HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 09 79 PC MinutesJuly 9, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on
Monday, July 9, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Conference Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider additional changes in the proposed
zoning text. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove; Mr.
Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Huffman ; Dr. James
Moore; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other ofticials
present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Douglas
Eckel, Senior Planner.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that
a quorum was present.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that members of the Division of Forestry
were present to discuss Section 5.1.24 of the ordinance.
Mr. Epstein, of the Division of Forestry, explained that the wording
for 5.1.24 has been adopted by the Commission for the proposed text using the
Best Management Forestry Practice that is currently on a voluntary basis
under the auspices of the EPA. He said that this management practice may be adopted
on a nationwide basis as a regulatory action only if people don't voluntarily follow
it. He noted that there are sections of the county that the Virginia Division
of Forestry would encourage clear -cutting for. He says that this provision in 5.1.24
could not be enforced by the Virginia Division of Forestry, since it would take
about two full-time people to enforce just this.
Mr. Huffman moved that Section 5.1.24 be amended to read as follows
in the proposed text:
5.1.24 Forestry
A. In districts other than CVN, AF and RR, cutting of trees on
wooded lands shall be limited to selective cutting which is
designed to promote the welfare of the remaining trees; except
that wooded lands may be cleared as an incident to the preparation
of land for the establishment of some other use permitted in the
district, provided that:
(1) such use is exempt from the provisions of Section 32.0
hereof or;
(2) a site plan for such permitted use shall have been approved
in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of this
ordinance.
The following regulation shall apply in all zoning districts:
B. No tree within 15 feet of any perennial stream may be cut,
except for selective cutting which is designed to promote the
welfare of the remaining trees; or in order to provide access
for livestock or for another permitted use.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Payne then discussed some minor changes in the text he felt
would be appropriate.
Mrs. Graves then discussed the table on page 97, stating that
the minimum lot size in cluster developments in the CVN district should be
three acres.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that would be no incentive.
Col. Washington pointed out there is very little CVN designated land
anyway.
Mr. Payne said that the CVN is really an anachronism because of the restrict-
ions in the AF and RR zones. It exists on the map in public ownership only.
Mrs. Diehl felt that the 3-acre zoning would be more environmentally
oriented.
Mr. Skove said that he envisions this designation on slopes and therefore
the possibility of 1 acre for those small areas of flat land would be suitable.
Mr. Huffman moved that the CVN district be deleted from the text and
map altogether.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves felt that the Commission had not thought this out.
Col. Washington stated that as it exits now, the CVN is not as
restrictive as the AF or RR.
Mrs. Diehl said that she supports a 5/1 ratio as opposed to deleting
the district altogether.
The motion failed by a vote of 4-5, with Dr. Moore, Mrs. Graves, Mrs.
Diehl, Mr. Vest, and Mr. Skove dissenting.
Mrs. Diehl moved the Commission maintain the CVN district as proposed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest, which carried by a vote of 6-3, with
Messrs. McCann, Huffman, and Gloeckner dissenting.
Mrs. Graves questioned the conflict in Sections 4.9.1 and 22.2.1 and was
instructed by Mr. Payne that these are two entirely different concepts.
Mrs. Graves then asked that the height regulations in the R-10 and R-15
districts be referenced.
Mr. Skove moved that the word"residential" be struck from Section 30.2.3.3.1
since it would require a second inspection4for anything that is built.
fee
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1,
with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Co].. Washington suggested that the staff draw up a summary of the
zoning text prior to distribution to the public.
Scottsville Shopping Center Site Plan:
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the ordinance doesn't require
utilities for lots over 60,000 square feet and the owners are requesting relief
from this Commission condition. He said that the condition was recommended through
staff error.
Mr. Huffman moved that this condition be removed from the approval of
the site plan.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with
Mrs. Graves dissenting.
With no additional business, the Commission adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
M
OR