The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02 06 79 PC MinutesFebruary 6, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting, February 6, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Dr. James Moore; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. Jim Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Ex-Officio. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner was absent. Other Officals present were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. George St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of December 19, 1978 and January 22, 1979 were deferred. The minutes of January 29, 1979 and January 31, 1979 were approved as written. WOOD PROPERTY PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed division of 4.9 acres into 2 lots at 2.0 and 2.9 acres; located east off Route 663 approximately one-half mile north of Earlysville. Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant was requesting deferral for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Vest moved for deferral. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. PINERIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed division of 99+ acres into 21 lots with an average lot size of 4.7 acres; located west off Route 785 and north of Route 649. RIVERSIDE PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed division of 73.8+ acres into 23 lots with an average lot size of 3.3+ acres; located east off Route 785 north of Route 649 and south of the Rivanna River, north fork. Mr. Tucker noted that the applicants requested deferral of both of the above items until February 20, 1979. Mrs. Graves moved for deferral. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. TOM CLAUSEN FINAL PLAT (formerly Donald Waldron Final Plat) - 2.5 acre subdivision on Ridge Road off State Route 799; located west of State Route 799 near the Fluvanna County line. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Peatross, the applicant's representative, and Mr. Clausen, the applicant, were present. Mr. Peatross, the applicant's representative, stated that this 2.5 acre tract was once part of a 33 acre tract. He noted that in May 1973, Mr. Weekly, the original owner of the tract sold this property to Mr. Ancona, who in turn sold the parcel to Mr. Waldron in June 1974. Mr. Peatross noted that the plat was originally recorded in Fluvanna County and was later recorded in Albemarle County. Mr. Peatross noted that there were indications that the subdivision was not legal because it did not comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Peatross noted that on December 13, 1978, Mr. Clausen was issued a building permit and was later informed on January 3, 1979, by Mr. Dick, Zoning Administrator, that the subdivision had never been approved and the building permit was issued by mistake. Mr. Peatross noted that Mr. Clausen already has acquired a construction loan, for his house, and would like to see this subdivision approved, in order that he can begin construction of his house. Mr. Peatross noted that regarding condition #2 (proof of right-of-way), the applicant has a right-of-way and has title insurance also. Mr. Peatross stated that Mr. Clausen would be willing to enter into a maintenance agreement (condition #3), but the adjacent owners would not agree to this. He also stated that Mr. Clausen has a $30,000.00 construction loan and since he is doing all of the work, his home will probably be assessted at $50,000 to $60,000. Mr. Buck, the representative of the adjacent owners, stated that his clients are opposed to this subdivision mainly because it does not comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. He noted that the adjacent owners are not willing to join in a maintenance agreement and therefore the subdivision would not comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Buck noted that this subdivision is not in keeping with the other parcels in the area, most of whip;'- a -re 15 acres or more. He noted that 5 parcels are currently being served by this road and if this subdivision is approved the total would rise to six. Mr. Buck noted that the road would have to b2 widened from 10 to 14 feet to comply with the private road requirements. Mr. Buck stated that the subdivision should be denied by the Commission because the conditions of approval could not be met. Mr. Buck stated that in 1974 when the Anconas sold the property to the Waldrons, he was advised by the County Attorney that this was an unlawful subdivision until approved. He also noted that he had corresponded with the Planning Department and was assured that a building permit would not be issued. He noted that a building permit was issued and construction started. Mr. Buck read a letter into the record for Mr. Cary Jackson, an adjacent owner, who is in opposition to this subdivision. Mr. Jackson stated in his letter, that this subdivision is not in keeping with the development in this area. Mr. Peatross