HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 30 2004 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
March 30, 2004
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 30, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Rodney Thomas, Chairman,
Calvin Morris, Marcia Joseph, Jo Higgins, William Rieley and Pete Craddock, Vice -Chairman.
Absent from the meeting was Bill Edgerton.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development,
Francis MacCall, Planner, Yadira Amarante, Planner, Joan McDowell, Principal Planner and Greg
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Thomas called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Thomas invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There
being none, the meeting proceeded.
- Consent Agenda:
SDP-04-18 Service Master Off icelWarehouse — Request for approval of a critical slopes waiver,
which will allow the approval of a preliminary site plan for 5,400 square feet of warehouse and
2,000 square feet of supporting office space.
Mr. Thomas asked if any Commissioner would like to pull any item off the consent agenda. There
being none, he asked for a motion.
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of (6:0). (Absent — Edgerton)
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carried (6:0) for approval of consent agenda.
ZMA-2003-11 Rio East Commercial Area (Sign #10, 11) - Request to amend the proffers of
- ZMA-1996-004, to allow a veterinary hospital by special use permit. The property, described as
Tax Map 61, Parcels 124A part of & 124B part of, contains approximately .8456 acres, and is
zoned PDMC - Planned Development Mixed Commercial. The proposal is located on Rio East Ct
(private), approximately .1 miles from the intersection of Rio East Ct and Rt. 631 (Rio Road East),
in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Office
Service in Neighborhood 2. DEFERRED FROM THE MARCH 2, 2004 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
SP 2003 58 Rio East Commercial Park (Veterinary Hospital) (Sign #35, 39) - Request for
special use permit to allow a veterinary office and hospital in accordance with Section 25A.2.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for uses by special use permit in the C-1, CO, and HC
districts, which a veterinary office and hospital is one of those uses. . (Francis MacCall)
DEFERRED FROM THE MARCH 2, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. MacCall summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to amend the proffers of
ZMA-1996-004, to allow the use of a veterinary hospital and office, which would then allow that
use to be permitted by special use permit in that PD-MC zoning. Staff worked with the applicants
on the proffers in order to get them done in a clean and concise form. The changes that have
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 224
been made to the original proffers are not that extensive. The proposed proffers are very much
the same proffers that were approved in 1996, except the statement was added that the owner
was agreeable to adopt the original proffers, which would remain in effect for those parcels that
are not part of this particular application. The other changes were just the dates referring to the
sketch plan that they had in front of them and letter d) under # 2, which was the use by special
use permit of the veterinary hospital. Staff has reviewed this for compliance with the principles of
the Neighborhood Model and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the
amendment to change the proffers, the approval of the special use permit with the conditions and
the modification of the supplemental regulations discussed in the report.
Ms. Joseph asked for clarification on the modifications.
Mr. MacCall explained that Section 5.1.11(b) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a
soundproofed bui►ding shall be located no closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural
or residential lot line. There is a residential lot line in the R-15 directly across the street, which
the Commission saw as Glenwood Station. In Glenwood Station's review, there was some
commercial put in the front and the reduction would be from the 200 feet down to 145 feet as
shown on the plan. The Zoning staff has taken done sound meter readings and found it was in
excess of 55 decibels. Therefore, staff feels that the modification would be acceptable.
Ms. Higgins noted the odd shape of the parcel near the entrance and asked why the special use
permit for the veterinary clinic was on both sides of the entrance.
Mr. MacCall noted that what was shown is area out of the restricted area, which pertains to #2 in
the proffers. The rest of it #1, specifically refers to the restrictive area and that was just a
redrawing of what was originally approved in the original proffers. He pointed out that it an
approximate area of 575' by 275' area, which was the extent of this special use permit in regards
to the amended proffers.
Ms. Higgins stated that the area defined as proposed special use permit area - when you deduct
the restrictive area, it wraps around the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Rieley stated his assumption was that was for a different parcel.
Mr. MacCall stated that the existing layout of the remaining 5.6 acres was what they were
changing in that area, which was specifically for this special use permit. That was the extent to
what was outside of the restricted area. The original proffers still apply to all the others around
the cul-de-sac.
Ms. Higgins stated that was proposed lot 6 and a portion of proposed lot 5 was excluded.
Therefore, it was the remainder of lot 5.
Mr. MacCall stated that was correct, but that currently it was all 124A and 124B. Those are
proposed and staff has not seen that proposed subdivision yet proposed.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any more questions for staff. There being none, he opened the
public hearing on the special use permit and zoning map amendment for applicant and public
comment.
Jordon Juliano, with Rivanna Realty, stated that he would respond to any questions the
Commission may have.
Mr. Thomas invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was
closed and the matter brought back to the Commission for discussion and possible action.
Action on ZMA-03-11:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 225
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of ZMA-03-11 Rio East Commercial Area with the proffers as
outlined on Attachment E of the staff report.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any more discussion.
Ms. Higgins noted that on the proffer form it referred to a copy of something that was attached,
which was a copy of the Zoning Ordinance as it exists today, but that it was not attached. She
pointed out that would become a part of this action too and shou►d be attached when this was
sent forward.
Mr. MacCall apologized for that oversight and noted that it would be included as part of the
packet when it was sent forward to the Board.
Ms. Higgins stated that the use of the property outside of the restricted area also refers to that
and on the proffer amendments when you change them that she was not sure what was changed.
She pointed out that she did not have a problem approving this because it seems very specific,
but she did not think that it reads very specifically.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of (6:0). (Edgerton — Absent - No)
Action on SP-2003-58:
Ms. Joseph moved for approval of SP-03-58 Rio East Commercial Park as outlined by staff and
subject to the following conditions:
1. A site plan shall be submitted for approval that shall be in general accord with the sketch plan
prepared by Keeney & Co, Architects dated 3/12/04.
2. Any enlargement or expansion of the veterinary office and hospital use will require an
amendment to this Special Use Permit (SP-2003-058).
3. No overnight boarding use other than for those animals under medical care shall take place
at the veterinary hospital.
4. Granted a waiver of Section 5.1.11(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a
soundproofed building shall be located no closer than two hundred (200) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of (6:0). (Edgerton — Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carries for both the zoning map amendment and the special
use permit and will go to the Board of Supervisors on April 14.
SP 2003- 087 Mosby Mountain Subdivision Plat Extension (Sign #66) - Request to extend the
life of SP-01-065 a special use permit approved 5/1/02 which allows for an earthen fill and
bridge/culvert crossing in the floodplain, per Sections 30.3.05.2.1 and 30.3.6.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The property is zoned R1 (Residential with a density of 1 du/acre) and FH (Flood
Hazard Overlay District) and is described as Tax Map 90, Parcel 1 B. The property is located in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Rt. 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) across from Southwood
Estates Mobile Home Park. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Rural Area
uses in Rural Area 5 and Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/acre) uses in Neighborhood 5. (Yadira
Amarante)
Ms. Amarante presented the staff report. She asked to correct the title of the request because it
really was an extension for a previous special use permit. This is a request to extend the validity
of a special use permit that approved by the Board of Supervisors in May of 2002. The special
use permit will expire May 1 of this year. The applicant has not begun construction of that bridge
crossing as of yet. It is indicated that construction has been delayed because of the amount of
time that it has taken to get the road plans, storm water management plans and tree conservation
plans approved, which has delayed the construction of the bridge. The applicant is asking for an
extension. Staff's assumes that the extension would be for two years, but it was her
understanding that they will begin construction in a few months. Staff recommends approval of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 226
this extension request mostly because the bridge will be in the same location as was originally
approved. There have been no significant regulation changes in terms of our ordinance or
policies. The characteristics of the neighborhood have remained the same. There have been no
changes to the site since the two year time period. Staff is recommending approval with the
original conditions.
