HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 04 1993 PC Minutes5-4-93
1
MAY 4, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 4, 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 Jenkins; Mr.
Tom Blue; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and
Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Andersen.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April
20, 1993 were approved as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA - Annual Report
Mr. Johnson suggested that another reason be added to the
paragraph describing the change in the administrative
approval process, i.e. (1) To reduce costs to the public
through the reduction of processing time.
Mr. Blue suggested that the two informal meetings held with
the City Planning Commission be noted under Section 6.
MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that
the Annual Report be approved as presented with the two
additions suggested by Mr. Blue and Mr. Johnson. The motion
passed unanimously.
ZMA-93-05 Robert & Victoria Burton - Petition to rezone 18.5
acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential. Property,
described as Tax Map 32C, Section 3, Parcel 2 is located
south of and adjacent to the existing Deerwood Subdivision
in the Rivanna Magisterial District. A preliminary plat is
being reviewed concurrently (SUB-93-01 Deerwood Preliminary
Plat). This site is located in a designated growth area
(Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Industrial
Service.
and
SUB-93-01 Deerwood Preliminary Plat - Proposal to subdivide
a portion of 18.5 acres into 38 single family lots and 36
townhouse lots. Access is through existing roads in
Deerwood Subdivision. Property, described as Tax Map 32C,
Section 3, Parcel 2, is located south of and adjacent to the
existing Deerwood Subdivision in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. A request to rezone the property to R-4,
5-4-93
2
Residential is being reviewed concurrently (ZMA-93-05).
This site is located in a designated growth area (Community
of Hollymead) and is recommended for Industrial Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff did not support
the request. The report concluded:
"While the subject area is physically proximate to existing
Deerwood and its development as industrial will necessitate
alternative access across drainage areas, staff does not
support this request based on the safety of the intersection
at Route 649, the location of residences in the Airport
Noise Impact Area and the additional lots without
alternative access. Staff has based its recommendations on
land use considerations and has not considered the
historical taxation of the property in arriving at its
recommendation. The Planning commission and Board of
supervisors may want to consider this factor in its
deliberations."
Those aspects of the proposal which generated the most
Commission discussion were: (1) Incorrect information
given to the applicant by the County which resulted in the
applicant's belief that the zoning for the property was R-4.
The applicant prepared a plat based on that belief and also
has been been paying taxes on the property as R-4 for many
years. (2) The potential for safety problems at the Rt. 649
intersection. (3) The location of part of the property
within the Airport's Noise Impact Area.
Staff was unable to answer Mr. Blue's question as to why
there had been no required dedication of the road at the
time it had been constructed.
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz explained the
roads had not been "looped" together because (1) number of
lots do not call for the roads being connected; and (2)
looping them would not have provided for another access to
the public road.
Noting that industrial development on the property would
result in industrial traffic travelling through a
residential neighborhood, Mr. Blue felt that the existing
residents would prefer additional residences over an
industrial use on the property. Mr. Fritz explained that
in reviewing an application for an industrial use on the
property, staff would be looking for an alternative access
that would not pass through the residential development.
Mr. Blue concluded that unless another parcel could be added
to the property, "residential makes more sense at this
time."
Mr. Blue wondered if there were any way to allow a 40-foot
right-of-way (instead of 50-foot), "in exchange for beefing
FIN
5-4-93 3
up the pavement that already exists there?" Mr. Fritz
stated that he would have to discuss that with VDOT to see
if they would accept a 40-foot right-of-way "and the design
would most likely require an urban cross section." Mr. Blue
noted: "If you're going to go through with cul-de-sacs that
are never going to go anywhere, it is obvious to me that you
could cut down your right-of-way and maybe give them a
little more land and in exchange for that maybe they would
be willing to do some offsite improvements that they are not
required to do."
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question as to why this
property, which is essentially land -locked, was desiginated
industrial, Mr. Cilimberg explained that in 1982 there had
been a "general designation" of industrial of everything
that was not actually developed as residential.
Mr. Blue noted that the applicant has owned the property for
25 years and has always planned to develop it residentially.
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Apparently that was never
factored into the Comprehensive Plan decisions."
Regarding the proximity to the Airport, Ms. Huckle noted
that, in addition to the noise issue, planes are often
required to make special manuvers in order to clear the
residential area as quickly as possible and this can effect
the safety of the planes as well.
There was discussion about the conditions of the existing
roads in Deerwood. Mr. Fritz explained that VDOT is
uncertain as to the precise depth of pavement, but has
stated that the roads are not designed to State standards.
Mr. Nitchmann asked: "Could we require, if this was
approved, that the portion of the road that comes to the new
subdivision out to Route 649 be brought up to the proper
standard?" Mr. Fritz replied: "If the applicant was
agreeable to that." Mr. Fritz confirmed that a right and
left turn lane would also require a proffer by the
applicant. Mr. Blue noted that would be possible only if
the applicant owns, or can acquire, sufficient property. Mr.
Bowling added: "Unless you determine that there is a safety
hazard to such a degree occasioned solely by this
development which necessitates those turns." It was noted
that though VDOT had not made that specific comment, it had
stated that it was a "very serious safety hazard."
In answer to Mr. Johnson's question regarding the taxation
error, Mr. Bowling stated that the applicant "can seek some
relief" if they have been taxed excessively. He confirmed
that a statute of limitations would apply.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if the issues of access and
WA
5-4-93
4
the Airport Overlay had been addressed, he felt the unique
aspects of this plan would "lessen" the importance of the
Comp Plan inconsistency.
Mr. Blue noted that at the time of the original approval,
the applicant had met all the requirements, and though the
applicant had created the access problem by not making the
road to State standards at that time, he had done so with
the approval of the County.
Ms. Huckle questioned whether they had met all the
requirements since they were allowed to build the road to
less than State standards because less than 50 lots were
proposed.
Mr. Blue felt the standards at that time had probably dealt
with pavement thickness and not right and left turn lanes.
Ms. Huckle felt this was one of the most dangerous roads in
the County. Mr. Blue agreed, in terms of the safety of the
entrances along the road.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Victoria Burton addressed the Commission. She explained
that development of this portion of the property was delayed
for many years, until public utilities became available.
She stated that considerable expense had been incurred in
the development of a plan, based on the belief that the
property had R-4 zoning. The plan calls for houses that
will be compatible with the existing houses ($90,000 to
$150,000).
It was determined that the applicant no longer owns the
parcel of land which fronts on Rt. 649. She stated there
had been no mention of dedication of the road at the time of
the original subdivision.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding proffering
right and left turn lanes, Ms. Burton explained again that
she did not own the land which would be involved with the
turn lanes. She doubted that purchase was a possibility.
Mr. Roudabush explained how he had become involved with the
property and how the mistaken zoning designation had been
discovered. Regarding Rt. 649, he noted that improvements
to this road are now in the Six -Year Plan (and it had been
anticipated that the road would be improved back in the
1970's and late 601s). He stated that no real route has yet
been defined for these improvements. He explained that he
had learned, when working on another site on this road, that
the improvements might result in a slight realignment to the
north (possibly 100 feet). (Mr. Blue wondered if it were
possible that that could have been the reason no dedication
5-4-93 5
was required at the time the first section was developed.)
He felt the timing of those improvements is becoming more
imminent and he felt it would be a waste of money to require
this applicant to make improvements which probably will have
to be re -constructed in the not too distant future, even
before this development is completed. He also noted that
there is a provision for secondary access which connects to
adjoining property. Mr. Roudabush also felt the
improvements to Rt. 649 would be considered a major
improvement by VDOT (because of the airport) and therefore
they would acquire whatever right-of-way was necessary to
make the improvements.
In response to Mr. Blue's question as to whether or not this
site was a viable industrial site, Mr. Roudabush stated: "I
don't think it would be good planning."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Fritz called attention to a letter of support from Mr.
Dorsey Wilbex qer.
The following Deerwood residents expressed support for
single-family development of the property: Mr. Tom Terrell
and Mr. Clyde Dodds. They were not in favor of townhouses
though they preferred them over possibile industrial
development of the property. Both expressed concern about
the inadequacy of the entrance on Rt. 649 and the excessive
traffic which already exists on the road. They felt the
road improvements should be done before any development
takes place.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Regarding plans for Rt. 649, Mr. Cilimberg stated staff is
not aware of any existing plans for the improvements. The
engineering money, which is currently in the Six -Year Plan,
will determine what improvements need to be made. The
actual funding for the construction of the road is not
anticipated before the year 2000. He did not think, at this
time, there was much chance the project would be moved up in
the plan.
Regarding the rezoning, Mr. Johnson felt that since there
was no overwhelming reason to either deny or approve the
request, and given the history of the taxation of the
property, he felt there "was every reason to approve the
rezoning." Mr. Blue agreed.
There was a discussion as to at what point the road safety
issue could be addressed, i.e. with the rezoning or with the
Preliminary Plat. Mr. Cilimberg explained that after the
rezoning has been approved, no proffers can be required, nor
5-4-93 6
can road improvements be required as part of the subdivision
unless it can be determined that there is an "extreme safety
situation." Mr. Bowling advised: "If you want to deal with
the safety issue, especially offsite, you do it on the
rezoning."
Mr. Blue felt safety was the only real issue.
Ms. Huckle stated she was in favor of residential
development over industrial. However, she stated she could
not support the proposal "unless something is done about the
turn lanes." She noted that the applicant received a cost
benefit with the original roads because lesser standards
were allowed. She stated: "I would like to see them
proffer to upgrade those roads if it became necessary."
Mr. Grimm agreed that there was a bona fide safety issue,
particularly the right and left turn lanes off Rt. 649.
Mr. Johnson felt a second access should be required "that's
not through Deerwood." He indicated he was not in favor of
any further development, residential or industrial, with
only one access to 649.
In the event the applicant could acquire the land to
construct the turn lanes, Mr. Blue wondered if it would be
"wasteful" to require the applicant to make these
improvements when there is the possibility VDOT will be
widening and possibly shifting the alignment in the next
couple of years. He wondered if there were some temporary
measures which might address the safety concerns until such
time as the future plans for 649 are finalized.
Ms. Huckle stated she had spoken with the Culpeper Office of
VDOT and had learned that it is doubtful that improvements
to 649 will be included in this Six -Year Plan.
Mr. Johnson stated that his recommendation for a second
access envisioned "extending that road somewhere to the
west." He wondered if the item should be deferred to allow
the applicant time to pursue alternatives.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that the applicant has waited 25 years
to develop the property and has donated the land for the
sewer line to serve the Airport. It was his suggestion that
the item be deferred so that "formal documentation" can be
obtained from VDOT addressing the safety issues of the road
and comments on the time -table for improvements to the road,
including comments on a possible realignment of the road.
He felt deferral would allow the applicant time to consider
the possibility of acquiring additional property or
right-of-way for the right and left turn lanes.
R
5-4-93 7
Mr. Blue wondered if there were a way for the County to
request that VDOT study the intersection and if it
determined the road must be widened and right and left turn
lanes required, "then they could go ahead and condemn it."
Mr. Cilimberg stated staff could request that VDOT look at
that possiblity.
Mr. Blue stated he could support a deferral.
Mr. Roudabush interjected that right and left turn lanes
will require additional land on both sides of the Rt. 649.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-93-05 for Robert &
Victoria Burton be deferred to June 3, 1993 to allow time
for comment from VDOT on: (1) The safety conditions of the
intersection; and (2) Improvement plans for Rt. 649.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
SUB-93-01 Deerwood Preliminary Plat
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that Deerwood Preliminary Plat
be deferred to June 3, 1993. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion
which passed unanimously.
ZMA-93-04 Covenant Church - Petition to rezone approximately
1,266 acres from R-4, Residential to CO, Commercial Office
for church use only. Property, described as Tax Map 61,
Parcel 154 (part) is located on the north side of Rio Road
north of and adjacent to the existing Covenant Church in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. A major site plan amendment
is being reviewed concurrently (SDP-92-016 Covent Church of
God Major Site Plan Amendment). This site is in a
designated growth area (Neighborhood 2) and is recommended
for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 2.
AND
SDP-92-016 - Covenant Church of God Major Site Plan
Amendment - Proposal to construct an approximately 48,000
square foot addition to the existing church and a revised
parking layout resulting in approximately 310 spaces (160
new spaces) on the 6.34 acre site. Property, described as
Tax Map 61, parcels 154C and 155, is located on the north
side of Rio Road just east of the Southern Railway. Zoned
CO, Commercial Office and R-4 Residential in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated
growth area (Neighborhood 2) and is recommended Neighborhood
Service and Low Density Residential.
7
5-4-93
8
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval.
In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz explained that
a special permit for this applicant (to build another church
on a different site) was not pursued and has expired.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer
for the project, and the Rev. Harold Bear. Mr. Muncaster
confirmed that this facility would fulfill the needs of the
church for the foreseeable future. In answer to Ms.
Huckle's previous question, Rev. Bare explained the facility
(first phase) would be used for classrooms, fellowship hall,
recreation, and multiple other uses. He stated that there
are activities which take place all through the week. He
stated there are presently no plans for a school, though the
zoning would allow that at some future time.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that VDOT and staff had considered the
size of the facility and the level of activity in making
their comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that
ZMA-93-04 for Covenant Church, be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffer. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-92-016 - Covenant Church of God Major Site Plan
Amendment
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
Covenant Church Site Plan Amendment be approved. The motion
passed unanimously.
CPA-93-02 Economic Development Policy - Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to include goal, objectives and
strategies for economic development that would replace the
existing economic development section of the Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg introduced the topic. He called attention to
some minor wording changes.
Referring to "C" at the bottom of page 3, Ms. Huckle asked
who would provide the basic infrastructure. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that statement is consistent with what the Comp Plan
currently says about providing infrastructure in the growth
areas, since areas designated for this kind of use would be
in the growth areas.
5-4-93 9
Ms. Huckle: "What I am concerned about is how are we going
to decide whose land is going to benefit from the
infrastructure that the County pays for." Mr. Cilimberg:
"You will decide that if you are involved in that process
through the CIP and the primary and secondary road plans."
Ms. Huckle felt there "could be a great opportunity for
problems, corruption, and so on trying to decide which owner
is going to benefit from these things."
Mr. Cilimberg: "I think it is very fair to say it has been
the whole intent of your CIP and road planning program in
the past to provide for public investment where your areas
for growth have been designated. Eveything within this
policy is intended to compliment what is in your
Comprehensive Plan for growth areas and designated areas for
employment generating use. It is not saying that this
supersedes and starts designating lands that aren't even
designated now. Certainly, that's part of the Comprehensive
Plan process."
Mr. Blue: "It's probably been in the Plan for some time to
provide the infrastructure, but I can think of precious few
instances where the County has spent its own money to
provide utilities and infrastructure for developers to
develop industrial land or anything else. Just because it's
a strategy and in the Comprehensive Plan doesn't mean the
County is going to embark on a spending program to provide
water, sewer and highways to various areas that don't
already need them."
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed support for the proposal:
--Mr. George Gilliam: "What is proposed is a structure
by which the amount of public participation and input in the
private decision -making process can be enhanced. ... I think
it will result in better -informed, more complete public
discussion of possible development activities to the extent
that it will herald a new era where there is, in fact, a
true partnership, between the public and the private
sector."
--Mr. Robert Tobey, representing The Economic Council.
(See ATTACHMENT C.)
--Mr. Jeff Settler, a small business owner and
environmental specialist: He felt that development can take
place which is in harmony with the environment.
--Mr. John Sanborne, a small business owner: "The
community has to get together and come up with a plan that
will benefit everybody.
--Mr. Kevin Cox: "For too long the County has shut the
door on growth and business under the guise of a policy of
accommodation. ... There is a real need for new businesses
to come into the community and compete with the University
of Virginia."
5-4-93 10
--Mr. Kevin Clarity, a small business owner.
--Mr. Don Wagner, a developer and small business owner.
--Mr. Brad Eure, representing the
Charlottesville -Albemarle Chamber of Commerce: "The County
staff is capable of administering this plan. ...The citizens
are behind it. ... The Chamber of Commerce is fully prepared
to offer its resources." He stated that Charlottesville and
Albemarle County are considered a "no sale" by the State
Economic Development office. He felt this Plan will change
that image. "This Plan is pro -active; it doesn't sit back
and wait for things to happen. ... We need to pass this
tonight and get on with it."
--Mr. Daley Craig: He pointed out that the area's
largest employer, WA, does not pay taxes. He also noted
that many of the area's unemployed are not articulate enough
to appear in a public hearing and make their concerns known.
He felt there is a large, "quiet" segment of the County
which is pro -growth.
The following persons expressed opposition to, or concerns
about, the proposal:
--Mr. Reggie Marshall: He suggested: (1) An Economic
Development Council should include someone who represents
environmental concerns and interests (e.g. The Nature
Conservancy); (2) An Environmental Impact Model should be
developed along with a Fiscal and Economic Impact Model; (3)
There should be some way to ensure that new jobs will go to
Albemarle County's unemployed or underemployed; and (4) It
should be clarified that any assistance to improve the
marketability of a piece of land is intended to apply to
those properties already zoned for business usage.
--Mr. Reuben Clark, representing the Piedmont
Environmental Council. (See ATTACHMENT A.)
--Ms. Treva Cromwell, representing the League of Women
Voters. (See ATTACHMENT B.)
--Ms. Eleanor Santic. (See ATTACHMENT D.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson felt the plan must be treated "objectively and
unemotionally." He stated he had detected "no acceptance on
the part of any speaker of the status quo." He commented:
"There are challenges and very valid comments relative to
the policy as it is written now. There are suggestions as
to how it might be handled, delayed, etc. But I think if we
stand back and take a look at it as a whole, not nit-pick
it, and recognize that we are in a dynamic situation, with
rapid changes, and no matter what we do, we will not be able
to come up with a perfect document. This document, as
written, will serve us the best of anything available at
this time or in the immediate foreseeable future. It has
some protections in it, as I read it. The Board of
Supervisors keeps control. There is a method here of
/O
5-4-93 11
evaluating and collecting information that we do not have
now. It has participation of the public." Referring to the
League of Women Voters recommendation to follow the
Comprehensive Plan review process, he stated: "I would be
very much opposed to the Comprehensive Plan Review Process.
I think we have to charter individuals with the
responsibility to respond. By just opening it up to public
comment, we will never have as well qualified and as diverse
as we have here right now." He expressed a lack of
confidence in the suggestion to set up a special review
committee, because he doubted if "we would be any further
along 2 to 3 years from now than we are right now." He
reminded the Commission that the Affordable Housing Project
had been going on for 2 years and is still incomplete. He
concluded: "I personally support this as written,
recognizing it is not a perfect document. It will no doubt
have to be changed in the future but it is no doubt a step
in the right direction to get away from our status quo."
Ms. Huckle noted that this document has not been reviewed,
"part -by -part" in work sessions.
