HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 22 90 PC MinutesMAY 22, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Grimm.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May
8, 1990 were approved as submitted.
SP-90-26 Commonwealth Gas Pipeline Corporation - The
applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a
Special Use Permit for a gas transmission line [10.2.2(6)]
on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Total distance is 0.7
mile. The new line will be located adjacent to two existing
lines mainly on the west side of Rt. 20. Properties
described as Tax Map 35, Parcels 37A & 31, are located on
both sides of Route 20 approximately 1/3 mile north of the
intersection of Route 20 and 641 in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. Deferred form the May 1, 1990 Planning Commission
meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Skove. He
explained the location of the pipeline and the need for the
expansion. He stated the the pipeline had been found to be a
public necessity by the State Corporation Commission and it
has also been determined that there is no other reasonable
alternative. He pointed out the line is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant "has taken all
reasonable measures to insure the safety of the line —and
to minimize the impact of the line on the environment and on
the landowners." He concluded that the applicant had no
objections to the suggested conditions of approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Kathleen Shifflett addressed the Commission. She
explained that the pipeline would cross her property. She
questioned the need for an expansion. She asked what type
of product would be carried through the line. (The
applicant explained the pipeline would carry methane and
/4�
May 22, 1990 Page 2
would be 24" in diameter. Mr. Skove also explained that
approximately 20 feet will be added to the south side of the
existing 70 foot easement.) Mr. Shifflett asked if any
alarm devices would be installed. (Mr. Buchanan,
representing the applicant, stated an alarm system which
would indicate any change in pressure would be located in
Richmond but there would be no on -site alarm.) Ms.
Shifflett asked if the lines would be plainly marked and if
the property owners would be able to make use of them. (Mr.
Buchanan responded that no individual farm taps would be
allowed, but the lines would be marked.) Ms. Shifflett
asked if the applicant would be responsible to any damages
to private property. she explained that when the existing
line had been installed her home had suffered damage
resulting in the need for a new roof for which she had
received no compensation. She asked if there would be any
method to contain the blasting debris. (Mr. Rittenhouse
explained that it was in the applicant's interest to take
adequate precautions to avoid having to compensate private
property owners, but the Commission is not in a position to
dictate the applicant's means and methods of installation,
"but a condition of approval would address protection of
landowners as a result of installation.")
Mr. Franklin Hall asked that the applicant "follow up" on
the subcontractors. He explained that previously the work
had not been covered during blasting, nor had any "clean-up"
taken place after the work was completed. He suggested that
the applicant post a bond to insure that private property
would be protected.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked Mr. Bowling if condition No. 2--(All
fences and other existing structures existing at the time of
the installation of the pipeline and which are disturbed by
such installation shall be restored or reasonably
compensated for.) --was such that it could be easily
enforced. Mr. Bowling responded that he had trouble
envisioning how the Zoning Administrator would be able to
enforce a condition which required that adjoining landowners
be reasonably compensated. Ms. Huckle asked how this
concern could be addressed. Mr. Bowling explained that the
applicant would be required to obtain a Blasting Permit, and
any liability that the applicant might incur would be
"strict liability." He indicated that compensation for any
damages would be a private matter between the landowner and
the applicant, and the Zoning Administrator was not in a
position to bring suit on behalf of an individual property
owner.
/ /a 7
CIS May 22, 1990 Page 3
Ms. Huckle asked if bonding should be considered. Mr.
Bowling agreed that approach was possible, but he pointed
out that there is a liability factor with any project that
is approved by the County because any time any site is
disturbed there is the potential for an adjoining property
owner to be damaged. He added that many projects involve
blasting.
Mr. Buchanan addressed this concern and explained that
procedures are quite different now than when the existing
lines were laid (1950 and 1964). He pointed out that the
applicant will have to comply with the Soil Erosion Control
Plan. He stated that it was his understanding that the
blasting would be contained with a controlled area. He noted
also that there is not a high concentration of rock in this
area.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not to delete
the last part of condition No. 2--or reasonably compensated
for. Mr. Bowling stated there was no harm in leaving in
these words, but that is what the applicant will be required
to do in any case, and neither the Zoning Administrator or
any other public official would be able to enforce such a
condition reasonably. No decision was made to delete these
words, therefore they remained as stated by staff.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-26 for Commonwealth Gas
Pipeline be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction to be accomplished within a 90-foot
easement.
2. All fences and other existing structures existing at the
time of the installation of the pipeline and which are
disturbed by such installation shall be restored or
reasonably compensated for.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-90-34 Andrew H. Johnson - The applicant is petitioning
the Board of Supervisors to issue a Sp ecial Use Permit to
permit towing and storage j27.2.2(12)1 proposed by
ZTA-90-04, on 2.2 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial.
Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcels 8C and 8D is
located on the west side of Rt. 742 just south of the
corporate limiter of Charlottesville in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. Deferred form the May 1, 1990
Planning Commission Meeting.
/4�
May 22, 1990
Page 4
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions, noting that the request
could not be finally approved unless the ZTA allowing this
use (now pending before the Board) is also approved.
Mr. Wilkerson asked if the County Engineer or the Watershed
Management official had any concerns about leakage from
parked vehicles. Mr. Fritz replied that it was felt that
"with a limited amount of work a substantial amount of the
fluids could be filtered out or removed." Mr. Wilkerson
asked why staff wasn't requiring "diversion of drainage into
grass filter strips" as referred to in the staff report.
Mr. Fritz responded that it will depend on how the site is
laid out because there may be a natural diversion. Mr.
Fritz explained that condition No. 4--Compliance with
Section 4.14 ofthe Zoning Ordinance. --would address this
concern.
In response to Mr. Johnson's request, Mr. Fritz explained
how the cross-section was taken. Mr. Johnson also asked Mr.
Fritz to comment on setback restrictions. Mr. Fritz
explained that would be reviewed along with the sketch plan.
He stated that the building is required to be setback from
the street 50 feet, and parking 10 feet, and the setback
from residential lot lines is 50 feet, parking 30 feet, and
clearing 30 feet. Mr. Johnson asked if there was any
setback on the eastern side. Mr. Fritz responded negatively
explaining that there is no setback fvnm industrial
property.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Johnson addressed the Commission. He stressed that
there was very little leakage of liquids because with
wrecked vehicles the liquids drain out at the site of the
accident, and with parked operable vehicles there is very
little leakage because the engines are under no pressure.
He explained that any liquids which did need to be drained
would be kept in a suitable container which would be removed
periodically. He stressed that the limitations of the site
would restrict the growth of the business. He did not think
the business would be a night-time nuisance to adjoining
residential property because of the infrequency of night
jobs.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Randy Wade, owner and developer of Willoughby, addressed
the Commission. He felt that the conditions of approval
should address evening or nighttime activity. (Mr. Fritz
explained that Section 4.14 Performance Standards would
May 22, 1990 Page 5
address the issue of noise and would require that between 7
p.m. and 7 a.m. there be a reduction of noise levels.)
Ms.Lorett Groupy addressed the Commission. She expressed
concern about the possibility of leakage of hazardous
materials into the environment. She suggested that all such
liquids be removed from the vehicles before storage on the
site.
Mr. Johnson was allowed final comment. He stressed that
night-time activity is very low and explained in detail the
amount of noise that could be expected.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Johnson how he would operate if a
limitation were placed restricting hours to 7 a.m. to 11
p.m. Mr. Johnson responded that would create a problem
because he has to be available to the Albemarle County
Police Department 24 hours per day. He explained that
wrecks that he would pick up (in the southern part of the
County) would be taken to his home and brought in the
following morning, but those picked up by his employee in
the other parts of the County would have to be taken to the
yard because said employee lives in the City and he doubted
the feasibility of parking a tow truck and wrecked vehicle
on a city street.
Mr. Johnson made the following comments: "Because of its
effect on the environment, its location next to a potential
residential area and its location alongside of what may
become a major entry to the City of Charlottesville, this,
in effect, would be detrimental to the whole area, and we
would not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan to
ignor it. ... By using Attachment A which was presented to
us, I have computed the width of the storage area varies
from between 75 and 45 feet, with the maximum distance from
the creek bed, the edge of the creek, to the edge of the
storage area, being between 100 feet and 80 feet, and that
the western fence varies in distance from the creek bank
from 22 to 37 feet. We just heard the figure given that
'shouldn't disturb a clearing within 50 feet of a
creek,'.... Those are the dimensions we're looking
at --they're pretty tight. The total storage area that I
compute is (approximately) 9,000 square feet. This site is
the remains of an abandoned quarry. It has a solid rock
bank on one side, a rock base, and a rock cliff against the
creek. This rock is typical of all rock --it's not solid
from the standpoint that it's impervious, it's granulated,
it has
1 5�5�
May 22, 1990 Page 6
fissures, it has breaks and this is represented and
reflected by the existing growth of vegetation. There is
essentially no natural vegetation other than an occasional
bit of grass on the bottom where the storage site is. On
the side towards the cliff, there are some small, more or
less scrub trees growing out of the holes in the fissures in
that solid bank. Towards the creek there are some scrub
trees growing out of the rock. I think this is a very
serious situation when we consider the containment of the
runoff, the noise, etc. Moores Creek appears to me as a
very desirable, strong creek; it has natural beauty that
this cannot do anything but disrupt, and disrupt
unfavorably. That which is growing on this site, as far as
agriculture goes, is the result of washed topsoil and not
the result of any kind of bottom that would support growth.
From the dimensions of this situation, I cannot see how you
can plan to geometrically plant this barrier of pine trees
along the creek ... they have to be geometrically placed in
stone and the only way you can do that is to blast a hole
and refill it. So the prospects of effectively planting
trees that will grow on a geometric basis is quite slim. As
far as controlling the runoff of liquids --that's almost
impossible, as indicated by staff, without some kind of a
solid base --petroleum products, anti -freeze, can get down in
there and there's no way you're going to contain it. As far
as controlling the runoff, grass, as staff indicated, may
control solids, but we're not not talking solids, we're
talking about petroleum products which kill grass and we're
talking about things such as anti -freeze which will kill
animals. ...it doesn't seem to me like a practical
solution. The aesthetic characteristics of this
environment- cannot but be adversely effected by the
existence of a 10-foot opaque fence. So for these
reasons --the effect on the environment, the uncontrollable
effect --I cannot support the request."
Ms. Huckle asked where the grass filter was supposed to be
placed and if topsoil would have to be added. Mr. Fritz
stated that he and a representative of the Engineering
Department had visited the site and found areas of
vegetation in the lower portions of the site ("a mixture of
scrub trees, blackberries, vines, honeysuckle, grass"). He
stated that he did feel it would "require some additional
seeding and some additional work." Mr. Fritz stressed that
these issues would be addressed at the time the sketch plan
is submitted and the plan would have to meet the minimum
requirements of the Ordinance in terms of setbacks, etc. and
if those requirements could not be met, the plan could not
be approved.
� 4,
May 22, 1990 Page 7
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the uses allowed
by right in the LI zone. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that a body
shop would be allowed by special permit.) Mr. Fritz
responded: "Such things as compounding of drugs, including
biological products, medical and chemical as well as
pharmaceutical, farming and rescue squads, quite a list of
manufacturing processing, fabrication, assembly,
distribution of products, a large list of different uses,
drafting supplies, electrical lighting, electrical and
electronic components, food and beverage, industrial
controls, photographic equipment... publishing and printing,
preparation of printing plats, research and development
activities including experimental testing, scientific or
technical education facilities, assembling or fabrication of
light aircraft from components manfactured off site,
contractor's office and equipment storage...." (Mr. Fritz
noted that he was not reading the list in detail.)
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he supported Commissioner Johnson's
comments. He stated he could not support the proposal
because he felt it did not belong next to a subdivision.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-34 for Andrew H. Johnson be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle stated she could not support the request unless
the filter strips were required.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt concerns about noise, hours
of operation and pollution would be addressed through the
Performance Standards in the Zoning Ordinance at the time of
site plan approval. He noted that granting of this special
permit "doesn't guarantee that it can meet muster at the
site plan review stage and if it could not meet the
requirements attached to it at site plan, then it wouldn't
go forward. It would have to obtain site plan approval in
order to become a reality." He stated that though he shared
the concerns about groundwater pollution and the sensitivity
required for uses adjacent to a residential development, he
would defer those questions to the time of site plan
approval. He concluded he could support the application and
therefore would not support the motion for denial.
i4rl
. . r
May 22, 1990 Page 8
The previously stated motion for denial passed (4:2) with
Commissioners Jenkins, Huckle, Wilkerson, and Johnson voting
for the motion and Commissioners Rittenhouse and Andersen
voting against.
SP--90-33 Hillsboro Baptist Church - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit to permit a 3,000 square foot addition to the
existing church (12.2.2(15)] on 4 acres zoned VR, Village
Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 55A, Parcels 32
and 36A is lcxw.ed on the north side of Rt. 797 approximately
two -tenths mile east of Rt. 684 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. Deferred from the May 15, 1990
Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Huckle asked why there was no condition requiring Health
Department approval. Mr. Fritz explained that would be
included in staff's approval of the site plan, but noted
that the Commission could add that as a condition if so
desired. It was decided No. 2 would be changed to read:
Staff approval of site plan, to include Health Department
approval.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that staff approval also contemplated
incorporation of the Engineering Department's conditions of
approval.
Mr. Fritz noted that the addition would not require any
additional parking.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Allen Thompson, Pastor
of the church. He explained that this was not an expansion
of the ministry, but rather an improvement of the adequacy
of the existing space. He noted that the existing church is
not easily accessible to the mobility impaired and the
addition will improve that situation and thus improve
safety. He stated the addition would match the architecture
of the existing building. Regarding the VDOT recommendation
that a tree be removed to improve sight distance, he
explained that the tree in question was on adjacent
property. (Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the church may
need to obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner.
Mr. Fritz confirmed this was accurate, but noted that Mr.
Echols, of the Highway Department, has indicated that the
tree is probably in VDOT right-of-way.)
!Cka
May 22, 1990 Page 9
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson noted that the application was straightforward
and moved that SP-90-33 for Hillsboro Baptist Church be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Expansion is limited to 3,13.6 square feet and shall be in
general accord with the plan prepared by Warren Engineering
dated March 27,1990;
2. Staff approval of the site plan to include Health
Department approval;
3. Approval is for worship services and church related
activities only. Day care or other usage shall require
amendment of this special use permit;
4. Compliance with comments of the Virginia Department of
Transportation dated April 19, 1990.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson objected to VDOT's recommendation for removal of
the tree on adjacent property. He felt this requirement
would "involve an unwarranted invasion of the property
owner's rights... without justification or reason." He
presented a photograph of the tree and the intersection in
question and explained that the tree in question was
approximately 12 inches in diameter with no branches lower
than 10 feet. He questioned how the tree could possibly
interfere with sight distance. He noted that if the tree is
not on church property, then there is no reason for the
condition, and if it is on the church's property, then
condition No. 4 should be eliminated.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:1) with
Commissioners Andersen, Jenkins, Huckle, Wilkerson and
Rittenhouse voting in favor of the motion and Commissioner
Johnson voting against.
SP-90--35 Covenant Church of God - The applicant is
petitioning the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use
permit to permit a 800 seat church [10.2.2(35)] on 10 acres
zoned RA, Rural,Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 46,
Parcel 22 (part) is located on the south side of Rt. 643
/44
May 22, 1990
Page 10
approximately one mile east of Rt. 29 in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. Deferred faz m the May 15, 1990
Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
denial. The report stated: "Due to the proposed scale of
development staff opinion is that this use is not in harmony
with the character of the district. ... This site is located
in the Rural Areas which are not recommended to receive
urban scale development in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan. A use of this size would be more appropriate in the
Urban Area/Hollymead where adequate public utilities are
available. ... Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the zoning Ordinance and
is of the opinion that this request is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and that the
character of the district will be changed."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about parking areas,
Mr. Fritz explained that no portion of the church property
is in the floodplain.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the property's close
proximity to the river and asked whether or not th0re was
sufficient room between the property and the river for
adequate seeding. Mr. Fritz responded that staff had not
reviewed this issue because it would be dealt with the time
of site review. He noted that staff was not requesting
administrative approval of the proposal. Mr. Fritz
estimated the distance between the site and the river to be
approximately 500 to 600 feet. Mr. Cilimberg noted for
comparison that the Chesapeake Bay regulations require a 100
foot undisturbed buffer as being sufficient for protecting
streams in the Bay region.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Several representativesof the applicant addressed the
Commission: Mr. Tom Forloines; Mr. Ken Stogard; Mr. Jerry
Steel; and Mr. Harold Bear, Pastor. Significant comments
included the following:
--Mr. Forloines explained some of the history of the
zoning of the property.
--The proposed site is not really in the rural area
because it is surrounded by development (Hollymead, Forest
Lakes) .
--The existence of the church cannot change the
character of the area since the only thing which it will be
visible to is the Sheraton.
h nt�
May 22, 1990 Page 11
--Why would it be desirable to have the church in an
urban neighborhood where it could "dump" a lot of traffic
into the heart of a subdivision?
--Soil tests show that 18 of the 20 tests performed
were good. Mr. Bear presented letters from the Health
Department confirming there is adequate area for both a
primary and secondary drainfield.
--The residue is not owned by the Church.
--The proposed Meadowcreek Parkway alignment which
crosses this property crosses only one small edge and should
not hinder the development of the church.
--There is no opposition to the construction of a
commercial entrance.
--The church could not conceivably present a detriment
to adjacent property, much less a "substantial" detriment as
stated in the staff report, and would be an asset to any
community.
--To deny the request because of the anticipation of
its future size would be a dangerous percedent to establish.
--The church is growing so rapidly that a move is
necessary.
--It is a difficult to find a ten -acre site in
Albemarle County which is cost effective.
--If the request is denied, can it be assumed the
County is taking the position of: (1) Telling churches
where they can locate; (2) Telling churches how large they
should be; and (3) Encouraging non-profit, tax-emempt
organizations to take some of the most valuable land off the
tax rolls? (The church is purchasing this property for
$25,000/acre and property in the designated urban
area/Hollymead would cost between $150,000 and
$457,000/acre.)
--None of the property is in the floodplain; all the
site is usable.
--The soil has been determined to be acceptable for
construction.
--The proposed site of the church was chosen so as to
ensure that no house or road could be constructed in front
of the church because of the location of the floodplain.
--The architecture of the buildings will be "friendly"
to a rural setting.
--No construction will take place on the high point of
the property (the knoll).
---The existing 1936 home on the property will remain.
--Lambs Road Baptist Church was built on 5 acres of
land in an RA zone with approval for 175 parking spaces and
500 seats. Broadus Memorial Church was approved in October,
1989, for 500 seats in an RA zone.
--No church has ever been turned down on the basis of
its proposed size.
a20/
May 22, 1990
Page 12
--The septic line that runs north was predicated in its
early history based on the growth area.
--The applicant notified adjacent property owners of
the proposal and no opposition has been expressed.
--The land will not remain agricultural or forestal
because of its value.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. F.A. Iachetta, adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. He expressed no objection to the church but
stated he was concerned about the plans for the residue. He
noted that the site is isolated by a 100-year flood.
The applicant was allowed final comment. Mr. Bear stressed
that the staff had not "established a substantial detriment
to adjacent property." He pointed out that if that was the
case there would be adjoining property owners expressing
their opposition. He stressed that no agricultural or
forestal activity was taking place on the property now, nor
is there any indication that any substantial agricultural
activity has taken place on the property for many years.
There being no further public or applicant comment, the
matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's questions, Mr. Bear stated
the church had no plans to offer child care.
Mr. Fritz noted that staff had researched the records of
every church approved in both the rural and urban area since
the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and found the average
size to be 227 seats.
Ms. Huckle asked if approval of this request would set any
sort of precedent for the use of the 75 acre residue. Mr.
Bowling noted that churches are allowed, by special permit,
in the RA zone. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the development
of the remainder of the property would be a "separate
legislative decision." Mr. Bowling added: "It would allow
the property as it exists now to develop under the RA zoning
with whatever it's entitled to. A rezoning would be a whole
new issue which you would have to address at that time."
Mr. Johnson stated he felt the Commission would be
"completely remiss to evaluate a request like this purely on
the basis of size. ... On the alternative, we should look at
the church and recognize their foresight in obtaining this
site as a site they can afford. It is relatively in the
center of urban development and to get that at a price they
can afford now is quite an accomplishment."
�n
May 22, 1990
Page 13
Mr. Wilkerson stated that his only concern had been the
issue of day care and the church has indicated that is not
their intention. He also stated that the service hours
described by Mr. Bear (Sunday morning and evening and
Wednesday evening) would not detract from the rural aspect
of the area.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-35 for Covenant Church of God
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Church is limited to 800 seats;
2. Approval is for worship and church related activities
only. Day care or other usage shall require amendment of
this special use permit;
3. Health Department approval shall be obtained prior to
review of the site plan by the Planning Commission;
4. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
commercial entrance prior to review of the site plan by the
Planning Commission;
5. Site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission;
6. Property shall be limited to a joint entrance serving
the church and residue acreage. A joint access easement
shall be shown and reserved for dedication upon request of
the County;
7. Staff approval of maintenance agreement. Maintenance
agreement shall require that the church be solely
responsible for the portion of road used by the church and
the residue acreage.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he did not think staff's
recommendation was based on size, but rather on intensity of
use. He noted that the nature of a church makes its traffic
generation somewhat different because services are held at
low traffic times and therefore have less adverse impact.
He concluded he would support the motion.
The previously stated motion for approval passed
unanimously.
May 22, 1990 Page 14
Blue Ridge Shopping Center Preliminary Site Plan Extension
Request - Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant had
requested that this item not be heard at this time in order
to allow the applicant time to alert the public of the
extension request.
Rural Development and Watershed Protection Report - Mr.
Blake Hurt presented a report compiled by the Albemarle
Planning Task Force on rural development and watershed
protection. He explained that this organization was created
in order to study important topics effecting land use. He
stressed that it was the organization's goal "not to lobby
for a certain policy, but to make sure that everyone
understands the topics."
Ms. Huckle expressed an interest in Mr. Hurt's statement
that the Soil -Loss Equation was faulty. She noted that
other groups have been saying this for years and the
equation was originally developed for agricultural land and
was not applicable for developed land.
The Commission offered no other comment.
There being no further busines, the meeting adjourned at
10:15 p.m.
DS
64