Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 06 81 PC MinutesOctober 6, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Absent were Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order. Mr. Keeler gave a general orientation on the new meeting room. The minutes of March 31, 1981, were approved as submitted. SP-81-39 Estelle M. Jackson - Request to locate a mobile home on 5.1 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property is located on the north side of Route 706, approximately .2 mile west of the intersection of Routes 706 and 631. County Tax Map 89, Parcel 79F, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Mabe gave the Staff Report and in addition passed out an addendum. He explained that approval of this special use permit would require either a waiver of Subdivision Ordinance Section 18-36 (a) or Section 18-36 (d), neither of which could be recommended. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to address the Commission at this time. Mrs. Jackson stated that her understanding at the time of purchasing this property was that there was access to the private road. She stated additionally that improvements and work had taken place on the end of the property with access to the private road. Mrs. Jackson said that to her knowledge this mobile home would only be visible from a couple of other mobile homes and she did not believe that these neighbors had complained. She reiterated that all of the improvements would be wasted if she were now required to put in a driveway from the Old Lynchburg Road. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. Mr. David Mahone stated that he was one of three partners of Allied Associates, which had purchased sixty-five acres of land several years ago in an attempt to build single-family rental units. He said that seven units were constructed and are still rental property, but that he would like to sell them. Mr. Mahone stated that Allied Associates built the private road and sold Mrs. Jackson the 5 acres with the understanding that a home would be built on it. Mr. Mahone said that Allied Associates still had approximately thirty acres beyond Mrs. Jackson's property. Mr. Mahone said that this property was under contact and had come before the Commission for division into five lots and had been approved except for the results of two perk tests per lot. Mr. Mahone added that Mrs. Jackson had brought up the use of the private road; Mr. Mahone said that he would imagine that her sale contract stated that she would have use of the road, as well as share maintenance. Mr. Mahone said that of the seven rental units out 5�V_ there already, five of them used the private road; he said that the contract purchasers for the additional five lots would also have use of this road, which would bring the total to 11 users of the road. Mr. Mahone said that as a representative of five of those users he would object to a mobile home because it would decrease the value of his property. Mr. Mahone said that Mrs. Jackson mentioned several other mobile homes, of which he had no knowledge, but they did not use this private road. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. Mr. Jack Stoner identified himself as one of the three persons buying land behind Mrs. Jackson's. He stated that he objected to the mobile home, if he and the two other purchasers had to pave and double -seal the private road all the way to their entrance. Mr. Stoner said that the understanding between the seller and the applicant at the time the purchase contract was signed, was that a home would be built and that the mobile home was temporary. He stated that the mobile home was in clear view from their property. Mr. Stoner said that he doubted he and the other two buyers would have gone through with this purchase if they had not been advised that within eighteen months a home would be built. Mr. Stoner said that they had been told it was a temporary mobile home. Mr. Leo Elliott said that his wife, Laura J. Wallace, had written a letter which reflected his sentiments. He said, however, that he did believe an individual had the right to make an impact on the land. Mr. Elliott said that the tree which had come down was visible from his land. He said that he was more concerned about Mrs. Jackson's long-range plans if she does not get the special use permit. Mrs. Diehl said that at the end of the public hearing, Mrs. Jackson would have an opportunity to make any closing remarks that she would care to make and could if she so chose address Mr. Elliott's concern. Mr. Elliott asked how long the special use permit was issued for and how long the extension allowed. Mr. Payne replied that the special use permit was good for eighteen months and extensions could be permitted for one year at a time, up to a total of five years, and after that could not be renewed. When Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment, Mr. Mahone asked to speak again. Mr. Mahone said that he would like to emphasize the number of property owners on this private road who were opposed to this special use permit. Mrs. Diehl asked Mrs. Jackson if she would like to make a closing statement. Mrs. Jackson stated that if she and her son had known that their property did not have access to that private road, ti:ey would not have bought it and would have gone elsewhere. She said that they could not afford at this time to build a house. Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was now before the Commission. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Payne whether the applicant did have access to this road. Mr. Payne replied yes, that she had the right to use the road with one dwelling. 5Yg Mr. Davis asked whether this was according to the Subdivision Ordinance, and Mr. Payne replied that it was. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Mabe if there was at present a mobile home on the property with a temporary permit and whether this special use permit would place a second mobile home on the same property or replace the one already in existence. Mr. Mable explained that the applicant's son had a temporary permit for a mobile home presently on the property and that the applicant was applying for a permanent special use permit. Mr. Cogan asked whether then two mobile homes would exist on this one property, and Mr. Mabe confirmed that they would. Mr. Davis asked Mrs. Jackson whether she had cut any trees other than her own. Mrs. Jackson replied that she was not certain because the realtor who had shown her the land had not been certain of the actual boundaries. She indicated that her son had done some cutting before they had paid a surveyor to come in and survey the land. Mr. Davis said that considering that there were five acres and that the Subdivision Ordinance controls mobile homes with requirements of screening and buffering for the benefit of neighbors, he would have no objection to this request and would be in favor of waiving the Subdivision Ordinance sections necessary. He said that the real problem involved the entrance and any further subdivision would increase this problem and require improvement to the existing entrance. Mr. Cogan said that he thought the purpose had been to sell this parcel to one dwelling unit. Mr. Cogan said that if there were over five acres, perhaps it could be possible to divide this property into two separate parcels. He said that he did not believe the initial intent had been to put two dwellings on this one parcel. Mr. Cogan said that this division of the parcel would mean that no waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance would be necessary. Mrs. Diehl said that she would hesitate to approach either waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance sections, knowing the condition of the entrance and the lack of sight distance at the alternative site. Mr. Kindrick and Mr. Davis asked whether in fact a deed restriction existed. Mr. Payne responded that he was not certain but that he did not believe so. Mrs. Diehl recalled a note on the plat. Mr. Payne said that some property owners have taken the position that such a note on a plat constitutes a deed restriction, but that he did not know how a court of law might deal with this issue. Mr. Cogan asked whether by dividing this parcel it would be in compliance with the ordinance, as far as access was concerned. Mr. Payne replied that it would not anyhow because the road does not meet Highway Department entrance standards. Mr. Cogan said that before dividing off the five lots, the road would have to ��9 meet Highway Department entrance standards and that perhaps at that time the parcel could be divided. Mr. Payne responded that presumbably that could be done but that he did not recall the maintenance agreements. Mr. Cogan said that he just did not feel comfortable with a special use permit waiving Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Mr. Davis inquired as to whether the percentage of use of the road by the applicant could be increased in the maintenance agreements to allow for this additional use of the road. Mr. Payne replied that it could be done and that at the time the subdivision plat was amended, it could be taken care of in the note on the plat. Mr. Davis moved for approval of this special use permit with a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance Section 18-36, but subject to the two conditions recommended by Staff: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Maintenance of existing vegetation surround the proposed location. When there was no second to this motion, Mrs. Diehl announced that the motion died and that she would accept another motion. Mr. Davis remarked that economic hardship should be considered in this case and that he did not believe the Subdivision Ordinance waiver would have any severe consequence. He added that he believed the Commission had amended the Subdivision Ordinance Section 18-36 (a), which requires not more than one dwelling unit per parcel served by a private road, in several earlier cases. Mrs. Diehl said that the entrance had concerned her previously and that she would not be comfortable changing her position. Mr. Cogan asked about adding a condition that this waiver_ could be granted if the private road entrance were brought up to commercial standards. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to reply. Mr. Payne responded that he thought such a condition could be made. He added that if he recollected correctly, the problem was sight distance and that the road would have to be lowered, involving highway right-of-way and not individually -owned land. Mr. Payne said that it may not be economically feasible. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Highway Department recommendations were not already diluted from when the subdivision came before the Commission previously, allowing a reduced sight distance from the Highway Department standards. Mr. Keith P7abe confirmed that the Commission had reduced the VDH&T requirements. Mr. Kindrick said that he did not want to deprive the applicant of a home, but that he could not support the Subdivision Ordinance waivers or ignore the road situation 91 580 Mr. Davis reiterated that the applicant would share in any improvements to the private road. Mr. Cogan made a motion to deny the special use permit, until such time as a way could be found to approve the access. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion. There was no further discussion, and the motion passed with 3 ayes and 1 abstention, Mr. Corwith Davis. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Mabe to speak to the applicant concerning this action. SP-81-44 Richard G. Larson - Request to locate a mobile home on 12.61 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property is located north of Route 641, approximately one mile west of the intersection of Routes 641 and 20. County Tax Map 35, Parcel 5, Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Mabe gave the Staff Report. Mr. Larson pointed out that of the three letters of objection, actually two voiced opposition, but the third stated no objection if the applicant were to use his own right-of-way. Mr. Larson explained that two right-of-ways existed on his property, but his neighbors did not want him to activate an old right-of-way, which would be located where he wished to place the mobile home. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was none, she declared the matter before the Commission and the public hearing closed. Mr. Davis asked whether there was a permanent home under construction. Mr. Larson replied that he intended to build onto the mobile home in such a way as to disguise it and that there was a structure under construction on his property that he was unable to finish. Mr. Davis said that then there would be two dwellings on the property, like in the earlier case. Mrs. Diehl said that this case did not involve waivers of the Subdivision Ordinance. She added that she did not believe the Commission addresses the legal problems of right-of-ways. Mr. Payne stated that unless there were a question of whether the property actually had access at all, her understanding of the Commission's position was correct. Mr. Cogan pointed out a discrepancy on the plat, showing 11.62 acres, and the Staff Report acreage of 12.61. Mr. Cogan asked about the missing acre. Mr. Larson explained that he had the original deed, which was surveyed in 1887. He said that the deed put to record earlier in the year showed the correct acreage, 12.61 acres. Mr. Davis moved for approval of this special use permit, subject to compliance with 'rr+ Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. 