HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 09 1993 PC Minutes11-9-93
1
NOVEMBER 9, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, November 9, 1993, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr.
Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs
Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr.
Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Johnson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
October 12, 1993 were approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the November
3, 1993 Board of Supervisors meeting.
CPA-93-06 Neighborhood Three Study - Consider the
recommendations of the Neighborhood Three Study to guide
future development within Neighborhood Three.
Mr. Baker presented the staff report.
Mr. Blue recalled that the Commission had expressed concern
that the Study might mislead the public into believing that
some of the recommendations contained therein (e.g.
sidewalks) will definitely happen. He interpreted from Mr.
Baker's memorandum that the Board of Supervisors had not
shared that concern. Mr. Baker explained that the Board
felt,the Study was the work of the Neighborhood Three
Committee and therefore the wording should not be changed by
the Planning Commission. However, the Board had agreed that
a statement regarding the impact of funding projects was
appropriate as a part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann understood that the "disclaimer statement"
which would be added to the Comprehensive Plan would not be
a part of the Neighborhood Three Study document. Mr.
Cilimberg confirmed "that was the Board's guidance." Staff
confirmed that the Study document does not say that "this is
a guide for development" nor does it address funding issues.
Mr- Cilimberg suggested the Commission could recommend to
the Board that such a statement be added as a "preface" to
the document." Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern that the
11-9-93 2
Study is a Opro-actively document, yet makes no reference to
funding sources. He stated he would feel more comfortable
if some statement were added "recognizing that funding of
projects must go through the CIP process." He could foresee
that some people might be aware of the existence of the
Study, but not of the statement referring to it in the
Comprehensive Plan and expressed concern about the
difficulty of tieing the two documents together (i.e. the
Study and the Comprehensive Plan).
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the actual amendment statement
could be included as a preface to the Study, with the date
of Board adoption noted.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA 93-06, related to
Neighborhood Three, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval as follows, with the additional
recommendation that the same statement be included at the
front of the Neighborhood Three Study document:
"Consider the recommendations of the Neighborhood Three
Study as a guide for development. Adoption of this study as
a guide does not constitute a commitment by the County
towards the funding of proposed projects or programs
outlined. Possible funding may only occur after the full
impact of a project or program in regards to all capital,
personnel and operating costs is fully understood. Also,
all projects and programs recommended in this Study must be
properly evaluated and prioritized relative to all other
County projects in terms of possible funding."
Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-93-30 Grayson Vaughn a licant Rio Road Limited
Partnership - Petition to issue a special use permit for a
commercial recreation establishment (25.2.2(1)] to allow
slot car racing on 22.87 acres zoned PD-SC, Planned
Development Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map
61, Parcel 123 is the location of Albemarle Square. This
site is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
This site is located in a designated growth area (N2) and is
recommended for Community Service.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant, Mr. Grayson Vaughn, addressed the Commission.
He described the operation in some detail.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
a.?9
11-9-93
3
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that
SP-93-30 for Grayson Vaughn be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. No alcohol sales.
2. Use is limited to 1649 Seminole Trail.
3. Commercial Recreation uses shall be limited to slot car
racing and video games.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-93-27 David A. Currier - Petition for a home occupation
Class B [10.2.2.(31)] to permit an artist studio utilizing
an accessory structure which does not meet the required
setbacks for a primary structure. Property, described as
Tax Map 29, Parcel 69E, consists of 2.0 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas and is located on the west side of Route 678
approximately 0.7 miles west of the Route 678/Route 601
intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This
site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area
1) .
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The applicant was
requesting a modification of Section 5.2.2.1(b) to allow a
reduction in front setback. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant, Mr. David Currier, offered to answer
Commission questions. He confirmed that he intended to cut
back vegetation in order to achieve necessary sight
distance.
Mr. Blue asked if staff verifies that conditions have been
met before the permit is issued. Ms. Hipski explained that
the Zoning Administrator will not issue the permit until
VDOT has confirmed that the sight distance improvements have
been made.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Douglas Frame, a neighbor, expressed support for the
request. He asked only that any materials stored outside be
shielded from view from the road. (Ms. Hipski noted that
Section 5.2.2.1(b) addresses this concern. Mr. Cilimberg
added that compliance with Section 5.2, as required by
condition No. 1, includes all supplementary regulations,
including those dealing with outdoor storage.)
