Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 1973890 applications, spoke to the Commissioners. Mr. Evans, using several drawings of the project, pointed out the open space areas, storm and sanitary sewer plans, traffic patterns, etc.. In his conclusion, he asked that the Commission act favorably on the matter at this time and condition their approval upon the project having adequate sewer facilities. Mrs. Martin asked if this project would be given first priority to sewer connections if the Commission approved the PUD contingent upon approval of the sewer plant. Mr. Homer Kennamer an adjoining property owner, questioned what the plans were near his property line. It was ascertained that this area was in the flood plain and would be used for recreational purposes. Mr. Kennamer said he was having trouble with motorcycle riders, people chopping trees and further he was afraid that someone might start a fire in this area. He felt that a barbed=wire or chain -link .fence should be put up in this area. Mr.Racque was of the opinion that high density of this nature should be discouraged. Mrs. Graves was concerned with the number of access roads into and out of the project. Mr. Richard Scholls asked if a study had been made to determine the amount of run-off all these houses and paved streets would cause on nearby land. Mr. Evans pointed out that this project would cause considerably less run-off than the streams could handle. The public hearing was closed. Dr. Catlin asked if the City or County would service the development with water. Mr. Humphrey said probably the County would serve them. Mr. McClure suggested that they find out what the nearby developments were before they made a decision on this project. Dr. Catlin said he would like to know where the 5 Million Gallon figure came from for the sewer plant. After a short discussion, Mr. McClure made a motion to defer action on 891 ZMP-272 and SP-246 until May 21, 1973 to give the staff time to prepare conditions to be placed on the Special Permit. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously. 3. ZMP-275. Kenneth and James Chisholm have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 3 acres of land from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on east side of Route 728, about 1/4 miles from its intersection with Route 620. Property is described as County Tax Map 115, Parcel 41C, (part thereof). Scottsville Magisterial District. The staff report was presented by Mr. Humphrey, recommending denial. The Chisholm's were present and said they wished to make two lots out of the three acres in order for each one of them to build a house. No one spoke in opposition to the request so tht public hearing was closed. Dr. Sams asked if the property had already been purchased or if it was under contract. It was ascertained that the Chisholms were contract purchasers. Dr. Sams was of the opinion that it would be a mittake to rezone this property since it was outside of the village cluster indicated on the Master Plan. He felt their approval of this rezoning would constitute a precedent. He said that since the Chisholms had not yet purchased the property, that denial of this application would not cause any extreme hardship for them, therefore, he made a motion that ZMP-275 be denied. The motion for denial was seconded by Mr. Rinehart. Dr. Catlin informed the applicant that by adding one acre to the three acres in question, they could build two houses without rezoning the property. Mr. Chisholm said he could not buy anymore land as the owner would not sell at this time. The motion to deny carried unanimously. 4. ZMP-276. W&Iter A. Young has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 3.1.acres of land from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Route 250 West and 240 at Brownsville. Property is described as County Tax Map 56, Parcel 32D. White Hall Magisterial District. The staff report was presented by Mr. Humphrey. Mr. Herbert Pickford, attorney representing the applicant, said there was a contract purchaser for the property and that the lot would be filled in after the zoning was obtained. 892 Mr. Rick Noble, representing Ivy Citizens Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Helen Milias, speaking against P g g granting the rezoning, was of the opinion that the proposed development on the property was not necessary, as there were shopping areas in Crozet, which is very near this property. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Craddock informed the Commission that she had viewed the site and found it unsuitable for commercial zoning. She said that probably 2 out of 3 acres of this parcel was in a gulch. Therefore, Mrs. Craddock made a motion to deny ZMP-276. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. Mr. Rinehart thought that a precedent had been set already becuase the other three corners at this intersection were already commercial. He thought this corner should be zoned commercially, too. Dr. Catlin, said there were two things to consider, (1T the Master Plan recommends -that only one quadrant of an intersection be zoned commercially and (2) there is already some 1800 acres of commercially zoned land in the County that is not being used. Mr. Pickford pointed out that there was not very much usuable commercial property at this intersection. Mrs. Martin asked if this lot could be filled without doing damage to the stream that runs through it. Mr. Rinehart said the stream could be covered. Mrs.Milias told the Commission that there was a vacant;i3hopping center only h mile away that should be used rather than rezoning additional land. Mr. McClure said he would not want to encourage anyone to fill in their land before obtaining the rezoning. Mr. Rinehart pointed out that if the land remains A-1 and a house is built on it as close as 30 feet to the r-o-w that this might be more objectionable than if it'is rezoned B-1 and the Commission places conditions on a site plan. Mrs. Craddock, with Mr. Tinsley's permission, withdrew her motion for denial and made a motion to defer action until the Commission has an opportunity to view the property. This motion was seconded by Mr. Staley. 893 Dr. Catlin was of the opinion that the topography of the land was immaterial, but he was bothered by the fact that there is so much unused commercial property in the County. Dr. Sams agreed with Dr. Catlin's statement. Those voting in favor of deferring ZMP-276 were: Mr. Staley, Mr. Tinsley, Mr. Rinehart, Mrs. Craddock, Mr.McClure and Dr. Catlin. Dr. Sams voted against the motion. Therefore, the motion carried by a 6-1 vote. Mrs. Craddock and Mr. Staley were appointed by the Chairman to view the site and report back to the Commission. 5. Nahor Milling Co., Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home park and central water supply on 69.5 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on north side of Route 630, at its intersection with Route 719 and Route 717. Property is described as County Tax Map 119, Parcel 50 (part thereof), lots 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37. Scottsville Magisterial District. The staff report was presented by Mr. Humphrey recommending denial. Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, presented drawings of the proposed development. He pointed out that there would be sufficient open space and recreational areas for each mobile home. Mr. Evans emphasized the fact that there is a tremendous need for mobile homes in the County. Mr. Frank Webber, a nearby property owner, speaking for himself and some of his neighbors, requested the Commission to deny this petition. They were afraid that other mobile home parks would develop in this area if this one were permitted. The value of the surrounding properties would depreciate considerably and there could be a water and sewer problem. Furthermore, he felt that the roads were too narrow and twisting to accommodate a development of this density. Mr. Gerald Tremblay, speaking for himself, Mr. Daniel VanClief and two other property owners in this area, asked that this permit be denied. 