Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 21 1992 PC Minutes7-21-92 1 0 JULY 21, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 21, 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; 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 July 7, 1992 were approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the July 15th Board meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of three parcels totalling 1,392.220 acres located between Scottsville and Howardsville, north of Rt. 723 and Rt. 626, and west of Rt. 627. The addition must be reviewed with the original district, which has a time period of 10 years from June 28, 1991. The existing Totier Creek District contains 7,246.52 acres. and Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District - Consists of 32 parcels totalling 4,625.885 acres located in the Carter's Mountain area on Rt. 795, Rt. 727, Rt. 627, and Rt. 20. The addition must be reviewed with the original district, which has a time period of 10 years from April 20, 1988. The existing Lanark District contains 996.05 acres. Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. 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 side of Rt. 677, approximately 0.4 miles south of Rt. 250 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not . q57 7-21-92 2 located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Deferred from the July 7, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. (Note: Staff distributed copies of a revised set of conditions.) Mr. Fritz noted that opposition had been expressed (by phone) by Mr. Steve McLean, a neighboring property owner. Mr. McLean was opposed to the school, because of traffic concerns, but not to the convent. Mr. Johnson wondered if condition No. 2 (SP-92-41) was "necessary or desirable?" He questioned the enforceability of terms such as "long term," "communal," "temporary." Mr. Fritz responded that conditions 1 and 2 were taken directly from Supplementary Regulations for convents in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler noted that the supplementary regulations had been written by the County Attorney's office. Mr. St. John commented: "I think this language is pretty general and would be difficult to enforce, if enforcement of this condition is going to become an issue. It's meant, really, to be a statement of intent, and as a statement of intent whether they're doing what this commission intended for them to do, if and when the Board and Commission grant this permit. I think it is appropriate. I wouldn't recommend omitting this condition." Referring to condition No. 3 (SP-92-41)--"Expansion of buildings or new construction shall be limited to that level approved by the Health Department." --Mr. Johnson asked if septic drainfields would be considered as "new construction." Mr. Fritz responded: "No. It's new buildings, new structures." Mr. Johnson noted that if the applicant chose to increase the septic system, "that could change the position of the Health Department as far as the number of occupants allowed." Mr. Fritz responded: "That would appear correct, yes." Mr. Johnson asked: "I wonder if it would be desirable to include the septic system under that limitation of expansion in order to limit increases of occupants." Mr. St. John commented: "Mr. Johnson, that's the reason the upper cap of 50 students." Mr. Johnson stated that his concern was related to the residents of the convent which could be unlimited. Mr. St. John responded: "We have a rule now which wasn't in effect when this building was built, that they require you to have area for backup septic system. It's not envisioned by any of these ordinances that they preclude the expansion of an existing septic system. That would be something, in my mind, that would amend the basic policies we have in force here." 7-21-92 3 The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Len Mailloux, a member of the Bloomfield Board of Directors. He described the previous use of the property, i.e. a home for disabled children founded in 1963, licensed for 25 children, all severely disabled. He explained that at one time there had been 27 resident children at the home, who were served by 50-52 non-resident employees. The school closed July 15, 1991 because of low enrollment (12 at the time of closing). He explained it was the nuns' intent to live in the upper story of the building and using the lower level for classrooms. Mr. Mailloux stated that his original request had been for a maximum of 75-100 children. (Mr. Fritz later read the appliant's request directly from the application which stated the request was for "approximately 50" students and 5 nuns. Mr. Mailloux apologized to staff, and explained that a subsequent letter, sent to staff after the initial application, had requested an enrollment of 75-100.) He stated that an enrollment of 50 would not work in the "long term" for the proposed used. (This issue was discussed by the Commission later in the hearing.) He described the Sisters' existing convent and explained that the Bloomfield property fits their needs perfectly and will allow them to begin teaching immediately. Answers to commission questions included the following: --There are no plans to use a school bus for transporting students. --No additional staff is anticipated because the Sisters are self-sustaining. Teacher assistants "may" be added at some future time. -The existing structure can accommodate 100 classroom students (in 10 classrooms). --Grades 3-12 are proposed. --There is no history of problems with the entrance to the property, even when used by 52 employees daily. --The Sisters see a need for this type school in Charlottesville and their existing school in Masschusetts is closing. --The Bloomfield property fits their needs perfectly. Regarding the issue of maximum enrollment, Mr. Keeler noted that staff's analysis of the request had been based on an enrollment of 50 and staff was not prepared to make any recommendation of any figure that was significantly larger than 50. Mr. Grimm proposed that the Commission review the request based on a maximum of 50 students with any addition to that number to be considered at a later time. Mr. Mailloux asked that the Commission consider the two requests simultaneously. � 1� 7-21-92 4 The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons expressed their support for both the school and the convent: --Dr. Michael Westerman (a sponsoring parent). He explained the type school that is envisioned, i.e. "a tutorial -type convent school which would never be very large." He stressed that this was not envisioned as a "growth industry" though the applicant would like to be able to request a larger enrollment at some future time. He stated: "We never envision this as being a substantially larger enterprise than what was there before." He expressed some concern about.condition No. 6 (SP-92-42) which restricted grading to only that necessary for parking requirements. He explained that the school would like to be able to expand the soccer field which may require some minor grading. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he stated that the existing school is recognized by the Massachusetts Department of Education, but, traditionally private schools do not fall under the State requirements for public education. He pointed out, also, that the school would not be a diocesan school and would be funded totally by tuition and parent donations. --Ms. Alice Desmond (a sponsoring parent). - She explained the difference in a convent school as opposed to a diocesan school. She explained that the Sisters have said they "could never handle more than 75" students. She explained that the Incarnation Catholic School (closed in the 601s) had approximately 100 students with a waiting list. She felt there was a demand for this type of school. Staff of the school will be 5 teaching Sisters and 1 Sister who will serve as housekeeper, cook and receptionist. Regarding the proposed enrollment, Ms. Desmond stated that the Sisters have indicated a maximum of 75, but it "is possible they might agree to go to 100. Ms. Desmond confirmed that she understood the present application was for 50 students and any increase in that would require amendment of the permit. Mr. Blue asked the speaker how she would feel if a subsequent request for additional students were to be turned down because of concerns about traffic, etc. Ms. Desmond responded: 'I think that would depend on the neighbors; if the school, with 50 students, is not causing a problem and is working well, I think a lot will depend on the people that live there." She added that the Sisters had been concerned about the number because they would have liked to have had initial approval for 75 so that they would be able to fulfill their religious "calling." [Ms. Andersen asked why Mr. Mailloux had felt that 50 students would "not work" long term. Ms. Desmond felt this was related to the Sisters' feeling that 75 was needed to fulfill their calling and was not related to finances.] --Dr. William Wilson (a sponsoring parent). He found the proposed school attractive because it would be a small, tutorial based program. _�,/10 7-21-92 5 --Mr. Lester Wilson, counsel for the Sisters of St. Benedict's center. - He explained that he felt the 75 figure was "what (the Sisters) think the school could handle." He stressed that the Sisters teach out of love and not for profit. He stated that the property would be leased initially for one year with an option to renew. --Col. William Spatuza (?), a resident of Bloomfield Road. He stated he was more concerned about other possible uses, less acceptable, which could be made of this property than he was about increased traffic. He felt the proposal would offer residents of the County another alternative education choice. (Regarding a previous application for a Catholic school in the old Greenwood School, it was noted that it is the same group of sponsoring parents involved with this proposal. The permit for the Greenwood School has now expired. Ms. Desmond indicated that there is currently another party interested in the Greenwood School, and though she stated there was a possibility that the Greenwood property could someday serve as an expansion of the convent school, she felt this was a very remote possibility given the desires and vocational calling of the Sisters.) Ms. Kathryn Almy and Mr. Steve McLean, neighboring property owners, residents on Bloomfield Road, addressed the Commission and expressed their opposition to the school on this site. Both persons stated they supported the concept of the school and did not oppose the convent, but were concerned about additional traffic on the road. Both persons admitted that they had not noticed a great deal of traffic when Bloomfield was in operation. They expressed surprise that 52 employees were travelling to the school each day. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Grimm directed that both petitions would be considered simultaneously. Ms. Huckle noted that there are often subdivision requests on non -tolerable roads, so "until we start turning down subdivisions because the roads are non -tolerable, I think we should probably consider this favorably." Mr. Johnson asked counsel to comment on a case in Fairfax County (1975) where the Supreme Court had been "unwilling to support denial on grounds that public facilities would be rendered insuffcient." He asked if there was any significance in this decision in terms of whether a request is "by -right" or a "special" request, as is the case here. .:�61 7-21-92 6 Mr. St. John noted that that decision had been in 1975 and the law has "gone through an evolution" since that time. He responded: "The short answer is I don't think that case has anything to do with what is before you." He explained the case very briefly and concluded: "You're asking me if there is some rule of law that says you must approve this or the Court will overturn you, or, on the other hand, you must deny it or the Court will overturn you. This is one of those cases where it is squarely within your judgment whether to recommend approval or not." Mr. Johnson stated he supported the convent request completly. He stated he also supported the school. However, he felt there was a "conflict between No. 3 (related to VDOT entrance requirements) and No. 6 (restricting clearing and grading), because there is clearing and grading required by the Department of Transportation." Regarding VDOT's comments related to sight distance, he stated: "I feel that they have made a routine, prefunctory statement of requirements without any special consideration to the situation. I believe these requirements are based on a lack of any consideration of maximum'speed limit, or speed limit in the road." He noted that though the speed limit is 55 mph, the "posted maximum safe speed limit is 25 mph." He felt that the geometry of the road "limits you pretty close to 25." He concluded: "I fail to appreciate that their recommendation has much influence on any safety aspects, all things considered, including speed." He noted that this is a very picturesque road and to require grading and tree removal, as required by VDOT, would be quite detrimental. He was in favor of deleting condition No. 3, "as being unnecesasry particularly under this limitation of students." He noted that the proposed usage was no greater than it had been previously and there is no history of accidents. He also suggested that No. 6 be modified so as to allow modest grading as requested for the expansion of the soccer field. Mr. Blue stated he ws in agreement with Mr. Johnson in regards to No. 6, but he disagreed about the deletion of No. 3 related to sight distrance. He felt that there were problems with sight distance with not only the entrance, but also at the road's intersection with Rt. 250. He stated he would be uncomfortable with deletion of VDOT's recommendations, particularly in view of the fact that he had supported their recommendations for adjustments to the Broadus Wood entrance (previous application). Mr. Blue acknowledged awareness of the difference in the two situations, i.e. higher speed and more traffic at Broadus Wood. Mr. Keeler noted that 350 feet of sight distance is based on a travel speed of 35 mph and is the "lowest sight distance for a commercial entrance." 7-21-92 7 Mr. Johnson again noted that No. 6 needed to be modified, direct inconsistency." it No. 3 was to remain, then because he felt "there was a Regarding traffic, Mr. Keeler explained that expected traffic generation from 50 students would be comparable to traffic generated if the property were to be subdivided and developed, by -right, with residential developement. Regarding No. 6, Mr. Keeler suggested the following amended language: "No clearing or grading except that required to meet parking and VDOT requirements and recreational facilities." The Commission expressed no objection to this suggestion. Mr. Grimm stated he supported staff's recommendations. Ms. Andersen moved that SP-92-41 and SP-92-42 for Bloomfield, Inc. be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: SP-92-41: 1. The ownership of the convent monastery shall conform in all respects to the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 57 of the Code of Virginia, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any successor statute; 2. The permit is intended to accommodate the long term residency of nuns, monks, or friars in a communal setting as opposed to transient occupancy as may be experienced in other religious retreats; provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude temporary lodging or guests as an accessory use to the convent or monastery; 3. Expansion,of buildigns or new construction shall require amendment to this permit; 4. Occupancy shall be limited to that level approved by the Health Department. SP-92-42: 1. The school shall only be operated in conjunction with a convent on -site; 2. Enrollment shall be limited to 50 students at any time or such lesser number as may be approved by the Health Department; 3. Improvements to the entrance recommended by the Virginia Department of Transportation'in its June 15, 1992 letter shall be completed prior to opening of the school; 7-21-92 8 4. Use shall not commence without appropriate local, state, or federal approvals; 5. Use shall not commence until staff approval of adequate on -site parking. Parking shall be provided as follows: 1 space/10 students in grades 1-10, 1 space/3 students in grades 11-12, 1 space for every full-time resident of the convent; 6. No clearing or grading except that required to meet parking and VDOT requirements and recreational facilities. 7. Expansion of buildings or new construction shall require amendment to this permit; 8. Use shall not commence until Fire Officer approval has been obtained; 9. Use shall not commence until Health Department approval has been obtained; 10. Students shall be voluntary placements; 11. The purpose and operations shall be in general accord with Attachment C. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ZTA-92-7 - Repeal 30.5.6.3 Mr. Keeler presented a brief staff report. The report explained that this section had been imporperly advertised in the original package of amendments recently recommended for adoption by the Commission. Therefore, it had to be rescheduled. The amendment was related to the section title (30.5.6.3 EXCEPTIONS, SA -HIGHWAYS) as Section 30.5.6.3.1 had already been recommended for repealer by the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZTA 92-7 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Field Trig - Mr. Cilimberg announced that a field trip, related to housing issues, was planned for July 31. Time to be confirmed later. Court Datef Zoning Violations - Mr. Johnson called the Commission's attention to a court date of July 27, 3:00 p.m. 3�� 7-21-92 F1 when pending zoning violations would be heard in General District Court. Manufactured Homes / Removal of Towing Apparatus - Recalling a conversation that had taken place at a previous Commission meeting, Mr. Johnson called attention to a letter from an Oakwood Mobile Homes engineer which stated that these parts are recommended for removal (in opposition to what was indicated by County Inspections staff). Mr. Cilimberg offered to show the letter to the Inspections Department and ask for their comment. CIP Work Sessions - It was decided the August 11 and 13 CIP work sessions would be combined into one session on the llth. UVA Representative Request for Minutes - Mr. Johnson suggested that Mr. Porter be mailed a copy of Commission minutes. Lucas vs. South Carolina Ruling - Mr. Johnson asked counsel for an interpretation of this ruling. Monthly Calendar - Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff could provide a monthly calendar which would show meeting times of different groups. Commissioner Nitchmann's Request for Clarification of Procedure - The following discussion occurred: Nitchmann : "We work on a number of issues here, since I've been on the Board, some of which the Board of Supervisors has voted with us and some of which the Board of Supervisors has gone exactly opposite of the way that we voted. There are a couple of them that really concern me. The first one is the Government Facilities Plan that we rejected and sent it back to have more work done on it and to have it almost totally rewritten, then to find that when it comes before the Board of Supervisors that our new rendition that we approved was placed before the Board of Supervisors as Addendum A, or Attachment A, and right behind it was Attachment B, Attachment B being the exact same original document that we declined to have as our recommendation. Now, I can understand if the staff had taken our new proposal that we put together and went before the Board and recommended that 'We can support this with these changes,' but to take the complete document in its entirety, to me, completely disregarded all the work that this Commission did on that document. In reading the minutes of that document, I found that, when presented to the Board, the focus of the two documents, and their differences, was placed entirely on the 250 square feet, which, in my personal opinion, took all of the tension off of all of the other significant changes that went on within that document. when I spoke to my 7-21-92 10 supervisor about this, the one that represents Scottsville District, he felt that he was properly approving what we had approved here on the Planning Commission. My question is, or statement is, or comment, whatever it is, is this common practice for the staff to take the original document, as it was written, and attach it right underneath a document that this Commission has worked on and spent time on, has approved and sent forth to the Board for approval, versus taking that document and saying 'Yes, we agree with this but we would like to have this word added, or this word changed'? I'd just like to know because I'd like to know how level the field is that, at least, I'm playing on." Cilimberg: "Let me explain what we do on all of our staff reports. The Board of Supervisors for some period of time has always asked for the staff's recommendation. They wanted to know what the staff originally recommended and that staff report is always provided to the Board of Supervisors as it was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission. We also provide the Board of Supervisors with the minutes of your meeting. We, normally, don't actually provide any kind of revised staff report unless it is a major document. But when there's a major document involved, like the Facilities Plan section that you worked on, we do provide them with the complete document that you recommend as well as what staff had originally brought forward and the minutes are there. I was just going back to my memo to Mr. Tucker where we made specific reference to your approved document and this was what was forwarded to the Board along with a cover memo from the County Executive's Office. So, we made a very explicit statement that Attachment A was the approved plan of the Planning Commission in our delivery of that and we provided the minutes. We also included the original copy as we had developed it which was normal procedure for us. Then the County Executive covered that information with their own background, discussion and recommendation regarding the Community Facilities Plan for the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker handled the presentation with the Board and I think, from the minutes, it's mentioned in there, specifically, the reference to the square footage. That tends to come out here a lot in the discussion that Mr. Tucker had with the Board. I was asked about that aspect of it. I answered the question regarding the concerns that the Commission had on the 250 square feet. I did not get into other elements because Mr. Tucker was handling that and the Board was asking questions. I did ask Mr. Tucker, with that, at a point where I thought it was close to some action being taken, I didn't ask that before the Board, I asked him directly, if he thought that the action was being taken on the Planning Commission's recommendation or the staff's because it was somewhat unclear." n, r. 7-21-92 11 Nitchmann: "It was to me when the attention was taken off of proposal, and focused in very the 250 square foot." I read the minutes, that all Atttachment A, which was our finely onto the major issue of Cilimberg: "I did ask Mr. Tucker about that and his response was that he felt that the Board of Supervisors was acting on Attachment B. That is how it is reflected in the minutes. Very honestly, that was not requested back of the Board as a point of clarification. It was reflected in the action that the Board subsequently sent to us. But just to set the record straight on how we always do things, we provide the staff's recommendation, your minutes, which are very important and they have, in fact, requested that they always have your minutes when considering an item, as well as, in this case, your recommendation, which was the first Attachment and was referenced as such in our cover memo. so I can honestly say that there was no deliberate intent to try to undermine the Planning Commission's recommendation or to try to present one, from our standpoint. as being preferred over the other. We wouldn't even, in fact, make a recommendation to change anything that the Planning Commission had recommended. We always present, and I do this in meetings with the Board of Supervisors, if the staff's recommendation is different than the Planning Commission's, then I tell them what the staff report says, what staff's recommendation is, and then I say what the Planning Commission's recommendation is and the reasons that could be cited from the minutes for that action. When I handle an item before the Board that's the way I always handle that." St. John: "I don't think this is just a question of policy or what the past practice is. This flows over into the area of ethics and the Planning profession, just like the legal profession and everybody else, has ethics. In the first place these situations, in every zoning case that goes to the Supreme Court or even the Circuit Court, one of the most important pieces of evidence is what the staff recommended, what the Planning Commission recommended and what the Board of Supervisors ultimately did. It would be unethical for the staff, out of some feeling that it must, through loyalty to the Commission or through fear of criticism by this Commission, to change their staff report against their judgment in order to avoid this very situation that you are talking about. They have an ethical duty to advise the Board of Supervisors what they, in their judgment, recommend, and not to change that recommendation unless something comes out, and sometimes this happens but it didn't happen in this case, sometimes information will come out at the Planning Commission stage which will result in the solution to some problem that staff sees and when they get to the Board of Supervisors their recommendations change because what they saw as a problem, they now no longer see a. � 7-21-92 12 as a problem. But the basic point that I make to you is that the staff, under no circumstances, should be encouraged, against their better judgment to change their recommendation or to fail to provide the Board of Supervisors with their recommendation when that recommendation is different from the Commission's recommendation. They have a duty to present both at the Board level. I think it would be a very serious mistake for the staff to get any different impression from the discussion we're having here." Nitchmann: "That's why I brought it up. I had a question about it in my mind. It just didn't sit right with me and I wanted to put it on the table to get the proper answer." Mr. St. John and Mr. Cilimberg felt the question was a fair one. There was then discussion regarding the Community Facilities document which the Commission had adopted. Both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Blue indicated they had been under the impression that the document adopted had been staff's position. Mr. Johnson stated: "If I remember correctly you presented, staff presented, at out last session, a document which covered all this and I didn't recognize it as not being staff's position at that time." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "When we had the public hearing we brought a report to you and it was that report that we forwarded on to the Board because it represented the original recommendations of staff. What we did, in the subsequent presentation to you, was revise based on the Planning Commission's comments and some specific comments Mr. Nitchmann provided because you had asked for them." Johnson: "That was not presented to us as 'Here, this is what you've done,' it was presented to us as 'Based on your previous comments, we now present this plan." Cilimberg: "Based on your previous comments and incorporating those comments and Mr. Nitchmann's comments, this reflects those changes. That was what we were trying to present." Johnson: "I inferred that the staff then supported that plan as presented to us in the last session." St. John: "What you're talking about is not a policy that's in question or a general policy, but there has apparently been a breakdown of understanding about what happened in this particular case." Blue: "I agree with Walter. I misunderstood too. Going back to your explanation just a minute ago I got the 7-21-92 13 impression that Mr. Tucker did most of the presentation and I wondered, do you think that the Board, when they voted on that, was there truly a misunderstanding, as evidenced by the Scottsville representative, or would the County Executive have been taking the position that he was favoring the staff's position?" Cilimberg: "I don't think it ever came out as the County Executive favoring one of the versions versus the other. I think it came out as the County Executive pointing out a specific issue related to both of them, actually, and the Board taking an action that was, without any express - I'd have to go back and look at the minutes again, and maybe Mr. Nitchmann remembers - but I don't remember anything in the minutes that expressly references A or B in any action that was taken. What I was going to offer, if this was a major concern, we can deal with either in terms of what the Community Facilities Plan document is, and what I can do is go back with Mr. Tucker and ask if we can get clarification from the Board as to which of the two they were intending in their action. They haven't come back to say it wasn't supposed to be staffs, it was supposed to be the Planning Commission's." Mr. Nitchman indicated that he was not able to make this determination after having listened to the tapes because "there were comments in the tapes that were not specific in nature." Mr. Nitchmann then brought up a different, but related, concern. (Discussion follows) Nitchmann: "one thing else that I've noticed in going to some of the Board of Supervisors meetings is the comments made like on this rural retreat that we passed and the Board voted down. Comments such as 'We think that this was what the Planning Commission was.referring to and we assume this is how they felt about this. I, for one, from now on, if I feel strongly about an issue, I will be at the Board of Supervisors meeting, and I will, when a comment like that is made, I will speak as part of the general public to say that I was at that Planning Commission meeting and this is the way that one Commissioner felt about this issue. Because I think you can read all the minutes that you want and even if you read our meetings, that are dash marks in there that leave out things. Somebody reads something into those minutes, whether it's feelings or emotions or what may be the real reason behind why a decision that I made, anyway, why I voted one way or the other. I feel that for clarification that may be the necessary way for, at least, this Planning Commissioner to go. When I feel strongly about something or I think there is something that is that important, certainly to talk with the Board, the member of the Supervisors from my district, but also maybe to be at 7-21-92 14 that meeting when other supervisors are reading something into the minutes that really are not there." Referring to the rural retreat issue, Mr. Blue stated he had gotten the impression that it had not been made to clear to the Board that the Commission felt that concerns about individual requests could be handled through the special permit process and that Mr. St. John had advised the Board that the definition recommended by the Commission was "too general." Mr. St. John responded: "That's incorrect. I can understand how (the applicants) might have thought that. What I told them was that they have taken a shot, staff and the applicant, have taken a shot at narrowing this thing down with all this language about meditation, harmonizing with nature and stuff like that, which I thought shouldn't be in an ordinance. It's unenforceable. And that that had been taken out. The Commission recognized that and even the applicant's themselves, if you remember, agreed. The language would be good in an advertisement for this kind of place because the owner can control who comes in there and have you doing all these things. But it doesn't belong in an ordinance. So you went back to the original language that staff had come up with that said rural retreat, about that long, and that could be enforced. I didn't tell them it couldn't be enforced, but then they said but how are we going to know that this is a rural retreat and we still don't want resorts in here. And I said 'I don't think you can do that; I think if under this definition Phil Sheridan wants to call what is now Montfair a rural retreat and he wants a second out here somewhere, you can't tell him that it's not a rural retreat.' The name rural retreat, you might as well have in your mind that resort can be called a rural retreat and it would have entitlement to equal treatment with these folks here. They were afraid of opening the gates to resorts and still had a desire, which I think you all had. I shouldn't speak for the Commission, but I believe Tom that you said that you wanted to find some way for buildings at Adventure Bound to be put to some useful purpose. That is very easily done. They could be put to the purpose of Gray's Mountain Lodge or Montfair. These people came and spoke before the Board and used the same arguments that they used in here which are designed to conjure up in your minds these people who are - and they even mentioned brain waves - and I'm not belittling this, but there is no way that you can define something so that an administrator can assure that what they are talking about will be permitted and yet something like Montfair would not be permitted. No way you can do it. My advice was not that it was too general. My advice was that no matter how you did it, if you allow something like this here, I don't see how you can distinguish between this and a project like Montfair. I'see nothing wrong, if you have a special use 7-21-92 15 permit, like you say a special use permit allows you to lay down the ground rules case by case. I see nothing wrong, if you want something like that, to list one of the uses, by special use permit in the RA District, as being resorts, period, because everybody knows what you're talking about. The word 'resort', everybody in here knows what I mean when I say that." Blue: "My point was, were the Supervisors made aware that the Planning Commission felt that we could control it through the special permit process?" Nitchmann: "No it wasn't." St. John: "Yes. I had the feeling that they didn't want to have to do that. They wanted a definition, some way, that would control it from the beginning and not open the possibility, even if you can control it by special use permits, to resorts to be permitted in the RA District." Jenkins: "It seems to me that the fact, like tonight where we addressed intensity that is no greater than would be allowed by right for the size of the property, that just in that concept itself you limit the impact on the rural areas." St. John: "I agree and that is the point I made with the Superivosrs. They wanted something that as a rural retreat, with size limit and number of people and everything, but they didn't want something that was an ordinary resort even if it was of the same exact size as the rural retreat. I don't think you can distinguish between them. I don't think you can say "Well, the people in the rural retreat are engaged in brainwave exercises and these other people over here want to ride horseback and hike, and we are going to allow these ones that are conducting a retreat, exact same buildings, same number of people, but they are engaged in brainwave exercises and these over here are engaged in outdoor games so that is a resort and we are not going to permit them." Johnson: "I am appalled at this discussion or the question between a retreat and a rural resort, limited as Tom has indicated. In the retreat and all the identification we had and so forth and under special restrictions we said what they could do. And they could go ahead and ride horses so what difference does it make if you call it a retreat or a resort as long as you can limit the scope and size as Tom has just said?" St. John: "That's the point I tried to to ask the Supervisors `What difference doesn't make any difference and from an perspective you can't artifically create make and you'll have does it make?' It enforcement a difference. If 7-21-92 16 you are going to allow this retreat as a use then you would have to expect that other people who want to engage in horseback riding instead of brianwave exercises will come and ask for the same thing." Nitchmann: "It was my impression that the thing which caused the demise of the rural retreat is that, one is that Charlotte Humphres wanted to broaden the definition as it was before to put a lot of teeth into it and the County Attorney said you can't do that because its subjective, etc., etc.. Nothing was brought up specific that we felt that it can be controlled by the special use permit. If that was brought up, I missed it in specifics. And I think that (thought not completed)..." Cilimberg: "We mentioned the supplementary regs as a controlling factor. I agree with Mr. Nitchmann it was not, to my recollection, it was not specifically said that just with the definition the Planning Commission felt the rest could be controlled by the special permit process because by that point, as I recall, the Board was very concerned about 'If we can't do it with the definition, can we do supplemental regulations' and there were a number before them and they started talking about those, and so, obviously, I an not going to change the course of their thinking and I just simply said that those supplemental regulations were presented to the Planning Commission and that they had been through your review and that you had not recommended those to the Board. They got into some discussion then about the Supplemental Regulations and essentially it came down, as I remember, to a point of whether with the supplementary regulations they could still live with the general definition and that is where, as I recall it, the decision really fell." Nitchmann: "The interesting thing, I thought, was that the Chairman of the Board asked Ms. Frantzen why she didn't bring it in under a boarding school [Mr. St. John interjected: "Boarding Camp."] and that she should go to the Zoning Commission who had never really formally denied it. If it fails then go to the BZA with it." Mr. Blue noted that there are "always some minor differences" between the Board and the Commission but this was the only action he was aware of that had been a complete reversal of the Commission. Concluding comments: Cilimberg: "I feel concerned because I feel that there might be a feeling on the Commission that we are not representing properly before the Board of Supervisors what you have sent forward. I know the Board deals with a number of items at a lot of these meetings in the evenings, so they 7-21-92 17 are given the information up front so that they can read it, including minutes, which are very important, and as Bill said you can't capture the essence of every Planning Commission meeting from the minutes, but they cover a lot of ground. I will admit that the reports that you get here, in terms of a verbal report, are more extensive than I give to the Board because I have been asked to cut that and present what the recommendations are and what the Commission's action was. I do that and try to do it fairly. If any of you feel like it is not being covered fairly, let me know because I can certainly try to do something differently than I have done. It is not, certainly, because I have any intent to try to present one as superior to the other. Once the Planning Commission takes an action, it is the action that the Board is being recommended to take, from my standpoint, and what we have brought forward as the staff's recommendation is exactly as George said." Blue: "I, for one, do not believe that you are not representing us accurately. I was curious about this particular one because the Board of Supervisors felt so entirely different than the Planning Commission." Johnson: "I agree with Tom completely. But there are two issues here where it appears that it is not totally concurrent that our deliberations were adequately presented, whether right or wrong or indifferent is immaterial, but I wonder if, Wayne, if you would have any suggestions if there might be something added to the minutes as a summary on each case to help the Board out as they review it. Now, they almost have to go to what we approved and as far as how we got there and any salient feature, they have to read 18 pages. Considering everything they have to do, that's asking quite a bit. You might say an exeuctive summary at the end of each item so they could quickly see what the main topics in, one liners, that they are interested in. For further they can go back and see where it was discussed." Mr. Cilimberg explained that he already does that, for his own reference, before each Board meeting, particulary for those items which the Commission has taken a different position than the staff. He concluded: "Maybe if it was written out, and I could do that." (Note: No other Commissioners expressed support for Mr. Johnson's suggestion.) Mr. Blue and Ms. Huckle defended the format of the current minutes. Both felt they were very good and Ms. Huckle added: "I think it would be a mistake to cut them down. It is not that onerous to read them and if anybody doesn't have that much time to read them they don't have any business being on the Board of Supervisors." 373 7-21-92 18 Nitchmann: "I think it also behooves us, if we feel strongly about things, to be sure that we speak to the Board member from our District personally so that at least that one individual will thoroughly understand from whence one individual member of the Planning Commission was coming from." Mr. Cilimberg agreed that Commissioners could make direct representation to the Board of individual feelings which the staff could not do. He concluded: "What I can try to do is represent the Commission's feeling as a whole and that's all we try to do." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15. 74