Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-20January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 540 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 20, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:33 P.M.), and F. R. Bowie (arrived at 7:35 P.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 7:35 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:31 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 7:33 P.M.) and Peter T. Way (arrived at 7:31 P.M.). ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Home. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Mr. Way said he has just received a request from the applicant asking that Agenda Item No. 9, SP-87-97, be withdrawn from the agenda. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mo~ion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to accept Item 4.1 on the consent agenda as informa- tion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Item No. 4.1. A Copy of the Planning C~mmission Minutes for January 5, 1988, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to prohibit the burning of leaves in Jefferson Village (deferred from December 16, 1987). Mr. Way opened the public hearing. First to speak was Mr. Allen Collier, a resident of Jefferson Village. He said he ~igned the petition asking that burning leaves be prohibited in Jefferson Viliage. He asked that the County investigate other ways to dispose of leaves. Some residents in his area, he said, must dispose of as many as 60 bags of leaves and compost heaps are not a viable alternative on a small lot. Mr. John Swistock, a resident of Jefferson Village, presented a petition with 36 signatures, requesting that no change~be made in the leaf-burning ordinance until the County establishes a system of leaf collection. If residents are not allowed to burn leaves, he Said, they may find even more undesirable ways of disposing of them, such as dumping them in neighbors' yards and in the creek draining Jefferson Village. Or, he said, residents may just let the leaves stay on the ground. He u~ged the Board not to adopt the ordinance. With no one else wishing to address this~issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mrs. Cooke asked how many signatures were on the petition requesting that the Board adopt an ordinance to ban leaf-burnSng in Jefferson Village. Mr. Agnor said there were 58 signatures representing 38 households. The Board requires that 51 percent of the homeowners sign a petition before the Board will consider hearing the request. He said t~e petition requesting that leaf-burning be banned met this requirement. At this point, Mr. Way allowed a comment from a citizen, who did not identify himself. He said the Chairman may have noticed that some residents signed both petitions. He said some residents signed the first petition because they wished to express their distasteifor leaf-burning; the second 541 January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) petition because they believe that a reasonable alternative to leaf-burning must be found before the practice is banned. Mrs. Cooke said the County has no such alternative for leaf disposal. She said she interpreted the signatures on the first petition to mean that the residents wished to ban leaf-burning in their community. Mr. Bowie asked the President of the Jefferson Village Homeowners' Association if the first petition reflected the will of the majority of the people in the community. Based on her experiences when she carried around the first petition, she said, she thought the petition represented the majority of residents. Mr. Agnor suggested that the Board defer action on this matter until the staff could examine the second petition and determine how many residents signed both petitions. Residents who signed both petitions were adding a condition to their request which could not be met and may wish to withdraw their support from the first petition. Mr. Bowie asked the President of the Jefferson Village Homeowners' Association if she wished the Board to defer its action until the will of the majority is clear. She said "yes" Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to defer action on this request until February 17, 1988, so the President of the Homeowners' Association can verify the status of the signatures on the original petition. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Abandonment of portion of old road right-of-way within Bentivar Subdivision beginning at the-southwest corner of Lot 13, as shown on a recorded plat dated September 23, 1982, then in a northwesterly direction approximately 1600 feet to the centerline of the South Fork of the Rivanna River and the end of the abandonment. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 22 and 29, 1987.) Mr. Horne said the staff has studied this request an~ can find no reason to object to the abandonment of this road: the road serves no public purpose and its abandonment will not endanger future roads planned for this area. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak to this request. Mr. Lindsay Barnes said he was present on behalf of the petitioner and would be glad to answer any questions Board members might have. Since there was no one else present who wished to address this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to abandon the section of road as described in the staff's report by adopting the follow- ing resolution: WHEREAS, the Board was requested by a citizen~ito abandon a section of an old road not in the State Highway or Secondary System; and WHEREAS, the Board, on December 9, 1987, ordered that this matter be advertised for public hearing in accordance with Virginia Code Section 33.1-157; and ~ WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on January 20, 1988, the Board finding that the said section of road serves no public purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board o~ Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that an "old road" right~of-way located within Bentivar Subdivision, beginning at Station 0+00, a point common with the centerline of the old road and the southwest corner January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 542 of Lot 13 as shown on a plat prepared by Arthur Edwards, C.L.S., dated September 23, 1982, thence in a northwesterly direction approx- imately 1600 feet to Station 16+00, the centerline of the South Fork of the Rivanna River, be abandoned to public use. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: Abandonment of portion of old road right-of-way beginning with the centerline of Pole Cat Road and the edge of the prescriptive easement for State Route 600, thence in a northwesterly direction approximately 430 feet, the end of the abandonment. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 22 and 29, 1987.) Mr. Home said this portion of the old road served no public purpose and the staff recommends its abandonment. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak to this issue. Mr. Barry Chlebnikow, ~he petitioner, said he would answer any questions members of the Board might have. Since there was no one else present who wished to address this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the abandonment by adopting the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board was requested~by a citizen to abandon a section of an old road not in the StateiHighway or Secondary System; and WHEREAS, the Board, on December 9, 1987, ordered that this matter be advertised~for public hearing lin accordance with Virginia Code Section 33.1-157; and ~ WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on January 20, 1988, the Board finding that the said section !of road serves no public purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that an "old road" right-of-way beginning at Station 0+00, a point common with the centerline of Pole Cat Road and the edge of the prescriptive easement for State Route 600, thence in a northwesterly direction approximately 430 feet to Station 4+30, be abandoned to public use. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-87-92. Burger Busters, Inc. Request for a special use permit to allow a fast-food restaurant on a vacant parcel zoned PD-SC, Planned Development-Shopping Center, 16cated on the northwest corner at the intersection of Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) and Route 851 (Dominion Drive). Tax Map 61M-00-12-1D, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 1 and 12, 1988. De~erred indefinitely bythe Planning Commission.) Mr. Way announced that this item has been dropped from the agenda at the request of the applicant. 543 JanuarY 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-87-97. John Pratt. For a double-wide mobile home on 0.440 acre zoned RA, Rural Areas, located about one-tenth mile northeast of the intersection of Route 712 and the Southern Railway underpass. Tax Map 99A, Parcel 13, Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress January 5 and 12, 1988. Applicant requests deferral.) Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr, Bowie to allow the applicant to withdraw the petition. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-87-99. Gertrude D. Taylor. To locate a single- wide mobile home on 75.04 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, located on the east side of Route 671 about 1.4 miles south of the intersection with Routes 609 and 671. Tax Map 28, Parcel 35A, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 5 and 12, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: The subject parcel is densely wooded with a clearing along the Route 671 frontage and is moderately sloping. The property adjacent to the north is in Agricultural/F0restal Land Use and is improved with farm structures. The property adjacent to the east is in Agricultural/Forestal land use also, and is densely wooded; SP-197 was approved permitting a mobile home on this parcel (prior to 1980). Other surrounding properties are improved with single family homes and farm structures. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant, Gertrude Taylor, petitions the Board of Supervisors to permit a single wide mobile home in the Rural Areas zone pursuant to Section 10.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, and plans to reside there. The mobile home will be located in the cleared portion of the property, approximately 50 feet from Route 671, and approximately 190 feet from the parcel's northern boundary line. It will be accessed by a 30-foot driveway off Route 671. The location has been approved by the Zoning Department. The Zoning Department is requiring screening along three sides ~f the structure, the front and two sides; the rear of the property is!densely wooded. One objection has been filed against this petition. ~The objection comes from the owner of the property adjacent to the~north. In general, he is concerned that the mobile home would have an adverse effect on the property values of the surrounding area. Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions of approval. ,! RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Installation and maintenance of screening on three sides of the mobile home, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator so as to minimize visibility from adjacent properties." Mr. Home said the Planning Commission at its meeting on January 14, 1988, unanimously recommended approval subject to the two !~conditions recom- mended by the staff and a third condition reading "Mobile home to be setback 75 feet from Route 671. Mr. Horne said the applicant had changed the locatiom proposed for the mobile home after an adjacent property owner expressed co~cern about the proximity of the mobile home to his property. The applicant agreed to move the mobile home about thirty feet south, behind a small grove of cedar trees. January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 544 Mr. Horne said it would be difficult for the applicant to comply with the setback requirement of 75 feet from the roadway. He said it would be possible to set the mobile home back 50 feet from Route 671, but the steepness of the terrain would make going much farther difficult. If the Board approved this request, Mr. Horne said, he would suggest amending the setback condition. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak to this issue. The applicant, Ms. Gertrude Taylor, was present but did not wish to speak. Mr. John Eckstein addressed the Board and said his property was not adjacent to the proposed location of the mobile home, but he did live along Route 821 and was concerned about the community. He said he and other resi- dents had formed an agricultural/forestal district to preserve the scenic beauty of this area. This would be the first mobile home in the area, and he is unhappy about the precedent. He said the Board recently approved the 24th mobile home along a road lined by 23 mobile homes, saying that a precedent had been set. He wants no such precedent in his area. He asked that the Board deny the request. If the request must be approved, he said, he asked that the Board set a time-limit on the approval and remove the trailer once the time has expired. Ms. Ellen Craddock addressed the Board and said she was not an adjacent property owner, but lived along Route 821. She said she thought the proposed site was inappropriate. The applicant had 75 acres on which to place the mobile home, she said, so why place it right on the road? She said she also thought there would be problems installing a~septic field, screening the site from the road and building a roadway. She asked that the applicant be encour- aged to find another site on her property fo~ the mobile home. Ms. Marion Hunt, an adjacent property o~ner, said she agreed with the reservations of the citizens who spoke befor~ her. Mr. Bill Schmitz said he owned property~across Route 671 from the pro- posed site. He pointed out that the Planning Commission's recommendation was not unanimous; one or two members were concerned that approval might set a precedent. He added that the grove of cedar ~trees mentioned by Mr. Horne consisted of only four or five trees under t~n feet tall. He said he did not consider this clump of trees to be adequate screening. He said there was a culvert and an old farm road leading into th~ property which might provide access to another site for the mobile home. ~iHe said residents of this area have tried to build and maintain their homes ~!according to high 'standards and he asked that the Board not undermine their ~fforts by approving this request. Mr. Gary McGee, an attorney representin~ Mr. Wallace Bedell, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board. He said his client strongly opposed this request. He said Mr. Bedell has made a substantial investment in his property with the past two years and is concerned abo~t the high visibility of the mobile home from his property. He said apprQ?ing this request would be detrimental to the adjacent landowners and t~e character of the area and would set an unwelcome precedent. He said relativ~s of the applicant own adjoining parcels and there may be more such applications for mobile homes. If the Board should approve this request, Mr. McGee isaid, his client requests that the location be moved back into the woods on ~the property and that a time limit be put on the permit calling for the r~moval of the trailer when Ms. Taylor no longer lives there. Ms. Justine Taylor addressed the Board and said she was not an adjacent property owner, but lived along Route 821. She said she supported the public comments made before her. Ten years ago, shel said, when she was building a house in this area, she chose to live in a tent for two years rather than a trailer. She said she does not want to ask the applicant to do the same thing or deny her the chance to live in such a beautiful area, but she is concerned about the precedent approval of this request might set. Mr. Scott Schmitz addressed the Board an~ said his father owned property across Route 672 from the proposed mobile home site. Someday he may want to build his dream house in this area, he said, And wants the aesthetic value of the land preserved. He asked the Board to de~y the request. 545 January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Since no one else wished to address this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff had studied the site in terms of a potential drainfield. Mr. Home said "no" and added that the Health Depart- ment regulations must be met even if the Board approved the request. If there were no site for a drainfield, he said, the building permit would be denied. Mr. Perkins suggested that the mobile home be located in the woods, somewhere along the existing farm road into the property. Mr. Lindstrom asked the applicant if she would be willing to move the mobile home across the stream, as suggested by Mr. Perkins. Ms. Taylor said she had considered this alternative, but it would be difficult for her to pay for the upkeep of the road and get in and out of the property during the winter. Mr. Lindstrom said this was a difficult request for him: he believes that mobile homes should be allowed if the owners plan to live in them because this may be the only way a property owner can own a home~ He said he does not believe a mobile home is inherently more unsightly than other houses. What makes this application difficult for him, he said, is the site proposed for this mobile home: its slope, the setback from the stream and the road. He said he is particularly reluctant to allow a mobile home on this problem- filled site when there is so much property available for an alternative site. Mr. Bain said he thought possible alternatives to the site should be explored before the Board took any action. Mr. Bowie said he has never voted against an application for a mobile home if the owner planned to live in the home. If someone owns property and wants to put a mobile home on this property to live in, he will support their request. But, he said, the applicant does not own the p~operty. He said he would have difficulty approving this request unless the Bioard attached a condition calling for the removal of the mobile home once the applicant left. Mrs. Cooke said she would find it difficult to support the application due to the location of the mobile home and the fact that i~he owner of the mobile home does not own the property on which it will be placed. Mr. Perkins asked the applicant if she would conside~r relocating the mobile home. Ms. Taylor answered "yes". Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by M~. Cooke to defer this petition to March 16 so the applicant can pursue finding another location for the mobile home on this site. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:42 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-87-101. Phyllis R. & Clarence Morris. To locate a singel-wide mobile home on 6.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, located on south side of Route 663 off a private right-of-way, approximately one-half mile south of intersection with Routes 810 and 664. Tax Map 9~ Parcel 3B, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 5 and 12, 1988.) While the request for the special permit has been li~ted to the Mortises, Mr. Home said, the applicant is Mr. Roger Taylor. Mr. HOrne presented the following staff report: ~ "Character of the Area: This vacant property is hea~ily wooded mostly with mature evergreens. The area proposed for the mobile home location is in a small clearing. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character. Within a one-mile radius, there are twenty-three mobile homes. January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 546 STAFF COMMENT: Objection to this petition comes from one adjoining owner stating concerns of aesthetics and property devaluation (letter on file in the Clerk's office). In staff's opinion, the proposed mobile home location would not be visible from Route 663 or from other residences. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 12, 1988, unanimously recommended approval subject to the condition in the staff report. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. The applicant was present but did not wish to speak. Since there was no one present who wished to speak to this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and Placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked whether the applicant or the Morrises owned the property. Mr. Taylor said he bought the property from Phyllis and Clarence Morris. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-87-101 with the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. There was no further discussion. Roll gas called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-87-03. To amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 4.6, Lot Regulations, to permit reduction of!lot frontage on cul-de-sacs and to amend Section 3.0, Definitions, to include "easement", "cul-de-sac", and to revise the definition of "frontage". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 5 and 12, 1988.) Agenda Item No. 13. STA-87-01. To amend Section 18-36 of the Subdivi- sion Ordinance to prohibit with certain exceptions two-lot subdivisions involving easement for single-family detached residential development in urban areas. (Advertised on January 5 and 12, 1988.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "OriEin: Zoning Administrator, Planning staff. Public Purpose To Be Served: To provide uniform zoning and subdivi- sion ordinance regulations. Staff Comment: These proposed amendments are intended to: 1. Clarify method of measuring lot frontage; 2. Provide for reduction of lot frontage in certain cases; 3. Restrict residential subdivision involving two lots served by an easement to the Rural Areas zone and VR, Village Residential, zone. Currently the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are in conflict regarding reduction of lot frontage. The Subdivision Ordinance permits the Planning Commission to reduce frontage for lots on a 547 January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) cul-de-sac, however, no similar provision exists in the Zoning Ordinance. Also, current subdivision regulations permit 'front and back' lot subdivision of residential property in designated growth areas which in staff opinion could result in disorderly development if employed extensively. (Staff does think there is a need for this provision in the Rural Areas zone). Staff recommends the following amendments: 1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: 3.0 DEFINITIONS Frontage - The continuous uninterrupted distance along which a parcel abuts a single adjacent road or street. Cul-de-sac - A vehicular turnaround area at the end of a dead-end street provided for the purpose of safe and convenient reverse of traffic in one continuous forward movement. 4.6 4.6.1 4.6.1.1 Easement - A right in the owner of one parcel of land by reason of ownership of such parcel to usei~the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property in the owner. LOT REGULATIONS FRONTAGE AND LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS Except as otherwise provided in 4.6.1 and i4.6.6, every lot shall front on an existing public street~ ~r a street dedicated by subdivision plat and maintainmd or designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia,~ Department of Transportations~ except that private roadslshall be permit- ted in accordance with Section 18-36 of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle. 4.6.1.2 4.6.1.3 4.6.3.2 Except as specifically permitted in this section~ frontage shall not be less than required by the regulations of the district in which the lot or parcel is located: a. Frontage on a public street cul-de-sa6 or on a private road cul-de-sac may be reduced to notliless than fifty (50) feet~ provided that driveway separation shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of Transporta- tion standards. b. For a lot located at the end of an access easement, frontage shall not be less than the f~ll width of such easement. Minimum lot width shall be measured at the!building setback line and shall be at least the same width As the frontage required for the district in which such lo~ is located. Lot width shall not be reduced under 4.6.121. Other yards adjacent to streets shall haveI ia minimum w~d~h-~r depth, a~-~he-~a~e-may-be~-~f-e~gh~y-~88)-percen~ of the minimum front yard depth required i~ the district in which the lot is located. This provision ~hall apply to lots in the RA or residential districts only. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18~ SUBDIVISION OF LAND~ QF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Sec. 18-36(b) The commission may approve any subdivision served by one or more private roads under the following circumstances: January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 548 (1) No lot of such subdivision to be served by such road shall be less than five acres in land area; or (2) For property zoned RA~ Rural Areas or VR~ Village Residential, where such subdivision contains only two lots and such private road serves only the lots in such subdivision; and is the sole and direct means of access to a road in the State highway system; or (3) Such subdivision is intended for non-residential or non-agricultural purposes; or (4) Such subdivision is not located within a rural area of the comprehensive plan and such subdivision shall be into lots and/or units to be occupied exclusively by residential structures other than single-family detached dwellings including appurtenant recreational uses and open space; or (5) Such subdivisions constitute a 'family division' as defined by section 18-56 of this chapter. DISCUSSION DEFINITIONS: Amendments to DEFINITIONS of the Zoning Ordinance are necessary to include new terms. Definition of 'frontage' is revised to improve language and attempt to avoid varying interpretation. 4.6 LOT REGULATIONS: Section 4.6.1.1 w~uld require all lots to front on either a public street or private road. Section 4.6.1.2 presents two distinct cases where frontage may be reduced. Note that Section 4.6.1.2(a) is applicable to the RA, VR, R-l, and R-2 zones since those zones have specified frontage requirements. For other residen- tial zones and commercial and industrial zones, Section 18-30 of the Subdivision Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to determine lot frontage based on driveway separation requirements of Virginia Department of Transportation. Section 4.6.1.2(b) should be read in conjunction with proposed Subdivision Ordinance amendments to Section 18-36(b). The combined effect of these amendments is to limit 'front and back' lot subdivi- sion to the following distinct cases: 1. Both lots are five acres or greater [Section 18-36(b)(1)]; 2. Both lots are zoned RA or VR [~8-36(b)(2)]; 3. Non-residential on non-agricultural uses [18-36(b)(3)]; 4. Multi-family development not zoned RA [18-36(b)(4)]; 5. Family divisions [18-36(b)(5)]~ Amendments to Section 4.6.3.2 are designed to require uniform build- ing setback from all streets for RA andiresidential zones. Special provisions for commercial and industriaI~ zones are contained within the text of each such district, requiring setback from public roads." Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Janu- ary 5, 1988 unanimously recommended adopted ~he text amendments as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Way asked if any substantive changes were being made or if the recon~nended changes were just minor ones designed to bring uniformity to the zoning and subdivision ordinance regulations.I Mr. Home said there was one substantial change: developers would no longer be allowed to redivide small lots in a subdivision into front-to-back lots~ Access easement frontage will now be limited to areas zoned RA and VR. 549 January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Lindstrom asked for an example of when the Planning Commission or staff might reduce the frontage requirement. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission often allows less frontage on lots bordering a cul-de-sac. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to address either ZTA-87-03 or STA-87-01. Since no one wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned that the allocation of development between urban and rural areas was not working efficiently. He said he is reluctant to approve any amendment that will allow more lots to be created in the rural areas. He said he thinks ZTA-87-03 should be limited to non-rural areas. Mr. Bain asked for an example of how this amendment ~might create addi- tional lots, especially in the rural areas where the lots must have 250 feet of road frontage. Mr. Horne said this situation would be more likely to happen along a private road, where lots are required to have only 150 feet of frontage. If the private road could not extend through the entire property for some reason, then a developer could use this amendment to reduce the amount of frontage needed per lot and squeeze in another lot around a cul-de-sac. Mr. Lindstrom said the setback requirement of 75 feet might prevent this amendment from creating any additional lots in the rural area. Mr. Horne agreed, and added that the more the frontage was reduced,~the farther back houses would have to be built, to maintain the distance r~quired between houses and driveways. Nevertheless, Mr. Lindstrom said, this amendment would allow more lots around a cul-de-sac, and he is leery of supporting the amend- ment for this reason. Mr. Bowie said the amended definition of easement did not make any sense. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the definition be changed toi: "a right possessed by the owner of one parcel of land by reason of ownership~of such parcel to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property rights of that other owner." Mr. Bowie said this definition made more sense. Mr. Bain suggested that Section 4.6.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to prohibit the reduction of frontage around a cul-de-sac in the RA district. Mr. Horne said part of the Subdivision Ordinance would have to be changed, too, to make the two documents conform to each o~her. Mr. Bowie said he understood these amendments were td bring uniformity to these ordinances, but if both documents are changed, it seems to him that the ordinances themselves are being changed. !~ Mr. Bain asked if the Planning Commission had addressed Mr. Lindstrom's concern. Mr. Horne said "no". i Mr. St. John said the question has more to do with eqgineering than with density when the boundary of lots is put on a circle. Mr.i Lindstrom said the choice is between engineering and a density decision is noit a legal issue, but a question of whether smaller frontage will be allowed oni~ cul-de-sac and whether allowing this will increase the potential density bn some lots. He said he would prefer to defer a decision on the amendment :~nd have the Plan- ning Commission review this one point. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to defer action on ZTA-87-03 to allow staff to raise questions with the Planning Commission. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 550 Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve STA-87-01 as presented by adopting the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS DIVISION 6. STREETS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 18-36, Private Roads, Subsection (b), sub-subsection (2), of Division 6, Streets, Article III, Design Standards, Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of Albemarle, be amended and reenacted to read as follows: <2) For property zoned RA, Rural Areas, or VR, Village Residen- tial, where such subdivision contains only two lots and such private road serves only the lots in such subdivision; and is the sole and direct means of access to a road in the state highway system; or There was no further discussion. Roll ~as called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14a. appointment was made. Appointments: Cofi~nunity Action Agency. No Agenda Item No. 14b. Appointments: Coimnunity Corrections Resources Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to reappoint Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., for a'term to expire on Dec 31, 1989. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14c. Appointments: Equalization Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to reappoint Mr. Thomas A. Allison for the calendar year 1987. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mrs. Barbara Staples for the calendar year 1987. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14d. Appointments: Hazardous Materials - Local Emergen- cy Planning Committee. A new group has been formed by the State Department of Waste Management under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza- tion Act of 1986 (SARA). A Hazardous Materials Planning Local Emergency Planning Committee (joint with the city of Charlottesville) is needed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mrs. Cooke, who has volunteered to serve as the Board's representative to the Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion Carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mrs. Cooke. 551 January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Agenda Item No. 14e. Appointments: Industrial Development Authority. Motion was offer.ed by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Mr. James R. Skove as the Jack Jouett representative, with a term to expire on 3anuary 19, 1991. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. as the Scottsville representative, with a term to expire January 19, 1992. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14f. Appointments: Social Services Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to appoint Mr. Joseph Basil Young as the Rivanna representative, with a term to expire December 31, 1991. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: Septembec. 10, 1986; April 15 (Night), 1987. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for September 10, 1986, pages 1 through Item 10 on page 14 and found them to be in order. Mr. Way had read the remainder of the minutes for September 10, 1986, and:found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by~Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes for September 10, 1986. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Messrs. Bain and Perkins. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on thel Agenda from the Public and Board Members. Mr. Agnor said he had received two telephone calls f?om Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres since the General Assembly started. The first cali concerned a bill for the election of school board members which was discuSsed at the January 6, 1988, meeting. This bill is being sponsored by delegate~ from Northern Virginia and does include the County Executive form of government. Mr. Van Yahres believes he can have Albemarle County's opposition registered and perhaps have Albemarle excluded from the bill, but he needs a written resolu- tion from the Board. The second call concerned a bill which is being introduced and which would allow ten percent of the registered voters to call for a referendum to have law enforcement responsibilities placed with the sheriff's office. Mr. Agnor said he did not have a copy of either bill at this time. Mr. Lindstrom moved that the Board go on record opposing the election of school board members, particularly in the absence of any Caxing power, and opposing the subjection of police forces to review by a s~eriff's department under the referendum proposal. The motion was seconded b~ Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Bain asked if the Board should oppose the legislation concerning elected school board members or request that Albemarle Co~unty be deleted or exempted. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels electing school board members is a bad idea for any county. Mr. Bain said he did not know if it~would be better politically to have Albemarle County exempted from the legislation, but there should be language saying that is the Board's recommendation. Mr. Way sug- gested that the resolution be worded to say both things. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to say that th~ Board opposes the concept, but if it is the will of the General Assembly to.pass these bills, that the County Executive form of government be exempted. January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 552 (Page 13) There was no further discussion. Holl was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. The resolution as adopted are set out below: WHEREAS, title 15.1-588 through 621 of the Code of Virginia provides for the county executive form of government in Virginia, and WHEREAS, title 15.1-590 provides that "the board of county supervisors shall be the policy-determining body of the county...", and WHEREAS, title 15.1-593 charges the board of county supervisors to "provide for the performance of all the government functions of the county, and to that end shall provide for an set up all depart- ments of government that shall be necessary...", and WHEREAS, title 15.1-608 describes the department of law enforce- ment which includes a sheriff and a police force, with the duties of the sheriff described as those conferred by the board of county supervisors, and further describes the duties of the police force to be the conservators of the peace in the county and the enforcement agency of all criminal laws throughout the confines of the county, and WHEREAS, the board of supervisors as elected representatives of the citizens of the county planned for a period of time in excess of ten years to provide for a police force as one department of several departments created to serve the expanding needs of a growing popula- tion, and did therefore create the departments of planning, engineer- ing, inspections, zoning, housing, parks and recreation, staff services, data processing, and personne%, in addition to a police department, and WHEREAS, the formation of these departments has been recognized by local citizens to serve their needs, and WHEREAS, legislation being introduced in the 1988 session of the General Assembly would abolish the police force and have its respon- sibilities assumed by the sheriff's office after a referendum when such abolishment can be accomplished under current laws by majority vote of the board of supervisors, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED unanimously by the Board of Super- visors of Albemarle County that this legislation, promulgated by the Virginia Sheriff's Association, be considered a disruption in the orderly and proper administration of the affairs of county govern- ment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the General Assembly be requested to oppose this legislation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the'General Assembly grants approval to the legislation that Albemarle County be excluded from its provisions. WHEREAS, title 15.1-588 through 62I of the Code of Virginia provides for the county executive form Of government in Virginia, and WHEREAS, title 15.1-609 provides for a department of education with a school board chosen by the board of supervisors, and WHEREAS, the selection process under the Code of Virginia includes extensive citizen involvement and public hearing procedures, and 553 January 20, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) WHEREAS, the appointment process provides for an appropriate and important working relationship between the elected governing body, with taxing authority and responsibility to provide all governmental functions of the county, and the appointed board responsible for the operation of the public school system, and WHEREAS, legislation being introduced in the 1988 session of the General Assembly would provide procedures for the election of school boards in certain forms of county goverr~ment without providing taxing authority, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors unanimously opposes the adoption of such legislation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the General Assembly grants approval to this legislation, that Albemarle County be excluded from its provisions. Mr. Lindstrom requested that a Certificate of Appreciation be prepared for Mrs. Sharon Hamner who had been a member of the Equalization Board for eight years. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. Since there were no more matters to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:39 P.M.