894 He said he and his two associates had sold this property to the applicant but they did not intend for it to be developed in this manner. It was c his opinion that this development would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Walter Craig, who plans to build a home across the road from the proposed project, was opposed to the project because of the impact it would have on the value of his lot. He presented a petition to the Commission with signatures of other opposers in the area. Mrs. Phillip Jessup and Mr. William Heath spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Racque asked if the cost to educate the children that would come with this project had been figured. before any approval was given. The public hearing was closed. He felt this should be considered Mr. Rinehart was of the opinion that this was a good mobile home park plan, but that the density was too high. Therefore, he made a motion to deny SP-248, which was seconded by Mr. McClure. Dr. Sams said. that this park could be one possible alternative to the mobile home situation. He felt that regardless of where a mobile home park was planned that the neighbors would not want it there. Dr. Catlin agreed, but he did not think a park should be located near a residential section. He pointed out that last Fall the Commission approved plans for houses on this land. Mr. McClure did not think this type of mobile home park would do anything to solve the problem, because most people want to own their property and this plan was for rental property. The motion to deny SP-248 was carried unanimously. 6. SP-249. Virginia Watkins has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a public riding stable on 164.28 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on North side of Route 641, west 19 899 " side of Southern Railroad at Burnleys. Property is described as County Tax Map 22, Parcel 18B. Rivanna Magisterial District. The staff report was presented and a generalized sketch of the proposed facility was shown to the Commission. Mrs. Watkins was in attendance and spoke on her application. She said she planned to rent horses for riding to the public. Mr. Graham Lilly, nearby property owner, was of the opinion that the road to Mrs. Watkins farm was too narrow and winding, that railroad tracks were too near the farm, that 164 acres was not enough land for riding horses and that a commercial enterprise of this nature was incompatible with the area. Mr. Charles South opposed the facility, calling it a business enterprise, which should not be located in this area. Mrs. Earl Andrews spoke on the road (Route 641), which in her opinion would not be capable of handling the traffic that a public riding stable would generate. Mrs. Lilly objected to the facility because of the increase in traffic, the RR tracks and she was concerned that the riders would not stay on Mrs. Watkins property. Mrs. Racque objected to the commercialism of the project. She said there were already colored streamers hanging between the trees. Miss Yager spoke in favor of granting the permit. Mr. Racque asked if Mrs. Watkins had purchased the land, if she Planned to live on it, if she planned to have a night operation and if she planned to use that portion of the property that is in Orange County for the same purpose? Mrs. Watkins replied that she was contract purchase that she intended to live on the r� property and use the property in Orange County for the same purpose, but that she had no plans yet for the facility at night. operating 896 Mrs. Andrews was concerned that if one commercial operation was allowed, that soon there would be applications for others. For instance they would need a restaurant to feed the riders. Miss Mary Ann Buckley spoke in favor of the operation. She said she favored it because "at least they don't want to make a subdivision out of it." There was further discussion, with Mrs. Watkins noting that she had run several stables in the past. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Rinehart suggested that this matter be deferred until a site plan can be presented. He felt that the location of signs, any parking, etc. would be important. He thought that if this project is handled correctly it would be an asset to the community. Mr. McClure, too, said he would like to see a more detailed site plan. He pointed out that all farming is commercial so that by approving this, the Commission would not be setting a precedent. Dr. Catlin was of the opinion that the Commission should view the property. Mrs. Craddock made a motion to defer SP-249 until such time as a complete site plan can be w p presented to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rinehart and carried unanimously. At the close of the public hearing, Mr$. Racque asked if something could be done to be sure that site plans were ready at the time the hearing Gas held. She complained that deferral such as this caused her to have to come to another meeting to hear what action might be taken. Dr. Catlin said that Mrs Racque's point about site plans had some validity. Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that the Zoning Ordinance did not require a site plan, but that he had been asking for one as a matter of information for the Commission. 7. SP-250. Walker Lee Rush has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a general store on 4 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on SE side of Route 7159 about 118 mi. from its intersection with Route 703. Property is described as County Tax SCOttsville Magisterial District. Parcel 56. , e QYt, listing conditions that \ ►+a� of f s r 4 esg'4ted thg st were recommended for a4pYoval. ��ey 4� cial 4 er�it I.11A Mr. Rush told the Commission that a store of this nature was needed in the community as they had nc 'store. He said the children walked for several miles to the.nearest store and that by permitting thisstore, it would keep the children off the highways. Mrs. Craddock asked if this permit would cease if the store was closed. It was ascertained that the permit would become void. Mr. McClure made a motion to approve SP-250 subject to the following conditions: (1) Expand parking area to accommodate 12 spaces, (2) Parking areas and access ways to be graveled and maintained in a dust proof manner, (3) Highway Dept. approval for entrance and exist, (4)Health Department approval of septic tank, and (5) 40 foot setback for pump island, 60 foot setback for structure. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously. 8.SP-252. Anna Taliaferro has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 4.27 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on south side of Route 735 about 1 1/2 miles from its intersection with Route 626. Property is described as County Tax Map 133, Parcel 66B. Scottsville Magisterial District. The staff's report was presented, recommending approval with Health Dept. approval and a 75 foot setback. It was noted that the applicant was not present. There was a short discussi6n on the Planning Commission policy not to act on an application unless the applicant is present. Dr. Sams questioned whether the applicant is made well aware that he is expected to appear for the public hearing. Mr. Rinehart made a motion to defer SP-252 until the applicant can be present. The motion was seconded by Mr. Staley and carried unanimously. Dr. Catlin requested the staff to review their form letter which is sent to applicants and reword it if necessary, to be sure that the 898 applicant understands he must attend the public hearing and if he can not attend, he must notify someone of this. 9. SP-254. Holiday Trails, Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a summer day camp for handicapped hhildren on 70.86 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on south side of Route 702, north side of Interstate 64. Property is described as County Tax Map 75, Parcel 47 (part thereof). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The staff's report was presented. Mr. Clyde Gouldman, attorney representing Holiday Trails, presented a brochure describing and showing pictures of the proposed F-E facility. Mr. Chuck Haney spoke on the petition. He said there would be one acre per child, a small riding stable, a beach and various other recreational facilities. The children would spend from two to eight weeks in the camp. Dr. Paulsen alsospoke, elaborating on the children that would be taken care of and the financing of the project. It was ascertained that a bus would be provided for transporting the children. 'Iva) Mr. 'McClure made a motion to approve SP-254 subject to the following conditDns: bhly that immediate ground cover needed for the cor..struction of the structure be disturbed, Health Department approval for sanitary systems, minimum of 40 on -site parking spaces for employment andten for visitor parking and that the access roads on -site be dust proof and maintained as such and that the general site plan be adhered to -relative to approximate location of facilities from adjacent property lines. The motion to approve was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously. J 899 Dr. Catlin noted that he had received a letter from Mr. William W. Stevenson asking that the Miller School Complex be included in the Historical Zone. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary M 09 900 WORK SESSION Albemarle County Planning Commission May 14, 1973 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on May 14, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present were Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. M. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. David Carr, Dr. James Sams, and Mrs. Ellen Craddock. Also in attendance was Lloyd Wood. Mr. Louis Staley was absent. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and a quorum was established. Dr. Catlin informed the Commission that there were several items he wished to discuss prior to the Zoning Ordinance. The first was with reference to the Subdivision Ordinance, referring to information on restricted roads submitted to the Commission by the staff. He AW questioned whether the information received on restricted roads would be part of the revised subdivision ordinance. The secretary reported that it was desired that it be, however, the information indicated was the result of the Board of Supervisors Committee and that the Board had not reacted to it. He indicated that the Board may take some action May 17, 1973 regarding the recommendation with the hope they would adopt the standards by resolution to afford the Commision some direction on the granting of restricted roads. The secretary indicated that there were numerous requests for restricted roads. The Commission received the Committee work for information purposes only. The Chairman then asked for elaboration on recent newspaper articles on City and County attempts to provide adequate sewer during the interum period while major permanent sewer treatment facilities are being constructed. 901 The secretary reported that the newspaper articles were not totally comprehensive relative to what is taking place. That there were studies accomplished to determine growth impact on sewer facilities between now and 1975-1978 to ascertain the amount of interum improvements needed and which would be built; prior to the permanent facility. Mr. Humphrey indicated that the staff had supplied the Commission their current agenda package, the analysis of what might be expected to occur in the Meadow Creek and Moores Creek watershed relative to building and population during the interum period. The other item the chairman wished to bring before the Commission which is related to a time a table for completion of the revised Zoning Ordinance, is the question of whether a moratorium on zoning matters could give the Commission breathing space to complete their work in a shorter time than it now appears it would take. The Chairman referred to a work program and target date for completion of the Zoning Ordinance as submitted by the County Planner. Dr. Catlin suggested that possibly a moratorium on rezonings, could reduce the work load of the Commission. The County planner suggested possibly 50% of the public hearing could be eliminated by a moratorium on rezonings and planned unit developments. Dr. Catlin stated he hesitated to cause a moratorium on mobile homes or site plans or subdivisions, on land already zoned for such uses. He felt this probably would be a hardship. He asked for comments on such a moratorium from other members of the Commission. Mrs. Craddock stated that she had been thinking for sometime that a.imoratorium was necessary. She stated that we couldn't keep blundering on in the manner we have with reference to the work needed on the ordinance. 902 At this time, the County Planner gave a report on the petitions for rezoning and Planned Unit Developments which provide for full agendas through July, 1973. Dr. Catlin stated that the only way to establish the moratorium fairly would be to say all petitions on file now would be heard. Mrs. Craddock noted that possibly afternoon meetings might be in order. Dr. Catkin stated that was the alternative. Mr. Carr stated that he was still in opposition to a moratorium as a matter of principal, but as a practice to accomplish something, it would be proper. He questioned the secretary as to whether this would be any problem with some petitions that haven"t been filed but verbal scheduling had been given to a applicant. Mr. Carr was informed by the County Planner that there would be no problem in this regard. The staff was asked as to the procedure followed with reference to formal applications being filed. The Commission was informedthat the date of application when filed, is recorded on the petition along with tentative hearing dates. Mrs. Craddock noted that it would not be wise to establish a moratorium for a date in the future, because this would cause a flood of applications prior to the moratorium date and the reason for having such a moratorium would be circumvented. Dr. Catlin agreed with Mrs. Craddock on this point and stated that the moratorium should commence on the date of the meeting in which the moratorium is discussed and approved. It is the only way to accomplish what is needed. Dr. Sams asked for clarification on Planned Unit Developments under Special Permit applications as to whether it should be included 903 in the moratorium. Mr. Humphrey stated that it should, since much time is concerned in the preparation and review of such applications; A discussion on subdivisions and the need of including them in a moratorium was held. It was the concensus of the Commission that they should be heard. Dr. Sams felt that a zoning moratorium was defensible in view of the basic reasoning for it. Subdivisions of land on existing zoning was not so defengible in his opinion. Mr. Rinehart felt we had an obligation to hear those zoning petitions that had been filed. He questioned inclusion of Special Permits. Mr. McClure felt he could accept the moratorium better if there were a stated time limit. Nothing indefinite. Further discussion on what zoning matters should be included in such a moratorium such as just zoning petitions or zoning petitions and planned unit developments. Dr. Catlin,for final discussion, suggested that possibly there would be a moratorium on zoning petitions and planned unit developments for 120 days with cases filed and signed by the applicant being heard. The effective date being May 14,1973. All other business would be heard. Zoning petitions would still be accepted and held. Mrs. Craddock felt 120 days was not sufficient. Dr. Sams suggested 6 months as being reasonable. Dr. Catlin felt 120 days was not quite enough time to accomplish the objective of completion of the ordinance. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Commission already had a work load of zoning cases to carry through July. It was the consensus of the Commission that a six (6) month period was more reasonable to accomplish the objective. 904 Mr. Wood, Board member, in attendance, questioned whether the Board of Supervisors should be consulted first. Dr. Catlin stated that he had been asked by two members of the Board to bring this to the attention of the Commission. Dr. Catlin stated that he was attempting to obtain the opinions of the Commission, in the form of a recommendation, to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. There was a question as to whether the initial request should come from the Commission. The two members of the Board felt it should come from the Commission. There was other discussion by the chairman and Mr. Wood relative to who should initate the moratorium. Mr. Wood stated he would be glad to take it to the Board. Mr. Carr felt Dr. Catlin's suggestion that the Commission initiating was proper, since the CommissionNa.s more aware of its work load than anyone else. Mr. Carr stated he would vote for a motion stating that in his mind that this is not an attempt to stop growth. That this is an attempt to complete the charge given to the Commission. Mrs. Craddock motioned to recommend to the Board of Supervisors? that a moratorium be established on zoning petitions and special permits for planned unit developments for six months, dated midnite May 14, 1973, which was seconded by Mr. Rinehart and approved by a unanimous vote of those members present. Said recommendation to be accompanied by the following resolution: Whereas, the Albemarle County Planning Commission is involved in preparing a revised Zoning Ordinance for Albemarle County to assist the Albemarle County Board -of Supervisors in maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan and Whereas, the Albemarle County Planning Commission is meeting regularly on the preparation of growth guides and find that more time is needed to complete the preparation within the next six 905 13 months and Whereas, a moratorium on Zoning Map Petitions and Planned Unit Developments would provide the Commission with approximately'50 percent more time to give to the preparation and Whereas, the Commission is of the opinion that such a moratorium would be in the best interest of the general public welfare and safety and health relative to providing proper elements of growth guidance Therefore, be it resolved that the Albemarle County Planning Commission recommends to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that a six (6) month moratorium be placed upon the review and public hearings for all Zoning Map Petitions and Planned Unit Developments, commencing midnite, May 14, 1973. The moratorium shall not apply to site plans or subdivisions of land and the Planning Office shall continue to receive Zoning Map Petitions and Planned Unit Development applications; however, no schedule shall be made until the removal of the moratorium. At this time, the staff was asked as to the status of the flood plain ordinance. It was reported that the ordinance was in the zoning book. The step now is to establish the detailed lines of delineation of the flood plain. The County has qualified for flood insurance. A question was raised from the public, why there was so little input in the Zoning revision from developers? Mr. Humphrey reported that the developer and real estate interest had been aware of the work sessions, had a copy of the ordinance, and had been informed to provide input. To this date, very little contributions had Dome about. Some have stated that they were waiting to see what the Commission was going to do. At this time, the Chairman called for the work sessions on the proposed Zoning Ordinance which resulted in the following approval relative to "Area Regulations~. AGRFCULTURE DISTRICT 2-1-3 Area Regulations 2-2-1 Minimum area for creation a Agr. District shall be 50 acres 2-2-2 Minimum lot size 19 (1) 10 acres for all uses permitted by right 906 (2) Other uses. In case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, in which case the County Planning Commission may increase the lot area requirement. 2-1-4 Maximum percent lot coverage ($) Single family units on lot - N. R. (2) Other permitted uses 70% 2-1-5 Setback Regulations All structures, except sign advertising sale or rental of the property, shall be located one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line on any street, 1 2-1-6 Frontage regulations For residential lots, the minimum lot width at the setback shall be: (1) 400 feet for single family residential (2) Other uses subject to special permit approval 2-1-7 Yard regulations (1) Side - The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be: a. Eighty (80) feet (2) Rear - Each main structure shall have a rear yard of: a. 130 feet 2-1-8 Height regulations Buildings may be erected to forty (40) feet in height except that: (1) A public or semi-public building such as a school, church or library may be erected to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade (2) Church spires, belfries, cupolas, municipal water towers, chimneys, flues, flag poles, television antennaes and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be up to four feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest. (3) No accessory building which is within fifty (50) feet of any adjoining lot line shall be more than one story high. 907 2-1-9 Special Provisions for Corner Lots (1) Of the two sides of a corner lot, the front shall be deemed to be the shortest of the two sides fronting on streets (2) The side -yard on the side facing the side street shall be seventy five (75) feet or more for both main and accessory buildings. 2-1-10 Special Provisions for Secondary Structures (1) Accessory buildings shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any property lines 2-1-11 Open Space Provisions Reference Article 20 2-1-12 Minimum Off -Street Parking Reference Article 21 2-1-13 Signs Reference Article 22 CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2-2 Area Regulations 2-2-1 Minimum Lot Size (1) 5 acres for single family residential (2) Other uses. Incase of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, in which case the County Planning Commission may increase the lot area requirement 2-2-2 Maximum percent lot coverage (1) Single family units on lot - N.R. (2) Other permitted uses 70% 2-3 Setback Regulations All structures except signs advertising sale or rental of the property, shall be located fifty feet or more from the property line on any street, 19 908 2-4 Frontage Regulations For residential lots, the minimum lot width at the setback line shall be: ,11) 250 feet for single family residential 2-5 Yard Regulations 2-5-1 Side - The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be: Sixty (60) feet - conventional 2-5-2 Rear - Each main structure shall have a rear yard of: 100 feet 2-6 Height Regulations Buildings may be erected up to forty (40) feet in height except that: (1) A public or semi-public building such as a school., church or library may be erected to a height of sixty feet from grade (2) Church spires, belfries, cupolas, municipal water towers, chimneys, flues, flagpoles, television antennae and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be up to four feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest. (3) No accessory building which is within fifty (50) feet of any party lot line shall be more than one story high. 2-7 Special Provisions for Corner Lots 2-7-1 Of the two sides of a corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the shortest of the two sides fronting on streets. 2-7-2 The side yard on the side facing the side street shall be fifty (50) feet or more for both main and accessory buildings. 2-8 Special Provisions for Secondary Structures 2-8-1 Accessory buildings and structures shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any property line 2-9 Open Space Provisions Reference Article 20 2-10 Minimum Off -Street Parking Reference Article 21 909 2-11 Signs Reference Article 22 RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 3-2 Area Regulations 3-2-1 Minimum Lot Size (1) 2 acres for uses permitted by right (2) Other uses. In case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood, in which case the County Planning Commission may increase the lot area requirement. 3-2-2 Maximum percent lot coverage (1) Single family units on lot - N.R. (2) Single family units - cluster alternate - 75% of total site including lots and streets (3) Other permitted uses - 70% 3-3 Setback Regulations 9 All structures, except signs advertising sale or rental of the property, shall be located fifty (50) feet or more from the property line on any street) 3-4 Frontage Regulations For residential lots, the minimum lot width at the setback shall be: (1) 150 feet for single family residential 3-5 Yard Regulations 3-5-1 Side - The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be: (1) Forty (40) feet - conventional 3-5-2 Rear - Each main structure shall have a rear yard of: (1) Sixty (60) feet 3-6 Height Regulations Buildings may be erected u to forty y (40) feet in height except that: 910 (1) A public or semi-public building such as a school, church or library may be erected to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade provided that required front, side and -rear yards shall be increased one foot for each foot in height over forty feet. (2) Church spires, belfries, cupolas, municipal water towers, chimneys, flues, flagpoles, television antennae and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be up to four feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest. (3) No accessory building which is within twenty-five (25} feet of any party lot line shall be more than one story high. 3-7 Special Provisions for Corner Lots 3-7-1 Of the two sides of a corner lot, the front shall be deemed to be the shortest ofthe two sides fronting on streets 3-7-2 The side yard on the side facing the side street shall be thirty (30) feet or more for both main and accessory buildings. 