Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1973931 JUNE 4, 1973 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on June 4, 1973 at 7:30 PM. in the County Court House. Those present were: Chairman Avery Catlin, Vice -Chairman M. Clifton McClure, Mr. David W. Carr, Mr. Wilbur C. Tinsley, Mrs. Ellen B. Craddock, Mr. M. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Louis C. Staley, and Dr. James Sams. Mr. L.F.Wood was also present. The meeting was called to order and a quorum was established. Mr. Rinehart suggested that the minutes of May 14, 1973 be deferred for action until the next meeting of the Commission which will be June 11, 1973. Dr. Catlin asked .for the first public hearing to commence. Since the first two items on the agenda were so closely related, he suggested that the Commission hear both petitions at the same time. 1. ZMP-277. James H. Gibson has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 2 acres of land from RS-1 Residential to._Agr.Laulttu:r.al. Pro.perry:--4s-_si-tuat-e:df-_ori we's•t'side of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) about 1 1/2 miles south of its intersection with Route 706. Property is described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 49. Scottsville Magisterial District. SP-251. James H. Gibson has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 2 acres of land zoned RS-1Residential. Property is situated on west side of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) flbout ll 1/2 miles s uthh of s inte sectio witA.h out 706.Property s described as ounty �ax ap 89, Parcel 49. Scottsville Magisterial District. The staff report was presented by Mr. Humphrey. He recommended approval subject to the existing dwelling being removed from the property. Mr. Gibson was in attendance and informed the Commission G%W that his brother-in-law resided in the present house and that he intended to locate a mobile home as his residence. He said the mobile home would be located 145 feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Dave Stokes asked how far this mobile home would be from the Rivanna Rifle Range. Mr. Gibson said it would be located about 1/4 mile from the rifle range, at which Mr. Stokes said he had no objection to the location of the mobile home. Dr. Catlin was of the opinion thatthere was a misunderstanding between the applicant and the Planning Office due to the fact that Mr. Gibson could not locate his mobile home on the two acre tract if a single family dwelling already existed on the tract. After further short discussion, the public hearing was closed and Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve the Special Permit pending Mr. Gibson's destruction of the existing house so that only one dwelling would be on the 2 acre parcel. Dr. Catlin noted that they could not place such a condition on the rezoning petition so Mr. Rinehart's motion ,died for lack of a second. Mr. Carr made a motion that ZMP-277 and SP-251 be deferred until the Planning staff can explain to Mr. Gibson what his problem is. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure. Dr. Sams asked if the matter might not be clarified if Mr. Gibson lived in the house and the brother-in-law were to live in the mobile home. It was ascertained that this would be permitted under Article 2-1-23-A. of the Zoning Ordinance. The motion to defer carried unanimously. 2. SP-253. Frank Folsom Smith has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a Planned Unit Development, central well system and central septic system on 352.44 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is r 933 situated on west side of Route 708 and north side of I- 64, about 2 miles west of Ivy Interchange. Property is described as County Tax Map 73, Parcels 29, 29D and 29F. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey presented a rather lengthy staff report to the Commission, noting that 195 dwelling units were proposed, which is 17 more than would be permitted under the present zoning classification. He informed the Commission that the staff's recommendations would not be ready until next Monday. Mr. Smith was present to speak for his application. He elaborated on the beauty of the Ivy Valley and how he felt his type of construction would appeal to those in Albemarle County. He showed slides of various other developments of this nature, pointing out the cluster --type houses. He said they had met with a number of theneighbors and the Citizen Group in Ivy to tell them what was proposed and to get their reactions on the matter. He noted that on the 352 acres, they proposed 195 dwelling units, 154 of which would be cluster and 41 would be single family dwellings. Tioo-thirds of the project, including recreational areas would be open space. Mr. Smith said they were open for recommendations on utilities and they would consider a package treatment plant if the Commission so desired. Mr. Baber a nearby resident, said he was concerned about the water supply for this development. He indicated that his well might go dry if a central well system were to supply this development. Mr. Baber asked too, what effect this develop- ment would have on the value of surrounding properties. There were no further comments from the public, so the public hearing was closed. Mr. Smith pointed out that test wells would be drilled 934 to be certain that they would have proper water capacity, but he did not know if this would affect Mr. Baber's well which is 1/2 mileaway and on the top of a ridge. He had no answer as to how this would affect property values either. Dr. Catlin was of the opinion that this could not be answered. Mrs. Martin asked how close this project would be to the Crozet interceptor as it was her opinion that the matter of sewage was very important. She noted that the SWCB would not approve a tertiary treatment plant in this area. It was ascertained that the Crozet interceptor was 2 to 3 miles away. Mrs. Webber, the closest neighbor to the proposed project, said she and her husband had chosen Ivy as their home because it was unspoiled. Further, she said they had done some deep thinking about this development and decided that if this area must be developed, they were happy that someone like Mr. Smith was developing it. The hearing was closed to the public. Dr. Catlin pointed out to the Commission that they would not receive the planning staff's recommendations until the next Monday. Dr. Sams questioned whether this was truly a PUD as it did not include plans for schools, large commercial centers, etc.. Mr. Humphrey pointed out that there are many types of PUD's. Mr. Rinehart noted that previous discussions by the Commission indicated that the Commission would like to maintain the density that would be permitted by the existing zoning. In this case, Mr. Rinehart asked Mr. Smith if he could have only one unit per two acres. Mr. Smith's reply was that he had not run the economics to this project to see how many units would be needed. 