Mr. Thomas asked if any Commissioner had any questions for staff. He stated that in the
previous staff report under the unfavorable items, on page 10, it says, "The proposed use will
cause a development that is inconsistent. . ."
Ms. Amarante stated that was an analysis that staff makes when looking at special use permits
and rezonings to compare it to the Comprehensive Plan to see if it is something that would be
recommended. This property is a property that has old zoning on it. It is R1 zoned property in the
Rural Areas as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. There is only a small portion of this property
that is actually within the development areas. She pointed out that she was trying to state that it
was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but again it has the correct zoning on it.
Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant had any comments.
Mr. Gaylon Beights stated that he would respond to any questions the Commission may have.
Ms. Joseph asked the applicant where they were in the process.
Mr. Beights stated that the final plat was approved in February of this year. They have bonded the
improvements and have begun construction. They have clearing for the entrances up to the
stream crossing, and actually have a temporary stream crossing in order to get the logging out. It
just took them from May, 2002 to February, 2004 to complete the final plat process.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. There being none, he
asked if there was any one else present who would like to speak on this application. There being
none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion
and a possible action.
Ms. Higgins stated that she had a question for staff or Mr. Kamptner. She stated that her
understanding was based on the extent of the work is that described that the construction has
commenced and that an extension of the special use permit is not going to be necessary.
Mr. Kamptner asked staff if the Zoning Administrator made a zoning determination on that issue.
Justin Beights stated that he had talked to John Shepherd, of the Zoning Division and he
indicated that vesting rights would be more complicated than coming to the Planning Commission
and requesting an extension of the special use permit. He noted that was the feedback that he
had gotten and was why they were here today.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was the first time in his recollection that the Planning Commission was
the easiest path to take.
Mr. Morris moved for approval of SP-2003-087 subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Engineering Department and VDOT approval of final grading plans and
bridge and road plans and computations;
2. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan to include stabilization of fill;
3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of mitigation plans for disturbance of the
stream buffer;
4. The CON/SPAN bridge system must be installed per manufacturer's specifications.
5. The final subdivision plat should reflect any changes to the floodplain and floodway limits,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 227
on
and the applicant must provide computations supporting any such changes, as well as copies
of the correspondence demonstrating FEMA approval of the revised floodplain or no changes
in flood plain levels can occur.
6. In an effort to minimize environmental degradation, no soil shall be removed from the stream
to compensate for any fill.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6:0. (Edgerton — Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that the motion carries and would go to the Board of Supervisors on April 14.
ZTA-04-01 Cluster Developments — Amend Sections 10.2.2, By special use permit, 10.3.3.3,
Special provisions, and 10.5.2, Where permitted by special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of
the Albemarle County Code, all of which pertain to lands within the Rural Areas (RA) zoning
district, to delete provisions allowing rural preservation developments having more than twenty
development lots by special use permit. Rural preservation developments are a cluster form of
development. Effective July 1, 2004, Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A) (12) will prohibit localities
from authorizing cluster developments by special use permit. Rural preservation developments
having twenty or fewer development lots will continue to be allowed by right within the Rural
Areas (RA) zoning district. The complete ordinance is available for examination by the public in
the Department of Planning & Community Development, Room 218, Second Floor, County Office
Building. (Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell summarized the staff report. The State passed a law that as of July 1 of this year
that all cluster developments, which includes Rural Preservation Developments, will be by right.
The County is currently very involved in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, and part of that
Comprehensive Plan addresses Rural Preservation Developments. Staff anticipates changing the
ordinance after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted in relation to Rural Preservation
Developments. Currently the County allows Rural Preservation Developments by right if they are
under 20 lots, but if they are over 20 lots they are by special use permit. This change would bring
the County into compliance with the State Code and it also would not allow Rural Preservation
Developments at least temporarily until they were ready with ordinance changes for over 20 lot
Rural Preservation Developments. The staff report addresses how many Rural Preservation
Developments have been approved with less than 20 lots and for over 20 lots. Staff does not
anticipate a huge difference in the way subdivisions are done in the rural areas while this portion
of the ordinance would be removed. If there were any questions, she would be happy to answer
them.
Ms. Joseph asked what the time line was on the rural areas amendments.
Ms. McDowell stated that a lot of the time line depends on the Commission. The next work
session is scheduled for next week on April 6, which will hopefully be our last work session. If a
decision is made next week, then this zoning text amendment can proceed to public hearing and
on to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that one suggestion might be to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
the changes not take effect until the last possible date. That way they would not be creating an
unnecessary change prior to the date that the State requires that the change be made.
Mr. Thomas asked if the date of the change is July 1, and Ms. McDowell stated that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the County Attorney could advise us as to the date that the Board might
want to enact that as part of the change.
Ms. Higgins stated that she had a question about an attachment, which was dated December 10.
She asked if on December 10 that the resolution had been acted on.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 228
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board of Supervisors acted on the resolution on December 10.
Ms. Higgins stated that the resolution of intent is to bring the ordinance into conformance with the
Virginia Code. She noted that what the Commission has seen and what was coming back next
Tuesday was changes to the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that
means that there has been no roughed out framework for the changes to the ordinance. She
asked if that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would not be advisable for the Commission to be changing the
ordinance based on the Comprehensive Plan that has not been adopted yet. Therefore, in their
timeline in trying to look ahead that staff would love to be finished next week in the work session
so that the amendment can go on to public hearing, and then the Board has to deal with it as well.
He pointed out that staff just felt like it would not all be done in time.
Ms. Higgins stated that they do not have the language for the ordinance itself.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that was correct. He pointed out that staff anticipates that it would be some
time after July 1st before the second part of what the ordinance changes need to be to come
before the Commission.
Ms. Higgins asked if they have any alternatives.
Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think that they do. One of the things, which he understood, is that
the only reason that we can retain fewer than 20 lots is that we are not changing it. It is by right
and they were not changing it. If they were to modify or change it, then it would come under the
same criteria as the change that would be above 20 lots.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the law that they were trying to address grandfathers by right cluster
regulations adopted before 2002. There will actually be a two-step process before we actually
have regulations to implement the new law. Once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted he
thought that there would be a second step where they would study to come up with a design
criteria that they will be allowed to be put in place as part of the by right approval of these new
cluster developments.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would be for whatever their number might end up being.
Mr. Kamptner stated that he imagined that it would be a complicated and fairly lengthy process
because once they do all of them under the new regulations they will have to be by right. The
Board is going to have to be comfortable with the design criteria they adopt so that they will be
satisfactory in all situations.
Ms. Higgins stated that it was clear in our conversation about the rural area plans that we are
generally, if not totally, in support of rural preservation versus traditional subdivision. They are
proposing to take an action to take them off the table completely for an unidentified time because
there is a two-step process. The other part is if we do not take this action, then they would
become by right and not require a special use. She asked if the ordinance was not appropriate to
allow this. She pointed out that there may only be one request, but once it is done then you
cannot undo it.
Ms. Joseph stated that the way she understands this is that clustering is by right on July 1 and
that whatever is in the ordinance is by right. She noted that what they were trying to do is to
make sure that whatever is going to be by right is something that they can live with and
something that does not change the ordinance substantially. Therefore, they were just removing
the provision for the over 20 lots being required by special use permit because they could not
require a special use permit anymore.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 229
Mr. Kamptner stated that all that this zoning text amendment was doing was eliminating the
special use permit form of the cluster development that allows more than 20 lots to be created.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that one of the concerns is that a 25-lot rural preservation development
cannot be processed anymore. The real effect of this language is that they could not have just
changed it on May 25 by right either because that would change the provisions that already exist
in the ordinance, which would not have been possible to do either. Basically, they could only
remove the special use permit aspect. They had to keep everything else as it is in order for it to
be grandfathered. If they had changed 20 lots to 21 lots then they would have to revamp the
whole ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner stated that this was the best that they could do to preserve any form of cluster
development under the law. The other option would be to do away with cluster developments
entirely until the design criteria were established and the new regulation was adopted. This
preserves as much as we can.
Ms. Higgins stated that clearly it looked like it was a choice between taking off the table cluster
developments of over 20 lots completely versus making cluster developments over 20 lots by
right.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the risk is, as Ms. McDowell was saying, that the rural areas study is
going on and they want to have the rural areas plan adopted, and then from that plan move to the
design criteria that will delineate what is appropriate for a cluster development in the rural areas.
Ms. Higgins stated that they could have taken the words out that say no criteria for the 20 lots and
under.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that it would have had to be by right with essentially no criteria.
Ms. Higgins asked if there was no criteria for the 20 lots and under.
Mr. Kamptner stated that there was in our existing ordinance.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that could stay, but if they were to rewrite it that they could not put it in.
Ms. Higgins asked if they were saying that it could not be applied to the over 20 lots.
Mr. Rieley stated that they could not make those kinds of changes and still have it grandfathered.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that they could redo the ordinance to say no special use permit for any size
cluster, but you would then have to appropriate conditions that would be the guideline for which
they were approved. That would need policy support to do, which needs the rural area changes
to the Comprehensive Plan, and staff did not think that would be in place in time.
Ms. Higgins stated that these questions are all directed at that should be an extremely high
priority because once a piece of property starts forward and does not have this tool to use, then
that was one more piece that we could have captured into something more desirable than less
desirable.
Mr. Rieley agreed, but also wanted to point out that there have been very few rural preservation
applications for greater than 25 lots, and that some of them have been turned down.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this was interesting because when this all came to the General
Assembly they actually argued against this change in the enabling legislation because we felt that
they were actually cutting their nose off to spite their face in what they intended to do. The
General Assembly, in its wisdom, decided that this was worth doing. Therefore, they were taking
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 230
away something that otherwise they were able to give to people because the General Assembly
did not like special use permits.
Ms. Higgins stated that they wanted to make clusters generally by right. She stated that the
reasoning behind that was what their goal is. She questioned the wording that specified the agent
as the Director of Current Development and Zoning, which was a new title and made it different
from the rest of the ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner stated that was a new title, but that "agent" applies to the implementation of the
Site Plan Ordinance or the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the agent is not referred to in other sections of the ordinance, but rather
it refers to the position under the new reorganization.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it would be in the context of those two regulatory schemes. He pointed
out that it was an existing position.
Ms. Joseph echoed Ms. Higgins' frustration because there were so many things that she wanted
to say about this and do, but it was really kind of obvious when she read the resolution that it was
just moving on to make sure that they have something that is legal by July 1st
Ms. Higgins asked if they could add that this is recommended to take effect at the last minute of
whatever that date might be on June 30.
Mr. Thomas opened the pubic hearing. Since the County is the applicant, he asked if there was
any one in the audience that would like to speak on this application.
Rob Duncan, with Southern Development, stated that they actually have a rural preservation
parcel that will be coming before the Commission shortly. One concern, which does not directly
relate to what they were dealing with tonight, was one thing that they could keep in mind in the
future. He pointed out that Mr. Rieley made note of this tonight in that you have very few
applications for rural preservation developments over 20 lots. What they found to be a struggle
with those large parcels is the fact that you are often times stopped by ending up with a large
parcel with only one building right that is suppose to be run as a farm. So you may have 700
acres with one dwelling unit after you do the RPD. It is very difficult to run a 700-acre farm or an
800-acre farm with only one development right. There would be no manager's quarters, tenant
houses or barns to mark out stalls and do those sorts of things. He felt that many of the
developers share the frustrations that they have in the larger RPD's in that the one large lot with
only one dwelling unit is not sufficient to operate a farm. He felt that the County would see many
more applications for large RPD's if they could somehow work in a formula that would
accommodate additional dwelling rights for manager quarters and farm operations on a day-to-
day basis. If they want to see more of those types of developments, he thought that it might
make sense to try to work in that provision to the new by right proposal that they were now
working on.
Mr. Rieley stated that it was a good point. He asked if there was a mechanism, such as the
mother-in-law apartment, that could be used to have two or three independent structures that are
not sub dividable, as a dwelling unit.
Mr. Rieley stated that this poses a very interesting point because clearly what they want to
encourage is rural use on their residue property.
Ms. Joseph stated that there was a threshold as to how many acres you could have for a residue.
Mr. Rieley stated that they were also encouraging a larger percentage of the land to be left as a
,,.► residue under the new provision. He stated that was a very good point.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 231
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he believed that staff was processing one for Mr. Duncan right now.
Ms. Higgins asked Mr. Duncan if he had a request coming soon to the Commission for a RPD.
Mr. Duncan stated that they have several parcels in Albemarle County that they were evaluating
now, and in fact, he had met with the Nature Conservancy last week on one in particular. He
stated that they were actually approaching the Nature Conservancy to purchase their rural
preservation tract in advance because they have found that the developers end up being stuck
with these parcels. He stated that they have several that could go either way, but he felt that a lot
of it will fall into what the new rural preservation development looks like for the by right for over 20
lots.
Ms. Higgins asked if the one in process is the one for more than 20 lots.
Mr. Duncan stated that it possibly could be for more than 20 lots because it consists of various
tax map parcels that could be broken up in multiple forms. He noted that they would love for it to
be over 20 lots, but their limiting factor is that one large lot remaining would be approximately 700
acres.
Ms. Higgins stated that if the Board adopts this and if it was not done by June 30 then anything
over 20 lots would not be allowed.
Mr. Duncan stated that they would then do a standard by right development for the 21-acre
parcels at that time. He stated that if they had multiple tax map parcels that they could break it up
into smaller RPD's. Therefore, they could do smaller RPD's utilizing each tax map and parcel.
He pointed out that it would reduce their infrastructure costs and would make sense all the way
around to do a large lot, but the one thing they end up with is having that large lot residual and
just being stuck with that time and time again.
Ms. Higgins asked if the action tonight would have any effect on something that might be in the
process. She asked how that works if someone has already applied and if on July 1 it would just
cut it off.
Mr. Kamptner stated that in this case it would, because of the State law that would be in place.
The Board's action on the zoning text amendment will be effective July 1 and the Board will have
to act on those pending applications by that date in order for them to fall under the existing rule.
Mr. Duncan stated that their application was not in the process, but his concern was just to
address that for the future.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was any further public comment. There being none, he closed the
public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and a possible action.
Mr. Rieley stated that many legitimate concerns have been raised, and there were many
concerns that they need to keep in mind as they move to the next level in the Comprehensive
Plan and the ordinance provisions. He stated that they do not have much of a choice in this
decision since this is the only way that they can preserve the process of the rural preservation
development and allow it to move ahead. He pointed out that most of their rural preservation
development requests are in that category. Therefore, they need to do this and then move as
expeditiously as we can on both the Comprehensive Plan changes and the ordinance changes.
Mr. Thomas agreed with Mr. Rieley and felt that there were many good comments and
suggestions made.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 232
In
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of ZTA-04-01 Cluster Development as presented, with the
recommendation that the effective date be as close to July 1, 2004, as possible.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of (6:0). (Edgerton — Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that ZTA-04-01, Cluster Development, would be heard by the Board on May
12.
New Business:
Mr. Kamptner informed the Commission that he has four limited training sessions, some of which
can be addressed in memo form. He will work with Mr. Cilimberg to schedule a date.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned 7:00 p.m. to the next meeting on April 6, 2004.
0 1 kL A- -#-- r"_-
V. Wayne Cilimberg,
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secr$ary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 30, 2004 233