stated that it was his understanding that there isn't a legal require- ment for a maintenance agreement, but rather that it is the Commission's policy. He noted that his client doesn't have any problems with the conditions except for condition #3, which the Commission can not legally require. Mr. Payne stated that Section 18-7 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that the Planning Commission can legally require a maintenance agreement. Dr. Moore asked if the subdivision is on the County line or in Fluvanna County. Mr. Payne stated that he believed the subdivision was not on the County line, but down the center of the road, with the larger part of the subdivision in Fluvanna County. Mr. Clausen had a deed for 1885, which he .noted showed the road running through the property. CHe showed the document to the Commission.) Col. Washington asked how many families are using the road at this time. C;, OR Mr. Buck stated that the Howells, Roebucks, and Theodose are the only families using the road as access to their homes. Fie also noted that the Bells and Dabneys own undeveloped property along this road, but do not actually use the road for access. Mr. Huffman asked if the people buying their property from Mr. Anocona 'Were aware that the property was being subdivided into 3 parcels. Mr. Roebuck, an adjacent owner, stated that they were only aware of the two parcels, their's and the Howells. Dr. Moore asked if the part of the subdivision located in Fluvanna County is unlawful. Mr. Payne stated that the complete subdivision is unlawful. Mr. Tucker asked if the other lots in Fluvanna County are unlawful. Mr. Payne noted that it is. Col. Washington stated that if the Commission approves the subdivision with the Staff's recommendations it would be to the benefit of the adjacent owners to include condition #3. Mr. McCann suggested that the words "if possible" be added to the end of condition #3. Mr. Buck stated that if the Commission approves this subdivision they will be placing a burden on the adjacent landowners. He noted that they would either have to maintain the road or deal with the burden of additional use on the road. Col. Washington stated that if the adjacent owners, using the road now, are content with the road in its present condition then they should also be content to allow Mr. Clausen to use the road, in its present condition. Mrs. Graves asked if this subdivision actually took place in 1974 won't the Subdivision Ordinance in effect then apply to this subdivision. Mr. Payne stated that if an applicant has an unlawful subdivision and would like to come before the Planning Commission to correct this situation then the present ordinance would apply. Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Legal proof of the existence of an easement to this property to the satisfaction of the County Attorney; 3. County Engineer approval of access road from Route 799; 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance location on Route 799; 6. Adjacent owners must include the owner of Parcel 18 on Tax Map 81; 7. Owner's notarized signature. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. IN FEBRUARY 6, 1979 ARTICLE 21 - HISTORIC DISTRICT - proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance Mr. Huffman moved to reopen the public hearing. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Payne noted that the numbering of the Historic Ordinance had been changed. He noted that an additional sentence was added to the end of Section 21-5(a) and Section 21-5(e) had been divided into 2 parts (standards of review). Mr. Payne also noted that this wording was taken from the Fauquier County Ordinance and with some minor changes the wording is verbatim. Mr. Dorrier read the following items into the record, regarding the idea of mandatory vs. voluntary compliance: Section 21-2(a) "The Board of Supervisors may,from time to time, establish and delineate one or more historic districts adjacent to landmarks established by the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission and any other buildings or structures within the County having an important historical, architectual or cultural interest, and encompassing any historic areas within the County as defined by Section 15.1-430(b) of the Code of Virginia." Section 21-2(b) "the architectural review board hereinafter created may, from time to time, propose to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors such amendments as it may deem appropriate...." Mr. Dorrier also noted that the tax benefits of a Historic Ordinance has been stressed many times. He noted that State benefits are for renovations of dwellings 30 years or older or commercial buildings that are 45 years or older. Mr. Dorrier stated 4�hat separate tax rates can be establi,s�hed at a local level by the Board of Supervisors for these dwellings. Mr. Dorrier commented that the ordinance needs additional guidelines setting criteria for landmarks to be