935 He felt that with the cluster potential there would be less people living in 195 units than if he placed 77 single family units, noting that larger families usually live in single family units. Mrs. Craddock asked if a study had been made regarding schools to accommodate the children that this project would generate. Mr. Humphrey said there was some data in the staff's report and another sheet would be forthcoming. Dr. Catlin, in making comments, said he tended to be in favor of this concept of development. He was concerned though, about the public utilities and felt a great deal of attention should be given them. He felt that the matter should be deferred until the staff's report is presented to them on Monday, June 11. Mr. McClure made a motion to defer SP-253 until June 11, 1973, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. Dr. Sams asked if Mr. Humphrey could comment on the restricted roads that would be planned in the PUD next Monday when the recommendations are presented. Mr. Carr questioned whether Mr. Humphrey would have this in his report information on water and sewer. He said that was the key to the matter. He suggested that if this information was unavailable, that the case be taken to the SWCB to get their opinion on the matter. Dr. Catlin said he had thought about this particular aspect of the project and said that the developers would have to assume responsibility for the water and sewer system until there is a Home Owners Association to take over the responsibQities. He noted that there should be responsibility for operating and capital improvements on the systems. There should be a 936 very clear statement to the effect that this responsibility remains with the riot regardless of who owns or sells the property and there should be a clear statement that the County will not be responsible for providing these utilities in the future. Dr. Catlin said that he would give this list of items regarding utilities to Mr. Humphrey so that the County Attorney could look at them. The motion to defer carried unanimously. At this time, Mr. McClure disqualified himself from parti- cipation in the next public hearing and he left the room. 3. SP-255. Star Realty Systems, Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a retail sales and warehouse (wholesale) distribution outlet on 1 acre of land zoned B-1 Business. Property is situated on west side of Route 29 North, and south side of Berkmar Drive. Property is described as County Tax Map 61-M-U,Parcel 15 and 16. Charlottesville Magisterial District. The staff report was presented by Mr. Humphrey, noting that in the staff's opinion this lot would be too small to locate such a facility. Mrs. Craddock asked about the topography of the lot. It was determined that it had a very gradual slope. Mr. Wallace Acher, General Contractor for the project and representative of the Star Manufacturing Company, spoke to the Commission relating the purposes of the proposed building. Mr. Tinsley questioned whether trailer -trucks would be bringing items to the warehouse. Mr. Acher said that trailer - trucks would be delivering the bakery items, but that smaller trucks would be making distributions throughout the area. It waLs noted that Berkmar Drive is 50 feet wide. Dr. Catlin asked what would happen if the Commission approved this SP and then the site plan showed that this facility would 937 not work on this lot. Mr. Humphrey said that he had indicated to the applicant that the Commission might like to see the plan at the time of approving the Special Use Permit. Mr. Tinsley asked what type of construction would be used for the warehouse. It was ascertained that this would be predominantly of metal construction where as most of the other buildings in the area were constructed of masonry and frame. Mrs. Craddock was of the opinion that one acre would be insufficient for.this usage especially with trailer -trucks arriving and having to turn around and park. Dr. Catlin suggested breaking the case into two items: (1) is the project compatible and (2) is there sufficient land. Mr. Carr said he had some hesitation about approving this so he made a motion that the matter be deferred until June 18th subject to a site plan being presented at that time. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Craddock and after a short discussion the motion was carried unanimously. Mr. McClure returned to the meeting. ioned 4. SP-257. Susan M. Mahler and Barbara E. Palmer have /pthe tBoard of Supervisors to locate a craft shop on 4.26 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 677, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Route 250 West. Property is described as County Tax Map 59, Parcel 7C. Samuel Miller District. The staff report was presented by Mr. Humphrey, who listed five conditions that should be attached to the permit if it were granted. 1_Only.ntAe- 4 square foot identification sign at the entrance. 2__No _change in the outward appearance of the dwelling. J. That the activity be limited to the two 4. That the hand craft be limited to needle workcandsrelated craf _ No outside em to ent. 5. That the growth in the eastern most bank be kept cut close to ts. LL�" shoulder to rovide ood site distance from the driveway. the ground and Mrs. Barbara Palmer, in speaking for their petition, said would only be a temporar this y shop location as they hoped to move to a business area if they were successful. They said to accept a they would be willing permit for one year. Mr. John Watterson, owner of approximately 300 acres in the immediate vicinity, was of the opinion that this shop would be detrimental to the area. But, he said that if this would only be a temporary shop then he would have no objection to it. Mr. Rodell supported the statements of Mr. Watterson and felt that if this business was allowed that it would encourage other business growth in the area. Mr. Henry Odell objected to this shop beifig located in the area. He asked what was meant by a Special Use Permit and if conditions could be placed on it. He was informed that a time limit could be one of the conditions. Mrs. Susan Mahler, one of the applicants, said they agreed with the opposition, but that they would know within one year whether their operation would be a success and at that time they would either move into a business area or fade out of the picture. She said they would like to have a one-year restriction. Mr. Rinehart noted that in their letter to the Commission, they mentioned giving instructions in needlepoint, he questioned how many people would be instructed at one time. Mrs. Palmer said they would only be giving individual instruction to persons that might buy something and need help in understanding how to do it. Dr. Sams made a motion to approve SP-257 subject to the staff's recommended conditions and subject to approval for e possibiltiy of administrative approval for one year with th '�� classes" be made � a� yea hat nno Public that in -- 1 0 d °" at ea ,.ost2 _ �n_or4 939 Therefore, the Special Permit was approved subject to the following conditions: (1) Only one 4 sq. ft. identification sign at the entrance, (2) No change in the outward appearance of the dwelling, (3) That the activity be limited to the two applicants only. No outside employment. (4) That the handcraft be limited to needle work and related crafts. (5) That the growth on the eastern most bank be kept cut close to the ground and shoulder to provide good site distance fromthe driveway, (6) Limit the instruction class to 3 pupils and (7) the permit shall be temporary for one year with the possiblity of admini- strative approval for one additional year. The motion carried unanimously. 5. SP-258. Ulyssess E. Shifflett has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 5.4 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on north side of Route 641, about 1/2 mile east of Route 29 North. Property is described as County Tax Map 21, Parcel 29B. Rivanna Magisterial District. The staff report was presented. Mr. Shifflett was present and told the Commission that he planned to live in the mobile home temporarily until'he could constrdct his house. He planned to locate the mobile home 950 feet from the road. He indicated that he would start construction by March of 1974 when his son returned from the Air Force. After a short discussion, Mr. McClure made a motion to approve SP-258 for one year subject to administrative review at the end of that year and the matter to come back before the Commission in two years. Also subject to 800 ft. setback and Health Department approval of septic system. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carr and carried by a 7-1 vote with Mr. Tinsley voting no. 940 6. S:P-260. Chestnut Grove Baptist Church has petitioned ry for so t. `,�:ard of_a ofilandI tonedcAtl Agr cemetery. rr'A: church on Property is situated on west side of Route 631 (Old of its hynchbt:.rg Road) about 1/2 miles SOishdescribednas- section with Route arc Property Parcel 54, Scottsville Magisterial County Tax Map89, 'District. Mr. Etumphrey presented tha staff's report: Mr. Henry Scott was in attendance to represent the church. He said the church had purchased about six acres and the cemetery would be3•ocated to the rear of the six acres. Mr. James Stokes, an adjacent property owner, wanted to know the exact location of the cemetery as his house is located very near this property,:He said if it were located on the hillside near his property he would like to see some screening accomplished as this would be practically in his back door. Further 'he said that the road that the church uses is used at night also by people who park and throw beer cans on the ground. If the permit were granted, he would like to see a 6 ft. gate across that road to deter this kind of night activity. Mr. Scott aaid the area that had been chosen as the cemetery would in no way affect the Stokes property. MT. Stokes suggested that the Commission visit the site before taking action on the permit. He elaborated on the expense of his house and how a cemetery would detract from it. After some further discussion, Dr. Catlin was of the opinion that the elders of the church, Mr. Stokes and the Commissioner's meet together on the site to see what needed to be done. MT. McClure made a motion that the Chairman appoint a committee of two members to meet with the Elders and Mr. Stokes to view the site and report back to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carr. 941 It was ascertained that Dr. Catlin and Mr. Rinehart would meet Wednesday afternoon at 5:30 P.M. on the site with the Elders of the church and Mr. Stokes. The motion for deferral carried unanimously. 7. SP-261. Patricia Ann Tiffany has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a country store on31.88 acres of land ( part thereof ) zoned A-1 Agricultural.. Property is situated on north side of Route 250 West, and south side of I-64 just west of Yancey's Mill Interchange. Property Property is described as County Tax Map 55, el 19. White Hall Magisterial District. The staff's report was presented along with recommended conditions to be placed on the Special Use Permit if approved. Mrs. Tiffany was present to represent her application. She presented a petition to the Commission with names of persons in favor of her request and a letter from the adjacent property owners saying he had no objections. Mr. Richmond, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Plummer, who are adjacent property owners voiced opposition to the proposed request. He questioned the ownership of the parcel and whether or not the 20 ft. ROW would be adequate for such a business venture. He noted that the plans were for 38 parking spaces plus loading and unloading for trucks and in his opinion this would be a lot of traffic for a 20 ft ease- ment to handle. Mr. Plummer read Section 601.2 from the Virginia Department of Highways Manual, relative to the design and construction of roads. He said it was obvious from these standards that the 20 ft. easement would be far too narrow and this would give only a 12 ft. base for the road. Mrs. Plummer commented on the road also and showed pictures of the location of the proposed road. She presented 942 a list of local property owners who were opposed to the country store, and elaborated on all the commercial ventures in the immediate area. Mr. Wendell Jackson, resident of nearby "Cedars" objected to the request. He felt the area should remain residential as indicated on the Comprehensive Plan. He could see no need for such a store in this neighborhood. Mrs. Nancy Wilcox, resident of Yancey Mills, said she could see no need for a development of this sort. If a person needed to shop they could do this in the nearby Crozet Shopping Center. She pointed out too, that this property was asked to be rezoned to B-1 several years ago and was turned down. Mr. Rick Nowell of Ivy Citizen Association noted that the request did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and con- stituted commercial stripping along Route 250. He urged the Commission to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conway Stanley was of the opinion that if the project was accomplished in the manner that he had been told it would be accompl:shed, that it would enhance the area. Mr. Thompson was concerned that if this permit were granted that it would make it much easier to develop the rest of this parcel in fl commercial way. Mr. Tiffany had plans for the road which he showed to the Commission. He said there would be "Zero cut and fill, 18" ditch and the rest roadway". There was more discussion between the Plummers and 11r. Tiffany, with Mr. Plummer stating that this would only Leave a 12ft. base as a road. The public heariing was closed and Mr. Tinsley said he was in favor of individual business but he was not in favor of entrances such as this. 943 Mrs. Craddock wondered if the site should be viewed. : Dr. Catlin informed the Commission that he had viewed the site and found that the entrance would be difficult but not impossible. He said he would like to make another point, though, that of this property having been submitted for B-1 rezoning previously. Also there is a Country Store almost across the road from this site. He informed the Commission, too, that his conception of a "Country Store" was a store to take care of an agricultural area and his opinion was that this would be a commercial venture rather than a country store. Mr. Carr said he had viewed the site, too, but could not locate the exact entrance. It was his opinion that you could not have a good business, if cars could not pass each other going in and coming out. Dr. Sams said he agreed with Dr. Catlin's point about the intent of the Country store as described in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, he made a motion to deny SP-261. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and motion carried unanimously. 8. SP-262. George Lively has petitioned the Board of to locate a permanent mobile home on 4 acres of land zoned. -:A 1.--Agr..icul.tis.ral P.ro.pe.r.ty is t: tu-at.ed-:On- west side of Route"766,' about 1 mile south of its intersection with Route 614. Property is described as County Tax Map 41, Parcel 60A. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff's report. Mr. Lively was present and had a plat of the 4 acres to show the Commission. He said he intended to make the mobile home permanent and that he would build rooms onto the home as they were needed. After a short discussion by the Commission, Dr. Sams made a motion to approve SP-262 for five years subject to a 100 ft. setback, and Health Department approval of a septic tank. At 944 the end w7 five years, Mr. Lively would have to come back to the Commission to renew his permit. Mr. Lively questioned the 100 ft. setback as this would place the mobile home over a hill and possibly in a creek. Dr. Catlin suggested that the motion be reworded to say subject to a 100 ft. setback if possible, if not, subject to administrative approval of a setback that will be satisfactory to the County Planner and the applicant. Dr. Sams accepted this as part of his motion and the motion was seconded by Mr. Rinehart and carried ur.:animously. 9. SF-263. Dorothy Rush has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 4.2 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property iti-situated on east side of Route 715, about 2 miles south of its intersection with Route 6. Property is described as County Tax Map 127, Parcel 56. Scotts- ville Magisterial District. Mr. Hum hrey presented the staff s report recommending approval. He adt:ed that Mrs. Rush was not present, but he informed tie Commission that Mrs. Rush has said that she might not be able to attend due to lack of transportation. Mrs. Craddock asked if screening should be provided for. It was the consensus of the Commission that there would be no need for screening in this area. After a short discussion, Mr. Carr made amotion to appreve SP-263 for ..years, subject to Mrs. Rush herself living in the mobile home, and subject to a 30 ft. setback and Health Department approval of a septic tank. The motion was seconded by Mr. Staley and carried unanimously by those members present. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. 945 JUNE 115. 1973 This was a meeting held by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on June 11, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Court House. The purpose of this meeting was to take action on some deferred items and have public hearings on three other items. Those present were: Vice -Chairman M. Clifton McClure, Mr. Wilbur C. Tinsley, Mr. M. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Louis C. Staley, Miss Mary Joy White -Assistant to Mr. Humphrey, and Dr. James Sams. Those absent were: Chairman -Avery Catlin, Mr. David W. Carr, Mr. John L. Humphrey -Secretary, and Mrs. Ellen B. Craddock. Mr. Lloyd Wood -County Supervisor, was also absent. The meeting was called to order by the Vice -Chairman and a quorum was established. Mr. McClure, Vice -Chairman, noted that Mr. Gibson, applicant for the first two items on the agenda, was not present at this time, therefore, he suggested that they go to the 3rd item on the agenda to permit Mr. Gibson time to arrive at the meeting. 1. SP-260. Chestnut Grove Baptist Church has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a cemetery for church on 11 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) about 1 1/2 miles south of its intersection with Route 706. Property is described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 54. Scottsville Magisterial District. This request was deferred from the last meeting in order for Mr. Rinehart and Dr. Catlin to view the site and make recommendations to the Commission. At this time Mr. Rinehart reported to the Commission for himself and Dr. Catlin. He said that all concerned persons had agreed that 1/2 acre would be utilized for the ceme- tery. Said 1/2 acre could have a maximum of 125 feet of road frontage on Route 631 and the 1/2 acre would be located at the other end of the property from Mr. Stokes' property. Mr. McClure said he thought Dr. Catlin should tell Mr. Humphrey what the designated boundaries for the 1/2 acre would be so 1�04) there would be no question in the future. Also he felt that a setback from Route 631 should be stipulated, since this road will be widened in the future. There was some discussion on the setback, with Mr. Tinsley suggesting a 35 ft. setback from the center of the road. Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve SP-260 subject to a 35 ft.setback from the center line of Route 631, that all grave markers be flush with the ground, and that the 1/2 acre which the Planning Commission is approving be identified with some type of permanent markers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously by those members present. 2. SP-265. Thomas and Margie Shifflett have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home as an addition to a single family dwelling on 1.89 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated off of Route 810 about 1/2 mile east of Boonesville. Property is described as County Tax Map 7, Parcel 59A. The staff's report was presented by Miss Mary J. White. Mrs. Shifflett was present and said that she desired to attach the mobile home to their existing house. There was no one in opposition to the request so the public hearing was closed. Dr. Sams pointed out that on the agenda this tract of land is listed as Parcel 59A and in the staff's report it says that it is Parcel. 58. It was ascertained that there was an error in the staff's report. Dr. Sams asked if a septic tank was already located at the house. Mrs. Shifflett said they would not be using the bathroom facilities of the mobile home. 947 Mr. Rinehart said that whether they had a bathroom or not, they would still have to have Health Department approval. Mr. Rinehart made a motion that SP-265 be approved for five years with administrative approval again at the end of five years and subject to Health Department approval for sanitary facilities. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously by those members present. At this time, Mr. Gibson was in attendance so ZMP-277 and SP-251 were considered. 3. ZMP-277. James H. Gibson has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 2 acres of land from RS-1 Residential to A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) about 1 1/2 miles south of its intersection with Route 706. Property is described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 49. Scottsville Magisterial District. SP-251. James H. Gibson has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile hoe on 2 acres of land zoned RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on west side of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) about 1 1/2 miles south of its intersection with Route 706. Property is described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 49. Scottsville Magisterial District. This request was deferred from the last meeting because 6f a misunderstanding by the applicant. Miss White reiterated some points from the last meeting at which the public hearing was held on this request. She noted two alternatives for the Commission. One, leave the property with RS-1 zoning so that Mr. Gibson could build a house; and two, rezone the property to A-1 and have Mr. Gibson move into the existing house and his brother-in-law move into the mobile home. Mr. McClure was concerned about rezoning the property to A-1 because then Mr. Gibson would never be able to build another permanent dwelling. Also, even if the property were rezoned to A-1, he still would not be eligible to live in the mobile home without destroying the existing house. Mr. McClure asked Mr. Gibson 948 if he could obtain another acre of land to add to his two acres. If he had three acres, then 2 acres could be cut off for the mobile home. Mr. Gibson said he had asked the neighbor about buying more land, but the neighbor would not sell. Dr.. Sams was of the opinion that the matter could be worked out if the property were zoned A-1, therefore, he made a motion to approve ZMP-277. He said that if Mr. Gibson moved into the house he would have no need for a Special Use Permit and he thought that Mr. Gibson should be allowed to withdraw his request for a Special Use Permit without prejudice. The motion for approval of the rezoning was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. Mrs. Graves pointed out that under the new zoning ordinance there was the possibility that this could qualify as an accessory dwelling unit. There was more discussion and Mr. McClure spoke against P g the motion on the floor. He said this would only be solving the problem temporarily because later', Mr. Gibson might desire to build and would not be able to. The Vice --Chairman called for a vote on Dr. Sams motion. Those in favor of rezoning the property to A-1 were Dr. Sams and Mr. Tinsley. Those against were: Mr. McClure, Mr. Rinehart and Mr. Staley. The motion failed by a 3-2 vote. Mrs. Gibson told the Commission that the reason her brother lived in the house was because he was in debt very badly and had no other place to go. She said the house had water and sewer facilities and that her brother was fixing it up for them. There was discussion on denying the request but permitting the trailer to stay there until the Board of Supervisors could act on the petition. 949 Mr. Gibson asked if the Commission would hold action until he could investigate the double wide mobile homes. If he placed a modular unit on the property there would be no need for rezoning. Mr. Rinehart made a motion to defer ZMP-277 and Sp-251 until July2, 1973 to give Mr. Gibson an opportunity to see if he can get a modular home. Mr. McClure informed Mr. Gibson that he is presently in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, so he should work quickly and get in touch with the Planning Office to let them know what he plans to do. The motion for deferral was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously by those members present. Mr. McClure noted that if the request comes back before the Commission in July that it would probably be approved and that he would have to suffer the consequences. 