Ms. Huckle made the following statement:
"I think it is premature to force this change in the
Comprehensive Plan thru now just before the thorough review
of the Comprehensive Plan. In today's paper (May 4), Louisa
County has the highest unemployment rate in the area and
they are a "Certified Business Community." Waynesboro has a
6.7% unemployment rate and they have an Economic Development
Committee. Whereas, Albemarle, which doesn't have anything,
has the lowest rate--3.2%. Growth is essential --the
opposite is stagnation and death. With the University as a
major drawing card, we are not in danger of stagnation. The
proliferation of retirement communities has increased our
population. People come here and spend their money because
it is beautiful and a pleasant place to live. They do not
add children to our school system. We will soon see
considerable growth from projects now being built, like
Glenmore which will attract people and now Peter Jefferson
Place will attract corporate headquarters and other
desirable jobs. I concur with the Economic Plan that
present industries should be encouraged to stay, and
hopefully, as the world and U.S. economics improve, their
employment rates will improve. However, loss of industry
may be beyond the control of the County. In the past 40
years the South has prospered because industries left the
Northeast and the New England states and came south where
there were few, if any, unions, and wages were low. Now,
some are leaving to go to Mexico or the Far East because
those wages are even lower. ... If we "target" or court an
industry as suggested in this plan, won't it be hard to turn
them down if closer examination proves them to be
unsuitable? Won't this harm our image as being 'business
5-4-93 12
friendly'? In order to attract an industry,
concessions --environmental, aesthetic, etc., may have to be
made in order to compete with other areas. Judging from the
looks of some of the areas now with Economic Development
Departments many concessions must have been made. The State
Department of Economic Development Handbook states that in
a Certified Business Community the jurisdiction must own or
have under contract land which it is identifying for
industrial development. Under this plan, it appears that
Albemarle County is being asked to provide roads, water and
sewer for land owned by private interests. If so, who
decides which private owner is provided with this prize?
There could be great opportunity for corruption here.
obviously, many people have a personal stake in more growth.
We are here to represent all the people who live here, not
just any special interest groups. We have already been
hearing complaints from many people who cannot pay the taxes
required to support the growth we already have. In the CIP
there is future need for a new $8,000,000 lower school and a
$26,000,000 high school. More industries will bring more
people with more children to be educated. Is this cost
effective? Clearly, before the County embraces wuch a
militantly pro -growth policy, we need a lot more
information. We need the Utilities Master Plan to know what
capacity for growth we have, especially in water supply. We
need the Fiscal Impact Study. We need to know exactly where
the employment needs are. We need to ask ourselves why our
area has grown so much; why it has a lower unemployment rate
and a higher median income than surrounding areas. The
cosmopolitan university community and cultural climate it
brings are the chief reasons --a small city in a beautiful
rural setting. As the State Economic Development Handbook
states, business wants to locate in a place where people
want to live. They have a whole chapter on 'Quality of Life
Requirements.' Let's not destroy our greatest asset."
Mr. Grimm: "I am strongly in favor of forwarding the
Economic Development Policy on to the Board of Supervisors."
He expressed embarrassment over the way the County had
responded to a Fortune 500 company's recent interest in
locating in the County. He noted that though there are
apparently plenty of non-professional type jobs available in
the County, he questioned: "Is that what we want to do? Is
that where we want to go? Is that what we want our young
people to look forward to when they grow up here? Or do we
want them to have something that they can live with and
prosper by in the future?" He felt the Economic Development
Policy would deal with all aspects of that issue.
Mr. Blue stated that since it was difficult for him to
discuss this issue unemotionally, he would let his vote
speak for itself.
A
5-4-93 13
Mr. Jenkins: "I feel that this policy, while the current
Comprehensive Plan has a very narrow statement as far as an
Economic Development Policy, basically is an expansion of
that. While it may not be a perfect document, I don't think
it gives very many by -right privileges to anybody who may
want to move into the County. I think the effort is to try
to formalize and put us in a position of being able to
evaluate someone who may want to move into the community and
it will also put us in a position of making up our mind of
the kinds of industry we would like to have before we even
hear from them. It most probably will be that this document
has to be modified in some fashion. It's easy to sit here
and say 'Let's try to get more citizen input and let's try
to improve it.' I'm certain it could be improved on, but
it's a start and if it has to be improved on, then we'll do
that next Tuesday night."
Mr. Nitchmann: "I think this document and this proposal for
the expansion of the Comprehensive Plan to address one of
the more critical needs in this County --the economic
well-being of the citizens and their ability to improve upon
their standard of life --comes at an appropriate time. We
can look at unemployment figures and discuss those all
evening long. I could hold up things also, on our behalf,
that says the growth rate slows to 1.8%. I can point to the
news this morning that the manufacturing indices dropped by
1t which is indicative of the fact that we may be moving
back into another recession. We can all look at different
figures. I know a couple of things about this document that
I think holds true. I believe it is consistent with the
existing goals of the Comprehensive Plan. ... I believe it
brings into focus the need for a group of citizens to get
together. I do not believe it will restrict it from any
particular group of individuals or any particular citizens
of the County. We've tried to make this document all
encompassing, yet, like Tom says, it gives no industry, no
business any by -right to come in here and do what they wish.
