience of only one location for the proposed zoning map. Furthermore, Mr. Gentry asked that the Commission consider the land absorption rate and what made people settle at particular locations within the county as they did. He stated that the ordinance 1,40) will doubtlessly create litigation and necessitate the need for extra help from landplanners and engineers if one tries to do anything with his land. Mr. Gentry stated that portions of the zoning ordinance are missing and he said that it is impossible to attempt to address the unknown. Lastly, he asked that the language of the ordinance be simplified so that anyone can understand it. Mr. Jim Faulconer addressed the Commission. ( See attached comments. ) Mr. Scott Williams, attorney with the Legal Aid Office, said that he wishes to express concern for the low and moderate income families that will be affected by the ordinance. He said that with this ordinance, it might be impossible to even develop low income housing, especially in view of the fact that no bonuses or incentives are given for low income housing. He said that the added costs of development and lot costs might make it impossible for low income housing. Mr. Williams expressed concern for the compatibility of the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan which does address this type of housing. Incentives for low income housing are smaller lot size, cost reductions, and increased density. He suggested that everyone be made aware of the possible change in zoning on property throughout the county, and suggested that one way of accomplishing this might be through the Daily Progress. He suggested that a copy of the existing zoning map be printed on one page followed by a copy of the proposed zoning map on the next page in order that the proper comparisons be made. Mr. Williams questioned the omission of home occupations and rental housing from the RR District. He also stated concern for the rehabilitation of existing housing. Furthermore, he suggested that public hearings in various sections of "Vi the county might be in order so that the citizens have the opportunity to become as fully informed as possible. * comments made by Mr. Charlie Smith on January 2, 1979. ON THIS PAST DECEMBER 14TH, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS BEING ADOPTED. SINCE THEN, OUR CHAMBER STUDY COMMITTEE HAS MET EVERY TUESDAY AND THURSDAY FOR AN AVERAGE OF Z HOURS PER SESSION. THE COMMITTEE WHICH INCLUDES REALTORS, HOMEB.UILDERS, INTERESTED CITIZENS, A LAND PLANNER AND AN URBAN PLANNING SPECIALIST, IS HEADED BY THE GENTLEMAN WHO IS WITH ME NOW, SIR. ED HESS, A PRACTICING ATTORNEY. IT WAS THEIR INTENTION TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU AT THIS SESSION A CON- STRUCTIVE PRESENTATION OF COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THE ZONING PROPOSAL AND ITS IMPACT. IT IS THEIR CONSENSUS NOW THAT SUCH IS NEITHER PRACTICAL OR POSSIBLE AT THE PRESENT TIME, BECAUSE OF THE TIME REQUIRED TO ANALYZE THE TREMENDOUSLY COMPLEX, FREQUENTLY VAGUE AND OFTEN AMBIGUOUS NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT. THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS TO THE PROPOSAL WHTCH APPEAR BENEFICIAL --THE USE OF CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, APPEALS TO MANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE -- BUT THE ORDINANCE IS OF A PIONEERING NATURE, AND, AS SUCH, RAISES ENORMOUS QUESTIONS, INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF THE TAX BASE AND REVENUES OF THE COUNTY', THE COST OF LITIGATION BOTH TO THE COUNTY AND THE LANDOWNER, THE ADDED COST OF GOVERNMENT IN THE IMPLEMENTA- TION OF THE ORDINANCE, THE COST IN LOST VALUE TO THE LANDOWNER AND THE FARMER, THE EFFECT ON Low TO MODERATE PRICED HOUSING, AND THE EFFECT ON THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF THE AREA, AS A WHOLE. FOR EXAMPLE, DOES THE ORDI- NANCE ENCOURAGE THOSE INDUSTRIES GENERALLY CONSIDERED DESIRABLE TO THE AREA? WILL THE ORDINANCE REALLY ANSWER THE NEEDS TO PRESERVE BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR NATURAL RESOURCES? AND, WILL ITS LACK OF DEFINITIVE y STANDARDS DISCOURAGE RATHER THAN ENCOURAGE GOOD DEVELOPMENT? 