Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 29 1994 PC Minutes3-29-94 March 29, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 29, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of March 15, 1994 were approved as amended. SP-94-03 Estate of J.E. Simpson - Request for five additional development rights [Section 10.5.2] to permit a total of 10 lots on a 23.75 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 128, Parcel 85 is located on the south side of Rt. 627 opposite Yancey School in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "While review of this application has provided mixed findings, staff is able to support this request based on an analysis of Section 10.5.2.1 and 41.2.4.1 and due to the existing character of the area. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to (conditions)." Referring to criteria No. 5 in the staff report, Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that "developed rural areas" is an oxymoron because if an area is developed, it is not a rural area. He felt this reaffirmed his feeling that the rural areas should be reviewed and some of the areas that are developed should be "pulled out" so that criteria 5 would not have to be used. Given the areas of significant slopes and soil limitations in some areas, Ms. Imhoff wondered if 10 lots was really realistic. Mr. Fritz stated the areas of 25% slopes are minimal and it does appear that 10 lots are feasible. In terms of soil limitations, he stated that some do have limitations for septic purposes, but the predominant soils on the site are suitable for drainfields. (Mr. Blue noted that the sites would have to receive Health Department approval.) Ms. Huckle asked if a soil scientist would have to identify building sites. Mr. Fritz explained that a soil scientist does not identify the building sites. Rather, the Health Department will rely on a soils report from a soils scientist in its identification of primary and reserve drainfield areas on all lots. It is then the surveyor's, and planning staff s, responsibility to verify that there is an adequate 30,000 square foot building site outside 25% slope areas. 3-29-94 2 Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the shrink -swell characteristics of the soil. Mr. Fritz noted that as long as those characteristics are known well in advance of building, they are not a concern because the builder will take that into consideration in the construction plans. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bruce Wardell, President of the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity. (He was assisted by Mr. Ron Fauss.) He briefly summarized the Habitat for Humanity program. Significant comments and answers to Commission questions included the following: --Habitat is a non-profit, national organization which builds affordable houses for families, in partnership with those families. It is an ecumenical christian organization. --It is a completely volunteer organization with no paid staff. --Funds are all privately raised. --Habitat has previously constructed one house in Charlottesville. --The organization has been searching for suitable land for 18 months. --There are presently 3 families waiting for a home. Money has been raised, thus far, to build 2 homes. --It is extremely difficult to find affordable land in Albemarle County. --Homes will cost the families approximately $40,000 ($35,000 for the building, $5,000 for land). --To make this land affordable and viable for the program, it it necessary to get 10 lots from the property. --Habitat met with the Esmont community and it appeared that some residents of the Esmont area may be interested in applying for the program. (It was later noted that 3 applications from Esmont residents have been ;•requestj2d) . --This is truly a special permit in that it is "unique" from any other in the following ways: (1) The houses will be sold for no profit; and (2) There will be no government funds used in the development of this property. --The Comprehensive Plan's goals to preserve the rural areas and at the same time provide affordable housing, "work against each other" because "there is not a mechanism currently in place where the County can either subsidize, donate or involve itself in affordable housing in growth areas without the involvement of government funds." This program will allow the County to act on its commithnent to affordable housing without having to get involved in the administration, the financing, or the managing of affordable housing. The program also results in home ownership which will be reflected in increased real estate tax revenue to the County. --Families are selected for the program based on the following criteria: (1) Need; (2) The family's ability to re -pay the no -interest loan (a minimum monthly income of $1,100 is required); and (3) The family's willingness to participate as a Habitat partner. The last criteria requires that the family be able to put in hours on its own house as well as hours on other Habitat projects. --Some priority can be given to the Esmont residents and Albemarle County residents, but it cannot be guaranteed that there will not be someone from outside the Esmont area. There are already 3 families who have met the criteria and are currently waiting for homes. Selection has been limited to Albemarle County and fringes of adjoining counties. /QD 3-29-94 3 --The default rate, nationally, on Habitat mortgages is less than that on traditional mortgages. --It is intended, at this time, that a public road will be built to serve the development and that it is hoped it will be constructed primarily with