Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 10 79 PC MinutesSeptember 10, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Monday, September 10, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider the rural areas on the proposed zoning map. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Absent was Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Doug Eckel, Senior Planner; and Miss Mason Caperton, Planner. ELIZABETH SWEENEY FINAL PLAT: Miss Caperton said that there is an error on this plat, and she proposed that the Commission reconsider the plat and add a condition "d" to read "Legal access to the property be obtained across the property of others to the satisfaction of the County Attorney." Mr. Payne said that obviously he is not going to approve a maintenance agreement until the applicant proves he has right of access. Mr. McCann moved the Commission reconsider the plat to add the additional condition. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0--1, with Mr. Vest abstaining. Mr. Huffman felt that the staff's concern should be addressed, and moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions ( a, b, and c conditions of the original approval of August 21, 1979 ) plus the additional condition: 1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the private road ordinance including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement; b. Health Deaprtment approval; C. Waiver of Section 18-33 granted; d. Legal access to the property be obtained across the property of others to the satisfaction of the County Attorney. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Vest abstaining. Mr. Tucker said that the purpose of the meeting that day is to discuss the rural lands on the zoning map, specifically the areas designated Rural Residential and Agricultural Forestry. He explained that in the preparation of the map, the staff had used the land use map and the Soil Conservation Service soil study ( the 1932 soils map for the most part ). Mr. Tucker stated that he has a definite problem using the old soil study in the preparation of the map. He suggested that the Commission may want to delete the smaller areas of AF on the map. He said that in the AF district the staff has attempted to include the lands that fall under what is considered to be Albemarle's best agricultural soils. He did note one problem that might be 1P3 frequently encountered: Mr. Palmer had noted on the map a different designation for areas lying across a river that he himself knows to have identical soils. Col. Washington asked if the staff had followed property lines to any degree. Mr. Tucker replied that property lines had been followed, or some natural boundary/ feature. Mr. Skove established that there are areas of AF that are currently not under the land use provisions. Mr. Huffman hypothized that a 10-acre parcel is divided. What criteria is used in assessing the zoning? He questioned if it could be a case of the "rich vetting richer." Mr. Huffman noted that all one has to do to qualify for land use is giving hay to a farmer. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that he is opposed to the whole concept shown on the map. He said that he is even more opposed now because of the arbitrary lines drawn to show the zones. However, he pointed out that he really does not know how to comment on the actual parcels because everything is so arbitrary. Mr. Payne suggested this might be an appropriate time to address the methodology in the staff's drawing of the map. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the soils map, except for a few areas of the county, is antique. Furthermore, since the soil study was done in the 30's lots of fertilizer has been used on the soils of this county. Some land has also deteriorated. There are also lands that could qualify for land use that are not under the program. Mr. Tucker said that the staff had more trouble with the soils map than with anything else, mostly because it is not that accurate. He felt the Commission could see, with only Mr. Palmer's example, the problems that the staff has encountered. Mr. McCann said that if property is currently not under land use, the Commission should not consider putting it in the AF district. Mrs. Graves asked if the zoning map is based on any part of the new soil study. Mr. Tucker replied that it is not, and he does not feel confident with the generalized overlay. Col. Washington stated that land use is an optional thing with landowners. If the Commission followed only land use maps for AF designation, those property owners would feel entrapped. Mr. Huffman commented that unless he is reading the map incorrectly, Nydre is not shown in land use. Mr. Gloeckner said that he has trouble with the concept that Albemarle County is in the agricultural business, especially when one sees the large truck farms in the valley and eastern shore and other flatland that is used for crops and grain. Mr. Huffman said that he agrees with Mr. McCann that the most equitable application of the AF designation is to use the land use map. 6� Dr. Moore asked if that criteria is used, what is the mechanism for getting into or out of land use. Mr. Payne felt that a rezoning could cover that. Mr. Vest felt that the fewer non -conforming uses the better. Mr. McCann once again stated that land use taxation, because of the economics, is the basis for the AF district. Everything under 20 acres could be excluded. Once again he stated his objection to the concept of the AF. Mr. Gloeckner said that protecting the forestry of the county with zoning, when it should be protected with land use taxation, is an example of "overkill." Mr. Tucker said that the only criteria for doing the map at this point is land use taxation and the soil study. Mr. Payne said that actual land use could be used as a criteria. Mr. Tucker pointed out that extensive aerial photographs would be needed for that proposal. Mrs. Graves said that she would like to use the most up to date soils maps for the part of the county for which they have been completed. She said that she would at least like to see what the most recent information does to the areas that are shown for AF zoning. Mr. Huffman suggested using the land use maps plus knowledge of those lands which the county knows are in farmland. He pointed out that there is no foolproof way of handling the matter. Mrs. Graves said that she would like some of the blank spaces in the AF zone filled in. Mr. Gloeckner replied that it could work the other way as well, questioning how the county would determine that it is not suitable for Rural Residential zoning. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that it is a matter of determining how much criteria it wishes to use. Alternatives are the soils overlay, land use ( what the statute says and some objective conclusions ), and the choice of the landowner to use land use taxation ( certainly subjective ). Mrs. Graves said that in her opinion the Commission should use/land use map and the most recent information the county has on the soils. Mr. Tucker said that the new information on the soils of the county would take at least one year to evaluate. Mr. Lindstrom said that the thought is to modify and recognize those best agricultural soils within the county. The areas with or proposed for utilities should be scheduled for growth, and the remainder should be in one district - the AF. He suggested that additional research could be done when requests for subdivision are presented to the county for approval. has Mr. Huffman questioned what happens with land which^ utilities running through 4� it that the county does not want to grow. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that that would be an unusual case. Mr. Huffman said that he thought no connections along the interceptor line to Crozet were to be permitted. Mr. Lindstrom then proposed to the Commission a concept where the AF zone would be restructured. Perhaps two acre zoning everywhere in the rural areas except the best agricultural soils would be a good idea, however once one reaches twenty lots a special permit would be required. The AF district would permit five acre lots by right, up to a certain number, however soil studies would be necessary to determine the best soils, and there would be mandatory clustering in that area. Also necessary would be more specific criteria for the special permit. Mr. Gloeckner said that it may not be necessary to go back to the existing A-1 district, but some compromise for five acres by right, with 2-acre clustered lots and a special permit provision to address the number of lots sounded fair to him. Col. Washington said that if the Commission adopts Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion, it would be necessary to push the boundaries of the villages out farther than they are currently proposed. Mr. Lindstrom said that the more he thinks about it the more he agrees with Mr. Gloeckner's statement that 10-acre minimum lots will only eat away the land faster. Mr. Huffman pointed out that there is a need and a desire for two acre lots in Albemarle County that are by right, not by special use permit. NVAO Mr. Lindstrom said that there needs to be some sort of limitation on the number of lots that can be divided by right. Mr. Gloeckner agreed that a limitation on the number of lots by right could be good, especially in terms of conservation areas. However, that limitation would have to be fair. He further pointed out that the State Water Control Board is not going to approve additional package treatment plans, which means only one type of utility in the county. Mr. McCann said that when the number of lots by right is limited, the subdivisions scatter out, but they eventually run together. Col. Washington questioned if there could be different rules and regulations for lots/parcels of smaller acreages. Mr. Payne felt that would be pretty questionable. One of the keys, in his opinion, to drawing the AF district is the continuity in its application; and furthermore, without this continuity, the map doesnot follow the Comprehensive Plan. In his opinion, the map prepared by the planning staff was legally defensible. Mr. Lindstrom said that his fundamental concept is to put all areas in the county not designated for growth into one district. Mr. Huffman said that he wonders if the agricultural community supports all the protection the county is trying to give it. He pointed out that he is aware that this community wants to be able to do something with its land by right when it is no longer feasible to farm it. 4�16 M Mrs. Graves said that she would like to discuss Mr. Lindstrom's proposal the following week, after thinking about it for a while. Dr. Moore said that adopting that concept would mean working on the Comprehensive Plan again, as well as reworking parts of the ordinance. He said that he likes the idea of basing the AF district on land use. Mrs. Graves felt that land use alone is too site specific. Mr. Tucker again told the Commission that he is not confident about the soils map. Mr. Vest said that he feels 10-acres as a minimum by right acreage is too restrictive. He said that he supports no more than five acres. Mr. Huffman said that though he does not support the AF district in its current form, the Commission will lose the confidence of the public if every few months it changes the concept. The Commission requested that the staff prepare wording to follow Mr. Lindstrom's concept and present it at the next Commission work session. Esmont: amendments to the Mr. Tucker said that this village, as part of the.Comprehensive Plan, is still before the Commission. He explained the various meetings the staff has had with the residents of that area, and said they had many misgivings about the map the staff finally prepared. The general consensus in the end was that Esmont be shown as a Type II Village, and the staff therefore recommends deletion from the plan the designation of Type I Village. He noted that Esmont is surrounded by Rural Residential. Mr. Huffman explained that the citizens understood that under the Type II Village designation they were less likely to get some of the things they had hoped for. He moved that the Commission delete Esmont from the Type I Villages. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker said that if the need to reactivate Esmont as a Type I village ever comes, it will be much easier to do with the Type II designation. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 6-� 9