designated. He noted that the Historic committee would be willing to take the ordinance back and work on it. Mr. Huffman stated that he believed that the owners of the properties involved should have a better explanation of the tax incentives. Mr. Dorrier stated that the tax incentives would depend upon the amount of renovations, which would be amortized over a period of 5 years and would be applied to any revenue. He noted that at a Federal leval he does not have any set figures for the tax benefits and at the local level the Board of Supervisors will set the tax rates. Mrs. Diehl asked if anyone knows of any locality that has enacted a separate t.a., rate of this nature. Mr. Payne stated that the State statutes regarding these tax incentives were not enacted until September 1976 and there have not been any taxes collected under these rates. Col. Washington asked what the size of a district will be; will it con,§ists of the landmarks or the proge:=ty surrounding it. Mr. Dorrier stated that this would involve the question of whether you wanted to encourange compatible developement around the property or just designate the landmark; itself. He noted that the propose of the ordinance to to perserve the landmark. Col. Washington asked how this would affect the landowner across the road, who 941 is .incompatible with the landmark. Mr. Dorrier stated that he does not think the ordinance is telling the owner across the road what he can do with his house. He noted that the Architectual Review Board is concerned with major external repairs or alterations. Col. Washington asked what will be done with the home that is not compatible. Mr. Dorrier stated that if that person choses not to renovate his home, in order to be compatible with the landmarks, he will not be eligible for any tax relief. Mr. Vest asked how this ordinance will affect the property owner across the street who would like to add an addition on to his house. Mr. Dorrier noted that he would apply for a building permit, which will have to be approved by the Architectual Review Board. Col. Washington stated that some of the members of the Commission felt that each landmark to be designated should be processed similar to a rezoning request. He asked if this is possible. Mr. St. John stated that Mr. Payne's comments from the previous Planning Commission meeting were correct. He noted that the State Code allows the Board of Supervisors, by ordinance, to set forth historic landmark districts. Mr. St. John also noted that the Code allows the Board of Supervisors to enlarge the district or change the district. Col. Washington asked if this can be voluntary like a rezoning request is now. Mr. St. John stated that the Zoning ordinance and the Code states that a rezoning can be enacted by the owner, Planning Commission, or the Board of Supervisors. He noted that the ordinance, does not say land can only be rezoned at the owners request, it says that the land can be rezoned without the owners permission. Mr. St. John said that if this ordinance is enacted it will have to be like the present Zoning ordinance.. He noted that the State Statute does not envision an ordinance that is voluntary. He also stated that if this ordinance is enacted every landmark included on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission list would have to be designated. Mr. St. John noted that the regulations regarding each district are determined by the.Planning Commission and the Board of Super- visors. He stated that a ordinance can prescribe the size of the district, which could be just the landmark or can include the immediate area around the landmark. Mr. St. John also noted that the purpose of the ordinance is to protect the landmark and its environment. Mr. Huffman asked Mr. St. John if this ordinance is adopted will the landmarks listed with the Virginia Landmarks Commission have to be automatically included. Mr. St. John noted that the State Code states that they must be included. He stated that if they are not included it would be difficult to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Huffman asked if the Virginia Landmarks are included could the remaining landmarks be considered for designation upon individual request. Mr. St. John noted that the property owner is not the only individual that can request that a landmark be designated. Mr. St. John noted that the ordinance could include those landmarks listed with the Virginia Landmarks Commission and leave the ordinance open to amendment. Dr. Moore asked if an application for designation of a landmark would come before the Commission. Mr. St. John stated that the Code does not say it would, but the Board of Supervisors would probably want a request for designation to come before the Planning Commission first. Dr. Moore asked if a landmark is designated the land would not necessarily be included in this designation unless the Planning Commission should request it and additional portions of land can