Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-07 adj5-08 November 7, 1984 (Afternoon Meetin~ - Adjourned) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 7, 1984, in conjunction with the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at 3:30 p.m. in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville ~i~gi~i~; said meeting adjourned from October 17, 1984. Present: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke· Officers present: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney. Planning Commission members present: Mrs. Norma H. Diehl (arrived at 4:24 p.m.), Messrs. Richard P. Cogan, Timothy M. Michel, James R. Skor, and Harry F. Wilkerson. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 3:36 p.m. by Board Chairman Mr. Fisher a~d by Planning Commission Vice Chairman Mr. Cogan. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Mobile Home Park Study. Mr. Cogan said'that at its meeting on October 16, 1984 the Planning Commission discussed eight recommendations for mobile home parks. The Planning Commission's discussion was based on a mobile home study prepared by~ the Planning Department. In that study, the purpose ha~s b~ sct out to find methods of encouraging the development of mobile home parks and subdivisions without compromising other planning goals· Two applica- tions for mobile home parks in Rural Areas zones have prompted the Planning Commission to request the study to determine suitable areas for mobile homes. According to the study, Albemarle County has about 1,455 mobile homes currently in use. Of those, 497 are on individual lots and 855 are in parks. About 73 double wide units are scattered throughout the areas where mobile homes are located. Most of the County's 17 mobile home parks were developed prior to the zoning ordinance with ten of them in the urban area and seven in the Rural Areas zoning district. ~ ~ The study reported that most mobile home applications are denied because of neighborhood opposition, high density in the area in which the applicant wishes to locate a mobile home, proximity to conventional residential developments, lack of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and a lack of adequate utilities. Mr. Cogan said the Planning Commission accepted seven of the study's recommendations as set cdt below, but decided to drop the eighth recommendation. He then presented the staff report: "Recommendations: It is recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit mobile home parks by special use permit in the R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 zones, in addition to the VR and RA zones. Mobile home parks and subdivisions should be encouraged to locate.in the urban area and communities where public utilities are available. Mobile ~ome parks and subdivisions should be permitted in fringe areas near growth areas under the following conditions: The site is not within a reservoir watershed; The site can be served by public utilities; Such development is consistent with County goals and objectives and rezoning criteria; The Comprehensive Plan is amended as necessary. Delete recommendation to subsidize the extension of utilities until the ~,La'~,~ ~arger question of low and moderate income h6using is studied. It is not recommended that curren~ mobile ho~e park regulations be ~relaxed. To the contrary, if the Zoning Ordinance is ~mended t° permit parks in higher density, zones in growth areas, the regulations should be expanded and made specific in order to better protect residents of both the park and of nearby areas, and to promote a safe and well-maintained develop- ment. An Application Plan should he,required as part of the special use permit application. Small developments (under 50 spaces) in various locations in growth areas should be encouraged. Expansion of existing parks in growth areas Should be encouraged. The disadvantages of expanding an existing large park over 50 spaces must be weighed against the a~vantages of an established location. Mobile home developments in rural areas should be limited to small develop- ments not exceeding 20 units, as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. D~nsities should be similar to those required for conventional dwellings. Current regulations~governing replacement of non-conforming mobile homes should be relaxed to permit newer, larger units by right." (Deleted.) November 7. 1984 (Afternoon Meeting - Adjourned) 509 ._.M~Oo~an,_sa d~.~-f~ ~ ~ 'i ~the first recommendation does not include the. R-1 and R-2 districts because these are ~oned for single-family dwellings on lots equ~ing at least one/third of an acre. He said the Planning Commission did not feel that within that area mobile home developments would be conducive or harmonious. He said the second recommendation speaks for itself. The Commission fears, however, that developers would not feel that a mobile home is the best use of property in the urban area. To combat this, he said the Planning Commission felt it could allow mobile home parks in fringe areas around the urban area, with the provision that the watersheds:be protected and that the developments be served by public utilities. Mr. Cogan said that the third recommendation had to do with the subsidizing of utilities. Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, thought if the County agreed to do this it would probably carry over into areas other than mobile homes. The idea behind recommendation No. 4 is that the County should encourage landscaping and improvement of mobile home parks so that these areas are not eyesores, but pleasant-looking places, therefore decreasing the stigma associated with same. He said that by limiting the size of parks t~ fewer than 50 units, it is felt that the occupancy would remain fairly stable and there Would not be.large neighborhoods of transient tenants. The seventh recommendation ~ma~e~he~sa~,~he~aus~ the RA~'.~is~ri~does~not~have any public utilities Mr. Fisher asked'how "fringe areas" are defined. Mr. Cogan said a mobile home park would have to meet four criteria: It could not be within a public drinking water watershed; it must be served by public water and sewerage; it must be consistent with County goals and objectives, so the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to allow such parks. Basically what this means, he said, is that mobile home parks would have to be in locations that would not adv ~f£ect the County's goals and objectives. He said he believes there are areas just outside the Albemarle County Service Authority service boundaries that do not lie in the watershed and are suitable for mobile home parks. He said the Commission is not talking about a great deal of land. Mr. C.ogan said that an additional 150 spaces in the County overall would satisfy the present need for mobile homes. Mr. Fisher said he was impressed to read the staff report (Mobile Homes Study dated September 4, 1984), and realize that two years ago there were more~than 1,500 mobile homes already in the County, providing a substantial amount of lower cost housing. He noted that only ten to fifteen percent of the mobile homes are in parks and the rest are on scattered sites. Mr. Cogan said the Planning Commission would like to get more of the homes in parks and reduce the number that are scattered. Mr. Bowie said that in Recommendation No. 7, the Planning Commission said the density for mobile home developments in the RA district should be similar to that for conventional dwelling He said that meant two acres per mobile home, which translates to forty acres for a small park. After checking with dealers, he said he found that after paying $30,000 - $35,000 for a mobile home, if the buyer adds the price of two acres to that, the cost becomes prohibitive for people the mobile home regulations are trying to help. He said the $60,000 or so this would require is inconsistent with the whole purpose of allowing mobile homes, which is to provide housing at a moderate, to low cost. Mr. Cogan said he felt that a two-acre lot for a mobile home could be purchased in many areas of the-county for less than $10,000. He said the Planning Commission. was really considering areas for mobile home subdivisions in this recommendation. The people ~h~o~d live there would own their own homes, and that is what the County is trying to encourage. Mr. Bowie said it seems that there should be some consideration for the density problem if, in fact, the County wants to encourage mobile home subdivisions. He said perhaps the density requirement of two acres should be reduced, since he thought that if he were buying into such a development he would not want two acres of land. Mr. Cogan said the Planning Commission is not trying to encourage mobile home parks in the rural areas. Mr. Tucker said another factor to consider for a rural park is Dublic u~ilities~ Since mobile homes in those a~a~wou~d~quire wells and septic tanks for the most part, the Board must keep in mind that water and sewer service would be requested if same failed. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that anyone pZacing a mobile home would have to follow the same regulations as owners of single- family dwellings when it came to requirements for septic tanks and wells. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission is looking at mobile homes as a type of per- manent housing with no change in density for mobile home subdivisions. Mr. Cogan said that is correct, for subdivisions in the RA district. Mr. Fisher then asked if the homes would even- tually become permanent structures. Mr. Cogan said this was possible if every homeowner would agree, but it is doubtful that one homeowner will erect a permanent dwelling to be surrounded by mobile homes, feeling that it may be a bad investment. Mr. Bowie said he felt the first six recommendations in the study are excellent, but he has problems with No. 7. He said it seems to him that the County is saying it will not allow mobile homes in the rural areas. Mr. Michel said the County almost had a mobile home subdi- vision south of Charlottesville; the only thing that prevented it was an uncompatible soil type for septi~ystems. Mr. Bowie asked if there is a market for the large lots, and.Mr Cogan said he~re was. Mr. Cogan said he believed that a mobile home subdivision in the RA zone is feasible where: a mobile home park would not be. Mr. Fisher asked if this might be a trend, requiring amdendments to the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and other County ordinances. Mr. Way asked if the Commission staff looked at present conditions and County ordinances when the original study~w~ddm~ Mr. Cogan said it did and found a problem because a mobile home park is only allowed in areas zoned which completely eliminates putting a mobile home park in an urban area. The present procedure for issuing individual mobile home permits administratively was not reviewed at all. Mr. Cogan said that of all the applications for mobile-home permits, fewer than one-half come to the Planning Commission for review. Most permits are approved by staff without ~ objection. 510 November 7~ 1984 (Afternoon Meeting - Adjourned) Agenda Item No. 2. Consideration of Bonus Provisions. -Mr. Cogan prefaced his formal remarks by telling the Board that the Planning Commission has had a couple of work sessions and a public hearing on the bonus provisions and is still working on the problem. Bonus provisions provide increases in density for pedestrian systems set off from the . -highways, dedication of land for public use, provision of low and moderate income housing, significant landscaping, being closer than one-half mile to a school or public facility. These bonus provisions can allow as much as a fifty percent increase in the allowable density of an area. They have been listed in the Zoning Ordinance in the VR, Ri, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10 and d~ R~15 zones. Mr. Cogan said the Commission members have found that the provisions tend to be almost automatic and increase the population density to an almost intolerable level in certain areas. One example, he said, is the Rio Road area, where developers used the bonus provisions to increase density. The land is having more done to it than it can support. .. The regulations are ambiguous. For instance, Mr. Cogan said, bonus provisions are granted if the development is within one-half mile of a school. The regulations do not say whether the half-mile is by road or as the crow flies. A direct half mile may be much further than~that by road. Another regulation is that bonus provisions are granted for landscaping, but the kind of landacaping is left up to the developer. Some of the work that results can be primitive. The Commission's one-time consensus was to do away with the bonus provisions entirely, except for the dedication of land to public use. It then received a letter from the Blue Ridge =Hom~ Builders' Association, saying that when the County was rezoning in 1980, BRHBA received a p~omise that developers could sustain their densities through the use of these provisions. If the provisions are revoked, the Commission would be going back on this promise made in 1980. Mr. Cogan said he did not know if the Commission made a promise or not, but the letter did change his thinking somewhat. Now the Commission feels some bonus provisions are needed, but only with more controls. He said the bonus provisions should not be automatic; the Commission should be allowed to consider some on a case-by-case basis. He said in certain areas there cannot be any bonuses allowed because the areas are developed to the limit of their holding capacity. ._ Water' runoff, roads, automobile and pedestrian traffic are all problems for areas where the bonus provisions have been used extensively. The Planning Commission and the Board need t¢ have a review system, since the current system is not in the public ~. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Planning Commission~was saying that there are some areas where the density with bonus provisions would be too much but the developments meet the criteria and t~h~e~ commission cannot deny the provisions. Mr. Cogan said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said the Commission needs to reword the bonus provisions to clarify some questions and restrict other items. Mr. Cogan said the Commission needs to establish guidelines for the use of bonuse Mr. Way asked if the provisions have even been used to increase the amount of lower-cost housing. Mr. Cog~n said that was one of the intentions originally, but the provisions have never been used for that purpose. Mr. Michel said that even when the Commission thought about removing the bonuses, the one bonus they thought of keeping was that particular one concerning lower cost housing. . Mr. Lindstrom asked if a developer can get the highest bonus density without using the :~6Wer-cost housing provisions and was told that fifty percent is the highest bonus a developer can achieve. The fifty percent is obtainable using the provisions for half-mile from a school, landscaping, sidewalks and several other things. Mr. Fisher remarked that using these pro~ ~iaio~s is resulting in some very populous areas. Mr. Cogan said the Commission is really. plowing new ground when it comes to these regulations, since very few areas in the state even allow bonus provisions. He said the County is trying to centralize growth and protect rural areas, but it is having to learn as it goes about the pitfalls of the bonus density provisions. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the problem could be cured by just revising the ordinance or if the County will need to look at each area and decide what is an intolerable density for that area. Mr. Cogan asked if he was questioning whether densities are sufficient as presently shown, and Mr. Lindstrom said no, he really wants to know. if the densities are designed so that the maxi- mum carrying capacity of the land is correct. Mr.. Tucker said Arbor Crest has the highest densit~y in the County in terms of the new zoning ordinance, but Solomon Court and West Gate . Apartments have close to thirty units per acre under old zoning provisions. Mr. Lindstrom said the Commissionmseemed ~o be saying that just curing the bonus problems will not solve all the problem. The Commission cannot deny a bonus just because the density in th~area where it has been proposed would be too high.~ The Commission will have to deal with the ultimate density in some areas. Mr. Tucker'said that had been discussed when the zoning ordinance was revised, and the Board felt it did not want the bonus provisions to be a. dis~. ¢~ehiona~ thing. Both 'the'Board and 'the developers. felt that the provisions should be such. that yOu either got them or you did not. No one wanted to have to haggle over the allocation ~f bonuses. The ide~]~ ultimately, was to clarify the terms so that "significant landscaping" for instance, would have a specific meaning. Mr. Tucker said the current criteria for "signifi- cant'' is anything over and above what is required on a site plan. Mr. Cogan said rewriting the bonus provisions may not cure"the overall problem, but it 'Wii'l be difficult to give bOnus density provisions to one developer and not to another just because the latter is in a different area. Mr. Bowie said things need_to be clarified because developers got bonus points fOr'being within a half-mile of any school, even city schools that the children in the development cannot attend, or the Vocational Education Center, which buses its students from other schools November 7, I984 (Afternoon Meeting - Adjourned) 511 Mr. Fisher said it seemed to him that some definition of "schools"~ld be better. Mr. Cogan said the Planning Commission wants to follow the intent of the oriEinal provisions. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Commission is looking at the overall density i~ the Hydraulic Road/Rio Road area~as a separate thing from its study on the bonus provisions. Mr. Cogan said that has not been considered. Mr. Tucker said it hashbeen addressed separately and that Mrs. Cooke's concern about development in the Rio Road/U.S. 29 North area has been addressed, but the Commission wiil wait and review the Comprehensive Plan. Agenda Item No. ~, Report on Planning Commission Streamlining. Mr. Cogan said he would not go into much detail on this subject because it is fairly technical. He said the Planning staff will be experimenting with two submittal deadlines per month. The Commission has discussed this with the staff to see if the two dates will be burdensome. The intent is to help the progess~of applications and make certain that the Staff gets real plans and not "phantom"~plans for the agenda. The phantom plans, he said, are those developed without any real substance, .just to get the planner a space on the agenda. Mr. Tucker e~D!ained that the change will take effect~in December and will prevent the submission of immature plans, the staff hop~s, by offering a later date for developers' submissions that will still allow a hearing in the next available month. Mr. Tucker said that often the developers were so eager to have their plans approved quickly, they would submit a rough draft, which the engineering and planning staffs would have to review, and then constantly update it until the time of the hearing. This Frequently requires several reviews. By allowing two submission dates, the more imoomplete plans can be submitted later and the slot on the ag~da for the item will still be available. Currently the Commission reviews rezonings and special permits on the first two Tuesdays of each~month. On the third and fourth Tuesdays, it reviews site plans and special permits. Under the new provisions, it will review rezonings and special permits on the first two Tues- days and site plans and subdivisions on the second two. Mr. Fisher asked if this will alter the Board's schedule and was told that will not change. Mr. Skove said h~ understands that the two deadlines could result in the plans having fewer conditions attached because the plans should be more complete. Mr. Tucker said that is th~midea the Commission is working toward: placing the burden for a more complete plan on the applicant and reducing the amount of staff review and ommitted items that then have to be covered in conditions of approval. The technical staff has adopted a policy whereby, if it gets a phantom plan, it will defer that plan to the next meeting. Mr. Skove asked if it is possible to stop the submission of imcomplete plans. Mr. Tucker said it can be discouraged. The staff has gotten some plans that lack the standard items necessary for review. Some re~ mendations from the staff, heasaid, include some limited Staff approval on site plans and sub- divisions. He said the system was~designed to be similar to that used for mobile homes so that the staff could approVe an application if it received no objections. This recommendation was denied. Another recommendation was increaseing the number of exemptions from Commission review by spelling out in the ~rdinance how they would be handled. Another would be the reduction in the number of uses not allowed by special permit. One way to do this would be to look at the special use permits that have been approved in the past and adopt some sort of standard for permits. The Staff has also recommended several zoning and subdivision amendments; defining the minimum landscaping requirements; defining minimum recreational requirements.; minimum paving specifications for parking; permitting uses with driv~n windows by special use permit; the twice-mOnthly submittal schedule; revising the site review committees' administrative proce- dures; and placing some items on ~a consent agenda for the Commission. Mr. Fisher said the Commission members need to be cautioned that they should read the Consent Agenda carefully. P~lanning Commission Member Mrs. Norma Diehl arrived at the meeting at 4:24 p.m. Mr. Cogan said he had entertained the idea of lett~ing the staff do more of the business, but he said the Commission is very conscious of not "shortchanging" the public. Therefore, study of staff approval of many items has been put on the "back burner" and the Commission try to work with the two submission deadlines, to save time. In addition, he said the Commis-' sion will try to have an ongoing review of the items that come before it, to try and weed out the types of things it really does not need to review. ' ' Mr. Way said he has been concerned with the amount of time Planning Commission members put into their job, because the Board has had a hard time finding people to serve on it. Mr. Cogan said the Commission wan~s to use its time to better benefit the public. To do that, he said the Commission will have to establish some priorities. Agenda Item No. 5. Proposal for a Study Committee to Review All County Land Use Regu- lations and Permitting Procedures. Mr. Fisher said this item came from a request by Mr. Lindstrom in the form of a letter to Mr. Tucker, to wit: Y November 7, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting - Adjourned) "29 October 1984 Mr. Robert Tucker ~ Deputy County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Bob: Since prior to 1982, I have been concerned that the County's land use regulations need to be simplified and better coordinated. The Planning Commission in the past year has addressed ths issue and the matter has been a topic for joint discussion between the Board and Commission in the past. In spite of the efforts of the Commission, I am not satisfied that the problem has been thoroughly addressed. In fact it may be some evidence of the existence of the problem that the Commission has had time to deal with only a small part of our land use regulations in its attempt to streamline procedures. Although I am not convinced that the complaints of local developers regarding the 'maze' of local regulations is entirely well-founded--I suspect that work on our regulations may be in order. To my knowledge, no general review of all of our ordinances regarding la.nd use has been conducted. As you know, during the past tan years, the number of regulations has increased substantially with significant p~pulation growth amd am omcreased ~ublic awareness of the consequences of this growth for the environment. It may be time to consider whether the legislative work of recent years ought to be better organized. My concern is that the County achieve what I believe are the important objectives of its land-use laws with the minimum of red tape. Accordingly, I ask that you join me in supporting the creation of a committee of local citizens, including members of the Planning Commission and supported by our staff as follows: The Committee would consist of seven members as follows: a. Two members of the Planning Commission to be selected by the Chairman of the Commission. b. Two members to be selected by the Board of Supervisors whose occupations would bring them into frequent contact with the County land-use regulations, including, but not limited to: lawyers, architects, surveyors, land planners, builders and realtors. c. Two members to be selected by the Board of Supervisors who are ac~tlvely i~volved in 'public interest' groups concerned with conservation and public participation in the governmental process, including, but not limited to: Piedmont Environmental Council, Citizens for Albemarle and the League of WOmen Voters· The Chairman, as a seventh member, to be selected by majority vote of the Committee as constituted above· The Chairman would only vote in the event of a tie vote of the Committee. de The objectives of the committee would be: a. Maintain and advance the purposes of County laws both as expressly stated in such laws and as implicit in such laws. b. Review all County land-use regulations. c. Review of County permitting Procedures, including the procedures of (insofar as directly related to local permitting) and co-ordination with: 1. Albemarle Service Authority 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation 3. Jefferson-Madison Regional Health Department 4. Rivanna Water and Sewer-Authority 5. Other independent agencies the committee finds to be normal participants in the County permitting process· d. Review of hearing procedures before all local boards and agencies, including but not limited to the development and recommendations of conditions to special permits, site plans, and subdivision plats. e. Based upon the foregoing reviews determining how new County laws and procedures might best be integrated into the system of laws and procedures as existing or as recommended for change. Review of 'in-take' procedures for all applicants to the County for building permits, rezonings, special permits, subdivision plat apProvals, site plan approvals, comprehensive plan amendments, amendments to Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional areas, etc. Based upon the foregoing reviews determine what changes, if any, would facilitate the interaction of citizens and local government in the review and approval of permits and/or applications for building permits, rezonings, special permits, subdivision plat approvals, site plan approvals, comprehensive plan amendments, and amendments to ACSA jurisdictional (project) areas, etc. Consider the procedures of other local governments to determine whether superior measures to accomplish the goals set forth herein may be'found there. The committee should consider whether its objectives can be met solely with the assistance of the existing County staff or if an outside consultant should be employed. In the latter case, the committee would bej~me~pn~22~effo~ the following: November 7~ 1984 (Afternoon Meeting - Adjourned) 51_3 l~za Developing a detailed and concise Request for Proposal (RFP) to be approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning CommiSsion outlining the scopeaoF study and the specific goals to be addressed by the consultant. 2. Selecting a consultant and overseeing his/her progress. The ~ommittee shouldJhave available todit such staff assistance and/or fun~ing as determined reasonably necessary by the Board of Supervisors. An inital commitment of funds by the Board, upon recommendation by the County Executive,~may be desirable to insure the pregress of the Study. In suggesting the foregoing I definately do not intend to criticize the efforts or ability of .the Planning Commission, but merely recognize, in part, the Commission's overloaded schedule. I also believe that a review of our laws and procedures by persons not directly responsible for their formulation or administration may be healthy. I hope that you will give this suggestion your consideration. I also encourage your ideas and recommendations for change, etc. I plan to ask Estelle to put this on our agenda for Wednesday, November 7, 1984, meeting with the Planning Commission. Sincerely, ( S IaNEO ) C. Timothy Lindstrom Copies to: Board of Supervisors Planning Commission Members Robert W. Tucker, Deputy County Executive" Mr. Lindstrom said he was certain that the Board and Commission have heard that p often exceed what the situation calls for. The intent of his suggestion, he said, is to gain an overall perspective on the County's regulations and procedures to make certain that they effective. In making them effective, he said the proposed committee must be very careful not to change the intent of the laws but only make those laws more simple to administer and to comply with. As an example, Mr. Lindstrom suggested organizing all the County's land-use regulations into one land-use code. Another would be developing a "fast-track" for relatively minor applications, such as those required by backyard builders whose structures will affect one but themselves but who must go through-the same steps as a major developer. He said the proposed Committee must keep in mind that its primary purpose is to maintain and advance county laws while looking at ways to make the ordinances less burdensome to comply with and administer. He said the key in this, if there is a consensus, is a carefully committee with considerable staff support and perhaps a consultant. The committee members be willing to put up with the struggle of compromise. He said he recognizes this as a very b task and the people who are selected must be willing to work within the limitations of existin material. The work may be divided into sections, but it is important that the overall picture not be lost. The County needs an overview of how the regulations and procedures for all as of' the permitting process are inter-related. Mr. Skove said it might be worthwhile at this stage to look at procedures -- not the what but the how -- to learn what has evolved in the County. He said he'suspects that many things were devised to meet a specific need. The County needs to look at how things fit together and how planning is done for the land's use. Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development, arrived at the meetin~ at 4:35 p.m. Mr. Bowie said he supported the concept in Mr. Lindstrom's letter, even though it has a tremendously broad spectrum and involves a large charter to give to any group. Mr. Bowie said he built a small shed for his lawnmower, and it took three trips to the County Office Building and five inspections. Some of the .things they were inspecting, he said', were none of the County's business, and while he did not intend to criticise the Inspections Department, the County's regulations call for that. He said the County should have some provision for a citi- zen with a minor project, and insofar as the committee might bring this about, he supports it even though he has some minor problems with the concept. He said that some counties have already done this and that perhaps Albemarle County should not "re-invent the wheel," but should go to other counties to see what they have done to streamline their procedures. He the effort will have to be one of coordinating various bits of information and services, but the idea itself is long overdue. He feels there has been an increase in noncompliance with ordinances since the regulations have become so complicated. Mrs. Diehl said she has a feeling that some of the work has already been covered in some directives from the Planning Commission to the staff. There may be some overlap with this study in those directives that are going on now. Mr. Linstrom said the effort needs to be an across-the-board effort rather than scattered about, and that is not a criticism that the Planning Commission has not been able to do this in the past. Mr. Cogan summarized the letter, saying he wanted to be certain he understood the proposed proceedings. He restated the purpose of the committee saying it is to "determine if the County is getting its fair share of .its entitlement in a reasonable fashion." He said he hoped that the C6unty has not gotten to the point where one group is getting everything and the next gets nothing. He said he did not want the system to get so cumbersome that people say "I'm going to go outside the law because it is too burdensome to stay inside the law." He said the Board and Commission should outline specific problem areas and why these problems exist. This would narrow the scope of the committee's work and produce faster results. He said the letter's outline seems so broad that little progress could be realized quickly. 514 November 7, 1983 (Afternoon MeetinG~- Adjourned) Mr. Michel agreed, saying that the problems should be defined first, and added that given the existing work load of the staff, he would welcome an outside consultant, once the committee has met. Mr. Fisher said he also had attempted a summary, and felt that the problem should be approached from the standpoint of a citizen walking in the door for a permit of some type. He said a lot of the streamlining procedures which have. been put into effect have more to do with the staff's time and effort than with that of the citizens. He said the Board has felt that the small builder is at a disadvantage because he lacks experience and does not know procedures Mr. Tucker presented a report on staffing needs and costs in implementing County pro~ cedures and making the study. The report said most of the needs could be handled with present staff, reporting by November of 1985. He said the cost estimates are pessimistic, and yet he feels that the overall amount can be kept down unless the Board and Commission want to pay the committee members. He feels the staff can do a good deal of the work without the hiring of a consultant. He said a committee of the whole or a subcommittee should consider visiting some other localities to see what they have done to solve the same problems. He said a consultant would be a major cost, perhaps $10,000 or less. The timing for the committee's activities, he said, is that the committee could be chosen this month and a chair- man elected if the committee so chose. In December and January the Committee would review the information, data and regulations submitted by the staff. Then the Committee would develop the criteria and an RFP, if it decides to hire a consultant. The RFP could be transmitted to the consultant in February if the committee so chose. If not, the staff could begin further study. Sometime between March and August, the committee would receive the completed study and transmit the same to the Board and Commission after making any changes it felt necessary and also make recommendations. The final study with recommendations should be reviewed by the governing body somewhere between September and November. Mr. Tucker said he envisioned the study as being a comprehensive study of all development permits, a clearinghouse and central location for necessary information. He said that now County citizens get very frustrated because they are sent to several different departments ~i~hin the building to obtain needed information. ,- Mr. Lindstrom said his wording "review all county land-use regulations" might be inter- ~eted to be three years of work, but what he had in mind was that the study should encompass all land-use regulations and that the study should define the channels by which the average citizen can do what he wants to do with his property. He said ,the committee could-not restruc- ture the entire law, even though it could recommend that parts of the ordinance be reviewed. A central location for applying for permits might be one solution, and so would coordination between various county departments. Most problems come about when a request for. a use not set out in the ordinance falls through the cracks of the present law. For this reason, he said the study should deal with the whole picture. Mrs. Diehl asked if the Planning Department did not develop some flow charts several years ago outlining procedures for obtaining various permits. Mr. Tucker said that had happened, and the staff is currently looking at brochures as a_way to help citizens obtain correct infor- mation, but all information cannot be contained in one brochure. Also, some of the flow charts g~ £~irly complicated. Mr. Bowie said he thought the project should go forward, but the Planning Commission needs some time to look at the proposal. He said he does not understand why there are six appointed men, ers instead of seven and why the chairman does not vote, but still thinks the proje.ct shoUld begin soon. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not set on the details, but wants ~the committee to refine the outline and move forward with a consensus that the study is worth doing. He said these sorts of projects tend to lose their momentum. Mr. Bowie asked for a definite goal toward redefining the effort. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the staff do the redefining. The idea is clear; the outline serves only to provide the basis of a charge to the committee and he has no objections to its refinement. He asked that a report come back to the Board sometime the first oDDecem- ber. Mr. Co.gan said the' Planning Commission needs a chance to review and absorb the proposal. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Lindstrom that he appreciated the effort and that-the issue is one that should not be dropped.' ....... Agenda Item No. 5. Report from Mr. Tucker on staffing requirements, time and costs. Mr. Tucker presented a report on what the planning staff has done over the. past few months. Mr. Fisher remarked that the work load seemed fairly large. Mr. Tucker said the report also includes various personnel and their duties.. He .said the problem of adding .additional staff is that they have to be trained, with the associated loss off.productivity. He said the planning staff has three full-time and one part-time planner. The part,time person is new. One planning slot is vacant, and the County is keeping it because it expects a higher workload and an in-house person may~be required to review the Comprehensive Plan'. Mr.~ Cogan said he has a perception that the planning staff is under a .lot of pressure although it has not been manifested in their work. ' Mr. Tucker said if the Commission decides that the staff can do the long-range study, it aseds to be placed into its schedule. The addition of Board and Commission staff studies adds to the workload unexpectedly and other things have to be put off. Mr. Bowie remarked that there is a limit to what three people can do. Mr. Cogan said the County needs to be concerned about the effort and use of time and personnel in the most effective ways possible. Mr. Tucker said that long-range planning is handled in the Community Development Division and a lot of p-~O~ects, then, come under the Community Development category. Therefore, he said, the Com- nission cannot equate numbers with workload. November 7~ 1984 (Afternoon Meetin~ - Adjourned) Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion of Piedmont Corridor. Mr. Cogan told the Board that he had a couple of concerns about the proposed Piedmont Corridor. He had gotten a copy of the Board's letter to Highway Commissioner, Harold King, an~ said he felt that Mr. King will listen to the Board's and Commission's appeals, but he did not know what the Highway Department has said on the matter. He felt the Board's opinion on where the highway should not go will be considered, but in the meantime, if persons living in the path of the highway wish to sell their homes, they are unable to do so because of the proposal Mr. Lindstrom said he had a telephone conversation with Mrs. Connie Kincheloe, Highway Commissioner for this district, and she basically reiterated what Commissioner King had said the paper, and that the state is planning to defer the corridor -- put it on a back burner - and Mr. Linstrom said he told Mrs. Kincheloe that that is not good enough. He said' he gave he~ an example of a client in his office who can document a real estate contract that was rejected solely on the basis of that proposed road. As long as the road is a possibility, that sort of thing will happen. He said he understood that there may be an opportunity for a delegation from the County to meet with Commissioner King and Mrs. Kincheloe later this month. The alternative is to send a delegation to Richmond. He said the study of express lanes for Route 29 North might be available in the spring, and Mr. Lindstrom said he told Mrs. Kincheloe that he did no~ feel the sbudy would make Albemarle happy. He said he felt the commissioner's office is willing to be responsive, but it is not likely that Mr. King is going to say in the next day or so that the road will not go though and the County can forget about it. Mr. Lind- strom said he just hopes that the meeting'he has described will occur soon. Mr. Lindstrom said the Metropolitan Planning Organization has requested a Highway ment Study of an eastern bypass. He said he was not certain that the highway department has been made fully aware of how the project might be carried out or funded and that the MPO has asked to have a regional engineer present at its next meeting to review these things. Mr. Lindstrom said the County needs to make clear that the proposed Piedmont Corridor is very expensive and may not relieve that much congestion on U.S. Route 29 'North. 'He said the Highway Department might build the expensive road and then have to spend a lot of extra money on Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher said that in one sense this proposed highway would be competing for funds with Route 29 North, particularly if no more interstate funds are available and the work must be done with State funds. If the State money is used, he said the Board will prob- ably have a greater say in what is done. Mr. Fisher said the uncertainty is still a problem. He said he could cite instances where people have had difficulty with real estate transactions or found them impossible. He said the Board had asked for copies of letters sen~ to Commis- sioner King by citizens and so far has received fifty or so. Some other citizens have been gathering petitions at the polls during elections. Mr.' Lindstrom said he had met with a group of about 150 people from the Earlysville area and he feels that a grassroots organization is building up to oppose the Piedmont Corridor. Mr. Fisher said he feels Commissioner King and his staff want to cool down the controvers~ over the highway location without taking a definitive stand on whether or not the road will be constructed. Mr. Cogan said the worst answer in the world in this case is "maybe" Mr. Fishe~ said the County does not need to have this highway "hanging over its head for the next ten years". Mr. Bowie said he had talked with Commissioner King and two planners at the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation office in Richmond. All of them denied knowledge of the route of the proposed highway. He said the planners, consultants and others denied that they knew it was going through the watershed and Advance Mills. Mr. Bowie said he did not knov who took all the aerial photographs, but the Highway Department~a~o knowledge of them. Mr. Lindstrom said the thing he found appalling was that at the first meeting of the MPO where the Piedmont Corridor was discussed, the highway department representative there assured his audience that the County would have no trouble with the route because it was not in the water- shed. When Mr. Lindstrom asked the representative where he thought the watershed was, he said "well, it's in here close to town", where the westernby-pass was first proposed. When the representative was shown the location of the watershed on a map, he acted surprised but not overly concerned. Mr. Lindstrom said that Mrs. Kincheloe's comment to him soon afterward was exactly what Mr. Fisher had indicated, that the first priority was to calm people's concerns. Mr. Lindstrom said he told her that he did not think any Albemarle resident would be mollified by putting the proposal on a back burner because the matter is public and any time anyone trie~ to transact a real estate deal, they will have to confront the prospect of this highway. Mr. Lindstrom said that Deputy County Attorney James Bowling had suggested that the route had been drawn back in the sixties and sort of pulled off the shelf recently. In the meantime, all the work on preserving the watershed has begun. Mr. Cogan said he did not think the highway department knows what the County is doing and the County has no idea of what is going on there. Mr. Lindstrom said the County has asked twice for a formal report on the status of the proposed highway and gotten no response; Mr. Tucker said those letters went to Richard Lockwood, and one of the letters produced copies of the aerial photographs. Mr. Cogan said tha~ Deputy County Attorney Fred Payne read the pertinent statute to the Planning Commission: because the state is building the highway, the statute submits more to the Planning Commission for review than to the Board of Supervisors. This, he said, is very different from what the Planning Commission is accustomed to and he wondered if the Board woul~ object to a letter from the Commission to the highway commissioner setting forth the statutes, showing its entitlement to a response. The Board agreed to this. N~vember~ ~ 198~ ~Afternoon Meeting - Adjourned)_ Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher told the Planning Commission that copies of its minutes have been extremely' helpful to the Board. Mr. Cogan said that he, too, has been pleased since the hiring of a recording secretary for the Commission. Mr. Cogan said he had one item for t~e Commission and Board's attention. The Highway Department has notified the Planning Commission that it will no longer maintain the majority of sidewalks in the County. In addition, it will not allow any new sidewalks to be placed on its right of way. This throws a monkey wrench into the County's sidewalk program because now the only way sidewalks can be put in is outside the right-of-way, where grading is very crucial in some areas. In some cases it may require the removal of a prohibitive amount of dirt. He said the Planning Commission is looking into the situation to see what can be done. Mr. Fisher asked if the mo~ey that would be going into the maintenance of the sidewalks will ~e~put into road maintenahce~ Mr~ Cogan said the Highway Department did not explain where the money would go. He said the action followed a pattern t~e Highway Department has entered~ because it is no longer immune from litigation and wishes to remove as much of the respon- sibility for potential hazards as it can to avoid lawsuits. Another example of the pattern is that the Department has asked that it not be mentioned ~in any of the Planning Commission's conditions of approval. Sinc~the County cannot be sued if-someone breaks a leg on a sidewalk, the sidewalks are being thrown into the County's lap. He said the Highway Department may also want to save some money. The arguement is that the Highway Department is only for the trans- p~ a~e~icles. - Mr. Lindstrom told the Board that because of the recent publicity on the problem of fuel oil in the water at Stone Robinson School, he had spoken to School Board Member Charles Tolbert He said he had heard indirectly that the staff at the school had sent samples of the water to the local health department over a period of years. Each time, the health department said the water was fine. Finally t~e~state health department hears of the prob'lem and says the water is undrinkable. He'said he felt it would be apprbpriate for the Board chairman to address a letter to Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the Health Department, and find out what happened. He said the letter should be' on behalf of both the Planning. Commission and the Board of Super- visors a-nd should ask why ~the local staff approved the water and the state staff did not. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to that effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, .Henley, Lindsstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 7. Executive Session. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board and Planning Commission schedule a follow-up meeting in February, on the 6th, at 3:30 p.m. He then asked for a motiOn to go into executive session for discussion of the acquisition and/or sale of property and also for personnel matters. Mr. Bowie made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and way. NA~: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 8. immediately adjourned. Adjournment. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 p.m. and