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
T�
11-9-93
4
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that
SP-93-27 for David Currier be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Setback requirements of Section 5.2.2.1(b) is hereby
modified to allow usage of existing shed structure.
2. Compliance with all other provisions of Section 5.2,
including improvement of sight distance at entrance (5.2.1)
as recommended by Virginia Department of Transportation.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-93-26 Kermit & Ellen Roberts - Petition for a home
occupation Class B [10.2.2(31)] to permit a one chair barber
shop. Property, described as Tax Map 19, Parcel 24,
consists of 128.25 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and is
located on a private road approximately 0.45 miles east of
Route 663 and 600 feet north of the Route 664/Route 663
intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This
site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area
2) .
Ms. Huckle noted that she was an adjacent property owner.
She asked Mr. Bowling if she should disqualify herself from
the hearing. Mr. Bowling responded: "If you feel there is
a conflict, or an appearance of conflict, in your own
mind --in that type of situation you shouldn't participate.
But do you have a legal conflict involved? (Ms. Huckle
responded: "Mr. Roberts cuts my husband's hair.") Mr.
Bowling replied: "I think that'll past muster." Ms. Huckle
did not excuse herself from the hearing.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The report
explained: "This petition has been referred to the Board of
Supervisors by the Zoning Administrator due to inadequate
sight distance at the entrance. No objection to the
proposed use has been submitted by adjoining property
owners. Therefore, comments in this report will be confined
to issues of access. ... Although the site accesses through
an entrance with inadequate commercial sight distance, staff
can support a scenario which would generate less traffic
than allowed by -right. ... As a matter of public safety
staff has not recommended approval of any proposal where
adequate sight distance could not be achieved at the access
point to a public road. In this particular case, the
applicant could further develop the properties served by
this entrance without additional County review. Staff has
worked with the applicant to develop conditions which staff
believes could reasonably be anticipated to limit traffic
generation to no more than that which could be realized by
additional residential development." Ms. Hipski explained
a*1
11-9-93 5
that staff had just learned that the applicant does not have
control of one of the parcels originally believed to be
under his control. This new information changed staff's
analysis of the number of trips that can be controlled by
further development.
Mr. Blue asked why the staff report had not addressed the
fact that this property is adjacent to an
agricultural -forestal district as so stipulated by State
Code. He stressed: "I want to make clear that I'm not
suggesting that because it's adjacent to an
agricultural -forestal district that it makes any difference,
but since there are several ag-forestal districts coming up
after this I wanted to make this point. The State Code
stipulates that "local ordinances, Comprehensive Plan and
land use planning decisions, administrative decisions and
procedures effecting parcels of land adjacent to any
district shall take into account the existence of such
district in the purposes of this chapter. The district may
have no effect on the adjacent district by -right, but could
restrict proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit
which are determined to be in conflict with the adjacent
agricultural -forestal use."' He wondered why comment on this
issue had been excluded from the staff report because he
felt "what we do for one, we have to do for all." Ms. Scala
interjected that she had submitted written comments to Ms.
Hipski on this issue and it was her opinion that because of
the nature of the use she did not think it would adversely
effect the district. Based on Ms. Scala's comments, Mr.
Blue concluded that staff had indeed considered the fact
that the property is adjacent to an ag-forestal district in
its review (therefore the requirements of the Code had been
complied with), but, for some reason, those comments had not
been included in the final staff report. Mr. Blue felt
comments should have been included in the staff report. He
felt the reviews should be "consistent." (Mr. Bowling and
Mr. Cilimberg agreed Mr. Blue's point was a good one.)
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the sight distance. Ms.
Hipski explained that the problem was one of the vertical
alignment of the road.
Regarding staff's analysis of the development potential of
the property when compared to this proposed use, Mr. Blue
felt staff's argument that this use would generate fewer
vehicle trips per day than residential development and thus
the lack of sight distance was not as much of a concern, was
"not very convincing." He felt residential traffic would be
more accustomed to the road and therefore would be more
careful. Though he acknolwedged that there are many
driveways in the County without proper sight distance and
many unsafe existing secondary _roads, he stated: "But
that's something that we don't really have any control over
and when it comes to the Planning Commission to put the
9�4
11-9-93 6
public's stamp of approval on a driveway that's going to
serve the pubic, for public use, I think that's different
and, as much as I approve of what the applicant wants to do,
unless there is someway to get that sight distance and make
that entrance safe, I would have to vote against it."
The applicant, Mr. Kermit Roberts, addressed the Commission.
He explained that efforts to purchase the property which
would allow him to achieve sight distance have been
unsuccessful. He could envision no way the driveway could
be adjusted so as to get the adequate sight distance. He
explained his shop is located in a metal building located
approximately 100 feet from his house. He explained that
the issue of sight distance had arisen when he applied for a
business license. He stressed that he has moved farm
machinery and a school bus in and out of his entrance for
many years and has never had an accident.
Mr. Blue expressed sympathy for Mr. Roberts' position, but
felt that the situation changes when the use of the entrance
changes from private to public.
Staff confirmed that if the shop were to be located in the
applicant's dwelling, a Class A permit would be needed and
no VDOT inspection would be required.
Mr. Blue recalled a recently approved permit for a Day Care
operation at Chestnut Grove Church (in this same area).
Sight distance had also been an issue with that request and
the Commission had required that the one entrance (with the
least sight distance) be closed during school hours. He
questioned, however, whether this is actually being done.
He again raised the issue of follow-up to see that
conditions are being complied with. He again expressed the
feeling that public officials should not be approving unsafe
situations.
Mr. Roberts stated he had been advised that if he connected
the structure to his dwelling by means of a breezeway, the
entrance would not be an issue.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bruce McCall expressed support for the request. He felt
that most people who travel this road are very familiar with
it and thus are very careful. He pointed out that most
business would be conducted after dark when there is the
opportunity to see oncoming headlights coming over the crest
of the hill. He suggested the possibility of lowering the
speed limit. (Staff confirmed that VDOT had considered this,
and actually performed studies, for the day care
application. No change in speed limit was made as a result
of the VDOT studies. Mr. Cilimberg explained that VDOT
determines speed limits "based on the running speed in the
'24,-3
11-9-93 7
area. VDOT feels that lower speed limits do not make a
significant difference in the speed vehicles actually
travel.)
Ms. Huckle felt most of the patrons of the barbershop would
be neighborhood people who are familiar with the roads.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Grimm asked if there was any interest in deferring
action to allow staff time to amend the staff report in
relation to the new information about the applicant's
control of the property and the development potential.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff had not recommended
approval because of the sight distance issue, but rather had
offered an analysis of this proposal vs. residential
development of the property. He explained that analysis had
been based on 4 potential houses, but now there appears to
be the potential for only 2. Thus, "on an operational day,
two houses would produce less traffic than this
operation--20 trips/day for two houses vs. 40 for this
operation."
Mr. Grimm concluded: "That, then, negates the advantages
that staff had originally (described)." Mr. Cilimberg
replied: "Some of them."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if approval would be setting a
precedent. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that the Board had
approved the Demmi Maine request (Chestnut Grove Baptist
Church Day Care operation) without adequate sight distance
at one entrance. He concluded: "So it wouldn't be the
first time. We just haven't recommended them and
traditionally they haven't been approved because of what Mr.
Blue has pointed out. But it did occur in that case and, in
fact, in this area."
Staff again confirmed that a Class A permit could be issued
by -right.
Mr. Nitchmann concluded that if the request is denied the
applicant could move the operation to his dwelling without
any restrictions whatsoever. He concluded: "If that's the
case, of the two evils, I would have to say that this is the
lesser of two evils because we are restricting the amount of
time that he is going to utilize the shop to two days/week,
and based on that I can support this."
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that this item is before the
Commission because of VDOT's comments on the sight distance
and not because of a neighbor's objection as Mr. Roberts had
indicated earlier.
,2)1. 4
11-9-93
8
Ms. Hipski pointed out that Section 5.2.1 addresses Class B
Home Occupations and the role of the Zoning Administrator
and VDOT. No such reference to VDOT is made in the Class A
section of the Ordinance.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that
SP-93-26 for Kermit and Ellen Roberts be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval is for a one chair barber shop with operational
hours and days limited to 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Tuesdays
and Wednesdays.
2. Combine parcels into one tract by deed. No subsequent
subdivision (including family division) nor establishment of
any additional dwellings shall be permitted unless this
special use permit is abandoned (Restoration of parcels
shall be permitted without compliance with the Subdivision
Ordinance).
3. Compliance with Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion:
In reply to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Bowling confirmed
that the the only item "at issue" was that of sight
distance.
Mr. Grimm stated that he could support the motion, based on
his agreement with Mr. Nitchmann's analysis of the request.
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners
Andersen and Blue casting the dissenting votes.
Addition to Eastham Agricultural Forestal District - The
proposed addition is located on Rt. 621, Rt. 612 and Rt. 20N
near Eastham. The proposed addition contains 137.178 acres
in ten parcels. The proposed time period is the same as for
the original district, or ten years from October 13, 1993.
Prior to the staff report, Mr. Blue expressed the desire to
"make a motion" that each property be considered separately.
He explained that because his father is an adjacent owner to
one parcel, he "perceived a conflict of interests" and
stated he would excuse himself "from that particular one."
However, if considered separately, he stated he had comments
to make on the other parcels. Though there was no second to
Mr. Blue's "motion," no objection was raised to his
suggestion. (No actual action was taken on Mr. Blue's
"motion." The Commission ultimately took action on the
entire proposed addition as a whole and though Mr. Blue
offered extensive comment on the agricultural/forestal
C� �--6
11-9-93 9
concept, he excused himself at the end of the discussion and
did not take part in the final action.)
Ms. Scala presented a detailed staff report which explained
the purpose of agricultural/forestal districts, factors
which are considered when a district is proposed, and the
possible effects of a district. (She noted that parcel
63-14I would not be included in the Commission's action
since the application had not yet been received.)
At various times during Ms. Scala's report, Mr. Blue asked
for further explanation of certain aspects. Mr. Blue's
comments and concerns were as follows:
--He thought it was unusual that a large farm could be
divided into 21-acre parcels, a rental unit placed on each
of the 21-acre parcels, yet not be considered a more
intensive use.
--As a result of the State Code, ag-forestal districts
do have an effect on adjacent property because the Board of
Supervisors is required to consider the effect on the
ag-forestal district when special permits or rezonings are
proposed. He felt that the law gives participants in
ag/forestal districts "special standing," and "an advantage
over their neighbors which they should not have."
--"I agree with the purpose of the A-F district; I
think it's a good thing. There are protections for the
individual in the A-F district, but when you stop to
consider how it effects not only the adjacent owners but
maybe the community at large I think we ought to be a little
careful about it .." He described an example where it
might not be possible to locate a public facility, such as a
landfill or a road, adjacent to, or in, an A-F district and
this could result in greater cost to the taxpayer.
--He disagreed with Ms. Scala's belief that "the entire
rural area is appropriate for an ag-forestal district." He
commented: "I would agree with you if the rural area were
better defined. I can name ... dozens of subdivisions in
Albemarle County that are strictly residential and they are
in the rural areas. I haven't made any big point about that
because a lot of the people in those subdivisions want to
remain rural ... but it seems to me it is an entirely
different situation when you have a subdivision, even a
large lot subdivision devoted to residential and somebody
has a dairy farm. They are both in the rural areas, but you
try to push that dairy farm up against the subdivision. If
you don't have problems I would be quite surprised. ... It
seems to me that maybe we ought to consider changing that
definition, having some other area for rural areas. In
other words, in the instance that we are going to talk about
tonight, there are a number of parcels in this Eastham
district that are strictly residential. If they want to
have large lots, that's fine, but it's not rural areas and I
don't think it's ag-forestal." He felt that if Ms. Scala's
belief, i.e. that an A-F district anywhere in the rural
C04�
11-9-93
10
areas is appropriate, were carried
wouldn't be possible "to expand ou
without a severe handicap."
to the extreme, it
r utilities or do anything
--He expressed concern about people in A-F districts
building on 21-acre lots. (Mr. Grimm pointed out that
presently this is legal.)
