HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 05 1993 PC Minutes1-5-93
1
JANUARY 5, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, January 5, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms.
Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development.; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Jenkins.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
Election of Officers
Mr. Grimm and Mr. Johnson were unanimously re-elected as
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg
was unanimously relected as Secretary. (No other
nominations were offered.)
Meeting days and times were unanimously re -affirmed to be
7:00 p.m., Tuesday evenings, County Office Building.
CONSENT AGENDA
Addition to Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District -
Consists of three parcels totalling 149.717 acres on the
north side of Rt. 614 at Sugar Hollow. The existing
district contains 3,269.69 acres.
and
Withdrawal from Totier Creek A ricultural Forestal District
- Consists of one parcel containing 246.44 acres on the east
side of Rt. 20 near Keene. The existing district contains
8,638.74 acres.
Ms. Scala presented a brief staff report.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to why the owners
of the Totier Creek District had not been notified, Ms.
Scala explained that proper notification had been given,
based on the existing addresses of record; however, because
of a change in management of the limited partnership, the
notice did not "get into the proper hands."
�97
1-5-93 2
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that the
Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-92-084) - IBM Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to
locate a 6,000 square foot addition to an existing 24,000
square foot building on 1.89 acres. Property, described as
Tax Map 60, Parcel 48, is located on the south side of Old
Ivy Road approximately 1800 feet east of the Route 250/29
Bypass. Zoned C-1, Commercial, this site is located in the
Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area (N7) and is recommended for Office
service.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending approval of the request.
Because the applicant was not present, discussion of this
item was delayed until later in the meeting.
Colonial of Charlottesville Major Site Plan Amendment - The
applicant is proposing to delete 56 parking spaces and an
internal access road from the previously approved plan and
permit parking on the north side of Myers Drive. The
10-acre site is currently occupied by the Colonial Auto
dealership. The site is located on the west side of Rt. 29N
just south of Rio Hills Shopping Center in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. The property is
described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 94A and B and is zoned HC,
Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. This site is
located in a designated growth area (N1) and is recommended
for Regional Service.
The applicant was requesting deferral to January 21, 1993.
Mr. Johnson asked that the Engineering Department be asked
to review their statements in regard to the elimination of
parking. He indicated he could not draw the same
conclusions as those referenced in the Engineering
Department memorandum.
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the item
be deferred to January 21, 1993.
Discussion:
There was a general discussion about last-minute requests
for deferrals. Recalling several such deferrals in recent
weeks, Mr. Blue wondered if this is a common occurence and,
if so, why? He wondered if there was a communication
problem between staff and applicants.
IV-6-
1-5-93 3
Mr. Cilimberg explained that applicants receive staff
reports at approximately the same time as the Commission,
i.e. they are mailed to the applicant on the same day the
Commission is given the report. Mr. Blue asked if this
meant that the applicant was not aware of what staff's
recommendation was going to be until one week before the
meeting. Mr. Cilimberg responded affirmatively. He added,
however, that the applicant is made aware of staff's
comments and concerns at the time of site review. Based on
Mr. Cilimberg's explanation, Mr. Blue indicated he was not
sympathetic to requests for deferrals if the applicants are
aware well in advance of staff concerns and the need for
modifications to a plan. (Mr. Keeler later explained that
applicants receive a written summary of site review comments
no later than the day following the site review meeting.)
Mr. Johnson stated he was "very much in favor of the
applicant being provided information at the earliest
possible moment," even if the Commission has not yet
received the staff report.
The previously stated motion for deferral passed
unanimously.
SDP-92-085 - Leisure Unlimited Vacations Preliminary Site
Plan - Proposal to construct a 2000 square foot building
with six parking spaces for tour bus storage on a 1.18 acre
site. Property, described as Tax Map 76M(1) Parcel 21, is
located on the north side of Five Springs Road adjacent to
Bartlett Tree Company in the Mill Creek Industrial Park.
This site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area (N4) and is recommended for
Industrial Service.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant ws represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He
offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that the Leisure
Unlimited Vacations Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
iy�
1-5-93 4
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Department of Engineering approval of entrance
design;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water plans;
f. Staff approval of a final landscape plan including
a conservation plan and a note stating all landscaping shall
be maintained and replaced should any die.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Construction of Five Springs Road to this site;
b. Fire Official final approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-92-083) - South Pantops Office Complex IV Preliminary
Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 16,746 square foot
building and 69 parking spaces on a 1.379 acre site.
Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 17H2 (part) and
16A, is located on the north side of South Pantops Drive
approximately 200 feet east of Riverbend Drive. Zoned
PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center and HC, Highway
Commercial in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site
is located in a designated growth area (N3) and is
recommended for Community Service.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Melton. He
offered to answer Commission questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the South
Pantops Office Complex IV Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
1117
1-5-93
5
a. Department
drainage plans and
b. Department
detention plans and
provisions;
c. Department
control plan;
d. Albemarle
final water plans.
of Engineering approval of grading and
calculations;
of Engineering approval of stormwater
calculations or explanation of existing
of Engineering approval of an erosion
County Service Authority approval of
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
(SDP-93-086) - ACAC Major Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to
construct three new tennis courts, relocate the tennis shop,
modify the pool deck, and reconfigure the parking lot to
accommodate nine new spaces. Property, described as Tax Map
61X1, Parcels 4 and 4A located on the east side of Four
Seasons Drive approximately 1/2 mile south of Rio Road.
Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the Charlottesville
Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated
growth area (N1) and is recommended for Medium Density
Residential.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In answer to Ms. Huckle's question regarding how parking
needs are calculated, Mr. Tarbell explained that the Zoning
Administrator has determined that "the parking as proposed
is adequate, based on her interpretation of a ruling by a
previous zoning administrator." He explained further that
there are no parking standards for tennis courts, but the
Zoning Administrator has determined that 2 spaces/court is
adequate. Ms. Huckle felt it would be difficult to compute
parking needs given the variety of activities. She felt it
was conceivable that 12 parking spaces could be needed for 3
tennis courts (as opposed to the Zoning Administrator's
determination of 9). She recalled complaints regarding
parking problems during previous hearings on this use. (Ms.
Huckle expressed this same concern several times during the
hearing.)
Regarding concerns expressed to staff, Mr. Tarbell explained
that they dealt primarly with the use itself, expansion of
the use, and future plans, and were not things which could
be addressed through the conditions of approval. Since
Wl
1-5-93 6
residents of Four Seasons were always aware that this was to
be a recreation area, he perceived that a primary concern is
with the number of amendments to the recreation area which
have been approved.
Mr. Grimm noted that the property is properly zoned for the
use proposed.
Mr. Tarbell reviewed the history of the site. Mr. Blue
asked if the original PUD had shown this recreational
complex. Mr. Tarbell responded: "The original PUD called
for it to be a recreational area but not a part of the PUD.
... It's always been a recreational area, but I don't know
what physical plan (the original plan) called for." Mr.
Blue concluded that there had been no plans showing tennis
courts in such close proximity to several back yards.
Ms. Huckle was under the impression that the recreation area
had originally intended to be for use by Four Seasons
residents only. Mr. Keeler stated that the membership had
never been restricted to the residents of the PUD. He
explained that it was always zoned separately but it was
shown on the original plans as a recreation area.
Ms. Huckle asked if staff had any information on the current
membership in the facility. Staff had no such information.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff was aware of any formal
complaints which have been received by either the Zoning
Department or the Police Department in relation to the
parking problem. Mr. Tarbell indicated he was not aware of
formal complaints, but he was aware of concerns about
parking problems which occur during special events, such as
swim meets. Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Ms. Huckle regarding
the inadequacy of the 9 parking spaces to serve the proposed
tennis courts. He asked if the Zoning Administrator, when
determining parking needs, had taken into consideration the
increase in membership since the time of the original
approval. Mr. Tarbell again explained that the Zoning
Administrator's determination had been based on a previous
Zoning Administrator's ruling (1985) and, in her opinion, 9
spaces are adequate.
Mr. Tarbell stated that staff often receives calls about
problems with this use related to noise, construction,
dumping, etc. He could not document the calls. He felt
this was to be expected with this type of use in the middle
of a residential neighborhood.
Ms. Huckle expressed an interest in the membership record as
of 1985 as compared to present membership. Staff had no
acoess to such information though Mr. Tarbell suggested that
the applicant may be able to answer the question.
OCUMIK
7
Mr. Johnson recalled that the primary complaint at the time
of the last amendment had been related to parking. (Ms.
Huckle shared this recollection.)
The applicant was represented by Steve Von Stork (architect
for the project). He explained that parking needs (for any
Use in the County) are calculated based on "square footage
of floor space dedicated to recreation and floor space
dedicated to office space." Thus, 125 sq. ft. of
recreational space per parking space, plus the office needs,
generated the need for 100 spaces. He stated that has not
been adequate for the owner. Presently, there are 168
spaces, 68 spaces more than the "old formula." He agreed
that there are times when these spaces have proven
inadequate. He noted that this plan will re -locate 20
seldom -used spaces, making them more useable than they
presently are, and along with the 9 new spaces requested,
the owners feel they will actually be gaining 29 spaces. He
noted that the re -location of the 20 spaces should address
some of the neighbors complaints about how those spaces were
being used. (Young people are using them late at night,
playing loud music, etc.) He stated that the tennis courts
will not be lighted, thus night-time use should not be a
problem. He stated that the applicant is "open to
re-inforcing the existing landscape buffer which will not be
at all impinged by this new work." Regarding membership, he
did not know the original membership. (The current
membership was later estimated to be 1,200.) He stated that
attempts have been made, unsuccessfully, to determine what
percentage of the membership is present at any given time.
In response to Mr. Grimm's question, Mr. Von Stork stated he
was aware of problems with parking on the road for certain
events. However, it was determined that this is a County or
State enforcement issue because it is a public road. The
possibility of No Parking signs was mentioned; presently no
such signs exist.
Mr. Johnson noted that a denial of this request would result
in "the status quo continuing." He stated that the "status
quo" is not under review. Rather, the review is concerned
with the effect of adding the facilities which are
requested. He did not think the status of the existing
parking was at issue. He felt the review was "getting
astray" of the application.
Mr. Blue commented: "Well, if they've already got a parking
problem, it's debatable if this is going to improve it."
Mr. Grimm noted that parking is a part of the amended site
plan, thus it is relevant to the issue.
Mr. Bowling pointed out that the zoning Administrator has
determined that the proposed parking meets the current
M
1-5-93 8
ordinance requirements. He added that if the Commission
disagrees with this determination, based on public health
and safety concerns, there is an appeal process which can be
followed.
The following members of the public, residents of Four
Seasons, expressed opposition to the proposal: Dennis
Wanlass, Verline Gwathney, Ms. Hamish (and her son). Mr.
Wanlass called attention to eleven letters of opposition to
the proposal. Their reasons for opposition included:
--Parking problems caused by lack of sufficient parking
for membership.
--Site is much too intensely developed, much more than
was originally anticipated.
--Noise from activities and lawn equipment. Noise was
not as great a problem in the early days of the club. Even
inside music can be heard in nearby homes.
--Negative impact on property values.
--Club has no security measures. (Drug dealing was
mentioned.)
--Proposed Tennis Pro Shop will be as large as some of
Four Seasons homes.
--Lack of neighborhood awareness of the proposal (only
those with "adjoining" property were notified).
--Is a parking garage in the the future?
--Facility should not keep "getting permission to
outgrow everybody else."
--If this kind of expansion was envisioned by the
applicant, the facility should have located elsewhere in the
beginning.
Mr. Von Stork noted that the property had been previously
rezoned and the plan had shown a much larger building than
the total of all the existing buildings. He stated the
owner feels he has been responsible —in providing more than
the Ordinance requires and he also feels the relocation of
the 20 rear spaces will be an improvement. He felt the
applicant has tried to be a good neighbor in a difficult
situation. In terms of addressing the specific problems
mentioned by the residents, he felt there were "little"
things which can be done to be responsive "to little local
problems," but he did not have a solution to the "overall
concern" of the residents. He noted that he was not an
employee of the applicant so his authority was limited.
However, he agreed that the formation of a "joint committee"
of residents and Club staff would be helpful.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked staff to comment on Ordinance regulations
related to noise levels. Mr. Keeler pointed out that unless
complaints are filed with the Zoning Administrator or the
o2a/
1-5-93 9
Police Department, the County will not get involved. (He
noted that 5.12 and 5.16 are the two applicable provisions.)
Mr. Blue asked staff if their recommendation on this request
might have been different if there had been records of
formal complaints. Mr. Tarbell responded negatively. He
explained that he had reviewed the site plan as a physical
improvement with a minimum physical impact on the land and
had not considered issues such as noise, stray tennis balls,
etc.
Mr. Bowling pointed out that this is not a re -zoning review;
it is a site development plan for a by -right use. The only
issue is whether or not it complies with current zoning
requirements. The applicant has the right to expand "up to
25,000 square feet of the building." Mr. Tarbell added that
he had been unable to identify any specific prohibition in
the rezoning which would indicate that the use is expanding
beyond what was anticipated.
Mr. Blue noted that the concerns voiced by the residents are
already in existence and even if the Commission does nothing
those problems will remain. He felt that the current
request might eliminate some of the problems though it may
cause others. He concluded that if the tennis courts were
shown on the original plan and if there are no parking
requirements related to number of members, "then we are just
groping in the dark to find some reason to turn this down
and say that it doesn't meet legal conditions because we
don't have anything.
Mr. Bowling stated that in order to deny this site
development plan the Code of Virginia requires you must
"give specific reasons for disapproval and the reasons shall
identify deficiencies in the plat which cause the
disapproval by reference to specific duly adopted
ordinances, regulations and policies and then you must
generally identify such modifications or corrections as will
permit approval."
Ms. Huckle asked: "Doesn't site development address parking
as part of its perview?"
Mr. Bowling: "Yes it does, but the Zoning Administrator has
determined that the parking proposed here meets the
requirements under your current ordinance."
Mr. Cilimberg: "I believe she has determined that it meets
the requirements based on the zoning that was established on
the site, the perameters established, back in 1985."
Ms. Huckle concluded: "I don't think that applies any
more . "
144�
1-5-93 10
Mr. Bowling stated it was the Zoning Administrator's job to
interpret parking. He suggested that the Commission might
request that the Zoning Administrator explain her rationale.
Mr. Blue felt there should be some criteria related to
membership for this type of case, i.e. a recreational
facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the time to place limitations
on this type of use is at the time of the rezoning or
special permit hearing. That was not done in this case.
Ms. Andersen asked if there were any way to correct what may
have been an error, i.e. "is there a way of acknowledging
that this is a situation that is a problem and the
perameters don't work?"
Mr. Cilimberg explained that what Ms. Andersen had described
is "government initiated downzoning." He had no personal
experience with this approach. Mr. Bowling added: "You can
say the zoning is a mistake, but you need some hard,
empirical evidence to justify that decision."
Mr. Blue felt the problems which have been mentioned were
more related to the use of the building. He did not think
the additional tennis courts would add to those problems.
Mr. Johnson called attention to Section 5.1.16 of the Zoning
Ordinance which limits noise levels to 40 decibels at the
nearest property line. He advised the residents that they
could make a complaint to the Zoning Department and ask that
the noise levels be checked.
Mr. Tarbell explained that there currently exists 10,500
square feet of floor space (out a total of 26,000
allowable).
Mr. Nitchmann felt the Commission's hands were "legally
tied" in terms of a denial.
Mr. Blue suggested that deferral, based on a request for
more information from the Zoning Administrator on parking
calculations, would give the applicant and residents time to
meet to try to work out some of the concerns.
Mr. Bowling confirmed that a deferral, in order to seek
additional information from the Zoning Administrator, was
acceptable.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed that a deferral was called for.
Ms. Huckle expressed an interest in knowing the membership
in 1985. She felt this was important information in terms
of defining a change in situation which would effect parking
a00
1-5-93 11
calculations. (Mr. Johnson pointed out that there had been
no limitation on the membership.)
Mr. Bowling felt it should be possible to control parking in
private driveways and on the public road. He noted that the
residents need to initiate the process by filing formal
complaints. (Mr. Keeler felt a lot of the problems were
police matters.)
Mr. Blue felt that a deferral to allow time to receive more
information from the Zoning Administrator regarding parking
and to allow time for the owner to meet with the residents
to try to work out a compromise in their positions would
result in it "being a whole lot easier to get this
approved."
Mr. Von Stork attempted to clarify the Commission's
position: "I assume the parking issue that you are looking
for additional support on is whether or not 9 spaces is
enough additional parking for 3 additional tennis courts."
Mr. Blue responded: "Technically, that's correct ... but
actually I'm just looking for a way to delay it so we can
get together."
Mr. Von Stork indicated he felt the applicant would have no
problem with working with the neighborhood. However, he
added: "But I don't think they want to be in a position
where they are going back and having site plans that were
approved quite recently re -challenged."
Mr. Blue: "I wasn't suggesting that. I was just trying to
look for a way to get these people together, if it is is
possible. If it's not, then we've got to make a decision as
to whether or not to allow these tennis courts."
Mr. Johnson agreed the only action available at present is
to defer the item until the issue of the parking can be
resolved.
Mr. Bowling confirmed that a member of the public has the
right to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision on
parking to the BZA.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the owner was aware of the
neighborhood dissatisfaction. He asked why the owner was
not present. Mr. Tarbell explained that the applicant must
have a representative at the meeting but is not required to
attend personally. Mr. Von Stork explained that "as of
today" he had become aware of two individuals who are in
opposition and only today had it become apparent there "were
more disgruntled people than just those two." He did not
know to what extent the management is aware of the
neighborhood dissatisfaction.
�D
1-5-93 12
There was a brief discussion about time limitations. Mr.
Bowling explained the request must be acted upon within 60
days of submittal. Mr. Tarbell reported the submittal date
as November 16, 1992. Mr. Keeler noted that the item could
be deferred beyond the 60-day period, with the consent of
the applicant.
Mr. Von Stork was agreeable to deferrment to January 21, "in
the spirit of neighborhood cooperation." He noted, however:
"We'd like to be on record that we think that 9 spaces has
been deemed to be adequate parking by the Zoning
Administrator for the three additional courts and we feel we
have the right to have the plan approved tonight."
Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that ACAC Major
Site Plan Amendment be deferred to January 21, 1993. The
motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Tarbell asked the Chairman if the public hearing would
be re -opened on the 21st, i.e. will persons who have not
already expressed concerns be allowed to speak or will these
same persons be allowed to speak again? Mr. Grimm stated it
is anticipated that the leadership of the homeowners'
associations will meet with ACAC and then act as
spokesperson for the neighbors. Mr. Johnson asked if the
Commission could "make that restriction." Mr. Bowling
responded: "You've had your public hearing."
SDP-92-084 - IBM Major Site Plan Amendment (Continued)
The staff report having been presented earlier in the
meeting, the Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Shank. He
offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that the IBM
Major Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
additional fixture load on meter;
1-5-93
13
b. Architectural Review Board issuance of final
Certificate of Appropriateness;
C. Department of Engineering
and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering
wall design;
e. Department of Engineering
Control Plan;
f. Department of Engineering
detention;
approval of grading plans
approval of retaining
approval of an Erosion
approval of stormwater
g. Zoning Department approval.
2. Staff approval of final site plan.
The motion passed unanimouly.
Economic Development Policy - Mr. Nitchmann reported on the
progress of the proposed policy. After having met with Mr.
Cilimberg and Mr. Tucker, it was decided the best approach
is to first establish the policy as part of the
Comprehensive Plan. This would involve amendment of the
Economic Development section of the Plan (page 13) by
replacing the existing statement with new goals and
supporting objectives and strategies. (A copy of Mr.
Nitchmann's proposal is made a part of these minutes as
Attachment A.) Mr. Nitchmann proposed that he and Mr. Grimm
act as a "sub -committee" to work with staff on development
of goals and objectives with a report back to the Commission
on March 2, 1993. He proposed a public hearing be held in
April with recommendations to be passed on to the Board of
Supervisors at that time. He felt it was very important
that "proper policies" be in place in order to receive State
recognition. He asked for Commission support to move
forward with the proposal.
Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that a
Sub -Committee be formed to develop an economic development
policy statement for possible inclusion in the Comprehensive
Plan, with said committee to report back to the Commission
on March 2. The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Nitchmann called attention to a recently established HUD
Information Center dealing with Regulatory Reform for
affordable housing information. The Center can be reached
through an 800 number.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the County is a member of the
Virginia Economic Development Association. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that the Planning Department is not a member, but he
1-5-93
14
did not know whether or not the County was a member. He
offered to check.
Mr. Johnson distributed copies of an article from the
Washington Post related to schools' role in job training.
Annual Report - Mr. Grimm volunteered to prepare the 1992
Annual Report.
Comprehensive Plan Review - Mr. Johnson asked that
consideration be given to the "pros and cons of availing
ourselves of any consulting expertise as this plan is
reviewed."
AgZForestal Districts - Mr. Johnson suggested that an
analysis be done to determine the effectiveness of these
districts. Mr. Cilimberg felt it would be difficult to
perform this type of analysis. He also noted that the
controversy in some areas lies more with use -value taxation
outside of ag-forestal districts. It was explained that
being in an ag-forestal district does not automatically
qualify land for use -value taxation in Albemarle
County --separate criteria for use -value taxation must also
be met. Only in counties where use -value is not available
do ag-forestal districts automatically qualify for use -value
taxation. Ms. Huckle noted that ag-forestal districts are
advantageous to the County because it sets aside land which,
if developed, would cost the County a lot of money in terms
of infrastructure.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:00 P.M.
V. Way,` Cilimberg, retary
DB