HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 07 1992 PC Minutes7-7-92
1
JULY 7, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, July 7, 1992, 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; 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. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda
Hipski, Plannerp and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June
23, 1992 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a brief summary of actions taken at
the July 1, 1992 Board Meeting.
SP-92-40 Elvin & Martha Taylor - Petition to locate a single
wide mobile home on 5.05 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas,
Property, described as Tax Map 7, Parcel 56A, is located on
a private road on the north side of Rt. 810 about one-half
mile east of Boonesville in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated
growth area (Rural Area 1).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report.
The applicant, Mr. Elvin Taylor, addressed the Commission.
He expressed a lack of understanding as to why Mr. Swift, an
adjacent property owner, objected to his request given the
fact that Mr. Swift also lives in a mobile home.
The following persons expressed opposition to the request:
Mr. Khusrau Eric Swift and Ms. Radha J. Parker. Mr. Swift
felt that single -wide mobile homes are not adequate housing
and he objected to the placement of another mobile home in
the area. Mr. Swift and Ms. Parker confirmed that they
presently hold a permanent mobile home permit for their
property (which they occupy) and they also confirmed that
they would not be able to see Mr. Taylor's mobile home from
their property. Mr. Swift asked, in the event the permit is
approved, that the Taylors be required to participate in the
maintenance of private road. He also asked that screening
on the site be preserved. It was Mr. Swift and Ms. Parker's
intent to build a conventional dwelling on their property in
the near future.
In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, it was determined
that the roadway which exists is maintained by Mr. Swift and
,:Zg
7-7-92 2
4 other property owners. Mr. St. John determined that the
property owned by Mr. Taylor is not part of the property
which was subdivided by Mr. Swift. Mr. St. John concluded
that the maintenance agreement mentioned by Mr. Swift had no
relation to Mr. Taylor'•s request.
Mr. Kevin Cox expressed support for the proposal. He noted
that the applicant was only asking for the same freedom to
use his land in the same manner as the neighbor who is
objecting. Mr. Cox also suggested that the Board try to
establish a way to deter the filing of "frivolous
complaints." He suggested the following: (1) Charge the
complainant a filing fee; or (2) Allow administrative
approval of requests if the complainant does not appear at
the public hearing. He stressed that frivolous complaints
waste a lot of time and cause a great deal of stress and
humiliation to the applicants.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue moved that SP-92-40 for Elvin & Martha Taylor be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval.
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable
requirements for district in which it is located.
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of
the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage
facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator and approval by the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current
regulations.
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator. Required screening shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
It was confirmed that the Board of Supervisors had decided
to remove the rental restriction on mobile home permits.
Mr. St. John noted that the complaint procedure is also
"under scrutiny" by the Board of Supervisors, i.e. the fact
83
7-7-92 3
that a complaint triggers a much longer and more complicated
procedure.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about public access to
the property, it was determined that only private access is
available. Mr. St. John noted that the question of access
is not before the Commission.
The previously stated motion for approval passed
unanimously.
ZTA-92-03 Henry J. Eiden - Petition to amend Section 10.2.2
to permit rural retreat facilities including lodging and
recreational activities by special use permit in the Rural
Areas. Deferred from the May 19, 1992 Planning Commissing
Meeting.
Before presentation of the staff report, Mr. Fritz
distributed copies of a petition of opposition bearing 28
signatures. [NOTE: Ms. Andersen expressed concern about
the lack of addresses and verification of signatures on this
petition. Staff had attempted to verify as many signatures
as were legible. Mr. Fritz explained that most of the
signatures on the last three pages had been checked and they
were located near Mr. Eiden's property.]
Keeler presented the staff report.
Commission discussion centered on the definition which the
staff report explained was a composite of 6 proposed
definitions (4 by the applicants, 1 by the Zoning
Administrator and 1 from the Planning staff). That
definition was as follows:
"RURAL RETREAT: Land and/or buildings used, whether for
profit or not, for personal and organizational seclusion
including lodging, boarding and diversionary
entertainment/recreation which are involved in:
introspections, meditation, focused and creative thought,
literary, artistic, or other mentally creative tasks; and,
therapies as distinguished from a resort or other use in
which exercise, entertainment, and other physical activities
are emphasized. Participation shall be voluntary rather
than mandated by an institution such as the courts or social
services. This definition shall not include resorts,
executive offices, motels, hotels, boarding houses, or
restaurants."
Much of Commission discussion and public comment included
both the ZTA proposal AND the special permit request from
Ms. Frantzen, which was to follow on the agenda, though the
staff report for the special permit had not yet been
presented.
.:�35
7-7-92 4
Mr. Henry Eiden, tiie applicant, addressed the Commission.
He noted that his proposal was different from Ms. Frantzen's
in that the "users" are different. His participants will be
corporate personnel. He hoped that the opposition had not
been a "knee-jerk reaction" and suggested that it might be
best to save the opposition until a special permit is
actually applied for on his property. He stressed that this
was a "text" amendment and he hoped that opposition to a
particular proposal would.not cause the text amendment to be
defeated. His only objection to staff's proposed language
was that requiring that a use be located close to a tourist
route.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission
and expressed support for the proposal;
--Ms. Donna Frantzen (applicant for the special
permit). She expressed concern about only one aspect of
staff's report (for the special permit), that which she
understood would require that a special permit would be
needed before a private residence could be built on the
property. Mr. Keeler explained that the purpose of such a
condition would be "not to put more people on the property
than it can hold by right." Ms. Frantzen felt that her
proposed use would be compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan's goals for rural areas in terms of the preservation of
agricultural and forestal lands. She did, however, express
a lack of understanding of the actual meaning of
"agricultural and forestal land" in relation to Albemarle
County.
--Mr. Jim McVey felt this type of use could support
rural areas by creating greater awareness and appreciation.
--Ms. Eleanor May, President of Adventure Bound School,
the property involved in Ms. Frantzen's special permit
application, felt that rural retreats were similar to parks,
which are allowed in the rural areas. She pointed out that
this property, like much property in the rural areas is not
suitable for any type of agricultural or forestal
production. She noted that a rural retreat would generate
much less traffic than had the school.
--Ms. Mary Jannick, a regular retreat participant,
expressed a lack of understanding as to how anyone could
object to a small group of persons gathering for a quiet,
peaceful time.
The following persons expressed opposition to the proposal.-
--Mr. James Brooks, a Free Union resident and the
person who had circulated the petition. He stressed that
the persons who signed the petition lived in different areas
of the county and they were opposed to the zoning text
amendment and NOT to any particular proposal. He felt the
proposal was inconsistent with rural areas objectives.
After closing the public hearing, the Chairman invited
comment from the County Attorney.
, 317
7-7-92 5
Mr. St. John commented: "i think that 95% of this
amendment, both the definition, and the supplemental
regulations, are absolutely unenforceable and, in my
opinion, this kind of language is so ephemeral.... There is
no teeth in this thing and you can't put any in it to make
sure that the image that is conjured up in your mind while
they spoke is actually what you will see." He stated that
terms like "for seclusion," "diversionary entertainment,"
"introspection," "meditation," "focused and creative
thought" are "good philosophical language but should not be
incorporated into any ordinance." He also stated that the
types of groups who would be using the facility had to be
left "solely to the proprietor." Mr. St. John indicated
that he felt there was no difference in a "resort" and a
"rural retreat" because "the only difference is what goes on
in the people's minds when they're at these things and you
can't monitor that." He stated that only those elements
dealing with the physical layout of the property were
enforceable.
Commission comments and concerns were as follows:
--Mr. Johnson questioned the purpose of paragraph (e)
requiring that such uses be located "convenient to primary
tourist routes." it was staff's feeling that "if tourist
uses are going to be introduced into the Ordinance there
should be some consistent guidelines as to where they should
be located."
-- Ms. Andersen questioned the use of the term
"tourist." She felt that participants in this type of
function would not be typical tourists.
--Ms. Huckle questioned the meaning of "mental
therapy."
--Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the fact that the
applicant planned to allow the facility to be used by other
groups from time to time. Ms. Frantzen assured her that
requests would be screened very carefully and most, though
not all, will be religious in nature.
--Mr. Blue stated that though he was very reluctant to
compromise the RA zone, he was sympathetic with the use of
the Adventure Bound property because he did not want to see
it go to waste. He wondered if the use proposed by Ms.
Frantzen could be accomplished without the zoning text
amendment. This question was discussed at length. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the application for the zoning text
amendment had been separate from Ms. Frantzen's application.
And because Ms. Frantzen had already met with the Zoning
Administrator, and it had been the Zoning Administrator's
feeling (though it was not an official ruling) that the use,
as described by the applicant, did not fit any of the
existing ordinance definitions, it was Ms. Frantzen's
decision to submit her proposal along with the rural retreat
application. She had made no attempt to amend any other
existing definitions. Mr. St. John felt it might be possible
to "fine tune" the definition of boarding camp so that this
,3VO
7-7-92 6
use would fit. Mr. Keeler recalled that the problem with
boarding camp had been related to its seasonal nature. He
also stated that all the uses in the rural areas had been
considered and had been "discounted for one reason or
another," either by the Zoning Administrator or the
applicant.
--Regarding the issue of compatibility with ag/forestal
areas, Mr. Johnson felt these areas were "more than plants
and animals." He felt this type of use was completely
compatible with the rural environment. He was in favor of
following Mr. St. John's suggestion to "fine tune" an
existing definition so as to make this use fit. He noted
that restrictions can be placed on individual requests on a
case -by -case basis via the special permit.
--Ms. Huckle felt that a rural retreat was not
compatible with the rural areas. She noted that
agricultural operations often are not as quiet and peaceful
as this type of use requires. She also expressed fear that
the amendment, as presented, was very broad and offered
little control over these uses. She was in favor of denying
the request.
--Mr. Grimm felt a rural retreat was compatible with
the rural areas, but he agreed with Mr. St. John that the
language presented was largely unenforceable.
--Ms. Andersen indicated she agreed with Mr. Grimm and
was in favor of pursuing the possibility of amending the
definition of boarding camp.
--Mr. Blue suggested that, in the future, this type of
proposal should be reviewed by the County Attorney prior to
the public hearing, so as to avoid "public embarassment."
Both staff and Mr. St. John explained that the amendment was
reviewed by the County Attorney prior to the meeting, as is
always the case, but the language presented was largely that
of the applicant and staff is not in a position to refuse an
applicant his right to present his proposal to the
Commission. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that staff's
original report had advised that it would be difficult to
prevent this use "from turning into other types of uses."
The Commission, at that time, had directed staff to develop
a more descriptive definition.
Mr. Johnson asked if the zoning text amendment were denied,
could the special permit request then be approved, not as a
rural retreat, but rather with the understanding that the
Commission deemed it to be "compatible" with the definition
of boarding camp? Mr. St. John responded that though Mr.
Johnson's suggestion was possible, he cautioned against
overruling an official determination of the Zoning
Administrator. However, it was his understanding that the
Zoning Administrator had never been asked to make an
"official" ruling on this request. Mr. Blue pointed out
that the Zoning Administrator had already offered her
opinion that the use did not fit either boarding or day
camp.
7-7-92
F6
Mr. Grium attempted to bring the discussion back to just the
zoning text amendment. He asked the applicant, Mr. Eiden,
to comment on his preference.
Mr. Eiden asked that the Commission take action on the
request. He did not see the problem with the proposal,
since any request for this use will have to pass the
scrutiny of a special permit review.
The Chairman called for a motion.
Ms. Huckle moved that ZTA-92-03, to add Rural Retreat as a
use by special permit in the rural areas, be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. (She later withdrew her
second.)
Discussion:
Mr. Nitchmann noted that he had participated in rural
retreats and he believed this type use would be compatible
with the rural areas. He wondered why the proposal had been
brought to the Commission in this fashion. He stated: "1
think it is the right of the Planning Staff --they should
have gone back to the applicant and told the applicant that
our legal staff has advised us that this information is not
enforceable and we're going to present that to the Planning
commission as such. He suggested that the proposal be
amended so as to include only a brief definition of Rural
Retreat as follows: "Land and/or buildings used, whether
for profit or not, for personal and organizational seclusion
including lodging, boarding and diversionary entertainment
and recreation."
Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to the original
staff report which contained the following proposed
definition: "Land and/or buildings used, whether for profit
or not, for personal and organizational seclusion and
solitude involving lodging, board and entertainment
including recreational activites." He pointed out that
staff had at that time advised the Commission, in the
presence of the applicants and the Deputy County Attorney,
that the type of language presented in this susequent report
was "not workable" but, nevertheless, the staff had been
directed to re -write the proposal.
Mr. Nitchmann recalled that there were members of the
commission who would have voted against the original
definition so it was sent back to staff to try to put "more
teeth" into it.
`31{U
7-7-92
8
Isis. Andersen also recalled that the legal staff present at
the original hearing had not advised the Commission that a
more elaborate definition would be unenforceable.
Ms. Huckle interpreted that passage of the briefer
definition could mean that the use could include "any kind
of a resort, or inn, or restaurant." Mr. St. John agreed
that was true, but felt that this use could be called a
resort. He again stated that to distinguish between the two
would require trying to define "mental activity that people
are engaged in" which is impossible to do. Ms. Huckle felt
that in the past Boards of Supervisors have not wanted such
uses in the rural areas. Mr. Nitchmann responded: "Then
why don't we let the Board make that decision again. That
was 10 years ago."
Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission was limited to taking
action on only that language which was presented in the
staff report. Mr. Cilimberg replied negatively and
explained that the Commission could recommend approval of
the original definition if it so desired. Mr. St. John
explained: "When you have a Zoning Text Amendment, and it's
advertised and you hold a public hearing, the very purpose
of the public hearing is, perhaps, to entice you to either
pass it or deny it, but in there is also the latitude to
change it in response to the public hearing, and if it
addresses the same subject matter and it doesn't involve a
rezoning to a more intensive use than that which was
advertised, then you can go on and do it without any more
advertising." In conclusion, Mr. St. John confirmed that
the Commission could act on ZTA-92-03 with different
language than presented in the staff report.
Ms. Huckle's motion for denial died because Ms. Andersen
withdrew her second.
Mr. Nitchmann then moved that ZTA-92-03 (Henry J. Eiden), to
permit rural retreat facilities by special use permit in the
Rural Areas, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as follows:
1. Amend Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS to include "Rural Retreat"
as follows:
Land and/or buildings used, whether for profit or not,
for personal and organizational seclusion including lodging,
boarding and diversionary entertainment and recreation.
2. Amend Section 10.2.2 to add by special permit "Rural
Retreat."
(It was clarified that the motion did not include any
amendment to Supplementary Regulations.)
-�!,d�-z
7-7-92 9
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Mr. Blue attempted to clarify the intent of the motion
further: "You feel that anything that is deemed
objectionable by people can be addressed in the special
permitting process. By this we are not saying that we are
opening up the rural areas to all sorts of things." Mr.
Nitchmann responded: "That's my intention."
Mr. St. John felt the motion was "reasonable."
Discussion:
Ms. Eleanor Santic, a member of the public, objected to the
changing of the wording. She indicated this would have had
an effect on public comment, because her organization
(Citizens for Albemarle) had objected to the "broad"
definition when it was first proposed. (Mr. Cilimberg
noted that Ms. Santic's comments, at the first public
hearing, are a matter of record and will be forwarded to the
Board "in terms of the opposition to the original
definition."
The motion for approval of ZTA-92-03, as stated above,
passed (5:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Jenkins casting
the dissenting votes.
SP-92-23 Donna Frantzen (applicant). Adventure Bounder Inc
(owner) - Petition to permit a rural retreat (10.2.2.44
(proposed by ZTA-92-03 Henry Eiden)] on 33 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 6, Parcels 24
and 25B, is located in the southern corner of the
intersection of Rt. 810 and Rt. 687 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area 1). (See ZTA-92-03 Henry
J. Eiden). Deferred from the May 19, 1992 Commission
Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented a brief staff report. The report
concluded: "Due to the existing nature of development the
site has a limited number of reasonable uses. Staff opinion
is that providing a reasonable use of the land outweighs
negative factors and staff supports this petition primarily
on this basis. Staff's recommendation for approval is based
on the existing nature of development." Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions. NOTE: Based on the action
taken by the Commission on the previous item (ZTA-92-03) Mr.
Fritz recommended that condition No. 1 be deleted and that
the last three words ("as described hereinabove") be deleted
from No. 2.
Mr. Fritz explained how condition No. 3 had been arrived at.
["The maximum member of retreat participants at any given
AJ44
7-7-92 10
time shall not exceed 28.11] He explained: "It had to do
with calculating the level of activity the applicant was
proposing and relating that to the existing level of
activity that Adventure Bound has." [Mr. Fritz later
explained that Adventure Bound currently has a day -time
population of approximately 34 persons. The 28 figure is
derived from subtracting the two dwelling units (6 persons)
from the existing level of activity.] Mr. Blue asked how
this would effect the applicant's ability to sell part of
the property (as she had mentioned earlier). Mr. Fritz
explained that the applicant had the right to "sell off one
of the dwelling units onto a separate parcel."
In response to Mr. Johnson's comment, Mr. Fritz confirmed
that the entire parcel was subject to this special permit.
Mr. Cilimberg explained: "If she was dividing off one of
the (existing) two dwelling units, she could do that and it
would still fall under the permit but it would be allowable
under the permit. It would only be to divide a piece of the
parcel.to create a new building site (that would require an
amendment to the special permit). This is attempting to
essentially make this equivalent to it being used under its
allowable development rights and it is just specifying that
in the special use permit because you have some
non-residential activities occurring."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, it was confirmed that
the permit would be attached to the property (not to the
applicant) .
The applicant, Ms. Frantzen, addressed the Commission. She
explained: "The idea of the lot was to allow a private
residence for myself that was not part of the retreat
facility. I want at some point to be able to build a home
for myself.... It is not to increase the usage of the
property.in any way."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the commission.
It was clarified that the 28 figure applied to retreat
guests and the two dwelling .units. No limitation of
employees is proposed.
Mr. Johnson, for clarification, reiterated: "We have
defined the size of the land, the number of people who can
be there, and the number of buildings. ... Any deviation
from that which is not compatible with this will need
further approval." Mr. St. John confirmed: "The permit
applies to the whole thing."
Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-92-23 for Donna Frantzen
(applicant), Adventure Bound, Inc (owner) be recommended to
7-7-92 11
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Food and lodging shall be provided only for retreat
participants. This provision shall not be deemed to permit
lodging or boarding of guests or transients not
participating in a retreat program.
2. The maximum number of retreat participants at any given
time shall not exceed 28.
3. No new construction. Modifications to existing
buildings and structures shall be undertaken in such manner
so as to easily and inexpensively convert such buildings and
structures to dwelling unit types (i.e. - single family
detached, duplex, etc.) or other structures typically
expected to accompany by -right uses (e.g. barns) as may be
permitted by right in the specific zoning district.
4. Use shall not commence until approval for such use has
been obtained from the Albemarle County Fire Official. The
Fire Official shall thereafter inspect the premises at his
discretion.
5. Use shall not commence until approval of permit has been
obtained from the Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation
of the Virginia Department of Health.
6. Not more than nine (9) rooms shall be available for
overnight guests.
7. Not more than two dwelling units shall be permitted.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins called attention to the problems which had
occurred with the Adventure Bound School. He wondered if
any steps could be taken to "protect the neighbors from this
becoming an unneighborly facility." Mr. St. John responded:
"I don't know that there's anything that you can do (to
prevent that)." Mr. Grimm pointed out that the special
permit process and the definition of rural retreat should
offer some control..
Though Ms. Huckle supported this applicant's proposal, she
expressed concerns about other groups using the facility who
might not be as responsible as Ms. Frantzen or what might
happen if the facility were to be sold.
Mr. Keeler commented that he did not think it would be
appropriate to attach this permit to the applicant only
because a large part of the staff's reason for recommending
7-7-92 12
approval was to allow reasonable use of the existing
buildings. Mr. Cilimberg added that the County Attorney has
advised staff that only under very limited circumstances
(e.g. home occupations) should permits be restricted to the
applicant only. Mr. St. John added: "The fundamental rule
is that land use decisions are made on the basis of the use
of the land and not who owns the land, and not the
personality of the individual who is using the land." He
pointed out it would be impossible to secure financing on
property which had a special permit attached to a particular
person. He concluded: "In order to recommend this special
use, you got to find that this location is a suitable place
for a rural retreat as defined --not that this lady is a
suitable person to run a retreat --but that this land is a
suitable place for such an activity to be run." He added
that the Common Law, related to nuisance, and the Criminal
Law, not land use law, are the only remedies available to
ensure that a situation as existed with Adventure Bound
School does not happen again.
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that any future owner would have
to get approval for any use which did not conform to this
special permit. Any public concerns could then be addressed
at the public hearing for the permit. Mr. Johnson added
that a subsequent use would have to meet the definition of
rural retreat.
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner
Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
In the interests of representing the Commission's action
accurately to the Board, Mr. Cilimberg made the following
summary statement: "You were originally given a very
general definition for rural retreat, with no supplementary
regulations, simply adding it as a definition and in the
special permit uses of the RA district, which you were
uncomfortable with based on the comments made that night.
You asked us to go back, with the applicant, and try to
become more specific. When we came back, what was specific
was too specific and really uneforceable at the advice of
the County Attorney and for all practical purposes --which
you didn't know initially. Your action, then, was simply to
go back to where you were originally and you felt
comfortable enough to pass the ZTA and the conditions in the
special use permit reflect what would have been
supplementary reps to a great extent, but you will consider
those on a case -by -ease basis." The Commission expressed no
opposition to Mr. Cilimberg's statement.
SP-92-41 and SP-92-42 Bloomfield Inc. - Petition to
establish a convent [10.2.2(41)] and a private school
[10.2.2(5)] on 63.66 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property
described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 12 is located on the west
3 aL
7-7-92 13
side of Rt. 677, approximately 0.4 miles south of Rt. 250 in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not
located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Staff was requesting deferral to July 21, 1992.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen that the.items
be deferred to July 21, 1992. The motion passed
unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Andersen asked if staff had been able to come up with a
list of localities which have enacted mobile home
provisions. Staff responded that they were in the process
of developing this list.
Housing Report Work Sessions - Mr. Johnson suggested that a
representative from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Council and the University be invited to attend these
sessions. He noted that one of the recommendations of the
report was it be a "coordinated effort." He also called
attention to the recommendation of the report that 250 units
of affordable housing be provided each year, which is 32% of
the total number of new dwelling units which have been built
in the past eight years. He felt this was one of the
important aspects of the report. Mr. Cilimberg noted that
the Committee which had prepared the report had already
received input from these entitites. Mr. Cilimberg also
noted that there is already a "regional cooperative effort"
called the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(staffed by the Planning District) and a county
representative is a part of that project.
Mr. Johnson was afraid that "we are looking at how to get
physical structures without addressing how to improve the
quality of life in the County via physical structures." He
felt the strategy was aimed more at treating the symptoms
than getting at the cause.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:55 p.m.
0
`-' Lt �_
V. Wayne/)Cilimberg, S
31/9