0 E __1 Ion INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THERE ARE REFERENCES IN THE PROPOSAL ABOUT STUDIES, WHICH EITHER DO NOT EXIST OR HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED PUBLICLY. IF YOUR COMMISSION, OR THE BOARD HAS ACCESS TO THOSE STUDIES IF WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO THE PUBLIC, OUR PREVIOUS RESOLUTION OF DECEMBER 14TH ALSO ADDRESSED OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE ORDINANCE ADOPTION. THE CHAMBER BELIEVES THAT THE LANDOWNER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED OF THE CHANGE AND EFFECT ON HIS PRESENT ZONING AND TO HIS PROPERTY VALUE. SO FAR AS THE COMMITTEE KNOWS, THERE HAS STILL BEEN NO ATTEMPT BY THE COUNTY TO ADVISE LANDOWNERS, MANY OF WHOM MAY NOT LIVE IN THE AREA, AND IN- DEED MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THIS PROPOSAL. ALSO, THERE HAS BEEN NO WIDESPREAD AVAILABILITY OR PUBLICATION OF THE ZONING MAP, WHICH CURRENTLY IS ONLY DISPLAYED AT THE PLANNING OFFICE OR MEETINGS SUCH AS THIS. THE TIMING AND LACK OF CONFORMITY BY THE COUNTY TO PRIOR PRECEDENT IN MAILING SUCH INFORMATION TO THE LANDOWNER, ESTABLISHES GRAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE WILLINGNESS OF THE BOARD TO HAVE THE BROAD GROUP OF COUNTY LANDOWNERS BECOME AWARE OF THE EFFECT OF THIS ORDINANCE ON THEIR PRO- PERTIES. OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN BLESSED WITH DEDICATED CITIZENS LIKE YOUR- SELVES, WHO HAVE BEEN WILLING TO PROVIDE LONG HOURS OF TEDIOUS HARD WORK TO THE TASK OF PRESERVING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE TRUST THAT YOU, AS MUCH AS ANYONE, WANT TO SEE A FAIR, WELL UNDER- STOOD ORDINANCE PASSED. SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN EFFECT, WHICH RELIEVES ANY PRESSURE FOR HASTY ACTION, IT SEEMS PRUDENT TO TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY AND INSTITUTE THE PROCEDURAL STEPS SUCH AS THE CHAMBER HAS ALREADY PROPOSED TO INSURE THAT THE BEAUTY OF OUR AREA, THE VALUE OF OUR LANDS, THE COST OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AND THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF OUR COMMUNITY WILL PROGRESS IN AN ORDERLY PATTERN. 1'--t7�s January 2, 1978 Roy Ackerman, P. Ch. E. Technical Director ASTRE ( Applied Science Through Research and Engineering ) Post Office Box 5072 Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 ( Also GA, NY, IL, CA ) A. The document continually references the map, bonus level, and some other sections that have not yet been included. That reduces the ability of the residents to comprehend same. B. Without notices to the landowners, we are putting them at a disadvantage. This is true since the document is complex and abstruse, and the average citizen will fail to realize the implications. C. What is the effect of the plan on the county tax base? D. The entire document references the Comprehensive Plan. It is my understanding that this plan is revised every five years. Does that mean that a document such as this will be developed concurrently? If so, why not include the novel sections within the proposed ordinance as amendments to the current one? E. I am basically an environmentalist. As such, I find the document incompatible with the stated goals. For example, how can I preserve the environment con- currently with the eradication of wooded areas? Besides their aesthetic value, they are important in preventing erosion and minimizing environmental impacts on soil, water, and air masses. The hillside overlay may also be restrictive. For example, Greenfield Community College ( MA ) was built on 15-30% slopes - yet it preserved wooded areas, minimized energy consumption, and even though it is five stories tall, appears only 2 or 3 stories high. F. The numbers in the document are also complex. I can not readily comprehend the 42% bonus given in the RR area, since the density bonuses in Chart 3.11.4 (p.57) do not exceed 33%. Also, it seems that farmhouses cannot be built on a BAS overlay. Moreover, the PDLI District stipulates a 5 acre minimum. By computing the requirements for a 2 story, 0.5 land use building, we find that the 5 acre site is just too small ( not enough parking or open area ). These are but three examples. G. I am not sure that the proposed ordinance is compatible with the Clean Water Act and/or the Clean Air Act. Some of the reasons for this thought include: (a) By housing and commercial sitings, we will be increasing motor travel. Since there is no mass transit, pollutants in the air will increase. ( Traffic litter will also increase. ) The air pollutants may force Albemarle to violate an SIP, AOMA Plan, or even become a non -attainment areas. (b) Non -point source pollution will increase since trees will be cut. These trees reduce erosion and are vital to the natural evapotranspiration process. ( This will obviously impact ground and surface water quality ). (c) EPA is desirous of implementing alternative wastewater treatment. They expect Virginia to be one of those involved. It this area were already developed, 4% of the state's funds would go toward these alternatives. While septic tanks are included as alternatives, the concept is to formulate "community management districts". The reason for this is to insure that septic tanks/soil absorption fields are mainted to prevent groundwater problems and public health hazards. m /9 I want to start my presentation by expressing my opposition to certain actions the County is taking in regards to implementing the proposed zoning ordinance, then I would like to make several initial observations about the NW, ordinance itself. (1) The first action by the County that I am adamantly opposed to is the attempt to down -zone many people's property. I have not studied all of the displayed county map in detail as of yet, but I do know that there is overt down -zoning planned for over 50 parcels on a stretch of Route 250 near Crozet. All of these parcels are presently zoned B-1, and the new map shows them as Rural Residential (which is similar to the present agricul- tural zone). This action by the County, if it is allowed to happen, will greatly reduce the value of these parcels. Whether or not we are entirely happy with the present zoning map, I think down -zoning anyones property is extremely unfair. These landowners have relied on the present zoning map for approximately 10 years. Land has been bought and sold for high prices based on its current zoning. (Show Yancy tract, for example I have a copy of a county appraisal...). Because of these county appraisals, landowners have paid the county high taxes for many years. Now there is a proposed map, that in many instances, would greatly reduce the value of these properties. What consolation do you offer to a landowner who might have bought one of these tracts zoned for business in 1970, and who has been paying high taxes to the county for the last eight years? What consolation do you give a small landowner who paid a high price for a parcel of business land for investment, and now finds out he doesn't have an investment anymore? Do you tell him that it's too bad, but he has lost all of his tax money and most of his investment b0cause this new map might (and I emphasize might) hotter help the County develop? Im (2) The second action by the County that I am opposed to is the present plan of the County not to inform every landowner by mail what the new zoning l S will be for their respective properties. I would like to point out that it has been County policy to send notices by registered mail to landowners if someone is attempting to change the use or the zoning on a property next to theirs, but for some reason, the County does not want to send individual notices to landowners informing them about changes in zoning on their own properties. I would like it to be stated publicly who decided on this maneuver, and what are the reasons behind this maneuver. It appears as if someone, or some group, would like the present ordinance and map to be passed with as few people knowing about it as possible. In 1974, when another zoning ordinance was proposed, the County did send notices to every landowner. I would further like to point out that not everybody reads the Daily Progress, and thus are unaware that'the County is even working on a new ordinance and a new map. There are absentee landowners who might never know they have lost a certain zoning on their property until the next county tax bills are mailed out. I think it is unfair to down -zone, and I think it is even more unfair not to inform landowners by mail of what you intend to do to their properties. I think it is downright sneaky!! (3) The third action by the County that I am opposed to is the pre- sent schedule for public hearings. After tonight, only one more hearing is scheduled. The citizens need more time to study this ordinance, and let the County government know what their feelings are about the ordinance. I am working with a group that has had eight meetings about the ordinance, and so far, we have only been able to thoroughly study some thirty -odd pages. I hope at the next public hearing I can address myself to some of the specifics of the ordinance itself, and I would ask that you give the citizens firmore time for evaluating this ordinance and providing you with more input. My last observation is that what I have read in the ordinance, it i:: not complete and I don't :,cue how you can make any fair judgements, on it in its pre,ont form. There rite typO(jrriph is errors, there are sections refc-rrod FWA 9 to that are left out, I found a page in the wrong place, and there are parts of the ordinance missing. For example, on page 9, it calls for "application...". I don't think this manual has been made available to the public, and I think it should be made available in order that citizens will be able to evaluate this proposed ordinance completely. m /V TL Mr. Richard Cogan said that more time is needed to digest the material. He questioned if this kind of ordinance is needed in Albemarle County and questioned its general desirability. He questioned the success of this kind of ordinance in other areas. Furthermore, he noted the Commission's reticence to be hasty and yet pointed out that the chairman of the Board of Supervisors has set February as the time for the Board's action on the ordinance. He questioned whom the citizens can believe. Col. Washington said that he does not know the Board's approach, however he is reasonably convinced the Commission will not be able or prepared to make a recommendation to the Board within the next two weeks as was originally scheduled. Mr. Bruce Drenning stated that with the exception of the bonus level concept, all other concepts in the ordinance have been tried and used in parts of Virginia. Dr. William Looney of Ivy noted the highly technical nature of the ordinance, and suggested it would be in order for the Commission to give the public the essential features of the document so that they are readily understandable. He said that under the current time frame, it is impossible for the citizens to digest and react to the material. Mr. Lindstrom said that he is sure that many of the comments regarding the time schedule are directed to the Board of Supervisors. He said that he is personally concerned that the County involves the public to the utmost. Mr. Linstrom noted that he himself has studied 97 pages of the ordinance and admitted that it is difficult to understand. He said that the Board of Supervisors does not want to delay the matter to create the illusion that it is not interested in adopting an ordinance to implement the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that the public not use the time frame as an excuse for not reviewing the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom noted that no one has anything invested in this ordinance except the consultants, and he agreed that the impact from the ordinance is so great that an effort to involve the public must be made. However, he did point to the fact that the Board will soon be working with the next fiscal year's budget beginning in February and it would be difficult to deal with the two items simultaneously. Mr. Roy Patterson questioned the need for excessive delay when some of the study could have been done earlier. He asked'the Commission to get on with the process of deliberation. Mr. Tom Forloines questioned the issue of slopes over 150. He also suggested that the county repay the property owner for his investment and tax loss for any down - zoning resulting from this change. Mr. Forloines asked that the County notify all landowners of the proposed changes in a fashion that will help them to understand the ramifications. Mr. David Carr said that he is not prepared to comment on the complex document other than to note that it is a complex document that will be costly to implement. He agreed that the timeframe for adoption is unreasonable and felt all citizens should be notified of proposed changes. He suggested that the ordinance might be in such form that an attorney or engineer, or even the staff, will not be able to advise a property owner on what he can do with his land and it might be necessary to go to the Commission and Board for that decision. He stated his opposition to downzoning. Mr. Carr said that the economic base of the county is the land, and that might be subject to question if this ordinance is adopted; the economic base might even be destroyed. Mr. Carr said that he loves the farmland of Albemarle County, however pointed out that not all farmland is economical. He pointed out that very few farms in this county operate with a profit. He agreed that it is in theory highly desirable to save the farmland but pointed out that it might not be practical. Mr. Carr also noted that it is very unfortunate that the Board of Supervisors' public hearing is on the night of the U. Va./Duke basketball game. He noted that it is very difficult to get something off the books once it is adopted. He asked that the County Commission and Board not rush into something that the people of the County don't understand. He asked the Commission to move with caution and let all have the knowledge of what will happen to their property if this ordinance is adopted. Mr. Don Wagner stated his agreement with previous speakers. He said that he would like to note that the off-street parking requirements have reverted to the previous language after the county's laboring over amended language for several months. He asked that the wording in the current zoning ordinance be included in the new ordinance. Mr. Wendell Wood said that the public should be notified of the proposed changes. He said that more development restrictions raise the costs of everything. He said that proposed changes should be sensitive to economic problems that exist today. He felt that the ordinance separates the "haves" from the "have nots." Mr. Stan Tatum said that as a land planner he probably should support the ordinance. However he said that it is totally impossible to determine the effects on the various parcels in the county. He said that the goals of the Zoning Ordinance do not always match what shows up in the ordinance. He said that this ordinance will not stop or deter strip development. Another aspect of the ordinance he questioned was the destruction of the forested areas since this will greatly affect ground water, pollution, etc. He said that the proposal is quite subjective and many decisions will lie solely with the Board of Supervisors and the Director of Planning. At this point, the Commission took a 10 minute recess. Mrs. Missy Scott Faulconer reopened the public discussion and questioned the availability of the bonus level manual. Mr. Drenning said that the manual has not been developed at this point. Mrs. Faulconer said that she is concerned about the diminishing rights of the individual landowner this proposal brings about. She questioned the intent of Sec. 2.1.2 (b) and (c), the workability of Sec. 4.8.1, and the revoking of freedom from the individual to choose his own lifestyle by establishing maximum lot sizes. Mr. Joe Hearn questioned if the public will have the opportunity to review the recommendation of the Planning Commission prior to its moving forward to the Board. He said that the public is generally happy with the existing zoning ordinance. Col. Washington said that this would be desirable, however the expense would be great and the decision of the Planning Commission does not necessary reflect the decision of the Board. Mr. Hearn questioned the effect this will have on the land use taxation. Col. Washington responded that he does not see any intent to destroy the agricultural character of this county or deter individuals from agricultural endeavors. l91 At this point, Mr. Tucker advised the public that the staff and the Commission are going through the ordinance line by line and have not begun to touch the surface of the ordinance. He stated that the staff has submitted various changes to the Commission at this time though, and they have been reviewed in two work sessions the Commission has held. Mrs. Graves noted for the public's information that these revisions are available as minutes and are not finalized at this point and still open for Commission and public discussion. Mr. Richard Cogan noted for the record that the zoning map does not reflect the hillside overlay. He questioned if this is practical. Mr. Bob McKee said that the ordinance has many contradictions. He questioned how the ordinance could fine point many items and then discuss "desirable tree". He said that there are many ambiguities that need defining. He also questioned when the soils for the county were mapped. Mr. Tucker replied that the soil study was done by the Soil Conservation Study in 1932, however these are currently being updated and expanded. He said that the generalized soil associations will no doubt be the same. Mr. Rolf Benzinger asked that the Commission proceed as rapidly as possible with the work on the zoning ordinance. Mr. Bill Reid from southern Albemarle said that the proposal differs very little from the proposal of 1975. He said that in his opinion many of the definitions are illegal. Mr. Frank Kessler said that the only way to encourage clustering is to run the utilities to the areas set aside for cluster - Hollymead and Crozet. He said that would take care of many of the problems addressed at the meeting, especially the low cost housing, multi -family housing, and the stripping. He said that the RPN concept has not worked in the county and noted that bonuses will not work either without the utilities. Col. Washington then asked that the public address itself to the zoning map. Mr. Richard Cogan questioned the reason for changing his parcel located at the intersection of I-64 and Route 250 East from B-1 to RR. He said that he has owned the property for 10 years and has paid taxes on it thinking he could have have a business use there sometime. He said that it is between two parcels that are proposed for commercial zoning. Furthermore, he said that it falls under the hillside overlay. Mr. Tucker said that the Commission will have to wrestle with the downzoning concept as a whole and then look at individual parcels. Mr. Wendell Wood said that he is opposed to any type of downzoning, noting that it will certainly create economic chaos. He addressed a parcel he owns on Route 29 North, noting that he feels the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this as a commercial corridor. Mr. Tucker said that that particular parcel was changed to give more depth to the zoning and hopefully encourage a better use of the land. Mr. Tucker further pointed out that an attempt to do away with the strip commercial zoning had been made with the map. Mr. Wood replied that many commercial uses won't locate 1000 feet off the road since they need easy access to the public. He asked that the Commission deal with the real world when it reviews the ordinance. Dr. Looney asked the definition of a viable agricultural unit. He then questioned what use the land can have if it no longer is economically viable as agricultural land. Mrs. Garnett said she. lives on '.farmland that is surrounded by residential land; she said that there has to be some way to get out of a zone when farming is no longer feasible. She said that government. is to serve the people and it is pathetic when the people have to employ an attorney to protect themselves from the government. Mr. David Carr agreed with Mrs. Garnett. He said that he does not feel it is fair for a neighbor to legislate the zoning on a particular piece of property because he enjoys the scenic vista. Mr. Carr said that the zoning ordinance does have flexibility, however he fears the flexibility might flow into the hands of a few. He said that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, and with this particular zoning ordinance, that Comprehensive Plan becomes an absolute. Mr. Bill Gentry pointed out that the Commission and staff work for the public and said the public wants a map available to them and they want all property owners to be notified of the proposed changes. He said that things are getting to the point where the people have to protect themselves from their government. Mr. Strong said that the citizens have spoken loudly about wanting copies of the map and notification of the proposed zoning changes. He also stated that the Commission and Board must consider the effect this zoning will have on future county budgets. Mr. Frank Kessler asked that the sign provisions in the new ordinance be given particular attention by the Commission. There was no further public comment. Col. Washington advised the public that the hearing will be kept open and the matter will be readvertised in the future for another public hearing. He urged those who had addressed the Commission to submit their comments in writing to the Planning Staff in order that they could be forwarded to the Commission. The Commission took another 10 minute recess. When the meeting reconvened, Col. Washington welcomed Mr. James Skove to the Commission, noting that Mr. Skove is the representative from the Jack Jouett District. Zof OR Im Organization of the Planning Commission for 1979: Mr. Tucker presided during the nominations for the chairmanship. Mr. Huffman nominated Col. Washington for the chairmanship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner. Mrs. Graves moved that the nominations be closed. Col. Washington was elected the chairman by unanimous vote. Col. Washington opened the nominations for Vice -Chairman. Mr. Gloeckner nominated Mrs. Diehl for this position. Mr. McCann nominated Mr. Gloeckner for the position. Mrs. Graves moved that the nominations be closed. The vote was 6-3 for Mrs. Diehl to serve as vice-chairman. The Commission agreed that the meeting time for the Commission would continue to be Tuesday evenings in the Board Room of the County Office Building at 7:30 p.m. unless otherwise advertised. The Commission unanimously elected Mr. Tucker to serve as secretary to the Commission upon the motion of Mr. Gloeckner and second of Mrs. Diehl. New Business: PINEY MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION FILE Mr. Tucker presented a subdivision plat to the Commission which he said he was hesitant to sign without Commission review. He said that the owner is requesting to change the lot line in order that lot #4 could have better access. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the amended plat as requested. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Commission then briefly discussed the issue of notification of all property owners in the county of the proposed zoning changes. Col. Washington advised the Commission that the Steering Committee would be meeting the next day and that he would pass on the comments of the public regarding the notification and the desire for small copies of the proposed map. There was a consensus that the Commission favored the public's wish. The Commission noted that it would meet on Thursday at 4:00 p.m. for a work session on the ordinance and at that time would discuss some realistic meeting schedule for the next few weeks. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m. - A4,t4 hi, 4t,�, , f g. Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Se reta