donated labor and materials. --Habitat is the contract purchaser of this property, with contingencies including the approval of this special permit. --Individual wells are planned; a central system is not envisioned at this time. Though the County does not contribute financially to these projects, Ms. Imhoff felt there was a County "subsidy" if the County doubles the density. She wanted assurance that the houses would not be "flipped" within a couple of years' period. She wondered if a second lien or deed of trust could be placed on the property so that if the property is "flipped," the money will then revert back to a housing trust fund in Albemarle County. Mr. Wardell stated that there is a program for that. He deferred the question to Mr. Jim Garrett, Treasurer of the organization. Mr. Garrett explained how the first and second mortage will work. If a family sells within the first five years, the second mortage will be due in full; if sold after 6-16 years, there will be a 1 Q% reduction, "such that after 15 years, if a family sells the property, they will recap the entire equity stake in the house." He confirmed that the second mortage monies would go to Hablta-tfor Humanity. There is presently no requirement that that money would have to be used in Albemarle County, though Mr. Garrett indicated there could be such a requirement. He added that the money would be "limited into going into new homes." Ms. Huckle urged that a soil scientist look at the property "because you're not doing these people any good to give them a house that has problems." Mr. Wardell indicated such a study will be performed once it has been determined "we can legally develop the property." The Chair invited public comment. The following persons spoke in favor of the request: Ms. Mickey Finn (a Habitat participant); Mr. Donald Hanson (Chairman of the Albemarle Housing Coalition). Mr. Lloyd Feggans (an Esmont resident); Mr. Kevin Cox; Ms. Virginia Gardner (a realtor and member of the Habitat Board of Directors); and Mr. Mike Brown, a property owner in Esmont.. Mr. Hanson stressed that this is one of only two programs that are able to build homes for very low income families. Mr. Cox stressed how the County's land use policies have driven up the cost of land and thereby effected the availablity of affordable housing. Mr. Cox was also offended by comments that anyone should have the right to "screen who lives next door to them." He stated that "there are plenty of upper -income people with bad morals too." Addressing Mr. Cox's comments about the County's land use policies, Ms. Imhoff commented: "...I very much disagree with that statement that the County's land use /o/ 3-29-94 4 management policies have driven up, solely, the cost of housing. Havaing lived in a county -- Loudon County --which has by -right one dwelling unit/3 acres and still has a tremendous affordable housing problem --I think the issue is so much more complicated and I'd really like to see Albemarle County stop dealing with some of these myths and get into the real facts. I think there are some real opportunities for this county. I think we're in a tough spot tonight because we don't have much of a policy to go on. I know that there was a lot of work done on this housing strategy. I hope that this new planning commission can go back and revisit it, maybe with the Board of Supervisors, so that we have a framework for making some of these policy decisions. I think the County maybe deserves a little more credit than it's gotten in the past. I think Crozet Crossing was the right idea.... I would like to explore those kind of possibilities. So I think, in the guise of fairness, Albemarle County needs to be credited for some of the good things it has done." Mr. Cox responded to Ms. Imhoff s remarks. He referred to studies made by the National Housing Institute (Harvard), pointing out that local zoning ordinances are in many instances responsibile for a 30% increase in the cost of affordable housing. He concluded: "That is the case in Albemarle County; there is no question about it and the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that. The Comprehensive Plan and excessive regulation have significantly contributed to the cost of housing in this area." Mr. Blue commented: "Regardless of the facts, there is no question about it, when you restrict the size of lots and you restrict the number of lots --it is the law of supply and demand --the cost is bound to go up." Ms. Lisa Glass, representing the Piedmont Environment Council, expressed support for the request, "if approval contains a provision which insures that the value created by the issuance of this special permit will be devoted, both now and in the future, to affordable housing." Ms. Glass' statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A. (NOTE: The PEC's statement included wording for an additional condition to address its concerns. This suggested condition was discussed later in the meeting, during the Commission's discussion, and it was the final determination that Habitat already has very similar language in its agreements.) Mr. Joe Samuels, representing the Simpson Estate, explained that there are 9 family members involved in the estate who are anxious to sell the property so that the estate can be settled. He explained how difficult it had been to find a buyer for the property. Addressing Mr. Dotson's question about the effect of a deferral on the proposal, he stated that "delays in this decision would cause the seller an additional hardship because we have waited so long to make the sale and by tieing up the property in the spring" (the best time in the real estate market), there is the chance the sellers will miss the best opportunity they have had in the last few years to sell the property, given the rising interest rates. /o.g 3-29-94 5 He stated he was The following persons spoke in opposition to the request: Mr. Edward Brooks (tepresenting a large percentage of the Esmont community); Ms. Frances Ford; an Esmont resident; and Mr. Chip Chandler. Mr. Brooks presented a Iist'of names of persons who had attended a community meeting held in Esmont. (51 names were on the list) He spoke at length about the community's position. He expressed concern that the community was not given earlier notice of the proposal. He pointed out that none of the 6 churches in Esmont were contacted by Habitat. He stated that while there were varying viewpoints, the majority of the residents were in agreement on the following points: (1) Esmont is a small community and wishes to remain that way; (2) The Comprehensive Plan does not recommend Esmont for growth and approval of this request would set a precedent; (3) The Esmont community has hopes for the future and does not like the label of a "low-income neighborhood;" (4) If approved, Esmont would like for its citizens to be involved in Habitat's application and selection process and would like an assurance that at least 5 of the houses would go to Esmont residents; and (5) The Esmont residents feel that Habitat has shown a lack of respect and consideration for the community in the way it has proceeded thus far. He asked that the application be denied so that it could be "started all over" and the community would then have the opportunity to work with the Habitat people. Mr. Blue attempted to determine the exact position of the Esmont community as represented by Mr. Brooks. Of the 51 persons who had attended the Esmont community meeting, Mr. Brooks estimated approximately 4 or 5 had been supportative of the proposal and another 4 or 5 were adamantly opposed, regardless of what might be worked out in the future. He stated the "majority view" was that "possibly we could look at this if there were some assurances that we could go through the application process (and) have our people involved on the committees.... We want to be full partners in this process." He estimated that 25 of the people who had attended the meeting supported a denial of the request at this time. Ms. Imhoff _.asW if perhaps Mr. Brooks was suggesting a deferral rather than a denial. Mr. Brooks responded: "Denied, tonight, and then perhaps we can get back together." Mr. Blue asked if the community would still object to "doubling the density" if it had been in on the process from the beginning. Mr. Brooks stated the community looked at doubling the density as a "50-50 split", i.e. "they bring in 5, which would bring people from outside and increase the traffic, and then take 5 people, hopefully (from the community)." He concluded: "We are concerned, first and foremost, with doubling the density in our community." Mr. Dotson asked if the community would be opposed to the development of just 5 lots, which the applicant could do by right. Mr. Brooks responded that though the community would be concerned, it is realized that nothing can be done about by -right development and the community would "be in harmony as best as we can." 3-29-94 6 Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Brooks if he was aware of any residents in Esmont who might benefit from a new house being built on their existing lot, with the old house being torn down after the completion of the new house. Mr. Brooks did not feel comfortable answering this question. Ms. Huckle brought this idea up several times during the course of the hearing. Later in the meeting Mr. Wardell addressed this question. He indicated that Habitat looks for this type of situation, but no qualifying properties have been identified. He explained that part of the problem is that people who live in substandard housing often do not own the house. Mr. Blue noted that Ms. Huckle's suggestion would not result in doubling the density as is being requested, but, at the same time, it would not address the issue of providing additional affordable housing. (Mr. Keeler also addressed Ms. Huckle's suggestion. He pointed out that many of the Iots in this area are less than 2 acres and a new house would need to meet all setbacks, have a well and 2 drainfield locations and "to try to situate that with the old house sitting there would be very difficult." He felt there would be very limited situations where that would be possible.) Ms. Anne Messina, an Albemarle County resident, expressed concern about adding more low- income families to the elementary school. She suggested that the County consider subsidizing the purchase of land so that Habitat could acquire land elsewhere. She expressed concerns about developing in a rural area which does not have public water and sewer. Ms. Christine Thomas, an adjoining property owner, was not opposed to the request, but she asked that at least 5 of the houses go to Esmont residents. Mr. Chip Chandler, an Esmont resident and an adjacent property owner, suggested that Habitat's money would be better spent by improving existing dwellings in Esmont rather than adding new houses and increasing the density. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Wardell and the County Attorney the following questions: --What assurances Habitat could offer the Esmont residents that they will be involved in this project? --Can the County require that a certain percentage of the homes go to Esmont residents? --Why does Habitat build new dwellings rather than rehabilitate existing dwellings? --What are Habaitat's feelings on the condition suggested by the PEC? Mr. Wardell explained why the Esmont community had not been involved earlier in the process. Having been present at the Esmont community meeting referred to by Mr. Brooks, he also stated that he had not perceived from that meeting that a large percentage of the residents were opposed to the project. Rather, questions from the community were related to how the program works, how can the community get involved, and how can Esmont residents make application for the program. Having been made aware of the community's interest, Habitat is now proceeding to schedule meetings and get the community involved. /0 3-29-94 7 Addressing the second question, Mr. Wardell was uncertain whether a definite percentage could be promised to Esmont families because "what happens if there are not 5 qualified families?" Would that then mean that some of the lots could not be built on? Addressing the issue of rehabilitation vs. new construction, Mr. Wardell explained that Habitat tries not to duplicate services that are already available in the area. He also pointed out that Habitat's experience is with building new housing, not rehabilitating old. Regarding PEC's suggested condition, Mr. Wardell explained that PEC's condition "basically duplicates an already established Habitat policy." He stated he would prefer that the Habitat language be included rather than PEC's language. (Ms. Imhoff pointed out the only difference was that the money would go to Habitat with no caveat that it go to Albemarle County.) Mr. Wardell responded: "Certainly that's our area of operation. I suspect that we could probably make a local decision that that was the case. I can't speak without having the Board discuss that. It doesn't seem to be, at this juncture, impossible to do that." Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Wardell: "It this were denied this evening, what do you think would happen?" Mr. Wardell responded: "One thing that wilI happen is that the development costs for each lot will double because only five lots will be developable (instead of 10).... We would probably be right back where we were 18 months ago --looking-- and the families that are waiting will be waiting again." He stressed that "this is the best opportunity we have had in a year and a half." Mr. Nitchmann asked if Habitat would consider building 5 houses instead of 10. Mr. Wardell responded: "We would look hard at it." He noted that a road would have to be built even with only 5 houses. He concluded: "Our feeling is that it would make it too expensive. at this point in time." Regarding PEC's comments, Mr. Davis commented: "I think my initial opinion would be that I disagree with PEC on this issue. There is some very specific enabling legislation which deals with affordable housing that is in the Code. This application for a density bonus is not under local ordinance that deals with affordable housing. It is a completely separate application from those types of provisions. Although you have great flexibility in attaching conditions to special use permits, I think this is an area which is specifically addressed by enabling legislation and the enabling legislation would not allow you to do what (PEC) is proposing with these conditions. That raises a great deal of concern in my mind as to whether or not that would be a valid condition to impose on this particular special use permit." Mr. Dotson interpreted: "If there was to be some stipulation about people from Esmont, it would have to be above and beyond any use permit requirement; it would have to be something that was worked out outside our process." Mr. Davis responded: "Certainly this applicant can do whatever he wants to do with his particular properties that are being given a density bonus, but I think it would be questionable whether or not this Commission and the Board of Supervisors could require that as a condition." /®.q- 3-29-94 g Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Davis to comment on PEC's recommended condition related to a deed of trust. She noted that "it is being done in Crozet Crossing." Mr. Davis replied: "But that is not a condition of any zoning approval. It was a condition of a community block grant program that the County is participating in, which is separate from a landuse requirement" (Mr. Cilimberg interjected: "We had no zoning action on Crozet Crossing; it was a subdivision plat approval.") Mr. Davis confirmed that the Habitat organization could make such a condition a part of its agreement with participants if it so chooses. (Mr. Wardell stated that it is a part of Habitat's by-laws.) Mr. Davis concluded: "In the land records, when the Deeds of Trust are recorded, it would establish that, but I don't believe that you could independently require that as a condition of the special use permit." Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant how much could be accomplished with the Esmont neighborhood prior to the Board hearing in 3 weeks. Mr. Wardell responded: "We're doing it as quickly as possible." He explained that churches have been contacted and meetings are being arranged. Mr. Dotson suggested that staff look into the possibility of some zoning text amendments which would "guide decisions like this." He asked Mr. Keeler how quickly this could be researched and brought back to the Commission. Mr. Keeler stated he did not think it would take long to put together some information, but it would be a while before he could get to writing actual text amendments. He suggested the topic of his research would be the "parameters for affordable housing and the parameters for family divisions where development rights have been exhausted." Mr. Blue commented: "I have read the favorable staff report for this request and the supporting data from the Housing Coordinator. I have viewed the site and I have listened to all the discussion. Notwithstanding there is some opposition, for very good reasons, I really sincerely believe that you would have to have neither a head nor a heart to be opposed to this request. From the head standpoint, economically, it is a wonderful opportunity. There is no government money going into this. Habitat for Humanity has a national reputation for doing well. From a compassionate standpoint, there is no question there either." MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that SP-94-03 for the Estate of J.E. Simpson be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of subdivision plats. 2. Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in Attachment C and the information packet entitled "Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity Esmont Property Special Use Permit." Revisions to the sketch of development contained in the applicant's information necessary to meet requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances are not included in this condition. /©& 3-29-94 Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Discussion: 9 Mr. Nitchmann reminded the Commission that the issue of affordable housing is one the County has been dealing with for the past couple of years. He stated that though he understood the neighborhood's concerns, he felt steps were now being taken which would allow the neighborhood to work together with Habitat. He felt it could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. He concluded: "I don't want to be in a position of denying someone the opportunity for owning their own home." Ms. Imhoff stated she has struggled with this proposal because she takes the 5 development rights very seriously. She pointed out that this is a growth management technique which the County has had in place for 14 years. She stated she had given this project careful consideration because of the non-profit aspect and the protection that the property will not be "flipped and a profit made which would not accrue back to the community." For those reasons, she stated she could make an exception on these development rights for this particular application. She felt the County really needs to "grapple with affordable housing." She noted that there is presently no adopted policy on the issue of affordable housing. She felt projects such as Crozet Crossing, where there is public water and sewer and a possibility of public sewer, were more appropriate than scattering people in more remote areas. She concluded: "However, with the application before us tonight, the reason I would rather see a deferral, would be to allow the community some time to work on this language. Since we cannot condition the approval, I guess I need a stronger feeling that there is an agreement between the Esmont community and Habitat for Humanity that at least 50%, or whatever, will be for people in the community, that there is a way, if the property is flipped, that the monies will be held in a second mortgage and they will go back to affordable housing projects in the community. Because we can't condition that, I'm not quite yet comfortable that everyone has come to a like mind on it. I hope not to vote against this project. I would like to see it deferred." Ms. Huckle expressed support for the Habitat for Humanity program. However, she was concerned about the community reception of the project. She expressed support for a deferral to allow time for more community discussion. (Both Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Nitchmann explained that they had not moved for deferral because of the applicant's apparent lack of support for a deferral.) Mr. Dotson reminded the Commission that the Housing Strategy for Albemarle County - 1992 says "this is exactly the kind of housing that the County needs." He was in favor of deferral to allow time to hear from staff in relation to guidelines that "would allow us to address the issue more generally, that might, in the long term, help Habitat find other sites as well as this one. He concluded: "I don't want to lose the project, but I don't think we're in danger of losing the project. I think we've got some things to work out." %bl� 3-29-94 10 Mr. Jenkins expressed support for the proposal. He expressed no concern about the increased density. He was concerned, however, about the number of citizens "who are not on board even though they say they most likely would get on board." He expressed a reluctance to make that decision "for Mr. Brooks or the people he represents." He stated he had trouble assuming that all the issues could be worked out before the Board hearing. He was contemplating abstaining from the vote. (NOTE: As the record will later reflect, Mr. Jenkins did not abstain.) Ms. Vaughan said she was "torn" on the issue. She realized this was an emotional issue but stated she tended to support the project. She expressed an understanding for the community's having felt "slighted" by Habitat, but she concluded: "But if the community feeling is really there, they will look beyond the small slight and see what they can do at this point. Let this be the beginning and kick in and do what is necessary to get the project going. I also have a problem with the terminology 'low-income housing.' ... That infers a certain stereotype that shouldn't exist." She pointed out that her neighbors had not been able to "pick and choose" her but it was their "outreach" to her which had made her feel welcome. She felt the nature of the Esmont community --being a small community which reaches out to its residents --will look beyond this and see it as "here is a chance that we can embrace someone else and bring them into our fold." Mr. Blue pointed out that there are 3 weeks before the Board hearing. If the community does not come to some agreement with Habitat, then they will have the chance to present their comments again before the Board. The previously stated motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners Imhoff, Huckle and Dotson casting the dissenting votes. (Those voting against the motion expressed their preference for deferral.) ZTA-94-01 Accessory Apartments - The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend 3.0 Definitions to define "accessory apartment" as accessory to a single family dwelling. Amend 5.0 Supplementary Regulations to allow "accessory apartment" in all single family dwellings without regard to density and to impose certain restrictions on "accessory apartment." Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He further clarified: "Because the accessory apartment would not count towards lot area or density as a dwelling unit, it would be made available to all single-family dwellings in existence at this time and all single family dwellings approved in the future, with the exception of those which are restricted by subdivision covenants, over ld? 3-29-94 11 which the County has not control." He also made the following amendment to the staff report: Add at end of 5.1.34(h): "...accessory, or within the apartment unit itself." Commission questions and concerns were as follows: --Does the accessory apartment have to have a separate septic system and drainfield, or will it be shared with the main dwelling? (Huckle) Mr. Keeler responded that determination would be made by the Health Department. Either situation is possible. Mr. Keeler confirmed that two drainfields ("adequate to serve the main dwelling and the accessory apartment") will be required and "we could not authorize any unit which did not meet those requirements." Mr. Blue felt the wording for 5.1.34(i) was ambiguous. He pointed out that the Health Department requires a primary and secondary field and he felt the proposed language was confusing. Mr. Keeler explained that the Health Department's requirements for a replacement field differs from the county's, i.e. the County requires a 100% replacement field, the Health Department requires 50%. He confirmed that the County's requirements exceed the Health Department's, BUT the Health Department "honors the County's zoning regulations which requires a full size original field and a full size replacement field. Without that language, the Health Department would require a full size original field and a 50% backup field." Mr. Blue continued to argue that the wording was confusing. Ms. Huckle felt it was acceptable to leave the wording as presented by staff. Mr. Keeler concluded: "In either case, whether it is an additional field or an existing field, the capacities have to be adequate to support the main dwelling and the accessory unit both in terms of original and backup capacities." --Is there a minimum requirement for well capacity? (Huckle) Mr. Keeler stated there is no County regulation. He was of the impression the Health Department requires 1/2/gpm. He did not think there would be any greater requirement related to the existence of an accessory apartment. Ms. Imhoff felt this was an issue which should be looked into. --Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Keeler to comment on the Zoning Administrator's comments related to "putting the accessory apartment permit to record as part of the process for special use permits," and also changes to duplexes and 2-family dwelllings. Mr. Keeler stated he had not discussed the idea of accessory apartments being recorded in the title wth the County Attorney. He stated, however, he agreed wth Mr. St. John's original analysis of that issue. He pointed out that getting County regulation involved in deed restrictions causes "geometric complications." He felt that "goes beyond the concept of land use regulations." He added that the County has no authority to read deeds. --Mr. Blue felt that (h), requiring that the "owner reside in any dwelling to which the apartment unit is accessory or within the .payment unit itself," would be difficult to enforce. He wondered it it should apply to the �'% establishment only, which he felt would be easy to verify and enforce. It was staffs opinion that who lives in a dwelling is not a land use matter. Ms. Huckle felt it was very important that the ownef reside in the dwelling unit, in either the /,017 3-29-94 12 main house or the accessory unit. Ms. Imhoff agreed. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that even though it may be difficult to enforce such a restriction, if it is in the Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator will be able to address the problem if complaints do arise. (Mr. Keeler offered some examples where requiring owner occupancy in part of the dwelling might not work in every case.) Mr. Davis commented: "Selective enforcement is not a defense to a prosecution. If the County prosecuted one person and other people are not being prosecuted, the Supreme Court has determined that is not a defense for that person who is being prosecuted. On the other hand, it does cause some very serious policy issues with the Zoning Administrator who feels it is her obligation to enforce the Ordinance and if there are situations where she is aware that the Ordinance is being violated, it is her job to enforce it and she has an obligation to do that.... If an Ordinance is not meant to be enforced, it should amended in a fashion that it can be enforced. I don't think you should adopt ordinances that you don't intend to enforce." --Mr. Blue felt 5.1.34(b), related to gross floor area, would also be difficult to enforce. Mr. Keeler explained how staff had arrived at the 35% figure. He explained that by using 35%, the main dwelling would always be twice as large. He pointed out: "What we're trying to do here is keep these things from being duplexes." Mr. Blue suggested that the area which has been established as the "minimum for a habitable strucuture" by the Building Code might be used. Mr. Keeler pointed out that (b) refers to the "maximum" total gross floor area. In response to Ms. Imhoff s request, Mr. Keeler briefly summarized information which had been gathered from 15 other communities which had been surveyed on this topic. Public comment was invited The following persons expressed support for the amendment: --Mr. Alvin Egbert and Mr. Donald Hanson (Albemarle Housing Coalition) - His statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment B. He concluded that the Coalition would be "very disappointed" if the amendment did not pass. --Mr. Kevin Cox - He felt the amendment would help provide affordable housing for the elderly and, in some instances, allow the elderly to stay in their homes. He supported the requirement that the dwelling be owner occupied. He felt this would provide a desirable degree of control. The following persons expressed concerns about, or opposition to, the proposed amendment: --Mr. Howard Nevlbh (a resident of Key West) - He expressed concern about doubling the density by an unknown _lumber in an unknown number of locations. He was also concerned that this would apply county -wide. He felt this should be discussed during the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan. (He also inquired as to the source of this proposed amendment. Ms. Huckle explained that it had come out of the Housing Committee's report.) --Ms. Karen Strickland - She felt this proposed amendment was in conflict with the County's policy to control growth in the rural areas. She expressed concern about the impact /!a 3-29-94 13 this could have on single-family neighborhoods. She felt it had the potential of changing the character of neighborhoods. --Mr. Frank Kessler - He expressed concerns about "long range devaluation in single- family areas." He felt smaller neighborhoods are most likely to be effected by the proposal. He stated, however, that he would support accessory apartments by special permit. --Ms. Lisa Glass (Piedmont Environmental Council) - Her statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment C. PEC favored accessory apartments by special permit. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson noted that he had several questions, and given the lateness of the hours, he asked if the issue could be deferred. Both Commissioners Blue and Nitchmann agreed that they had no desire to take action on the proposed amendment at this meeting. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA-94-01, related to Accessory Apartments, be deferred indefinitely. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Ms. Huckle asked if the item would have to be re -advertised if the Commission were to recommend that it be amended so as to allow accessory apartments by special permit. (Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that if made by special permit, the Commission would have to review each and every request. Staff was projecting approximately 60 applications/year.) Mr. Cilimberg stated that since such a change would be more restrictive, re -advertisement would not be required. The Commission made the following requests of staff. --Contact other jurisdictions who allow accessory apartments by special permit to see what their experience has been. --Provide an explanation of Chart 58 and the housing strategy which says that "in certain affordability ranges we have excess apartments or rental units and in other categories we have deficiency." --Provide a list of neighborhoods (including lots sizes in those neighborhoods) which Commissioners can visit (in each magesterial district) so that it can be envisioned how these apartments might impact these neighborhoods. --Clarify the water requirements with the Health Department. --In 5.1.34, add something related to the identification of the purpose of the accessory apartment (in the event it is approved through the special permit process). ----------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS ��e 3-29-94 14 There was a brief discussion about the next joint meeting with the City Planning Commission. It was agreed that it should not be scheduled until after the completion of the Comp Plan Survey. There was a brief discussion about possible changes or expansion of the notification process. Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the press coverage of Commission meetings is probably the best process for public notification for Board hearings. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board has discussed this matter previously, but he offered to bring it up with the County Executive again. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that a report had been completed about the public notification process. Mr. Dotson expressed concern about the small size of the public notice signs which are presently posted on sites. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. g: /11r7