HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 01 1992 PC Minutes12-1-92
1
DECEMBER 1, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
meeting on Tuesday, December 1, 1992, meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson,
Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present
were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Jim
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Nitchmann.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
November 17, 1992 were approved (as amended by Ms.
Andersen).
PUBLIC MEETING - To accept public comment on the Historic
Preservation Program.
Comments received included the following:
John Ambrose (owner of Esmont): He was opposed to the
proposed ordinance for the following reasons: (1) It is a
taking of private property without owner approval and
without adequate compensaion; (2) It applies zoning rules
to a specific group and not to the general public; (3) The
ordinance is spawned by a group which will form another
unaccountable, bureaucratic arm to intrude on privacy; (4)
The structures in question are "generally already listed in
the Virginia Landmark or National Historic Trust (and are in
these trusts) "by virtue of the owner's interests in
maintaining them and need no overseeing by a group with
dubious qualifications and an agenda that runs counter to
the ongoing life of rural Albemarle;" (5) Many of the
proposed regulations "negate" the daily operation of (his)
farm; and (6) Negative effect on adjacent property owners.
He noted that none of the persons promoting the ordinance
own a historic structure. He suggested that those
structures which are "threatened" should be identified with
appropriate action promoted to save those structures.
Col. W.J. Eddins (owner of Redhills): He discussed the
history of preservation. "Continued growth without
preservation guidelines may jeopardize the quality of life
for future generations. It may be time to consider people
and quality of life, as well as dollars in calculating the
highest and best use of property." It was his
recommendation that a "Board -appointed taskforce or
committee, which incorporates participant's interests,
including representatives of local. government, would be the
appropriate next step in developing guidelines with the
current document serving as a starting point." He confirmed
/3�-
12-1-92
E
that the issue of "economic impact" should be one of the
first addressed.
Gertrude Peyton (owner of Greenwood): She expressed
opposition to the proposed ordinance for the following
reasons: (1) The rights of property owners should be
protected; (2) An Architectural Review Board might not be
made up of qualified persons; and (3) The potential effect
on those persons whose property lies "within sight" of an
historical property. She cautioned County citizens to
"beware." She confirmed that she was satisfied with current
options available to landowners of historic sites.
Jim Wooten (Curator of Ash Lawn Highland): He reported that
Citizens for Albemarle and Helen Schewso had been recognized
by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia
Antiquities for their work on this proposed ordinance. It
was felt by the Awards Committee that "the draft ordinance
provided a level of protection for the community's historic
resources while recognizing the concerns regarding
controlled growth and individual rights and community
benefits." "The hook which brings tourists to Albemarle
County is its history." "We must be careful stewards of the
evidence of our history, or we will lose visitors (to the
area)." The Awards Committee of the APVA feels that the
proposed ordinance "presents a moderate approach to
assessing the preservation needs of our community without
declaring that every brick in the County is precious and
must never be touched."
Melinda Pr orlon (Executive Director of the Albemarle County
Historical Society): She stressed that she was representing
herself and not her organization. "Once a property is
destroyed, it is gone forever." It was her recommendation
that "a future committee be formed so that the process
continues and doesn't just stop dead." She pointed out that
this Committee had responded to a recommendation in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Jared Loewenstein (a member of the CFA Committee which had
drafted the proposed ordinance): He felt there were two
main issues to be addressed: (1) Economic impact; and (2)
Property rights. "Individual property owner's rights may be
transcended by the responsibility of stewardship of an
historic resource whose existence is, in itself, a benefit
to the entire community and which forms an essential,
non-renewable part of the community's collective memory."
"Preservation does not seek to take something away from
landowners. Preservation seeks to maintain something that
is, and should be, part of the public patrimony." "If we
feel, for a variety of reasons, that we cannot support the
passage of this or some similar ordinance in a timely
fashion, then I would urge you to send the message to the
Board of Supervisors that the County needs a Board -appointed
f'--; -.5-
12-1-92
3
committee to review the work that has been done and to
expand that work to include, for example, economic impact
studies which should be done and to include the interests,
both positive and negative opinions, of all involved
citizens."
Fred Gercke (owner of Mockingbird Hill Farm): He expressed
support for a historic preservation ordinance. "Albemarle
County has unique historical assets. Tonight we are
concerned with conserving those assets and balancing that
duty with other priorities and concerns. A balance can and
must be struck between these sometimes competing, but I
believe compatible, interests. ... We, in Albemarle County,
are stewards of the legacy of those who were here before us.
To conserve this legacy we must be organized and have a
plan. An historical preservation ordinance of some kind
would give us a mechanism to carry this out."
Ms. Helen Schwiesow (Chairperson of the CFA Preservation
Committee): Her comments were related to the "process" in
in terms of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
and comments contained in the staff report. She felt the
CFA Committee had made a "valuable contribution to the
consideration of this topic" and felt the efforts of the
Committee were "unofficially underwritten" by the Board of
Supervisors. She stated the Committee had made its plans
known to the Board in August of 1990 and had received no
indication at that time that an "official committee" was the
preferred approach. The Committee was extremely surprised
by the staff's position that "nothing has been done (and) it
appropriately should be done by an official committee." She
described the process followed by the Committee and felt an
attempt had been made to follow the guidelines outlined in
the Comprehensive Plan in terms of citizen participation,
public education, research, etc. She was very concerned
about the "message" that the staff report is sending about
citizen participation to people in the community "who want
to be involved and who are trying to be of value." She felt
that if the matter was to be placed "on hold," it should be
for the right reason --"what would be the impact of a
preservation plan on jobs, affordable housing, on the
economy as a whole" --and not because of the need for an
inventory, because that has already been done. She
concluded: "We ask that you recommend the Board of
Supervisors appoint such a committee to address those
questions, the real questions, and not undercut and
invalidate everything that we, and many, many others in the
the community have been doing for the past three and 1/2
years." She also asked that the Committee consider both the
long term and short term implications of such a plan. She
stressed that these were "non-renewable resources which
currently play a very large role in the relative strength of
our economy and contribute immeasurably to our quality of
life."
196
12-1-92 4
Ms. Andersen asked Ms. Schwiesow what statment had been made
by the Board of Supervisors which encouraged the Committee
to proceed. Ms. Schwiesow responded: "The Board made it very
clear that we were not an official committee. They were
thoughtful about the composition of the committee --were all
the committee members coming from this one group (CFA)....
Some of the members were very much opposed to other
positions that that group held and they made that very
clear. But these were the individuals who were recommended
to me as most knowledgable, most interested, and most
professionally involved with historic preservation. That
being said at that Board of Supervisors Meeting, it was
understood, and exchanged verbally, that we did not want to
do this if we would be duplicating efforts, which is why we
were letting them know that we wanted to do this.
Basically, they gave us their blessing and made it clear
that we were not official, but we were very much publicly
working with this and consulting with the various
governmental bodies and individuals involved."
Mr. Blue asked if any attempt had been made by the CFA
Committee to recruit any other groups which were not
proponents of the Ordinance. Ms. Schwiesow explained that a
survey had been sent to all owners of registered properties
(44). 21 surveys were returned and 20 of those supported
the "concept of some government efforts in this regard."
She stated: "We did not go out and solicit response, but
very early on, we made very public what we were doing."
Mr. Blue wondered if the Board and Commission might be in
favor of a more official committee because they would like
to know "is there another side of this --is there a group of
citizens in Albemarle County who really oppose this?"
Mr. Grimm noted that it is the Commission's role to "fathom
the true needs of the County citizenry in whatever we do."
He felt the document prepared by the CFA was "impressive"
and provides a focal point for continued study."
Mr. Johnson felt an evaluation of the impact of a historic
preservation program on the community was the most important
question to be addressed. He hoped that the CFA did not
feel that the Commission was in any way diminishing the
importance of the work that has already been done.
In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Ms. Schwiesow described
the survey which had been sent to property owners. She
stated that a follow-up survey had not been done after the
report was completed.
Tim Lindstrom (representing the Piedmont Environment
Council): He stated the PEC had not examined in detail the
proposed ordinance, but "philosophically supported the need
to protect and conserve the historic resources of the
12-1-92 5
County." He felt that more citizen time had been spent on
this project than any other. He felt "there is a prevading
atmosphere of skepticism about public interest groups in the
Community and it is a bad signal to send...I think there is
a need to recognize that the people who put this together
have nothing financially to gain." He felt the staff
implication that the whole process should be started over
again "really ignors what has been done." It was his
opinion that the next step should be for the Commission to
recommend that the Board appoint a committee which would not
re -hash what has been done, but rather would work with
landowner concerns and "comfort levels."
In response to Mr. Blue's question as to how historic
preservation could be tied to the public welfare. Mr.
Lindstrom felt it would be very difficult to justify the
public interest in non -visible historic sites. He
explained, however, that there is enabling State legislation
which specifically identifies historic protection as a
legitimate and singular objective of regulation. He felt it
was related to the belief that "our culture is important to
us." Mr. Blue asked: "But that public interest, in the
opinion of historic preservationists, would override
whatever private limitations on property rights an ordinance
similar to this would present?" Mr. Lindstrom responded:
"... The issues of historic preservation, with respect to
the public welfare, are either things you believe or you
don't believe. All I can tell you is that the legislature
in the State of Virginia has believed in it and the Courts
in the State of Virginia have supported it."
Mr. Steve Blaine: He felt the CFA report was valuable and
there was no reason to "start from scratch." He urged those
who had worked on the report not to be disheartened by the
process. He reminded them that "substantial effects on
property rights" are involved and thus "official" action is
required.
Mr. Scott Morval (Donnegal Farm): He was opposed to the
proposed ordinance because he felt there were too many
different groups telling him what he can and cannot do with
his land.
Commission discussion dealt primarily with the issue of the
formation of an official committee to study the issue
further. Comments included the following:
Mr. Grimm felt the County had a responsibility to study this
issue because it is a recommendation of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Johnson felt that before support for the idea of a
committee could be determined, it was necessary to establish
what the charter of such a committee would be. He felt the
r5 9
12-1-92 6
most important issue to be identified was that of potential
impact of the proposed ordinance. He also felt it was
important to first determine what criteria should be used in
identifying historical properties.
Mr. Keeler attempted to clarify that it was staff's
recommendation to first identify the sites and then
determine the economic impact and the relationship to other
goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He stressed
that staff was NOT recommending that CFA's report be
disregarded and the study "start all over again."
Ms. Huckle expressed appreciation to Citizens for Albemarle
for the work which had gone into the proposed document.
However, she felt "we have to walk before we run." She felt
the "mandatory" aspect of the document was of most concern
to citizens. She recommended: (1) That an inventory of
potential sites be completed, with those in most danger
being identified; (2) That landowners be educated; and (3)
That landowners be encouraged to voluntarily place their
property on the list. She felt that the best way to
accomplish these tasks would be through the appointment of a
committee. She felt it important that various parts of the
community be represented on the committee.
Mr. Grimm conceived that the majority of those persons who
had spoken were in favor of the formation of a committee to
study the issue further.
Mr. Johnson felt specific action should be deferred and that
staff be directed to develop a charter for a committee.
Mr. Johnson moved that a recommendation on the Citizens for
Albemarle's report and the Historic Preservation Program be
deferred indefinitely until such time as staff has developed
a charter for a possible committee to study the issue
further.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. She encouraged staff, in
the development of a charter, to address impact on
landowners, government (increased layers of bureaucracy),
and increased costs to the County. She also recommended
that someone "well versed in zoning language" be on the
committee.
Mr. Johnson felt that along with the development of a
charter should come a "recommendation of those disciplines
to be represented on the committee."
Ms. Huckle asked that all those questions raised in Ms.
Scala's memo of August 27 be addressed.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed
that he felt the Commission could recommend a list of
0 wp== q
7
charges for a committee, but the actual formation of the
committee would have to be done by the Board.
Mr. Keeler confirmed his understanding that the Commission
was considering the appointment of a committee "with the
specific purpose to include work that has already been done
and to analyze it in terms of things outlined in the report
and we will outline them a little more thoroughly."
Ms. Andersen noted the fact that the next review of the
Comprehensive Plan will begin soon and this should be taken
into consideration in terms of the possibility that there
may be changes to the Comprehensive Plan related to this
issue.
Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that some action would be
taken on this issue during the next few weeks.
The motion for deferral of a recommendation passed
unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Andersen expressed concern about getting outdated
information from the Planning Commission Agenda phone line.
Mr. Grimm reported that he would be meeting with staff to
develop an outline of remaining topics to be discussed on
the Affordable Housing issue.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:05 p.m.
DB
0