Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 12 1998 PC MinutesM 5-12-98 MAY 12, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 12, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. Wiliam Nitchmann; Mr. Wiliam Finley; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Washington and Rooker. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed. The minutes of April 28, 1998, were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the May 6th Board of Supervisors meeting. CONSENT AGENDA SUB 98-025 Porters Village Final Plat - Private road to serve Lot 7. No concerns were raised. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. STA 98-01 Subdivision Ordinance - To serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice the Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to consider the amendment of the Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the Code of Virginia and current practice related to Validity of Plans, Length of Review Prior to Action, Notification, Appeals and Administrative Procedural Matters: (1) Amend to codify current administrative review process; (2) Amend to revise time period for site plan/subdivision review; (3) Amend to revise time period of validity of site plan/subdivision plats; and (4) Amend content of preliminary and final site plans and subdivision plats. Mr. Keeler presented a brief staff report. He noted that the following sentence should be added on page 76, Sec. 18.1-105: In addition, provisions shall be made for the minimization of pollution of all downstream watercourses due to surface water runoff. Commissioner comments and recommended changes were as follows: TICE --Regarding private roads [pages 36 and 37, Sec. 18.1-42(b)], he noted that the current ordinance gives approval authority for private roads for 2-lot subdivisions and for family divisions to the Commission, whereas this ordinance gives approval authority to "the agent" (i.e. the Director of Planning and Community Development). Mr. Keeler explained why this change was made and pointed out that Sec. 18.1-30 allows the Commission to review any action of the agent. %Q 5-12-98 2 --Page 23, top of the page under D(4) related to family divisions - He asked how this would work. Mr. Kamptner said: We would look at it to try to determine if a violation occurred, and, if so, attempt to undo what was done. We would have to look at the particular facts." (Mr. Loewenstein had questions about this same section. See below.) --Page 37, item (b) at top of page - Referring to the language in the current ordinance, he said he would hate to lose the term "among other things" in the event there may be other impacts which are not listed. He suggested changing the wording to say: "Environmental impacts, including but not limited to the erosion and sedimentation, stormwater runoff.. etc." After the public hearing was closed, Mr. Tice raised another concern about this particular paragraph. He expressed concern that the wording of this paragraph leaves the total determination as to whether the impact is substantially greater to the "opinion of the County Engineer." He said that though he has faith in the Engineering Department, there may be cases where county staff might not have the expertise to make that decision. After some discussion, the following wording was agreed upon: ...resulting from a public street, would ser, substantial! greater than that of a private road in be �--t#e-epin-�e�#�e-�e�ir� Y g the same alignment, based upon evidence submitted by the subdivider and reviewed by the county engineer, and other qualified county staff." --Page 51, Sec. 18.1-60 - He noted there is a paragraph A. but there is no paragraph B. Staff explained that B. is being reserved for a discussion of groundwater testing. --Page 65, Sec. 18.1-86 - He noted there is a paragraph A. but there is no paragraph B. Staff explained that B. is being reserved for a discussion of Minimization Provisions. --Page 52, Sec. 18.1-64 - For family division, he asked if the County does not require evidence of road maintenance provisions. Mr. Keeler said staff encourages a maintenance agreement, but currently it is not required. (This is the same as in the current ordinance.) --Page 75, Sec. 18-1-104, Drainage Control - He noted there are two changes from the current Ordinance: (1) Off -site has been dropped; and (2) The determination is to be made by the agent, rather than the Commission. He asked why off -site was dropped and wondered if the Commission should reserve the ability to make this determination. Mr. Kamptner explained "off -site" was dropped because in some cases the developer may not have the ability to construct off -site drainage facilities. Sec. 18.1-68 does authorize the requirement for subdividers to pay the pro-rata shares for off -site sewer, water and drainage improvements. He was not certain why the change from Commission to agent was made. He said if a plat is one which is being reviewed by the Commission, then the Commission will make that determination. Mr. Kamptner said staff will check to make sure "everywhere that we have used agent it is clear that if it is an item in front of you, then it also means Commission." RIELEY --Page 9, Definition of Landscape Architect - He suggested this definition be change to read "A person licensed as a Certified Landscape Architect in the