Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 13 1995 PC Minutes09 6-13-95 JUNE 13, 1995 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 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; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator; and Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of May 30, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended. SUB-95-040 Gilbert Station Woods Preliminary Plat - Proposal to establish a Rural Preservation Development consisting of 20 development lots and two preservations tracts. Property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 31, and Tax Map 34, Parcel 22 is zoned RA, Rural Area and is located on the west side of Route 640 approximately 0.6 miles west of Route 784 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. The report specifically asked the Commission to address 2 issues: (1) Lots 16, 17, 18 and 20 encroach into areas of critical slope and floodplain (10.3.3.2e); and (2) Lot 1 does not have access to an internal road (10.3.3.2b). Staff recommended approval of the proposal subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Roell. He described the Lot 1 access as follows: "The Lot 1 access is an on grade access coming off of 640 where there are some deep ravines, some streams and some severe slopes. So it seemed most sensible to come off of Rt. 640 as opposed to making a 500-foot cut through some woods and cutting across a stream and up and down a hill." Regarding lots 16, 17, 18 and 20, he explained: "We have attempted to remedy that situation by putting a conservation designation for the area that incorporates any floodplain, wetlands, and steep slopes, so as not to permit any disturbance, construction, etc. We'll incorporate that into the deed --on the plat that will be recorded for the lot." He explained the purpose was "not to make some wild, contorted lot, but rather to simplify some engineering practices, draw some straight lines and end it where the corners get very narrow and points are tight." [Mr. Blue asked: "You've agreed to that as a condition of approval then, although it is not listed?" Mr. Roell responded: "Yes, sir. I wrote a letter to that effect.] He said a timbering plan for the preservation tract had been submitted In 6-13-95 2 along with the application. The land to be timbered will not be used for any other purposes. In response to Ms. Huckle's question as to the location of the pines, Mr. Roell explained: "The loblolly pines are over the lot areas. There is some Virginia Pine on the back sections of the preservation tracts and there is some hardwood on the back portion." Ms. Huckle asked if roads would have to be constructed to make it possible to get the timber out. Mr. Roell said there are existing logging roads. He also said the timbering will be a "select cut", i.e. it will not be clear cut. Ms. Imhoff said she was reluctant to put another entrance onto Rt. 640. She asked if the applicant had considered combining lots 1 and 2. Mr. Roell answered this question by pointing out what he described as "a really nice building site there." He again noted that the access onto Rt. 640 is "on grade level and has a good sight distance." Ms. Huckle said she had trouble with the entrance onto 640. She quoted from the Zoning Ordinance: "Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or floodplain... and all development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street." She felt this proposal would allow the applicant to save a lot of money on roads. She said that these types of restrictions are in the Ordinance for a purpose. She stated she would like to see lots 1 and 2 combined. Public comment was invited. Ms. Leesie Coan, whose property is across from the applicant's proposed entrance, sought further explanation as to the applicant's proposal. She was uncertain as to the development which the applicant said exists across from Lot 1. Mr. Roell explained there are 4 and 5 acre lots across the street, with one or two existing homes. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson asked counsel to explain the Commission's authority for approving an entrance onto Rt. 640 for Lot 1. Mr. Trank explained this would be modification, i.e. "The Ordinance says that in accordance with design standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and where deemed reasonably practical by the Commission. " He explained: "They are more than advisory but you do have the discretion to modify them in appropriate cases, for site conditions or other reasons." Mr. Blue felt those "other reasons" had been explained by the applicant's engineer and staff had concurred with those reasons. He said: "If you make the assumption that they are going to have a lot there, it is much better to give them frontage on Rt. 640 than to make them come out on the other road (which) would do more environmental damage." 6-13-95 3 '%r Mr. Keeler added: "In development standards for Rural Preservation Development -- there are actually two sets --and it is recognized that in any design situation you are not going to be able to satisfy the complete list. That's where the Commission can exercise discretion --that's primarily design issues. The other regulations --called special provisions --are not subject to Commission modification and waiver, e.g. requirements for minimum acreage for the preservation tract. There is a list of 'can do's' and a list of 'can't do's." Ms. Imhoff said that though, initially, she had been uneasy about the amount of critical slopes, the applicant's language has made her feel more comfortable. She felt Mr. Blue's description of the Lot 1 situation was accurate, i.e. if there is going to be a lot there, then they need this entrance. She said she would have arranged the lots differently. She said she was not supportive of allowing the entrance onto Rt. 640. Mr. Blue pointed out that the County tries to encourage this type of development. He said that when a proposal meets most of the requirements, is recommended by staff, and there are common sense reasons for the modification, then he was reluctant to put any other burden on the applicant, because that sends a message that the County may not really want these Rural Preservation Developments. He did not think the Lot 1 issue was "a big deal" when looking at the whole proposal. *"' Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Blue's statements. M Mr. Dotson asked the applicant if Lot 1 were to be relocated, would the size of the preservation tract be reduced. Mr. Roell explained that if the property of Lot 1 were added to another lot, it is likely that the owner would still want to build on the best building site (as he described previously on Lot 1). This would result in more environmental degradation because the driveway would have to cross the ravines, etc., if not allowed to access onto Rt. 640. Ms. Huckle thought there was a recommendation in the Subdivision Ordinance that subdivisions should not be approved on non -tolerable roads. She asked: "How does that fit into this?" Mr. Keeler responded: "There is nothing in the Ordinance which says that. If it's a request for a special use permit for more lots than you can do by right, then one of the considerations is whether or not the roads are tolerable or non - tolerable." Mr. Nitchmann felt the applicant's proposal protects the two streams and also makes the lots more affordable. He said he could live with the Lot 1 access onto Rt. 640. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SUB-95-040 for Gilbert Station Woods Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: V.70 6-13-95 4 1. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval of final road plans and calculations. 2. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final drainage plans and calculations. 3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final public road plans. 4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final grading and drainage plans. 5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of the erosion control plan. 6. The building and bonding of the required road improvements. 7. Health Department approval of primary and reserve drainfield locations for each lot. 8. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority approval of rural preservation easements for both preservation tracts. 9. Staff approval of road names. " 10. Staff approval of preservation easements on lots 16, 17, 18 and 20 in accord with content of letter from Katurah Roell, dated June 12, 1995. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-95-34 Pizza Inn Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to remove the existing structures from the site and revise the grading, including drainage improvements. Property, described as Tax Map 61 M, Block 12, Parcels 1 and 1 H and Tax Map 61 M, Parcel 1 is located in the southwestern corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Dominion Drive in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 1. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz added the following condition: "RWSA approval of activity over their lines." The applicant was represented by Mr. John Green. He explained that this proposal would greatly benefit the drainage in this neighborhood. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Imhoff asked for an explanation of the intrusion into the residential buffer and a description of how the channel will look after this is complete. Mr. Green said the 7,4-1 6-13-95 5 channel will be wider and lined with rip rap. The rip rap will extend to the property line. Ms. Imhoff asked if there was any way to landscape the rip rap channel. Mr. Green indicated there would be a grass slope down to the rip rap and there will be no rip rap in the 20-foot buffer area. He pointed out that the RWSA will not allow any plantings to take place on top of the sewer line. (Mr. Fritz pointed out that condition No. 1 will require landscaping between this property and the residential properties.) Ms. Huckle asked how deep the channel will be. Mr. Green said the end where the culverts will be is "20 feet in the ground." Mr. Green explained that the channel was designed for a 10-year storm, but 100-year flooding had been studied "to see what effect it would have on the neighbors, to see to what extent it would lower the flood levels." He confirmed that this project will improve the 100-year flood conditions. Ms. Imhoff noted that the rip rap will be visible from Rt. 29. She said she was trying to think of ways that the view of the rip rap could be "softened." She knew that other areas had tried plantings among the rip rap, but not typically with streams carrying this much volume. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering, offered to answer Commission questions. He confirmed that the water from this drainage area eventually flows to the Branchlands Channel. Ms. Huckle asked if drainage studies of this area have been completed. Mr. Kelsey said the Unified Drainage Study covered this entire area, and was used to determine the existing channel through Branchlands and that study also took into consideration the additional culvert. He was uncertain whether the study had been done before or after the house had washed away in Berkeley. Ms. Huckle said: "I think that is important because if the house washed away after that (sentence incomplete)." Mr. Kelsey estimated the study had taken place at about the same time as the incident described by Ms. Huckle. Mr. Kelsey confirmed that he agreed with Mr. Green, that this will improve the drainage situation. He said: "It improves the situation on the Pizza Inn site. It brings that site up so that it is no longer subjected to flooding and, at the same time, it doesn't increase the 100-year flood surface elevation of that stream at that location, so it won't effect any upstream properties. It improves that site and though it doesn't improve anything upstream, it doesn't do any harm." He said it would not effect downstream flows. Noting that the Branchlands channel is eroding, Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kelsey if he was satisfied with the rip rap not coming to the top of the channel. Mr. Kelsey responded affirmatively, saying he was "very comfortable with it." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 6-13-95 6 Mr. Dotson asked if the landscaping will have to be done now, in connection with this request, or will it be installed at some future time when there is an actual use proposed on the site. Mr. Fritz explained that the landscaping must be installed as a part of this request. The applicant has a time period of two planting seasons in which to install the landscaping. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that SDP-95-34 for Pizza Inn Major Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning and Engineering Department approval of a landscape plan to insure the provision of landscaping in accord with the provisions of Section 32.9.7.8a. 2. RWSA approval of activity over their lines. The motion passed unanimously. Jefferson Amphitheater Phase One Final Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 377 square foot prop storage building. Property, described as Tax Map 94, parcels 21 (part) and 25 (part) is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 250 and 794 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and '' EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District and is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Mr. Blue explained this item could have been approved administratively but for the fact that a deadline was missed and the item was called up by Ms. Imhoff for Commission review. Mr. Fritz explained that the plan had been reviewed by the Site Review Committee and has been determined to meet all the requirements of the Ordinance. Staff recommended approval. Ms. Imhoff explained her concerns about the site plan: "My questions with the site plan hinge on two areas. I know we are not going to get into the pros and cons of the special permit this evening. Let me talk about site plans concerns first. When I look at the conditions of the special permit, it says that the site plan shall not be processed until Health Department approval for potable water service and sewage disposal has been obtained. I wanted to first find out if that condition has been met. Then the other condition with regard to the outline of the special permit in connection to the site plan is that there is supposed to have been verification, including a certified engineer's report for the acoustic sound system, and it was required at the time of site plan submittal. Those are the two things which I am confused as to whether or not they have or have ,%we not happened with regard to the site plan." .�2 7(,a 6-13-95 7 �r Mr. Fritz replied: "In regard to Health Department approval, there is no water or sewer demands for this type of building. There is no plumbing proposed for this structure before you tonight." He deferred the remaining questions to the Zoning Administrator (Ms. McCulley). Ms. Imhoff replied: "Maybe that hinges on it. When I looked at the special permit, I don't see this as a phased site plan. I see a commitment was made to have some things checked off by either when the site plan was submitted or processed. I'm feeling like the special permit conditions have not been met for the site plan to be properly before us. So, how did the phasing get started?" Mr. Fritz replied: "They contacted us with the question as to whether or not they could phase this development. We saw no indication that there was any intent to prohibit phasing. Phasing is typical in many developments; almost all large-scale developments are phased. We discussed various phasings and what would need to be shown in various stages to accommodate what is being proposed. This particular component needs no support facilities to accommodate it." Ms. Imhoff said: "It seems to me if there is a condition of approval for the special permit, and it's at time of site plan submittal, it is hard for me to figure out how to defer that to a second, third or fourth or fifth generation phase. It's like you have walked " pretty far down the road with the project and yet you haven't signed off on the conditions of the special permit. On the sound study, I guess the same argument would be that it is not at the point where it needs a sound system so you don't use an acoustics engineer." Ms. McCulley explained: "It's been approved, consistent practice that we have allowed phasing with a site plan, even though the special permit doesn't show it. Probably in the future we will try to be more careful because we do need more specific time periods with the later phases." Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant would have to actually select the sound equipment before a study could be done. Mr. Keeler did not anticipate there would be any problems with meeting sound limitations at adjoining property lines because the sound can be controlled with a volume control. He also noted that the conditions had said "Staff approval of site plan, but did not distinguish between a preliminary or final site plan." At the time the preliminary plan came in the applicant had not selected the sound system. Ms. Imhoff said: "The final question I have about this, and the reason, initially, I asked for it to come up, is it was my feeling, from little knowledge, that the special permit had run out. Can we please (discuss) how it is a special permit continues to go forward and 1%W doesn't run out in 18 months. The concern I have, and I will put it on the table and �77 6-13-95 8 maybe Ms. McCulley can address it, is that interpretations are made by the Zoning Administrator as to what vests or does not vest certain special permits. But there isn't a way for notifying the Board of Supervisors, or anybody else, that such an interpretation has been made. It is a concern for me, not just with this special permit and site plan, but with all special permits that might be coming up. I am hoping we can learn what the process has been and maybe in the future we can have a process whereby somebody is notified, because it is my understanding that on a Zoning interpretation there is a 30- day appeal period to the Board of Zoning Appeals. But it is like a Catch-22--if you don't know there is a decision you don't know you can appeal it. I think that is a little of what happened here." (Mr. Nitchmann felt discussion on the issue raised by Ms. Imhoff should take place under New Business, at the end of the meeting.) Ms. Imhoff said she wanted to know, particularly, how this site plan got vested. Ms. McCulley explained: "There are two conditions which need to operate here for this use to go forward. One is that the specific conditions of the special permit are satisfied and the other is that the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance that relate to the validity of a special permit are met.... What it does is break a special permit situation into two different scenarios --one is an activity with no construction of a structure, which is not occurring here. The second is a use that involves construction of a structure, which is occurring here. There are two different time lines, depending on which of the two scenarios you follow. If it is an activity that does not involve construction of a structure, you have 18 months to commence the activity. If it is a use that does involve the construction of a structure, you have to begin construction of that structure within two years and complete it within one year thereafter. The language of the Ordinance talks about the 18 months and then says: 'For the purposes of this section, the term commence shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two years from the date of the issuance thereof, which is thereafter completed within one year.' What is operative language there is 'any structure necessary to the use of such permit.' First let's look at the definition of structure (General Definitions, Section 3.0). 'Structure is anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground or attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground. This includes, among other things, dwellings, buildings, etc.' So that is what the Regulations say. It is a little problematic. It doesn't say if you do have a situation where you have to construct a structure, when then do you have to begin the use that is related to that structure? It doesn't say what magnitude of structure you have to commence. It just says'any structure.' That is the language we are dealing with. So what happened in this particular case, the structure that they constructed is, primarily, the well. I spent a lot of time with Jim Moore, with the Lexington office of the State Health Department. What I wanted to understand is what was it about this well --how far had they gotten in constructing this well, and what was it about this well that made it necessary to this use- -something that you would put in for any by -right use in the RA. What he has explained ,;2%9 6-13-95 9 to me is that they have their permit for the location of a well site; they have constructed a well; this well is called the Public Water Supply Source. It is transient because the users of the well come and go; it is not a daily population usage. It is classified as a 2B well which is encased and grouted. It is in the ground. They have done quality and yield/flow tests, and have satisfactorily met those and submitted those to the Health Department. The next step is the well plat, etc. The other thing they have done is install a construction entrance. But, primarily the structure is this community well." Mr. Dotson said: "So that commenced prior to the 2-year time period. Therefore, they have one year to complete all of the development construction." Ms. McCulley responded: "They have one year to complete all of the construction related to Phase One." Mr. Blue clarified that Phase One was what was shown on the plan before the Commission at this time. Ms. McCulley said it was her understanding that the purpose of Phase One is "gearing up the site in terms of construction and preparation for the actual performances in terms of having a building here which will hold the props, and beginning to design the rest of the site." Mr. Fritz added: "It is small, 377 square feet prop storage building. There was a building shown in this location on the preliminary site plan which was approved in October or November." Mr. Blue explained that this plan has not been seen by the Commission because it was supposed to have been approved administratively by staff. Mr. Blue said he had seen the plan because it is in his district, as is the procedure with all site plans, with the at - large Commissioner getting copies of all plans. (Ms. Imhoff said she had not received this plan.) Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Fritz to describe Phase One. Pointing to the location on the plan, Mr. Fritz said the proposal is to "construct a prop storage building in, roughly, the center of the site." He pointed out the location of the well and also the areas where the stage, parking, etc. will eventually be located. Ms. Imhoff asked how many phases are envisioned. Mr. Fritz deferred to the applicant. (Mr. McRaven answered this question later in the meeting and explained that 4 phases are planned.) No plans have been submitted for any of the other phases. Mr. Dotson noted: "It looks like we are building a prop storage building well in advance of having anything else there that would cause props to be there to store." Mr. Blue said: "I suspect that is correct, and I suspect it is a technicality, but I also believe it meets the letter of our Ordinance." 1 71 6-13-95 10 Mr. Keeler said it is "not a technicality," and that it can be used as a construction storage building, with it's ultimate use being a prop storage building at such time as that use is needed. The applicant was represented by Mr. Charles McRaven. He offered to answer questions. He was accompanied by his architect and engineer. Ms. Imhoff asked him to explain his phasing plans. Mr. McRaven said there will be four phases, with this being the first phase. He said the purpose of this request is to "get something to work out of." He explained this structure will double as a construction storage building and will later become a prop storage building. He said the other phases will deal with the construction of the amphitheater, the septic system, the parking lots, roads, etc. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff said she had three concerns, which she would bring up again under New Business. She explained: "I think we've got a real problem with notification of Zoning Administrator interpretations that we need to take care of. I think that any structure should not vest a special permit. To me, it is to the point of ridiculousness that you can simply dig a well and be vested forever on a special permit. A sign could almost `%W become a structure based on some of these interpretations. I think we need to tighten that language up. And this idea of phasing --particularly when you had a site plan that had very specific conditions to take care of some of the neighborhood concerns, and now those conditions can be pushed off into some future, undefined phase --bothers me. I can see that the Zoning Ordinance has not tied down the language, thereby allowing this to happen, but I think it behooves us, with all the special permits we have in this county, to get this firmed up in the future. Those are my concerns." Ms. Huckle said she agreed with Ms. Imhoffs concerns. She said: "I think there is probably nothing that can be done now, but we do need better definitions for the future so that these things won't happen again." Mr. Blue suggested the issues raised by Ms. Imhoff could be addressed at the end of the meeting. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the Jefferson Amphitheater Phase One Final Site Plan be approved. The motion passed unanimously. M � 0 6-13-95 %W Rural Area Transportation Study (RATS) i M 11 Mr. Bill Warner, representing the Thomas Jefferson Planning District led a discussion about six key transportation issues/problems which the TJPDC has identified in Albemarle County and the region. He asked for Commission comment and suggestions. Commission comments included the following: --The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors very recently passed a resolution asking VDOT to look at Rt. 231/Rt. 22 to ban through truck traffic. --Why are there plans to widen Rt. 250, from Emmet Street to Rt. 637 (Ivy), since there is no potential growth in this area? Mr. Cilimberg said he thought probably the only possibility for widening in the foreseeable future would be from Emmet Street to the bypass. Ms. Huckle thought the Meadow Creek Parkway would be much more useful than widening 250 west. --Ms. Imhoff expressed support for the Rt. 640/Rt 600 bike "loop." She said the problem is where the route crosses Rt. 231 and then the section of Rt. 20 which must be taken to connect to Rt. 640. She said another problem is the lack of parking for recreational bikers. --Please specify on the bike route maps whether a route is shown just for identification, or for improvement. Commission suggestions for additions to the study were as follows: --A new connector road joining Rt. 240 with Rt. 250 (in Crozet). --Improvements from Rt. 29 north, near the county line, which would cut across to Rt. 20. --Overlaying Virginia Byways on the TJPDC maps. --Improvements to the Rt. 729/Rt. 250 east intersection. --Improvements to all the roads in Neighborhoods IV and V. --Rio Road (the section which connects to Park Street) should be a top priority for improvements. --The possibility of adding a daily bus run (possibly a private -sector company) to some of the outlying areas, e.g. Scottsville. --Possible future extensions of CTS runs as development goes out into the County. --Possible use of some of the railroad easements to develop bike trails. Mr. Warner said it is planned that the Study will be completed and brought back to the Commission sometime in the Fall. Um 6-13-95 12 $irr Miscellaneous Discussion of Commercial Stables Wayside Stands and Farmer's Markets - Ms. Imhoff asked the Commission to request that the Board consider the possible addition of Commercial Stables, Wayside Stands and Farmer's Markets to the Zoning Ordinance. (She explained that Mr. Martin had intended to bring up the issue of Commercial Stables but had not been able to do so.) MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the Board of Supervisors be asked to consider a Zoning Text Amendment to add Commercial Stables, Wayside Stands and Farmer's Markets as uses by -right in the Rural Areas, including necessary regulations related to traffic, etc. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board has already passed a Resolution of Intent related to Wayside Stands and a Resolution for Farmer's Markets is scheduled to be discussed at the June 14, 1995 Board meeting. Ms. Imhoff motion passed unanimously. Discussion of Special Permit Process Ms. Imhoff again raised issues which she had identified earlier in the meeting: She said: "There is no notification of Zoning Administrator interpretations. At a minimum the Board of Supervisors should be notified so that there will be an awareness of the appeal process." Ms. McCulley responded: "Are you talking about just legislative determinations? If you look at everything that is appealable under the Code, it's every decision, determination, ruling, and whatever. We do at least 1,000 a year. I'm trying to think of a practical way to do it." Ms. Imhoff interjected that she was more concerned about special permits and rezonings. Referring to the Amphitheater permit in particular she said: "Things that you thought would be triggered at one point were triggered by something other than you thought. I just think it would be very helpful on special permits and rezonings, because they seem to be significant policy decisions that the Board of Supervisors has made." Ms. Huckle said she was thinking more in terms of some of the definitions, which she felt were too vague, e.g. "structure." cm 6-13-95 13 En Ms. McCulley: "I think Ms. Imhoff points 2 and 3 (stated earlier) related to dealing with those issues --the Zoning Text Amendment that would handle structure and that would handle the phasing and timing contradiction --is something that can be discussed. " Going back to the issue of notification, Ms. McCulley said: "I am trying to figure best how to notify and whom to notify when a decision is made about a special permit or a rezoning and I am happy to do that. As you know, after 60 days a decision is locked in, right or wrong, as of July 1st." Ms. McCulley explained how the law changes as of July 1: "You still have your 30-day appeal period, but after 60 days it becomes final unless fraud can be proven on the part of the person asking for the decision --a change in circumstance or they were not open with all the facts of the case, or if it can be proven that the Zoning Administrator acted in malfeasance." Ms. Imhoff commented: "It opens up the Zoning Administrator for much more scrutiny and appeal from people who are developing. It doesn't do much in terms of general citizen notification." Ms. McCulley suggested that perhaps this could be addressed through the Consent Agenda. Ms. Imhoff felt this might be a policy issue to be addressed by the Board. She said she felt that the minimum solution was that the Board should receive notification. She said she was not suggesting that all adjacent owners be noticed. She was uncertain of the Planning Commission's role. She said that some localities publish these interpretations in the newspaper. Ms. McCulley concluded: "I hear your concern and I believe you think I should ask the Board for their recommendation as to how they wish to address the concern." Ms. Imhoff suggested that the Board's direction could also be sought on the other issues raised --the definition of structure and the phasing of site plans. She concluded: "I don't care if it comes back to us first or if it goes to the Board of Supervisors, but that something get cleaned up." Mr. Keeler cautioned: "The term structure is used throughout the Zoning Ordinance. Just changing it for this one purpose may have ramifications elsewhere in the Ordinance." (Ms. Imhoff suggested: "If the concern is that the word structure is used throughout the Ordinance, then consider saying more specifically, 'you vest your special permit when the building permit is issued.' You take out the reference to structure in that sentence.") EM 6-13-95 14 Mr. Blue suggested that staff might want to study this issue before taking it to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that these two items could be included in the staffs upcoming study of "zoning text amendments for cleaning up the Ordinance administratively." Ms. Huckle suggested that the County Attorney might want to look at "ambiguities in the Ordinance which make interpretation difficult." Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions take at the Board of Supervisors meeting of June 7, 1995. Mr. Dotson reported on a meeting he had attended for the Southeastern Association of Extension Agents. He said an exercise performed at that meeting had identified hog farms, and hog farm wastes, as being a "hot issue" in all jurisdictions. He suggested that staff add to its work plan a study of supplementary regulations for hog farms. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on K- Im a��