be added to the district upon request. Mr. Payne stated that this is correct. Mr. George McCallum stated that he is concerned about the lack of understanding among the members of the Planning Commission concerning tax benefits. He noted that there are three areas which need to be considered they are: #1 - Albemarle County can adjust the tax rate, but this tax rate is available to any structure renovated subject to Board of Supervisors approval; #2 - Land use taxation, which includes four categories: 1. Agriculture 2• Horticulture 3. Forestry 4. Open Space (land used for historic purposes) This rate of taxation applies only to the land and not any structure located upon it. This tax rate allows for a minimum of 5 acres and any structure would be taxed at the normal tax rates. #3 - Federal tax rate and laws, which concerns property that is listed on the National Register. The tax rates applies only to the structure and not any properties that might be included in a local historic district. He also noted that this tax rate is not available if the property is being used as a residence, but would apply to commerical or rental property. Mr. McCallum noted that his major objections is that a district is not defined in the ordinance. He noted that at a later date, the Board of Supervisors could delineate the district. Mr. McCallum also noted that the ordinance needs to define criteria for the district. He noted that if the landmark, alone, is designed then the ordinance is protecting the landmark from its owner. Mr. Overton asked if defining the limits of a district will be whatever the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors decide. Col. Washington stated that he believed that is correct. Mr. Collins stated that the liklihood of a landmark being designated without the owner's approval should be discussed rather than the issued of a voluntary or mandatory ordinance. He also noted that a board should be created to correspond with the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission concerning cost, etc. He noted that this board should work with the landowners. He noted that the ordinance now is very reasonably concerning landmarks in the countryside and the urban area. Mr. Clover stated that the problems with this ordinance are not small, but with proper thought and guidance these landmarks can be preserved. 'le noted that he felt individuals buying this property would be glad to have the chance to meet with an Architectual Review Board to advise them on renovations and improvements to the property. Ms. Sue Rainey, League or Women Voters, read a letter into the record concerning the Historic Ordinance. (attached) Mr. Jim Scott, stated that his home is on the Virginia Landmarks Commission list but he noted that he would be hesitant to submit plans, for renovations, to a Board for approval. He stated that he would like to see the historic ordinance be voluntary. M 1'os Ache rle :;minty Plannini: Cnmrisael,sn »roans LOA•!,us of ,'r nen 'scoters of Wharlotteeville and Albemarle cy. Dates February 50 1978 The Lea vue of nri►nn voters favors County action to protect its old" structitreas and eito.,v wit'i architoctura3 ane. historic significance. R>t V_o € 'In time, we recn%-nine t .at 4!rotectin- tha► County's Inn; -. ,ar*zs is 4 aijore complicated than �xseeest.�►�«� e�stse'�11 '?i r� a diNtr .tt in a city. in a rural context,' not only to it necosvary to :reserves a buildin -9 but the Vita of txiat �� - n - as wall, ui.te rafters �anszs tiie natural 4settin, —.. the 0'—'on t lelc: v s Vie P°-feenirr vista ��*r-•trr�sa- to �r �ta�t=se ucn w wg Ct -tal, :;:.era ►-9s preserved alort., with the hours much of what we value in Albemarle's historic landscape is lost. The question of how to protect at least the most sionifieant of these sites and their vottinga is a difficult one. in attempting to understand the opposition to the proposal under considerations we have come to the opinion that much of it is based on fear of the unknowns that size districts are contemplated? Will restrictions hinder farming operations? dhich of the many possible structures should we really attempt to preserve? We think it might be better to clarify those questions and approach the matter in this ways as Prof. Collins has ougnosteds Establish a Historic Landmarks Commission or Architectural Review Board and charge them with the task of recommending; the historic districts for the county and the procedures for their protection. Lacb case would have to be considered individually --protecting; a church in use today might involve different procedures foam protecting a home. We recommend that in any historic district the erection or alteration of faun buildings on oneratinry farms be exempted from regulation. An active agricultural operation should not be encumbered by requirements which might adversely affect it, lie cannot make our fauns into farm museums or expect 20th century farmers to operate 18th century farms* Turthermores we DW gest- that in the current "vivion of the zoning ordinance an attempt A6 be made to Incorporate.. wherever possible-- techniques of protectinr+. the landscape surroundimT historic landmarks --for example in considering special permits: s in scenic hi!Iiway rep*,ulations s and perhaps in any bonus syste . she laws concerning historic districts Oho must be conr:.