Commonwealth of Virginia. --Page 13, Definition of Street Width - He suggested this definition be reworded to say "...reserved for public travel including roadway, and which may include curb and gutter, sidewalks, ...etc." --Page 25, No. 7: He suggested this be changed to read: "A notation as to whether the land is within an Albemarle County andlor City of Charlottesville public water supply watershed... etc." M 5-12-98 J --Page 37, item (a) at top of page - He said he has a concern, "not with the ordinance but with the way it is measured currently by the Engineering Department." He said he will discuss his concerns with the Engineering Department directly. --Page 54, item L. - He said: I think we've seen in the last couple of months that 2 units per acre--.5 acre gross density -- it would be much better to reduce that to .5 dwelling units per acre or two acres, rather than have a 1/2 acre gross density threshold. It would give us a lot more latitude rather than working with developers solely on the basis of proffers." Mr. Cilimberg said that is a topic that would need to be considered as a potential additional amendment. --Page 67, Sec. 18-1.91, Side lot lines. - He asked if this is taken from the old Ordinance. Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively and added that it is seldom used. Mr. Rieley wondered if it should be deleted. Mr. Keeler suggested changing "shall" to "should." Mr. Keeler added: "I'd have to think about it, but I'm not sure there would be any problem with striking it." LOEWENSTEIN --Page 23, top of page, under D(1) and (2) - He questioned how staff can make determinations on these two items, i.e. whether the division promotes the cohesiveness of the family, and whether it is profit -motivated for short-term investment purposes. (Mr. Rieley shared this same concern.) Mr. Kamptner said these are not hard and fast rules, rather they are guidelines to the staff and the public that these are the things we will look at when a family division is brought before the County. Mr. Loewenstein thought this would be a hard call for the agent to make. Mr. Keeler noted that presently the draft refers to Chapter 19.3 for the Water Resources Ordinance, but that chapter number will be taken out because it will be changing. Public comment was invited. Ms. Babs Huckle addressed the Commission. She asked for a definition of "abutting property," particularly "what if there is a road in between, is that an abutting property?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "For purposes of providing notice, we would go to the piece of property across the road." She asked if there is a trigger number for notification of abutting properties, i.e. at what number of lots being divided is notification required? Mr. Keeler said the intent is that the notification requirements will remain the same, i.e. for one and two lot divisions that are done administratively, family divisions, and exempt divisions, notification is not required to be given to either the Commission or abutting properties. He explained: "But anything of substance that would go through site review and the Commission would be notified of in the event they may want to review it, then, yes, we would notify adjoining owners in that case." Ms. Huckle wondered if some of the smaller divisions ought also to require notification. She was concerned because a lot had been created on the banks of Jacob's Run in Earlysville (in 1996), with inadequate sight distance, and no one received notification. She said the ordinance says that items which have public health and safety issues can be "scrutinized more carefully." For Ms. Huckle's benefit, Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Kamptner to review the administrative approval process. Mr. Kamptner explained that files are, generally, open for public review. /'2- 5-12-98 4 The current process allows some items to be approved without notice to neighbors. He said even for those items which require notice, the notice only makes the neighbors aware that something is happening, "it doesn't create a remedy (and) it doesn't create the power to prevent. Mr. Keeler and Mr. Cilimberg explained how the administrative approval process works for exempt plats, and family divisions. Mr. Keeler concluded: "One thing we may want to look at is the acreage for exempt plats --we may want to increase that. We'll talk about that at some future date." There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that STA 98-01 to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the Code of Virginia and current practice related to Validity of Plans, Length of Review Prior to Action, Notification, Appeals and Administrative Procedural Matters, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff, with the following changes: --Page 9, Definition of Landscape Architect to be changed to read: Certified Landscape Architect - A person licensed as a certified landscape architect in the Commonwealth of Virginia. --Page 13 - Definition of Street Width to be changed to read: "...dedicated or served for public travel including roadway, and which may include curb and gutter, ...etc." --Page 25 - A.7 - To be changed to read: "The notation as to whether the land is within an Albemarle County and/or City of Charlottesville public water supply `%W W watershed... etc." --Page 37, b. - To be changed to read: "The environmental impacts including but not limited to erosion and sedimentation, stormwater runoff, ... from a public street would be in the-epinien seuntyengineer substantially greater than that of a private road ... and reviewed by the county engineer and other gualified county staff " --Page 75, 18.1-104A - (Mr. Kamptner is to look at this paragraph to determine whether "Commission" should be used instead of "agent." --Page 76, 18.1-105 - Add second sentence: "...In addition, provision shall be made for the minimization of pollution to all downstream water courses.' The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------- ZTA 98-06 - 32.0 Site Plan of the Zoning Ordinance - To serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice the Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to consider the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: (1) Amend to codify current administrative review process; (2) Amend to revise time period for site plan/subdivision review; (3) Amend to revise time period of validity of site plan/subdivision plats; and (4) Amend content of preliminary and final site plans and subdivision plats. Mr. Keeler presented a brief staff report. Referring to Mr. Rieley's comments about density earlier in the meeting, Mr. Keeler said staff will also consider those comments for these amendments (as related to Section 32.7.2.8). `3 5-12-98 Commission comments and recommended changes included the following: FINLEY --Page 7, Sec. 32.3.10 APPEALS - He noted that this entire section has been stricken and staffs notes say this topic has been included in Section 32.4. However, it appears there is only one appeal which remains --for a preliminary site plan. (Mr. Keeler explained how the appeal process works, with the current appeal being to the Court. Here, Section 32.4.2.7 allows the developer to appeal a decision of the agent or the Commission on the preliminary site plan to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Finley asked if Section 32.4.2.7 applies only to the preliminary site plan. Is there no right of appeal of a final site plan? After staff looked quickly through the draft Mr. Kamptner said: I think that was mistakenly omitted --some reference to a right of appeal of the final site plan. Mr. Keeler added: Clearly, you can appeal a decision that the agent would make under any of the provisions of Section 32.7-- any of the minimum improvements. A decision made by the agent is appealable to the Commission." Mr. Finley also pointed out that the word "APPEAL" appears in the heading for Section 32.7.9.2 (page 35), but there is actually no appeal in that section because item (c) has been stricken. --Page 9, Sec. 32.4.1 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE - Because the contact person for a preliminary conference (Mr. Blankenship) is actually in the Zoning Department, Mr. Finley questioned the accuracy of the term "the county planning staff." it was decided the word "planning" would be removed and the term would be changed to "the county staff." --Page 39, Sec. 32.7.9.7(c) - PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING - He asked what happens if there is not enough space to allow additional landscaping. Mr. Keeler said sight distance takes precedent, so this section could be waived (by the agent) based on a sight distance requirement. NITCHMANN --Referring to the Preliminary Conference, he asked if a developer can request limits on who will attend the conference, in the event a proposal may be confidential. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would respect the wishes of the developer, but those types of requests are usually for rezoning proposals. LOEWENSTEIN --Page 11, Section 32.4.2.5 - He questioned the meaning of the first sentence that is proposed to be added ("Property abuttin the developpment...). He thought this sentence was very confusing. Upon re -reading the sentence, staff agreed. It was decided the original sentence ("In any case in which the property so abutting...) would be reinstated with the use of the word abutting in place of adjacent. The proposed new sentence would not be used. --Page 25, first paragraph - He asked about the legal definition of the new phrase --if the need for such land is substantially generated by the development. Mr. Kamptner said it is a term which has been used by the Virginia Supreme Court in some off -site improvements cases, but "substantially generated" does not have a clear explanation. RIELEY --He recalled that during the Round Table meeting, streamlining of the review process had been discussed, but these amendments actually add another layer by the addition of the preliminary conference. He asked staff to comment on efforts to streamline the process. Mr. l�4 5-12-98 6 Keeler said the preliminary conference is already in the Ordinance, but it is not mandatory. He said staff feels the preliminary conference will make the process more efficient for some applicants, such as churches or day care centers, who may only be going through the process one time. In terms of streamlining, he said these amendments are "simply codifying the process, and putting things in writing so that everyone understands how it works." There are also some changes to the final site plan process which were discussed at the Round Table/Work Session. The completion of the Design Standards Manual will remove a lot of debate with applicants. All these efforts were recommendations in the 1985 LURC Report and almost all those recommendations have now been addressed. He noted that these changes will make the preliminary approval valid for one year, whereas now it is only valid for 6 months, and some unnecessary requirements on the preliminary and final plats have been removed. Mr. Cilimberg added that the exercise of administrative procedures with preliminary plans, which the Commission authorized a few years ago, was the beginning of streamlining, and these changes codify that procedure more specifically. He said there may be other ways to streamline the procedure, "but they would be a departure from the Resolution of Intent," e.g. the Commission could authorize staff to approve most waivers, or could authorize staff to approve preliminary plats and plans in their entirety. -- Pages 16 and 17 - Mr. Rieley said the number of copies required of a preliminary site plan has been increased from 14 to 16. He also noted that the scale is 1" = 20 feet. He said this generates a tremendous amount of paper. He asked how far the county is from being able to accept plans on a disk. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been discussions at the County Executive level regarding the county's technology that could lead to being able to deal with plats and plans by disk. The Planning Department does not yet have the CAD technology to be able to do this. Mr. Keeler explained why 16 copies of a plan are needed. There was some discussion about requiring some copies to be at 1:20 and others at 1:40, but ultimately no changes were recommended. Mr. Rieley concluded his comment by saying that we should just work to the most efficient way of doing it." --Mr. Rieley recommended, as he had with the previous STA, that landscape architect be changed to Certified Landscape Architect. TICE --Page 29, Sec. 32.7.4 - He asked why this is different than the Subdivision Ordinance, i.e. in the Subdivision Ordinance we dropped the off -site part and substituted "agent" for "Commission." He asked if it is desirable that they match. Mr. Kamptner said "eventually the language in the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance will more closely fit together (but) the real purpose here was to get the policies and guidelines that we have adopted (codified)." Mr. Tice said he would prefer the language be as it is in the Zoning Ordinance. Public comment was invited. Ms. Babette Thorpe (speaking as an individual and not as a representative for PEC) addressed the Commission. She said it seems these changes open up the right of appeal to the applicant, making it more liberal than State Code, but the appeal procedure for the adjoining landowner is not equally "opened up." She said: "It may be that access to the elected body ought to be equal for both parties." She thanked staff for making site review meetings open to the public and for notifying neighboring landowners of site review meetings. «f 5-12-98 ' Addressing Ms. Thorpe's comments about the appeal process, Mr. Kamptner explained that the language and the scope of the appeal is as close to the enabling authority as we could make it, keeping the avenue open for a denied applicant to pursue a non -judicial remedy by appealing to the Board of Supervisors.... Adjacent property owners do not have any right of appeal under the enabling authority (State Code), unlike the denied applicant, who does. It was a question of drawing the line and trying to stay as close to the enabling authority as we could but providing that escape valve of allowing an appeal to be resolved without having to go to court." Mr. Finley asked if many adjacent property owners attend site review meetings, and if they have to the right to ask questions. Mr. Keeler said adjoining owners do sometimes attend site review meetings and staff tries to entertain their concerns, sometimes suggesting a subsequent meeting. Mr. Don Franco addressed the Commission. He asked questions about the appeal process. Referring to Sec. 32.7.9.2, where Appeal has been stricken from the title, he suggested: "I think it is more appropriate to do what you did in the other sections where right of appeal by the landowner, or developer, would still be there to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, for the landscape plan also, as opposed to no remedy for that." Mr. Keeler said he would not object to reinstating the language, but he felt it was redundant because the applicant has the right to appeal any decision by the agent (as stated in the APPEALS section 32.3.10). If reinstated under 32.7.9.2 it could be interpreted that that is the only section where appeal is possible because "that's the only one you are providing it for. Mr. Finley pointed out that the entire APPEALS section was stricken from the draft document and staffs summary had said "it was located later in the text. The only place it appears later in the text, however, is for the preliminary plat. Mr. Keeler said the same language needs to be reinserted (as discussed earlier) for the final plat. Mr. Kamptner said he believed Mr. Franco is suggesting there be "a right to appeal a decision of staff as to one of the requirements of the site plan ordinance." Mr. Franco said: "As long as there is a right of appeal (for the different components), that's all I'm looking for." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that ZTA 98-06 to amend the Zoning Ordinance to (1) codify current administrative review process, (2) revise time period for site plan/subdivision review, (3) revise time period of validity of site plan/subdivision plats, and (4) amend content of preliminary and final site plans and subdivisions be recommended to the Board of Supervisors as proposed by staff with the following changes: --Page 9 : Correct reference to landscape architect to say Certified Landscape Architect. --Sec. 32.4.2.1, first paragraph: Delete the word planning from the phrase county plyg staff --Page 11, Sec. 32.4.2.5: Reinstate the second sentence with the word abutting N4.1 substituted for adjoining. (Remove the sentence which was to have been added which began Property abutting....) —Page 33, Sec. 32.7.7.1: Change the word ordinance to chapter. 16 5-12-98 E3 --Page 34, Sec. 32.7.9.2: Delete the word APPEAL in the heading. --Insert a Right of Appeal for the Final Site Plan, or component thereof. --All references to Chapter 19.3 of the County Code to be changed to Water Protection Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------- WORK SESSION - Additional Issues - Subdivision Ordinance Using a memo he prepared for the Commission, Mr. Keeler led a discussion about several other topics which have arisen during the development of the draft Subdivision Ordinance, but which were beyond the scope of the original Resolution of Intent and, therefore, were not addressed in the amendments which were the subject of this public hearing. WELLS The requirement to have wells drilled before the final plat is signed would be a "consumer protection measure. The Attorney General has concluded that localities do have that right, and because the General Assembly did not take any action to undermine the Attorney General's opinion, "it has a presumption of correctness." Mr. Kamptner said "the longer that opinion is out there, the greater that presumption is, but a court could see it differently." There is currently no enabling legislation which authorizes a locality to require a major water consuming project to submit a report on groundwater depletion. Legislation is pending which would require "major water consumers" to demonstrate that a project will not impact the water supply. Presently, there is no known technology or science for doing this type of study. Given the fact that there has been no concern expressed by the RWSA that the county is running out of water, Mr. Nitchmann said he could see no reason for the County to get involved in additional requirements related to well testing. He questioned whether there is a real need. Mr. Tice said though he does not have a real idea of what the need might be, there are areas in the county where it is difficult to locate a well. He does not how serious a problem this might be. He said: "I would not want to see us move hastily on something like this, but I don't think we ought to drop it entirely." Mr. Cilimberg recalled this issue had been raised some time ago by a former Planning Commissioner. The County Attorney's Office responded to that Commissioner's request in seeking an opinion from the Attorney General's Office. It is now up to the Commission to decide whether this issue should be pursued further. Proof of water availability and water quality would come under the heading of consumer protection measures and the county would need to decide whether this is a county responsibility or not. He said it is a question of when does the public sector get involved or when should it be left to the private sector, or to individuals in their decision making. 17, 5-12-98 9 Mr. Rieley said he thinks a way to deal with this, in terms of public protection, is to require a note on the plat that this is being sold with no guarantee of water availability." He said this would seem to make more sense than requiring a developer to drill wells on every lot. Mr. Keeler cautioned that requiring developers to prove the availability of water on individual lots "could have the unanticipated effect of rekindling interest in central systems." Mr. Franco was allowed to comment. He objected to any additional comments on plats, which he described as already being 'overcrowded with non -plat things." He said no one reads the notes on plats. He suggested the way to address this is through educational programs geared to the professionals, i.e. real estate agents. He pointed out there could be problems with requiring wells to be drilled which may not be capped and secured. The groundwater would then be more accessible to contaminants and vandalism. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will continue to track the legislation which is pending and will keep the Commission informed. FAMILY SUBDIVISION Again Mr. Nitchmann raised the question of whether or not there is a need to study the Family Division provisions. Based on staffs statistics, he said it does not appear there are many abuses occurring. Mr. Keeler agreed that there does not appear to be any "wholesale N*Aabuse" of the family division, but staff has not studied carefully why properties are being transferred to family members and then "transferred back." Mr. Cilimberg said the issue may not be whether the family division is being abused, but rather whether there are different elements of the family division (related to health, safety and welfare) which the Commission wants staff to look at in terms of Ordinance provisions. The changes just discussed for the Subdivision Ordinance included no changes to the Family Division provisions. Mr. Keeler suggested a Work Session be scheduled to familiarize the Commission with the family divisions and how they work and how they may cause inequities to other property owners. Mr. Tice supported this suggestion. He asked if staff could create a table, organized by year, which shows the number of divisions and what has happened to those to date. LOT CONFIGURATION Mr. Cilimberg said staff questions whether the Subdivision Ordinance is the place to discuss lot configuration. Staffs memo explained: "To be comprehensively effective, amendments would need to apply to issuance of building permits as well as subdivision design, which would be better addressed through Zoning Ordinance or Water Resources Ordinance amendments." Mr. Tice said he believes the amendments discussed tonight, in Sec. 18.1- 86, makes the configuration of lots issue clearer. He said he is satisfied that issue has been addressed. M 5-12-98 10 1*" Other issues identified included: em VESTING --Mr. Tice asked what the General Assembly has done on the issue of vesting and how that may impact the Subdivision Ordinance and Site Plan requirements? Mr. Kamptner explained: "The new legislation identifies criteria for vesting --a significant governmental act, expenditure of funds, reliance on the approval --which is basically a codification of what the case law has done. It goes on to define what constitutes significant governmental acts -- approvals of variances, approvals of preliminary plats and site plans. Any proffered rezoning becomes vested, which is a step beyond what's under the current legislation with respect to proffers." Mr. Tice asked: "Once a government approves a preliminary plat, is it vested at that point?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "They are vested to continue on their course of action. For example if the zoning changed after they got their preliminary site plan approved, they are vested to continue under their original course of action, to do what they were allowed to do under the zoning when they got that approval, provided they go to the next step. They can't let their preliminary site plan expire." Mr. Tice said he does not see a need for hasty action, but he thinks this issue should be followed. METHOD FOR CALCULATING JUSTIFICATION FOR PRIVATE ROADS Mr. Tice wondered if situations where a private road is granted because a public road is not feasible should be addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance. Is it the intent of the Ordinance to encourage the development of land which would probably not otherwise be developed if a public road were a requirement? As he has on different occasions in the past, Mr. Rieley again raised a question as to how the evaluation is made for justification of a private road, i.e. how is the 30% grading measured? He said: "The current method of taking 14 feet and 18 feet and saying that's 29%, so all you have to have is another 1 % just doesn't work. With a 3-foot fill section you'll find it is a 17% fill difference. With a 5-foot section, you'll find it is an 11 % difference, not 29%. It is just fundamentally flawed, and they have to stop doing it that way." He clarified his concern is with the way the 30% is calculated, not with the 30%. He said: "The way it is calculated is no calculation at all; it is automatic approval for anybody who wants a private road on that basis." Mr. Tice suggested the Engineering Department make a brief presentation to the Commission at some future time to discuss this issue. LOT SIZE Mr. Tice asked if any thought has been given to matching the language in the Subdivision Ordinance with the language in the Zoning Ordinance for lot size. He wondered about the history, i.e. "why was it five acres (for exempt lots), when the Zoning Ordinance and Comp Plan refer to 'small development lots' as less than 21 acres?" !V 5-12-98 1 N`"' MISCELLANEOUS Related to the Biodiversity Section of the Comp Plan, Mr. Tice noted that on May 12th, 180 years ago, President James Madison gave an address to the Agriculture Society of Albemarle County. He quoted a portion of that address: "it is difficult to believe that it lies with man so to remodel the work of nature as it would be remodeled by destruction not only of individuals but of entire species, and not only of a few species but of every species with the few exceptions he might spare for his own accommodation." The speech continues with a discussion of what the effect a loss of diversity may be on the atmosphere. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will provide the Commission with a report on subdivision activity in the mountain areas which is occurring as a result of the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. There was a brief discussion of the procedure which will be followed for the May 19th public hearing of the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. Mr. Tice complimented staff on the way the Mountain Protection Ordinance Open House had been conducted. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10. X: