Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-20April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Aibemarle County Board of Supervisors, was held on April 20, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr., Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Henley. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-82-16. Yancey, Anna M. and Eloise A., Trustees Et. ~1. (deferred from January 19, 1983). Mr. Tucker noted receipt of the following letter dated April 6, 1983, from Mr. F. Andrew Heatwole, agent for Eloise A. Yancey, and Trustee for Robert E. Yancey: "This correspondence is to formally withdraw the request for rezoning on the above referenced parcel which is scheduled to be heard April 20th. Please notify me if it is necessary to have a representative attend the meeting." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission's action of January 4, 1983, had unanimously recommended denial of this request. Mr. Henley asked if there was anyone from the public to speak. No one spoke either for or against this request and Mr. Henley declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the applicant's request for withdrawal without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-82-15. J. G. Dawson. Request to rezone 8.28 acres from Village Residential to Highway Commercial. Property on west side of Route 20 South near its intersection with Route 6. Tax Map 130A(1), Parcel 47, Scottsville District. (Ad- vertised in the Daily Progress on April 6 and April 13, 1983). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 5, 1983, voted to accept a request for indefinite deferral received from the attorney for the applicant, Mr. George F. Allen. Mr. Tucker said an indefinite deferral will require readvertisement by the Clerk prior to public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any time limit on an indefinite deferral. Mr. St. John' advised that the Board of Supervisors has one year to act on this petition. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer this petition for six months (October 19, 1983). Mr. Henley asked if anyone from the public was present who wished to speak on this matter. There was no one present from the public wishing to speak either for or against this zoning map amendment request. Roll was then called and the motion to defer carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-83-5. David Lee or Mary Jean Spradlin (deferred from March 16, 1983). Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: Request: Permanent Office Trailer (10.2.2.37) Acreage: 5.514 Acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as County Tax Map 104, Parcel 14Fl, located on the north side of Route 620 about three quarters of a mile north of the Route 620/728 intersection. Note: This application was taken under Section 10.2.2.37 "Public Garage", since amendment of a previously approved special use permit is required. However, Staff is unable to find any provision in the Zoning Ordinance which authorizes use of a mobile office trailer as a permanent structure. Historically, office trailers have been permitted primarily as accessory to temporary construction uses. On a few occasions, office trailers were permitted as temporary quarters for branch banks, subject to time limitations. Background: The building on this property was constructed in 1977 for private use as a barn. No other buildings are on the property. Later in 1977, the applicant obtained approval of SP-77-83 to use the building as a public garage, subject to the following conditions: April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. Only one sign located in view of Route 620; Site plan approval; Building inspections approval as a commercial use; No automobile sales; Approval is not for automobile graveyard as defined in Section 16-8 of the Zoning Ordinance; Notification to the Fire Inspector if spray painting is contemplated; Existing wooded areas to remain in a natural state; Approval of other appropriate state and local agencies; Total building area limited to 2,500 square feet. While the applicant is currently seeking relief from Condition Nine, violation of Condition Seven has also occurred. On August 1, 1978, prior to site plan approval, the site was inspected for compliance with the conditions of the special use permit and the following were not in conformity: Selective thinning and limbing of wooded area which was to be left in a natural state; An additional entrance was being used adjacent to the planned entrance; Work was being performed in the garage. Subsequently, in the site plan report, Staff stated that "since the infrac- tions of SP-77-83, Staff has discussed with the applicant how alternative measures can be applied to insure that County requirements be met and also allow the applicant a viable working space". The Planning Commission approved the site plan on August 22, 1978, subject to seven conditions, one of which required that all vehicles shall be confined to the parking area. Violation of this condition has occurred. In June, 1982, complaint was received by the Inspections Department that the applicant was operating a junk yard in violation of the specific prohibitions of SP-77-83 (Condition Five). An inspector noted about 200 junk cars on the site, as well as the office trailer, for which approval is currently being sought. After the applicant failed to meet three deadlines for compliance, the Inspections Department referred the matter to the Board of Supervisors in November of 1982 for possible revocation for willful noncompliance in accordance with Section 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. After being placed on the Board's agenda on four occasions, the matter was dismissed on February 16, 1983, since most junk cars had been removed. (A substantial number of doors, hoods, tires and wheels remained on the site, to be removed as weather permits.) Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting the office trailer in order to obtain a salvage license from the Division of Motor Vehicles. It is Staff's understanding from the applicant that a salvage license is required in order to install used parts when profit is made on the part itself. While Staff opinion is that the definition of "public garage" does not guarantee any subsequent approval of a salvage license, it should be noted that such licensing is not uncommon to small garage operations, since used part installation allows the smaller operator to remain competitive. Approval of this petition and issuance of a salvage license by the Division of Motor Vehicles would not authorize operation of a junk yard. Junk yards are permitted only by special use permit in the HI Heavy Industrial District. As can be seen from the preceding history, the County has spent a substantial amount of time and public money attempting to insure compliance with the previously approved special use permit and site plan. Therefore, should the Commission and Board choose to look favorably on this current request, Staff would recommend additional changes to the original special permit conditions. As was the case with the site plan in 1978, these new conditions would be intended to insure compliance with County regulations as well as to provide the applicant a viable working space. Additionally, new condi- tions reflect current zoning requirements (Section 4.13.2) that "no inoper- able vehicle shall be so located on any agricultural or residential district so as to be visible from a public road or adjoining property. Not more than two such vehicles shall be located on any such lot regardless of location." Since the applicant has already located the trailer on the site, special deadlines for compliance are warranted. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. 0nly one sign located in view of Route 620; Building Inspections approval including appropriate building permits for location of office trailer; 3. No automobile sales; Approval is not for a junk yard. Not more than two inoperable vehicles shall be located on the property at any time. Junk yard shall mean "any land or building used for the abandonment, storage, keeping, collecting or bailing of paper, rags, scrap metal, other scrap or discarded materials, or for the abandonment, demolition, dismantling, storage or salvaging of inoperable vehicles, machinery or parts thereof". "Inoperable vehicle" shall mean "a motor vehicle, trailer, or attachment thereto, which is required by the State of Virginia to display current license plates and/or meet safety standards as evidenced by display of an approved inspection sticker, which vehicle, trailer, or attachment thereto does not display said license plates and/or approved inspection sticker". April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 5. Fire Official approval of spray painting, if contemplated; 6. Existing wooded areas to remain in a natural state; 7. Development limited to existing building and office trailer; Opaque fencing, not less than eight (8) feet in height, shall be constructed so as to fully enclose the office trailer and the 90' x 80' parking area as shown on the approved site plan, and such fence shall abut the rear corners Of the garage building. Opening in the fence to provide access shall not be greater than twenty (20) feet. Such opening shall be provided with opaque fencing gates which shall be closed except during hours of operation; Ail vehicles including tow trucks, employee vehicles; clientele vehicles, inoperable vehicles, and parts thereof shall be located within the fenced area. Location of any such vehicles or parts thereof outside the fenced area shall not be permitted; 10. Conditions Two, Four, Eight and Nine shall be met within sixty (60) days of approval of this special use permit or this special use permit shall be referred to the Board of Supervisors for further disposition. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 5, 1983, voted to recommend approval of this special use permit with the ten conditions recommended by the Staff, but changing condition number seven to read: "DevelOpment limited to existing building and office trailer; provided, however, that office trailer shall be removed two (2) years from the date of approval of this special use permit by the Board of Supervisors; and provided further that upon removal of said office trailer, the existing building may be expanded to include equivalent space of said office trailer;" Mr. Tucker then noted that he recently viewed this site a~.~y~ec~d additional information which leads him to recommend that condition~numbe~~_~ ~evised. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Spradlin has recently acquired an additional two-ac~e parcel of land adjoining the five-acre parcel noted in this special permit application. Mr. Tucker said any area where inoperable vehicles are located are not allowed to be visible from any State road or property· Mr. Tucker said in viewing the site, property layout is such that inoperable vehicles would not be visible from the State road or any other areas except from an adjoining three-acre parcel· Mr. Tucker said he would recommend the following substitution for condition eight and amendment to condition nine: Five to six foot (5' to 6') white pine trees shall be planted on fifteen foot (15') centers along the west side of the entrance to the parking area. Ail vehicles including tow trucks, employee vehicles, clientele vehicles, inoperable vehicles, and parts thereof, shall be located within the de- signated graveled drive and parking area as indicated on site plan dated October 3, 1978. Location of any such vehicles or parts thereof outside the designated parking areas shall not be permitted. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Sprad!in thoroughly understands the conditions which have been recommended. Mr. Tucker said if approved, this application will be monitored by the Inspections Department for a time, to insure compliance with the conditions. Mr. Tucker said he was confident that Mr. Spradlin understood the conditions and also how close he came to having his other special use permit revoked for noncompliance. Mr. Henley declared the public hearing opened. Mr. David Spradlin, Sr., was present but had no comments for the Board. There was no one else from the public who wished to speak either for or against this special permit request, and Mr. Henley declared'-the public hearing closed. Miss Nash asked if the neighbors of Mr. Spradlin had been notified of this hearing. Mr. Tucker said all adjoining property owners were notified of this hearing as well as the Planning Commission hearing. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, to approve special use permit 83-5 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but using the amended conditions eight and nineas stated by Mr. Tucker. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler. Mr. Lindstrom said he will vote in favor of this request, but hopes that Mr. Spradlin understands the conditions and the importance of complying with those conditions. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see this application followed closely by the Inspections Department to insure compliance. Mr. Henley said he also would hope that the Spradlin's abide by the conditions placed on this permit by the Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-83-7. Calvary Baptist Church. Request to locate church on five acres zoned Rural Areas. Property on Route 20 South, 1.3 miles south of intersection with Route 626. Tax Map 130, Parcel 25 (part of), Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 6 and April 13, 1983). Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report of April 5, 1983, as follows: April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Request: Church .Acreage: 5.0 Acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as County Tax Map 130, Parcel 25 (part), is located on Route 20 South, west of and adjacent to the Scottsville ele- mentary school. Character of the Area: With the exception of the Scottsville School, other properties in the area are large tracts, This gently rolling site has scattered cedar cover, and is located in the Totier Creek reservoir water- shed. Route 20 South is a deSignated scenic highway. Soils are primarily silt loams and silty clay loams with moderate to severe restrictions to development. (Similar soils are found on the Scottsville School site.) The Soil Conservation Service survey notes that one soil (Manassas silt loam) is subject to common flooding and that septic drainfields may cause pollution to groundwater due to excessive permeability. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a 3,600 square foot church with a 250-300 person seating capacity. (Currently the congregation is about 125 members.) Construction would consist of two 1,800 square foot phases. The building would involve sanctuary and classroom uses; no day care, nursery school or other activities are proposed. Staff has reviewed this special use permit request for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that with appro- priate conditions of approval a church in this location: a) would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property; would not be inconsistent with other uses in the area nor with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; c) would not be contrary to the public health, safety and welfare. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic drainfield locations prior to Commission review of site plan; 2) Any additional use of the building other than worship and Sunday school activities shall require septic system re-evaluation by the Virginia Department of Health. Mr. Tucker said that at the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 1983, approval of this special use permit was recommended with the two conditions as stated above, and with the request that the Watershed Management Official's memorandum of March 24, 1983, be specif- ically addressed at the time of site plan review. The Watershed Management Official's memorandum of March 24, 1983, reads as follows: "This property is located in the Totier Creek water supply reservoir watershed. A portion of the property drains directly into Totier Creek, while the remainder drains into Miller Creek, a major tributary to Totier Creek. The site plan received by the Planning Department on March 15, 1983, indicates that this site could accommodate this proposed use. Care should be taken however, to verify the adequacy of the soils for the septic system required for this use, as the soil survey indicates a variety of poorly drained soils on the site. A special effort should also be made by the applicant to see that the existing ground cover is improved during the development activities. Currently the site is mostly overgrown, unmanaged pasture with grasses and overgrown scrub cedars. Soil tests should be taken and the proper measures undertaken to insure the vitality of the areas that are shown to remain in vegetation. Precautions should be taken during construction on the site to minimize the runoff leaving the site, 'and its affect on the receiving streams." Mr. Henley declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Reverend Beryl G. McKisic. Mr. McKisic said as pastor of the church, he has seen the congregation grow from twenty to about 125 in just two years. Mr. McKisic said services are presently being conducted in the old Scottsville School, and due to problems with the school's heating system, he hopes to be in a new church facility by autumn of 1983. Next to speak was Mrs. Ward who said the establishment of this church community has helped her teenage son and many other teenagers find constructive activities and projects to do. She urged the Board to approve the special use permit as requested. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request and Mr. Henley declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve SP-83-7 with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, including special attention to the memorandum of March 24, 1983, from the Watershed Management Official. Miss Nash asked if the re-evaluation by the Virginia Department of Health would delay the church from completion of a structure by autumn. Mr. Tucker explained that a re- evaluation by the Health Department would only occur if additional uses are added to the site other than those shown on the site plan and should have no bearing on initial occupancy. April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 27. Miss Nash then seconded the motion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried by the AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 6. Proposals for Agricultural and Forestat Districts "Totier Creek and Hatton". The proposal for Totier Creek District would contain approximately 6,138 acres located about four miles northwest of Scottsville along Route 6 extending northward to the Keene area and southward to the Tapscott area. The proposal for Hatton District would contain approximately 2,914 acres located along Routes 726 and 627 in Warren, Hatton and Scottsville areas. The Agricuttural/Forestal Advisory Committee recommended deletion of about 30 acres of property known as "Donegal" from the proposed Hatton District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 6 and April 13, 1983.) Mr. Tucker reviewed the following reports and recommendations for the Board along with maps indicating the proposed districts: "March 3, 1983 Report of Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Regarding the Proposed Totier Creek and Hatton Agricultural and Forestal Districts Statement of Finding At its meeting of March 1, 1983, the Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed Totier Creek and Hat,on Agricultural and Forestal Districts and unanimously recommended that lands and activities proposed for inclusion in such districts, with the exception of a portion of one tract, substantially satisfy the factors for consideratipn as set forth in Section 15.1-1511(C) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and that such lands and activities should be considered as significant farm and forestal lands and activities, warranting protection and enhancement as a viable segment of the State's economy and as an economic and environmental resource of major importance. ~ Recommendation for Modification: Hatton District A grading permit application has been filed with the County Engineer proposing the removal of ~45,000 cubic yards of soil from a portion of the property known as "Donegal". The Advisory Committee unanimously recommended that such activity is inappropriate within an Agricultural and Forestat District and recommended that such portion of Donegal (bounded by two perennial streams, a farm Woad, and the C & 0 Railroad) not receive further consideration for designation as a part of the proposed Hatton A/F District at this time. The Advisory Committee, in recognition that this borrow activity would be a temporary use, recommended that the owner of Donegal give consideration at some future date to reapplication~ for A/F designation on this portion of the property. Review of any such reapplica- tion should consider adequacy of restoration and rehabilitation of the land for agricultural/forestal usage. Additional Comment In addition to the foregoing specific recommendations, the Advisory Com~nittee discussed at length other issues related to A/F Districts. The following statements attempt to summarize key points and opinions, whether individual or in common, of the discussion: The A/F District concept was viewed as an important approach to aid in the promotion and preservation of agricultural uses and activities in that it offers a degree of protection from intrusion of incompatible uses and from inappropriate regulation not provided in other approaches. Review of establi.shed A/F Districts by the local governing body every four to eight years is too frequent. Frequent review would result in an in- security as to the permanence and stability of such districts and could be a disincentive to long-range farm planning and capital investment. A minimum ten-year review period would be more appropriate. A/F districts in Albemarle County should not be reviewed more frequently than the maximum eight year period currently provided by State law. Potential disadvantages to inclusion in an A/F district should be empha- sized to participants. Participation should be on a long-term basis in order to maintain integrity of thee A/F concept and districts themselves. Disassociation should therefore be discouraged. This should be emphasized to property owners who may rely on fair market value of land as a future source of income. In establishing A/F districts, effort should be made to create a few large cohesive districts rather than many small "Swiss cheese" districts lacking practical cohesiveness and integrity. While other lands in the vicinity of the two proposed districts may be appropriate for inclusion, the Committee recommended only those lands voluntarily submitted. April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Should the governing body choose to impose special land use regulations at the time of district establishment, such regulations should provide pro- tection for agricultural pursuits. The burden of protective regulation should be placed on non-agricultural uses through such measures as special setback requirements, disclosure statements and the like. Effort should be made to monitor General Assembly activities related to A/F District legislation. Amendments which would weaken the act should be'- discouraged. In closing, the A/F Advisory Committee commends those property owners seeking A/F designation for their dedication and long-term commitment to the preser- vation and promotion of agriculture and forestry in Albemarle County. Special recognition is given to Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres for her contribution of time and effort as coordinator and representative of the property owners. Participation in the discussion and information provided by Messrs. Gordon Yager of the Soil Conservation Service and Mr. Gary Riviere of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service was extremely helpful to the Committee in its review. Note: During discussion, the Committee was made aware that use of broadleaf herbicide and systemic pesticide can severely affect vineyards remote from the point of application. This fact should be widely publicized. Farmers should consult the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service for further information and advice. "Staff Report -- March 8, 1983 Discussion of A/F Districts Act - Effect of Districts This report is intended to examine Code provisions of the A/F Districts Act which are directly related to zoning and subdivision matters. Staff with the assistance of the County Attorney's office has identified three provisions which we feel should be addressed prior to A/F 'designation. Section 15.i-i511(D) provides that "The governing body may require, as a condition for approval of the proposal, that any parcel in the proposed district shall not be developed to a more intensive use during the period which said parcel remains within the proposed district without prior approval of the governing body" This optional provision appears to be intended to control non-farm uses~ (i.e., rental units, commercial subdivision) as opposed to farm uses (i.e., farm manager's house, family division). Therefore, should this provision be imposed, it may be appropriate to clarify the term "more intensive use" in order to avoid confusion and delays to property owners and unnecessary Board reviews. Staff has reviewed uses permitted by right in the RA district for con- sistency with the intent of the A/F Districts Act. Uses which could conflict with agricultural uses include rental units, commercial'subdivi- sion and certain public uses and buildings. Staff opinion is that existing limitations on the intensity of development for rental units and subdivi- sion of land appear adequate'to reasonably protect agriculture in that regard. However, disclosure statements as discussed in Item three of this report may be appropriate. Public uses and buildings are required to be reviewed under Section 15.1-456 of the Code for compliance with the Com- prehensive ?lan and are also restricted to an extent by Section 15.1- 1512(~) of the A/F Districts Act. Both reviews provide opportunity for Board approval/disapproval. Recommendation: Staff recommends that existing provisions appear adequate to control non-farm uses; however, disclosure statements as discussed in Item three may be appropriate. Alternative: Require special use permit approval for subdivision, multiple dwelling units and public uses. Section 15.1-1512(B) states that "No local government shall exercise any of its powers to enact local laws or ordinances within an agricultural or forestal district in a manner which would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm structures or forestry and farming practices in contravention of the purposes of this chapter unless such restrictions or regulations bear a direct relationship to public health and safety; provided, however, that zoning and subdivision ordinances shall be applicable within said dis- tricts, to the extent that such ordinances are not in conflict with the purposes of this chapter". Since this provision is mandatory, the question becomes whether or not to attempt to tailor zoning and subdivision regulations to the A/F District at the outset. In regard to zoning, A/F districts would likely be established in the RA zone with possible scenic stream, scenic highway and flood hazard overlay zones. Staff would anticipate that some RA, scenic stream and scenic highway requirements would not be enforceable, while most flood hazard requirements, based more directly on public health and safety, would be enforceable. For example, the 150 foot building setback of the scenic highway zone is intended to "conserve elements of the County's scenic beauty" and does not "bear a direct relationship to public health and safety". April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Staff opinion is that the more appropriate approach to this issue is not through special zoning and subdivision measures, but through existing means of remedy. In zoning matters, the Board of Zoning Appeals would provide relief through the variance process. In subdivision matters, the Com- mission would provide relief through a finding that ordinance requirements were unenforceable and therefore inapplicable. Recommendations: Staff recommends that existing means of remedy (Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning Commission) are adequate to satisfy this Code requirement. Each request for relief should be judged on its own merits and weighed against concerns of public health and safety. Alternative #1: Authorize the Zoning Administrator and Director of Planning to administratively determine on a case-by-case basis the applicability of zoning and subdivision regulations. This would provide a time savings to the applicant and would not increase Board of Zoning Appeals and Planning Commission work loads. Alternative #2: Develop special zoning and subdivision provisions that address only public health and safety aspects of agriculture and forestry. 5 Section 15.1-1512(B) also states that "Land use planning decisions or ordinances enacted pursuant thereto affecting parcels of land adjacent to any district created pursuant to this chapter shall take into account the existence of such district and the purposes of this chapter". This mandatory provision is intended to protect the A/F district from encroachment of incompatible land uses through establishment of a fringe transitional buffer. This buffer area would vary in dimension based on the size and shape of adjoining parcels and therefore would be arbitrary. Staff opinion is that the RA zone would generally be adequate to serve as a transition buffer; however, some additional measures may be appropriate. As in the case of lands within an A/F district, Staff does not recommend limitations of "by-right" RA uses for lands adjacent to an A/F district; however, Staff feels certain protective measures should be considered. In Staff experience, a major problem has been encroachment of small-lot residential development in agricultural and forestal areas. Staff has received complaints, mostly from new residents, concerning such matters as location of farm buildings, pasturing of livestock, chain saw and logging operations, manure/fertilizer spreading and even the establishment of a private riding ring. Most complainers feel these activities should be restricted adjacent to their property. (A common misconception is that special restrictions apply to property adjacent to a "residential sub- division". That is to say, when a subdivision is approved, the area automatically becomes "zoned subdivision" resulting in special restrictions on surrounding lands.) This problem is experienced nationwide and unfor- tunately farmers have been subjected to nuisance suits and lost many court decisions. While this problem cannot be totally avoided, the following provisions may prove effective: (a) Notification to property owners adjacent to an A/F District that the County does not intend to and in fact is restricted from regulating agri- cultural/forestal activities except in regard to public health and safety; (NOTE: Mr. Tucker said that although the Planning Commission endorsed this recommendation, it was now his feeling that it would be far too costly to notify all adjoining property owners and that such notification might lead to confusion or m~sunderstandings aboUt the A/F District.) (b) Require a disclosure statement on new subdivision plats with infor- mation similar to item (a), thereby placing purchasers on notice of the existence and effects of an adjacent A/F District. (Disclosure statements are required for subdivisions in proximity to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport as a protective measure); (c) Shift the burden of protective regulation from agricultural and forestal uses to non-agricultural uses through such measures and special setback requirements, screening and the like (i.e., currently, no sawmill may be located closer than 60'0 feet to a dwelling; however, no similar setback is required for dwellings relative to a sawmill). Recommendation: Staff recommends that notification as outlined in Item (a) above be undertaken at this time. Items (b) and (c) could be addressed on a case-by-case basis as development occurs in the fringe area. Summary: Staff has recommended a conservative approach to these issues initially. Section 15.1-1511(d) needs to be specifically addressed at the time of district establishment (Item 1). Items 2 and 3 could be addressed at some future time should the approach recommended by Staff not prove adequate or effective. April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) "STAFF REPORT - April 5, 1983 Proposed Hatton and Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal Districts: compliance with Comprehensive Plan and other County policies. Review for This report is an evaluation of the proposed Hatton and Totier Creek A/F Districts in regard to the Comprehensive Plan, watershed management efforts and other matters of public policy and concern. Specifically, as suggested by the Code of Virginia, this report will include evaluation of "local developmental patterns and needs". Comprehensive Plan: Under Chapter 9, Goals and Objectives, the Comprehensive Plan contains the following policy statemenvs: NATURAL RESOURCES Goal 1. Objective 1. CONSERVE THE COUNTY'S NATURAL RESOURCES. Encourage the preservation of land in critical conservation areas through voluntary means such as Conservation Easements and Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Goal 2. Objective 2. CONSERVE AND PROMOTE USE OF IMPORTANT FARMLANDS AND FORESTAL AREAS FOR THEIR LOCAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT, SCENIC BEAUTY AND PLACE IN THE COUNTY'S HERITAGE. Continue to examine the County's policies which support agri- culture and forestry and where necessary, modify policies to encourage such support. While the proposed Hatton and Totier Creek A/F Districts are consistent with these goals and objectives, there is conflict between the Hatton District and the Land Use Plan for the Scottsville area. A portion of the Hatton A/F District is within the designated growth area for Scottsville and has subsequently been zoned VR Village Residential. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the proposed Hatton and Totier Creek A/F Districts are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; however, since a portion of the Hatton A/F District is in conflict with the Land Use Plan for the Scottsville area, Staff suggests two alternatives: Alternative #1: Delete from the Hatton District that portion of property known as "Vaimonv", which is designated as part of the growth area and zoned VR Village Residential; Alternative #2: Amend the Comprehensive Plan to delete all of "Valmont" from the designated growth area and amend the zoning map accordingly. Scenic Roads~ Scenic Streams and Historic Sites: Route 20 South and Route 6 are State- and County-designated scenic highways. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the James River for scenic designation. Christ Church (Glendower) and Plain Dealing are Virginia Historic Landmarks which are adjacent to the proposed Totier Creek A/F District. Staff opinion is that continued agricultural activity in these areas would not be inconsistent with the historic or scenic aesthetic concerns. Public Uses and Buildings; Public Utilities: Public uses and buildings adjacent or in proximity to the proposed A/F Districts include Yancey and Scottsville 2ZZ elementary schools, Keene Landfill and a Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation facility at Keene. Staff opinion is that A/F designation would not adversely affect these public uses. Public water is available to existing structures only for that portion of "Valmont" situated on Route 726 between the water treatment plant and a 250,000 gallon storage facility. That portion of Valmont within the Scottsville growth area is within an Albemarle County Service Authority service area for public water and sewer. A/F designation would limit the Service Authority's authority to impose benefit assessments, special tax levies, as well as require special reviews and possible prohibitions regarding provision of public water and sewer service. (See Section 15.1-1512(D) and (E) of the Code of Virginia.) Two electric transmission lines traverse the Totier Creek A/F District. Special planning and possible limitations on expansion could be reasonably anticipated to affect the northernmost line. Recommendation: If either Alternative 1 or 2 under "Comprehensive Plan" in this report is pursued, the Albemarle County Service Authority should not be appre- ciably affected. Corresponding amendment of the Service Authority's service