Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 26 79 PC MinutesNovember 26, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Monday, November 26, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County OfficeiBuilding, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior Planner. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Col. Washington asked that each Commission member react to the comments from the public hearing, and then suggested the Commission discuss the available options and how to proceed with work on the ordinance. Mrs. Deihl said that she heard comments from individuals who had worked in individual study groups along with the Commission. Many of the concerns expressed throughout the work sessions on the agricultural -forestry district had been re -addressed at the public hearing. She noted that there is continued concern about the AF district, especially the special permit provision for subdivision approval. Mrs. Diehl felt there were many negative comments on the 25% slope development requirements, and suggested the Commission clarify its position on this and how this was arrived at in the first place. She also felt the Commission should develop additional criteria for the mapping of the AF district. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the Commission had heard major opposition to the ordinance, especially the AF district, the 25% slope regulations, the special permit provisions for subdivisions in the AF district. He felt the Commission still had lots of concerns to address. Mrs. Graves said that in her opinion the Commission heard things that were not said as well as things that had been said by the Commission. She said that in her opinion the criteria for special permits in the AF district is well documented. She felt that the Comprehensive Plan should be implemented, and as a result she was not able to go along with the major objections that were setforth about the new ordinance. Mr. Huffman said that he heard the people being most vocal about discontent with the proposed AF district. He felt that many objections were voiced about lack of notification of the effects on landowners' properties. He felt this is a valid point, since the county makes it a point to notify adjoining property owners about site plans and subdivisions that are upcoming. Mr. Huffman noted the discontent with the 20 lot limit for subdivisions by right, the 25% slope provisions, and downzoning in general. Dr. Moore said that he is in agreement with what the Commission heard, as expressed by the four previous Commissioners. However he disagreed that those present at the public hearing were across -section of the public. He said that he heard nothing new that had not been previously discussed at the Commission's work sessions and still holds the opinions he held before the public hearing. Mr. Skove agreed that the big majority of speakers at the public hearing were in opposition to the ordinance, and he said that he has sympathy for those who feel their property rights are being taken from them. However, he noted the extensive amount of time the Commission has spent on the ordinance, especially the AF and RR districts, and suggested the Commission forward its work to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. McCann said that he heard citizens requesting a more readable ordinance, however he was not willing to judge if those present were a cross-section of the community. He did feel that the comments setforth by Mr. Benzinger about the Buck Mountain Reservoir should be addressed. He said that he has contended all along that the AF district is not workable, and he still feels it is unworkable. Col. Washington said that except for the objections to the AF district, he was actually surprised that there were as few objections as there were to the ordinance as a whole. He felt that much of the discussion of the AF district centered around the fact that the land value will be reduced. Col. Washington felt that is an arguable point, since it must be decided on a long term, and not short term, basis. He said he failed to follow the speaker from the Federal Land Bank when he says that lending goes beyond the capability of farming. He felt that the 20 lot limit had been justified by the Commission and staff in their deliberations; he also felt that the 25% slope concept need not be abandoned at all. He felt that there was some general support for getting on with the ordinance, and noted that the Commission should ask themselves what is wrong if one attempt after another fails to be adopted. Col. Washington noted that there failed to be opposition to reduced lot sizes in the growth areas, and felt that there was more general support from developers than there has been in the past. Col. Washington felt that the Commission has the following five options: 1. Leave the draft ordinance essentially as it is and forward it to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation; 2. Start the review process over again; 3. Send notices to the landowners in the county of the proposed changes prior to forwarding the ordinance to the Board, and hopefully receive an appropriation from the Board to do this; 4. Forward the ordinance to the Board with each Planning Commissioner sending a letter expressing individual views on the ordinance; 5. Make such adjustments that can be done in a timely fashion and forward the ordinance with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Huffman suggested that a sixth option might be to modify the existing zoning ordinance. Dr. Moore said that he could support only two of the options - his first choice would be option #1 and his second choice would be option #5. He felt it would be a waste of money for the Commission to give notice to property owners at this time when it does not know the potential action of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Skove felt that option #1 was most agreeable, however he said that he could also go along with option #5. Mrs. Diehl agreed with Dr. Moore and Mr. Skove. She felt that some minor changes to the text might be approp i�t i oweve o m sbsellxti gee�dea of individual notices would be most inappropriate S e e t a e 1na consensus had been to prepare an ordinance that was ba:ed on the Comprehensive Plan and that is the only one that she can support. c;&5 Mr. Gloeckner felt that would be the easy way out, and the public hearing would have been held for nothing. He felt the ordinance should be revised as much as possible to make it more palatable to the citizens. Mr. Huffman agreed with Mr. Gloeckner, noting that the purpose of the ordinance is to protect agricultural soils. He said it is possible to farm 10 acres only if one has several 10-acre parcels relatively close together. He pointed out that many farmers consider only a 50-acre parcel a viable farm. When one considers 10 acres, one is protecting only open space. He said that he is not satisfied with leaving the AF district as it is and forwarding the ordinance to the Board, noting that if the Commission has no intention of listening to the public, why was the public hearing even held. He questioned what is wrong with one rural zone, with a 2-acre minimum lot size. Mr. McCann agreed that this sounded more reasonable, and some of the rules for development that are included in the AF could be used in the one district (he cited as an example internal roads with cluster development ). He felt that the Comprehensive Plan cannot be implemented until there are supporting utilities, and therefore suggested the Commission rework the old ordinance. Mrs. Diehl said that she heard no new information at the public hearing that had not been previously discussed by the Commission. She felt the decision on the ordinance should be based on good planning decisions and not political decisions. Mr. Gloeckner felt that the concept that 10-acre parcels are wasteful received some noteworthy reactions at the public hearing. Mr. Skove said that he had received the information from the banking community as new information. He said that devalued property is a valid point, but it is not a new concept. He noted that zoning is arbitrary, no matter how one considers it. Mr. Vest felt the Commission should be more unified in its decision on the agricultural lands than the previous 5-4 vote registered. He felt the 10-acre lot size and the AF district in general should be re -addressed. Mr. Huffman questioned why so much protection for the agricultural land is necessary, when only 3.1% of the land in the county is in residential use. He felt that 3.1% is certainly not a great encroachment on agriculture. Mr. McCann noted the detrimental effects the agricultural community says the ordinance will have on the land values. Mrs. Graves stated her agreement with Messrs. Skove and Moore and Mrs. Diehl. Col. Washington felt it might be difficult to reach a consensus that was better than the previous 5-4 vote. He felt the Commission, though, should address the 25% slopes issue, and he therefore supported option #5 as the method for proceeding. He felt it would be impossible to resolve the AF district to the satisfaction of those who had spoken at the public hearing. However, he felt the Commission should address those items that should be covered in the month of December so the ordinance could be forwarded to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the Board of Supervisors is concerned that the Commission be given the fullest flexibility in dealing with the ordinance, however the Board would like to receive the ordinance by the end of the year. 11�041 He felt that the points discussed at the public hearing are not new points, and pointed out that there will be a lot of discussion and debate on the various issues at the Board of Supervisors level. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the Commission is yet to address land values and the financial and economic impact the ordinance will have - he stated those issues are also part of a good planning process Mr. Huffman said that he has talked to many area bankers since the public hearing, and the new district as proposed may reduce the borrowing power on farmland from approximately 70% to as little as 50-40%. He felt that is certainly no protection to farmland. When questioned by the chairman, Mr. Tucker said that the staff has no new proposals at this time. Col. Washington stated that the 25% slopes issue is basically environmental, especially with regard to earth moving. He felt some restraints for buidling on slopes of 25% or greater are certainly necessary. He said he can tolerate development on slopes greater than 25% only if done in a manner that minimizes environmental impact. He suggested that the special permit process could be used so that things are followed up on. He acknowledged that this would be at added cost to the developer and the homeowner, though. Mr. Huffman said that he thought the Health Department, the Engineering Department, the Inspections Department and the Building Code schedules all covered this sort of thing. Col. Washington felt that these agencies were involved only if more than 5% of the property is proposed to be graded. Mr. Huffman reminded the Commission of the public's concern for special permits, and pointed out that one previous Board member had acknowledged that decisions on special permits can become very arbitrary. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family development on slopes of 15-25% slopes, however lots that are 5 acres provide for construction on slopes up to 40%, and lots of 10 acres provided for construction on slopes over 40%. Mr. Huffman also pointed out how the Comprehensive Plan calls for growth in the area of low and moderate income housing. He felt the zoning ordinance as proposed precludes such development. Mr. Vest moved that the Commission adopt Option #5 ( to make such adjustments that can be done in a timely fashion) and forward the ordinance to the Board by the end of December. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. Mr. Huffman said that he could not support the motion, because unless the AF district is re -addressed, the option means nothing. He also pointed out that any piece of ground in the county will qualify as AF because it is either farmland or forestry. The motion carried by a vote of 6-3, with Messrs. Huffman, McCann, ` and Gloeckner dissenting. Col. Washington at this point acknowledged that he does not believe there can be affordable housing on 10-acre parcels. Mr. Gloeckner felt that it is important to think of coming generations having something to look forward to - and he said this ordinance does not provide that opportunity. Mrs. Diehl felt it is equally important to think of coming generations having some land on which to grow crops. Mr. Payne then addressed the Commission on the legality of the map and zoning text. He said that the downzoning is certainly a "red herring." He said that the downzoning issue is related to the propriety of this particular map and he feels the map is legally defensible. He said there is abundant evidence to support the 25% slopes ordinance ( he cited BETZ, Health Department comments, etc. as examples ). He said that as provided in the proposed text, one is able to use a USGS map, but one also has the flexibility of employing specialists to prepare more detailed topographic studies. He felt these provisions are very simple and not overly restrictive. Mr. Payne then discussed his reservations about the AF district, noting it has been very difficult to translate the concept onto the map. He pointed out the reservations of the Planning Director on the mapping of this district. He suggested that the Commission consider one rural district, with a 2-acre minimum lot size, using the RR text for the basic zone, and incorporating the special permit provisions from the AF text into the concept. He felt that would allow the landowner to be more carefully evaluated, and pointed out that the standards are very objective. He felt this would eliminate the potential legal weakness of the map. He felt the 20-lot distinction is defensible because it is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and the County's record of concern for development on inadequate roads. He also noted that the 20-lot distinction is also related to the historic development of Albemarle County, and would preserve agriculture and could be more fairly administered. Mr. Lindstrom said that the problems just discussed would do nothing to stop what is known as urban sprawl. He said that when he had studied a concept for the rural lands most of the subdivisions that contribute to urban sprawl are subdivisions of less than 20 lots. Col. Washington said that he is not sure 2-acres will accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Huffman said that he feels it is important to consider not only what is defensible in court but what is good for the welfare of the citizens of the county. He noted that what is legally defensible is not always morally right. Mr. McCann agreed that it is certainly important to consider the desires of the public. There was no additional discussion o adjourned at 6:10 p.m. / business, and the Commission �j W. Tucker, jr.-- Secre ary �D� 19