62;/ SP-81-46 Elaine Clark - Request to establish a nursery school, in accordance with Section 10.2.2#7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property consists of 13.62 acres zoned RA Rural Areas and is located on State Route 1204, Park Road, Claudius Crozet Park in Crozet. County Tax Map 056A(2), Parcel-01-72A, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He added that normally Staff does not recommend a nontransferable permit but that. Staff would in this instance, since the State would not be licensing this establishment and the qualifications of the applicant influence Staff recommendation. Mrs. Diehl asked Mrs. Clark if she would like to make a statement at this time. Mrs. Clark said that she would. She explained that there would be two paid employees in addition to herself, plus two volunteers. Mrs. Clark said that on a rotating basis, there would be two paid employees and two volunteers on duty while the nursery school were operating. Mrs. Clark questioned what certification by the State for emergency medical training and CPR instruction had to do with her special use permit application. Mrs. Clark said that in discussions with Elizabeth Gray she believed the distinctions between a day care facility and educational facility were brought out and according to State guidelines, her facility would be educational. Mrs. Clark said that it would be a problem to fence in the play area. She said that the pool is fenced and locked at all times except when a lifeguard is on duty. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment on this special use permit application. Mr. Roy Patterson said that he would like to speak as a neighbor and member of the governing board of the Claudius Crozet Park. He said that Mrs. Clark had not known that he would speak on her behalf. Mr. Patterson said that he was present as an interested person and that he believed the nursery school would serve the community well. Mr. Patterson said that the Claudius Crozet Park consisted of approximately twenty-three acres and was divided into two parcels. He said that he did not believe the nursery school would have any impact on traffic or noise. He added that Mrs. Clark was a member of the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad and for a couple of years had been treasurer of Claudius Crozet Park. Mr. Patterson suggested that probably the volunteers at this nursery school would be made up of parents of children actually attending the school and would therefore be more reliable. In closing, Mr. Patterson said that he firmly endorsed Mrs. Clark's petition. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. When there was not, she announced that the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. Mr. Cogan asked whether Staff's concern in condition two, where State regulations requiring one adult supervisor per ten children for fenced play areas were mentioned as compared to the applicant's proposal for four supervisors per twenty children in an unfenced play area, was related to the play area being unfenced. Mr. Keeler responded that it was. He added that suitable equipment depended on whether a play area was fenced or not. Mr. Keeler confirmed that Mr. Patterson was correct in mentioning a great deal of interest in the Crozet area for child care. Mr. Cogan said that he was familiar with the Park and believed that fencing the play area would represent a hardship for the applicant and should be waived. v �� Mrs. Diehl said that she had several questions or remarks to make. She pointed out that Staff assessment had been based on the similarities in physical characteristics between a day care center and a nursery school. Mrs. Diehl said that Staff was aware of curriculum distinguishing a school from a day care facility, but that in addressing health, safety and welfare criteria, Staff could view the two as having very similar physical features. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the pool was drained in the fall and winter. It was determined that the pool was drained. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Payne about restricting this permit to an individual. Mr. Davis said that he understood such a special use permit went with the parcel of land. Mr. Payne responded that ordinarily, as a general rule, the permitted use did go with the land. However, in this case, Mr. Payne continued, as Mr. Keeler explained, this facility would not be regulated by a State agency, a fact that did not concern Staff too much because of the particular qualifications of the applicant, and the land was being leased. Mr. Payne said that for these reasons a condition limiting the special use permit to the individual would be appropriate. Mr. Davis asked about rather than conditioning the permit to this individual, whether Mrs. Clark could be exempted from a set of requirements that would go with the permit and apply to any subsequent director of the nursery school. Mr. Payne replied that perhaps this could be done. Mr. Cogan said that he did not believe the applicant had a problem with the non- transferable condition, so he questioned why the procedure should be turned around to exempt Tars. Clark and have the permit go with the parcel of land. Mrs. Clark asked to speak, saying that this was a business venture and she wondered whether the other two individuals in this partnership could operate under the permit, although she alone had applied. Mr. Payne said that if Mrs. Clark were to assign her lease to someone else, he believed the special use permit would terminate, but that on a daily operational basis, Mrs. Clark's partners could substitute for her on occasion. Mr. Davis remarked that if this were a business venture, Mrs. Clark would not be able to sell her business if the special use permit were restricted to herself. Mr. Keeler asked to clarify that Staff recommendations on making this permit a non- transferable one were based on Mrs. Clark's medical training and expertise, not on her education. Mr. Keeler said that since 1976 Staff had been unable to get clearly defined distinctions from the State on the differences between a child care facility and a nursery school. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Davis to explain again his earlier suggestion on how to keep the permit with the land, but waive certain requirements in the case of Mrs. Clark. Mr. Davis responded that as many requirements as desired could be placed on the special use permit, which would go with the Claudius Crozet Park. Then the Commission could waive such specific requirements as appropriate in the particular case of Mrs. Clark, in this way having the permit stay with the parcel of land and insure compliance with standards in the case of any future change of director. Mrs. Diehl said that she saw Mr. Davis' point but was uncertain of what advantage it might have unless it referred back to some State regulations. She asked Mrs. Clark if she was familiar with State regulations on child care facilities. Mrs. Clark replied that she was familiar with most of the physical requirements. Mrs. Diehl determined that Mrs. Clark was trying, as suggested by Staff, to use the State minimum standards for licenses child care centers in setting up her nursery school. Mr. Cogan said that to have four paid employees would create an economic hardship for the applicant and that he believed two paid supervisors with two volunteers would be sufficient. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the volunteers would in fact be parent volunteers. Mrs. Clark responded that hopefully they would be, but she wished to point out that this project was only at the proposal stage. She said that no children were actually enrolled yet and that her idea had been that four adults should be able to comfortably supervise a limit of twenty children. Mrs. Clark said that if the situation permitted at some future point accommodating more than twenty children, she would expect to increase the number of supervisors also. She also indicated that she might like to extend the school from two days. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether increasing the number of children would involve Commission review again because it would represent a further impact on the facility. Mr. Keeler asked Mrs. Clark to clarify whether she had in mind actually handling more than twenty children at one session or whether she had in mind having an enrollment of twenty for two days a week and another twenty children for two other days of the week. Mrs. Clark confirmed that she was contemplating the latter arrangement. Mr. Keeler said that he saw no problem amending the condition to make it clear that the intent was no more than twenty children on the premises at one time. Mr. Keeler also suggested rewording condition number six to state explicitly that one adult supervisor per five children be present at all times when children are outside in the unfenced play area. Mr. Davis inquired why compliance with the minimum standards of licensed child care centers could not be required as a condition rather than made on a volunteer basis. Mrs. Diehl said that she thought Staff had indicated that it did not have sufficient personnel to enforce this condition, but that ideally Staff would like to see compliance with those minimum standards. Mr. Cogan remarked that to him there was quite a difference between a day care center and a nursery school and this facility was definitely a nursery school. He stated that a day care center was where children were dropped off for the day while their parents went to work; a nursery school he explained had a definite curriculum and provided a program of planned activity for the children. Mr. Cogan said that he believed the applicant to be trustworthy and well qualified and that this facility would provide a service to the community. He agreed with Mr. Keeler's proposed condition six, one adult supervisor per five children when outside. Mr. Payne added that such a condition would mean five or any part of five children would require an additional adult supervisor, for example 17 children would have four adult supervisors. -` , Mrs. Diehl said that regarding more than one session of twenty children per week, the use of the facilities would be doubled if forty children enrolled. She expressed concern for this increased use of the septic system. Mrs. Clark stressed that the proposed plan called for use two days per week with twenty children. She said that according to State regulations, she could work all day if she had two separate sessions and did not have the same group of children for more than a certain number of hours per day. Mr. Patterson volunteered that over a thousand people used the park facilities over the last weekend. Mr. Cogan asked how a determination could be made concerning the facility's limits. Mrs. Diehl said that she would like to have some means of reviewing how the school was operating as proposed at some future date if an increase in enrollment were contemplated. Mr. Cogan asked how Mrs. Diehl wanted to restrict the enrollment, whether permitting twenty children per session and limit the number of sessions per week. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if he would have approached review of this application differently if he had known that there could have been twice as many children. Mr. Keeler replied that if it became a question of forty children on one day, as opposed to twenty children, he would review the operation again. He said that with twenty children, operating two days or four days a week, he did not believe that there would be a change in the review. He did say that he would want the Highway Department to make a traffic count and that it would not be inappropriate for the Commission to require Health Department certification. Mr. Keeler mentioned one case where the Health Department had refused to inspect a child care facility because it was not licensed by the State and the Health Department said that it had no authority to make the inspection. Mrs. Diehl said that she would like to have some means to require review by the Health Department and the Highway Department if enrollment were increased. Mr. Cogan suggested letting Staff make that determination. Mr. Payne cautioned that Staff could not make the review unless the Commission set standards for their review. Mrs. Clark asked whether it would make a difference if her proposal were for five days a week instead of two. She said that the Health Department had already approved the septic system. Mr. Payne pointed out that the Health Department approval could mean approval for periodic use rather than continuous use. Mr. Cogan said that he knew of no problem at the Park and certainly this facility had experienced much more intensive use than that proposed by Mrs. Clark. Mr. Davis said that he doubted that any problem whatsoever existed with the Park's septic system, but that if the Commission was concerned about the health and safety of the children, he would suggest a condition that would put the burden of review on the Health Department. Mrs. Diehl determined from Mr. Davis that he was suggesting this condition be made now, before any anticipated increase, so that when numbers reached any un- safe limit, the proper agency would be suJ_tably authorized to rectify the situation. Mrs. Joan Graves suggested changing the wording on condition one with regard to enrollment to say limited to twenty (20) children daily. Mrs. Diehl observed that if the Health Department had approved the use on a five- day basis with twenty children each day and such operation would not change the Highway Department recommendation, she would be able to support the condition. Mr. Davis suggested changing condition five to include Health Department official along with the Fire Official and Building Official. There was a concensus to include wording in condition one to indicate twenty children per day. Mr. Cogan made a motion to approve this special use permit, subject to the amended conditions of approval: 1) Enrollment shall be limited to 20 children per day; 2) Permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferrable; 3) Compliance with Section 5.1.6 Supplementary Regulations; Section 5.1.6 Supplementary Regulations; Section 5.1.6(a) is waived; 4) Staff approval of playground furniture and play area location; 5) Fire Official, Building Official and Health Department approvals; 6) Swimming pool gate shall be locked at all times when children are outdoors, unless lifeguard is on duty. One adult supervisor per five children or any part thereof to be present at all times when children are outdoors in unfenced area. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mrs. Diehl announced that the Commission would take a ten-miunute recess. ZMA-81-25 Harold M. Hochman - Request to rezone 8.33 acres currently zoned RA Rural Areas to LI Light Industrial. Property is located on Route 660, across from Murray Manufacturing, southwest of Earlysville. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 10B, White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, adding that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation would require a commercial entrance if this rezoning request were approved. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. Mr. Fred Colmer, attorney for the applicant, explained that Mr. Hochman was currently a professor of economics at New York City University and that he had purchased the land in this request in 1971 when he was a professor of economics at the University of Virginia. Mr. Colmer explained that Mr. Hochman was in Israel when this property was down -zoned by the County. Mr. Colmer further stated that that the applicant was applying for property on which he had for ten years paid taxes based on industrial zoning to be returned to its original zoning. Mr. Colmer said that when the County rezoned this property, the value was reduced from $40,000 to $20,000 and that this resulted in a hardship for Mr. Hochman. He additionally pointed out that the property was directly across the road from the old Murray Manufacturing Plant. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. Mr. Keyes identified himself as living about a half a mile from the property in question. He stated that it was a nice residential area and that he would be only about two parcels away from an industrial area if this rezoning request were approved. He strongly urged denial. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. Mr. Derrell Mayton, representing Crouse -Hinds, said that his company would be interested in knowing the proposed future use of the land, but had no strong opinion on what the zoning should be. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Colmer if he wished to respond to the public comment. Mr. Colmer replied that as far as Mr. Keyes was concerned, he was living in an industrial zone. As for Crouse -Hinds, Mr. Colmer stated that when a use for the land came before the Commission, Crouse -Hinds would have ample opportunity to know about it. Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Colmer that there was no proposed use in mind at this time. Mr. Keyes spoke up that it was an agricultural zone now and that if the Commission followed the merits of the Plan, it would remain so. Mrs. Diehl informed Mr. Keyes that he was speaking out of order. When she determined that there was no further public comment, she declared the matter before the Commission. Mr. Davis said that if the Board of Supervisors had seen fit to rezone this property RA Rural Areas, he was not disposed to rezone it to industrial, particularly without knowing any specific use. Mr. Kindrick agreed, saying that he could not support a rezoning without a specific use. Mrs. Diehl added her reluctance to support the rezoning request because it had a very low priority on the County's industrial scale and because it was located in the watershed and had no known purpose with regard to use. Mr. Davis moved for denial of this rezoning request. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. 58� Public Hearing on previously adopted Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include land use guidelines for property located at interstate interchanges. *400 Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, explaining that the proposal was for a textual amendment giving standards and policy guidelines in the interim before the large- scale review of the Comprehensive Plan scheduled for next year. Mr. Keeler explained that the two Planning Technicians, ,Ian Purcell and Lorraine Runkle, had prepared an eight -page document, development analysis on each interstate interchange, plus aerial photos and tax maps showing property lines, all of which had been forwarded to the Highway Department in Richmond for review and recommendations. Mr. Keeler stated that the proposed amendments before the Commission were in response to the Board's request for some guidance before the overall review slated for the coming year. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to explain a line in the Highway Department letter which appeared to have been crossed out. Mr. Keeler explained that this line had been highlighted, but xeroxing had produced a black mark. Mr. Keeler said that this line was a recommendation from the Highway Department that subdivision of land within a quarter of a mile of an interstate ramp should not be permitted unless access is provided by a single entrance and the entrance location complies with the distances established by Staff. Mr. Keeler said that this recommendation had been incorporated into the proposed amendments. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was none, she announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl observed that the Commission had gone into these proposals at some length at its earlier session, when she was not present. She asked Mr. Keeler to state again the additions he had made in response to Mr. Gloeckner's suggestions at the earlier work session. Air. Keeler replied under regional uses, he had inadvertently omitted some large- scale uses such as regional shopping centers, major office/business/industrial employment centers, and under highway services, truck stops had been specified at Mr. Gloeckner's request. Mr. Kindrick asked when the next major review of the Comprehensive Plan would come up, and Mr. Keeler responded that there were no specific dates set as yet, but that the Planning Staff was already preparing some maps and text changes. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was some urgency to adopt these proposed guidelines. Mr. Keeler replied that there was the Gieck rezoning request still pending and that he believed the Board wished to have some policy adopted which would guide their decision. Mr. Davis moved to recommend these proposed standards and policy statement concerning development at interstate interchanges as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. �oo LM Public Hearing on previously adopted Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to add the definition of church in Article 3, to add supplementary regulations for churches in Article 5, and to include churches by right in the RA Rural Areas District in Article 10. Mr. Keeler gave the background on this issue, going back to August, when the Board had adopted a Resolution of Intent to make churches by special use permit in all residential districts. He stated that the Commission had determined during work sessions that churches should be permitted by right, subject to some supplementary regulations. He said that the Commission had not been able to hold a public hearing earlier because of advertising requirements. Mr. Keeler explained that in the interim the Board adopted its amendment and the Commission had entertained a motion at its last session to withdraw its counterproposal. However, Mr. Keeler continued, this motion had died for lack of a second, so the Commission was currently holding public hearing on its proposed amendments. Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. St. John had pointed out to the Board that there was a problem with condition c as originally written. This condition had required a positive finding by the Commission that the road serving the proposed church was adequate to handle increased traffic and that such road would not funnel through any existing residential area. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. St. John had determined that this condition was not appropriate for a use by right but became a conditional use permit, which is neither a use by right nor a special use permit. Mr. Keeler said that condition c had therefore been rewritten and did not carry a great deal of weight. Mr. Keeler said that other changes were reflecting those suggestions of the Commission, incuding auctions to be held inside a building (Mr. Skove's request) and eliminating day and/or boarding camps from the list of non-exempt facilities. Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment. Mr. Roy Patterson responded that he was as confused tonight before the Commission as he had been before the Board. He suggested that the new amendment adopted by the Board should be given some chance to work before any other change was entertained. Mrs. Diehl announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl said that she understood Mr. St. John was telling the Commission that this process of using supplementary regulations to control a use by right would not work. She objected that the new wording did not give the Commission authority. Mr. Payne responded that he did not believe this was Mr. St. John's intent. Mr. Payne explained that condition c as rewritten was basically the way it should have been construed in its original form. Mr. Payne said that in order to be legal, condition c in its original form would have had to have been interpreted very narrowly. Mr. Payne said that it would have been very difficult for the Commission ever to have denied a church the right to establish itself on the basis of condition c, unless the Commission could prove a definite threat to health, safety or welfare. RON Mrs. Diehl said that the new condition c was so innocuous as to be almost worthless. Mr. Payne said in reply not necessarily. He said that if a church wished to locate on a corner, condition c gave the Commission the power to require the church's entrance to be on the major street only, not on the side street. He said that this condition gave the Commission a basis on which to require certain access points. Mrs. Diehl said that she believed that the Commission shared most of the same concerns of the Board, but that this rewritten condition no longer reflected her own concerns. She said that the Commission had tried to approach the problem in a less restrictive manner by addressing concerns with the supplementary regulations. Mr. Payne observed that if the Commission's concern was that a given church might not be a hazard but might not be desirable in a given location, it should not be a use by right. Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners for their comments. Mr. Kindrick observed that these controls might not provide all the regulation the Commission might want to exercise, but that he certainly could not support permitting churches by right and with these conditions in the supplementary regulations, he could. Mr. Davis observed that the Board of Supervisors had taken action and his impression was that the Board did not want supplementary regulations. Mr. Davis said that the Board had acted after hearing about the Commission's position. He said that although his sentiments were with Mr. Kindrick, he would have to go along with Mr. Patterson's remarks. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Davis if he believed the Board would not be willing to accept these supplementary regulations in lieu of special use permit restrictions. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that these suggested supplementary regulations had already been before the Board. Mr. Davis reiterated his belief that the Board desired to have churches by special use permit and had so acted on this position. Mr. Cogan remarked that he saw a great danger in having churches by special use permit. He said that there was potential for trouble when one church was allowed and one was not. Mr. Cogan said that he was looking for some medium which would allow any church that complied with a set of regulations to be established. Mr. Davis said again that he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan, but that the Board had already acted and he did not believe the Board would be inclined to go over the issue again. Mr. Kindrick responded by the same token, he still held the original position the Commission had taken and would again make the same recommendation. 19 Mrs. Diehl remarked that even in a special use permit review, Staff would be evaluating church applications according to the same criteria, impartially. Mr. Keeler confirmed her statement, pointing out that Staff had always been very consistent with regard to conditions of approval. He cited the day care application earlier in the evening and the previous cases referred to in the Staff Report as supporting evidence of consistent review. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission had a general set of guidelines for special use permits. The character or belief of any given organization, Mr. Payne continued, be it religious or political, would be immaterial to any zoning question. Mr. Payne observed that accusations of improper motives were always possible in any rezoning decision. Mr. Cogan said that this was not his concern, but he was concerned with not being able to justify a decision and point out how a particular church did not meet a particular criteria. Mr. Payne responded that in reviewing a church for a special use permit, the Commission could only address that facility as it would any other, in terms of land use considerations: traffic, density, parking, noise, lighting, etc. He advised the Commission that it could consider a church as a higher education facility for adults meeting once a week, that it could and should review such a facility according to the same criteria whether it be secular or non -secular. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Board action had included the proposed definition of churches. Mr. Payne advised that the Commission had to take action on all of the amendments, but could pick and choose which it would like to recommend or withdraw. Mr. Kindrick moved for recommending adoption of all of the amendments as proposed. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl said that she could not support the amendment, given the subsequent information received since developing it at Commission level. Mr. Davis suggested tabling the matter until more Commissioners were present. Mrs. Diehl said that there was already a motion on the floor and action was required on that motion before any other could be entertained. When she called for a vote, the motion was tied, Messrs. Kindrick and Cogan for, and Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Davis opposed. Mrs. Diehl announced that the motion failed. Mr. Davis moved to defer Commission action for further discussion; he noted that the public hearing had been closed. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed three to one, with Mrs. Diehl voting against the motion. The deferral was to November 3, 1981. Public Hearing on the Board of Supervisor's adopted Resolution of Intent to amend the definition of "Natural Resource Extraction" in Section 3.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. 59/ Mr. Payne explained that no definition of natural resource extraction existed at the present time in the Zoning Ordinance. He informed the Commission that it could eliminate any of the substances proposed or add others, to include natural gas, oil and uranium ore. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. Peggy Van Yahres spoke as co-ordinator for the Piedmont Environmental Council. She explained to the Commission that the Council had been working for a year on establishing a Statewide moratorium on any exploration, mining or milling of uranium. Mrs. Van Yahres said that a Resolution had been adopted by the Council recently on this matter and that specifically the Council was concerned that none of these activities be allowed until it was determined whether radioactive materials can be extracted safely. Mrs. Van Yahres read her memo to the Planning Commission and submitted it as part of the public record.* Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. Mr. Roy Patterson on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle asked to suggest that there be intelligent, professional regulation of these activities. He cited the experience in Colorado where through lack of information many years ago bricks were made with radioactive materials. Mr. Patterson said that Citizens for Albemarle supported the PEC statement and urged again intelligent, competent regulation of uranium activities. Mrs. Joan Graves spoke for the League of Women Voters and read into the public record a statement from this organization, dated October 6, 1982.* Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further public comment. When there was not, she announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis said that he agreed totally with the issue of uranium. He doubted that there would ever be oil discovered in Albemarle or other adjoining counties. He said that the State had specifically asked that localities not regulate oil and gas exploration beca;?se the State wished to control this activity. He urged that uranium be included specifically, but not oil or gas. Mrs. Diehl voiced concern for disruption of the land for any movement of heavy equipment into an area, apart from the disruption of actual drilling. Mr. Davis said that the deepest water wells were six or seven hundred feet and that 16,000 feet would be the depth for these exploratory activities. Mrs. Diehl stated that she liked the Piedmont Environmental Council statement exempting reconnaissance, because she believed it to be reasonable. Mr. Cogan said that he believed that some control over gas and oil should be exercised for a number of reasons. He agreed with Mrs. Diehl, for example, access to the site should be regulated, and also possible interference with the water table. He pointed out that uranium was actually already included in the proposed wording, "ore or other minterals," because uranium is an ore and a mineral. He also suggested including the Piedmont Environmental Council wording regarding exploratory because he saw nothing harmful in aerial reconnaissance or picking up Mao * Included in general NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION file. 59Z float or existing mantel that is already on the surface of the ground. Mr. Cogan said that drilling is not already involved, only for subterranean sources. Mr. Davis said that he would be in favor of more regulation if any wells had been drilled. Mr. Cogan suggested that he was operating under the premise that there was not enough oil or gas in the County to warrant anyone drilling for it. Mr. Davis responded that he just did not see any reason to discourage such drilling. Mr. Cogan responded that he did not see it as discouraging but as controlling an activity to prevent the County from being hurt in any fashion. Mr. Davis pointed out the document in each Commissioner's packet from the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission asking that local ordinances be amended to specifically exempt exploration or drilling for oil or gas, the intent being to transfer responsibility from local governing bodies to the Division of Mines and Forests. Mrs. Diehl said that she understood that the Soil and Water Conservation Commission was simply informing its administrators that they would no longer be. enforcing local regulations. She added that she could not see the advantage for the County in having it exempted from local regulation. Mr. Payne said that the General Assembly has said that a soil erosion plan cannot be required and that certain activities are exempt from the soil erosion ordinance. He stated that he believed thirteen different activities were listed, but that this did not necessarily mean that such activities were unregulated altogether. Mrs. Diehl asked whether it was true that no regulations currently existed. Mr. Payne replied not really because the Natural Resource Overlay District attempts to regulate extraction of natural resources. He said that strip mining for coal did not require a soil erosion permit for an individual to mine on his own property but that such activity would clearly be subject to County review under the Natural Resource Overlay District. Mr. Payne said that the question here was really whether exploratory in addition to exploitative activities were covered. He said that there was some ambiguity to the question of when exploratory became exploitative. Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether there was enough of a concensus to take some positive or negative action tonight, or whether there was agreement that the suggestions from Piedmont Environmental Council and those made by Staff concerning petroleum and natural gas be considered. Mr. Kindrick said that he believed oil and gas should be included and that he would favor having Staff incorporate the proposed suggestions. Mr. Cogan asked about having Staff check with other counties that have had more experience in this area. He added that the letter from the State was confusing. Mr. Payne responded that the proposed amendment was based on Orange County's text. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was a concensus to include petroleum and natural gas in the proposed amendment or whether there was further discussion on this point. 5�3 Mr. Payne observed that the addition of these two words would be appropriate after the word coal in the proposed amendment. Mr. Davis reiterated his concern that this would be contrary to the State directive. Mr. Cogan and Mrs. Diehl remarked that perhaps what the State deemed to be to its best interest was not in the best interest of a locality. Mr. Payne asked to have time to consider any changes. Mrs. Diehl said that she understand the Commission wished to have Staff and Mr. Payne continue to work on the amendment, to include some wording allowing certain reconnaissance activity. She asked about other suggestions the Commission might want to have included. Mr. Davis said that he would want to address uranium mining specifically because it was already an issue in nearby counties. Mr. Cogan made a motion to continue the discussion of possible amendments to allow further input from Staff and Mr. Payne at the October 20 meeting of the Commission. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Keeler said that with regard to the deferral on the church amendments, which was made to November 3, Mr. Kindrick had brought to his attention that this date was Election Day. Mr. Keeler said that there would be no Planning Commission meeting on that date, so the deferral would be to November 10, 1981. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was no OLD BUSINESS. Under NEW BUSINESS, Mrs. Diehl said that there was a citizen request for a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the Hollymead area. Mr. Keeler gave some background information on Dr. Hurt's request to include Parcel 20 of Tax Map 32 within the mixed commercial planned development district of Hollymead. Mr. Keeler explained that historically Staff had been reluctant to address specific pieces of land when considering amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler said that this request would involve almost eighty acres and was the first request of this type. Mr. Keeler said that should the Commission wish to adopt a Resolution of Intent, Staff would recommend that other uses in the area be addressed as well. He gave as examples, a mobile home park and a subdivision with one -acre lots which should be within a growth area since it did not meet rural density requirements, Mr. Keeler said that Albemarle County had followed very much the path of Fairfax, whose policy had been to strictly follow Comprehensive Plan recommendations. He added that Fairfax's policy was to review rezoning applications simultaneously with amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Davis asked whether the Comprehensive Plan did not come up for review next year. Mr. Keeler replied that it did. Mrs. Diehl explained that action was not expected tonight, but that the Commission was being made aware of the request and would have time to assess various options and alternatives. She mentioned that this request could be considered separately from the overall review of the Comprehensive Plan or could be reviewed during the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update, depending on how the Commissioners believed best. Mr. Keeler suggested that this item be placed on the October 20 meeting. He said that in the interim Staff would review in more detail other uses in the area. In addition, Mr. Keeler said that October 20 would be a deadline for filing of a general development plan, which would give Dr. Hurt an opportunity to file. Mr. Keeler reiterated his recommendation that if the Commission so chose to adopt a Resolution of Intent, that it cover a wider area than one specific tract or parcel. Mrs. Diehl asked whether Staff could put in writing some alternatives for consideration on the October 20 meeting. Mr. Keeler indicated that Staff would endeavor to have something before the Commission on that date. When there was no further OLD BUSINESS OR NEW, the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:45 p.m. Ro rt W. Tucker, Jr., Secr tary o the Alb marle County Planning Co i ion 59.5