Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 08 2016 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission March 8, 2016 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held an adjourned meeting on Tuesday, March 8, 2016, at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from February 23, 2016. Planning Commission members attending were Mac Lafferty, Daphne Spain, Pam Riley, Jennie More, Tim Keller, Chair and Bill Palmer, UVA Representative. Absent was Karen Firehock, Vice Chair and Bruce Dotson. I Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, Wayne Cilimberg, Acting Director of Community Development; David Benish, Acting Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Palmer, Chair of Board of Supervisors, called the Board of Supervisors meeting to order at 1:03 p.m., Mr. Keller called the Planning Commission to order at 1:03 p.m. Agenda Item No. 2. Planning Academy Training and Overview. Board of Supervisors members attending were Mr. Norman G. Dill, Ms. Ann Mallek (arrived at 1:31 p.m.), Ms. Diantha H. McKeel and Ms. Liz A. Palmer. Ms. Palmer introduced County staff. Planning Commission members introduced themselves. Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating the County has been in the process of orienting new Board members, and based on good feedback from previous Board members who did not get as full of an orientation, staff decided to enhance it this year with things like a joint budget boot camp with School Board members. Ms. Catlin stated the planning academy with Planning Commissioners is a great opportunity as part of that effort, and will cover three major topics: an overview of growth management, the updated Comprehensive Plan and how it guides decisions on growth, and fundamentals of Virginia land use law. She noted there are also several topics that people wanted to focus on during the question and answer period, and said that staff has given them copies of many of the issues Mr. Kamptner will be going over. Ms. Catlin mentioned that the meeting is being video -streamed because the material is valuable for community advisory committees or citizens in general to be able to reference it. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, addressed the Board, stating that he will provide background to help them understand how planning has evolved in the County and the decisions behind current growth management efforts and why they are important. He stated they will talk about initiatives dating back to before the first comprehensive plan, and in Albemarle the first plan followed the adoption of a zoning ordinance and a zoning map, which is not the normal order, as typically a plan would be in place first and then zoning would follow that plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that for various reasons in the 1960s, it was decided that zoning should go through a referendum process in the County, and ultimately by referendum it was approved and the first ordinance was adopted in 1969, which preceded the first comprehensive plan, adopted in 1971. He stated that also during the 1970s, there was a major rewrite of the subdivision ordinance, which was the first land regulation document in the County, adopted in 1949. Mr. Cilimberg said this was the first plan, and in that plan a lot of what they do today with growth management policy was set out. He noted that a major focus at that time was water resource and water supply protection, and even in the 1970s there was acknowledgement of the need to protect the water supply, which set out ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview the basic growth management goals that remain today of how to use resources in designating development areas and rural areas, and focusing growth to the development areas while protecting natural, scenic and historic resources, trying to discourage rural residential development not related to bona fide agriculture. Mr. Cilimberg stated there was a well -recognized need to implement those kinds of provisions, public facilities, service delivery and utilities that supported that approach of having development areas as the focus for new growth. Mr. Cilimberg said the land use plan in 1971 was this plan and in reality this was a growth accommodation type of plan, focused on areas that were designated for development but intended to accommodate a population projection of 185,000 in 1995. He stated the County is at about 110,000 now, so it is not even close to what was envisioned for potential growth of the County. Mr. Cilimberg said that in the 1970s, during the rapid growth of UVA when it went coeducational, there was an associated growth of County population at a much higher rate than experienced previously or experienced since. He stated that in the 1971 plan, there were 20 areas designated for development and about 37,000 acres, not including the 14 villages, designated. Mr. Cilimberg said that in the current comprehensive plan, there are five designated development areas and about 23,000 acres including the Village of Rivanna. He stated that in the 1977 plan, the issues were predominantly about watershed protection and growth occurring in the rural areas and how it might impact water supply. Mr. Cilimberg said there was emphasis in the recommendations on reducing rural growth, focusing on how that affected water supply both within development area boundaries and the number of boundaries. He stated that with lower growth projections in 1977, there was not envisioned to be the need for the extent of development areas that the 1971 plan had identified. Mr. Cilimberg presented a map showing the land use plan in 1977, stating that major initiatives from the plan were water resource protection provisions, stormwater runoff control provisions for the reservoir watersheds and urban stormwater, the first capital improvement program, and a comprehensive rezoning of the County, which occurred in December 1980, creating new urban zoning districts, and a new rural areas district with the development rights included, which is the same district as today. He noted the County went from rural area zoning that was basically unlimited two -acre lots before the rezoning took place to the approach of five development right lots and unlimited 21-acre lots in rural area zoning, and there was a new zoning map that accompanied that. Mr. Cilimberg said it is worth noting that while most of the rural area got zoned to Rural Areas District, there was zoning allowed to continue in association with that. He stated that some of today's disjointed areas of zoning that are in the Rural Areas, but are mostly commercial or on occasion industrial, were the result of the zoning of 1980. Mr. Cilimberg said there were many lawsuits that followed, but the courts upheld what had been approved and the zoning ordinance has been the base ordinance the County has worked with since that time. He stated that in 1982, there was another update of the plan and there was still a lot of residential development in the rural areas and concern of water supply impacts from development, and further adjustments were made to development area boundaries to try to be consistent with water supply and watershed boundaries. Mr. Cilimberg noted there was also a reduction in the villages, further emphasis on protecting rural areas, but not a lot devoted to real initiatives that supported the development areas. He said there was also the concept of the City, County and University more jointly planning, and ultimately in the 198Os, the three - party agreement resulted, which today is seen through the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) work. Mr. Cilimberg presented the 1982 plan and said that it was followed by a 1989 plan, which recognized that there was a lot of residential growth in the rural areas and focused on land conservation, how to make the development areas work more successfully, and housing affordability became a fairly important topic in that plan. He said that in recommendations, there was more of a proactive approach to development areas, with a recommendation to undertake neighborhood plans, to focus on public facilities and services at a higher level to support the development areas and develop standards for community facilities. Mr. Cilimberg said that on the rural area and land conservation side, the concept of rural preservation developments arose from that plan, and the idea of clustering lots and preserving larger areas in open space with new subdivision ultimately became the rural preservation development. He stated there have not been any RPD projects for a while, but there is one in process currently that will go before the Planning Commission at their meeting later that night. Mr. Cilimberg said the idea of a more ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview proactive approach to conservation easements and an open space plan resulted from the 1989 comprehensive plan, and they moved more into affordable housing initiatives, with a change to remove two more villages that were not possible to serve with public utilities or were in water supply watersheds. He noted this was the County's rural area plan as well as the plan around the City of Charlottesville, which was not significantly different from the 1982 plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that following the 1989 plan, there were several significant comprehensive plan amendments for expansion of the development area that were ultimately approved by the Board ofi Supervisors. He stated that Rivanna Village was created after the 1989 plan through a comprehensive plan amendment process, as well as the area that became the North Fork Research Park expansion, the area that is now approved for Northpointe development on 29 North, and the area where Rivanna Station' and NGIC are located in Piney Mountain. Mr. Cilimberg said that over 2,400 acres were added in the early 1990s as a result of those amendments. He said that in the 1996 land use plan, the County started on a full-fledged review of the 1989 plan, and ultimately only a land use plan was adopted, with other; elements of the comprehensive plan not adopted at that time. Mr. Cilimberg noted that this was when the, County first did a piecemeal approach in the comprehensive plan of adopting different chapters, and thej land use plan focused on how development in the rural areas was impacting the County and how development areas were experiencing a low -density form that would create more needs for expansion of development areas if continued. Mr. Cilimberg stated that recommendations out of the 1996 plan were to better emphasize how the development areas could work through infill with new form and density and in aesthetics and quality to become more attractive and marketable. He said the development areas initiative steering committee (DISC) that ultimately recommended the Neighborhood Model was also the result of the 1996 plan, and there were a few villages removed because they could not get: public utility service or were in water supply watersheds. Mr. Cilimberg stated that other initiatives that followed the 1996 plan were acquired conservation easements (ACE), dark skies and a greenway plan, and that was how the County arrived at the roughly 35 square miles in the development area. He said that other chapters after 1989 included an economic development chapter, a rural area chapter, a natural resources and cultural assets chapter, and an affordable housing chapter. Mr. Cilimberg stated the most recent plan, as adopted in 2015, was intended to address the idea of having a full, integrated comprehensive plan rather than separately adopted documents and focus on issues that seem to be most important, development area capacity and whether to expand it; how to improve the local economy; other land uses that might be acceptable or appropriate in what is otherwise known as the rural area, for agricultural purposes; time spent on the Monticello viewshed, solid waste, urban agriculture, and master plans for the southern and western neighborhoods. He said the recommendations were basically in response to that, and minor changes to the development area boundaries, the adoption of the master plans, different approaches to economic vitality, identification of appropriate non-agricultural land uses, how to potentially address allowance of urban agriculture, protection of the Monticello viewshed and solid waste management policies were all part of that update. Mr. Cilimberg said that Elaine Echols will go into more specific aspects of the plan and where they are in 2016. Mr. Dill said he is interested in knowing which villages were removed. Mr. Cilimberg responded there were 14 total in the first plan, including Earlysville, Stony Point, Ivy and North Garden, and there were different levels of villages, with some of them considered crossroads communities. Mr. Dill commented that Free Union was probably one. Mr. Cilimberg said that Advance Mills may have been also, and the primary reason they were decommissioned was that it was not possible to serve them with public utilities in a cost-effective way, and some of them were in the water supply reservoir areas. Mr. Keller stated this was a great history of planning and land use in the County, and asked if it exists in written format or just in PowerPoint. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview Mr. Cilimberg said the core of the presentation was developed six or seven years ago, and it was not in written format to his knowledge, but the presentation is available. Mr. Keller asked Board members if it might be valuable to commission a written history, so it can be written down and articulated for future generations of planners and supervisors. Ms. Palmer said that is a great idea, and Elaine Echols has a wonderful 10-minute video on Albemarle County comprehensive planning. Mr. Cilimberg noted that it is available online. Ms. Palmer said they have talked about disjointed zoning leftover after the 1980 down zoning, and asked for an example of industrial zoning areas in the rural areas. Mr. Cilimberg responded that one industrial area is outside of Earlysville, and there is one in Ivy, as well as a small parcel off of 29 South. He said there is also some scattered commercial zoning west of Crozet on the Route 250 corridor toward 1-64, and those were some of the leftover parcels of rural area zoning. Ms. McKee) stated there are a lot of close -in neighborhoods in her district, and she has received several emails recently from constituents questioning why they are in the "rural area" and referencing the fact that it is obviously a mistake and asking when they would be pulled into the development area. Mr. Cilimberg responded this was more of the older zoning that was on the other side of the watershed boundary for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, and it was decided that those areas on the western side of the line that drain to the reservoir would be shown as rural area and designated as such in the plan, but would keep the zoning they had, which predated that designation. Ms. McKee) said these properties are along Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road, and people are not understanding why they are in rural area. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that those properties on the west side sit on a high point, and that drainage goes to the South Fork. Mr. Lafferty asked about the Highway Commercial zoning on 250 West, where there is development occurring outside of the development area that is claimed to be "by right." Mr. Cilimberg responded that is also leftover zoning from the original zoning and part of what he was referring to west of Crozet, as well as some west of the urban area. Mr. Lafferty asked what the process would be for changing that. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it would be a downzoning, and that would need to be done comprehensively and very carefully, which Mr. Kamptner would touch on that in his presentation. Mr. Cilimberg said that downzoning must be done in a comprehensive manner, reflecting policies that have been passed through the comprehensive plan. He stated that it would also render properties that are developed nonconforming. (Note: Ms. Mallek joined the meeting at 1:31 p.m.) Mr. Lafferty stated that it is along a scenic highway and goes through historic districts, and he does not feel it would be in the County's interest to have that developed significantly. Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating the history is online on the County's website, and there is a page in the background chapter of the comprehensive plan that documents everything Mr. Cilimberg was talking about so there is history available for future planners. Ms. Echols reported that staff worked on this for a long time, and it was challenging to compress this much information into a half hour, so she will hit on many of the high points they have touched on when they did the comprehensive plan update. She stated they started with articulating the vision for the County, the vision that guides growth and development, and this is something the Board of Supervisors ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview worked on very closely with the Planning Commission, then did more with it. Ms. Echols said this is what guides everything that comes after this section in the plan, and important issues include preservation, healthy ecosystems, healthy lifestyles, a thriving economy and education. She stated that growth management is a key part of how they do business in Albemarle County from a land use perspective, and these particular policies guide what goes on in both the rural and development areas, and they emphasize the importance of livability in development areas and preservation in rural areas. Ms. Echols presented key features of natural resources that are important to the County, water quality,' water preservation, mountain protection and biodiversity, which are all part of the natural resources chapter of the plan. She stated there are a number of recommendations in the plan that relate to these items as well as others, and the plan talks about the importance of natural hazard protection as well as having a section that addresses debris flow and floodplain preservation as well as planning for hazards in the future. Ms. Echols noted that a new piece that came into the plan is how the County plans to respond to climate change. She reported the next chapter pertains to historic, cultural and scenic resources, which includes historic preservation activities that take place in both the rural area and the development area, with an adjunct historic preservation plan in the appendix that was put together many years ago but has a list of strategies as to how the County can preserve its historic resources. Ms. Echols said the other part of this section is scenic and cultural resources that the County hopes to maintain through guidelines for entrance corridors, which have been designated as important roadways that lead to historic parts in the County and the City, and localities are enabled by law to have guidelines and regulations around them so the integrity of these important corridors can be maintained for historic and tourism purposes. Ms. Echols reported that economic development was previously a policy, and when the comprehensive plan started to include it as a chapter, it was a bit imbalanced in terms of how much information there was on each particular item. She explained that with the new plan, they tried to call out the individual important features so they had their own chapter, so instead of having a housing policy and an economic development policy, there was a chapter devoted for goals, objectives and strategies for the County in these areas. Ms. Echols said most of the Economic Development chapter came from the economic development policy as well as the former economic vitality action plan, and staff has completed many of the strategies that were in the plan. Ms. Echols stated that the rural area, the corollary to the development area, is the County's designated area for agriculture and is also the place for crossroads communities that help to support the people who live in the rural areas and those who are involved in agriculture. She said that natural resource preservation is a key feature as well, and there were a number of items in the comprehensive plan process regarding how preservation is accomplished. Ms. Echols noted that this included encouraging people not to build their houses in the rural area, and making the development areas places where people want to live, work and play. Ms. Echols reported that the Development Areas chapter is another in the plan, and the County has spent a lot of time working on this chapter, including the DISC work that began in 1997. She stated the development areas guidelines govern everything that goes on within that boundary, and there are also master plans for each one of the designated development areas that Mr. Cilimberg described. Ms. Echols said the goals for the development areas serve to create high -quality, attractive, livable areas rather than rural suburbia. She stated the first goal is pedestrian orientation, and having sidewalks is an important piece of how people get around in neighborhoods, which has been around for a while but was emphasized as the most important principle of the Neighborhood Model when DISC put it together and still is the top goal. Ms. Echols reported that a mixture of uses is also important, and the model of downtown Charlottesville was used as a mixed -use place to provide an illustration of what development areas could be, with mixed -use centers such as the Shops at Stonefield that are under construction or have been built in the development areas since the adoption of the Neighborhood Model. Ms. Echols reported that places in the development areas help to create identity for neighborhoods, and those are called "centers", and neighborhood centers should be walkable by residents who live about a quarter mile from that center, which can be a church, a community center or a school. She said that ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview centers create the sense of identity and uniqueness for a community, and another principle is the importance of having a mixture of housing types as well as a mixture of opportunities for all different age levels to live in development areas and have different choices for housing as well as accessibility. Ms. Echols stated that a key feature in the Neighborhood Model is the aspect of affordability, and the concept that affordable units should not look like different units within a neighborhood. She presented an image of Wickham Pond and the townhouses there, some of which include accessory apartments that help to create affordability. Ms. Echols stated that interconnected streets and transportation networks are aspects that help the County not have to widen large corridors that are not walkable and to create interconnections between neighborhoods. She presented images of an early interconnection between Wayland's Grant and Grey Rock subdivisions, noting there are also interconnections such as Hillsdale Drive, which run parallel to Route 29 and make the connections that keep people from having to get out onto the really heavily congested roads just for local traffic. Ms. Echols stated that regarding multi -modal aspects of development areas, there have to be opportunities for people to travel outside of their cars, and they must have alternatives such as sidewalks, bikeways, paths, and transit in order to get to and from work or play or shopping without having to drive. Ms. Echols stated that parks and recreational amenities are extremely important to help create high - quality neighborhoods, and she presented images of Wayland's Grant and a park at Belvedere. She said that before the Neighborhood Model came along, parks and open space were looked at as the leftover space of floodplains, steep slopes and stream buffers, and this aspect of the Neighborhood Model tries to bring that front and center to help create a place and identity in a neighborhood. Ms. Echols stated that another principle of the model is to create buildings and spaces of human scale, providing pedestrians with a sense of comfort in terms of their relationship to buildings and helping to create more inviting places than with a monolithic building. She said that walking around a building such as a big box store creates a feeling of intimidation, and the model tries to bring those down to a personal, more human scale. Ms. Echols noted that relegated parking is a principle that seeks to have parking to the side and/or back of buildings, and she presented an image of Luxor in Pantops, with parking behind the building and to the side. She stated that redevelopment is another aspect that helps keep boundaries firm, and the firmer the boundaries are, the better the opportunities are for redevelopment and creating higher quality places inside those boundaries. Ms. Echols reported that building with terrain and respecting slopes, the Neighborhood Model suggests that having terraced retaining walls is preferable to having tall monolithic walls, and building with the terrain rather than grading it all out for flat paths helps to retain some of the County's identity as a hilly area rather than looking like everywhere, USA. She said that when you flatten out a site, you create something like a mesa with a flat top and steep sides, and that becomes difficult to walk because a person cannot get from one side to another easily. Ms. Echols noted that it also has an impact on the stability of slopes, and what the County has been working with in the model is to try to have regulations with more gently graded slopes and to encourage people to build into the hills, and if there has to be grading and retaining walls, to do something more than building a tall monolithic wall. Ms. Echols stated there were some new things that came out of the Development Areas chapter that some Board members have strongly embraced, and that is an urban development and revitalization emphasis whereby improvements for older neighborhoods such as sidewalks, drainage improvements, parks that people can walk to, and maintenance of older buildings. Ms. Echols reported the County has taken the affordable housing policy and some of the recommendations of the Neighborhood Model and put them in the Housing chapter, which helps to guide decisions made on improving the quality and appearance of housing in the County and to make sure that affordable housing is provided with new developments. She stated the next chapter is Transportation and it contains the long-range transportation plan and key links, the six -year secondary road plan, and information on multi-modalism. Ms. Echols said there is a lot of overlap with terms between chapters because it is all interconnected, and at the beginning of every chapter in the plan there is a link to both the vision as well as the other chapters that work together to achieve the County's vision in the comprehensive plan. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 6 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview Ms. Echols stated the next chapter pertains to parks and green systems, setting out expectations for rural area parks and development area parks, and houses the greenway plan, as well as addressing how the County interacts with City parks and recreation facilities and some of the natural areas the County works with the City on. She stated the final chapter is Community Facilities, which talks about the different roles that staff plays in the County with providing public services and facilities, things such as solid waste and utilities, stormwater management, how utilities from private utility companies are actually provided in the County, a personal wireless policy, and a new broadband policy. She said they also have standards for fire/rescue, police, school size and access, which this does not deal with the operations of schools but with the physical improvements that help provide the context for education, courts and government administrative buildings, libraries, and the emergency communications center. Ms. Echols stated the Implementation chapter addresses how the comprehensive plan is brought to life, which is done through the CIP; the Board's budget work; programming of different activities, schedules, facilities and new construction; the work programs of different departments; transportation plans; and policies such as the proffer policy. She said about half of Board and Commissioners worked on the update comprehensive plan, which had a lot of citizen participation and thoughtful work from the Board and Commission, and she feels that it reflects a good roadmap for the future of the County. Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board and Commission, stating that he will provide an introduction to Virginia land use law. Mr. Kamptner presented a distilled version of the Land Use Law handbook, which has been condensed to about 19 pages, and said this presentation has 16 slides as well as a review of specific issues in the comprehensive plan. He stated that counties have no elements of sovereignty or inherent powers, so all powers, particularly with respect to zoning, come from the General Assembly and the state, which can be frustrating. Mr. Kamptner said the County has some broad grants of zoning power and the authority to regulate some of the subdivision of land and plan land uses, but each year the General Assembly revises the laws that apply, and there are certain bills that take power away from localities. He stated there are a number of limitations on powers, and he will address several, particularly those related to land use issues, including the Dillon Rule. Mr. Kamptner stated that John Forrest Dillon was an Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice in the post -Civil War era, at which time local governments were viewed as being corrupt. He said in his writings, Chief Justice Dillon wrote that local governments should have only specific powers, and they should come from the state legislative bodies, with localities having only the expressed powers delegated. Mr. Kamptner stated that when the County Attorney's office is asked whether something can be done, the first step that he and Mr. Davis take is to see whether or not the General Assembly has provided that authority. He said the next step they will take is to determine whether those powers can be necessarily and fairly applied, but once they get in that arena, the presumptions are against the County having those powers, but there are circumstances where those powers can be granted. Mr. Kamptner cited an example of transferrable development rights policy, which enables localities to transfer development rights from rural areas to urban areas. He said at the time there was no statute in place, and the Virginia Attorney General at the time determined that the power could not be necessarily and fairly implied because the General Assembly had given localities other powers to protect rural areas, through zonings, ag/forestal districts, open space easements, etc. Mr. Kamptner stated the third area his office evaluates is whether a power is found to be essential and indispensable, and that issue came up as a minor issue in the YMCA case litigated a few years earlier, because localities have the power to make charitable contributions, and the statute provides that contributions can be made to certain qualifying charitable entities. He said the plaintiffs in that case said the County did not have the power to enter into an agreement, but there was an agreement in that case that laid out the County's expectations as to how the contribution would be spent, and the case law stipulated that localities also had the power to enter into an agreement to actually implement the power as an essential and indispensable power. Mr. Kamptner stated the fourth area that restricts the County's authority is the concept of preemption, which is found in the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause and also appears in the state and recognized that in the hierarchy of governments, local government is at the; ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview bottom. He stated there are three ways in which local laws can be preempted: through expressed preemption such as restriction of wireless policies through the Federal Telecommunications Act, which indicates that local government cannot base a wireless siting decision based upon radio frequency emissions, providing those emissions comply with FCC standards. Mr. Kamptner said there are also situations where the state or federal government may adopt laws and have a body of regulations that are so comprehensive that they occupy the field, and one example in Albemarle is the biosolids statute. He noted that 10-15 years ago, the state's statues and regulations pertaining to the land application of biosolids were deemed to "occupy the field," so local government even under its zoning powers could not exercise any regulatory authority over that kind of activity. Mr. Kamptner said that since then, the state has backed off and has given localities certain inspection rights, but in terms of actual ability to apply biosolids, that is a state matter. He reported that the final area of conflict is where a local regulation simply places a landowner in the land use context in conflict with state law, whereby a person cannot comply with both state and local laws, so in that situation, the government that is higher up in the hierarchy will prevail. Mr. Kamptner stated that every type of application has constitutional issues that may arise, such as the First Amendment and signs, and any type application dealing with religious institutions because those decisions may affect the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which deals with the government's entanglement with religious institutions, either promoting or discouraging. He said it can also impact the free exercise clause, which pertains to how religious institutions conduct their business, and cited an example of an application a church in the rural area that wanted to establish in the western part of the County. He stated the neighbors were complaining about wedding ceremonies, but it turned out during the public hearing that those events were religious exercises for this particular church, so the Commission was advised not to impose a condition that could limit the number of weddings held at that particular church. Mr. Kamptner said he will report on the seven bodies and individuals who are the key players in making the various land use decisions for the County. He stated the Board of Supervisors is the elected body and the one vested with legislative power, so comprehensive map amendments, zoning map amendments, zoning text amendments, special use permits, special exceptions, which are all legislative matters, versus ministerial matters. Mr. Kamptner said the Board of Supervisors is the appellant body for a number of matters that may eventually get to them, such as disapprovals of subdivision plans or site plans, disapprovals of certificates of appropriateness by the ARB, interpretation of proffers by the zoning administrator, with that appeal going to the Board Supervisors instead of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and certain decisions by the program administrator under the water protection ordinance. Mr. Kamptner stated that touching on the legislative matters versus ministerial items, under longstanding case law, there is a presumption of reasonableness and a presumption of validity to those decisions, so the person challenging the Board's legislative decisions has a heavy burden to overcome those presumptions. He stated they also involve the exercise and the application of policy, so when they are considering a zoning map amendment and the comprehensive plan in relation to that, they are evaluating different policies and setting a direction for the County as to how its land will develop. Mr. Kamptner said that subdivision plats and site plans are addressed at the staff level, and there is no discretion to be exercised, with the sole task for the planner reviewing them being to determine whether or not the application meets the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance, and if it does, the plat has to be approved. Mr. Kamptner reported the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the Board, making recommendations to the Board on all legislative matters and having the first review of certain requests for variations and exceptions under the subdivision ordinance. He stated there were some variations requested recently with Old Trail, curb versus curb and gutter, but the County does not get many of those requests. Mr. Kamptner noted the Planning Commission will also consider appeals of disapprovals of subdivision plats and site plans by staff. He pointed out that while the Commission makes recommendations on legislative matters, they are not a legislative body and are considered "creatures of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview statute," so unlike a legislative body like the Board that has a number of implied powers, statutory bodies like the Commission and the ARB can only exercise powers that are expressly granted to them. Mr. Kamptner reported the Architectural Review Board is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and is another creature of statue, administering the entrance corridor overlay districts in the County, the arterial streets that lead to tourist destinations either inside the County or in adjoining localities. He said the ARB's tasks are primarily to consider and act on requests for certificates of appropriateness, which are decisions in which they are evaluating applications within the entrance corridor to determine whether or not they are consistent with design guidelines that the ARB promulgates but the Board approves. Mr. Kamptner reported the Board of Zoning Appeals stands apart from the other bodies and are more independent, with BZA members appointed by the circuit court, and in a few Virginia localities by the governing body. He said this process reflects the independence that BZAs are intended to have from the Planning Commission or ARB. Mr. Kamptner said the BZA has several other functions by statute that have never been considered in his 21 years with the County including interpreting the boundaries of district map, as that issue had not come up. He explained the most common applications the BZA considers are appeals and applications for variances, and the Albemarle BZA currently only meets abou twice per year, whereas back in the mid-2000s they were sometimes meeting twice per month. Mr Kamptner said there were a lot of contentious hearings and a lot of appeals to the circuit court, and one o the reason things have quieted down is because the way County regulations have changed. Mr. Kamptner stated the laws of variances are complicated and controversial, but staff does a great job in working with applicants who might otherwise want to apply for variances to find alternatives within the framework of the zoning regulations. Mr. Kamptner said the BZA has also been delegated the power to consider special use permits for electric message signs and offsite signs. He explained the question often arises as to why that authority was delegated to them, and when that decision was originally made, the standards for considering those types of special use permits were very similar to those for a variance, and it was felt at the time that the BZA would be in a better position to consider those applications. Mr.! Kamptner said the Board is aware of several applications that have been submitted for offsite signs which are signs that are advertising a business but are not located on the same parcel as that business. Mr. Kamptner stated the zoning administrator plays a very key role in administering the zoning ordinances and it is a brutal job with the primary function being to interpret the zoning ordinance. He said the County Attorney's office meets with the zoning administrator and members from Community Development each week to hash out particular pieces of the zoning ordinance that are creating problems. He stated the zoning ordinance was created in 1980, with the Board seeing a lot of zoning text amendments coming forward, but as often as it is amended, there is still a lot of text that has its origins in 1980. Mr. Kamptner said that parts of it were drafted by laypeople, and there are phrases in the ordinance today that stem from the 1969 ordinance, and that is one of the codes of development that needs a comprehensive update. He stated the zoning administrator's key responsibilities include enforcing the zoning ordinance, sending out zoning inspectors, issuing notices of violation, going to general district court to enforce violations of the ordinance if they are not abated, and making a vested rights determination in consultation with the County Attorney's office. He noted that vested rights are when regulations change and make an approved plan noncompliant with existing regulations, so if an applicant is far enough along in the approval process of expended funds, they have vested rights, but those issues do not come up very often. Mr. Kamptner mentioned the subdivision agent, site plan agent and program administrator, who administers the water protection ordinance, and currently Mark Graham serves in all three capacities. Mr. Kamptner reported the comprehensive plan in broad terms is the plan for the physical development of the County; the zoning ordinance regulates how land may be used within zoning districts and establishes minimum lot sizes and standards for building heights and setbacks; the subdivision ordinance establishes standards for dividing land and imposes requirements for providing public and private improvements. He stated that site plan regulations are in the zoning ordinance and are an interesting hybrid, with most of the enabling authority for site plans falling under the state subdivision law, so in most respects a site plan and a subdivision is going to be evaluated in the same way. Mr. Kamptner said the review is ministerial in nature, with both of them establishing minimum requirements for design, minimum requirements for ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview necessary improvements, road design requirements, and what types of easements are expected to be dedicated for utilities and roads. He stated that site plan regulations also introduce some elements of zoning and have the requirements for landscaping, for example. Mr. Kamptner said the water protection ordinance deals with erosion and sediment control, and stormwater management both during and in perpetuity. Mr. Kamptner reported the Board's outline includes a table that puts all of the pieces together as to who does what between the Board, Commission and ARB. He said an application can be an amendment to the comprehensive plan or its text, amendment to land use designation such as residential to industrial, or amendment to the cash proffer policy. Mr. Kamptner stated there was a 2005 Rural Area Plan, a 1999 Natural Resources Plan, and other similar amendments. He said there are also comprehensive plan reviews delegated to the Planning Commission, 2232 reviews, where there is a proposed public feature that is not shown in the comprehensive plan and is not part of a larger site plan or subdivision plat, such as a school site. Mr. Kamptner said it goes through the Planning Commission review to determine whether the character and location are in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan, and the Commission reports its decision to the Board of Supervisors, which can elect to take up the issue or leave it alone. He stated that rezonings are zoning map amendments and are legislative decisions that involve Planning Commission review and recommendation and then go onto the Board of Supervisors for decision. Mr. Kamptner said that zoning and subdivision text amendments are both legislative acts that go first to the Planning Commission for recommendation, then onto the Board. He commented that the impacts of zoning map amendments and zoning text amendments, rezonings, are offset all or in part by proffers. He said the Governor is expected to sign Senate Bill 549 pertaining to proffer legislation, which will change the way localities do business. Mr. Kamptner reported that special use permits, special exceptions, and conditional use permits are all the same thing, with localities using them for different purposes. He said in Albemarle, special use permits allows a particular use in a zoning district, and the uses allowed in zoning districts included about 20-30 that were by right and another 20-30 that were allowed by special use permit. Mr. Kamptner stated that when the district was created, it was envisioned that the special uses were generally consistent with the purpose of that particular district, but the nature of those uses may present unique circumstances where a case by case review of the special use permit process allows that kind of evaluation and imposing conditions to address the impacts. He said that both proffers and conditions were intended to address impacts, but with the rezoning the applicant offers them and the Board and Commission can decide whether the impacts are adequately addressed to support the rezoning. Mr. Kamptner stated that conditions attached to special use permits are imposed by the Board, and staff works with the applicant while they are developing the conditions to get them into a format and a substance that would be recommended if the Board approved the permit. He noted that special exceptions serve a slightly different role and allow certain standards to be waived or varied, and the code lays out those requirements. Mr. Kamptner stated that certificates of appropriateness are evaluated based on whether a proposed development is consistent with the ARB's regulations. Mr. Kamptner stated that in looking at the development process, subdivision plats are schematic drawings that shows how land will be divided, site plans show how land will be developed as a parcel or parcels but does not create a new division of boundary lines, and variations or exceptions are provisions in the subdivision ordinance or site plan regulations that expressly allow certain standards to be modified or varied, with applicants having the opportunity to persuade the subdivision agent or Planning Commission as to how certain elements in a development could be better accomplished. Mr. Kamptner presented a hypothetical example of a parcel zoned R-1 with a comprehensive plan designation of neighborhood residential allowing 3-6 dwellings per acre, and an applicant wanting to rezone it to R-4 designation. He stated that after an applicant that goes through a rezoning process of a zoning map amendment and decides they want to put a daycare center in the area, they will apply for a special use permit to allow the daycare center within that development. Mr. Kamptner said if the Board approves the rezoning and the special use permit, the application will move into the development stage, when the subdivider is determining how to divide the property into residential lots and the land for the daycare center. He stated that in looking at the R-4 regulations, the applicant will see that the maximum "„,l' ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 10 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview setback in that district is 25 feet, but makes the case that the project is unique and warrants a maximum setback of 30 feet, so that gets approved as well. Mr. Kamptner said that in conjunction to the subdivision plat, the owner applies for a special exception to require only curb in certain locations where curb and gutter will typically be required because the area drains into open space area. He stated that while the subdivision plat is being reviewed, the applicant has also submitted erosion and sediment control plans; and stormwater management plans that show how erosion will be dealt with during the construction process, how the stormwater will be treated and released, and how permanent management of stormwater will take place once construction is finished. Mr. Kamptner reported that the Board and Commission have much more flexibility and latitude in decision! making with legislative matters than with ministerial, and knowing that distinction is critical as it will shape their analytical framework in looking at a particular application. He stated that he has prepared a list of 12 applications, and that section of the outline lists all of the considerations. He noted that a lot of thel factors, as listed in the subsections for those types of applications, are incorporated into staff's analysis,ll so the staff report is evaluating the application in the context of the factors that need to be considered.' Mr. Kamptner stated that the probative factors are relevant and tend to establish whether a rezoning should be approved or disapproved, and decisions need to be based on the facts in the record, with th staff report itself serving as a document of facts on which they can base their decisions. He said tha applicants and members of the public present facts but also express fears, desires, conjecture an l i speculation. i i Mr. Kamptner presented examples of government bodies getting off track and not making decisions based upon land use principles, including a situation where a Board denies an application on the sole basis of preventing competition for a retail store that is already in place. He stated that in another example, the Chesapeake City Council denied an application for a palm reader because the public felt that it was contrary to the teachings of the Bible, but the federal appellate court sent it back with a finding that the Council could not base its decisions on reasons not based on land use principles. Mr. Kamptner said that serving socio-economic purposes without express enabling authority, such as the zoning ordinance requiring affordable housing without offering some quid pro quo like a density bonus, is also prohibited under state law. Mr. Kamptner stated the growth management policy, economic development section, and development areas part of the comprehensive plan should all fit together so there is consistency, as that promotes better decision making. He stated the growth management policy in the comprehensive plan has been consistently applied, particularly over the last 16 years, and when the development areas chapter refers to directing growth to the development areas, it is referring to the boundaries at that point in time. Mr. Kamptner said the development areas policy does not provide a trigger or criteria as to when development area boundaries should be expanded. He stated the economic development section of the comprehensive plan is to be accomplished along with and within the framework of the other goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, and acknowledges the need for strategic assessment of properties as well as ongoing assessment. Mr. Kamptner stated that before the comprehensive plan was adopted in June there had been an assessment, which was discussed in the plan, and it noted that in the development areas there is commercial land available, but they are small parcels and there is inadequate infrastructure. He stated that the development areas policy in the comprehensive plan states that premature expansion would frustrate the goals of the growth management policy, rural area and the neighborhood model. Mr. Kamptner stated the County is trying to create a sense of place, and a consultant from McGuire Woods had worked with Albemarle in early 2014 on this principle. Mr. Kamptner said that along with that, he has been compiling excerpts from studies and writings about economic development and tourism, and several recurring themes have emerged: preserving sense of individualism and identity, preserving natural resources, and creating a sense of place. He emphasized if the County is a land use free for all, it scares away businesses, and if the community begins to look like sprawl, tourists will not want to come here, and if Albemarle looks like everywhere else, people will just stay home. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 11 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview Mr. Lafferty asked how health, safety and welfare apply under "decision making." Mr. Kamptner responded that it comes into play for legislative decisions, under zoning map amendments, zoning text amendments, and special use permits. He said that for the subdivision and site plan regulations, the health, safety and welfare principle is addressed through the minimum standards in the regulations, so that does not come into play. Mr. Kamptner stated the old versions of the subdivision ordinance and site plan regulations had a provision that allowed the County to disapprove a plat or site plan if the decision maker concluded that it was contrary to public health, safety and welfare, but that is no longer in either of the ordinances because the County must establish minimum standards, and that is all the applicant has to address. Ms. Spain asked how many special use permits or exceptions have been denied over the last five years. Mr. Kamptner responded that it is not many, as most of them have been approved, and staff works with applicants to get applications into a shape where they can at least recommend approval. Ms. Spain asked if that is what the work sessions are for, or if it is just staff working with the applicants. Ms. McKee) asked for some examples of public health, safety and welfare, as this is not clear to her. Mr. Kamptner explained that it can be as general as an applicant for a zoning map amendment proposing a density that is in a location where something like water capacity is limited, so extreme density can be contrary to health, safety and welfare. He said another example would be a school in an area that is mixed use and a particular restaurant that is proposing to serve alcohol, with that use allowed by special use permit, but having a bar right next to a school can be considered an issue of health, safety and welfare. Ms. Mallek said that something like hunting within 300 feet of a school can be an issue, and said that in 2002 when there was no water in the reservoir, the County quit taking building permits altogether. Ms. McKee) commented that those examples are a bit different than not having infrastructure, transportation or adequate school capacity. Ms. Mallek asked for clarification that the County was denied the ability to use impacts in their decision making, and is not allowed to charge impact fees. Mr. Kamptner responded that they cannot charge impact fees, but can consider the impacts and the extent to which they are addressed or not as part of the Board's consideration. He stated that Biscuit Run was proposing 3,000 dwelling units, and if there was no cash contribution for schools, Cale, Stone Robinson or Walton would be immediately overcrowded, so the decision could be based on the failure to address impacts, which was contrary to public welfare because there would not be the capacity to handle students. Mr. Kamptner said it was also possible that the water and sewer infrastructure were inadequate, which would be a consideration in terms of public health. Ms. Palmer said that if there is a development with only 30 or 40 houses that had enough students to require a school to enlarge, if those impacts could be considered. Mr. Kamptner responded that they could look at impacts, and the cash proffer policy is a cash contribution per dwelling unit, with a portion of the amount proffered by the applicant going to address the capital impact on schools. Ms. Palmer asked if the application could be denied because an addition or school would need to be built, such as an addition on Woodbrook, due to that marginal increase in students. Mr. Kamptner stated he would want to see a broader analysis as part of that, and he would like to see something in the comprehensive plan that provides a hard, objective number as the threshold for school capacity, and once a school reaches a certain size there would be a tipping point, such as Cale reaching 698 students. Ms. McKee) commented that the School Board has already established what they believe an adequate school size should be, such as middle schools not exceeding 800 students, but that does not sound to her like what Mr. Kamptner is talking about. Mr. Kamptner said he is referring to when a project timing is deemed to be appropriate, and they had to have objective numbers as to capacity. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 12 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview Ms. McKee) said the Fire Marshal citing schools for having classes in the hallway might work. Mr. Kamptner stated that currently under the County's policy, if an applicant contributes their fair share under. the policy, it is deemed to be sufficient to address those impacts. Ms. McKee) noted that often there is a share put towards elementary schools, when the impact is also on middle schools and high schools. Mr. Kamptner stated it is intended to apply to all three. Ms. McKee) said she had not heard that before now, and it is good to know it is broader than just) elementary schools. Mr. Kamptner stated the County is broken into three feeder patterns for schools. Ms. McKee) said the reason she is mentioning this now is because the County is in such a critical; situation with urban schools. I Mr. Keller said his understanding is that they can do a comprehensive plan amendment in the middle o�, the review time period, so they do not have to wait for five years to follow up on what Mr. Kamptner has' said. He stated that with the proffers being an item of consideration, he wonders if they should think about taking specific numbers from the schools and adding them to a section of the comprehensive plan so there would be something tangible with impacts from development. i Ms. Mallek stated it can be a matrix that includes every school and its capacity. Mr. Kamptner said they would need to study a lot of issues in response to the new legislation, because it is changing the way, localities are dealing with this issue. I Ms. McKeel commented that it cannot take two years, as the schools do not have that long to wait. i Mr. Keller stated that it is more than the schools because they are talking about planning, and if certain abilities are taken away, they are looking at new ways to respond, and he assumes they will be hearin from staff on this fairly soon. Mr. Kamptner said he will be talking to them next week. Ms. More said she is wondering about by -right projects in order to respond to constituents that have questions, and she wonders if extreme density is a concern that can be expressed by the public. Mr. Kamptner responded that he would never dissuade a member of the public from raising a concern, but the County has no ability to disapprove a by -right project if it complies with the zoning ordinance, site plan regulations, and permitting requirements. He said if an applicant complies with all of those laws, the County does not have the ability to deny a project. Mr. Kamptner stated the County has some stale zoning, and there were some big fights off of Morgantown Road with the Falconer Construction site because there is a business park in the middle of rural areas. He explained they have to live with that in a lot of respects, and in order for there to be downzoning, there either has to be fraud in the original upzoning or "change in circumstances." Mr. Kamptner said there are a few examples of "change in circumstances" in case law, including one where the downzoning was comprehensive in nature. He stated the 1980 downzoning was comprehensive in nature, as it downzoned 95% of the County. Mr. Kamptner said that Virginia Beach downzoned 3% of land, but that was not comprehensive; and in Prince William County they downzoned even a lesser percentage than that, which was also not comprehensive. He stated that in terms of changing circumstances, there was an area that had been zoned high -density residential, and the area all around it had developed as single family low -density residential, and the city downzoned the pocket of high -density residential in the center of that, but the courts felt it was no longer appropriate even though the downzoning was not comprehensive, so it fell under the change of circumstances exception. Ms. Mallek asked if a former master plan adoption of a certain density in the middle of a neighborhood that was later regretted, if they could go back and re -master plan it. Mr. Kamptner explained the comprehensive plan is not subject to the same constraints as amending the zoning regulations, as it is advisory in nature and is a policy document that guides decision making, but does not impose any regulatory requirements on the land. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 13 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview Ms. Mallek asked if something would have already had to have its rezoning for it to be considered by right now. Mr. Kamptner explained that it was assigned a zoning designation that was consistent with the use that may have been on that particular property in 1980. Ms. Mallek commented that she enjoyed the walk through the comprehensive plan but it also pointed out different places where there are conflicts throughout it, such as the need for walkability and sidewalks, because in some of the older Crozet neighborhoods there have been significant degradation because the only access points to the new townhouses is across the streets with no sidewalks. Ms. McKee) stated the comprehensive plan does an excellent job with neighborhoods, but where it is lacking is economic development, and they need to figure out how to make it stronger. Ms. Mallek commented there needs to be a process laid out. Mr. Keller said that Ms. McClintic will be presenting to the Planning Commission on the process of the strategic plan, then they will have a meeting that focuses just on the interface of economic development and land use. He said that perhaps the Board of Supervisors can be part of that, and confirmed that the meeting date is April 12. Ms. McKee) stated she would like for them to be a part of that. Adjournment. At 2:58 p.m. the Planning Commission adjourned until 6:00 p.m., in Room 241. David Benish, Secretary (Submitted by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) Approved by Planning Commission Date: 7-26-2016 Initials: sct ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES — Planning Academy and Overview 14 i�* Albemarle County Planning Commission March 8, 2016 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 8, 2016, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Mac Lafferty, Daphne Spain, Pam Riley, Jennie More, Bruce Dotson, and Tim Keller, Chair. Absent was Karen Firehock, Vice Chair. Bill Palmer, University of Virginia Representative, was present. Other officials present were Megan Yaniglos, Principal Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Acting Director of Community Development; David Benish, Acting Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. I 1 Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Keller, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Committee Reports Mr. Keller invited committee reports. The following was noted by Commission members: Mr. Lafferty reported the following: • The Citizens Transportation Committee met with the MPO Technical Committee to discuss what the MPO actually does and ways to get input from Planning Commissions and Board of Supervisors for the upcoming Long Range Transportation planning session. Mr. Dotson noted that the report on the ACE Committee will be given by Commissioner More after meeting on Monday. There being no other committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item. Review of Board of Supervisors Meetings — March 2, 2016 Mr. Benish reviewed the Board of Supervisors actions taken on March 2, 2016. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Minutes — January 19, 2016 Mr. Keller asked if any Commissioner would like to pull the item from the consent agenda. There being no one, the Commissioner needs to go straight to a vote. He asked all in favor tc say aye. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 6:0. (Firehock absent) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Keller asked Mr. Kamptner if that was correct that a motion and second was not needed for approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Kamptner explained that the second's purpose is to further support having a discussion. Mr. Keller said the consent agenda was approved and the meeting would move to the next agenda item. Regular Item SUB-2015-00194 Green Loft Farm - Rural Preservation Development - Preliminary Subdivision MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08900000000250; 10100000000200; 101000000002A1; 101000000002130; 101000000002CO LOCATION: Dudley Mountain Road (Route 706) approximately one mile north of Red Hill Road (Route 708) PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary subdivision plat approval to create 17 lots (16 development lots and one preservation lot) as a Rural Preservation Development on a total of 148.89 acres. Associated with this subdivision is a request for a private street. ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) PROFFERS: No COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas — (preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) in Rural Area 4. (Megan Yaniglos) In response to Mr. Keller's request, Mr. Kamptner provided background on the rural preservation type of development. The rural preservation development has been in the zoning ordinance for quite a while. The regulations that are in place right now are essentially frozen because the State law was changed in 2004. The regulations that were in place at that time are grandfathered so we have to allow for by right developments. There was one last amendment before the new law became effective, which eliminated the special use permit being available for these types of developments having more than 20 lots on an existing parcel. The RPD is the preferred mode of development within the development areas. The Comp Plan does have a strategy to promote the use of RPD's and other types of tools to help preserve agricultural and forestal soils and other items, which has been cited on page 5 of the staff report. The RPD is essentially a ministerial decision. The alternative to a RPD is not new development; it is a conventional subdivision. He asked if there were any questions. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Keller said having skipped the order of the items on the agenda that he would go back and invite comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. Barbara Cruickshank said she lives in the city on Parkway Street that was close by. However, she was a county tax payer and her kids went to county's schools and her grandchildren may be. She is here to speak about an issue that they have not taken up yet, the cell tower at Albemarle High School that she wants to voice opposition to. She knows what the law says, however, she wants to oppose this cell tower placement because these towers are powerful ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES transmitters of radio frequency radiation. The FCC standards are 20 years old and they are! outdated. They do not protect children by any means and they do not reflect current science.; The World Health Organization in 2011 has classified radio frequency radiation as a class 213 carcinogen because of the links between that radiation and leukemia and brain cancer. Studies; continue to show that when you live or work near a cell tower base your chance of getting; cancer are increased. One current study she gave to the Commission shows a ten -fold'; increase in cancers if you live near or work near a cell tower base. Other adverse effects fromll being near a cell tower base include damage to the reproductive systems, damage to DNA,!, headaches, tremors, insomnia, and the list goes on and on. The 2012 Bio Initiative Report,; which is an international group of scientists and researchers that look at all the research on radiation exposure and human health, they cite five new cell tower base studies showing harm) to human health. Researchers from this group state that by placing cell towers near children'sl schools we are exposing kids to thousands of times higher levels of radiation than even existed 20 years ago. Students are reporting increases in headaches, concentration, behavioral problems, depression and anxiety. Again, that is a long list of things that children are complaining about. The American Academy of Pediatrics has called to the FCC to update its standards to protect human health, which has not happened yet. Scientists from around the globe are also calling for the standards to be tightened up. Of course, you know that the International Association of Firefighters does not allow cell towers near their buildings until studies prove that they are not hazardous to the health of its members. Our standards should) not be lowered for our children, and she asks that they not approve any cell towers that are near children. People around the country are rallying about this issue, including parents, teachers, and students. There are ways that we cannot let this happen at Albemarle High School and she) asked that the Commission please look at the information she provided. She knows the Commissioners are busy; but, it is very, very important. (Attachment A: Excerpt from An Electronic Silent Spring and other studies — Cell Towers and Health — How does living near a cellular antenna (a base station) affect health; Bio initiative 2012 — A Rationale for Biologically - based Exposure Standards for Low -Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation; Increased Incidence o Cancer Near a cell -phone transmitter station; and Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna array. Information available in the office of the clerk with minutes.) Mr. Keller apologized for overlooking the agenda item. He invited other public comment on matters not on the agenda. There being none, he asked to go back to Mr. Kamptner's discussion. Mr. Lafferty asked to respond to Ms. Cruickshank's remarks since she knows the federal government will not allow us to take that into consideration that the approach would be to get the FCC to change their rules. Ms. Cruickshank pointed out that communities are finding a way all around the country. Mr. Lafferty replied that they would be interested in hearing what that is; however, it is pretty explicit that we can't take that into account. The meeting moved back to the discussion on the Rural Preservation Developments. Regular Item — Continued Discussion SUB-2015-000194 Green Loft Farm - Rural Preservation Development - Preliminary Subdivision ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Kamptner explained in terms of Rural Preservation Developments this is a form of development in the rural areas and the land that is preserved is called a preservation tract. It is protected in perpetuity by a deed of easement that he circulated earlier today, which was the most recent example he could find that he had worked on in 2006. It is similar to the old ACE and other type of open space easements as far as controlling the location and the size of structures on the site and activities that can take place on the parcel. He asked if there were any specific questions about this process. Mr. Dotson asked does a RPD go on from the Commission to the Board of Supervisors or is this a final decision, and Mr. Kamptner replied that this is it. Mr. Dotson asked does a private street go on to the Board of Supervisors, and Mr. Kamptner replied no unless it is appealed. Mr. Dotson said so this is an unusual circumstance compared to all the other things we deal with that we are the final authority unless it is appealed. Mr. Kamptner replied yes, this set of regulations is an old holdover because it does have to be frozen in time and it should be treated as such. Even though it is in the zoning ordinance it is similar to the subdivision approval process; it is ministerial in nature and by statute it has to be ministerial in nature because otherwise we lose our grandfathering status and it comes under the new cluster laws. Mr. Dotson asked what does ministerial in nature means, and Mr. Kamptner replied that it meets the standards in the ordinance and needs to be approved. Mr. Lafferty asked what the new standards indicate and how are they different from the old ones. Mr. Kamptner replied that it is something that the General Assembly often does and they make the enabling authority so convoluted and complicated and probably so that the locality at first that it is not used. He was not aware of any localities in 12 years since it was adopted that localities have enacted ordinances implementing this law. Mr. Keller invited the staff report. Ms. Yaniglos summarized the request for SUB-2015-000194 Green Loft Farm - Rural Preservation Development - Preliminary Subdivision in a PowerPoint presentation. The proposed subdivision consists of 5 parcels totaling approximately 149 acres, located along Dudley Mountain Road off of Old Lynchburg Road. The applicant has proposed that this subdivision be considered for a rural preservation development (RPD). The proposal contains 16 development lots and one preservation lot of approximately 73 acres. As part of this proposal the applicant is also requesting a private street to serve the development. As stated in the staff report, this is the result of VDOTs regulations that require a stub out be provided which would result in more land disturbance and could be interpreted as encouraging future development within the Rural Areas. One of the requirements for a rural preservation development is that the applicant demonstrate that the proposed RPD does not contain any more lots than could be achieved with a by right ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES subdivision. The applicant submitted the by right plan to demonstrate the number of lots as well as show how this plan would result in more land disturbance than the RPD. The road would be extended and the disturbance of critical slopes would be necessary. Factors Favorable: • The proposal meets the requirements of the ordinance and the design standards set' forth in Section 10.3.3. • The rural preservation development furthers the goals outlined in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. • The preservation parcel allows a large portion of the properties that includes the stream, wooded areas, and critical slopes to be protected. • The private street would require less disturbance than a public street. Factors Unfavorable: There were none Identified. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the RPD and private street request. Ms. Yaniglos noted that Scott Clark, the Rural Areas Planner, is here and he helped a great deal with this review as well. Therefore, she may call on his assistance if there are any questions. Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Ms. More asked if there were other options here if they were to do it by right or would this be what would have to be done. Ms. Yaniglos replied that staff really evaluates what the applicant submits and does not look at future alternatives. However, she thinks the applicant might be able to speak to that. The other issue is the development rights need to be used within the parent parcel. Some of the lots are clustered in different areas because those development rights need to be used in certain areas and she did not know how the applicant might redesign that or if they could. Ms. More said she just wanted to be sure they were not being shown like the worse possible scenario of by right development, and Ms. Yaniglos replied that staff was really charged with reviewing what they submit. Mr. Keller asked staff to explain the number of by rights created by the multiple parcels. Ms. Yaniglos explained there are 5 parcels: Tax Map 89, parcel 25 has 5 development rights; Tax Map 101, Parcel 2-2 has zero (0) development rights; Parcel 2A1 has 5 development rights and each front lot has one development right totaling the number of 12. In addition, the creation of parcels 21 acres in size can be done without a development right. So that is how the applicant gets the extra 5 development rights with the number of acres which would equal to 17 lots possible. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 5 FINAL MINUTES Brian Ray, with Roger Ray and Associates, said they prepared the plan and Jess Ocanbock is here as the owner representative in case there are any non -technical questions asked. He thinks staff did a good job if you read through all the information about pointing out all of the: different characteristics that are required for a rural preservation development. He thinks they have come up with a plan that either meets or"exceeds those in all cases and the staff report clarifies that, too. The easiest way to look at the comparison is to look at the by right plan. As a follow up on the question about the by right plan, Mr. Ray pointed out the parent tract lines that existed in 1980. Regarding development rights, there are 2 in the front side of the diagonal line that cuts through and 2 small lots and behind that to the east there are 5; and 5 in the northern area. So to develop those rights we had to demonstrate not only building sites, but that the lots could be created in each one of those parent tracts. So the best one to demonstrate are the ones furthest back of the cul-de-sac. Those are good building sites up there since the ground is level and away from critical slopes. There are 5 development rights that are within that parent tract. The rest of those areas are critical slopes that are shaded in and the stream buffer, which would not allow building sites in this area. Mr. Ray explained if it were developed by right in order to get those rights it could be a slightly different configuration; but, it would be very similar to what we have. He said that is how we came up with the by right layout to get those development rights and building sites that are reasonable if this was developed as a by right plan. We feel this is how it would be developed or very similar to this if it was developed by right, which he thinks Mr. Kamptner did a good job of pointing out. This is the county's preferred method of development in the rural area because not only do we get condensed lots that are smaller, but it allows a roadway that is shorter with less disturbed area and less impervious area. The great thing is that we end up with a 70 plus acre preservation tract that has a preservation easement that is managed with the county under this easement. So we are really doing something here that we almost feel like should be the by right plan because this is the preferred method of development. However, the ordinance does require us to come before you and request this permission although he thinks Mr. Kamptner pointed out that if we meet those standards that the ordinance sets out that it could be approved. Mr. Ray asked to touch on something that did not show up real quickly as far as the staff report and numbers. He pointed out the by right plan would be about 3.1 acres of impervious area created by the public road or private road that would serve the other lots and the RPD would get reduced to 1.3 acres. So they were basically looking at 2 '/2 times the amount of impervious area created by the roadway with a by right versus a RPD and equating that the length of the road would be about 6,450 feet of road to be constructed versus the 2,600 feet with a rural preservation. Then again, he did not think that Ms. Yaniglos touched on the by right plan would also require the road to go through some critical slopes so that would be disturbing about 4/10 of an acre of critical slopes that we are able to avoid by doing the RPD. Not only are those critical slopes and stream buffer protected under the current ordinance requirements; but, being in part of the rural preservation tract they are further protected by the easement that is placed on it. He would be happy to answer questions. Mr. Keller invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Lafferty asked Mr. Ray to address the private road. Mr. Ray replied that we actually started this process requesting a public road. However, in site review one of VDOT's comments was interconnectivity, which does not make a lot of sense in ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 6 FINAL MINUTES the rural areas where the adjacent lands really are not as important as to connect to. He pointed out VDOT requested that we extend the public road from the cul-de-sac basically down the lot line all the way to the adjacent property owner. He noted historically that one time we were able to just provide a right-of-way in case that ever needed to be built. However, VDOT required us to build the road all the way to that point and it may never serve anyone. So again we are looking at more impervious area that may or may not be used. When talking to staff, Ms. Yaniglos actually suggested that we look at the private road because it is one thing that we. would not have to do that and would not promote any other development or possibly create 375 feet of public road with a 20 foot width that is just going to sit there. That is how we came around to requesting the private street. Mr. Lafferty asked if there would be a homeowner's association or who is in charge o maintaining the road, and Mr. Ray replied that the homeowner's association would. Mr. Kamptner noted the ordinance requires that every subdivision have an agreement for the maintenance for all private improvements. Ms. Riley said it looks like you have met all the requirements of the RPD; however, she has some questions about some enhancements you might be able to make in terms of the design. It is good that you are clustering the development in the front. She would think for some neighbors and/or just people on the road you could preserve the trees in the front and asked what plans and protections you might do. She realized that the majority of land has been; timbered in the past and some of the neighbors have shown some concern about storm water runoff, and asked Mr. Ray to address what their plans are for that and if you would be doing'; something besides a traditional retention or to maybe address that issue with the neighbors. Mr. Ray replied that there are 2 areas proposed for storm water detention. One is in the rear and the other in the western area. He pointed out that Collins Engineering is actually working with us on storm water and water quality, and that was their proposed areas that would catch the most run off from the road. The road would be designed such as that run off will be directed to those 2 areas. In talking with the owner they are willing to look at alternative ways to do storm water and detention with low impact. However, at this point he could not say that would work or not. We know that the conventional ways of looking at the runoff will be allowed and we will go through the engineering process that meets all of the county's regulations. We will look at those other options; but, he did not know since some alternative methods may or may not be something as easy to maintain for the property owners. We don't really know at this point if there is an alternative that will work. However, we do know that it will go through the county's process through engineering and will meet all of the county's regulations for storm water. Mr. Jess Ocanbock noted that the owner has expressed that they are willing to look at doing tree preservation for the remaining trees that are on the site. Ms. Riley asked if the owner will be looking to establish some uses on the preservation tract such as trails as opposed to just having it all undefined in terms of its use. Mr. Ray replied that they may consider that; however, she might want to ask Scott Clark because he was not sure if the regulations will allow for the type of uses such trails and such. He knows that the easement is pretty comprehensive; but, there may be some walking trails if the easement allows that. He suggested they ask Mr. Clark about the particulars in what is allowed as far as trails and other types of use. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Keller suggested that they hear from the public first Mr. Palmer asked if the rural preservation tract been logged at this point, and Mr. Ray replied that there is a portion of it that has been timbered. However, if you look at parcel 25 he believed that parcel 25 is forested. Mr. Keller invited public comment. Rachael Horsley, resident of 2351 Dudley Mountain Road, said she had watched the clear cutting of this land and wanted to speak against this and go for the by right plan. She did not know how the county considers rural preservation; but she thinks about it as open spaces and not clusters of houses that creates a subdivision rather than a rural setting. She sees Dudley Mountain Road as a beautiful road that is getting more developed by the minute. But, this is the most development in that concentrated area on that road, which will change the character of the road. With all due respect she has questions about people fulfilling what they say they are going to do since we have already had problems with water and run off. The clear cutting to me was the most painful thing to watch. There are just fewer and fewer areas in that part of Albemarle County that are wooded anymore and we can't go back and change that. She is opposed to having a subdivision. The west side against Dudley Mountain Road is where all Of those houses are going to be clustered, and the back part or the rural preservation part won't be visible to anybody. She felt it does not really serve the purpose if you are trying to have this for the public because if you want to have rural land it should be visible to the public. Having all of these houses clustered toward the road just does not do that. She preferred the by right because the houses would be spread out and not a subdivision. It is becoming suburban. If you want Albemarle County to be rural she would talk against this request. Stefan Gorsch said he owned the farm directly opposite this proposal with his wife and echoed Rachael Horsley's comments. He thinks one of the key factors that they need to decide, and he recognized that they don't have a lot of lead way here, is how we preserve the rural nature of what is left in the county. If we don't have a choice about clustering, which it sounds like we probably don't, cluster it in the back of the property and not up on the road so everyone who is biking, driving and walking the road will actually see rural land instead of a subdivision of a cluster of houses on tiny lots surrounded by fewer and fewer farms. So if we have to have clustered housing and don't have an option of that, then cluster it in the back somewhere it is not going to be an offense to everyone who is driving down the road. He pointed out the way he discovered his farm was biking down that road and thinking it was beautiful and he would love someday to have a farm there. He would like for other people to have that experience biking down the road in the future. He will impugn the incentives of the people who are developing this land since these are not people who are interested in rural preservation. They have a right to develop the land because they bought it; but, they have massacred that land. For two years it has been mud and runoff and an eyesore. He asked please if you have the option to be guarding this with the county do that. Lisa Gorsch said they are really trying to operate Wineberry Farm, which is our property across the street, as a farm with sheep, horses and a produce garden to try to address the agricultural nature of this county. What she would like to add to what her husband said was highlighting the intensity of the drainage problem. This RPD is set up with the majority of the houses on a fairly steep embankment that goes down to Dudley Mountain Road and then goes down across the road into our property. After this land was clear cut it decimated our driveway, which has washed out many times. She was on her tractor so many times trying to regrade the driveway for the tenant that was there at the time that she finally gave up. She spent $6,000 to get the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES driveway paved because she could not handle the water that came down every time it rained. The paved driveway is washing out, which is how bad the drainage is without all of these homes i taking up land which might be able to absorb some of the rain. One concern is the drainage; proposed is wholly insufficient and inadequate to the task. She submitted videos of the water'; runoff to the county 1'/2 or 2 years ago whenever this all happened. It was horrendous because they had ditches being etched through our land because of this runoff. The other thing that has, not been noted is noise pollution. This is all elevated and every single noise that is generated; on that hillside comes right down across the road to our property and to the property of our! neighbors. It is really loud and she considers this noise pollution. She thinks these are twoi issues that have not been adequately addressed. Finally, she agreed and would not object toi this many houses in the back of the lot where they would be invisible. But, to put the houses in front just runs counter to everything that makes this county wonderful. j William Griffin, resident of 2242 Dudley Mountain Road, said he would second what Lisa Gorsch, just said. There is an acoustical anomaly in that valley in that his house is 1,000 feet back froml, the road and when bicyclists ride down the road he can hear their conversation. It is that much! of a transfer. When Mr. Graves was logging the place off they showed no respect at all for their; neighbors. They bought equipment in at 5 a.m. in the morning, unloaded tractor trailers in the! street and hauled wood out with no respect to the neighborhood at all. When the drainage problem started there was water and mud very deep in the road. After the storm they had last, weekend there was deep water that covered half of the road. There was so much mud that you, could not drive down that lane. For 6 to 9 months they hauled dump truck loads of dirt in there and used this property as a landfill. They filled in critical slope areas that should have never been logged in the first place. There was a permanent swamp in the middle of the property that had large buttress swamp trees. In the Department of Forestry manual it says that those areas are never to be logged or disturbed and they cut all the trees down, filled it in and did away with it altogether. So they have totally disregarded many of the natural protection laws. He has no faith at all that they will do anything in the spirit of the rural preservation. Basically, they just bought that end lot at the county courthouse because the people had stopped paying taxes, and that lot still has timber on it. It is basically not a good place to build. He had been all over the property because Mr. Wright who use to own their farm had given him permission to go over, there and run his horses. He has been there for 26 years and has seen the things that have! gone on. He said his bigger concern, which he did not think there was anything they could do! anything about, is that right now there are only 11 houses from his house all the way down to Route 708 and if you put 17 families in there it would add another 300 to 400 vehicle trips a day; onto Dudley Mountain Road. Dudley Mountain Road is a very important biking destination and, the traffic they have now is dangerous for the bicyclists. He has come close to hitting people!, coming around the corner and sitting in the middle of the road riding like it is a private bike trail.' However, to add this many more people there is going to really cause safety problems. Ted Thomas said he and his wife own 2 parcels on this map that includes the one with Green Creek and he had a couple of comments. Regarding the erosion problem in the course of the clear cut he thinks the property owner cut a straight line ditch across the front of the property in order to divert water instead of out onto Dudley Mountain rather than going into that small creek. He noted they call it Briery Creek because of it being named that in old papers and plats. That creek has silted in horribly as a result of the clear cut and he was terribly worried that the' measures that are proposed to take the drainage water off the road in the front of this development will go into the settling pond. He was hoping that was adequate, but was not sure it is especially if it was only designed to take water from the road and not from all the house; sites which are going to be opening up all kinds of soil. The environmental damage that already; occurred to Briery Creek could be exacerbated if this drainage system does not work well. Also, ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 FINAL MINUTES the timing of when that drainage system goes in is important to all of us. It should be the very first thing because there is going to be a lot of soil disturbed there and after all these home sites are excavated Briery Creek and ultimately the Hardware River are all going to be silted in all the worse. So environmentally he was very concerned about the design. Secondly, he thinks the RPD, if the houses were to be clustered in the back, will have the same effect as securing land in the front of the property that will not be built on. So there are probably going to be 50 to 70 acres of low density in the front that gets swapped to the back if you do the preservation, and he thinks either one has very close to the same effect even though the easement won't be part of the clustering in the back. He thinks it will have the same effect as far as preserving the rural character that we all see. Finally, we are the landowners that would be affected by the private street versus the private road since ours would be the connecting property. If it were, in fact, a public street we would favor that option given the land lock of our land to the south. He did not know if it was possible if a private street goes in if there is a mechanism whereby our land could still be connected to the private street and if that mechanism exists or it does not. However, that is something that is of interest to us and whoever ultimately owns that land after we do. Rick Palermo, resident of 1671 Dudley Mountain, said he just recently built as far back on his 5'/2 acres as he could and echoed everyone's sentiments because even though he has added to the development out there he put one house on 5 1/2 acres. He really has a question about this by right plan with the biggest lot that had zero subdivision rights to it and if had to do with the soils. He knows it would be more expensive to spread lots out and have more road; but, all of that could be ameliorated because we put Targets, Walmarts and Coscos up and down 29. He was sure if this was proposed in some parts of the county north of Charlottesville there would be a lot more people here expressing their concerns. Mr. Keller invited the applicant back for follow up rebuttal. Mr. Occubond said it is important to discuss the storm water management that currently exists as opposed to what would be proposed in the new RPD. The owners did timber the property in the past. There was no Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) requirements to do that work and that has resulted in the conditions that are out there today. By moving forward with this plan it will put in place an E&S plan to deal with these current conditions. First, he thinks that stating that moving forward is going to make the problem worse is incorrect. Secondly, the purpose of the RPD is to preserve the land and in moving the lots to the back they are going to have to be timbering the piece that is not timbered, getting into the critical slopes and invading the stream buffer. As far as clustering the lots in the back he was not sure how they would do that without accessing the 50 acre piece that is on the back side. In response to the character of the road he understands that there are large tracts out here; if you go to the north there are 15 homes within a half mile and within a half mile north and south there are 20 homes. The average parcel size is 5.2 acres. The average proposed parcel size in the RPD is 4.7 acres and they don't feel that is very out of character with the surrounding homes. The average frontage on Dudley Mountain Road of those 20 homes is 264 feet, and the average frontage of the 5 lots they propose will be 340 feet, which is actually larger. They understand that there are large farms and large pieces of land out there. However, they don't think that because of the development around this it necessarily is out of character. Mr. Ray said speaking to clustering the lots to the rear that one of the great benefits of the proposed layout is to reduce that amount of impervious area and disturbance of critical slopes. Since we only have a stream buffer back here all those things are better protected by shortening the road and clustering the lots. They are talking about over 3 acres of impervious area that they are creating with the road versus 1.2 acres for the RPD and they are still going to have the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 10 FINAL MINUTES EM same number of houses and driveways. However, we are able to greatly reduce the amount of impervious area and disturbance of ground by clustering everything at the front. In creating a rural preservation tract that includes the majority of the critical slopes and the stream buffers that are on the property and we feel like those are being protected along with being under this easement will further protect it more than the county does currently. So he thinks the intent of the RPD ordinance is to allow exactly what we are proposing here. Mr. Occubond said in response to Commissioner Riley's question about the trails in the preservation tract it is my understanding that the owner's original intent was to provide a trail system back there. But, after looking at the ordinances they found out that clearing of any sort is: not technically allowed. That said, they are willing to work with the county in whatever means' they can to provide that. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Clark to come up and join the Commission in this discussion in case there are commissioners that have questions for him as well. He invited follow up questions for staff, or the applicant. Ms. Yaniglos asked Mr. Keller if he wanted her to address the development rights question, and, Mr. Keller replied that would be good. Ms. Yaniglos explained that 101-2 was subdivided and development rights were given in 101-213 and 101-2C. She did not have all of the plats here, but that was why it ended up with zero; because they were distributed under a subdivision. But, it is such a large parcel that it still can, be subdivided into 21 acre parcels. Mr. Keller asked if she was saying the smaller parcels are there, but there still are the 21 acre ability, and Ms. Yaniglos agreed. Mr. Keller asked can you assume that because that had so much hydrology within it that was one of the reasons it was not given development rights, and Ms. Yaniglos replied that she can't make that assumption. Scott Clark pointed out that development rights were distributed parcel by parcel in 1980 not by any features on the land, but just five for each parcel of record. So the development rights may have been used or moved around since then and not due to the requirement of the layout of the creeks. Mr. Keller noted that it was just my experience in looking at rural land development that when a parcel does not have rights left it was usually a land use reason that it does not have rights left and he was wondering if that hydrology was the issue there given what the neighbors are saying. Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Clark under the proposed easement that would go on the preservation track what limitations would be on timbering of that portion and could it be timbered in the same fashion as the majority of the site. Mr. Clark replied not necessarily in the same fashion; but, the easement does not necessarily prohibit timbering of the preservation tract. It usually would require approval of a timbering plan by the easement holder so the form of the practice of the timbering would be controlled to some degree by that. But, it would not out and out prohibit timbering. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 1 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Dotson said the logic of not prohibiting it he would assume that timbering is a normal forestal activity in rural areas. Mr. Clark replied the original purpose or idea of clustered subdivisions, which also goes to the question about trails, was that someone would have a working farm that would be subdivided; they would give up the development lots and then keep the remaining area to continue as that working farm. That does not always happen. So, yes, the original idea behind this was that crops and raising timber could all continue on that preservation tract. It was not meant to be a hands off complete preservation parcel. In fact, to get to the question about trails it is not open space for the benefit of the rest of the subdivision. It is on a private lot and can have a dwelling on it. So it is very rare for these preservation tracts to have trails or other community amenities on them because it is someone's farm. So unlike a subdivision you would see in a planned zoning district that has a large chunk of land with trails on it for open space this is actually a private lot. Mr. Keller asked with the discussions that they are having right now about agricultural and forestal districts would that if there was a single house placed on that lot, if it was approved, would it qualify within an agricultural forestal district. Is the one close enough by and given the current regulations would it qualify. Mr. Clark asked if he meant the preservation tract if this was developed in this form, and Mr. Keller replied yes. Mr. Clark replied under the current standards yes; but, there would not be much point because the conservation easement that will go on the preservation tract, unlike a district, and is more restrictive than the district. Also, if it was developed this way it would not be any development rights left on the preservation tract for them to give up as part of the district. So they could join; but, it would not really change anything. Mr. Keller asked in terms of the taxes and land use, and Mr. Clark replied that they would be under a conservation easement so that is going to affect their taxes as well. Either way it is going to be able to reduce the tax burden. Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Clark and invited further discussion Mr. Dotson said they have seen a preservation development and a private street. They have seen a by right development and a public street. He asked is there a possible combination of by right and a private street. Mr. Kamptner asked if he meant a by right conventional development, and Mr. Dotson replied yes, and in other words it would be less surface area paved he would assume. Ms. Yaniglos replied yes, the standards are the same with this number of lots for the street. Mr. Dotson noted the answer is that the private and the public would be developed to the same standards; therefore, the same paving area. Mr. Benish agree for this number of lots on this roadway. If it were for a much less number of lots there is a little bit more discretion in the private road standards, but not for this number of lots. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8. 2016 12 FINAL MINUTES Ms. More said under favorable factors the preservation parcel allows a large portion of the properties that includes the streams, wooded areas, critical slopes to be protected; but, what we are hearing is that the wooded area is not necessarily protected. Ms. Yaniglos noted that some of the preservation tract has been logged; but, the large majority; of the preservation tract remains wooded. So this one piece is all still wooded. Ms. More asked if it were up to their discretion to timber the land, and Ms. Yaniglos agreed. Mr. Clark noted that it was not required to be kept wooded. It will probably have more control over the character of the timbering that was done because of the involvement of the conservation easement although he would note that if it was done for by right development it' would be timbered just under the Department of Forestry standards without that extra control or if it was just timbered as it is now. So it is not a complete protection of the woods; but, it is an increase level of scrutiny over the methods used. Mr. Benish noted the language used in one of the most recent examples for forestal use as timber harvesting is permitted only in accord with a timbering harvest plan approved in writing by the county. So that control is on there that is not on there before, but again the purpose of these open space areas in the rural area is to allow for agricultural and forestal activities. So timbering properly done is an expected use in our rural areas. Mr. Lafferty asked so you can't put a walking trail in; but, you can timber it. Ms. More added or clear cut. Mr. Benish noted as Mr. Scott said this is a private property that is intended to be a farm in open space use not general open space owned by the home owner association. Mr. Clark said they could theoretically if they wanted to put in trails in such a way that complied with the conservation easement he would suppose that the private land owner of the preservation tract could give an easement to somebody else to use that. But, it is not a common practice and he was not sure if it had ever happened on other RPD's. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that will be up to the owner. Mr. Lafferty asked if the owner would be the homeowner's association, and Mr. Clark replied no it would be a private land owner. Mr. Keller said with the Commission's approval there is one member of audience who has been raising her hand a great deal. He asked if the Commission was okay with letting her have one more comment. With the agreement of the Commission Mr. Keller invited Ms. Gorsch back up. Lisa Gorsch noted she had a question and a comment. There has been discussion of how to minimize the amount of roadway this evening. She assumed the purposes of minimizing the roadway is to minimize the drainage. She pointed out that everything to the right of the driveway, which winds itself up from Dudley Mountain Road and curves around and goes along the top of a ridge, and everything to the right of the ridge goes down in the opposite direction from Dudley Mountain Road. What she was trying to suggest is that putting fewer houses to the left and more to the right according to what they saw of the by right plan would result in a more even distribution of runoff water. At least '/2 of it would be going to the right and '/2 would be ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 13 FINAL MINUTES going to the left. But, concentrating all of the houses over on the left the vast majority of the water is going to be flooding down onto Dudley Mountain Road. She foresees that as being a real problem. That is her impression of the lay of the land. Mr. Keller thanked Ms. Gorsch for making that point. Mr. Keller said as a person who has been interested in rural preservation for over 40 years that the cluster developments in rural areas often serve a very good purpose; but, this may be a case of where the land form, the geomorphology, and a concept that many of us believe strongly in find themselves in conflict. He noted the Commission needs to have a discussion and take an action. Ms. More agreed with what Mr. Keller was saying. However, she needs clarification from staff about what our options are. Mr. Keller pointed out he was saying that was for the public to understand that we have a comprehensive plan that is encouraging us when we have developments in rural areas there is the philosophy that encourages us to cluster as opposed to have the more spread out development pattern. In the groups of public that he is often with there is a debate with those who factor the clustering and having more open space around it and those who like to feel that spread out feature on the land. If you feel strongly regardless of how this goes, then you need to weigh in at the time of the comprehensive plan redevelopment, which we are very close to beginning that five-year process again. If the public lets their elected and appointed officials know that they believe that there should be a different kind of form given then that will be reflected in the comprehensive plan and that will in effect affect how staff, the planning commission and supervisors respond to these kinds of issues. Mr. Lafferty said if it were clustered wouldn't staff imagine that the people who are living in those lots clustered would take care of the erosion and have grasses and stuff like that. Otherwise, if they have it by right we have 21 acres that still drains down into Dudley Mountain Road and who would be responsible for the erosion control there. He asked would that go with the development. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that would go with the owner of that lot. The 21 acre lot zoned RSA could be forested. Mr. Lafferty asked if something would have to be done with erosion control. Mr. Kamptner replied no, forestry is exempt from erosion and sediment control. Mr. Lafferty said we would basically be leaving everything that is adjacent to Dudley Mountain Road and that it could be the same as it is now. Mr. Kamptner agreed. He said he heard a snicker in the audience and noted the exemption for agricultural and forestal activities from erosion and sediment control is a state requirement. We have no discretion to make it subject to our erosion and sediment control regulations. Ms. Spain said she was sympathetic with the neighbors and it does seem heartbreaking that the land was logged in what seems to be an inappropriate way for that environment. But, my understanding of ministerial review is that if the applicant has followed all of the guidelines, then we are compelled to approve. She asked are these exceptions to that? ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 14 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Kamptner replied that the regulations in the zoning ordinance require that if the Commission is inclined to deny the development the Commission has to make specific findings. The findings are the proposed development does not forward the purposes of rural preservation development. It is really the list of all of the criteria that are in the staff report, and you also have to find that the public purposes of rural preservation would be better served by the conventional development. In order to make those two findings the Commission needs to have facts in the record that would support identifying the reasons why the rural preservation development's purposes are not satisfied and why the conventional development is the better approach to accomplishing the purposes of rural preservation. Ms. Spain asked do we have information on water supply. Mr. Benish replied if it is about water supply, watershed; groundwater it will be subject to health department approval per lot. Ms. Riley agreed with Commissioner Spain that this is a really difficult case to evaluate. She would be hard pressed to say that the conventional development is going to preserve the rural character and the rural development any better. Therefore, she thinks this is a ministerial act that is a difficult one to swallow. There being no further discussion, Mr. Keller asked for a motion. Mr. Lafferty asked if there needs to be two motions, and Mr. Kamptner replied there needs to be separate motions. ry. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Ms. Spain to approve the Rural Preservation Development for the reasons recommended by staff. Mr. Keller invited further discussion. Mr. Dotson commented that years ago when he sat on the Commission there was a similar case in the Covesville Orchard, which was proposed as a rural preservation development and staff and he supported it. However, he had sort of learned a lesson in a sense from that experience which was denied and then went in as a conventional development. The concern to the neighbors was that the clustering created more of a suburban character than the preservation tract, which was off the road and a very similar situation given the outcome of that particular one because it went in as a regular rural area by right development. So this is not an issue that perhaps comes up very often. Ms. Spain asked what was the result and what does it look like now. Mr. Dotson replied that he has not driven down there and was not sure. Mr. Kamptner recalled that they had one that came in for a RPD and it was denied. This was back when it was more discretionary. They came back with a conventional subdivision plat and that was denied. Then they asked him to come back with the RPD a third. He was not certair that it ever came back that third time. Mr. Benish pointed out that he thinks they did a by right subdivision with ministerial lots. He did not know if they subdivided it the full extent that was proposed; but that is old history ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 1 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Keller pointed out he had several points. One, if we are going to see more of these cases and if it is as unusual as staff is saying that it is one every 6 or 7 years, then maybe it does not warrant this. But, as a landscape architect he would really like to see view shed analysis done of these sorts of things. When we have 2 different views coming forward from the public and the applicant saying about what will or won't be seen from different from areas, and they have not talked about whether it would be seen from Route 20, so he would like to encourage staff to get into the process to see whether there could be if funding for the software if there isn't that software. Secondly, they look at this wooded area and all of us that are dealing with rural area issues know that the pine plantations age out and they are either going to be consumed by the beetle or the bore, but they are not going to be there as a tall evergreen forest for a long time. So there are issues of having to cut these areas. He was seeing different colors in the aerial photograph which is leading him to believe that there is some evergreen as well as deciduous growth up there. So he thinks that in the rural area developments that they are talking about there needs to be a little bit more expertise about agriculture and forestry represented in the staff reports. Finally, they all know that this area is developing because of its location and he was wondering about the possibility of looking at the Entrance Corridor and controls to an area like this as well and what effect, if any, it would have on this sort of decision making process at least the concerns that they have heard about the development along the roadway. Ms. Spain said she had a question about how in any instance neighbors could be informed of logging before it happens. If it is private property does the property owner have to notify neighbors? (Staff shook their head.) She said so there is no control over that and the neighbors don't know until it is too late to do something. Ms. Yaniglos agreed. Mr. Lafferty asked to call the question. The role was called and the motion was unanimously approved by a vote of 6:0:2. (Firehock absent) Mr. Keller asked for the next motion on the private road. Staff has reviewed the request in accordance with the requirements of Section 14-232 and 14- 234 and finds that the proposed private street meets the requirements of the ordinance. Staff recommends approval. Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Ms. Riley seconded to approve the private street request for reasons stated in the staff report. Mr. Keller said he would like to have a discussion of this one. They heard the proposal for not being private. Also, did he understand that there would also be an effect on the entrance and what would have to be done on the entry road? He asked if there was a VDOT component to that. Ms. Yaniglos pointed out that is either private or public. Mr. Lafferty noted it has to be stemmed out to the property line. Mr. Benish said approval of the private road does not preclude the applicant from coming in and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 116 FINAL MINUTES doing a public road; it gives them the ability to do a private road. So if they were to get witt adjacent property owner and decide to construct a public road he thinks they could. Mr. Kamptner agreed and pointed out the main issue with the public road was VDOT's requirement for the connection to the adjoining parcel. That was the main issue with that creating a connection. Mr. Keller said once that becomes a private parcel in the future if there is an interest in connectivity that opportunity will have gone away unless there is room on the way that lot is developed for that right-of-way to be given. Mr. Keller said if indeed we believe in clustering to the extent that we seem to have said that we believe in clustering by this vote, then we are providing an opportunity for an adjacent cluster. He asked staff to put the slide with the parcel back up on the screen. Mr. Brian Ray offered to respond to the question. Mr. Keller asked if the Commission wanted clarification of that, and Ms. Riley replied that she thinks it would be helpful. Brian Ray, with Roger Ray and Associates, said he believed that your property has one more development right potentially. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Ocanbock replied yes, that was correct. Mr. Ray noted that a cluster would not be able to happen when we are talking about one more lot. In speaking with the owners he thinks they would be willing to discuss the possibility of a private easement to possibly serve some of your property he believes. He asked if that is correct, Jess. Mr. Ocanbock replied yes. Mr. Ray said so some discussions have been with them after we decided to go versus public to private and that there may be some discussion with a property owner about access off of the cul-de-sac to his property. Again, if we are talking about a cluster development his property really won't be allowed to do that because there is one more development rights. So there is a possibility of one more lot there that may be served off of an easement that the property owner may allow that to happen just so it is a clarification. Mr. Keller pointed out that really makes my point moot. He thanked Mr. Ray for the clarification. There being no further discussion, Mr. Keller called for a roll call. The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0. (Firehock absent) Mr. Keller noted that the request was approved. Mr. Kamptner said before moving off the topic he noted a couple of the ideas that the Commission has raised such as the visual impacts and there was another issue. Under the current regulations we are hamstrung because we can't change the current regulations we have in place. So we may need to just take a whole fresh look at this whole issue. We probably would be hamstrung if we characterize it as a cluster development under the state law. They may ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 17 FINAL MINUTES need to just look at a different way we deal with this. Our cluster regulations were adopted in 1980 and replaced in 1988 or so. Mr. Cilimberg noted it was in the early 90's. Mr. Kamptner noted they were a quarter of a century old and a relook might be warranted Mr. Benish suggested in a bigger sense these sorts of issues with dealing with this would be one of the future topics to sort of inform us about other changes we need to make. This provision is really stuck and we are kind of hamstrung doing any sort of changes so he thinks they would have to take a broader approach to comply with the standards. Mr. Keller said they would move to the next agenda item. Public Hearing Item. ZTA-2016-00002 Expedited Proffer Amendment The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on its intent to recommend adoption of an ordinance amending Secs. 18-33.4, Uniform procedures for owner - initiated zoning map amendments and special use permits, 18-33.7, Owner -initiated zoning map amendments; authority to accept proffers, and 18-35.1, Fees, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Secs. 18-33.4 to authorize the Board of Supervisors to reduce certain application and process requirements that apply to applications for zoning map amendments (rezonings) if the application is only to amend existing proffers that do not affect use or density, 18-33.7 to reflect the changes to Sec. 18-33.4, and 18-35.1 to establish a new reduced fee of $457.00 for applications for rezonings to amend existing proffers that do not affect use or density if the Board reduces application and process requirements. The proposed fee is authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(6). A copy of the full text of the ordinance, and the documentation pertaining to the proposed fee being imposed, is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Wayne Cilimberg) Mr. Cilimberg presented a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the executive summary for ZTA-2016-00002 Expedited Proffer Amendment entitled LEGISLATIVE REVIEW - Proffer Amendments Not Affecting Use or Density. This zoning text amendment really applies to proffer amendments which are legislative process rather than ministerial like the one the Commission was just dealing with. It actually has some relationship to amendments that were done a few years ago as an outgrowth of the Development Review Task Force and the Board of Supervisors' interest in 2010 as we look at how to satisfy and improve the public as well as the staff's interest in processing rezonings and special use permits. Clarifying the Goal • Applicants want clarity • Avoid Unnecessary and Burdensome Regulations • Maintain Opportunities for Public Information/Input • Maintain Community Quality in whatever process we had in place Primary Interests ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 '18 FINAL MINUTES • Applicants want clarity, consistency and reasonable predictability • Staff wants information necessary to provide comprehensive review '``w • Public wants to be informed • All want reliable decision -making timeframe Specific Goal • Create a value-added process • Provide clear expectations • Reduce iterations of re -submittal • Get decisions made most efficiently History • Comprehensive Amendments Adopted by Board 12/5/12 o Required pre -application meeting o More specific application requirements that came out of the pre -application meeting o Community meeting process o Application acceptance process o Possibility of work session(s) with Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors for particular projects o Included waiver provision of public hearing possibility for proffer amendments that do not affect use or density, but still required compliance with requirements for: • Pre -application meeting • Full application • Community meeting • Standard application fee • Board of Supervisors Resolution Of Intent o Consider amendments that provide a simplified process for proffer amendments that do not affect use or density — at the Board's discretion. o The Board passed a resolution of intent on 1/6/2016 to consider amendments that would provide for that. Proposed Ordinance Changes • Allowance of simplified process for proffer amendments that do not affect use or density o Waiver of public hearing(s) o Waiver of certain procedural requirements • Pre -application meetings • Work sessions • Community meetings • Waiver of certain application requirements • Reduced application fee - $457 (As noted in the staff report $457 is the same fee foii special exceptions that go directly to the Board of Supervisors.) • Case by case reviews • Board discretion — There is no guarantee that any of them would, in fact, get the simplified process. But, at least they would have the opportunity to go to the Board of Supervisors to request that. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 19 FINAL MINUTES Based on a research just on the last few years the following are potentially eligible types of Proffer Amendments: • Phasing of public improvements, particularly roads • Change to character of public improvements • Removal of certain public improvements — ex. interparcel connection • Timing/sunset for public improvements/cash • Change to cash proffer amounts • Timing of requiring certain uses based on other uses — ex. commercial square footage based on residential units • Change to private amenities — ex. trail, tot lot • Phasing of development • Change to form/character of development • Change in location of features of development If the county were to change its cash proffer policy and they had old proffers requesting a reduced amount and the policy called for a reduced amount that would be the kind of proffer amendment that could be subject to the expedited or simplified process. Factors to Consider in Determining in whether or not a proffer amendment can go through that more simplified process are: • Was the proffer as originally provided essential to the approval of the original rezoning? • Does the change in proffer have a potential impact on adjacent properties not anticipated with the original rezoning? • Has development already occurred within the rezoned area for which the current residents/businesses would have relied on the proffer or for which a change in the proffer would materially affect them? • Is there a general public interest in the proffer as originally provided that would be materially affected by the requested change? These kinds of questions will be good for staff to analyze in making recommendation to the Board regarding any particular request should these amendments be passed. Staff has provided ordinance language and recommends the Planning Commission recommend the Board's approval of the zoning text amendment. Again, it does not guarantee any particular amendment will have that process approved for them. However, it does give them the opportunity to request it with the Board if they meet the requirements as set out in state law and in the County Code. Mr. Keller invited questions for staff. Mr. Lafferty asked if the director of planning has the discretionary part in this to carry it forward to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg replied that any request can go to the Board; however, it is only after a consultation with staff that such a request would be then sent to the Board. Then, of course, staff would be analyzing that request and advising the Board as to whether or not we felt that the request would be justified in that particular case. Mr. Lafferty asked if the director and staff have control over notification and things like that. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 20 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Cilimberg replied that would be a decision of the Board as to how they felt a proffer amendment should be processed in a particular case. Mr. Kamptner pointed out staff would make recommendations if they thought it was appropriate depending on the particular application. Mr. Keller asked would this expedite the development process timeline. Mr. Cilimberg replied it would certainly in cases where it is a fairly simple type of amendment that we have to otherwise go through two public hearings. Again, if you have some particular provisions that have been set out under our own policies that an amendment is attempting to address that is not about use or density in a process it does give it a lot quicker approval route. Very honestly that is why staff proposed the lower fee. Staff feels like it is similar to the special exceptions that the Board reviews and it has the potential for some of the amendments that we might get to reduce staff time. Mr. Keller said given the governor's signature today this is all about past proffers and it really wouldn't have applicability going forward. He asked if they are looking back for this. Mr. Kamptner noted he sent Mr. Cilimberg an email just before the meeting that may change everything, and it probably does. He suggested that we may want to adjust this ordinance. His expectation for the new projects that are going to be qualifying under the new proffer legislation. in a number of those staff would recommend that the expedited process not be available because the level of servitude that is required in our analysis is such that it is just too risky for the county to expedite the process. Mr. Cilimberg explained this is somewhat of a laymen's view of how this code change may affect us. It is supposed to be prospective, not effective or applicable to any of the zonings in place as of July 1, but those of the future. This is for amendments to proffers that have already been provided. So this would be a system in place to address amendment requests even after July 1 to projects that already have gotten approvals. The new projects will fall under the new process after July 1, and if they came in later for an amendment then they would be amending based on approvals that already took place under the new code provisions. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that even for a new project if the applicant was suggesting to amend a proffer with respect to the phasing of the development and it was something that staff supported, then something like that would warrant an expedited review. As Mr. Cilimberg said when you are looking at this each request will be evaluated on a case by case basis; there will be a consultation with the director of planning, and then it also goes to the Board to weigh in and ultimately decide whether the expedited review should be allowed in a particular situation. Mr. Keller invited other questions from the Commission. Mr. Dotson said as he understands the two-step process that a property owner or developer would file what we are calling a request that would go to the Board to make a determination as to whether the amendment is major or minor. Mr. Cilimberg replied that if it was not a use or density amendment the applicant developer would more than likely come in for a pre -application meeting with staff saying they want to do it. Staff may identify it as eligible or the applicant may say that they like to pursue this as an eligible type of amendment. After that the applicant would then submit that request and it would ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 21 FINAL MINUTES go directly to the Board with a staff recommendation. Mr. Dotson asked since some staff time would have been invested in that if there is a fee for that request. Mr. Cilimberg replied no, there is not. There are no fees now for pre -applications and this type of request is on the order of a pre -application. Very honestly it could end up being quicker or easier than a pre -application in some cases. In some cases we have an exploratory and then have to have a mandatory pre -application. So in this case if the exploratory discovers that this is possible we would just say make the request and staff will take it directly to the Board. However, staff will have to write an executive summary for the Board of Supervisors. So that is a commitment of time for staff that is not currently a commitment we have for pre -applications. Mr. Benish said in terms of the fee for the work that staff does if that work in that preliminary process takes a lot of time it is probably an indication that it is not going to be recommended for that process. If there is a lot of assessment from a staff perspective of whether this request has merit or not that is probably the first red flag that it is not and most of those costs would incur through the full fee for the rezoning review. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff was going to advise someone more than likely out of the pre - application process that this particular request does not look like a good candidate. Mr. Dotson added or the request does look like a good candidate. Mr. Cilimberg agreed and pointed out it is ironic that we have had a few cases of proffer amendments that were a use request that made all the sense in the world; however, under the code allowances we can't do that in the same way or process. As an example, staff had a very quick request to change a use in Old Trail that became the independent living facility, and we can't do that under this same process. Mr. Dotson asked if that was because that was involving a use, and Mr. Cilimberg agreed because it is a use. Mr. Dotson said he understands step 2 would be after the Board had made a determination whether this is a full application or an expedited application. He pointed out in the staff report there are 4 bullets that are identified on the second page that would guide the staff in reviewing such a request and those are not in the ordinance. He asked if there is some way that those can be endorsed by resolution or something else be able to deal with that since we don't put those in the comp plan, but want them to have some status. Since that is not part of the ordinance how do we deal with that? Mr. Cilimberg replied one way would be for the Board to separately endorse or pass those as factors to be used in the procedures so it will become part of procedural requirements the Board sets out for the processing of that type of request. He recalled when we did the special exceptions with the Board that there was an accompanying procedural policy. He asked Mr. Kamptner to comment. Mr. Kamptner pointed out the Board adopted a policy that kind of directed staff as to when it was appropriate for special exceptions to go directly to the Board and when they should first go to the Planning Commission before going on to the Board. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 22 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Dotson asked would it be helpful tonight when the Commission acts on this zoning text amendment to also request that a policy reflecting these four bulleted items be approved. Mr. Cilimberg replied yes. Mr. Kamptner noted the other fail safe in this process is even if the Board decides that a particular project is eligible for the expedited review it will come back to the Board. Then if unexpectedly there is public interest and there are some issues that may not have been identified, the Board can remand it to the Planning Commission, direct that public hearings be held and then it gets a different review than was originally envisioned. Ms. Riley asked how many potential projects there would be since she was trying to get a sense of how many projects or applications there would be after July 1. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he did kind of a seat of the pants estimate of about two a year that may have been qualifying as requested amendments in the past five years. It is hard to say once this is in place if that increases the number. However, something like a change to the proffer policy, which he knows Ms. Riley has been involved in looking at, if the Board ultimately passes any changes could instigate more requests of that type which may be eligible. It is hard to say the real number that they will be seeing. Mr. Keller asked how many proffer projects are out there right now that are still in existence and could come back. i Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Commission has seen one and there are two more in process now; however, he did not know the exact number. Mr. Keller asked if it was in the 30 range. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was not that many because actually the proffer policy was passed in 2008, and Mr. Kamptner noted it was actually adopted in 2007. Mr. Benish said he thinks it is 6 or 8 projects since it is not many that actually utilize and were approved under the cash proffer policy. Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Neil Williamson, representing the Free Enterprise Forum, said this is a great little ordinance that does not do much since it is permissive. What he wanted to do won't happen; however, it could but just won't. He has written about and told the Commissioners about his concerns that he does not believe proffers belong in front of this body. He thinks that if the cash proffer policy changes, which he is anticipating will have to at some point, that those changes should go directly to the Board where it should be discussed. He thinks what will happen with this is someone will request it; staff will say no; it may go to the Board and the Board will agree with staff and say no and then send it back to the Commission. Whether that is right or wrong that does not matter. Staff might even say yes and he believes the Board will likely say we will send it to the Planning Commission because that provides political cover that we have done what we are supposed to do. He likes it and suggests they run with it since it is not going to streamline a whole lot of anything with maybe two applications. He will say when you look at some of the proffers that are out there, including the plans that are proffered, there are some amendments that are so minor they really are crying for this. That is because of the level of detail that is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 23 FINAL MINUTES being required at the rezoning phase. That is neither here nor there since that may help one or, two projects get things done a month or two, and maybe three months faster. Three months is a good amount; but, he did not think this is going to change the world. He did not think staff is going to support all cash proffers going directly to the Board. If it is only the cash proffers that is okay; but, not everybody agrees. He thinks this is a very permissive ordinance that allows staff the ability when driveways have to change from one site to another or something that has been proffered in phasing the commercial to the capacity of the residential and you wanted to have the commercial in sooner than the residential that it would allow that. But, he would leave it with the Commission in this way. Mr. Keller invited further public comment. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Commission. He invited further discussion. There being no further discussion, Mr. Keller noted the Commission would go straight to the motion. Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Ms. Spain seconded to recommend approval of ZTA-2016- 00002 Expedited Proffer Amendment regarding County Code regulations processing certain rezonings on the basis of the recommendation of staff and also include the recommendation that the Board adopt a policy to parallel the ZTA reflecting the factors that staff has proposed go into evaluating such request and that they forward that recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Keller invited further discussion. There being none, he asked for a roll call. The motion carried by a vote of 6:0. (Firehock absent) Mr. Keller pointed out the motion for ZTA-2016-00002 carried unanimously and the recommendation would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. The meeting moved to the next agenda item. Old Business Mr. Keller asked if there was any old business. • Mr. Keller noted a presentation by Faith McClintic will be given next week on the Economic Development Strategic Plan process with the possibility of the Board of Supervisors attending. • Mr. Keller noted the scheduling and program for the first annual special meeting on Economic Development as it interfaces with land use and planning potentially with the Board is being worked on. • There was a request for an opportunity for Commissioners to meet staff possibly in an open house. There being no further old business, the meeting moved to new business. New Business Mr. Keller asked if there was any new business. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 24 FINAL MINUTES • Mr. Benish announced that the liaison to the public engagement process associated wit ZTA-16-3 Farm Wineries, Breweries and Distilleries Events to be appointed next week. • Mr. Dotson will be absent on April 5, 2016 • Mr. Kamptner noted that the governor signed SB549 Proffer Legislation. Th recommendation to Board of Supervisors will be to appeal the existing Cash Proffer Polic and for the Planning Commission to initiate a new Proffer Policy that is consistent wit SB549. He plans to bring resolutions for consideration to the Planning Commission ne: Tuesday for consideration. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. There being no further new business, the meeting moved to adjournment. Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Dotson seconded for adjournment to Tuesday, March 15, 2016. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0 (Firehock absent) Adjournment With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. to the Tuesday, March 15, 201 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 Mclntir Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. David Benish, Acting Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning) Approved by Planning Commission Date: 8-9-2016 Initials: sct ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 8, 2016 25 FINAL MINUTES l k6A m e r1A—A — Ao_rc k 8,2(A (v �`��nr, 1 rt' 1..o�rn�ss �vn Mee-�-�r�►c� Contact Cell Towers and Health e� w aA!� , Cv-17i How does living near a cellular antenna (a base station) affect health? — An excerpt from An Electronic Silent Spring Studies find that people living near a base station experience fatigue, headache, sleep disruption, irritability, depression, decreased libido, memory loss, dizziness, nausea, increased risk of cancer, tremors, loss of appetite, rashes, visual disruptions and overall discomfort. (1,2) People who live within 350 meters of a cellular antenna for more than a decade experience a four -fold increase in cancer rates. Among women, the increase is ten -fold. (3,4) People who live within 200 — 500 feet of an antenna report genetic, growth and reproductive effects; increases in the permeability of the blood -brain barrier; behavioral, molecular, cellular and metabolic effects; and an increased risk of cancer. (5) In Brazil, from 1996 to 2006, researchers tracked people who lived within 500 meters of a base station. They found 34.76 deaths by neoplasia (some kind of tumor) per 10,000 inhabitants. Outside of this area, a decrease in the number of deaths by neoplasia occurred: the greatest incidence was 5.83 deaths per 1000 people. (6) In Israel, living near a cellular antenna for one year led to a dramatic increase of cancer. The increase correlates with previous data on significant increase in leukemia among people who live near broadcasting towers in Honolulu7 and Hawaii. (8) Egyptian researchers found that long-term (six years) exposure to cellular antennas and mobile phones negatively impacts human hormone profiles: cortisol, serum progesterone (in females) and thyroid hormones are all affected. (9) After a cellular antenna was installed in Rimbach, a small town in Bavaria, Germany, sixty residents had their urine tested regularly over eighteen months, beginning in Spring, 2004. Participants' stress hormones (adrenaline and noradrenaline) increased significantly; their dopamine and phenylethylamine levels decreased substantially. While participants maintained their usual lifestyle, they experienced increases in sleep problems, headaches, dizziness, concentration problems and allergies. Because chronic disruption of hormones damages health in the long run, researchers expect "major health problems" from long-term exposure to radiation from cellular antennas. (10) i� For an excellent film about living near an antenna, see "Resonance: Beings of Frequency" by James Russell, available for free at vimeo.com. To learn how many antennas are in your neighborhood, Go to www.antennasearch.com and type in the address of your home, school or workplace. Or, locate any type of transmitter at the FCC Dashboard: http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard. Endnotes 1. Levitt, B. and Henry Lai, "Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays," Environ. Rev 18: 369-395, 2010. 2. Kundi, M. and HP Hutter, "Mobile phone base stations —Effects on wellbeing and health,"Pathophysiology 16:123-135, 2009. 3. Wolf and Wolf, "Increased incidence of cancer near a ceephone transmitted station," Trends in Cancer Prevention, ed. F. Columbus, Nova Science, 2007, 1-8. 4. Review by Kundi, "Evidence for Childhood Cancers (Leukemia), Brain Tumor Epidemiology, III, Epidemiological studies of RF and Brain Tumors," C. Selvin et al, The Biolnitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically -based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields. 5. Levitt, B., ibid. 6. Dode, A.C., et al, "Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil," Sci Total Enviro, (2011), doi;10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.051.31. 7. Goldsmith, JR, "Epidemiologic Evidence of Radiofrequency Radiation (Microwave) Effects on Health in Military, Broadcasting, and Occupational Studies," Int'I Occup Environ Health, 1995; 1: 47-57. 8. Maskarinee, G., et al, "Investigation of increased incidence in childhood leukemia near radio towers in Hawaii; preliminary observations," J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol, 1994; 13: 33-7. 9. Eskander, E.F et al, "How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?" Clinical Biochemistry, (45) 2012, 157-161. 10. Buchner, Klaus and Horst Eger, (2011), "Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields —A Long-term Study under Real -life Conditions," Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft, 24(1);44-57 3/3/2916 Press Resources for the Biolnitiatke 2012 Report Houle Edit0rs' Motes What's New? Siolnitiative Repo, Research Sulllinafiea Rt Color Charts f al"Cipants Media - e, . F<:,;Ca Bioinmiliative A Rationale for Biologically -based Exposure Standards for Low -intensity Electromagnetic Radiation You cu,e here: Home /Afedia/Press Resowees .Search Press Resources DOWNLOAD PRESS RESOURCES fpdfl PUBLICATION DATE: December 31, 2012 WHERE: The BioInitiative 2012 Report will be published at www.bioinitiative.one. Free download. WHATIS IT: A report by 29 independent scientists and health experts from around the world* about possible risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields. It updates the BioInitiative 2007 Report. WHATITCOVERS: The science, public health, public policy and global response to the growing health issue of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation in the daily life of billions of people around the world. Covers brain tumor risks from cell phones, damage to DNA and genes, effects on memory, learning, behavior, attention; sleep disruption and cancer and neurological diseases like Alzheimer's disease. Effects on sperm and miscarriage (fertility and reproduction), effects of wireless on the brain development of the fetus and infant, and effects of wireless classrooms on children and adolescents is addressed. Mechanisms for biological action and public health responses in other countries are discussed. Therapeutic use of very low intensity EMF and RFR are addressed. WHATIS NEW: This update covers about 1800 new studies reporting bioeffects and adverse health effecMof corltayt electromagnetic fields (powerlines, electrical wiring, appliances and hand-held devices) - and wireless technologies (cell and cordless phones, cell Towers, WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless routers, baby monitors, surveillance systems, wireless utility meters smart metersj, etc. *The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by29 authors from ten countries*, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of GEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non -Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. Full titles and affiliations of authors is in Section 25 -List of Participants Each year, about 100,000 people visit the site. In the five years since its publication, the BioInitiative website has been accessed over 10.5 million times, or four times every minute. Every five minutes on the average, a person somewhere in the world has logged on. More than 5.2 million files and 1 million pages of information has been downloaded. That is equivalent to more than 93,000full copies of the 650+ page report(288.5 million kbytes). * Sweden (6), USA (10), India (2), Italy (2), Greece (2), Canada (2), Denmark (1), Austria (2), Slovac Republic (1), Russia (1) Coin+ ght .J.'v -l( 94 Rep all R_,: r.,: R, ,erv,d hftp:/A&mw.bioinitatiw.org/niedia/spread-the-vvord/ 1 /1 3/3/2016 Why We Care About Health Effects from EMF & RFR - Biolnitiative Report 2012 Home Editors' Not s ur.... A, Ij. Ho.;, EC rf'!- P--.n r' ;hlhat's New? Biolnitiative Repoli Research Summaries RE Color Charts Bimoinimilmall"ve A Rationale for Biologically -based Exposure Standards for Lotw-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation 1'ou are here: 11ome !Participants / Why We Care? se(Tch Why We Care? The stakes are very high. Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. In some cases, this maycause discomfort, orsleep disruption, or loss of wellbeing (impaired mental functioning and impaired metabolism) or sometimes, maybe it is a dread disease like cancer or Alzheimer's disease. It may be interfering with ones' ability to become pregnant, or carrya child to full term,, or result in brain development changes that are bad for the child. It may be these exposures play a role in causing long-term impairments to normal growth and development of children, tipping the scales away from becoming productive adults. We have good evidence these exposures can damage our health, or that of children of the future who will be born to parents now immersed in wireless exposures. Participants In the United States, the deployment of wireless infrastructure (cell tower sites) to support cell phone use has Media accelerated greatly in the last decades. The spread of cell towers in communities, often placed on pre-school, church day-care, and school campuses means thatyoung children can have thousands of times higher RF ContaGt exposures in home and school environments than existed even 20-25 years ago. CTIA estimates that in 1997 there were only36,650 cell sites in the US; but increased rapidly to 131,350 in June 2002; 210,350 in June 2007 and 265,561 in June 2012 (CTIA, 2012). About 220,500 cell sites existed in 2008. These wireless antennas for cellular phone voice and data transmission produce whole -body RFR exposures over broad areas in communities that are an involuntary and unavoidable source of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Further, the nearly universal switch to cordless and cell phones, and away from corded landline phones means close and repetitive exposures to both EMF and RFR in the home. Other new RFR exposures that didn't exist before come from WI -FT access points (hotspots) that radiate 24/7 in cafes, stores, libraries, classrooms, on buses and trains, and from personal WI-FI enabled devices (iPads, tablets, PDAs, etc). The largest single source of community -wide, pervasive RFR yet rolled out is the'smart meter infrastructure. This program places a wireless device (like a mini -mobile phone base station) on the wall, replacing the electromechanical (spinning dial) meter. They are to be installed on every home and classroom (every building with an electric meter). Utilities from California to Maine have installed tens of millions already, despite health concerns of experts and enormous public resistance. The wireless meters produce spikes of pulsed radiofrequency radiation 24/7, and in typical operation, will saturates living space at levels that can be much higher than already reported to cause bioeffects and adverse health effects (utilities can only say they are compliant with outdated federal safety standards, which may or may not always be true - see http://saRereports.com/smart-meter-r-0. These meters, depending on where they are placed relative to occupied space in the home or classroom, can produce RFR exposure levels similar to that within the first 100 feet to 600 feet of a mobile phone base station (cell tower). The cumulative RFR burden within any community is largely unknown. Both involuntary sources (like cell towers, smart meters and second-hand radiation from the use of wireless devices by others) plus voluntary exposures from ones' personal use of cell and cordless phones, wireless routers, electronic baby surveillance monitors, wireless security systems, wireless hearing aids, and wireless medical devices like implanted insulin pumps all add up. No one is tallying up the combined exposure levels. Billions of new RFR transmitters from the smart meter rollout alone will raise the baseline RFR levels, and will significantly add to the existing RFR background. http:/AmAw.bioinitiati\e.org/participants/why-we-care/ 1/2 INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCER NEAR A CELL - PHONE TRANSMITTER STATION. RONNI WOLF MD' DANNY WOLF MD From: The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel -Aviv University, Tel -Aviv, ISRAEL. The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL. Running title: Cancer near a cell -phone transmitter station. Address for correspondence: Ronni Wolf, MD, Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot 761.00, ISRAEL. Fax 972-9-9560978. E-mail: wolf r@netvision.net.il International Journal of Cancer Prevention VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, APRIL 2004 Increased Incidence of Cancer near a Cell -Phone Transmitter Station by Ronni Wolf and Danny Wolf 2 Abstract Significant concern has been raised about possible health effects from exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, especially after the rapid introduction of mobile telecommunications systems. Parents are especially concerned with the possibility that children might develop cancer after exposure to the RF emissions from mobile telephone base stations erected in or near schools. The few epidemiologic studies that did report on cancer incidence in relation to RF radiation have generally presented negative or inconsistent results, and thus emphasize the need for more studies that should investigate cohorts with high RF exposure for changes in cancer incidence. The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is an increased cancer incidence in populations, living in a small area, and exposed to RF radiation from a cell -phone transmitter station. This is an epidemiologic assessment, to determine whether the incidence of cancer cases among individuals exposed to a cell -phone transmitter station is different from that expected in Israel, in Netanya, or as compared to people who lived in a nearby area. Participants are people (n=622) living in the area near a cell -phone transmitter station for 3-7 years who were patients of one health clinic (of DW). The exposure began 1 year before the start of the study when the station first came into service. A second cohort of individuals (n=1222) who get their medical services in a clinic located nearby with very closely matched, environment, workplace and occupational characteristics was used for comparison. In the area of exposure (area A) eight cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of only one year. This rate of cancers was compared both with the rate of 31 cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 2/1222 rate recorded in the nearby clinic (area B). Relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for the whole town of Netanya. Cancer incidence of women in area A was thus significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of area B and the whole city. A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area A than in the entire population. 3 The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell -phone transmitter station. Key Words: Radiofrequency radiation; Cell -phone transmitter station (cell -phone antenna); Cancer incidence study; Netanya. 369 Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays B. Brake Levitt and Henry Lai Abstract: The siting of cellular phone base stations and other cellular infrastructure such as roof -mounted antenna arrays, especially in residential neighborhoods, is a contentious subject in land -use regulation. Local resistance from nearby resi- dents and landowners is often based on fears of adverse health effects despite reassurances from telecommunications serv- ice providers that international exposure standards will be followed. Both anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies have found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased r1 bi o, increased rates of suicide_ concentra- tion problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysioloQical effects in popu- lations near ase-s s. e o jecrive of this paper is to r ,, ew the existmg studies of people living or working near cellular it a uctIIP�d other pertinent studies that could apply to long-term, low-level radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures. While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal consumer products, some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting. Further a idemiolo research that takes total ambient RFR exposures into consideration is warranted. Symptoms reported to ay may be classic microwave sic ess, rst escribed in 1978. Non - ionizing elec o -gMc fields are among a rites growing orms of environment pollution. Some extrapolations can be ma a om research other an eprdemiology regar ng ro ogical effects from exposures at levels far below current exposure gur ernes. Key words: radiofrequency radiation (RFR), antenna arrays, cellular phone base stations, microwave sickness, nonionizing electromagnetic fields, environmental pollution. Resurag : La localisation des stations de base pour telephones cellulaires et autres infrastructures cellulaires, comme les installations d'antennes sur les toitures, surtout dans les quarders r6sidentiels, constitue un sujet litigieux d'utilisation du territoire. La resistance locale de la part des residents et propri6taires fonciers lirnitrophes repose souvent sur les craintes d'effets adverses pour la sant6, en d6pit des r6assurances venant des fournisseurs de services de t616communication, a 1'effet qu'ils appliquent les standards internationaux d'exposition. En plus de rapports anecdotiques, certaines etudes epid6- miologiques font 6tat de maux de t6te, d'6ruption cutan6e, de perturbation du sommeil, de depression, de diminution de li- bido, d'augmentations du taux de suicide, de problemes de concentration, de vertiges, d'alt6ration de la m6moire, d'augmentation du risque de cancers, de tr6mulations et autres effets neurophysiologiques, dans les populations vivant au voisinage des stations de base. Les auteurs r6visent ici les Etudes existantes portant sur les gens, vivant ou travaillant pres d'infrastructures cellulaires ou autres etudes pertinentes qui pourraient s'appliquer aux expositions a long terme a la radia- tion de radiofr6quence. de faible intensit6 « RFR ». Bien que la recherche 6pid6miologique sp6cifique dans cc domain soit rare et contradictoire, et que de telles expositions soient difficiles a quantifier compte tenu des degr6s croissants du bruit de fond des RFR provenant de produits de myriades de consomnrateurs personnels, it existe certaines recherches qui justifient la prudence dans l'installation des infrastructures. Les futures Etudes 6pidemiologiques sont n6cessaires afin de prendre en compte la totalit6 des expositions a la RFR ambiante. Les sympt6mes rapport6s jusqu'ici pourraient correspon- dre a la maladie classique des micro-ondes, d6crite pour la premiere fois en 1978. Les champs 6lectromagn6tiques non-io- nisants constituent les formes de pollution environnementale croissant le plus rapidement. On peut effectuer certaines extrapolations a partir de recherches autres qu'6pid6miologiques concernant les effets biologiques d'exposidons a des de- gr6s bien au-dessous des directives internationales. Mots-cles : radiofr6quence de faible intensit6 a RFR r, les installations d'antennes, des stations de base pour t616phones cellulaires, la maladie classique des micro-ondes, les champs 6lectromagn6tiques non-ionisants, pollution environnementale. [Traduit par la Redaction] Received 30 April 2010. Accepted 6 August 2010. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at er.nrc.ca on 5 November 2010. B.B. Levitt' P.O. Box 2014, New Preston, CT 06777. USA. Ili. Lai. Department of Bioengineering, Box 355061, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. rCorresponding author (e-mail: blakelevit@cs.corn, bb1353355@gmail.com). Environ. Rev. 18: 369-395 (2010) doi:10.11391A10-018 Published by NRC Research Press 'e 2/28/2016 Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations i Occup Environ Med. 2006 May; 63(5): 307-313. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.020784 PMCID: PMC2092490 Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations H-P Hutter, H Moshammer, P Wallner, and M Kundi H-P Hutter, H Moshammer, P Wallner, M Kundi, Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria Correspondence to: Dr H-P Hutter Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, A-1095 Vienna, Austria; hans-peter.hutter@univie.ac.at Accepted 2005 Nov 11. Copyriaht © 2006 BW Publishing Group This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Go to: Background The erection of mobile telephone base stations in inhabited areas has raised concerns about possible health effects caused by emitted microwaves. Methods In a cross -sectional study of randomly selected inhabitants living in urban and rural areas for more than one year near to 10 selected base stations, 365 subjects were investigated. Several cognitive tests were performed, and wellbeing and sleep quality were assessed. Field strength of high -frequency electromagnetic fields (HF-EMF) was measured in the bedrooms of336 households. Results Total HF-EMF and exposure related to mobile telecommunication were far below recommended levels (max. 4.1 mW/m2). Distance from antennae was 24-600 m in the rural area and 20-250 m i the urban area. Average power density was slightly higher in the rural area (0.05 mW/rn2) than in the urban area (0.02 mW/m2). Despite the influence of confounding variables, including fear of adverse effects from exposure to HF-EMF from the base station, there was a significant relation of some symptoms to measured power density; this was highest for headaches. Perceptual speed increased, while accuracy decreased insignificantly with increasing exposure levels. There was no significant effect on sleep quality. Conclusion Despite very low exposure to HF-EMF, effects on wellbeing and performance cannot be ruled out, as shown by recently obtained experimental results; however, mechanisms of action at these low levels are unknown. Keywords: base station, cognitive performance, microwaves, mobile telecommunication, sleep quality, subjective symptoms http://w m.ncbi.nlm.nih.godprrc/articles/PMC2092490/ 1/9 V .W � J 2-,016 PC M cm CASE STUDY - Lochlyn Hill — Albemarle County/City of Charlottesville In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to a project that included property in The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Charlottesville does not have a cash proffer, while Albemarle's exceeds $19,000 per single family home. After calculating the increased value of the land with the rezoning in each locality (and calculating the time such applications include), the developer chose to rezone the property that was in the City (without cash proffers) to a Planned Urban Development (PUD) with no greater than 5.9 units per acrelo and chose NOT to rezone the eleven acres located in the county. These acres would be developed by -right. The development would consist of single-family homes, cottages and townhomesll. This calculated decision was based on calculation of the cost (in money and time) of rezoning the County land exceeded the increase value. In the City of Charlottesville staff report recommending approval of the project. City staff highlighted the benefits available under the rezoning as compared with the existing 100 year old plat. "The proposed PUD responds to the existing topography of the site, avoids the stream crossing, preserves 79 trees on the site, and guarantees 15% open space by virtue of being rezoned to PUD. The plan, however, is more in line with modern development techniques than the type of development in the rest of Belmont. "In differentiating between the two layouts, the impact on the environment is a large factor. The proposal uses a road layout that follows the topography of the site, while the Belmont plat did not take topography into account when it was drawn up over 100 years ago. Additionally, the 15% open space requirement of the PUD, along with the greater io Charlottesville PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET, TUESDAY, July 10, 2012 11 Tubbs, Sean, Charlottesville Tomorrow, Planners get first look at 204-unit city -county neighborhood, %Now April 11, 2012 In certainty of the required site plan submission that would follow the approval of PUD means the City would have more certainty regarding the future use of the land"12 Therefore, the City of Charlottesville due to its lack of cash proffer, reduced process time, and increased certainty of rezoning outcomes encouraged this land owner to request a rezoning while in Albemarle County the land owner was economically incentivized to not to follow the community vetted comprehensive plan vision but instead to construct lower density, less thoughtfully designed developments. The Albemarle portion of this project will be built utilizing prior zoning to meet local building and zoning code but absent the enhancements and flexibility a rezoning might allow. False Financial Hope — Sold to the public as an answer to infrastructure financing woes, cash proffers were thought to provide significant new revenue for Capital Improvement Plans (CIP). The annual CIP for most localities total in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. These plans represent the costs of building the required infrastructure to deliver government services (i.e. schools, fire stations, etc.). The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five year schedule prepared for capital projects in the County. It is required to forecast capital outlays for the upcoming fiscal year and the ensuing four years. The information provided in the CIP is useful for projecting future revenue needs and setting funding priorities. It is also a valuable planning tool for the preparation of the County budget. The CIP is intended to advise the Board of Supervisors so better decisions can be made regarding capital expenditures. It is not intended to be used so particular capital projects can reserve funding. The County's CIP is its plan for capital expenditures over the upcoming five years. Capital expenditures/projects are defined in general as the purchase or construction of long-lived, high -cost, tangible assets. The CIP is updated on an annual basis, so capital projects can be removed when they are completed or as priorities change. Once adopted, capital project priorities may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected. In accordance with Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, the County can not accept proffers without first adopting a CIP. Proffers are voluntary contributions typically offered as part of a rezoning application to mitigate impacts associated with new 12 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT, Brian Haluska, Revised January 13, 2012 page 8 development. Proffers can include cash, property or any other contribution that is directly attributable to the development. Since proffers are specific to a particular development, the County can accept proffers that are not found in the CIP. However, before the County can receive property or cash from a proffer the CIP needs to be updated to include the project to which the proffer is connected. The proffer language itself should specify how cash or property will be used if the County chooses not to use the cash or property for its intended purpose.ls Localities see cash proffers as a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and they support the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Locality Capital Improvement Plan FY 2012 Albemarle $21,506,920 Charlottesville $24,000,000 Greene $840,746 Fluvanna $5,888,000 Louisa $6,083,000 Nelson $900,500 In reality many, if not most of the infrastructure demanded by the CIP are needed regardless of the number of new housing starts. A review of the Albemarle County Schools CIP reveals the following classification of spending: Administrative Technology, Instructional Technology, Telecommunications Network Upgrade, School Bus Replacement, School Maintenance/Replacement, School Facility Leaseta In a separate document the School Board included additions to a number of schools and modernization of others. While all of these may be Capital needs for the County it is questionable that new development generated all of these needs. Certainly residents who purchase new homes may have children that need to ride the school bus but so do residents who purchase existing homes. 13 County of Louisa 2013 Capital Improvement Plan, Page 6 14 County of Albemarle School Board CIP October 2012 Further, tying the funding for these infrastructure needs to an intermittent revenue source ensures priorities will not be completed in a timely manner. In addition, banking on unrealized cash proffers creates a false sense of wealth that may never be realized. In November 2012, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was presented a staff report outlining cash proffers that were in excess of $49.3 million dollars quite literally off the chards As one looks at this chart (above) and sees almost $50 million dollars proffered, one might anticipate the cash proffer program is answering the very need it was designed but the Free Enterprise Forum estimates at least 28% of those proffers will never be collected as they are associated with the now defunct Biscuit Run development. It is interesting that while the State of Virginia acquired the property for a state park on December 31, 200916, Albemarle County continued to calculate those proffers as receivable in November 2012. In addition, even those projects that may eventually get constructed are likely over stated for cash proffers. Very few, if any, residential projects have built out to their maximum density. This is a reaction to the market demands as well the regulatory environment that bases the cost of the entire project on the overall density. This is in direct contradiction to the goal of densification of Albemarle's development areas. According to the Code of Virginia, Urban Development Areas are areas for compact, mixed use urban development. Densities and intensities within UDAs are expected to be a minimum of four or more dwellings per developable acre for single is Cash Proffer Staff Report, Albemarle County November 7, 2012 page 1 16 Wheeler, Brian, Biscuit Run bought by Virginia to create new state park in Albemarle, Charlottesville Tomorrow, December 31, 2009 family detached housing, a minimum of six or more dwellings per developable acre for townhouses, or a minimum of 12 or more multifamily units per developable acres'. Of equal or perhaps greater import in the chart is the relatively low number of proffers collected. In 2011, Albemarle collected just over $200 thousand dollars in cash proffers which provided just 1.1% of the 2011CIP funding. Considering Albemarle's population, this represents a per capita contribution of $2.08 annually. Responding to the cash proffer demand and market conditions $0 in cash proffers were offered to Albemarle County in 2009 — 2011. Despite calls to the contrary, when calculated accurately cash proffers will never be a significant funding source for CIP. Development Area Pipeline Jammed, Tax Revenue Reduced, Rural Areas Jeopardized — The concept of denser more urban core is at the heart of Virginia's mandated Urban Development Areas (UDAs). Beyond simple economics of delivery of government f services, several studies indicate when placed correctly these UDAs can have a positive impact on economic development. Planner Peter Katz has been calculated that the vast discrepancy in property tax revenue per acre between commercial development in low -density versus high -density settings in Sarasota, Fla. A mid -rise tower with retail on the ground floor and condominiums above could yield literally 100 times the property tax revenue per acre as a Wal-Mart18. Interestingly, Alanna McKeeman, who performed an in-depth analysis of the Fairfax County tax base for her 2012 Master's Thesis in urban planning at Virginia Tech, "Land Use, Municipal Revenue Impacts, and Land Consumption" found: "Clearly, the land and buildings in [the Reston] study area are quite valuable compared to County averages for the same land uses. Extremely high -value, dense housing and office space surround the Town Center, suggesting agglomeration benefits and perhaps a premium on the pedestrian accessibility of these properties to various amenities in the surrounding area.... The denser, walkable nature of Reston Town Center, combined with proximity to Dulles airport, appears to result in higher property values.i19 17 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan adopted 2007 page 4 18 Bacon, James The Fiscal Fix, Bacon's Rebellion June 18, 2012 %No 19 Bacon, James, Land Use and Tax Revenue in Fairfax County, Bacon's Rebellion, February 19, 2013 Thus encouraging denser uses encourages an increased tax base. It only follows that requiring cash proffers for increases in density hinders said increased tax base. If cash proffers hinder density, then cash proffers hinder commercial growth as well. Case Study: Crozet Downtown District The vision for the downtown district of Crozet in Albemarle County is based on residential over retail. Image a storefront on Crozet Avenue and two stories of apartments above the storefront. Each floor will have four apartments. Absent Albemarle County's proactive zoning, the developer would be required to provide $103968 (12,996 * 8) cash proffer for the residential units. Adding this to the construction and operating costs, places the required rent higher than the market will bear. Albemarle County recognized this when they proactively rezoned much of the downtown area and created an entire new zoning district without cash proffers. In the code it stipulates - By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are permitted by right, provided that the first floor of the building in which the residential use exists is designed for and occupied only by a use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E).20 If a no cash proffer policy is acceptable in the downtown Crozet District, why is it not preferred in the other, equally important, development areas? Case Study Dunlora Forest In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to develop a parcel just off of Rio Road in Albemarle County's designated development area. The property had existing zoning for 100 residential units. The developer evaluated the cost of seeking a rezoning that might allow up to an additional 100 residential units. One of the largest costs of rezoning would be the cash proffers that would be charged not only on the increase in density but on all residential units in the project. -- 20 Albemarle County Code, Downtown Crozet District, Section 20.B Photo Credit: Mudhouse Based on the topographical challenges of the site, it could be assumed if they were able to gain a rezoning for a total of 200 residential units the majority would be townhomes. While it is likely there would be a mix of small lot single family units and townhome, to estimate the cash proffers conservatively, let's assume all would be townhomes. Using that assumption, under Albemarle County's cash proffer policy the increased cost would be $2.69 million dollars (200*$13,432). In addition, it is estimated such a rezoning would take at a minimum 2 years to work through the approval process. The financial carrying costs for this project would approach $1,000,000 utilizing private financing (as banks are increasingly hesitant to finance such loans). Therefore, while a rezoning could double the density of the project it would come at a cost of $3.69 million dollars or $36,900 ($3,690,000/100) for each additional developable unit. In addition, the per new unit surcharge could increase if the total density of the project was reduced as a function of the rezoning process. After running the numbers, the developer chose to produce the by right density rather than risking the additional time and cost of a rezoning.21 According to the Piedmont Environmental Council, Albemarle County has in excess of 10,000 units already rezoned for residential development22. Why have these projects not moved forward? Have the embedded costs of development in Albemarle County, including cash proffers, created a cost burden the market is unable to bear? If growth trends continue, won't these significant embedded costs push residential development out of Albemarle County's designated growth areas and into the rural areas? The reality is that cash proffers contribute to the paradigm that single family rural residential development remains the least expensive, lowest 21 Armstrong, Charlie, Southern Development Personal Interview February 20, 2013 22 Werner, Jeff, Piedmont Environmental Council, Email correspondence February 13, 2013 Image Credit http://webspace.ship.edu/caiant/images/albemarle county landcover.ipg risk, easiest to finance and most profitable development option in Albemarle County. If cash proffers are pushing development into the rural areas and surrounding localities, what are the community costs of increased traffic, more costly government services delivery, as well as loss of environmental contributing farmland, and productivity? Competitive Disadvantage - In the Richmond area, Hanover County eliminated their cash proffer on new homes late last year. In late February, Hanover announced they're considering a plan that would charge developers as little as $2,306 per lot to help cover the cost of new road projects spurred by residential growth23 Chesterfield County, the only Richmond locality currently applying a cash proffer, is reviewing their policy (currently $18,966) as a part of their comprehensive plan. Several rezoning cases have been deferred multiple times by the Chesterfield Planning Commission awaiting an outcome of their cash proffer debate. All of these projects are seeking a variance from the cash proffer to provide their projects with an even playing field as compared with surrounding localities. When Hanover County went from being the highest cash proffer in the region to eliminating the program, one residential development did not wait for the rollback policy to go into effect, they dropped prices by $10,000 and added $2,000 incentive for closing costS24. In the Richmond market, this cost reduction means that home is price accessible to over 14,000 potential new home buyers who previously could not afford it. Leapfrog development is generally accepted as residential development that is located outside a neighboring jurisdictional boundary in order to receive more favorable land prices and/or regulatory treatment in an adjoining locality. This is directly in conflict with locality planned Urban Development Areas designed to focus development into specific areas to more efficiently deliver government services. Urban Development Area is defined by Virginia Code Section § 15.2-2223.1 "Urban development area" means an area designated by a locality that is (i) appropriate for higher density development due to its proximity to transportation facilities, the availability of a public or community water and sewer system, or a developed area and(ii) to the extent feasible, to be used for redevelopment or infill development. 23 Shuleeta, Brandon, Hanover considers restoring proffers, Richmond Times Dispatch, February 25, 2013 24 Calos, Katherine, Hanover Developers jump at chance to avoid proffers, Richmond Times -Dispatch December 11, 2012 4=0 0 -1 � j Qj Qj 0 V) Qj QJ Qj o Q) 4ftj Qj v 4-1 Q.) 1..- Qj 4-j 11 0 • 0 aj 04 CM 1 0 0 � ICI N 0 � o v to v v v v �4 v •~ a v ° r- v J o i� 3 tau CL4� O �°, ,� • ~ v a '~ a �..+ � V cn z °-0 cu "d o bA v O O;m4 v u v v o '++ ' - v '-4 w O +J o CO � ~ E t QJ co ° u w � O v a° o 0 0 0 u Vo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q) s V oPIC$ �o cr � o vj, bb L O v •� o . �•' v rC •� 64 (A 4� � �, a v � � � t o v v o v CL O ►� L � O Q tv 0 0 • V p4 u 0 V 4� 40 ru cm In cl O O O O O O oC 0 J 03 L4:�+ _ ;\): c \ (/ ri$% 0" !$&k ) / ¥ :3 to 777 #«a2) 0 { C. = gym@ o-$E ƒ\(L£f ; ' ,E \o z ;m= CL %£2