4. SP-266. E.M. Martin has petitioned the Board of Supervisors, to locatea custom built sheet metal work and _we,141—ng c._ger_aition: on,. Industrial. 'P'�operty is situated on east side 'of Route 742, approximately 2 miles south of Charlottesville. Property is described as County Tax.Map 90, Parcel 35W Lot 6. Scottsville Magisterial District. Miss White presented the staff's report noting that the site plan had been approved subject to the granting of the Special Use Permit. She said that the staff had not made recommendations on the permit as the operation will be wholly enclosed. Mr. Martin was present and informed the Commission that welding was only secondary to their business. The public hearing was closed as no one wished to speak on the request and after a short discussion by the members Mr. Tinsley made a motion to approve SP-266, which was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously by those members present. 950 5. SP-267. Irma S. Page has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 1 acre of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated west side of Route 676, approximately 2/3 miles south of Owensville. Property is described as County Tax Map 42A, Parcel 20. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The staff's report was presented by Miss White. Mrs. Page was present. She informed the Commission that her son, age 10, is the owner of the land, but that she is his trustee until he becomes of legal age. After a short discussion, Dr. Sams made a motion to approve SP-267 for five years with administrative review at the end of five years and subject to Health Department approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously by those members present. Miss White said that Mr. Humphrey would like to know if the Commission would consider having a special meeting to discuss the Cason Landfill site in July. He suggested July 23 or 30th as these are workshop nights. Mr. McClure said his understanding from the Board of Supervisors was that the Commission would not hear that case. He felt that the Board should have the burden of the hearing and that the Planning Commission had been pre-empted from having anything to do with the landfill site. Mr. McClure said he would like for Mr. Humphrey to ask the Board if the Commission would have to hold a public hearing on the request. It was his opinion that the Board was more knowledgeable than the Commission on this, matter and that if the Commission was required to hold a public hearing that the public hearing be held before the Commission and Board at the same time. 951 There was some discussion about the dates in July that a public hearing could be held, but no definite date established. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary M M 952 M JUNE 18, 1973 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on June 18, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Court House. Those present were: Chairman -Avery Catlin, Mr. Wilbur C. Tinsley, Mrs. Ellen B. Craddock, Mr. M. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Louis C. Staley and Dr. James Sams. Also attending were Mr. Lloyd F. Wood and Miss Mary Joy White. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman and a quorum was established. The Chairman noted that the first two items on the agenda were deferred from the June 4th meeting. 1. SP-255. Star Realty Systems, Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a retail sales and warehouse (wholesale) distribution outlet on 1 acre of land zoned B-1 Business. Property is situated on west side of Route 29 North, and south side of Berkmar Drive. Property is described as County Tax Map 61-M-U, Parcels 15 and 16. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that there were still some elements of the site plan that needed to be worked out so he suggested deferral again. Mr. Rinehart- made a motion to defer SP-255 until the 3rd mQ-eeing. in July. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously by those members present. 2. SP-253. Frank Folsom Smith has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a Planned Unit Development, central well system and central septic system on 352.44 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 708 and north side of I-64, about 2 miles west of Ivy Interchange. Property is described as County Tax Map 73, Parcels 29, 29D and 29F. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff's report with additional information being added to the staffs report that was presented 953 on June 4, 1973. He elaborated on the soil report and said that approximately 46% of the 300 acres would receive septic tanks based on the soil analysis. Further, he said that Mr. Cheavacci of the Health Department had suggested that a tertiary treatment plan be established rather than utilizing septic tanks. At this time a letter from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey dated June 7, 1973 was read to the Commission. These letters referred to water and sewer. In listing the recommended conditions of the Planning staff, Mr. Humphrey suggested that the applicant should withdraw his request for a 50-unit Inn and general store at this time. Mrs. Craddock said that she had done some mathematical work on the staffs report and she gave the Commission some of the figures that she had gotten. It was ascertained that only 34% of the land is developable and in the opinion of Mrs. Craddock, the density on this land would be too high. Further, she asked if there was going to be a water supply impoundment and if so, what about the watershed above the impoundment. Mr. McNair said there would not be an impoundment. Mrs. Craddock was concerned about the drainage from the steep watershed, and that the density would be too high. Mr. Rinehart was of the opinion that the Planning Commission could not judge on the water and sewer but that this would be up to the Health Department. Dr. Catlin said that it would be up to the Board of Supervisors as to what type of water and sewer system they would approve. Dr. Sams, commenting on Mrs. Craddock's figures, said that if only 34% of that area is developable, then the density would be too high. Mrs. Craddock pointed out that under the existing zone there would be 315 vehicle trips less per day on the road than there 954 would be under this Special Permit because of the increased density. Dr. Catlin said the cluster approach had advantages but if the density was one dwelling unit per 2 acres he would be more in favor of it. He noted though that he was not too opposed to the requested density. Mr. Rinehart was of the opinion that one unit per 2 acre should be enforced for the cluster groups and for the single family dwellings. Dr. Sams said that his concept of a PUD is that the inhabitants could share the advantages of the area, but this development would only be advantageous to the developer as he could get rid of un- developable land. Mr. Rinehart had a page taken from an architectural magazine which showed development such as this and the open space. Dr. Catlin said he was strongly in favor of a development of this type. Dr. Sams said he would agree with Dr. Catlin if all the land were usuable. He said he doubted if the developer would cut the land up into 2 acre lots. Also he pointed out that the developer planned to have restricted roads because it would be too costly to have roads to State standards at this time. Dr. Catlin was of the opinion that mountainside land could be used for recreational purposes just as well as flat land could be used. There was a discussion on the road system that is propoeed, after which Dr. Sams wondered if the land was ready to be developed in view of the facts that had been presented on utilities and roads. Mrs. Craddock felt that Dr. Sams -.,,as asking that there be proof of these facilities prior to the Planning Commission granting any approval. 