+inatod with th" ovorall zaninr; re;tuiationa. Perhaps in tZ a leant- run thin approach would be more fruithl than the one pr000sed, :sue ca i nay Land i se Go:,;m pistee League of Voters M- Mr. Bill Stevens stated that Albemarle County has many historic landmarks, which have been preserved by the owners. He noted that these homes and their owners don't ` need to be protected by the County. Mr. Swofford noted that he was impressed with the revised ordinance and feels that Commission should move ahead with the ordinance. He noted that an agency is needed to keep a check on the landmarks. Mr. Swofford also stated that once this ordinance is adopted, it will increase property values considerably. Mr. Vermillion stated that he is still opposed to the Historic Ordinance. Mr. Hughes stated that he felt individuals should not forget that a voluntary ordinance can work two ways. Mr. Dorrier noted to the Commission that he had a list of questionaire from citizens in favor of the Historic Ordinance. Mr. McCann stated that the average citizen that would be affected by this ordinance is not even aware of what is happening with the ordinance. Col. Washington stated that it has been suggested by members of the Planning Commission that this ordinance be sent back to the Historic Preservation Committee for some additional work. He noted that if Mr. Dorrier would accept this, the Commission could withdraw their resolution of intent and send the ordinance back. Col. Washington noted that one of the speakers at the last hearing on this matter stated that they felt it would be better to have a very restrictive ordinance, which could be amended to ease some of the restrictions. He stated that he felt the ordinance should be less restrictive to start with, in order to find the ordinance's strong and weak points. Col. Washington stated that he could not support the ordinance as written, because he feels the ordinance has the right idea, but could be handled differently. He asked Mr. Dorrier if he agreed that the ordinance needs more work. Mr. Dorrier stated that the ordinance can be taken back for more work. He noted that criteria needs to be established for a district and some properties could be exempt from this ordinance, but he noted the ordinance is as mild now, as it could possibly be. He noted that if the ordinance goes back to the Historic Preservation Committe the Commission will not see any major changes. Col. Washington stated that the outer limits of a historic district needs to be defined. Mr. Dorrier stated that a definite size of the district could be defined. Mrs. Diehl stated that she basically agrees with the purpose of the ordinance, but there are some changes she would like to see. She noted that she would like to the size of a district defined, more information on tax incentives, composition of the Archtectual Review Board, and information on how non -conforming use are treated in a historic district. Mrs. Graves stated that she agrees with the concept of historic preservation, but would like to see a list of homes that would be included under this ordinance. She also stated that she feels an ordinance of this nature is necessary, because of a situation which involved Ash Lawn and a subdivision which was adjacent to this property. Mrs. Graves moved for deferral for 60 days. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. N Mr. McCann made a subsitute motion to withdraw the resolution of intent. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Mr. Huffman stated that he is in favor of the concept of the ordinance, but would like to see this ordinance worked out to everyone's benefit. He noted that he would not want to see an ordinance that would set up a district that would restrict developement, as far from the landmark as the subdivision was from Ash Lawn., which Mrs. I�raves was referring to. Col. Washington stated that he does not feel the Commission can give this ordinance the consideration that it needs because of the time involved with the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McCann amended his motion to withdraw the resolution of intent until the Commission has completed its work on the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 5-3. Mrs. Diehl, Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore dissented. There was no further discussion. Be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Residential Planned Neighborhood District to accomodate agricultural uses within RPN and to give density credit for that common open space that could be in a farm use provided that the farm, although it might be privately owned, be maintained within the RPII and subject to all uses under the RPN District. Mr. Keeler presented this item. He noted that the changes made to the plan include, deletion of the community center, 2 acre lot around the -rental unit, and the 150 acre open space would be used for farm operation by Christian Retreats. 'ors. Graves noted that in the past open space had been used as a buffer between operational uses and residential uses. Mr. Payne stated that this would not cause an initial change in the lot lines. He noted that the Farm operation would be considered just another lot. Mr. Keeler read a letter from Mr. Stuart, an adjacent owner into the record. (attached) Col. Washington asked how this request went before the Board without coming to the Commission first. Mr. Keeler stated that Mr. Manzano went before the Board with his request because the Board gave the final approval. He noted that Mr. Manzano had some questions as to what was the actual approval. Mr. Lindstrom asked why 100 acres was used in Section 19-5-2. Mr. Payne stated that he chose this figure for several reasons. He noted that you can't have a farm under 100 acres, a relatively large area should be substituted for the open space and it would only be appropriate to have agriculture to subsitute for open space in an RPN which itself has a significant size. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the Board's reasons for this resolution of.intent to amend the RPN District was because the Ordinance would not permit agricultural uses in an RPN and permanently dedicated could be part of a Planned Development. BATESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22924 TELEPHONE ( 703 ) 456-6197 1 February 1979 Planning Department 414 east Market street Charlottesville VA 22901 Attention: Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Assistant Director of Planning Dear Mr. Keeler: Re: Christian Retreats Inc. Requests ZMA-79- land ZMA-79-2 Please refer to the Planning Departments letters of January 22, 23, and 26 on the above subject. The Herbert W. and Patricia B. Stuart property is shown as parcels #23C and #23A at the intersection of #692 and - - #637 east on the attached maps. We adjoin the Christian Retreats property for a distance of 1410 feet along #637 east of #692. We have studied the application (ZMA-79-1) and the existing approved plan and as is well known have taken no opposition to it. We consider seriously the need for the original excellent plan and the contributions that were given by the Planning Department and the other County agencies concerned. The three amendments now requested as shown in your letter of January 26 have been thoroughly considered with you and our neighbors. The Stuarts recommend approval of the three amendments and particularly endorse the necessity for Christian Retreats Inc. to retain complete control of the farm operation and farm land. The need for this control is so obvious to an adjoining farmer that it makes us wonder why such an unrealistic scheme was ever proposed. As we understand the present situation, prompt action is necessary to the development that has already taken place and that the second application (ZMA-79-2) is an alternative to allow Christian Retreats Inc. to take control within the very limited requirements of A-1 zoning. Please advise the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to approve the amendments to ZMA-79-1 as promptly as possible to preserve the good planning and work that has been done by all concerned. Sincerely yours, rber�Wu�art� (Patricia Bonsall Stua:- /D m Mr. Payne noted that this amendment is not being made to accomodate Christian Retreats. Mr. Keeler noted that the concept of open space does not necessarily mean this is an area where,open:space may have pyschological.utility.. He noted.that the public will have access to this area also. Col. Washington stated that he does not feel Christian Retreats should enter the discussion on this amendment. He noted that the Commission should discuss whether in Section 19-5-2 the wording should be 100 acres or 10% of the site. Mr. Payne stated that if 10% of a 10 acre RPN was agricultural you would have a 1 acre farm, which would be ridiculous. One acre of open space would not be bad, but when you are speaking in terms of a farming operation it makes quite a difference. Mr. McCann stated that if a farming operation is being considered the Commission should discuss an amount of acreage that is reasonable. He also noted that there are problems with-intergratng a farm, and a residential area. Col. Washington stated that the problem is not with farms that raise corps, but with farms that raise livestock. Mr. Stuart, an adjacent owner, stated that he felt the open space should be equal to the space allowed for residential use. Col. Washington said 50% open space. Mr. Tucker stated that the open space could be limited to 25%. Col. Washington asked if this could only apply to RPNs of 100 acres or more. Mr. Tucker stated that this could be done. Mr. Lindstrom stated that frequently a situation arises when an individual owns 75 acres, of which he would like to subdivide a portion and keep 50 acres for himself. He noted that this person is not a serious farmer, but this would be enough to protect him. Mr. Payne noted that Christian Retreats sought an RPN because of the multi- family dwelling. Mrs. Graves asked if these dwellings are existing. Mr. Payne noted that the building is existing but not asa multi -family dwelling. Col. Washington stated that he would agree with a 100 acre RPN having a 25% agricultural operation. Mr. Keeler suggested that this be decreased to 20%, because of the area that would be used for roads and this would allow for lots 60,000 square feet. Col. Washington stated that he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom's example and believes 25% percent of the site should be used for agriculture., because the owner can subdivide and there wouldn't be any control over the number of dwellings. Mr. Payne suggested the following wording be added to the end of Section 19-5-2: and together or developed with such additional dwelling units, if any, as the Commission may approved on the preliminary plan,..." He noted that this would allow more than one dwelling unit, but if the applicant would want any additional dwelling units, other than those shown on the plan, the item would have to come back before the Planning Commission to amend the preliminary plan. Mrs. Graves stated that the Commission would then have less chance of getting any open space. Mr. Payne stated that if a 100 acre RPN is submitted with 75 lots, which are not restricted to agricultural use, one lot would be at least 25 acres with one dwelling unit and be used for individual farm operation. Mr. McCann stated that if a 200 acre farm with 25% agricultural use is the minimum this would allow 50 acres of open space for agricultural uses, which would be easier to work with. Col. Washington stated that he feels 25 acres is just as easy to work with as 50. Mr. McCann stated that he doesn't feel 25 acres would be as compatible with a residential area as 50 acres. Col. Washington asked how open space can be justified when 2, 3, and 5 acre lots are involved. Mr. Keeler noted that there are many different kinds of open space. He noted that in some situations open space is used to protect streams. Mr. McCann stated that he could go along with 100 acres instead of 200. Mr. McCann moved that this amendment be recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. ZMA-79-01. CHRISTIAN RETREATS is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to amend their RPN/A-1 Plan of 236.54 acres. Property is located on the north side of Route 637 west of interesection of Route 692 and 637. County Tax Map 70, Parcel 39; and County Tax Map 71, Parcel 22A. Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request. Mr. Tatum, the applicant's represent- ative, was present. Col. Washington noted that he had originally voted against the RPN because he did not feel a number of bosses can run a farm. Mr. McCann moved that this amendment be recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Payne asked Mr. Tatum if the main house has 7 or 8 units. Mr. Tatum noted that there is a total of 8 units in the dwelling. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with the following conditions: /C� 09 1. Compliance with the conditions of ZMA-78-09 (Note: In condition #8, delete the wording "or the community center"); 2. Applicant may record pedestrian easements linking residential areas in lieu of construction of pedestrian trails. This shall be accomplished prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. There was no further discussion on this item. ZMA-79-02. CHRISTIAN RETREATS is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to rezone 236.54 acres from RPN/A-1 to A-1 Agriculture. Property is located on the north side of Route 637 west of the intersection of Route 692 and 637. County Tax Map 70, Parcel 29; and County Tax Map 71, Parcel 22A. Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request. Mr. Tatum, the applicant's representative, was present. Mr. Payne informed the Commission that they could recommend ZMA-79-02 for approval, in case the Board of Supervisors should deny ZMA-79-01. Mr. McCann moved that ZMA-79-02 be recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors, but recommend that the Board except the RPN amendments. Dr. Moore stated that he would like to restudy the A-1 proposal, because he feels that this area has a problem with the roads. Mr. Tatum stated that the applicant would like to see the amendments to the RPN approved and that ZMA-79-02 was an alternative method. Mr. Vest moved that the Board of Supervisors deny ZMA-79-02. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. I Ro ert W.L Tucker, Jr. Se r % ary 'fl /1-�s F9 19