Ms. Huckle expressed disagreement with Mr. Blue's belief
that an ag-forestal district could result in higher costs to
taxpayers. She pointed out that A-F participants agree not
to develop their land for a certain length time, and it is
the development of land that results in higher taxpayer
costs because of the need for more infrastructure which
accompanies development.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Board of Supervisors has
accepted a "broad application of A-F districts and a fairly
broadly defined rural area which has, first of all,
ag-forestal activity as its priority..and whether you agree
with that or not, that's the law, and what we're doing is in
complete consistency with that." He concluded: "You have
to understand that we don't change the rules in the middle
of the game for people who are looking to this, without the
foundation of change in the policy of the county."
Mr. Blue: "I agree completely and I don't want to do that,
but I hope when we get into discussing individual parcels, I
can show that is not the case."
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there are purposes other than
ag-forestal for an A-F district, e.g. scenic resources,
historic resource protection, open space.
Mr. Blue: "Two acre lots with a house on them and they
can't be divided any further. What are you protecting?"
Mr. Cilimberg suggested: "I think you ought to see how the
Ag-Forestal Advisory Committee looked at that."
Mr. Blue cautioned staff about the definition of
"subdivision lots." He pointed out that the Barrsden
Subdivision in Eastham Ag-Forestal Distrrct is a subdivision
which had generated a great deal of discussion as to how it
might be approved. He stated that there are two lots in
Barrsden subdivision which have been recommended for
inclusion in the A-F District. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out
that those two lots are "accepted lots as ag-forestal
parcels by the zoning ordinance." He recalled that staff
had made the argument in 1987 that many of these 21-acre
lots are being used as residences, but the Board had not
accepted that argument and "so we can't change the way we
look at it
14?
11-9-93
11
Mr. Blue questioned why a soils report had not been included
in the Eastham staff report. Ms. Scala stated this had been
an oversight. It was not omitted deliberately.
Comments about the individual parcels in the District were
as follows:
--Parcel 63-41A1 fills in a gap between other parcels.
--Parcel 63-30F and 63-30G are the residue of the
Barrsden Subdivision, and are adjacent to a Virginia Byway
and a County Entrance Corridor. The area is currently in
open grassland which qualifies as open space for an A-F
district. If the owner were to bale the hay the parcels
would qualify for land use under agricultural use.
Acceptance into the A-F district does not automatically
qualify the property for land use taxation. The property
must qualify for land use under any of the four categories.
Mr. Blue pointed out that if the County ever abandons land
use, properties in an A-F district may still qualify for
land use since that is a State law. He noted: "That's the
point I think everybody ought to understand," i.e. that if
the County decided that they wanted to do away with the land
use tax, they could not do away with it on the A-F district
parcels (for agriculture and forestry), so there is a
possible future advantage."
Mr. Bowling pointed out that the Board could always decide
to "do away with the district."
Mr. Blue asked: "If he gets in the A-F District by this
action that the Board of Supervisors will take shortly, he
would still be eligible to sell that adjacent lot and put a
house on it or not?" Ms. Scala responded: "Yes, because it
would still remain in the A-F district even if he sold it,
but it would be bound by the same rules...." Mr. Cilimberg
added: "It's just like someone could take an A-F district
of 500 acres and one parcel right now and divide it into
21-acre lots after traditionally farming it. That would not
automatically remove them from the A-F District." Mr. Blue:
"I understand that, but I disagree with it." Mr. Bowling:
"That's what the Ordinance says."
Mr. Grimm pointed out that the Commission is not presently
in the process of trying to change the rules and "we have to
deal with what the rules are at the present time and if it
comes to the point of changing them, then we will go through
that process, but not today."
Mr. Blue: "If a property is in land -use tax, if the
property owner does not maintain it in agriculture or
forestry, then he is no longer eligible for land use tax,
but as far as the A-F district is concerned, am I correct
that it really doesn't make any difference whether he cuts
his hay or abandons his pasture, because it's still open
space and it is still eligible?" Ms. Scala: "As long as he
'2#
11-9-93 12
does not violate the more intensive use definition." She
confirmed that a more intensive use would have to be
approved and an additional dwelling would be discovered
through the building permit process. [NOTE: Mr. Blue made
these comments after Ms. Scala's description of parcel
63-14G. It was unclear whether or not the comments were
directly related to that particular parcel.]
As Ms. Scala described the parcels individually, Mr. Blue
noted: "I would like to point out that all these 21-acre
parcels were created out of farms."
Mr. Grimm stressed that all the ag-forestal applications
were "within the pervue of the law concerning ag-forestal
districts as they are written within the County of
Albemarle."
Ms. Scala confirmed that the Advisory Committee
recommendation for approval had been unanimous.
Mr. Bruce Woodzell, Albemarle County Real Estate Department,
and a member of the Ag-Forestal Advisory Committee,
addressed the Commission at Mr. Blue's request. He
commented: "My concern (at the time of the review of the
application) was the two 21-acre parcels being allowed to go
in an ag-forestal district which would create an immediate
chance for this person to enroll in land use and receive a
tax deferrment by qualifying under open space. They
couldn't go under agriculture because it takes a 5-year
history, 5-acre minimum. They could qualify for forestry
immediately if it had been trees, but that's not the case.
If the parcels were enrolled in an ag-forestal district, he
could come in and make application in a timely manner and we
would enroll him in open space. ... It comes down to points
that I've heard Wayne make tonight that have opened my
thinking, more from the taxation point. If this parcel has
no division rights remaining, what benefit was the county
receiving from letting it go in an ag-forestal district?
How could this parcel change its rural character? That was
my initial point of conversation." He agreed with Mr. Grimm
that he did not think this was the forum at which to discuss
the issues raised by Mr. Blue. Mr. Blue responded: "It's
the only one I've got."
NOTE: At this point in the meeting (9:10), Mr. Blue excused
himself from the remaining discussion of the Eastham
Agricultural Forestal District. He noted that the final
four parcels (63-19, 93-19A, 63-19A1, and 63-19D owned by
the Cassaday family) adjoin land owned by his family.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Pauline Collier Dorrier addressed the Commission. She
questioned whether her sister (Rebecca Collier Cassaday) had
T_!
11-9-93 13
the right to include parcels 63-19, 19A, 19A1, and 19D
because their mother, (still living) has lifetime rights to
the property. Mr. Cilimberg noted that was a legal issue.
Mr. Bowling stated he could not address this issue because
the County takes the applicant's word as to the ownership of
the property. (Ms. Scala stated that the ownership of the
property could be clarified before the application is heard
by the Board.) Ms. Dorrier noted that parcels 63-19B, 19C,
19E and 21 (not a part of this application) are owned by
other family members.
Ms. Josephine Blue addressed the Commission. She called
attention to a letter from Ms. Sarah Andersen (her
sister-in-law) which expressed opposition to the inclusion
of "some of these properties" in the ag-forestal district.
It was determined that the Commission had not received this
letter. It was pointed out that the letter could be
presented to the Board of Supervisors. (Ms. Blue did not
read the letter, nor did she verbally state to which
properties she was referring.)
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the distance from this property to
the intersection of Rt. 20 and Rt. 250. (This question was
not answered definitively.) Mr. Nitchmann noted that we are
"moving into a Comprehensive Plan Review and will be looking
at the future growth of the County." He explained: "The
growth of any county or of any place usually starts at the
core, which in our case, happens to be the City of
Charlottesville. It's going to build out in some
incremental urban rings away from the center. This being
only 2 to 3 miles from that center, and already having been
established as some area of growth by evidence of the
subdivisions that are already there, it seems to me unwise
for us, at this time, to try to increase the
agricultural -forestal district which will not permit growth
within those areas if we see fit during the review of the
Comprehensive Plan that this should be a natural progress of
the growth between the intersection of Rt. 250 and Rt. 20
when there is already growth all the way along that road.
Based on that, my feelings are that I would recommend
deferral until such time as we complete the Comprehensive
Plan review to see if this is going to be one of our next
natural growth areas...."
Ms. Huckle pointed out that even if there were no
restrictions on the property, it "doesn't mean that the
owners of that property will allow it to be developed."
Mr. Grimm felt the properties included in this application
were "far enough away from the west side of Rt. 20 to be
11-9-93 14
somewhat exclusive of the area that is projected for a
growth area."
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the
Eastham Agricultural Forestal District be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff with
the exclusion of parcel 63-14I (Ray/Rushton) and the
understanding that the ownership of the Cassaday property
would be clarified prior to the Board hearing.
The motion passed (4:1) with Commissioner Nitchmann casting
the dissenting vote. (Mr. Blue did not take part in the
action.)
Mr. Nitchmann: I feel we should be looking at the
Comprehensive Plan review before we add more property into
the Ag-Forestal District that is so close in proximity to a
potential growth area."
Pasture Fence Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District - The
proposed district is located on Pasture Fence Mountain west
of Mount Fair off Rt. 756. The proposed district contains
870.42 acres in five parcels. The proposed time period is
ten years.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue expressed strong support for the proposal and noted
that "this is a perfect example of where the ag-forestal,
particularly the forestal part, is appropriate."
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
Pasture Fence Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The
motion passed unanimously.
North Fork Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District -
The proposed district is located west of Brown's Cove. The
proposed district contains 270.48 acres in four parcels.
The proposed time period is ten years.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
Mr. Grimm noted that the tax map refer
National "Forest" instead of "Park."
that the tax map was very old, but that
the Park boundary.
s to the Shenandoah
Ms. Scala explained
line shown is indeed
CV15
11-9-93 15
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the
North Fork Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Blue again noted that he felt this was "an ideal example
of the purpose of the A-F district." He noted the parcels
are large and no houses are involved.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Addition III to Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District
- The proposed addition is located on the west side of Route
810 near Route 811. The proposed addition contains 55.79
acres being added to two parcels (40-1 and 39-4) already in
the district. The existing district contains 4,804 acres.
The proposed time period is the same as for the original
district, or ten years from September 6, 1989. The review
date is September 6, 1999.
Ms, Scala presented the staff report. The report explained
that the addition "reflects an exchange of adjacent property
which was recently recorded."
Ms. Scala confirmed that the Hack property was being deleted
from the district because it was never intended that it be
included.
Mr. Blue noted that the plat had been approved by the
Planning Department. He asked if staff was basing A-F
district boundaries on tax parcels. It appeared to him that
the original survey lines had been inaccurate and the new
survey was just "straightening them up", and that there
probably had not been an actual exchange of parcels. (Mr.
Jenkins noted that he thought there had been a "combination
of both," i.e. both a property exchange and a re -drawing of
the lines as a result of the survey.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that
Addition III to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal
District be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
Addition III to Kinloch AgriculturalfForestal District - The
proposed district is located on the east side of Route 231
-2!5-�2
011==*3
FV
near Cismont. The proposed addition contains 3.811 acres in
one parcel. The existing district contains 1,684 acres.
The proposed time period is the same as for the original
district, or 8 years from September 3, 1986. The review
date is September 3, 1994.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that
Addition III to Kinloch Agricultural/Foresal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The
motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Comprehensive Plan Update - Mr. Cilimberg briefly described
the status of the process to date.
Mr. Nitchmann strongly recommended that a real effort be
made to find persons from all socio-economic levels to serve
on the advisory committee.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed dissatisfaction with the inacuracies
in the press reports of the Commission's discussion and
action on the Meadow Creek Parkway. He clarified: "What I
voted against, and I think others here voted against, was
the fact that we didn't agree with the line as drawn on the
map, but we certainly support the concept that there needs
to be some way to relieve the traffic on 29 North."
21-Acre_Lots in Ag-Forestal Districts (subdivision lots
which are not in ag-forestal use) - Mr. Blue again raised
this issue. He felt this could be a real problem in terms
of loss of tax revenue. He questioned whether the public,
or the Commission, realizes the implications. He pointed
out that if one of these parcels gets into an A-F district,
the County gets nothing, but the owner gets a 90% decrease
in taxes. He felt this issue should be given careful
consideration during the review of the Comprehensive Plan.
He concluded: "I firmly believe in trying to protect the
rural areas, but it's going to backfire on us if we're not
careful."
a6 15
11-9-93
17
Mr. Terry Burley, a member o
Commission, addressed the Co
simply observing the meeting
commissioner certification.
interesting.
mm
f the Fluvanna County Planning
ission. He explained he was
as a requirement for Planning
He had found the meeting very
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:20 p.m.
V. Wayn ili, ecretary
DB mb
c?6#