955 Dr. Catlin said the Special Permit couldbe granted contingent upon a Special Permit for water and sewer facilities. Mr. Rinehart informed the Commission that he was very much in favor of this development as he felt the County needed a good example of this type of development and he was convinced that Mr. Smith could do a good job. Dr. Sams asked Mr. Rinehart why the County needed an example of a development such as this. Mr. Rinehart said that the County had a housing shortage and that there was a need to develop more interior space for people and maintain the open space. Dr. Catlin, too, felt that a good example was needed such as this and that it could be done at a profit which would encourage other devel- opers to try it. He pointed out that since a lot of money had been spent on this land already, that it would be developed in another manner if the PUD was not granted. Mrs. Craddockquestioned the Chairman as to how many of these developments<;the County was going to allow. Mr. Staley asked if the County would have any protection if they approved this PUD and the applicant came back later and asked to de- velop the open space. Mr. Humphrey said they could come hack to amend their Special Permit. Fe also pointed out that the open space would have to go to record as being dedicated to the owners of the units. Dr. Sams, in speaking on the restricted roads, said that if the Commission gave approval of the request with the restricted roads as outlined, they would not be legally committed to approving these roads but they would certainly be indicating their willingness to do so. Dr. Catlin suggested that they wait to discuss the roads. Dr. Sams was of the opinion that if the Commission had to reserve judgements on the roads and other facilties that the request was pre- mature. Dr. Catlin replied that the developer could go no further until 956 he had some indication of approval from the Commission. There was some discussion on the school facilities to care for this development and how many children would be generated. Also there was discussion on the road system, with Mr. Staley saying that he could not vote for this development with the roads as they are. He felt more of them should be brought up to State standards. His opinion, too, regarding utilities, was that he would have to know that there would be sufficient water supply. After a further discussion, Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve SP-253 subject to the following conditions: (1) central well system and tertiary sewer treatment plant be approved under separate Special Use Permits, (2) "Future Village Center1° be deleted, (3) one dwelling per two acres gross density for cluster and single family dwellings, (4) that the present road system is not being approved but will be considered when the site plan is presented for approval, (5) a charter establishing a Citizens Association and (6) areas designated for playgrounds. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried by 5-1 votd with Dr. Sams voting no. SITE PLANS 1. Stonhenge--Townhouse Project --West side of Rio Road, 31.88 acres, 191 units. Mr. Humphrey presented the site plan to the Commission recommending deferral, such deferral based upon request from the Albemarle County Service Authority. He noted that this request was similar to the petition form Holy Comforter several weeks agoy_ which was withdrawn. Mr. Humphrey pointed out too that there was still some missing items from the site plan as of 4:00 P.M. this afternoon. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, commenting on the sewerage facilities, said they were still in the same position as they were several weeks ago with Branchlands (Holy Comforter). He said that 957 plans had been presented to the SWCB, but there was no indication that they had been approved. Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing the site plan, presented a letter from City Council stating that the City would serve sewer facilities for the project. Mr. Rotgin said that the development would be developed in phases and this would be Phase I, which they would like approval of. He noted that Phase I contained 54 units. According to Mr. Rotgin the City has a 10" water line right at the property line and sewer is very near by. He elaborated on the need to have the proJect approved so that their employees would have work during the winter months. Dr Catlin asked Mr. Humphrey if this was in an area that the County should serve with utilities. There was some discussion on this by the members, with Mr. Humphrey saying that the County Should have jurisdiction. Dr. Catlin g,a:tdthat regardless whether County or City served this development the sewerage would still be taken to Meadow Creek Plant. Mr. Bailey told the Commission that lines owned by the City that are within the County will be offered to the County, and in the event that the County does not purchase them, then the City will serve them. Mr. Humphrey read a petition from about 18 adjacent property owners who were in opposition to the development. They listed numerous reasons for their reasons for their opposition. Dr. Catlin said there were two points to be considered (1) sewer connections and (2) the fact that this revised site plan had just been received before the meeting. He was concerned that that no matter who served the development, Meadow Creek Sewage Plant would still be used and this plant is already overloaded. Mrs. Martin expressed concern over the way or the tone in which 0 the site plan was presented. She commented that although there was no Official moratorium, there was an understanding that no more permits 958 would be granted for sewer connections to Meadow Creek and she felt that County officials should not be criticized for taking their stand. Mr. Rotgin informed the Commission that he had written to the adjacent property owners and suggested they meet together if they had any questions regarding this matter. At this time he endeavored to answer questions raised by the adjacent property owners which was submitted in petition form by Mr. Humphrey earlier during the meeting. (1) Residents pattern has been established --he agreed that it had. (2) Rio Road-- high traffic --He said there is proposed and under construct- ion a new road which will take a good bit of traffic off Rio Road. (3) Excessive density --he said that they planned 6 units per acre, but under his R-2 zoning he could put 4 duplexes per acre. (4) Non- complying road --They have begun negotiations with .the property owners to straighten the road. (5) Recreation Area --There will be a private club atmosphere with dense planting proposed. (6) Proposed annex- ation area --It is in keeping with Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance. (7) The City only granted 25% of the sewerage connections because that is all that was asked for, (8) He hoped that the surrounding property would not be devalued and he felt it would not as this would be an attractive development. (9) 800 people in a small area --anyone else could develop that property with 8.4 units per acre which would cause more people. (10) Country side --He stated that it was a good location, had a good view, but it was zoned so that it was going to be developed. Mr. Rotgin said that he had worked very cloaely with the Planning Staff and he felt the staff was concerned with their. " afar as the site plan being presented late, he said that time was not impressed upon him. Mr. Marvin Spencer, an adjacent property owner, stated that Rock Creek Drive comes into Rio Road and there is a real bad curve at 959 this point. He noted that the people that Mr. Rotgin would have to negotiate with regarding this road, were signers of the petition opposing the development. Mr. Spencer suggested that since Mr. Rotgin would have to secure a ROW for sewer that he secure enough land at the lower end of the property for a road also and this would take the traffic off Rio Road. This would make the entrance off Brookway Road. Mr. Bailey commented on this entrance,saying that this would certainly alleviate some of the traffic problems on Rio Road. Dr. Catlin asked how the Site Plan Review Committee felt about this. Miss White of the Planning Staff said this information came to the staff s attention after the Review Committee looked at the site plan. Mr. Spencer spoke on the recreation area. He said that the swimming pool was right behind his house and thought this could be very annoying to him. Dr. Catlin was of the opinion that there were several questions unanswered at this time and he felt that the Site Plan Review Committee was charged with taking all this information and coming up with a final site plan. Mr. Tinsley made a motion to defer this site plan until it is in order and subject to (1) relocation of drive, (2) relocation of swimming pool, (3) clarification of sewer problem, and (4) Re -review by the Site Plan Committee. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously by those members present. Mrs. Craddock suggested that the minutes on this matter be submitted to the Site Plan Committee for consideration. 2. Blue Ridge Estates -'Fitzgerald Property, 2 miles north of Earlysville on Route<!664, 24 lots, zoned A-1. Average lot size 2.4 acres. Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that this was a preliminary plat. He said the proposal is to develop 12 lots fronting on Route 664, and build a 50 ft. ROW to State standards for the other lots. He said 960 too, that the staff recommended approval subject to percolation tests, Highway approval, road bonds, and dedication on Route 664 of 25 feet from the center line. Mrs. Craddock asked if there would be common driveways. It was ascertained that where feasible, this method should be applied. Mr. Rinehart said he would like to see the driveways from Lotl, B1k.B and Lotl, Blk. C come on the internal road. It was noted that the Commission would have to waive the 600 foot ROW for a cul-de-sac, because this road is over 600 feet. Mr. Tinsley made a motion to approve this preliminary plat subject to (1) percolation tests, (2) Highway Department approval, (3) Common driveways fronting on the internal road and (5) a waiver of the 600 ft. ROW. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously. 3. Scottsville Elementary School Annex. West side Route 20 South Mr Humphrey presented the site plan, saying that it was pre- liminary in nature and that a deceleration lane had been suggested. Mr. Hall, representing the School Board, described the buildings to the Commission and said that only a section was being built at this time, but that it would be added to at a later date. Dr. Sams questioned as to whether there was sufficient road frontage for a deceleration lane. Mr. Humphrey said they would have to go on the ROW to get the 150 feet for the lane. Dr. Sams also asked if they had discussed the need for a turning lane when coming from the other direction. Mr. Humphrey commented that he had suggested this, but the Highway Department did not feel that it was necessary. Dr. Catlin said he felt that a deceleration lane should certainly be provided for and a turning lane if it were feasible. 961 There was some further discussion on the turn lane and some discussion about the play areas around the school. Dr. Sams made a motion to approve this preliminary site plan subject to a de -acceleration lane, a turn lane if possible, and the final plan to designate the playground. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously. 4. Cavalier Country (temporary) Bank, East side of Route 29 North opposite "Berkeley" entrance. Mr. Humphrey submitted the site plan and said that when the bank becomes permanent that the applicant will submit another site plan. He noted that a decel lane would be constructed, that there was a median cut and that the bank will be located on the rear of the lot. He pointed out too that this bank is in the area of critical sewer situation and that it would be served by the Berkeley plant. He read a letter from Mr. Jones which stated that the connection had been approved. The Planning staff remommended approval of the site plan as a temporary facility. Mr. Wendell Wood, applicant, was present to represent the site plan. Mr. Humphrey said there was some thoughts on connecting this road to the Branchlands area. There was some discussion about a bank -site covering for the rear of the lot. Mr. Anderson of the SCS said he did not know anything that would grow there, but Dr.Catlin suggested that maybe a vine of some sort might grow. After further discussion, Mr. Tinsley made a motion, seconded by Dr. Sams, to approve the site plan for one year with administrative approval for one year at the end of the first year. It should be noted the Commission discussed using this entrance to go into Branchlands. 5. Greenbrier Bakery --South side Greenbrier Drive, West side of Stromberg Carlson Service entrance. 9 awl Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that this site plan would not be presented to them at this time due to the fact that -a building permit can not be issued because Greenbrier Drive is not in the State system. Dr. Catlin informed the Commission that Mr. Wheeler would request funds this Thursday so that the Planning Commission could hire an attorney to work with them on the Zoning Ordinance. There was a discussion on the handling of site plans. It was established that if the Site Plan Review Committee had not reviewed the site plan by the Monday before the Planning Commission meets, then the Planning Commission will not hear it. Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that a public hearing would be scheduled for July 23rd to hear the Special Permit request for the City sanitary landfill. There was some discussion on workshops as July 23rd is a normal workshop night. It was agreed that the workshop would have to be held another night. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 963 June 25, 1973 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on June 25, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present were Chairman Avery Catlin, Vice -Chairman M. Clifton McClure, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. David Carr, and Mr. Peter Easter. Also, in attendance was Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, and Mr. Fred Payne, and another law student. Dr. Catlin introduced Mr. Peter Easter, new Commission member, to the other members of the Commission. Mr. St. John, County Attorney, said he would do whatever work is necessary up to all day everyday, whatever is necessary to accomplish the services that they asked him to accomplish. He stated that he understood that the Commission would tell him what they wanted him to do, and that he was here to work with the Commission. He stated that he was going to carefully avoid giving the Commission any sentiments on his private opinion. He further stated, "I am just here to rephrase the language; to apply the proper language to the decisions you make and to advise you what the law allows you to do. If you ask for my opinion on policy, I will be glad to give it. Otherwise, I will refrain from giving it". Dr. Catlin then summarized what the Commission had done thus far on the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that they had gone through the ordinance article by article and that they had arrived at a consensus for the names on the various zones. Also that they had arrived at a consensus on a statement of intent for the varbus zones, and for the permitted uses by right and uses permitted by a special use permit in each zone. He said that they were starting to look at area regula- tions in various zones. 9 64 Dr. Catlin told Mr. St. John that they would very much like to have his opinion as to how the points he had mentioned in the previous paragraph tied together the ordinance as a whole. In particular, Dr. Catlin stated, as far as uses are concerned they mean nothing unless there is a good definition to back them up and so each one of those uses has to have a definition associated with it, or be so obvious that a definition is not needed and seemed to him that they needed help just from the organizational point of view rather from a specific legal question point of view. Mr. St. John said that he had been trying to catch up with the /at. on that. He said that he had found out wnat point they were on working on the ordinance and that Mr. Payne had been working on the definitions and that he had reviewed it, and that he would work with Mr. Payne on these, but they had a long way to go because of two things. 