Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 19 1998 PC Minutes5-19-98 `� MAY 19, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 19, 1998, in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Ms. Hilda Lee - Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering; and Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann. [NOTE: The tape for this meeting is of poor quality. Background noise could not be filtered out on the transcribing equipment. The tape is audible only with the use of headphones.] The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed. The minutes of the May 5, 1998 meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the May 13th Board of Supervisors meeting. ZMA 98-09 International Cold Storage - Petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone 8.412 acres from Li, Light industrial to Hi, Heavy industrial. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 33, is located about 0.1 miles west of U.S. Rte. 29, on Heards Mountain Road in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not in a designated development area and is recommended as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the meeting the applicant requested deferral of this item to June 2, 1998. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 98-09 be deferred to June 2, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. SP 98-13 Dennis Enterprises, Inc. - Request for a special use permit to expand an existing use of outdoor storage and display for auto sales on 2.748 acres of land located on U.S. Route 250 approximately 1.3 miles west of the intersection with State Farm Boulevard. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 13 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned HC Highway Commercial and is designated as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff requested deferral of this item to June 2, 1998. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-13 be deferred to June 2, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. M 5-19-98 FA ZTA 98-02 Pavilion at Riverbend - Request to amend Section 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit by special use permit satetyicontainment netting in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial for the following reasons: --Netting is capable of capturing debris and may lay pose a hazard to other properties during a flood. --It is impractical to raise the netting prior to every storm event. --Netting to capture golf balls is not considered an essential use in the floodway. It is a type of use which is not consistent with other uses allowed by right within the floodway. --The proposed use is currently permitted by right in the floodway fringe. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the Zoning Administrator's determination, (Attachment C to the a_%E ..a\ i.._i..i i.... ai.._ ..i s =� stal report ��, was upl held by the Board of mooning Appeals. The applicant was represented by Mr. Joe Phillips. He described the netting and how it �_.. ,� r „_..._. r , ___ �„ r__. " would be constructed as folidw5. K series of driven I wood pilings, spaced :JU-le I. apcai t, between which nylon mesh is hung. The poles will be 40 feet high. The nylon mesh is open -weave material. The bottom of the mesh will be 6-feet above finished grade. The p I�AEs1y11 VY111 a11VYY the r;Etling tV bG IGil a^vVVE the IEVEi VI lnE 1VV year IioVt+. In nV IiQOG will it be closer than 90 feet to the river." He addressed each of staffs four reasons for U--emai as toiiows: --The netting can be raised above the level of a 100-year flood; --it is vciy praEtit","ai t^v raise tnE netting before Eve,y ti`t±od Event because the applicant will want to protect a substantial investment. i.�r�.+�i ih }h.+r by-rig �. Yh4 lh.� N 4h.+ h.+li�i ih.+♦ --Regarding consistency cy wit 1 f e uy-r igl rt uses, f e expressed le uancf a 10L agriculture is not an essential use in the floodway, nor are utility poles. -1__ -1 ___-__..._ --vulf courses and driving fy ranges are uses dCCii i�u a{�{�i uNf late ii f u i� nuudway uy Lill this county's ordinance. He said the issue is not whether ornot structures are allowed in the floodplain. Various structures are aiiowed (Sections 30.3.5.1.11 and 30JG .3... 1). RatnGr, the issue is wnetncr this particular structure is in harmony with the intent of the provisions of the Flood Hazard Overlay `)istr ict. i le applicant believes it is for the following reasons: At is similar in construction to other structures which are allowed in the floodway by right. It causes less impact than some of those structures. --It is accessory to a use --driving ranges --which is allowed by right. --It is not in conflict with the intent of the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, it does not pose a danger to life and property, nor does it pose a potential cost to the public for Mood controls measures or rescue relief efforts. At does not increase the likelihood of soil erosion, sedimentation or siltation. --It does not degrade the natural or f � lane-f � flade environment. He concluded his comments by saying that no ordinance can possibly address every situation or use in advance. "What we hope to accomplish with this ZTA is to address a specific use, which, to our mind, Has slipped between the cracks. live are open to any `'4WW suggested revisions to the proposed zoning text amendment which would address concerns related to this issue. For example, the notion that this be part of a special use permit...." �a 5-19-98 3 `*MOW In response to Mr. Rooker's question about the distance between the driving tees and the netting, Mr. Phillips said the "nets are adjacent to the edge of the tee boxes and run parallel, in a slight fan shape.. for a distance of about 300 yards,... no closer than 90 feet to the river." Public comment was invited. Mr. Nick Smith, a resident of 18th Street, opposite the proposed driving range, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the possibility that the netting wili cause debris to back up during flood events. He was also concerned about the impact of lighting. Ms. Kay Slaughter, also a resident of 18th Street, addressed the Commission. She expressed support for staffs recornmendation for deniai. She expressed the same concerns about debris and lighting that Mr. Smith had expressed. �S�he also expressed concerns about ii+ �nnPnhil�4.[ +f 44poles ril lr�r�n fl 4-ilGritan7. ��jt iG ^ intGL LUl t1 Ict the �Wui I 'Vtiiii nVt aiiovv lSki c I+ t�Lab-lit VI Life pores "U1 It Q stood � the ball fields at Towe Park to be lighted because of concerns about the Key Test neighborhood, which is much farther away from the park than this driving range will be from \/�� �p 1 n r+�1 hhrtrhi+'+i'1 C'h n�ir) }hin rn.nn,=q s- in _o+ i+i+v+nin}n,n4 h +h the Woolen Wills F 01gf bo { IVVV. J11� JQIU Lt Ili Nt %JWVScu U3C 1� 1 tVLi­ I IJ IJLVI R V1/IL! 1 11 to original rezoning for the PDSC at Pantops, which designated the 100-year floodplain as open space. The plan for Pantops also included a provision for a "pollution abatement measure fir *�i� area...and it appears that some type of water quaiity improvement for the shopping VI thins center should be required." She concluded: "I hope you will deny the proposed change, and i^^I� -n+/� //�t//11r+riit //�� o �+ I Ir I lr,niir'g Gtor mwater management aL !'�aritop0 whopping veniur.�� vh2 IV%Jk IIILV conditions 3U4 routs IUt I � urged the applicant to work with neighbors to identify uses for the property which would be economically feasible, environmentally sound, and friendly to the neighborhood. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice asked how proposals would be reviewed if this ZTA were to be approved, i.e. "How would we be able to review proposals that were made as to the different conditions in, for instance, the site relevant to this application which is adjacent to a major neighborhood, versus one that was out in the rural area? Ms. Scala responded: "If this were approved as proposed by the applicant, the netting would be allowed by -righ t. It would not be the subject of any type of review by special use permit. All they would have to do is get a building permit, and it would be subject to some review by the building official and possibly by the Engineering Department to make sure it is structurally sound. it wouid have to be aiiowed by right. You would have no to discretion to allow it or not." In response to comments made by the two speakers regarding lighting, Mr. Loewenstein nninteri nl tt rr»t i c lighting of t site e not n r' of the iiy currently I lndinr nnnclricration. (� �./ l VI t L.- V I VI I11� VI IVVI WI IV14VI �./V I♦ 4 VI.II lI at the IIgi iW q VI lne s. is i!l a a Mr. Tice said that though the lighting of this particular site may not be relevant, the issue of lighting becomes relevant if this use `Where to be made a byFright use. Mr. Rooker said he believes this is "an inappropriate amendment as a general amendment to t, Q Zoning Ordinance.'` He added: "I do think, however, if we are going to retain driving ranges as a potential use in this (floodplain) area, we ought to allow for some kind of location 1�3 5-19-98 4 of structures by special use permit. That is not before us tonight, but I think it is something we should look into." Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Mr. Rooker. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZTA 98-02 for the Pavilion at Riverbend be denied, based on those reasons stated in the staff report. The motion passed unanimously. CPA 98-01 Mountains - An amendment to Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, "The Natural Environment," to include a section on Mountains," including a list of Mountains described by contour elevation; and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept Map description of Mountains by contour elevation. AND ZTA 98-05 Mountain Overlay District and related provisions - An amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the County of Albemarle to add Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and to amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zoning district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated contour ,. elevations in mountain districts, including a requirement to obtain a special use permit to subdivide lots under 21 acres, and restrictions such as no building to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, the following amendments to Chapter 20 would apply county -wide. An amendment to add Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slope be created in any zoning district which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are also proposed to related Code provisions, including Section 3.0 Definitions, Section 4.2 Critical Slopes, and Section 31.2.2 Building Permits. AND ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlav District - An amendment to the official zoning map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation to certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations and described as Mountains in the proposed Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District and in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She summarized the three issues before the Commission --the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Zoning Text Amendment, and the Zoning Map Amendment. She explained: --The history of the how the Mountain Protection issue had arisen; --The proposed changes to the Ordinance-, --The public benefits to be derived from the Ordinance, as identified by staff; --How the proposed ordinance will impact property owners; and ,,,_ --How the mountain contour lines were identified and why they are different for different mountain ranges. ,:;2-1 5-19-98 5 *how, Ms. Scala's report included a slide presentation. Documents which were mailed to the public m and documents which were included with staffs report are filed with these minutes as Attachment L (A Summary of the Proposed Mountain Overlay District); Attachment M (a Fact Sheet about the proposed district); Attachment N (a draft of the proposed Ordinance); Attachment O (a draft of the proposed addition to the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Two, "Mountains"); and Attachment P (Impact Analysis). Staff responded to Commission questions. Mr. Rooker said he has received many questions from the public about how the proposed ordinance will impact agricultural activities. Ms. Scala explained that the Comprehensive Plan supports and promotes agricultural and forestal activities in the rural areas and this ordinance does nothing to discourage agriculture or forestry. For example, barns are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance, and farm and forestry roads are permitted. Orchards and vineyards are permitted and are actively encouraged in the rural area. Mr. Rooker said: "So this in no way sets aside a special treatment for agricultural activities in these particular areas. It generally applies to rural areas." Ms. Scala responded affirmatively. Mr. Rooker asked if is clear, in the proposed zoning text amendment language, that an existing structure can be reconstructed if it should be destroyed by fire. Mr. Rooker expressed concern about the fact that "we are referring to dwellings which exist on June 10, 1998." He said: 1 would be concerned, if the building was built subsequent to June 10, 1998, and it burned down, whether or not it could be rebuilt under this provision." Mr. Kamptner said the Grandfather Clause can be clarified to address Mr. Rooker's concern. Mr. Rooker asked the Engineering Department representative to comment on 2,500 feet of disturbed area vs. i 0,000 feet of disturbed area. Mr. Kelsey responded to Mr. Rooker's question. (His comments were difficult to hear.) He explained that currently any disturbance less than 10,000 square feet does not require an erosion and sediment control plan. The proposed provisions reflect the State minimum that any disturbance of more than 2,500 square feet will require an E&S plan. This would include disturbance for building site, driveways, etc. An E&S plan must show such things as existing grading, existing vegetation, proposed grading, soil types, plans for the property, and erosion control measures. Typically, an "agreement in lieu of a pian" was acceptable for residential lots. In the proposed Mountain Protection areas, an agreement will not be acceptable. A formal plan will be required. Mr. Finley asked: If an existing parcel with a house on the ridge is sold, can a new owner get a building permit to improve the house?" Ms. Scala responded: "Yes. With the Grandfather Clause we are going to add, it will clarify that an existing parcel on a ridge can be added onto. It doesn't matter if it is under different ownership." Mr. Finley asked: "Suppose they have 40 acres in the Mountain Overlay District (hereafter referred to as the MOD), they could not subdivide, 1 presume." Ms. Scala responded: "if it is entirely within the MOD and it is 40 acres, they could not subdivide because they would have to have at least 21 acres per parcel, as the ordinance is currently proposed." Mr. Finley 17-3-- 5-19-98 6 *`""' said: "In your Impact on Housing (analysis), you did not consider the fact that they cannot build a house without 21 acres, so you do have an imposed additional land cost to builu a house." Ms. Scala responded: "They could apply for a special use permit for the small lots. That's still permitted. Other than that, they would have to build on 21-acre parcels." Mr. Rieley asked: "If the ridge area, as defined by its relationship--100 feet below the crest -- extends below the contour line for the given MOD area one assumes that the ridge area controls would not extend outside of the MOD. Could you confirm that?" Ms. Scala responded: "That's correct. I would use as an example one of the several smaller peaks where that is the case. The 100-foot could possibly be interpreted as extending outside the district, but, in no case, would that happen. For example, Clark Mountain, in Ivy, is designated as a MOD at the 800-foot contour level and i believe the peak of the mountain is somewhere around 820 feet (but) the ridge area does not extend down to 720 feet. It ends at the 800 foot contour.i1 i� Mr. Kamptner added: The boundaries of the Overlay District will be established by the official map that will be adopted and it accounts for those situations." Referring to an ad which was run in the Daily Progress by a member of the public, Mr. Tice said the ad had said this MOD will apply to all mountain land that is over 700 feet in elevation in the County. Because this was an incorrect statement, Mr. Tice asked staff to address this question again. Ms. Scala responded: "That was unfortunate.... The 700 foot applies to the Southwest and Carters Mountain ranges (the easternmost ranges), but the other ranges begin at higher elevations. That line was drawn approximately where the critical slopes begin, on a specific mountain. It just depends on which range you are looking at." Mr. Tice asked staff to comment on the rumor that the proposed ordinance eliminates all division rights within the MOD. Ms. Scala explained: "Every parcel in the MOD would retain minimum 21-acre rights to build. Even if they are completely located on a ridge, they are still allowed at least one house. If the parcel straddles the MOD, so that some of the property is outside the district, they could put the small division rights there (2-acres by special permit), and put the larger 21-acres inside. There are a lot of possibilities. But the small lots within the MOD continue to be permitted by special use permit." Mr.Tice asked Mr. Scala if staff calculated how many potential development rights exist (both 21-acre lots and small lots) within the MOD. Ms. Scala said she had made this calculation months ago, when the Blue Ridge Mountains area had been much larger. (The elevation line was later raised from 1,000 feet to 1,200 feet.) Calculations included only those parcels completely within the MOD, and did not include those parcels which straddle the district. At that time it was estimated there are 1,000 to 2,000 development rights for small parcels in the mountains, and 2,000 to 3,000 for 21-acre parcels. She noted.. "You would have to have building sites available, of course, to be able to use those rights. But the potential is there for quite a number of sites. I get a lot of questions because people seem to think the mountains are somehow protected. But if you can get a building site and you can construct a driveway, you can build there now, across steep slopes." Adding parcels which straddle `�­ the MOD would increase these numbers. 5-19-98 7 Mr. Tice, who had served on the Mountain Protection Committee, which issued the report recommending the adoption of a Mountain Protection Ordinance in August of 1996, asked staff if there are significant differences between what is proposed here and what was recommended by the committee. He recalled that the committee had recommended standards be adopted for dr vewayc in the mountainnus areas, but, other than side slopes and curvature for private roads, those standards have not been included in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Scala responded: "The private roads serve three or more lots, the driveways serve one or two houses. The committee felt it would be a good idea to regulate the maximum steepness of private driveways (which are totally unregulated presently), and they thought that, in order to provide emergency services to the dwellings and to prevent soil erosion, it would be a good idea to limit the driveway grade to 16%, which is still very steep. That was dropped from the final ordinance and is not a part of this proposal. What is still in it are the side slopes, where the ditches alongside the road are limited to a maximum of 2:1 slope, so they can be stabilized. On the private road, it is also required that the side slopes be stabilized at 2:1 maximum slope and also on the private roads (there is required to be) a 40 foot turning radius so that emergency vehicles can navigate the turns to the houses. That doesn't apply to the driveways, but it would apply to the private roads serving several residences. The other difference is the special use permit requirement. That was not one of the committee's original recommendations, but that was added later ... and is another major change." Referring to the proposed addition to the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 (page 1), which ,,. recommends "utilize an acquisition program such as Purchase of Development Rights (sometimes herein referred to as PRD) to protect mountains," Mr. Finley asked: "Suppose this ordinance, because of changes--21-acre minimum and so forth --development rights are lost, and then in time a Purchase of Development Rights is established, would it be retroactive?" Ms. Scala responded: "I don't believe so. But I would clarify that, even if this ordinance is adopted, properties will have quite a few development rights." Mr. Kamptner confirmed that only development rights which existed at the time a PRD program was established would be eligible. Such a program would not be retroactive. Mr. Rooker asked: "Is it the case that virtually any potentially lost development rights under this plan, could be regained by special use permit application?" Ms. Scala responded: "That's correct." Mr. Rooker asked staff to explain the criteria which will be applied to attain those rights by special use permit. Ms. Scala responded: "There is currently a general criteria for all special use permits contained in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 31) and, in addition to that, the Comprehensive Plan would contain criteria, specifically the section on Mountains contains concerns and recommendations for policy regarding mountains. We would look at that section. it also includes design standards we could use. But we generally look to the Comprehensive Plan for guidance when recommending conditions for special use permits." Mr. Kamptner interjected the following correction to Section 30.8.4.a. of the draft ordinance: "if an existing parcel is entirely in a ridge area, the special use permit is not going to allow divisions of that parcel, if it is entirely in the ridge area. I think that is the one limitation." Ms. Scala responded: "Mr. Rooker asked if the special use permit could return the development rights. It is true it could return them all if they are allowed to do, for instance, five small lots. ,:;17 5-19-98 *flow They could still get them back even though they may have ridge area on the property. They may be able to locate them in other areas. But you are correct they couldn't put them on a ridge." Mr. Kamptner continued: "But what it may do is allow --if they preserve the single lot --they may be allowed to increase the density." After hearing staffs comments, Mr. Rooker said: "What you are saying is, in a case where a parcel is entirely within a ridge area, in that case there may not be recoupment of small lot development rights through the special use permit process." Mr. Kamptner responded: "Let me clarify what I just said. What you may be able to do would be not to increase the density but to allow the increase in the number of dwellings on the single lot, provided that you maintain the one unit per 21-acre density." Mr. Rooker said: "If you lost the small subdivision rights on the ridge area only, you might not be able to recoup those back in a special use permit application process, except for that circumstance where you have land that lies partially within and partially without the ridge areas. If you have land that lies entirely outside the ridge area, but in the MOD, there is a process in this ordinance whereby all development rights might be recovered under a special use permit process." Mr. Kamptner responded: "It's possible. Yes. it would be a case -by -case basis." At 8:20 p.m. the meeting was opened for public comment. Public comment continued until 11 A 0 p.m. The main floor of the auditorium was filled to capacity. Though 105 people had indicated a desire to speak prior to the meeting (by signing their names to a sign-up sheet), only 86 addressed the Commission when their names were called. Each speaker was allowed 3 minutes for comments. Of the 86 people who spoke, 58 expressed opposition to the proposed ordinance, 28 expressed support. (Some of those who spoke represented organizations, as noted below. Some submitted written statements, as noted below.) Those speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance were: Rollin Stanton Paul Gardner Gary Westmoreland (representing Jefferson Area Libertarians) George S. Howard Jim Lark Tom Miller Gilbert Tallard (Attachment B) Bob Watson (Attachment C) representing Blue Ridge Pauline Darrier Marjorie Paul Barbara Moon Bruce Hogue Rick Walden Bob Byrom Rod Clark Woodrow Campbell *40.11 Charlotte Hogue Bob Merrill Howard Bishop Robert Hogue Wally Parks Homebuilders and Charlottesville Area Realtors Gerald Carter Dan O'Neill Gerry Fisher George Latimer Robert Henderson Marvin Dowell Margaret Martin J.E. "Chip" Harding Carrow Steppe, Sr. Lloyd Toms, Jr. ay 5-19-98 9 �r..r Steven Blaine (representing 5 families, tntalling 7 nnn acres: Bocai inht, Ri lford, Lewis %-) L, and Haskili) Bob Gilges R.D. Dunning Julia Campbell (Attachment G) Mary Ford Keith Ford Raul St. Pierre Forrest G. Walton Charles W. Hurt Fred Scott, Jr. William Dunwody Chris Breiner A.W. Breiner Junior L. Morris Stephen Thornton L. R. Western William Yancey Charlotte Shelton Kathy Davis Richard Beyer Ed Scharer Michael T. Boggs (representing Rosemont Homeowners Association) Henry Chiles Ronnie Horris Jim Flynn Barry Mahanes Wendall Wood Reasons for opposition included the following. (Not all reasons listed were stated by each speaker.) --The belief that the ordinance constitutes a taking of property rights without compensation. (This reason, or some variation thereof, was given by many of those who spoke.) --The owners of mountain land have been taking care of it for generations. Why does the county feel it cannot trust these owners to continue taking care of it? --The Ordinance was rushed through the process without adequate time for citizen input. --This is just an additional layer of government bureaucracy. What will it cost taxpayers? --Devaluation of property values. Will tax assessments reflect this devaluation? --The owners of "these properties have been paying taxes on their property for many years. Is the County going to reimburse the taxpayers? --This ordinance would not have allowed either Monticello or Ash Lawn to have been built. --There is no compelling reason and no public need for the ordinance. Building statistics show there is no pressure for the mountain land to be developed. --This ordinance amounts to a conservation easement on 60,060 acres of privately owned property. --Special permits described by staff would be very difficult to get approved. --Not allowing building on the ridges will force development in critical slope areas, and will make it necessary to construct extensive embankments for both the driveway and the building pad, which is much more detrimental to the environment. --This ordinance will result in more pressure to develop farm land. --Why does the county support this ordinance, but continue to approve tower applications in the mountain areas! --The impact analysis prepared by staff is incomplete. Numbers are not definite. --This type of government action is similar to Communism. '�?7 5-19-98 10 --This ordinance will negatively impact the Rural Preservation Development option of development and family division rights- --Acreage removed from development in the rural areas may drive up land prices in the growth area and push development into the rural areas. --Personal property rights are an important legal and ethical issue which are part of the foundation of our society. "Unless they infringe on another citizen's health, welfare and safety, they should and must be protected." (Bob Watson) --It is piecemeal planning to enact this ordinance before the county has completed the rural areas study. --"Construction to meet the 2:1 gradient requirement will require the removal of more trees and the disturbance of more land than is necessary, resulting in more scenic impact and a greater risk of soil erosion. The requirement of a minimum of 40 feet in the radius of turns is also contrary to the State's own practice." (Robert Buford) --The county already has regulations which address most of the concerns which this ordinance is supposed to address. Those speaking in support of the ordinance were: Cindy Brashear (Attachment A) Tom Loach Jim Bennett Peter Mehring Rose Emery (Attachment D)(representing the Piedmont Environmental Council) Jim Hall Reuban Clark Judy Perkins (Attachment E) Katie Hobbs Mary Ann Parr Sherry Buttrick Larry deNeveu Bob Buford (Attachment H) Helen Garling-Austin Joy Matthews (Attachment F) (representing the League of Women Voters) Jean Kolb Jane Heyward DeForest Mellon (Attachment 1) Jack Marshall (Attachment 1) Kathleen DeSilvey Tom Olivier David van Roijen Charlie Trachta (Woodbrook Homeowners Association Donald Lyon (Raintree Homeowners Association) Matt Kayhoe J.J. Murray (Attachment K) Walter Mehring Tim Michel The reasons given for support included the following: --Mountains are one of the county's most important economic assets. They attract new businesses and tourists and increase the value of all property in the county. --Inappropriate development in the mountains should be limited. --Individual rights must be weighed against the needs of the whole community. "Though the proposed amendments may impose modest sacrifices on some of us, they are in the best long-term interests of the whole community." (Jack Marshall) --Protecting the mountains also protects our water quality and will prolong the life our reservoirs by controlling soil erosion and reducing runoff. --By limiting development on steep slopes with shallow soils, the ordinance reduces the potential for septic systems to pollute water. 5-19-98 11 --The ordinance will protect forestal land which is not only habitat for wildlife and diverse plant communities, but also is an important industry. --Other areas with similar ordinances have not experienced a decline in property values. -- County survey conducted a few years ago showed that 66% of the citizens favored an ordinance to protect the mountains. Public comment ended at 11:10 p.m. The meeting recessed from 11:10 to 11:30. The matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice began by saying that he agreed that Albemarle landowners have historically been good stewards of the land and, without exception, all those who spoke, regardless of their position on this ordinance, recognize that the mountains are important to us. He quoted the following statement, made by Walter Litman in the 1930's, regarding the role of government: "The role of government is not to direct the affairs of the community but to harmonize the direction that the community sets for its own affairs. He said it is not the job of government to tell this community, much less individuals, what they should do with their land and what direction the should go, but it is our job to try to harmonize how the people of this community want to move into the future ... in a way to protect ourselves and our constitutional rights." On the issue of development rights, he said he thinks it is very important that people understand the magnitude of the potential problem facing the county in terms of development rights. To address the question of whether or not there is a compelling reason for this ordinance, he used an overhead projector and laptop computer to display a map of the county which showed, with different colors, the existing density throughout the county. He also showed a map which reflected the density if the county were to be developed with existing development rights, under existing regulations. (This information came from a study done by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District and took into account topography and other building constraints.) He said the map is showing that "the Mountain Overlay District, with existing development rights, at buildout, will look like Rt. 250 going to Ivy or Barracks Road going to Foxfield. He stressed a point to keep in mind is that most of the MOD is in critical slopes (25% or greater), but buildable sites, within the MOD, would result in buildout equivalent to downtown Crozet or Forest Lakes. To illustrate the potential development rights --which he estimated to be approximately 7,000--he displayed a large bag and box which were filled with 7,000 push pins, but he acknowledged that it is very doubtful that all 7,000 rights would ever be used. He said: "Whether the number -is 7,000 or 3,000, or, in the wrong place, even 100, we are facing some serious potential problems in the future. The Planning Commission is the only governmental body in the State that has a legislative mandate --the General Assembly tells us that it is our obligation to plan and to anticipate what problems will occur in the future and look at how the county can establish more orderly growth without significant adverse impact. My feeling is that the buildout of the mountain area, as it is now with the current regulations, is a recipe for disaster. I would be surprised if there is anyone in the room who would want to see the kind of development that could be allowed by right within this area. I think it would ruin everything that any of us cherish about these mountains. Having said that, sooner or later the County has to come to grips with this situation. Is this the best time to do it? My sense is it is probably not. We had the Mountain Protection Committee that went through an exhaustive process that had, in '9/ 5-19-98 12 fact, significant public input and had a great deal of publicity. It had representatives from mountain landowners, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, builders, and foresters who worked very hard to come up with the recommendations that they did. Those recommendations are basically reflected in the ordinance that is presented here this evening, with three exceptions: (1) The committee recommended there not be a reduction in development rights; (2) The committee recommended that there be stricter driveway standards (which has been left out in the ordinance); and (3) The committee acknowledged that there may be situations where it is better to build on the ridge than on the side of the mountain, so the committee, without specifying an exact way to do this, suggested that the county look at a way to enable that situation. He said he was somewhat disappointed by comments made by some of the associations' representatives. He said he hoped the see a recognition by the real estate and development community of the value of this ordinance to the real estate and homes throughout the county. He referred to a weekly publication which lists properties for sale and pointed out that there are 60 references to "mountain views" in one week's issue. This shows "there is obviously an economic value to the people of this community." He said there are three kinds of communities— "those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that wake up one day and say 'what happened."' He asked which one Albemarle County wants to be. He continued: There have been a lot of reasons identified for regulation of the mountains. Mountains have soils on slopes that are inherently unstable. They are particularly difficult for emergency vehicles to access. They are fire prone.... (He recalled the recent fire on Afton Mountain which had been very difficult to extinguish and had cost the government $30,000.) ...Drainage and erosion control are concerns. The mountains are habitat for many species. (On the question of ,�;he+her) this is just an effort to regulate aesthetics, I would not want to shy away from aesthetics because aesthetics are very important to the economics of this community.... The number one engine of economic growth in this community is the area's attractiveness. 190 counties in the United Mates, including the entire state of North Carolina, have passed some type of mountain regulation. " He said he is not aware of any devaluation of property as a result of these regulations. He said also he is not aware of any devaluation of property as a result of the 1980 changes in the Albemarle County Ordinance, when the rural areas lot size was changed from 2-acre lots, to five 2-acre dots and the remainder in 21-acre lots. He suspected there would be neighbor opposition to any by -right development in the mountains which might be proposed under the current regulations. He again stressed that "we are the only governmental body with a legislative mandate to plan for the future, the only governmental body that the General Assembly has said 'it is your job, your obligation,' to anticipate the future and help this community grow in an orderly way that protects all its citizens rights and interests." "Our knowledge base to do that isn't perfect. ... We know enough about the potential problems that can occur to know that this isn't a problem that can be solved after it happens." He said if this ordinance is rejected, given the current building rate (2,5 building permits/day), "as our developed areas fill up, which they are, very rapidly, the next place they are going to go is in the mountains. if we just maintain the status quo, we would be doing that in the face of a number of things we know. We know that development of the mountains at a density currently allowed will increase erosion and sedimentation, will increase fire hazard, will increase public costs and likely lead to higher .taxes, and will negatively affect the economic vitality of this community.... The safest thing politically might be to ignore what we know and maintain the status quo, but to do so would be negligent --to our current citizens and to future generations.... " Mr. Tice concluded his 99 5-19-98 13 14111we comments by saying he would support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and would support the Zoning Text Amendment with the following recommendations- (1) Amend it to reflect the Mountain Protection Committee's recommendations , i.e. delete the part about the special use permit, thereby maintaining development rights as they currently exist; (2) Add in language to clarify that existing homes are grandfathered so there is no question additions to those homes are allowed; and (3) Suggest to the Board of Supervisors that, between now and their hearing, staff look at whether or ^ot it would be advantageous to establish some mechanism, whether through special permit or some other mechanism, to allow building on the ridge when it can be clearly demonstrated that it is a better alternative. He said he would support the adoption of the Zoning Map Amendment. Referring to Mr. Tice's statement that it is "attractiveness of the area which is the engine for economic growth," Mr. fl inley said: "It is economic growth that is promoting the thousands of homes you see on the map Mr. Tice displayed. People go where they have jobs, but when the jobs begin to decrease, population growth in the county will begin to taper. There is going to be saturation one way or the other. He agreed that the Planning Commission must use the knowledge available to prepare for the future, "but I don't know how much I am supposed to be helping shape what people are going to do in the future themselves." He noted that the public comment had been approximately 2.1 against the ordinance Those in favor talked about mountains, natural resources, environment, increased property values, the common good, etc., but the majority of the people talked about people. They talked about family, they talked about their homes, their land, their timber, their farms. Mr. Tice ,. mentioned people, that we have to be fair-minded for all the people and these are people here talking tonight. He said: "I have looked at these mountains off and on for 70 years and I think we have the most beautiful view in the world --and I have been a lot of places --and I would love to see those mountains, in another 70 years, look the way they look today because they look today as they did 70 years ago. Many of the people speaking tonight have been maintaining those mountains and they have done a pretty good job. Most of the erosion which runs through our farm doesn't come from the mountains. It comes from people who come in a bulldoze the creek and put weedkiller on the fences and clear all the pastures, etc. That is where most of the erosion is coming from that is eventually working its way down to the reservoir. One thing I have gathered, not only from those who have spoken tonight, but in the many telephone calls I have received, is ... that people are confused. Some of those people have mountain land that has been in their family for generations. They have always assumed they would be able to sell it, or pieces of it, (to meet family needs) if necessary. They now wonder if they will be able to sell it or give it to their descendants.... This indicates to me we have not practiced what we preach. If a developer brings in a proposed subdivision and a lot of neighbors are opposed, I think the majority of us on the Commission will ask 'what have you been doing out there in the community; how many meetings have you had with neighbors to find out what is compatible and what they can live with, etc.' Then we tell we them we will defer the request until they go out and hold some community meetings. How many community meetings did the Mountain Committee have with these people we have heard tonight?" He asked Mr. Tice to respond. Mr. Tice said the Comprehensive Plan process began in 1971, and has been reviewed every five years since. This has been a constant "theme for 27 years. "The Mountain Protection Committee was established by the Board about four years ago and held, probably 20 3.3 5-19-98 14 meetings. Mr. Finley asked if meetings were held in the communities. Mr. Tice said the meetings were held in Charlottesville, but many different interests were represented on the committee and there was a great deal of publicity --Channel 29, front page of the Daily Progress, front page of The Observer, press conferences. Mr. Finley concluded no meetings were actually held in the communities, though the Commission often directs developers to "go back and meet with the people." He said many people expressed the feeling that this issue is being "rushed" and there has not been enough study of the ramifications, including the economic impact. He concluded: "I would like to vote for a mountain protection ordinance that does what I think it says in here, that is fair for all the people. If I am to enjoy those mountains for the rest of my life, and my children after me, we really want to (protect them), but if it is going to cost the people living there, what about some compensation? ... We really don't know what the implications are. So I would not vote for this until the people know where they are and we know where we are.... I read the proposed ordinance a couple of times and still had questions.... Should we vote and push this on through at this time, or should we do what we sometimes tell developers to do -- let's put a deferral on this until some of these questions are answered." Mr. Rieley said he appreciates the courteous and reasonable manner in which the public has approached him about this issue. He agreed that Albemarle landowners have been excellent stewards of the mountains. The question was raised by the public as to whether or not this is a "U' for a problem that doesn't exist. He said: "I believe there is a problem and it is growing and accelerating.... (Even though there) is a relatively small amount of development in these areas currently, that small number has caused a tremendous amount of concern. It is not a disaster now, but I think if we defer all action until it is a disaster it will be too late." Regarding several comments that Monticello could not have been built under the proposed ordinance, he said: "I personally don't find that a very persuasive argument.... The land use laws in the 18th century have very little to do with sensible and prudent land use controls in a rapidly developing late-20th century environment. It makes as much sense to say Jefferson had no speed limits, therefore we should have no speed limits. We live in a different world and we have to face the challenges of our time. I would rather look to the next 200 years and wonder what kind of world we are going to leave to future generations. I fully take into account not only preserving the mountains, but preserving the values of the people in this room, and I think our task is to balance those things. The implication that a number of people raised that there are absolute property rights which are being revoked is not correct. The proposal is much more modest than people realize. I think Mr. Finley is right, that it would be better if people had more time to realize the relatively benign nature of this. These absolute property rights that people alluded to are largely a myth. That is not a recent thing. Thomas Jefferson was sued, not only to allow public access to his canal on his own private property, but also to construct locks, at his own expense, so that the public could gain access to that property. Individual property rights have never been absolute and have always had to be balanced with the larger public interest. But those interests are different today than they were in 1768.... There are other things that once we have in place, we appreciate them but when they were first proposed they raised similar concerns about `%WW revocation of property rights. People don't have the right in Albemarle County to erect a billboard that people (in some other counties do). Thank God! People do not have the right, in Albemarle County, to erect communications towers the way they do in Rockingham .5�4 5-19-98 15 County. Thank God! Nevertheless, I think these things do, indeed, have to be balanced. The aspect of this that has troubled me the most and, i think, is really at the heart of the concerns that have been expressed tonight, is the elimination of small lots within the Mountain Overlay District. I have several concerns about that. First, one important objective of the Mountain Protection Committee during the development of the plan, was to protect the essential qualities of the mountains while retaining the mountain landowners total development rights. The proposal to eliminate the small lots in the MOD was not a component of the Mountain Protection Plan as it was presented to the Board of Supervisors. Secondly, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that we have before us tonight states 'to encourage the use of Rural Preservation Development options to protect the mountain resources.' The elimination of the small lot provision within this, or to require it with a special use permit, makes the use of the Rural Preservation Development (RPD) option more difficult and costly, since it would then require a special use permit. That really addresses a lot of peoples' concerns about flexibility and being able to use the most reasonable parts of their property. The third reason, as a number of speakers pointed out, in mountainous areas the best building areas are not predictable. They don't come in 21-acre locations necessarily. The 21-acre provision could lead to a situation as described by Mr. Finley where a family has 40 acres and can't subdivide it. It can also lead to very irregular and unusual and weird looking 21-acre lots that are in nobody's best interest. 21-acres would tend to make these lots very expensive and I don't think we want to encourage that.... Fourth, while I agree too there are many development rights in the mountain areas, I don't think the removal of all the small lot subdivision rights is the most fair or ultimately the most effective way to accomplish the desired end. A number of speakers talked about some form of compensation.... A transfer or purchase of development rights program would compensate mountain and other rural landowners for their contributions to the larger public interest. One can argue that we don't have the enabling legislation for a transfer of development rights and that we should move ahead with the tools that are available to us to limit the over -development of the mountains but I think the elimination of the 2-acre lot component of this strikes the kind of compromise that would address concerns on both sides of the issue. A number of people talked about situations in which the objectives of the ordinance would be better served with building on a ridge than with moving it down the ridge. i think we all can see that those situations exist. I agree with Mr. Tice that we should ask the Board of Supervisors to consider a mechanism, like a special use permit provision with very clear parameters, that would allow the kind of exercise of development rights that make sense and would not force people to do something stupid." Mr. Rooker said his position was well stated by Commissioners Tice and Rieley. "In 1980 the Board of Supervisors faced a similar situation with the watershed and the protection of the reservoir. At that time there was concern that the reservoir was losing substantial capacity and, in response to that, the County down -zoned 1/3 of the total land in Albemarle County --all of the land in the watershed area for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The county was sued three times over that down -zoning and in each case they prevailed in the litigation. One of the cases went to the Virginia Supreme Court and one went to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the federal side. In each case the courts found there was a significant health, safety and welfare concern which backed the county's decision to downzone the property. Interestingly enough, as pointed out earlier by Commissioner Tice, landowners at that time claimed their private property rights were being taken, their land J,5— 5-19-98 16 values were being depressed. In fact, in hindsight, land values in rural areas have increased significantly and probably there were very few parcels three or four years later that were not worth substantially more than they were before the downzoning. 1 think most arguments against this ordinance could be made against virtually any zoning regulation. Yet, you don't have anyone coming forward and saying we should abandon zoning entirely. By the nature of living in a civilized society, we have to live with regulations and there must be give and take among all of us. There were comments made about the sacrifice of people that may own mountain property as opposed to the non -sacrifice being made by people who live on the flatlands that want to look up and enjoy the mountain views. In reality, we have made decisions in the county to create growth areas and the price that the people in the flatlands and a lot of these areas are paying is higher density --having to live closer to their neighbors. They may not particularly like it. Often we are faced Ath subdivision proposals where neighbors come in and bitterly oppose having additional density in their area. But one of the reasons that is articulated to support continued development in the growth areas is that we want to preserve the mountain areas and other open areas. So there is a cost that is being paid by people who want to enjoy the views, who are looking up from down below. In the City of Charlottesville they pay 2 times the taxes we pay in the county. Very few people who live in the urban area enjoy land use taxation, so most of them pay higher taxes than people who live in the rural areas. One of the speakers mentioned that the essence of good judgment is trying to find good compromise. I think we are about to get to that point here. We have a good compromise proposed. Probably the single provision in this proposed ordinance that has the most negative impact in terms of taking away development rights is the provision that both Commissioner Tice and Rieley have discussed eliminating --that is the provision that would prevent the five 2-acre lots, by right, from being exercised. If that is restored, by eliminating the provision proposed, it would seem to me very few people would suffer any significant decline in their development rights. But I think we all have a great deal to gain, including people who live in the mountain areas, from the many purposes to be served by this ordinance that have been so well articulated. 1 would like the Board, as mentioned by Commissioner Tice, to look into a special use permit provision for development rights to be exercised in the ridge areas where appropriate. I think we should also take a look at the 2:1 embankment language. One of the speakers mentioned why it might actually cut against the purposes of the ordinance. [NOTE: The speaker Mr. Rooker referred to was Mr. Robert Buford, whose comments are included with these minutes as Attachment H.] I am not suggesting that we change that language today, but I am suggesting that we pass this (concern) on to the Board and request that staff look into that provision before this is presented to the Board of Supervisors. Finally, when we get to the point where there is a motion on the floor, I have some specific language changes I would like to have considered." Mr. Finley asked Mr. Rieley to explain what he means about restoring development rights. Mr. Rieley responded: "What 1 am advocating, and I think Mr. Tice is advocating, is the restoration of five 2-acre lot divisions within the MOD. That essentially leaves all of the development rights in the underlying district and essentially the effect of the ordinance is to shuffle them around in a way that protects the top of the mountains better." Mr. Finley asked: "So the 21-acre requirement would then be deleted. Is that correct?" Mr. Rieley replied: "That's correct." Mr. Finley said he agrees with Mr. Rooker that "that is pretty much the heart of the rights question." Mr. Tice agreed and said such a change would put the ordinance back to what was recommended by the Mountain Protection Committee. 5-19-98 17 Ms. Washington commented: "I think we do need a Mountain Protection Ordinance, but I do think we need to re -think the development rights issue. In all the calls and faxes I received the one thing which bothered me most was people losing their rights to their property. Yes, the owners have done a good job of keeping the mountains beautiful and no, we don't want to see a subdivision on top of the mountain. But I think the county needs to find a way to work a little closer with property owners towards them preserving their development rights. If that is done, I can support this." Mr. Loewenstein concluded the Commissioner comments: "I am convinced one of our most important and valuable resources in Albemarle County is our mountain land. I've heard all the arguments for and against the adoption of the Mountain Protection Ordinance and I have heard these arguments going back for quite some time, not just this evening. I have a lot of phone calls and faxes. I have had people stop me on the street to discuss this topic. I have talked to county staff, to members of the Mountain Protection Committee, and to members of the Board of Supervisors over the last several years specifically about this initiative. I have devoted special attention to the question of property rights. I think with the suggestion that we remove the special use permit process for small lot development, this essentially restores almost all the existing development rights on all the mountain property. I think this suggested compromise would go a long way towards resolving this issue. When this suggestion first came up, I started asking people who called me, who were very opposed to this proposed ordinance, if they would feel differently if that special use permit process for small development were removed. Without exception --and I'm talking about dozens of phone calls --the callers said they would feel differently --they would not be in opposition. 1 think that is a very important element. i have also heard comments tonight that there has not been enough time for public input. I am not going to go through that all again except to say I think there has actually been more opportunity --with the various initiatives that have moved what we have before us tonight forward, starting as early as 1971, and then beginning in 1992 with the Open Space portion of the Comp Plan, and then continuing on to the appointment a few years ago by the Board of Supervisors of the Mountain Protection Committee --for citizen input at every stage of the way. The Planning Commission has held work sessions on this topic to which the public has been invited. The staff has held an Open House and there has been a good deal of publicity in the press. It would be very difficult for me to feel that we have not been able to capture a very significant amount of public input, even before tonight's meeting took place. Some speakers have pointed to the fact that there are problems in the valley too. And there are problems in the valley. I think a lot of us have looked at the way development has gone on in Albemarle County and we have been very distressed over the results. Although we have not fully come to grips with a lot of these problems, I think this is something the county has worked very hard to take closer looks at in a variety of ways. The work of the In -Fill Committee is one example. The hiring of a consultant to advise us and the Board on wireless communication towers is another. There are a whole group of these. So, though we have a lot of problems in the valley, we are trying to address those. I am very much concerned that we address problems that may exist in the mountain areas before it is too late. I don't want to see that happen. I am very sensitive to all the issues surrounding this proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance, but when all is said and done I support it with the suggested changes that have been talked about this evening -- compromises that have been made. I support it as an essential component of good planning �A 17 5-19-98 18 for the secure future for all of our citizens. I think that the protection of our mountain resources will ultimately compensate everyone in a very positive way." Mr. Finley asked if re -instatement of the small lot development rights will result in any changes to the remainder of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Tice: "I don't think that changes anything else. One of the other issues raised in the past few days is how this affects family divisions. By leaving the small development rights as they presently are, and dropping the special use permit part, nothing will change about family divisions. People would have the ability to do family divisions, just like they have in the past, with the ordinance requirements that we have. But as far as the building permit requirements, etc., I don't see how that would affect anything`" Mr. Kamptner confirmed that Mr. Tice's response to Mr. Finley was correct. The Chairman called for a motion on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA 98-01. MOTION: After noting a typographical error on page one of the document, Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that CPA 98-01, Chapter Two - Mountains, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. The Chairman called for a motion on the Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA 98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions There was a brief discussion of the changes to be made to the proposed ordinance which would reflect the Commission's discussion. Mr. Rooker and Mr. Rieley also recommended some minor changes. There were no concerns expressed about their suggestions, so they were also included in the motion. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZTA 98-05 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as presented by staff, with the following recommended changes, and with the recommendation that the Board of Supervisors consider the issue of providing a mechanism to allow building on ridgelines, through some mechanism that will result in furthering the purposes of the Mountain Protection Ordinance: --4.2.3.1: Add fences. --30.8: Move paragraph b., under 30.8.8, to this position. it will then become a singie paragraph under the heading of 30.8. --30.8.1: Delete third paragraph. (Mr. Tice explained this change will "effect the deletion of the special use permit and the restoration of development rights as they are today.") --30.8.3.1: End the paragraph in the middle of the second line, "...overlay district by right. (Delete the rest of the paragraph.) --80.8.3.2: Change paragraph to read: The uses identified as being allowed by a special use permit in the underlying zoning district shall be allowed in the Mountain Overlay District only by a special use permit approved by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4. (Delete remainder of the paragraph.) --30.8.4: Eliminate the heading Density. Move all that is under that section to Section 30.8.5 Location of Building Sites. (Adjust numbering of all that appears after JY 5-19-98 19 section 30.8.4 accordingly and check references to sections throughout the document to reflect the changes to numbering. ) --30.8.6: Add in b.: "...shall be forty (40) feet on center line or greater ...etc. (rest same) --30.8.8.a.: Change last sentence of this paragraph: "...Survey 9927 !North American datum, with benchmark acceptable to the county engineer. " --3U.e.e.b i his paragraph to ire irivved to beginning under 30.8 --ADD Section 30.8.9 (related to grandfathering) - "The provisions of this section 30.8 shall not apply to any single family dwelling unit legally existing on June 10, 1998. Such dwelling units shall not be deemed to be non -conforming dwelling units because of their inability to meet the requirements of this section 30.8." (Mr. Kamptner said the effect of this section would be that "any existing dwelling units on June 10th, would be allowed to expand. They would not be treated as a non -conforming use which would otherwise be subject to limitations on expansion.) --31.2.2. b - Staff to add a sentence regarding the reconstruction of non -conforming structures. Mr. Rooker was concerned about the word 'reconstruct.' He wanted to be sure that houses which are destroyed by natural disaster, such as fire, can be replaced, whether or not built before or after June 10, 1998. He explained: "The ill I am trying to cure is if a house burns down, on a site that would not necessarily qualify under this ordinance that we are now passing, that the person be able to rebuild without having to go back and meet requirements of the ordinance that it might not have been able to meet in the first place. " Mr. Kamptner thought Mr. Rooker's concern could be addressed through some changes to the suggested wording for the Grandfather Clause, but natural disasters other than fire might need some special treatment. Mr. Rooker said he did not have any problems with the suggested wording for the Grandfather Clause as it applies to every other circumstance. He suggested: "So if you could add a sentence that says basically that a house that is non- conforming that is destroyed by natural disaster --the reconstruction of that house is exempted from the provisions of this ordinance. He said he, personally, did not want to distinguish between fire and some other natural disaster. The motion passed unanimously. The Chairman called for a motion on the Zoning Map Amendment, ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlay District. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 98-10 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. (Wednesday, May 20th). V. Way a Cilimberg, retary DB M.