3-8 Special Provisions for Secondary Structures 3-8-2 Accessory buildings shall not be located closer than twenty (20) feet to any property line. 3-9 Open Space Provisions Reference Article 20 3-10 Minimum Off -Street Parking Reference Article 21 3-11 Signs Reference Article 22 LM 911 May 21, 1973 This was a regular meeting of -hhe Albemarle County Planning Commission held on May 21, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Court House. Present were: Chairman Avery Catlin, Vice -Chairman M. Clifton McClure, Mr. Wilbur C. Tinsley, Mr. David W. Carr, Mrs. Ellen B. Craddock, Mr. M. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Louis C. Staley and Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Supervisor. The meeting was called to order and a quorum established. It was agreed that the minutes of April 23 and 30th would be considered for approval at the end of the agenda. At this time ZMP-276, Walter A. Young was presented to the Commission for action. Mr. Young's petition was deferred from May 7, 1973 meeting in order to have a committee from the Commission view the site. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff's report again to refresh the memories of the Commissioners. Dr. Catlin reported that he had received a letter from Mr. Patterson of Citizens for Albemarle urging that the land not be rezoned. He had, too, a note from Mr. Sandy, adjacent property owner, stating that he had, not been notified of such rezoning, bt.t that he had no objection to it. A letter from Mrs. Seldon explained why a B-1 zone would have a detrimental effect on Route 250 as regards a scenic highway. At this time Dr. Catlin asked for a report from the committee which had been appointed to view the site. Mrs. Craddock presented the report for herself and Mr. Staley. She said that about 2 acres of this land lies in a sunken area which has a septic tank and creek in the bottom. It was noted that the septic tank serves Mr. Sandy's residence and Ida's Grill which are located across Route 250 from the subject property. It was related that Mr. Sandy used to own this property, that Route 250 3WA -amp through, dividing his land and at a later date he sold 3.1 acres in the southeast quadrant to Mr. Young and retained 0.7 acre for himself due to the fact that his septic tank was located there. Further this rquadnt contains drainage pipes coming from under Route 250. Mrs. Craddock and Mr.. Staley suggested that a retaining wall be required if the request was granted. Mr. Staley asked why Mr. Sandy was not notified of the rezoning. There was discussion on notification of adjacent property owners with Mr. Humphrey stating that it was not required by law, but the Planning Staff had been requested by the Bd. of Sup. to notify property owners. He said that the Tax Map did not show this small parcel of Mr. Sandy's therefore he was not notified. Mr. Humphrey noted, too, that in view of the new information regarding this 0.6 of an acre, that Mr. Young should be required to add this small parcel to his 3.1 acres if the rezoning was granted. Mr. Carr agreed that Mr. Humphrey had raised a valid point and Mr. Carr asked if the applicant had any intentions of acquiring this parcel. Mr. Herb Pickford, attorney for Mr. Young, said that the owner has no intention of selling the property at this time, but he said that the Health Department is trying to relocate the septic tank on the north side of Route 250. Dr. Catlin wondered if there was justification for rezoning this tract as there is lots of B-1 property in this area and there is a vacant shopping center only h mile from the subject tract. Mr. Staley was concerned that if this reasoning was used all the time, a monopoly would be established by the people that own B-1 land. Mr. Rinehart was of the opinion that this would be a logical place for a B-1 zone. 913 Mr. Carr asked if, in the public hearing held on May 7th,there was discussion held on the matter of growth in the area. He wondered if Crozet was growing in this direction. Mr. Humphrey said he had not seen any growth in this area and that the Master Plan indicated that the Urban Cluster would stop at Rt. 250 and not take in this area. Mr. Carr asked too., if this rezoning would have any bearing on the Scenic Highway plan that is proposed for 250. Mrs. Craddock quoted directly from the Master Plan that there is already more land zoned commercially than will be needed by the year 2000. Mr. Rinehart made a motion to deny ZMP-276 because (1) there is adequate B-1 zoning in the area, (2) the site is not suitable for develop- ment, and (3) there has been no commerical development in the area recently. The motion for denial was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried by unanimous vote. 2. SP-249. Virginia Watkins-- deferred from May 7,1973 meeting dependent upon site plan submittal. Mr. Humphrey reviewed the staff's report and presented a site plan that he had received from Mrs. Watkins. He noted that parking should be no closer than 100 feet from the ROW. Also, he said that the entrance has reasonable site distance in either direction. Dr. Catlin informed the Commission that he had received two letters regarding this matter. One from Mrs. Andrew addressed to himself and the Planning Commission members and one from Mrs. Lilly addressed to Mr. Humphrey. Mrs. Craddock, having viewed the site, described to the Commission the buildings on the property and told them that a rink had been constructed. She said there was ample room for parking, that she could "` see no danger for the entrance and therefore, she recommended approval 914 subject to the following conditions: (?) that the patrons of the stable be restricted to this property only, (2) no high volume sound, (3) no bright lights, (4) no commercial food concession, (5) roadside signs should be neat and tasteful in design, (6) Mr. Humphrey's re- commendation of 100ft. setback for parking with trees to remain that are in that 100ft. as screening for parking facilities. There was a short discussion as to whether or not a time limit should be placed on the hours of operation each day. Dr. Catlin said that in Mrs. Lilly's letter she had suggested that no night time riding be permitted. He felt that might be a reason- able condition and that it would automatically eliminate bright lights. Mr. Carr was of the opinion that to restrict riders to this tract of land would not be a valid condition. Riders are permitted on a public road. Mr. Rinehart was of the opinion that only Onesign should be permitted and that it should be limited in size to 4 sq. ft.. He said other caution signs that might be located along the driveway should be smaller. Mr. Rinehart suggested, too, that the permit be reviewed administratively at the end of one year to be sure that all conditions had been meet. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve SP-249 subject to the following conditions: (1) 100 ft. setback for parking lot with trees to remain within the 100' as screening, (2) day -time operation only, (3) one business sign, 4 sq. ft. in area, (4) no commercial food concession except soft frink of snack machines, (5) no high volume loudspeakers. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure and approved unanimously. 3. tP-252. Anna T liaf o, deferred. from May 7, 1973 meeting ecause the applicant rrwas not present 915 Mr. Humphrey presented the staff's report and said that the applicant was not present at the last meeting because they had not been notified properly. The staff recommended approval subject to Health Dept. approval and a 75 ft. setback. After a short discussion Mr. Tinsley made a motion to approve SP-252 subject to septic tank approval by the Health Dept., 75 ft. setback from Rt. 735 and being limited to 5 years. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carr and carried by unanimous vote. 4. ZMP-272 and SP -246. Branchlands, deferred to allow the staff opportunity to study the plan further and make recommendations. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff's report. He read the conditions that should be imposed if approval were granted. These conditions dealt with density, concept, land use, subdivision of land, sewer and water, road systems general items, storm drainage, and ether utilities. Part of the staff's report consisted of a memo from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Executive Director of the Albemarle Co. Service Authority, dated Aay 16, 1973. Mr. Ray Jones recommended that this request be deferred until 1975 at which time additional capacity for sewer will be available. This letter is attached to the staff 's report and made a part of the file on ZMP-272 and SP-246. Dr. Catlin suggested that the Commission first decide if the application should be deferred rather than going into the details of the PUD. Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that they would have to act on the request within 60 days or it would go before the Board as being recommended for approval. He read to the Commission a letter from Mr. George C. Palmer, II, Chairman, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, dated May 3, 1973 which recommended that approval be deferred until plans for expansion of the Meadow Creek plant have been approved by the 916 State Department of Health and the Water Control Board. Mr. Carr asked if the County had already committed to Meadow Creek its capacity. It was ascertained that Branchlands is included in that committment. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer and also a member of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority informed the Commission that September 1, 1973 would be the date for the plans to be approved for up -grading the plant, then it would take 90 days for construction. Mr. Bailey elaborated further on the proposed improvement add how it would benefit the County. Dr. Catlin read a letter from Mr. Patterson, President of Citizens for Albemarle, in which Mr. Patterson suggested that a committee be formed to study what went wrong with Hollymead before the granting of approval for this PUD. Dr. Catlin agreed that this would indeed be a good idea. Mr. McClure made a motion that this request be passed on to the Board of Supervisiors to be deferred until the proper facilities are available; and if the Board disagrees with this recommendation, pass it back to the Commission so that they can make recommendations. Mr. Carr seconded the motion as he neither wanted it approved nor denied at this time. Mr. Rinehart was of the opinion that this matter should not be deferred too long as it takes a great deal of time to prepare the necessary drawings. He felt that he could vote on it at this point and then the drawings could be started on. He suggested that a committee be formed to review the plans. Mr. Max Evans, representative of Branchlands, questioned the process that the Commission was using in passing this on to the Board. He felt they should make recommendations. Mr. McClure clarified 917 the motion for Mr. Evans. There was further discussion, with Dr. Catlin suggesting that a sub -committee be formed to study this PUD and others since there were several points that obviously needed more study. The motion made by Mr. McClure was approved by unanimous vote. Dr. Catlin asked Mr. Rinehart, Mrs. Craddock and Mr. Staley to act as the sub-committe to study PUD's, with Mr. Rinehart acting as Chairman. Dr. Catlin suggested that they look at the plans,roads - service roads, and look at other developments to see if anything could be learned from them. 5. SP--256. Albemarle County Service Authority has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a water transmission line on a parcel of land containing 9.287 acres, located on the east side of Route 29 North, south of Route 649 and is in an A-1 Agricultural zone. Property is further described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 37, 36, 29G. Charlottesville Magisterial District. The staff's report was presented by Mr. Humphrey. Dr. Catlin questioned how this water line related to the Master Plan. He was of the opinion that the location of a water line determined where development would go. Mr. Humphrey said this would not change the growth pattern as set out by the Master Plan. Mr. Bailey, Co. Engr., representing the application, said that the Albemarle Service Authority bought the water system in Jefferson Village in 1969. It was noted that the subdivision was served by a single well with 66 customers. This past Fall Mr. Bailey, Mr. L.F. Wood and sane residents of Jefferson Village had met. The residents complained about the volume and quality of the water. After a study was made it was found that the water was highly affected by iron and manganese, therefore, public water was needed to serve this subdivision. A filter was placed on the well to correct the situation partially until public water is available. 918 Mrs. Ferguson said they had placed an extra filter on their well and this still did not work. She passed around to the Commission, a filter that had been on her well for three days. Mr. George Mercer asked if fire hydrants would be placed along the water_ line. Mr. Bailey said that the plans indicated two fire hydrants and one of these would be near Mr. Mercer's business establishment, Mr. Carr asked if the water lines in Jefferson Village were de- signed to take this kind of system or if new lines would have to be laid in the subdivision. It was ascertained that the existing lines would be sufficient. Mr. Gerald Moore, a resident in Jefferson Village, told the Commission that they really needed that water because of the problems they had been experiencing. About half the court room was filled with people from Jefferson Village who urged that the request be granted so that they could receive public water. Mr. Carr asked what the fee would be for these people to connect to the water line. Mr. Bailey informed him that the connection fee would be $300, the same as any other place in the County. Mr. O'Leary, resident of Jefferson Village, spoke on the health hazard of the present well system. He said several people in the neigh- borhood had bladder infections last year. Mr. Toms, also a local resident, said that neighbors had been unable- to drink water or bathe last week. The public hearing was closed and Mr. Rinehart asked if any efforts had been made to drill another well. Mr. Bailey said they had not tried drilling another well. 9 919 Mrs. Craddock questioned whether or not developers on either side of this water line would have to tap in. It was ascertained that they could not be made to use this water line. Dr. Catlin said he had not looked at the Master Plan, but if this line were permitted along this road, then there would be development along this road. He made it clear that if this request was granted then the North Rivanna would be opened up to further growth. Dr. Catlin pointed out to the Commission that they should never again approve a central water system for a subdivision and that the well in Jefferson Village was a good example of why they should not approve such wells. Mr. McClure made a motion to approve SP-256, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried by unanimous vote. SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS 1. Albemarle Square Shopping Center, N.E. quadrant of Rio Road Route 29 North. Mr. Humphrey presented a revised site plan of the shopping center. He noted that revisions had been made to the roads, and a cut made in the proposed median on Rio Road. He showed to the Commission a land- scaping plan prepared by the Planning Dept. as a suggestion to the developer. This landscaping plan would eliminate 80 parking spaces and provide areas for grass and trees and a sidewalk in the lot. Mr. Brundage, architect for the development, presented a land- scape plan that Mr. Humphrey had not seen. Mr. Brundage noted that Charlottesville Savings and Loan Co., located on the corner of the shopping center, desired to look as if they were part of the shopping center, so the landscape plan included their building. Mr. Brundange said Mr. Hum hreyIs idea about sidewalks in the parking lot would P cause problems with drainage, snow removal and sweeping. 