1� they are very important 2} the definitions as they exist can really stand some work and a third reason which he thought was important throughout the whole ordinance, which is one reason why the Board of Supervisors askedhim to do this work is that the definitions in this ordinance ought to be in so far as at all possible coordinated with the same words not only in the ordinance in the field that you are concerned with,but in all sorts of other general ordinances for Albemarle County that have some or most of these same words in them and they ought to be coordinated and if possible without having the Commission go back and revise anything they have already done. He said they ought to put these definitions down in the same way they are defined in the other ordinances. He stated that he had reviewed the statements of intent and they lookedall right to him, generally, but he thought there 965 was one thing they ought to review; that being the 10-acre Agricultural zone. Mr. St. John said since he found out he would be doing this work, he had tried to foresee any legal problems in what had already been done and had found something that might become a problem later. To his knowledge, this had never been tested. He thought it would be a close question as to whether the 10-acre zone is valid or not, but if this is what the Commission wanted, then he would strongly recommend that they leave it as it stands, and that they would go to court over it, if necessary,and prepare now the material now they would use in defense. He said it may have been done in another County, but that it had not been tested by the Supreme Court. Research has been done on this point, and all cases have been found involving this, Mr. St. John said, and he thought if they do this, it would be the biggest increment in the state that is used in the zoning ordinance. Ten acres has been used in the subdivision, as the definition of a subdivision, and the Commission should understand that there is big difference in saying that this is a subdivision and dividing up more than ten (10) acres. He said that's why he wanted to emphasize the importance of the statement of intent. He said if the statement of intent stated the purpose was to keep people out and to keep the County from having to furnish what is called "public services", they could not do it, because it would be for an intent that's unlawful. He said that the statement of intent for the agricultural zone was in good form because it was a lawful purpose within the power of the state, for the general welfare of the state to have some agricultural land and that there wasn't any magic in the 10 acres. He said if it were lawful for 5 acres, it would be for 10 acres. He commented that he or any other lawyer could predict what the court would rule. He recommended to 966 the Planning Commission that they stick with the 10 acres if they really wanted it. ` Dr. Catlin wanted to know it they did stick with the 10 acres and the court decided it was unreasonable, would it void the whole zone, or would we have to reduce the acreage more in keeping with the present practice? Mr. St. John told the Commission that it would knock out the zone, but they could immediately reenact it, so that it conformed with whatever reason they gave for it being invalid, and also that they had a five acre zone for conservation. Mr. Easter said that he had been serving on the Land Use Committee. He said their proposal had been based on five acres and had hoped that it would be passed by the Board of Supervisors soon and wondered it they shouldn't make the two ordinances coincide? Mr. St. John said the zoning ought to be coordinated with the land use ordinance and if it became a popular ordinance, then those who benefited by it would not be adverse to depriving themselves of the right of developing their land through the zoning ordinance. of course, when you put 5 or 10 acres for the minimum area for a dwelling, you are really depriving the owner of the right to develop their land. Dr. Catlin asked if there was any other discussion on this matter? Another Commission member thought they should get some feedback from the Board of Supervisors before they consider the philosophy of each of the zones and spent alot of time�and suggested maybe Mr. Wood would recommend ways of getting feedback and ideas back to them? Mr. Wood said that the Board had not discussed it at all and the Board would have to get together to discuss it before he could give them any idea. Dr. Catlin said he thought the ideal time to get the Board's opinion would be after they had gone through the whole ordinance once, since they were almost 2/3 of the way through. Mrs. Craddock said that before the discussion got away from the agricultural district, she would hate to see the 10 acres cut down to 5 acres.She said that 5 acres diddtreally seem like a farm to her. She asked Mr. Easter if the Land Use Committee had ever discussed larger acreage than 5 acres? Mr. Easter said they had even discussed 25 acres, however they were confined to adopting it as the State legislature had passed it. He noted that truck and poultry farming could be done on small acreages and that real estate taxes would be a small tior ' p on of their expenses. Dr. Catlin said he thought the real value of the agricultural zone is to be able to accomodate the land use tax, and that appeared to be the vehicle by which the land use tax will be used for agricul- tural purposes. Mr. St. John said the land use tax wasn't completely orientated for farming even though alot of people thought it was. He said he didn't think the increment of 10 acres instead of 5 would-harm.the agri zone's success any. He said the Commission should have some reasons listed in the minutes rather than just backing 10 acres. He said if the reasons were valid, then the 10 acres would probably be upheld. He said if there was any difficulty establishing the larger unit, the land use would probably be an incentive to keep the land in a non - intensive -use. 968 Dr. Catlin wanted to know if there was any further discussion on that point? He said that when the A-1 zone was established, they really didn't think it would be divided up into 2 acre lots. Mr. St. John sited an entire tract at Woodbridgewhere they were going to build 700 houses on 2 acres apiece. Mr. Carr said that a better example in Albemarle County is that every road in the County that is in an Agricultural zone has ended up with 2 acre lots along it. He said if they reduced it to 5 acres, then they were headed in the other direction. Mr. Rinehart thought it might be a good idea to get someone with an expert agricultural background to tell the Commission what he considers a minimum farm operation. Another Commissioner said he didnt think that was the question, and that you couldn't farm in Albemarle County unless you raise chickens in a hot house on less than 100 acres. He said 100 acres was about the breakingpoint for a man who didn't have any other income. Mr. Carr said he didn't think anyone could farm 10 acres. Mr. St. John pointed out that they should look at it from the opposite point of view. He said that the A-1 was the only one you could farm in, and if you wanted to raise a couple of horses or cows, 10 acres would be enough. You have also got the person who owns 90 acres, who can't make a living of farming alone, but he might want to have some horses or cows, etc. He wouldn't be able to do it if the minimum area was 100 acre Dr. Catlin said he didn't think it was necessary to hire a farming expert and unless there were any objections, they would just leave it at that and if Mr. St. John came up with anything else to let them know. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary