Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 29 79 PC Minutes-N41 N January 29, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on the proposed zoning ordinance on Monday, January 29, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove; and Dr. James Moore. Absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeck ner and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex- officio. Officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Donald Gaston, Senior Planner; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Payne advised the Commission of the most recent change to the Agricultural District, noting that the draft is designed to protect the best agricultural lands in the County. The principal changes from the earlier draft, entitled "Rural Agricultural - RA " are as follows: 1. The term "best agricultural soils" has been replaced by the term "best agricultural lands". 2. The title and symbol of the district have been changed from "Rural Agricultural - RA" to "Agri cultural -AGR"; 3. Mobile homes have been deleted as a use by right; 4. The provision for lodging for employees has been reworded somewhat so as specifically to include tenants, part of whose rent is paid in cash and part in services. This change is not essential, but was suggested by a member of the local Bar as being potentially salutary. 5. A new use providing for certain public utility lines by right has been added; 6. "Extraction of natural resources" has been deleted as a use by special use permit. This matter is already provided for in the natural resource extraction overlay district and the surplus is here. 7. Individual mobile homes have been added as a use by special use permit; 8. The density and lot size requirements have been amended from 0.4 dwelling units per acre and 2.5 acres, respectively to 0.5 dwelling units per acre and 2.0 acres, respectively. 9. All references to bonus levels have been deleted throughout. 10. A specific set of matters to be considered in reviewing special use permit applications for development has been included. This too was suggested by several members of the local Bar as being a valuable addition. Mr. Payne stated that two other possible changes could be the following: First, a provision for certain divisions to be exempt from the special use permit requirement, whether or not they fall within the definition of a subdivision under the Subdivision Ordinance. Second, adding language in Section 3.11a.7.2 specifically providing that, in a particular case, a condition of approval of a special use permit might include a requirement of cluster development. He did not recommend a requirement of cluster development across the board in all cases, becuase it would be unduly restrictive, would cause serious problems of administration and would add nothing to the effectiveness of the ordinance. And lastly, he suggested that the Commission might want to consider allowing any division ( subject to the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance ) by right if such division resulted in no lot being under a specified minimum size. He said that in no event would he suggest that such a provision be made for lots as small as five acres since this would be counterproductive to the effort and would in fact result in this ordinance being worse than no ordinance at all for preservation of active agricultural lands. Mr. Skove established that under this ordinance division of a 6-acre tract *OW into two lots would require a special use permit. Mr. Payne said that it would not be possible to divide a 100-acre parcel into two 50-acre parcels unless both had state road frontage. He said that the Commission needs to determine if more flexibility is needed in the uses by right. Mr. Tucker said that there is some alternative language that will permit division of three lots per year. Col. Washington said that he has been approached by people in his district that one should always have the right to do something - now he said there is a need to define that "something" - other than farming. He said that he feels that to be a compelling argument. He noted that under this proposal, there is no right to do anything with the bulk, assuming he can cut off two lots. Mr. McCann said that it appears that this could effectively strip the roads. Mr. Payne agreed that it may, or may not, contribute to road stripping. Mr. McCann suggested it would be appropriate to discuss acreage, as opposed to the number of lots. Mr. Payne said that he has not really thought of that - however he said that he feels this is the time to point out that the proposal does not require mandatory clustering. 1140) Mr. Vest pointed out that there are times when the developer makes it so attractive to a farmer that he cannot resist selling an active farm to make a substantial profit. Mr. McCann said that he would hate to deny that farmer the opportunity to earn that money. Mrs. Graves established that under the AGRjrental units are by special use permit. Mrs. Diehl questioned what is to prevent - under the by right provisions - ten rental units with a portion of that rent to be paid in services. Mr. Payne said "nothing" but this puts the burden on the property owner to establish affirmative duties. He admitted it would be subject to abuse. Mr. Huffman said it is impossible to legislate morality. Mrs. Graves questioned if it would be possible to move to 10-acre lots and tie it to the land use tax. Mr. Payne stated that depending on the use, it is possible at this time to have the land use tax with five acres. Col. Washington pointed out that even with five acre.lots one must have road frontage; otherwise a special permit is required. Mr. Skove determined that there is no reason this provision cannot be written to accommodate 10, 15, or even 20 acres. Mr. McCann said that he does not know if it is possible to save the agricultural soils. He suggested that the County continue to permit subdivisions in the same fashion it always has. Col. Washington pointed out this provision assumes farming will be done by the owner; he noted that Albemarle has all different categories of farmers. Mr. Skove then established that one could not subdivide for two 5-acre parcels; then two 2-acre parcels shortly thereafter, even if all had road frontage. Mr. Payne said that it would be possible to have an unlimited number of divisions of 5-acre lots along a state road, but that would eat away all the prime land. Mr. Keeler suggested it would be possible to have 3 10-acre lots from a 30 acre parcel. Dr. Moore asked if the new owner would have to wait one year to subdivide. Mr. Payne said that is correct. Col. Washington said that it has been suggested to him that the subject matter the Commission has been addressing for the past three weeks be addressed by the farming community. He said that any input they might have could be used by the Commission to make the concept more acceptable to the public. Mr. McCann pointed out that the public did not favor the BAS, which was much better for the property owner than this, and he certainly does not expect them to favor this proposal. she Mrs. Diehl said that okwould specifically like to hear from the people who own property that falls within the BAS. Col. Washington agreed that this would be beneficial. Mrs. Diehl said that she would like to finish all three subjects regarding the philosophy and then have one work session on all three subjects. Mrs. Graves expressed concern for the different standards depending upon the location of the land. Mr. Payne suggested that she identify her objective and then he would attempt to develop wording that would suit the objective. Mrs. Graves said that from a solely theoretical standpoint, there should be some way to prohibit any development in the best agricultural soils. Mr. Keeler pointed out that many of the landowners of large parcels have no desire to develop their property, however in the same respect they do not want to lose that option. Mr. Skove noted that by definition, a dubdivision of 80 lots, as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan, could really mean lots along the state roads, thus stripping the roads. ,2.41Y Mr. Huffman pointed out that when the county reviews a subdivision that falls within a farming community, the Commission hears complaints that the character of the neighborhood is being changed due to the subdivision. He said that if this is the case, the farmers should be willing to go through the special permit process to see what does and does not fit into a farming community. Mrs. Graves suggested a performance criteria for subdivision approval by special permit, so that the subdivision approval process does not become such a political decision. Mr. McCann said that this could lock a man into selling a farm for less, and then the issue is not political, but economical. Mrs. Graves suggested dropping the last line of 12.3, thus there could be only three parcels created each year. Col. Washington returned to the idea of an individual being able to do something besides farm by right. He said that the way the provision is currently written a sizeable acreage could be left on which a man can only farm. Mr. Huffman said that if the farmers want protection, they must be willing to give up something for that protection. Col. Washington pointed out that if a man experiences economic difficulties, needs to borrow money from the bank, it is much easier to secure a loan if the land is developable. Mr. McCann said that at the meetings he has attended for subdivision approval, he has not heard much complaint from the farmers about ruining a farming community he said that most of the complaints he has heard have been with regard to road improvements, and lately school impact. Col. Washington expressed the opinion that the escape clause is a 5-10 acre provision, since a man should have an option. Mr. Payne said that given a rural area, if large portions are developed in "x" number of lots, there is a need to decide if this will affect the farming uses in the area. He said that the profitable land will not come to the county for subdivision. Mr. McCann said that he sure would hate to own even 40 acres that he could do nothing with. Mrs. Diehl established that the right of division is not cumulative from year to year. Mr. Payne said that this proposal does not say that in particular cases special use permits will not be granted for 2-acre lots, or even clustered subdivision of 1-acre lots. Col. Washington said that if there were no concern for water and roads, this whole issue would be approached differently. He noted that this proposal does not even address these .issues. He said that the only way he is aware of to have a "by -right" provision is through acreage. Mr. Payne did not feel 10 acre rights would affect the subdivision ordinance. Col. Washington emphasized that he is looking for some alternative so an individual can get out of the farming business by right if he so wishes. line. Mr. Skove established that 3.11a.7(4) could address the scale of development. Mrs. Graves said that she feels that 2-acre development will be the bottom Mr. McCann said that he disagrees with the concept. There was a general consensus that the special permit process was agreeable and that three divisions a year was the wish of the Commission. Col. Washington suggested that 3.11a be printed for the public to be considered by the Commission, with input from the farming community, at the work session on February 7, 1979. He suggested that the farming community appoint one spokesman to discuss their feelings in approximately a time frame of one-half hour. The Commission decided to look at the zoning map on January 31, 1979. Mr. Skove asked that the Commission hear input from one of the counties in Virginia who has an historic district at the next consideration of Article 21. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 6:35 p.m. M