920 Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Brundage that sidewalks were not necessarily in the parking lot. He said people would not use them even though they were safety factors. Dr. Catlin was concerned that the Site Plan Review Committee had not seen this landscaping plan. Mrs. Craddock asked Mr. Humphrey if he had any information on a catch system for oil and grease run-off on parking lots. This was a subject that was discussed about 6 months ago at which time Mr. Humphrey had been instructed to find some information on it. Mr. Humphrey informed Mrs. Craddock that he still had no information. Mr. Aubrey Huffman said basins could be placed, but that oil and grease float so he had no method for catching that. Mrs. Craddock felt that a pedestrian walk in the shopping center should be required if Mr. Humphrey thought there should be one. Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve the site plan as prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman and subject to a satisfactory land.- scaping plan being worked out by the developer and Mr. Humphrey. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure. Mr. Carr wanted it made clear that he did not think a sidewalk in the parking lot was necessary as Mr. Brundage had drawn plans for lots of shopping centers in various states and he should know if the sidewalk was necessary. The motion for approval carried unanimously. 2. E. M. Martin -Industrial Building, east side of Route 749, Avon Street Extended. Mr. Humphrey presented the site plan, recommending approval subject to Health Dept. approval for septic system and well. He noted that this operation would require a Special Permit at a later date for some 921 M welding operations that are planned. After a very short discussion, Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the site plan as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Staley, and carried unanimously. 3. Herbert Tull, Mechanical Engineering Firm, south side of Route 738, near Ivy. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff's report, noting that this property was the subject of a Special Permit about one month ago. He said the Special Permit was approved for 20 employees, therefore, the staff would recommend at least 20 parking spaces be planned for. Dr. Catlin reminded the Commission that at the public hearing on the Special Permit, there were some question about the access road. He wondered what effect this road would have on the residential lots in front of the commercial property. Dr. Catlin felt the logical approach to the matter was either to rezone the residential lot to commercial or move the road to the commercial property. Mr. Tull explained that to move this lot back to come off of the Dettor, Edwards, and Morris road would cause a deep cut to be made. It would be hazardous and cause a blind intersection. There were discussion between the commissioners relative to the residential land. They were afraid that if this road were permitted to traverse a residential lot, that sooner or later a request would be made to rezone all the residential lots commercially. Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve the site plan subject to the road being moved to the edge of the RS--1 lot and using the RS-1 lot so that no RS-1 land existed between the B-1 and RS-1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carr and carried unanimously. RESTRICTED ROADS 1. R. M. Snead, restricted road to serve one 5.3 acre parcel 922 north side of Park Road, Crozet. Mr. Humphrey presented the plat to the Commission. Mr. Snead said he intended to divide the 5.3 acre parcel into two lots for his children. Dr. Catlin noted that they could approve a restricted road to one lot only. Mr. McClure pointed out that one restricted road was all that was necessary for the two lots as an easement could be granted for one of the lots. After a short discussion, Mr. Tinsley made a motion to approve the plat, which was seconded by Mr. Staley and carried by a 6-1 vote with Mr. Rinehart abstaining. 2. H. W. Richardson, Restricted road to serve one 2 acre parcel and residue acreage. West side of Route 20 South. Mr. Humphrey presented the plat, informing the Commission that Mr. Richardson desired to sell the 2 acre lot and needed a road to it. Mr. Richardson told the Commission that he owned the other two houses on the surrounding property and that he planned to construct himself a new house. Mr. McClure was of the opinion that a 50 foot R-O-W should be required as someday these three houses would be divided up on three lots. Mr. Carr was of the same opinion, therefore, he made a motion to approve the plat subject to a 50 foot R-O-W. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried by a 6-1 vote with Mr. Rinehart abstaining. NEW BUSINESS Mrs. Craddock asked if it would be okay with the other members if she gave her corrections to the minutes to Mr. Humphrey in his office as they were typo's and grammatical errors. Dr. Catlin said he had received a letter from the County Attorney, 923 Mr. St. John, requesting that the Zoning Administrator be given the power and authority to go onto private property. This should be incorporated into the new Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Craddock informed the Commission that she was the only Commission member who was present at the Board of Supervisors meeting when they discussed the moratorium that the Commission had requested. She said the Board did not present any Planning aspects at all. Dr. Catlin said that he felt the Commission could explain the matter better to the Board when the two bodies would meet together on Thursday. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary OR 924 May 30, 1973 This was a special meeting called by the Chairman in order to reconsider the Planning Commission's request for a moratorium. The meeting was held in the Board Room of the County Office Building, at 7:30 P.M. on May 30, 1973. Those members in attendance 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. Also, Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and said that the meeting had been called to consider matters that had been brought - to the attention of the Commission by the Board of Supervisors. He presented to the Commission some alternatives to a zoning moratorium. But, he notedthat regardless,of what alternative was selected, a full-time legal assistant and afull-time planning assistant would be needed. The following alternatives had been proposed so Dr. Catlin asked the Commission to consider them: (1) Divide the Commission into two committees: one to conduct public hearings and other business, the other to work on the zoning ordinance and zoning map. Five members on the first sub- committee would constitute a legal quorum, the other four members would serve on the second subcommittee. (2) Ask the Board of Supervisors to appoint an ad hoc citizen's committee to perfect a new zoning ordinance and zoning map. (3) Conduct no public hearings and make no recommendations on those matters where the final decision is made by the Board of Supervisors, thus limiting public input to one public hearing before the Board. (4) Again request a six month period during which no zoning map permits or 925 PUD special use permits would be heard. Mr. Humphrey indicated that the Planning Department hoped to receive additional personnel sometime in the very near future, perhaps by July 1. He said that this might take care of the Planning Assistant that would be needed. Dr. Catlin asked Mr. St. John if the legal students that the Commission had been using would be available again after the summer. Dr. Catlin pointed out that the Commission would have to have constant legal advice during the drafting of the ordinance. Mr. St. John informed the Commission that the students would not be working as a group this summer, but as individuals, and would be back in the Fall. Mr. St. John said he would like to clarify the statement that he made at the Board of Supervisors meeting regarding the moratorium. He said he thought that a legal assistant was being considered as an alternative to the moratorium. He felt they should get a full-time legal assistant if they needed one, and they should get one that would work with the students. Mr. Carr said that he would not support a lawyer who would supervise the students, but he would rather have someone like a "John Humphrey" who knew how to do this sort of thing and could coordinate the students. He felt this coordinator was needed whether the moratorium was granted or not. Mr. Rinehart was of the opinion that legal and planning assistance was definitely needed. He pointed out that the Commission has spent about four months talking about a moratorium and has wasted a lot of time. He thought that a specific calendar 926 time should be determined and presented to the Board. Dr. Catlin suggested that before the details of the moratorium arediscussed that the other alternatives should be considered. Dr. Sams was of the opinion that a 5th item should be added to the list of alternatives, that of doing nothing. He clarified his statement by saying that maybe they should continue -as they were presently doing. He said he had gotten the feeling from the Board of Supervisors meeting that there was no urgency on the Board's part as the'Planning Commission had previously thought. If this is the case, regardless of how rapidly the Commission progresses on the Ordinance, it could be many months beforethe Supervisors approve it. Dr. Catlin agreed with Dr. Sams point and said that maybe it should be explored further. He was concerned that the Board adopted a Master Plan that required the new zoning ordinance and yet might take a 16ng period of time to adopt the zoning ordinance. Dr. Sams pointed out that the State Enabling Legislature says the County must have a plan. Mrs. Craddock said she had the impression from the Board meeting that the Supervisors did not want the Commissioners to drag their feet on this ordinance or stop growth in the County while it was being prepared. Mr. McClure's impression of the Board meeting was that the Commissioner's should get their regular business done and then work on the zoning Ordinance. Mr. Rinehart and Mr. Carr agreed with that statement. Mr. Carr asked Mr. St. John if the moratorium that they requested was legal. Mr.St. John informed the Commission that he had told the Board of Supervisors that the moratorium would 927 be legal because there was a good basis for it. He said he was willing to go on record that this moratorium would be legal. Dr. Catlin questioned whether the Commission could give up the public hearings and pass them on to the Board to hear. Mr. St. John said that the Commission did not have to hear Special Permits, but the law did require them to hear rezoning cases. Mrs. Graves asked if the Board of Supervisors had any legal responsibility to have the Zoning Ordinance passed. It was ascertained that there was no legal requirement to have a Master Plan, only the Zoning Map was required by law. Mr. St. John told the Commission that he would be willing to work with them on this as their legal assistant, provided he be paid the same amount as they would pay someone else for " this service. Mr. Tinsley said he had missed the Board meeting, but he felt that the Commission would be on the right track if they continued on the same schedule that they presently have. Mr. Humphrey pointed out that the Planning staff needed this new ordinance in order to keep from being arbitrary in their day to day activity with the public. Dr. Catlin said the Commission would have to decide whether they did make a mistake in asking for the moratorium and have the request withdrawn or leave the request in. He was of the opinion that action should be taken on the basis of what is good planning rather than on what is good politically. He felt that if the request was left in, that the Board would deny it, but that the Commission should not withdraw the request unless they thought they were wrong. 928 Mr. Rinehart suggested that the Commission be divided into +' two committees to allow work on the zoning ordinance to be accomplished. Mr. Humphrey suggested that the Commission be divided into three committees and each committeee could work on certain elements of the Ordinance and bring it back to the full Commission for a vote. Mr. McClure said he would rather the Commission work as a whole. There was further input about committees and how they could be organized to work on the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Carr made a motion to withdraw, officially, their request for a moratorium and proceed with the business at hand, seeking whatever additional advice and counsel as they might feel appro- priate. Dr. Sams seconded the motion and added that in withdrawing the request this did not mean that the Commission would not like some,.time, but that the Commission had made the request inappro- priately. Mr. Rinehart was of the opinion that the only reason to withdraw the request would be if the Commission had an alternative plan to the Moratorium. He noted the problems coming up this summer with many Commissioners going on vacations. There was some discussion on the necessary funds to obtain the legal and planning help that would be required. Mr. McClure was of the opinion that if the request was withdrawn, that the Board should be asked to make available funds to get the help needed. Mr. Carr was in agreement with'this discussion on funds 929 and wanted this to become part of his motion. Dr.Catlin expressed his opinion that the request for a moratorium should not be withdrawn unless the members felt they were wrong in asking for one. He indicated that the Commission should not relent to political pressures. After a short discussion, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion to withdraw and seek funds to have additional staff as the Commission feels advisable and proceed on a reasonable schedule. Those voting in favor of the motion were: Mr. Carr, Mr. McClure, Dr. Sams and Mr. Tinsley. Those voting against were: Mr. Rinehart, Mr. Staley, Mr. Catlin and Mrs. Craddock. Since this was a tie vote, the motion failed. It was agreed that a new motion should be presented, one that could be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Carr had to leave the meeting at this time. Mr. McClure made a substitute motion to tell the Board of Supervisors that the Commission still feels that the moratorium is the best course of action and they still request that the moratorium be granted, but if.the Board does not see fit to grant it then the Commission would like funds set aside for additional help to aid them in,,going full speed ahead on the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Craddock. There was discussion on the type of aid needed by the Planning staff and Commission. It was ascertained that this aid would be needed regardless of whether or not the moratorium was granted. It was felt that the aid by the law students would be sufficient. After further discussion, Mr. McClure proposed that if the moratorium were granted and the Commission utilized the law students, and the Planning staff had more time to put into the drafting of the zoning ordinance, there would be no need for 930 additional funds. It was the consensus of the Commission though, that there was a need for funds to obtain more Planning staff and a Planning Consultant. The Chairman called for a vote on the -motion submitted by Mr. McClure which asked the Board of Supervisors to grant the moratorium and if not set aside funds for the Planning staff and Consultant. The motion carried unanimously by those members present. Dr. Catlin presented a letter that he had received from Mr. Lilly. He said that Mr. Lilly had mentioned something in the letter that was of concern to him, that of getting the Commission's opinions accurately over to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Staley noted that on Page 880 of the April 23, 1973 minutes, under Item 8 of R-1 Residential that horses and ponies would be allowed on the R-1 zone. He questioned why horses would be permitted on a one acre lot. It was ascertained that more than one acre was required for horses. Mrs. Craddock commented on the word "light" which was supposed to have been removed from Item 8:, Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that public hearings were scheduled for June 11. After a discussion on the scheduling of public hearings, it was ascertained that hearings such as this should be scheduled for the 5th Monday only with no exceptions. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary