Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 14 79 PC MinutesMarch 14, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Wednesday, March 14, 1979, 4:00 p.m., County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove; Dr. James Moore; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Layton McCann; and Mr. Charles Vest. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Tucker said that the Commission would be discussing the Industrial Districts. Section 3 deals with all the planned districts and no major changes from the original proposal have been made. Section 3.2 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, GENERALLY applies to all the industrial districts and he noted the change in building height from 100 feet to 65 feet. Section 3.3 LIGHT INDUSTRY attempts to make the uses compatible. Mr. Tucker noted that Mr. Gouldman, on behalf of his clients, suggests that Itashpalt mixing plant" in the Heavy Inudstrial District be changed to a use by right, to have the existing conform. He said that the use is currently provided in the natural resource district. Mr. Gouldman said that "concrete mixing plant" is by right and he feels "asphalt mixing plants" is comparable. Mr. Skove said that the difference is that one can expect dust with the asphalt plant. Col. Washington said that if the plant were proposed in the proper location, he does not see the county denying a request for the use by special use permit. There was Planning Commission consensus to leave "asphalt mixing plants" as a use by special use permit. Mrs. Diehl requested that the staff investigate chemical disposal from drycleaners and laundromats. Mr. Tucker also stated that Mr. Gouldman was concerned about the area requirements in Section 3.4.3 and feels it should be four acres. However, this particular case is proposed to be established as Heavy Industry on the map. Mr. Gloeckner established that one advantage for the minimum area requirement is the limited number of accesses from the road. Furthermore, he established that this could take place at site plan or subdivision plat approval. Mr. Gloeckner also ascertained that there can be several uses within one district. Mr. Tucker then advised the Commission that the Industrial Park is very similar to the county's existing PID. He said that a transportation analysis has been added since the staff feels it an integral part of industrial planning. Col.. Wasington noted the need for convenience charts for uses, with area requirements, etc. Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the changes will be made in the industrial districts and they will be brought back for Commission review at a later date. Legal Responsibility of the Planning Commission: Mr. Payne advised the Commission that he would define the scope of respon- sibility for special use permits, rezonings, site plans, aid subdivision plats and give the range of discretion on each and the standards for approval. Firstly, he stated that site plans and subdivisions are an administrative act where the applicants submits a plan to the county and if the ordinance is followed, then that is all that is required. In order wards, the Commission can approve or deny these according to the ordinance. They can be denied when they are a danger to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Mr. Gloeckner then questioned if the applicant can attach the Highway Department if the site plan or subdivision plat is denied on the lack of road safety. Mr. Payne said that this could be taken to the circuit court for review, and the way it usually happens is that the Highway Department contends that all roads are somewhat substandard, it is just the degree. Mr. Payne said that there must be objective evidence in the record to defend a denial, since a denial is a radical decision. Col. Washington said that in most cases one must make a decision based on opinions only, by seeing such things as one lane bridges, narrow roads with little shoulders, etc. Mr. Payne said that there are three instances where some discretion must be exercisefl and lots of this hinge on what is reasonable. First is the private roads; secondly,waivers of the ordinance; and thirdly, reasonable access to public utilities. Col. Washington questioned the weight of the Comprehensive Plan in decision making. Mr. Payne stated that most decision simply don't involve the Comprehensive Plan, since the Zoning Ordinance should implement the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Payne then discussed the special use permit and rezoning process. He said that generally a special permit is granted for a use that is inappropriate to a zone, but with appropriate conditions and controls can be permitted. An applicant does not have the right to rezonings or special use permits, and must bear the burden of proof. If the use, with the appropriate conditions, does not prove to be unoffensive, then the special permit can be denied. This is a legislative matter. He said that the Commission is not liable personally for special use permits or rezonings, since the Board has the final say. He noted that the Court canmake final actions on site plans and subdivision plats. He said that the Commission is not liable for legislative acts, and liable for administrative acts Ii - M if it acts in bad faith. The Planning Commission is always immune to personal liability in legislative matters, though. Most liability is defined in terms of the governing body, and in this case the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Payne advised the Commission, though, in spite of its basic lack of personal liability, it is their duty to review petitions objectively. With no further action, the meeting adjourned at 6:40. R ert W. Trucker, Jr. - kecretary i 1-1 19