HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 24 1995 PC Minutes1-24-95
JANUARY 24, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 24,
1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff,
Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Ron Lilly, Senior Planner; and
Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
January 18, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
G.E. F'anuc Activity Center Minor Site Plan Amendment - Modification to allow angled
parking.
Charles F. & Juli K. Stamm - Modification of Section 18-36(f) request.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-94-14 Highlands West Land Trust Lannlicantl. Lady B. Walton owner - Petition to
rezone approximately 120 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential. Property,
described as Tax Map 56, parcel 93, is located on the south side of Route 240 approximately
0.4 miles west of the entrance to Highlands at Mechums River in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This site is recommended for Open Space and Industrial Service in the Community
of Crozet.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that ZMA-94-14 be indefinitely
deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-94-09 Javel Industries. Inc. & John E. Campbell - Proposal to amend the proffers of
ZMA-88-11 to delete the requirement of two points of access and to have no connection
between the Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia developments. Property, described as Tax Map
90D, Parcel A is the location of the Lake Reynovia development. This site is zoned R-4,
Residential (proffered) and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for medium density residential (4.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre) in
Neighborhood 5. Deferred from the January 3, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
1-24-95
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Driver. He explained that the applicant had a
topographic survey done on the property to determine the specific impact to the adjacent lots.
He reported that some landscaping would be lost, based on the rural road design which has
been approved. He was of the opinion that a design could be used which would minimize
impact on neighboring parcels. However, it was his understanding that the majority of both
the Mill Creek and the Lake Reynovia homeowners were opposed to the road connection. He
was in favor of completing the waterline connection (which he said would need to be done in
any case) and also of constructing a pedestrian accessway between the two neighborhoods.
He envisioned a pedestrian accessway as being a walking path through the wooded area,
probably of stone base, approximately 8 ft. wide.
Mr. Blue asked if the applicant had been able to contact the two lot owners whose lots will
be most impacted by the road. Mr. Driver reported that contact had been made with the
owner on the left, but not with the owner on the right (who had not been available).
There was no public comment.
Ms. Imhoff expressed an appreciation for the exploration of all the alternatives. However,
she felt staff had made a compelling argument in terms of the safety and fire access issues.
She stated she supported staff s recommendation that the request be denied.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-09 for Jayel Industries, Inc. & John E. Campbell
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial, based on those reasons stated in
staff s report.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
It was noted there had been no comment, either written or verbal, from any of the
neighboring property owners since the last public hearing. (Mr. Dotson recalled there had
been comments from property owner representatives at a previous hearing.)
Ms. Huckle agreed with staff, i.e. that the safety issue is a compelling one.
Mr. Blue expressed strong support for staffs position. He felt that access between
subdivisions is something which has not been required often enough.
Mr. Dotson said he had visited the site and he felt "it will leave a liveable and advantageous
condition for the abutting properties as well as for the neighborhoods."
,. The motion for denial passed (6:0:1) with Ms. Vaughan abstaining. (NOTE: At previous
hearings for this item Ms. Vaughan had excused herself from the discussion and action
because of a possible conflict of interests.)
-----------------------------------------
a11�
1-24-95
CPA-94-04 Economic Development Po_ lice -Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include goal,
objectives and strategies for economic development that would replace the existing economic
development section of the Plan.
Ms. Imhoff commented on Objective III, Strategy 1, second item She questioned the use of
the term "partnership". She thought it had been decided the term "region" would be used
because partnership has not yet been defined. (Mr. Cilimberg said that had been an oversight
on staffs part.)
Ms. Imhoff commented on Objective V, Strategy 3: She thought that it had been decided that
the economic development council was going to be defined more.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern that "some of these things are still amorphous." She hoped
some of the items would be more definitively defined.
The Chairman explained that the main purpose of this meeting was to accept public comment.
He explained the tentative schedule for the remaining hearings on the Policy. The
Commission plans to take action on the Policy at the January 31, 1995 meeting.
Public comment was invited.
Several members of the public read prepared statements. Their statements are made a part of
this record as follows:
--Mr. Reg Marshall - Attachment A
-Ms. Libby Baker (representing the League of Women Voters) = Attachment B
--Ms, Elizabeth Schmitz - Attachment C
--Ms. Eleanor Santic - Attachment D
—Mr. Tom Olivier = Attachment E
--Mr. Walter Johnson - Attachment F
--Ms. Sandy Greenwood - Attachment G
--Ms. Babette Thorpe (representing the Piedmont Environmental Council) - Attachment
H
Other speakers who commented briefly were as follows:
--Mr. Jim Ballheim - He commended the Commission and staff for recognizing that
the County is "not something which is broken" and, therefore, needs to be fixed and for
recognizing. that the county's first responsibility is to improve the lives of its existing citizens,
not to encourage growth or bring in new population. He commented specifically on
Objectives 4 and 5. He supported a fiscal impact analysis, but felt it should be viewed as
only one of several tools for evaluation, and should not be the final determining factor. He
also felt it was wise not to make financial assistance a part of "support for existing
businesses." He felt this was a role the private sector should fill, not the public. He
expressed support for Goal 1. However, if Goal 2 should be finally adopted, he suggested the
words "coordinated with" be changed to "takes into consideration."
--Mr. Harold Morris (representing the Chamber of Commerce) - He complimented
staff and the Commission for a well -written plan. He said the Chamber strongly supported
Objective III - "Recognize and support the County's place in the regional economy." He
4Lf
1-24-95 4
pointed out that many of the area's critical resources (air, water, work force, consumers) "do
not know political boundaries because we share these resources with other municipalities in
our planning district." He felt that "in order for our elected leaders to truly represent
Albemarle County citizens, they must look at economic issues on a regional basis and they
must represent Albemarle citizens in regional forums, especially with the emerging Thomas
Jefferson Economic Development -Partnership." He listed the following elements which
participation in a regional economy will produce: It will result in more new, quality, business
aspects for the area; It will allow economic control; It will support new and better jobs and
create jobs opportunities for those under employed; It will support education through work
force training; It will support the retention, improvement and expansion of our present
businesses; It will support an increase in the county tax base; It will create a demand for
improvement in retail sales. He concluded: "The Chamber of Commerce encourages you to
increase your focus on the regional economy and recommends the county's full participation
in the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership."
--Mr. Dave Bass (a resident of Red Hill) - Though he expressed support for the
document, he expressed concern about the vagueness of the Policy "in terms of what things
cost." He had specific comments about the following items: Objective V, Strategy 2 - He
pointed out that the Small Business Development Center exists. It is supported by the
University, PVCC, and the Small Business Administration (federal support). He felt it would
be wasteful for the County to duplicate this effort, though the county's support of this
organization would be welcome. Objective V, Strategy 3 - He supported the idea of an
Economic Development Council, provided "it is volunteer and service" and is not a cost to
the County. On the issue of partnershipping, he said he had no problem with a regional
economic development organization partnership, but he felt the County's contribution "should
not be a significant one." He felt $10,000 or $11,000 was a reasonably contribution. He felt
these types of organizations tend to become "bureaucratic and are a waste of taxpayer
money." He urged the County to support the University's plans. He pointed out that the
University is the County's largest employer and in the future will bring many desirable types
of jobs which will be an asset to the County.
--Mr. Bob Watson (representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders' Association) - He felt
the issue of economic development could not be separated from the issues of growth area
expansion and affordable housing. He felt that ultimately "it becomes a very important jobs
issue (because) jobs are dependent upon a very vibrant economy." He stated his organization
favors the adoption of an Economic Development Plan that is (a) carefully formulated and
focused; (b) cooperative with other jurisdictions; (c) is consistent with a well-balanced
growth approach that addresses land use decisions in the areas of regulations and densities;
(d) is cognizant of job creation, job retention, and underemployment; (e) sensitive to the
environment; and (f) coherent with the fiscal impact on the County. He urged the County to
join the TJPD regional organization. He sensed there has been a reluctance on the part of
some members of the Commission to use such words as "encourage, seek, promote, develop,
accommodate, and stimulate." He asked that the Commission "not be restrictive," and to be
"courageous." He pointed out that the County "has many safeguards in its land use arsenal to
discourage the kinds of businesses you don't want, and to attract the kinds of businesses you
do want." He concluded that BRHA is very pleased with the document, thus far.
--Mr. Rolyn Stanton - He was not concerned about whether or not the County grows
economically, but rather about the way the growth takes place. He felt the goals and
strategies of the document were very indefinite and "did not say anything."
q,5-
1-24-95 S
--Col. Jim Eddins (representing Preservation Piedmont) - He expressed support for the
Policy and described it as being „remarkable for its ability to capture a consensus of the
survey that was taken." He described as "particularly gratifying" the way the goals and
strategies recognize the "connectivity between historic resources and economics." He
stressed that historic sites arc part of the agrarian heritage of the County.
--Ms. Nancy O'Brien (representing the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission) - She said the TJPDC prefers Goal 2 "for obvious reasons." She stressed that
Albemarle's economy is a regional one. She stated: "Not only does Albemarle pace the
economy, Albemarle also depends on the region for its own economy." She pointed out that
many people in surrounding counties commute to Albemarle to work, and many of
Albemarle's citizens commute to neighboring counties to work. It is these commuting people
who tie the economy together. She suggested that the surrounding counties actually be named
its the Policy, Referring to Goal 5, Objective 2 (related to assisting new, small businesses),
she explained the TJPDC's existing program.
-Mr. Ken Claron (a resident of Stony Point) - He expressed the feeling that there is a
real need for "in-between" level jobs in the county, which he described as being "2 times
minimum wage, but not top of the scale." He hoped this policy could address that creed.
--Mr. Don Wagner - He felt the economic section of the Comprehensive Plan has
been, up until this time, "absolutely deplorable." He noted that there are many pages "about
protecting everything else, and nothing about protecting the jobs of our citizens." He hoped
this Comprehensive Plan will correct that deficiency.
--Ms. Susan Thomas (a resident of western Albemarle) - She expressed support for the
County joining the regional partnership. She felt it would provide the opportunity for
Albemarle to pass on some of its "concerns, values and solutions." She felt being a member
of the partnership would provide an opportunity to get the issues on the table in a business,
friendly environment.
--Mr. Carter Myers - He expressed support for the Policy. He stressed the importance
of the County looking out for the economic vitality of its citizens. He felt there was a need
to find a way to broaden the County's tax base without overburdening the individual taxpayer.
He felt it was very important that the document support a regional approach though he
acknowledged that the Commission had decided to let that issue be addressed at the Board
level. He described the status of the public/private partnership: "Five jurisdictions have
agreed to join; two others (Madison and Orange) have indicated an interest to join though
they have not yet been extended an invitation to join; the cost of joining is $12,500." He
strongly supported the public/private partnership which he felt could only be a benefit to its
participants.
--Mr. John Embry - He expressed a concern about the possibility of "creeping sprawl."
He did not want to see development forced on communities who did not want it.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff suggested that each Commissioner present their final comments to staff, who
would then compile a master list of proposed changes. There were no objections to this
Itaw suggestion. Comments were to be to staff by noon, Friday, January 27th. It was the
Commission's intent to take action on the final draft of the document on Tuesday, January 31,
1995.
1�W
1-24-95 b
err
S -9 - 8 Pkillip Ryder _ Proposal to construct an above- grade parking structure on 2.04 acres
zoned C-1, Commercial & EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [22.2.2(9)]. Property,
described as Tax Map 45, parcel 104A, is located on the east side of'Route 29 approximately
500 feet south of Woodbrook Road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Peter Sheeron. His comments and answers to
Commission questions included the following:
--A number of alternatives were considered in terms of accommodating the change of
use in the building.
--Because of the topography of the site, the upper level of the parking deck will be no
higher than the finished floor of the building.
--A screened wall around the parking deck will prevent headlights from projecting
beyond the confines of the deck.
--The lower level will effectively be underground.
--The tenant of the building is Blue Ridge Health Alliance and they will be occupying
the entire building within the next few months.
--There will be lighting on both levels of the facility. Lighting will be on poles and
will be directed toward the deck surface.
--The existing buffer which follows the landscape curb line has been "respected" in the
design of the structure. A 135 feet buffer area between adjacent properties and the proposed
and existing parking deck "is being maintained and is not being infringed upon."
Mr. Dotson expressed concern about lighting spillover. He asked if the applicant would look
into the possibility of a type of lighting which could be built into the wall of the parking
deck, so that the poles could be avoided. Mr. Sheeran said the structure had not yet been
designed, but he said he would be willing to investigate Mr. Dotson's suggestion. He
expressed a willingness to work with staff to arrive at a solution which will address the
Commission's concerns about lighting. Mr. Dotson hoped that some type of lighting could be
used, particularly for the upper deck, which would not be on poles. Mr. Fritz said that staff
could require a lighting diagram to help ensure compliance with the Ordinance. He did not
think it was necessary to make this a condition of site plan approval because it is already a
provision of the Zoning Ordinance, under site plan provisions. Ms. Huckle suggested that
staff members who work late might be required to park on the lower deck, thereby making
lighting of the upper deck not necessary. Mr. Sheeran suggested that the lighting could,
perhaps, be tied to photo electric cells.
Mr. Dotson, being a former resident of Woodbrook, expressed the feeling that the existing
tree buffer is absolutely essential. He asked if a condition could be added that "the existing
tree buffer separating the commercial and residential areas shall uc maintained aid airy Imes
damaged during construction, or which die for other reasons, shall be replaced with trees at
least as large as those presently on the site." Mr. Sheeran responded that he had already
spoken with staff on this issue and the applicant has agreed that "any trees which are
damaged will be replaced with twice the number of trees, in size and caliper." Mr. Sheeran
did not anticipate that any trees would be lost in the execution of the plan as presented. Even
I�q_
1-24-95
i
if the structure were to be "squared off', at most, only a couple of trees would be effected.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that a note on the plan says that "required landscaping shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced should it die."
Mr. Dotson also asked if the applicant would be willing to discourage the use of the structure
by skateboarders by agreeing to a condition that "the structure will be signed to prevent after
hours or unauthorized use." The applicant expressed no opposition to such a condition. Mr.
Fritz was not aware of any problem with such a condition though he said the final answer
would have to come from the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Davis had no concerns about such a
condition. Mr. Ciiimberg suggested that it might not be advisable to use the term "after hours
use" because employees may possibly be working during other than usual daytime office
hours. Mr. Dotson agreed to strike "after hours."
There was determined to be no public comment.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that SP-94-38 for Phillip Ryder be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The parking structure shall be limited in area and to two levels, ground and upper, as
shown on a plan titled Floor Fashions/Grand Piano as amended by Sheeran Architects and
initialled WDF 1/11/95. All landscaping shown on the plan shall be retained or replaced
should it die.
2. A solid opaque wall not less than 3.5 feet in height shall be provided around the northern
and eastern sides of the parking structure, upper and lower levels. Such wall shall be
designed to block headlights from the adjacent residential areas.
3. Structure shall be signed to prevent unauthorized use.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-94-36 Louise McConnell - Proposal to establish a home occupation Class B for ceramic
craft work space on 52.2 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(31)]. Property, described as
Tax Map 44, Parcel 26A, is located on the end of a private road approximately 0.6 miles east
of Route 601 in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated
growth area (Rural Area 1).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to
conditions and also that the Commission make a positive finding that the use is compatible
with the agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Dotson asked if the Ordinance addresses the question of number of employees allowed.
Ms. Hipski quoted the definition for a Home Occupation Class B, which says that "not more
than 2 persons, other members of the family residing on the premises, which persons may be
in addition to such family members," are allowed.
LlV
1-24-95
Referring to a similar request a couple of years ago, Mr. Blue recalled that there had been a
lot of neighbor concern about the frequency of UPS deliveries and the maintenance of the
road. He asked if all users of the road received notification of the request. (He was
particularly concerned about the Earhart property.) Mr. Hipski explained that they had not all
been notified. (Mr. Cilimberg later explained that notification requirements are the same for a
home occupation as they are for any other special permit. Only adjacent property owners
would have been notified.)
The applicant, Ms. Louise McConnell, addressed the Commission. She explained that Mr.
Earhart has his own driveway. She maintains the entire road and no one else has legal access
to the road. She questioned to which lots Mr. Blue was referring since all the lots are
developed. She described the nature of her business to be hand-crafted, ceramic chandeliers
and lamps. (Ms. Hipski noted that the applicant has estimated there to be no more than one
UPS delivery truck per week.)
There was no public comment.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-94-36 for Louise McConnell be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions and also that the use be
found to be compatible with the agricultural/forestal district.
1. Compliance with Section 5.2.
2. There shall be no more than two employees. At such time that there shall be employees,
the applicant shall obtain Building Inspections and Fire Officer approvals.
3. There shall be no on -site sales.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue asked if the Agricultural Forestal Advisory Committee had commented on this
request, or is it a requirement that they comment? Ms. Hipski responded that she had
consulted with the Ag/Forestal staff person (Ms. Scala) and after having had several
discussions with the applicant, it was Ms. Scala's determination that the issue did not have be
taken before the Committee. Mr. Cilimberg added that the Ordinance does not require that
the Ag/Forestal Committee be consulted. Staff discretion is used unless it is felt to be a
"significant proposal" and then the Ag/Forestal Committee's comment is sought on the
determination of compatibility.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission must make two actions, one on the SP and the
other on the question of compatibility with the ag/forestal district. Mr. Blue wondered if this
was bypassing the Ag/Forestal Committee, Mr, Cilimberg explained that staff is
recommending that the use is compatible.
ZZA
t -24-95 9
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the applicant has stated that being able to do her work at home
will make her better able to carry on her agricultural activities
Ms. Blue had no prchle us Witl: +iuiir-a-a re�uecii, a�iui �v i�'a�scs vvii.vii'u..i vviivi¢i'c a„av� iii.�ii .civ+mia vts�iieu
at. .. !"�,...... ». :.�.. _�_ ........._., _...�,. «..-.._..-L 4. ..«a ---.,. 4....,.._. ..«.. .. _a Ld.. ?..... 1._Cr c..t� �i.;.. ._.....
ttxa t oiuuiutw voutxu� uw arc sought zu," s it"c.Limes utvy arc itot. lr ts. uttuou x�it ci..s "r c13
gaud pullli. Jl1C t 101elmd dlidi tio111tllenis be sought 1101" dic Ag/rolCJld.l IL011111 lELCC lot any
application within an agiforestai district so that an applicants are subject to the same process.
Mr. Jenkins was adamantly opposed to adding another level to the approval process. He felt
that if the Commission did not trust staffs ,judgment on such matters, then the discussion
should whether or not the staff is adeauate. Mr. Nitchmann agreed. [NOTE: This issue was
dicctteGed again briefly at the end of the meeting l
Tlie uaviiiit"i fur .ipprv` l yu"icri'vu uu.~ra" s'�'ars�iucrij'.
-----------------------------------------
SP-94-33 Bradford Howard - Proposal to establish a home occupation Class is for a landscape
contractor on 42.37 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [1l).2.2(31)j. Property, described as fax
Map 9, parcel 24 is located on the north side of Route 663 approximately 800 feet west of
Route 603 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not in a designated growth area
(Rural Area 2).
Mr Lilly presented the staff report Staff recommended annmval stthiect to conditions The.
nY�lu ic�iwP iriPntiFi�r by �t»,ff ��=ae it" relation to cittht r�ictanre to the so t{ . 1ltfjr T 11NI
�..>
—1.;-eA tiiiu IV) �va;i of of a�ii uu risuuva�-i fro as v'K:luvly iv «i ii.�.' �..:ic c-ii� r•'iiu 4Cv feet ui'iuiuviv iv
'a_�a: _1 a.... a, a a:..a /J'.... ^ l� a_..._to
ul� uviui. iuV itiC 'Hat Staff d and for sight d1StF1[1V� kivl � yr it iYi.r uwiiitugal VVVU1u icqulfc
ern r s r+, rn Y Y + + r Y r Y
GJV Left to the sutial. Stall s ollllllu" is Ulat the low llullloet of Ulps gC11clatou llolil tills site
per day make it fail within the residential standard. Staff recommends (in condition #'i ) that
any objects obstructing the sight distance to the north be removed so that the SSU feet of sight
distance is maintained.
Ms. Huckle had visited the site and felt there was a problem with site distance to the south.
She was not concerned about the number of vehicle trips, but rather about the slow speed at
which the. vehirlP,; wnttld rP moving sub rh tiArning in and otit of this driveway_ She
thoµb-lit it might be possible to iln--rove the sight distance hY remnuinb some bushes that have
m•issY 4h nsY i, i, nf.4+.,., 4ri i, �1, 41•.(a ..i, nf. 1
SMv,-.1 up, tuvugii .�iuc`i iji.::r—"*J"QQ vv'itIM tt1V ai CIS"OS v +�I ---, vu Me appli�,-ML 3 rz'1}i� :`y .
Tile
,>! Y T Y 1 Y Y 4 /". ' 1 1 1 L T 4 Y '
Tile appilcmit, 1Vii. Bind Howaid, adw4 esseu Ule Commission. Aditllessing 1VLs. t1uckic s
comment, he explained that she was referring to a privet hedge which he cuts down from time
to time. He said it is probably in the State nght-ot=way. He expressed a willingness to
remove the hedge by its roots. He explained that most of his work is performed off site and
his home will only be used as a home base for those days when he has no jobs. He said he
currently has no other employees, but he may add some at a future time.
There was no ptlhlir, rnmment,
6
1-24-95
10
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-94-33 for Bradford Howard be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
I. Removal of any trees and other objects on the subject parcel which, are within, the line of
sight to the north at the entrance onto Rt. 663, such that an unobstructed sight distance of
550' is maintained.
T . Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle asked if a condition should be added requiring the removal of the hedge to the
south. Mr. Lilly explained it is staffs position that the sight distance to the south is not an
issue because the usage falls within the residential standards and the distance more than meets
those requirements (250 feet required, 350 feet available), Ms. Huckle did not think the two
were comparable because not many residences are pulling trailers with tractors on them.
Mr. Nitchrnann questioned how the Commission could make such a requirement if the hedge
is not on the applicant's property. The applicant was uncertain as to whether or not the hedge
is in the State right-of-way.
Ms. Imhoff agreed that it was a legitimate concern, but not one which could be answered at
this time. She felt the applicant was aware of the situation and would do what was necessary
to insure safety.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
There was a discussion of the schedule for the January 31st meeting. It was decided the work
session on the Noise Ordinance would begin at 6:00 p.m.
The discussion about whether or not home occupation applications should go before the
ag/forestal committee continued. Ms. Huckle agreed with Mr. Jenkins, that staff is capable of
making these determinations. Mr. Blue asked if perhaps the ag/forestal committee could
discuss this question at a future meeting and perhaps "give Ms. Scala the responsibility, if
they haven't already done so, of making a decision as to whether or not they ought to
consider it as a whole or whether they will take her recommendation." Ms. Huckle pointed
out that Mr. Cilimberg had already explained that it is not a "blanket situation" but is
determined by how elaborate the home occupation is. Mr. Cilimberg said he would discuss
with Ms. Scala the possibility of her making the Committee aware of all requests and they
can then determine if they wish to comment. Mr. Blue had no problem with Ms. Scala
having this authority. He just did not want the public to have the impression that some of
these requests were being handled differently than others. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the
ag/forestal committee has any authority to deny a request. Staff responded that they were
1i/
1-24-95 11
advisory to the Board, the same as the Commission. Mr. Davis added: "What the Board has
to find is that the proposed use is not more intensive and in conflict with the purposes of the
agricultural/forestal district and the Statute says that is a finding that the Board of Supervisors
has to make. But the Statute does not provide that the Ag/Forestal Advisory Committee or
the Planning Commission necessarily has to make a recommendation."
Mr. Blue said his question was simple: "Are home occupations treated the same, the way we
approve them, in a-f districts as they are anywhere else in the rural area?" Mr. Cilimberg
responded: "It depends on the home occupation." Mr. Blue asked: "Is that specified in the
Ordinance?" Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It is specified in the Ordinance that among the
conditions of findings for special use permits, period, is when they are in an ag/forestal
district you have to make a determination as to how they are effecting the ag/forestal district.
A home occupation Class B is a special permit. It's a judgment call.... A lot of what we do
is a judgment call. There's not a lot of black and white, there's a lot of grey."
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
V. Wayne ilimberg,
•