Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 21 79 PC MinutesMarch 21, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on the proposed zoning ordinance on Wednesday, March 21, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Layton McCann; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Charles Vest. Absent were Mr. James Huffman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Tuber stated that the staff prepared its alternative based upon the ComprehensiveA He'read part of the proposal to the Commission. Mrs. Diehl questioned if the special permit process is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan under Alternative #1. Mr. Tucker replied that with the special permit provision, the Commission could deny what is permitted and recommended by the Comprehenisve Plan. That was hic concern with that alternative. Mrs. Diehl said that she feels the special permit process should carry over to the rural residential area. Mr. Tucker said that there will be very few areas where a special use permit could be approved due to the roads. This is another staff concern. He said that the Plan does setforth areas where development can occur, but the plan does not address these areas in terms of roads. Mrs. Diehl said that if the special permit process were used in what is know as the Best Agricultural Soils Area as well as the rural residential area a different criteria for determining desirability would have to be developed. Mr. Gloeckner said that using roads as a basis for approval or denial is not a good idea, since roads are not built until the need is there. Also he pointed out that due to the geology of the area groundwater is unpredictable. These are areas that he did not think should be part of the qualifying criteria. Also he pointed out that the special use permit process is more likely than not controlled by politics and the state code grants the right to subdivision to all property owners assuming they meet the lot requirements of their particular area. Mr. Skove felt that the criteria can be very specific. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that the special permit process assumes that a use is inappropriate to an area without certain conditions. Mrs. Diehl said that she does have a problem with reducing the farmer's borrowing power. 116) Mr. McCann said that he does not favor the special use permit process as a solution to everything. Mr. Skove said that since no two parcels are alike, he favors the flexiuility it affords. Mr. McCann pointed to the fact that many controls currently exist, such as the run-off control ordinance, the Health Department requirements, slope limitations, flood plain, etc., and he just not feel this list should be added to. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the Commission's decision on the agricultural lands will critically affect the value of the farmland. He said that he assumes at this point that real estate is appraised at2-acre zoning, unless there is land use taxation on a particular parcel. He said that he wonders what would happen if the county moved in the direction of 5-acre density by right. Furthermore, he said that some things in the Comprehensive Plan are simply not that critical, pointing out that the Plan represents the idal, which is impossible to accomplish in one step. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan does not even address subdivision by special permit. Mr. Gloeckner further stated that the special permit process will not penalize the developer, since he will pass his costs on to the individual home owners. Furthermore, the special permit process is costly. Col. Washington said that he likes the staff's proposal because it follows the Comprehensive Plan, however he dislikes it because of its complexity. Mrs. Graves said that in many cases the hillside overlay will govern the density of the parcel, depending upon the steepness of the slope. Mr. Payne said that will be addressed through hillside regulations. Mrs. Rosenblum said that{his is the biggest part of the ordinance; she pointed out that land is the resource that should be here for the future. She supported the special use permit process since it gives the county controls not covered by uses permitted by right. She said that she is encouraged by the 5 and 10 acre lot provisions. Mrs. Garnett asked that the Commission not recommend something that virtually takes land from the owner. Mr. Columbini said that there are two kinds of agricultural land: one is that land which tillable, and the other is that which is covered by forest. He felt that land which is tillable should be permitted a density of 5-10 acres. Other land should be permitted to develop more freely. He suggested that the county should facilitate build- ing where it is not economical to farm. Clustering in the forested land would retain greenery and be beneficial to the county as well. Col. Smith, representing the Farm Bureau, said that first the county needs to furnish the utilities for the projected growth areas. He said that is really the only problem with Mr. Columbini's suggestion. He said that he leans toward the staff's recommendation,and views this as a good way for the county to have some control over large developers and less control over the small ones. He read the Farm Bureau's statewide policy on farmland. He said that farmland that is specifically oriented to the cattle industry, which is Albemarle's largest farm use, should be preserved. Mr. McCallum, on behalf of the Albemarle Property Owner's Association, emphasized the necessity of the property owners to have uses by right. In the abstract, the special permit process sounds wonderful and it sounds as if the local government could make enlightened decisions in the land use planning. However, Mr. McCallum pointed out that land development, even subdivisions, often becomes a political decision. He said that any concept incorporating some of the proposals listed here will decrease the potential market value of much of the land in Albemarle County. Uses by right tend to preserve the market value, minimize fees, etc. Mrs. David pointed out that much of the county is zoned and subdivided for residential use, and is not being used for this. She suggested a time limit on zoning ( see attached comments ), and noted that the special permit process seems illogical for development and suggested that something like planned development might be better. Col. Washington then closed the work session to public input. Mr. McCann said that however the agricultural land is handled, the rural residential should likewise be handled. Mr. Gloeckner said that the special permit process for subdivision might be more palatable if only the Commission reviewed them. Mr. Payne cited one case where this was permitted with specific criteria setforth by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Skove agreed that the special permit process must set forth objective criteria for approval. Col. Washington said that steeper areas should have a minimum buildable area setforth. Mr. McCann said that the farmers are going to take care of the problems and concerns of some of the commissioners without the county even attempting to do anything. Col. Washington said that subdivisions of larger than 20 lots is discriminatory, and wondered if this will legally hold up. Mr. Payne said that if the number set has factual analytical basis, it is probably sustainable. He said that the Comprehensive Plan states that anything over twenty lots approach village status. Mr. McCann said that in some cases it is economically more feasible to develop a greater number of lots. Mr. Payne agreed that if taken to court, the court would no doubt consider just that point. He said that the planned development could be an alternative to the special use permit process, however the problem with that is that it requires a rezoning and is even more politically oriented. Mr. Vest felt that the. staff's proposal more closely follows the C:omprehensiae Plan than anything, and he said that he could support the proposal. He said that the special permit process should not be a burden to the landowner. Mrs. Diehl said that she feels some form of Alternative D in the staff proposal is necessary to have some control over the larger developments. Ila Mrs. Graves pointed out that low and moderate income families will soon be forced into villages and the urban area due to the cost of electricity, gas, etc. Mr. Gloeckner said that at the time of review of the previous proposed zoning ordinance, the county citizens had not favored a ten -acre type zoning, and this was one of the provisions that helped to defeat that ordinance. He said that in order to move one step closer to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and in order to retain the value of the land for the landowners, he moved that the agricultural land be permitted to develop in either five acre lots or 2-acre cluster lots by right, and that no special permit be incorporatdd into this district. Mr. Skove said that he feels that this would put development in the worst places and will leave the slopes and rocky land open and the existing open land will be developed. Mrs. Diehl said that she supports Alternative #1 with specific criteria for special permit approval. Mr. Gloeckner then revised his motion to include mandatory 2-acre cluster lots in the wooded areas and 5-acre lots by right everywhere, with a cluster option. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a vote of 2-5, with only Messrs. McCann and Gloeckner supporting the motion. Mrs. Diehl moved that Alternative #1 as is be adopted for development in the Agricultural District ( Alternative #1 was commercial subdivisions by special use permit with a rural exemption by right ). Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said that he certainly would not support that motion, since it gives the local government control over everything that happens in the county. Mr. Vest said that is too restrictive and he would not support that motion. The motion was defeated by a vote of 2-5, with only Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Skove supporting the motion. Mr. Vest then moved that the Commission adopt tk.e staff's recommendation with Alternatives A- C, and F and G. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl said that she could not support the motion without some form of Alternative D to limit the number of lots that could be subdivided by right. Mr. Skove said that he could support the motion if it didn't include wooded areas, since he feels this will create instant villages all over the county. Mrs. Diehl noted that the scale of development is very important in the agricultural areas. This motion was also defeated by a vote of 3-5, with Mrs. Graves, Col. Washington, and Mr. Vest supportinc; the motion. 113 M M There was then a short discussion regarding the scale of development in the rural areas and there was Commission consensus to discuss this topic at a later date. Mrs. Diehl advised Mr. Vest that she could support his motion if he included the scale of development. The Commission said that it would again discuss the agricultural land at the next meeting and hope to arrive at some decision. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr, - ecr ary V 1 114 m m Work Session of Planning Commission on Proposals re Zoning in Proposed Agricultural District - March 21, 1979. Comments by Opal D. David, Member Board of Supervisors 1976-77 and ex offieio member Planning Commission during that same period. 1. One District vs. Two. In an earlier statement submitted by the Albemarle Property Owners Association (February 23?), they stated, "We see little difference in the nature and character of the common rural landscape of Albemarle County and feel that all rural land should be treated within one zoning district." In view of statements by others questioning whether there are actually any "prime agricultural soils" in the County, this would seem to be a more correct position than the support expressed by the Property Owners in their more recent statement for two separate Districts: (a) Rural Residential and (b) Agricultural -Forestry. If an attempt is going to be made to identify and segregate land considered especially suitable or productive for agricultural -forestry uses, then we are right back with the Best Agricultural Lands Overlay and should expect to restrict severely any development o tt�� a d. It would seem that the economic, employ- ment, scenic, and lifestyl�d Comprehensive Plan would be better served by a single Rural -Agricultural -Forestry District, within which both large and small- scale agricultural activities could be accommodated as well as all of the uses being proposed for the Rural Residential District, with regulation of divisions and development as indicated below. 2. Aural Exempt Divisions. Assuming this provision is intended to accommodate the owner of a sizable property who wants to sell off a small amount of land to help pay for taxes, college tuition, etc. or wants to give land to a member of his family, it does not seem necessary that he should have to be put through the rigamarole proposed in 3.11a.7. Surely the existing requirements for getting a piece of property transferred and recorded, together with the regulations con- trolling eligibility for lower taxes under the Use -Value Tax Program, provide sufficient protection from abuse of this right. The proposed Definition, however, seems inadequate. Could a three -acre piece of property be cut up into three one -acre lots under this exemption? I assume that sort of division is not contemplated and suggest this possible re -wording: "The division, including redivision, of land under single ownership, totalling at least ? acres, into an aggregate of not more than 3 parcels in any one calendar year, no one of which may be less than 3 acres with frontage of at least 250 feet If abutting on a State road and no less than 2 acres otherwise. 3. Residential Development - Multiple Single Family Units. The residential objec- tives of the 1977 Comprehensive Plan can never be implemented if the present policy of unlimited residential development uses by right at two -acre (or even five -acre) density is continued. In the current discussions of potential residential development in the rural areas of the County, an important factor is being consistently disregarded. If you will look at Table 44 on page 45 of the 1977 Plan, you will find that the projected acreage requirements for new housing units by 1995 is 9,835 acres. If you will then look at Table 27 on page 36, you will find that, as far back as 1971 (when our first Comprehensive Plan was adopted) there were already zoned for R-1, R-2, and R-3 development 9,628 acres --a figure which does not include any of the resi- dential developments with minimum lot sizes of 2 acres or more since these are presently allowed by right in the Agricultural District without re -zoning. In the fourth column of this same Table 27, the percentage of land zoned for residential development R-1, R-2, and R-3 but not developed is shown. Rosser Payne, comment- ing on these figures in the 1971 Plan page 32), estimated that "the vacant lands zoned R-1, R-2, and R-3 in Albemarle County had a population holding capacity in excess of 101,000" and warned against the "premature zoning" of additional lands. Despite this warning, 1,931 additional subdivision lots have been approved between 1971 and 1976, distributed as indicated in Table 25, page 36, and on Map XIX at page 37 of the 1977 Plan. 7 On the basis of this information, it is obvious that there is already much more land zoned for residential development than we anticipate needing to house about 1%MW double our present population by 1995• It is also clear that substantial amounts of this excess are located in the rural areas of the County. It would be mani- festly unfair and probably unwise to deny future applications for approval of residential developments which might well be more supportive of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan than applications approved five or ten years ago, but steps must surely be taken to achieve some sort of rational balance between zoning and projected need. The Special Permit alternative which has been proposed by Commission staff provides the control needed to begin putting a brake on this excessive zoning but it seems like an unnecessarily cumbersome way to go about it. Would it not be more logical to simply require that all developments of more than a certain number of units in the RAF District should come in as Planned Developments, with approval based in part on the same criteria suggested in your Special Permit proposal. (An additional criteria, which I think the Commission has already con- sidered, should be the nature of development taking place in contiguous areas.) 4. Time Limit on Zoning. The League of Women Voters made this suggestion in a letter addressed to the Commission on February 6, 1979, and it is proposed in a rather tentative form in Sec. 10.8.1 of the Draft Proposal. Although the adoption of such a provision by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors would, of course, not be limited to zoning for residential development, it appears to be especially desirable that it be considered in this context. Our present Zoning Ordinance provides (Sec. 11-13-3) that Special Use Permits "shall be deemed abandoned" if the use, structure, or activity for which isssued has not commenced within eighteen months after its issuance. Our Subdivision Ordinance provides (Sec. 18-53(c)) that approval of final plats of subdivisions shall be void unless the approved plat is recorded with the clerk of the circuit court within six months. The Planning Commission is required by the State Code (Sec. 15.1-454) to review the Comprehensive Plan at least once every five years "to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan." Since one of the purposes of zoning is to implement the Comprehensive Plan, it seems reasonable that zoning should be subject to similar review and change, especially when it is held for a period of several years without being developed. F9