HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 05 79 PC MinutesMarch 5, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Monday,
March 5, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia,
to continue working on a draft proposal for the zoning ordinance. Those members present
were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James
Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials
present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Miss Mason Caperton,
Planner.
Mr. Tucker said that prior to the business of the draft proposal, he had
a couple of items he wished to take up with the Commission. The first is that the
applicant for the Western Albemarle Shopping Center has requested deferral of the
site plan until April 3, 1979, due to the fact that he will not be in town.
Col. Washington said that deferral until April 3 would be appropriate if
the applicant is prepared on that date to discuss the traffic on the three lanes without
traffic stopping. He said that he is specifically concerned that the traffic be
permitted to flow properly.
Dr. Moore suggested a sketch on the raod system in that area on April 3.
Kirtley Distributing Site Plan:
Mr. Tucker asked for a clarification on the conditions of approval, noting
that the staff had made the recommendation that conditions are to be accomplished prior
to obtaining a building permit. However, he noted that this particular item was not
addressed in the motion. He said that if that were not the intent rthe applicant could
bond the commercial entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he made the motion for approval and was not sure
of his thinking at that time. He asked the standard procedure for processing building
permits.
Mr. Tucker replied that in the future the staff presentation will be very
clear about which conditions have to be met prior to the issuance of the building permit
and what conditions have to be met prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Mr. McCann said that he felt the applicant should be permitted to bond the
commercial entrance, and if the work is not done, the county can cash the bond
a;:d have the work done.
There was a consensus that bonding will serve the purpose at this time, but
Col. Washington asked that in the future there be some method for specifically addressing
this matter.
Mr. Gloeckner Felt that in the past the county staff has decided when to
issue the building permit and when to require bonding.
Mrs. Graves insisted that all the conditions be completed.
Z-2
AGR District:
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that at this time there are four
alternatives under discussion:
1. AGR District as proposed, i.e., with rural exemption by right and commercial
subdivisions by special use permit;
2. AGR District as proposed in No. 1 above plus 5-acre density by right;
3. AGR District as proposed in No. 1 with 5-acre density clustering by right;
4. AGR District as proposed in No. 2 above plus mandatory clustering of 2-acre
density by right.
Mr. McCallum addressed the Commission about the treatment of rural lands
( see attached sheets ).
Mrs. Garnett said that Mr. McCallum's alternative is the direction many
people of the county want the Commission to go.
Col. Washington relayed the message from Col Smith of the Farm Bureau
that the Farm Bureau hopes for some sort of compromise between Mr. McCallum's
presentation and Mr. Payne's draft for the AGR.
Mr. Carr said that he hopes the Commission will consider the alternative
offered by Mr. McCallum on behalf of the Albemarle Property Owners Association. He
said that this alternative represents the views of most of the people who own the
farmland in Albemarle County. He said that he personally has been having trouble
with the concept of retaining open space simply for that purpose without damaging
property owners.
Mr. Roy Patterson said that he feels the Commission is receiving good input
in the ordinance making process.
Mr. Dorrier questioned if it is possible to have a working farm with cluster
development around it. He asked if the Commission has reached a decision on this.
Dr. Moore questioned Mr. McCallum how he would picture an area like Biscuit
Run in this proposal.
Mr. McCallum replied that first he would have to define"small farm."
He noted that the trade-off is that one is getting a greater number of one acre lots
but a much larger area is left as a farm.
Dr. Moore pointed out that Mr. McCallum's proposal would allow Biscuit
Run and Blue Ridge Farm RPN by right.
Mr. Payne agreed that this is correct, however none of the commercial or
industrial areas would be permitted.
Mr. Skove questioned the maximum lot size of 3(c) in Mr. McCallum's
proposal.
19
73
MEMO
TO: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: GEORGE B. McCALLUM, III
ALBEMARLE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
SUBJECT: TREATMENT OF RURAL LANDS
The goals of the Planning Commission regarding the treatment
of rural lands are perceived as being twofold: (1) encouragement
of the conservation of best agricultural lands and open spaces; and
(2) discouragement of the stripping of existing public roads with
residential housing, particularly in the best agricultural lands
areas. The balancing of the numerous factors involved makes for a
complex situation.
The development of agricultural lands results from an increasing
demand for residences as a result of population growth and a decrease
in the incentive for and ability of existing and future farmers to
continue or commence farming. This loss of incentive and ability
results from the deteriorating economics of farming. The things
which farmers need and use --fuel, electricity, feed, machinery,
labor, and so forth --are costing more.
In considering the treatment of rural land under a revised
zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission must be very careful not
to reduce the existing incentives for and future ability of the
farmer to continue to farm. In today's cost/price structure,
numerous existing farming operations in Albemarle County are marginal.
Compared with other business endeavors, farms require a great deal
of capital and labor in relation to the return. One of the prime
incentives for the continuing infusion of money and work is the
"plum" that some time in the future either the farmer or his family
will benefit from the development potential of his farm. Most
present farmers do not have any present plans to develop their
farms, but are not willing to give up the right to a reasonable use
of their farms for something other than agricultural purposes.
The increasing market value of their farms not only provides
a present incentive to continue to farm but also provides the present
and future ability to continue to farm. The increasing market value
permits the farmer to borrow more money for farming. As the market
value becomes limited so does the farmer's borrowing ability. Lending
institutions make their loans on the repayment ability of the
borrower either from his earnings or his collateral.
The AGR District presently being considered is perceived as
resulting in a reduction in the present and future value of agricultural
land and thereby reducing the present incentive of existing farmers
to continue farming and decreasing their future ability to borrow
money against the value of their farms for the purpose of continuing
to farm. The proposed AGR District contains no development use by
right other than the nominal Rural Exempt Division. Effectively, all
uses other than agricultural and one single family house uses may
be done only by special use permit. This reduces market value. If
the incentive to farm and the ability to farm is reduced, the number
of existing farms will be reduced and the conservation of agricultural
lands will be discouraged rather than encouraged.
. MCCLUR[. CALLAGHAN 4 McCALLUM
ATTORNEYS AND
COUNSELORS AT LAW
CHAR LCT7[SVILLS. VA.
At the same time, the proposed AGR District would appear to
encourage, rather than discourage, road stripping. The Rural Exempt
Division will foster the division of land along public roads into
two acre lots since this will be the only development use permitted
by right.
While the concept of restricting the development of agricultural
lands in order to perserve those agricultural lands in agricultural
use appears on first impression to be a simple,direct approach, in
fact, such restriction discourages the owners of the agricultural
land from continuing the agricultural use by removing the "plum"
at the end of long years of work and investment, and reduces the
ability of the farmer to continue to farm through reduced borrowing
capacity.
The provision of public water and sewer to those areas of
Albemarle County where development is desired as a "carrot" to the
developer as has been recommended by the Planning Commission is
one of the two most effective measures which can be taken to conserve
agricultural lands. The other measure is the existing land use
taxation program. By encouraging development in areas of Albemarle
County other than in the best agricultural lands areas, Albemarle
County will be relieving the pressure upon agricultural lands for
residential use. We strongly endorse the Planning Commission's
recommendation that steps be taken to provide public water and sewer
to those areas of Albemarle County where residential and commercial
development is desired. While we believe that the land use taxation
program and the provision of public water and sewer provide the most
effective measures for the conservation of agricultural lands, at the
same time we recognize the argument that some disincentive may be
needed in the best agricultural lands area. However, in applying
the "stick" of a disincentive one does not want to kill the farmer
upon whom the preservation of agricultural use on agricultural
lands depends.
As an alternate to the proposed AGR District, the Albemarle
Property Owners Association proposes and will support the following
concepts for the treatment of rural lands in Albemarle County:
(1) The division of existing A-1 land into two zones: (a)
Rural Residential District and (b) Agricultural -Forestry District.
(2) The Rural Residential District to be as presently proposed,
i.e. 2-acre density by right with clustered development by right.
(3) The Agricultural -Forestry District to provide for the
following:
(a) Divisions into parcels containing no less than five
acres by right.
(b) Five acre parcels divided on existing public roads
shall have a frontage of at least 250 feet.
(c). Divisions into parcels containing no less than two
acres and no more than five acres by special use permit with the
standards for the grant of the special use permit to be as objective
as possible and with an affirmative statement in the zoning ordinance
that special use permits will be granted when the standards are met.
(d) No provision for Rural Exempt Division.
(e) Cluster development by right with an increase by right
in the gross density from one unit per five acres to one unit per
two acres as an incentive to cluster.
MCCLURE,CALLAGHAN Q MCCALLUM
ATTORNEYS AND -2-
COUNSELORS AT LAW ��
CHANLQTTESVI LLE. VA. "
In
(f) In a cluster subdivision,
from the cluster may be either owned as
within the cluster or may be retained by
large lot devoid of development rights.
the open land which results
common land by the parcels
the developer as a single
(g) Cluster lots would be prohibited from fronting on
existing public roads.
The reasons why this concept is best are as follows:
(1) Discouragement of road stripping: With the elimination of
the Rural Exempt Division and the requirement that only five acre
lots with minimum frontage of 250 feet may be divided on existing
public roads, the stripping of existing public roads will be
discouraged. At the same time, cluster development on newly
constructed public or private roads will be encouraged through the
increased gross density from five acre to two acre for cluster
development.
(2) Conservation of best agricultural lands: By providing
for the open land resulting from a cluster development to remain
as a single parcel devoid of development rights, the conservation
of best agricultural lands will be encouraged. A farmer who desires
to develop his farm to meet financial reeds or desires can benefit
fromthe development of portions of his property and yet retain 50%
of his farm. Presumably, the farmer acting in his own best interests
will choose the better agricultural soils for the agriculr,:ral unit
which would remain and these soils would surround the existing
farm buildings and farm house. While the size of the farm would be
reduced by up to one-half, the remaining farm would still be an
agricultural unit with presumably the best soils, farm buildings
and farm house, and this resulting agricultural unit would be devoid
of further residential development rights. At the same time, the
farmer would receive financial benefit from the sale of the cluster
lots.
It is believed that under this approach, the present and future
market value of farms would not be significantly reduced. The farmer
would still have his "plum", and his banker would continue to lend
him money. The farmer would have his incentive and ability to continue
to farm.
(3) Downzoning: While this concept does result in further
restriction on development when,compared to the existing zoning
ordinance, in the final analysis the farmer has comparable development
rights provided that he clusters. As pointed out before, the
clustering would result in one-half of the farm remaining as an
agricultural unit devoid of residential development rights.
(4) Political Support: The concept would have the support of
the owners of rural land. This reason cannot be overlooked. An
ordinance must be adopted before it has any impact on the real world.
The best plan is of no effect if it cannot be adopted or is not
sustained in the courts. The Albemarle Property Owners Association
will support the concept set forth above, but will not support the
AGR District presently proposed.
Respectfully submitted,
George B. McCallum, III
Albemarle Property Owners Association, Inc
-3-
r
McCLURE, CALLAGHAN 3 MCCALLUM
ATTORNEYS AND
COUNSELORS AT LAW
CHARLOTiESVILLE, VA.
m
Mr. McCallum said that the purpose is to cover the situation that may fall
between 2-acre cluster by right and the 5-acre lots by right. This accounts for the
maximum and minimum lot sizes. He said that beyond the 5-acre lots everything would
be by right.
Mr. Huffman pointed out that there is no way to guarantee a man approval
of a subdivision request.
Mr. McCallum said that the Commission should be able to identify those
things that need to be considered for approval of the special use permit.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that if this concept of special permit comes about
there must be objective criteria to take politics out of the review process.
Mr. Tucker responded to Mr. McCallum's suggestion by saying that he sees
no need for encouragement and does not see patterns of development changing because
of this concept. He said that he would have to question if it goes far enough to
preserve some area. Furthermore, he said that some sort of disincentive is needed
because the density has notbeen changed.
Mr. Skove acknowledged that what is usually best for agriculture is usual*y
also best for development.
Mr. Gloeckner said that leaving the steeper terrains free of development
as well as the wooded areas is as important as "looking" at the farms.
Mr. McCann agreed stating that if one-half of the rural land is saved
from development a big step has been taken.
Mr. McCallum said that if the property owner clusters under his proposal
there would be.no five -acre lots and no one acre lots on the road frontage.
He agreed that the frontage should be increased to 250 feet.
Col. Washington suggested that the depth could not be more than twice the
width.
Mr. Gloeckner did not feel a proportion would be satisfactory in determining
the frontage.
Mr. Payne said that in his opinion Mr. McCallum's presentation serves better
the idea of preserving open space than preserving agricultural soils. He said that
he feels the second worst thing is the 2-acre cluster lots. He said that what might
happen is a subdivision like Bellair with a nice park in the middle of the 2-acre lots.
He said that this won't be agricultural development and will have a big impact on an
area.
Mr. Payne then advised the Commission that he has a spin-off of his previously
drafted AGR district which adds a statement regarding the fact that a special permit will
have to be approved if it meets specific criteria, and adding as a use by right
cluster subdivisions with 5-acre density. He said that he feels this can be made compatible
with agriculture.
M
He further stated that the Commission may want to go back tc a maximum lot size and
a maximum average lot size. He said that the rural exempt provision is reserved in
this draft and hero .c at this draft also is responsive to Mr. McCallum's concerns.
He said that it Wractical uses by right and is not dependent on politics and
also provides disincentives because it requires a relatively large gross density.
Mr. Payne felt that this is a compromise.
Dr. Moore pointed out that flexibility is provided only for the first owner.
Mr. Payne agreed that this is the case though in theory the second owner buys
the land with that knowledge. That is always true of a cluster subdivision.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the borrowing power of the second owner.
Mr. Payne said that loan value is dependent upon fair market value of the land
the land will still have value as a farm.
Mr. Skove questioned if the cost of land could be considered in this concept.
Mr. Payne felt that the value of the land itself is not significant.
Mr. Payne said that if the Commission adopts the special use permit process
it will have to consider each case on its own merits but will have to, nevertheless,
use some discretion. It may be necessary to look at the Comprehensive Plan and consider
phasing.
Col. Washington pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates more resid-
ential development than is currently shown on the zoning map. He noted that the
Plan has a lead element, though it might not be appropriate for the zoning ordinance
or map to have a lead element.
Mr. Carr said that a great amount of time has been spent on preserving open
space and there are four ways to do this:
1. Sell to someone like WESTVACO;
2. Let the people with lots of money buy it and leave it open;
3. Let the people maintain land in such fashion so that they can pay the high real
estate taxes;
4. Take it away from the owners; or
5. Let the county buy it..
Mr. Carr said that there is no pay to preserve land for farming - this is
not economical because no one wants to farm it. He said that there are no buyers
for farmland as such, to use solely for crop production. He said that to earn money
a "farmer" must have cattle and hay. He said that the Albemarle County Property
Owners approve of the rural exempt provision though it certainly strikes them as
a "crumb."
Mr. Huffman said that he considers a cattle farm as a farm.
Mr. Carr said that crops are grown on good land, but cattle can live on
land that is not so good.
9
7d
Mrs. Garnett said that artifically it is impossible to keep a farmer in
business since he has to make money to stay in business.
by right
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the county must provide uses that are satisfactory
if the farming operation is no longer financially feasible and the farmer needs
another option.
Col. Washington said that the Commission certainly needs to make a
decision on how it will handle the agricultural land. He said that he himself still
favors leaving something for "by right" uses. He said that with the latest draft
submitted by Mr. Payne the "by --right" provision is 5-acre cluster subdivision.
He also expressed concern about the permutations of three divisions per year ending up
as a large parcel being divided,
Mr. Gloeckner questioned what happens to an estate that has 5-6 heirs.
Mr. Payne said that depending upon what they want to do, the land might
not be divisible in kind. They nci-ght want to have a cluster subdivision or they
could seek a special permit or they could sell the land and divide the proceeds.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the farm that could not be subdivided without
a rezoning.
Mr. Tucker said that it should be easy to get a rezoning for development.
Mr. Huffman said that first the Commission must decide if it is preserving
farmland ( agricultural land ) or open space.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
is to preserve the best agricultural soils.
Mr. Huffman said that if this is the case the only thing the Commission
can do is follow the dictates of the Plan and preserve these soils.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Plan is a guide and can always be changed
or amended if it is found to be unworkable.
Mr. Lindstrom said that in reading the Comprehensive Plan one finds the
Plan is concerned about the existing farming operations, but it is also concerned
about preserving land that can be used in the future for agriculture. He said that
he thinks this is the concern of the Farm Bureau.
Mr. McCann said that if this is the case the county should look at the
working farms in the county and preserve them.
Mr. Gloeckner said that there is no need to "beat around the bush";the County
should simply state that it is attempting to control growth through this guise.
Col. Washington stated that each Commissioner probably has a preference
of the four alternatives.
y- Mr. Gloeckner said that what the Property Owners Assocation themselves
presented has more options and it is what they favor - and this group is made up
of many of the farmers in the county. Furthermore he felt that is can be delineated
on the map plus give some uses by right.
7�
Mr. Huffman said that if this group is made up of the farmers then he
certainly accept their alternative.
Mrs. Diehl said that she is inclined to support the concept of the
Farm Bureau and what is already before the Commission.
Mr. McCann said that he suspects that the letter from the Farm Bureau
is really from the Board of Directors and not from the farming community as a whole.
He said that he feels he could support something between Alternative #3 and #4.
Mr. Skove said that he is leaning toward Alternative #3 at this point.
Mr. McCann said that if the Commission is going to address open space in
the agricultural district it needs to talk about open space over the entire county,
and he certainly could not support that.
Mrs. Diehl said that the Commission can look at the RR and include open
space provisions at a later date.
Mr. Gloeckner said that anything that requires a special permit is a
costly method involving many experts, and of course the politics.
Mr. Vest stated his support of Alternative #3.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the Commission intends to include low/moderate
cost housing in #3.
Mr. Payne said that any form of clustering is a problem when it comes
to Farmers Home houses - he felt that is more suitable for the RR district or the
villages.
Mrs. Graves said that she appreciates the spirit of compromise of the
Property Owners Association, however she felt that she could better support Mr. Payne's
proposal.
Mr. Skove moved that the Commission table the decision until Tuesday.
This motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. Huffman moved that the Commission adopt Alternative #3 ( Commercial
subdivisions by special use permit with a rural exemption by right and the AGR District
as proposed by Mr. Payne, along with 5-acre density clustering by right ).
Mr. Vest seconded this motion.
Mr. McCann said that if this motion passes, the entire ordinance is likely
to be defeated since this concept will cause a big controversy.
Col. Washington stated that this motion gives the widest difference between
the RR and AGR districts.
Mr. Lindstrom said that Alternative #1 is the only way to look at the
best agricultural soils.
Col. Washington felt that Alternative #3 will preserve 80% of the agri-
cultural land in the county.
0
Mr. Huffman said that if the farmer decides that he can no longer
farm economically, he can develop in cluster subdivisions. The purpose is to
protect them because they will develop only in extreme circumstances. If the
farmer wants protection from development, he should not be upset about the special
permit provision.
Mr. Lindstrom told the Commission they should remember all the problems
they have with commercial subdivisions in the review process and he felt that if
the Commission adopts Alternative #3 the problems will continue.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the motion does not address the scale of
development.
Col. Washington said that it will address what is left over.
Mr. Huffman decided to withdraw his motion. Mr. Vest agreed to 'this
withdrawal.
Col. Washington said that at this time, other than what is provided in the
current zoning ordinance, he can support only Alternative #3.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
r
f
Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr - Secretary
IR
a
IR