I believe it puts us in a position to put the wheels in
motion and to understand exactly who we are, what we are and
where we need to go in the future. We've had a couple of
work sessions on this. There have been a number of articles
in the paper, including an editorial about this economic
policy. I think there has been opportunity for the general
public to make comments regarding this recommendation. I
believe after this evening it will go into more public
hearings. The Board of Supervisors will have work sessions
and I think that is the appropriate time to work out some of
the differences or bring in some of the other things that
some of the other intests might see. But it's time for us
to take our heads out of the sand and stop using delaying
tactics and start to move forward with the only part of the
Comprehensive Plan that we haven't addressed. You can say
what you want to everybody about parks, about clean water,
about river landings --if people don't have jobs, they don't
12
5-4-93 14
care. They have to feed and clothe their families and they
want to be able to educate their families and they certainly
would like their children to stay close by. We always hear
about the fear of too much growth. I think we need to be
aware of, and guard against, too little economic
development, planning and growth. I don't think that no
plan is a good plan. I think it would result in economic
stagnation and the loss of the economic well-being of the
citizens of this County and I think it is proper for
economic development planning to ensure the quality of life
of our citizens and offer them the opportunities to improve
upon their lifestyles. The incorporation of this proposal
as part of the Comprehensive Plan, I believe, provides us
with the guidelines necessary to achieve a superior quality
of life for all the citizens for Albemarle as well as the
citizens in the surrounding counties."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA 93-02 be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented. Mr.
Blue seconded the motion.
The motion for approval passed (5:1) with Commissioner
Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
MISCELLANEOUS
Affordable Housincr - Mr. Johnson cited the following
comments from a report entitled "Affordable Housing
Development Guidelines for State and Local Government"
prepared for HUD by the NAHB National Research Center.
"Good, safe, sanitary housing is essential to a decent life
and central to the well-being of the nation. ... A key
problem has been the proliferation of excessive or
unnecessary regulations and standards that stifle the
ability of the housing market to provide affordable Housing.
... Much of this important and valuable information has been
gathered into this volume. It is intended as a handbook for
local governments that want to join the effort to reaffirm
the American Dream of a good home in a good neighborhood for
every family in America." (See Attachment E.)
Solid Waste Management - Mr. Johnson stated he had received
a copy of the charter of the Albemarle Solid Waste Authority
which "confirmed his worst fears." He explained: "It
gives, by this charter, (from the Board of Supervisors and
the City), the responsibility and authority for just about
everything, if not everything, that is mentioned in this
proposed changed to the Community Facilities Plan." He
stated he had asked for comments from Mr. George Williams,
the Director of the Authority. Mr. Johnson concluded: "I
think this represents, perhaps, the worst possible approach
to management in that not only is this organization the
authority chartered with the responsibility, but they also
5-4-93
15
have the authority to finance it and to go out and issue
bonds to support it." He suggested that staff check with
School of Commerce (WA) for further verification and "see
how appropriate, or inappropriate, it is for one
organization, e.g. the Board of Supervisors, to go ahead and
levy regulations and restrictions and guidance to a group
which they have already chartered with those
responsibilities. He felt this was a very serious
situation. He felt the matter should be tabled until Mr.
Williams' comments have been received and evaluated.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Mr. Williams had been aware
of the review which was taking place and members of his
Board were actively involved in that review. He stated that
it is the opinion of staff, including the County Executive,
that "this is entirely appropriate, and that, in fact, it is
within what the County needs to do in providing direction
for the Authority to undertake it's responsibility." He
stated staff was awaiting further comment from Mr. Williams
before bringing the matter back to the Commission.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:45 p.m.
V `
V. Wayne ilimberg Se ary
DB