areas would be appropriate, however, if the Scottsville growth area is modified. Watershed Management: The draft of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's 208 Watershed Management Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir (F.X. Browne Associates, Inc., May, 19U2) indicates that phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended solids loadings from active cropland are dramatically higher than contributions from developed land. Contributions from pastureland are lower than those from developed land loadings. To date, development has been controlled by ordinance and intensive County review, while no such requirements have been placed on agriculture and forestry. Farmers and foresters have been encouraged to imple- ment best management practices related to reservoir protection, most notably through the EPA's Clean Lakes Program and various agricultural agencies. The Clean Lakes Program is administered locally in the Mechum River basin by the Rivanna Water and Sewer 'Authority for farm/forestry programs intended to improve and protect water quality in water supply watersheds. This one million dollar program provides for direct governmental participation (financial and in-kind services) of up to 85 percent of property improvement costs related to pollution and erosion control. April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) The Code of Virginia contains two A/F District Acts, the original "Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act" under which the County is reviewing the Hatton and Totier Creek proposals, and the "Local Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act" which appears to be designed for urbanized localities. Generally, the "original" act provides certain protections from local government by specifically restricting or prohibiting the exercise of certain powers within a district. The "local" act appears to be designed toward protection by local government, since no restrictions or prohibitions are stated and since the locality is specifically granted greater authority. Staff favors the "original" act as being more appropriate to Albemarle County. However, there are two provisions in the "local" act which could prove of significance to the County in terms of water- shed management: 1) Among other things, the "statement of policy findings and purpose" of the original act contains a policy "to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces for clean air sheds, as well as for aesthetic pur- poses'' The local act contains a more comprehensive policy, '~to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and eco- logical resources which provide essential open spaces for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, aesthetic quality and other environ- mental purposes". The local act also provides that an established district be governed by "any other provisions to the mutual agreement of the landowner and the local governing body that further the purposes of this chapter". Inclusion in the "original" act of watershed protection as a policy and pro- vision of opportunity for mutual agreemenv between the County and landowners could forward agricultural/forestal and watershed management objectives and policies by: 1) providing an effective mechanism through mutual agreement for "Watersupply Watershed" and "Agricultural/Forestal Land Use" standards of the Compre- hensive Plan, as well as other watershed management efforts; improving the County's funding posture within the State for agricultural and watershed management programs, since State agencies are required by the act to modify regulations and procedures to satisfy the purposes of the act. Since the proposed Hatton and Totier Creek A/F Districts constitute 20 to 25 percent of the Totier Creek reservoir watershed, implementation of "best management practices, watershed management areas and similar practices" re- commended by the Comprehensive Plan would be of public benefit. At least one locality has required land management plans prepared by the Soil Conservation Service as a requisite of A/F designation. However, Staff has been unable to find provision in the "original" act which clearly authorizes such a requirement. Recommendation: Seek amendment to the original Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act to include "watershed protection" as a purpose of the A/F District Act and to permit mutual agreements between landowners and the governing body. Summary: Staff recommends that the proposed Hatton and Totier Creek A/F Districts are basically in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff opinion is that the portion of "Valmont" within the Scottsville growth area should be deleted from the Hatton A/F District or the Comprehensive Plan, zoning map and the Albemarle County Service Authority service area for Scottsville should also be amended. Public uses are not likely to be affected, however, public utilities may be limited to existing facilities should designation occur. Relating A/F Districts to watersupply protection may prove critical. Since A/F designation is a formal endorsement of these activities, and since the County's regulatory powers are subsequently restricted, it would seem that, at time of district establishment, assurances that such activities be conducted in the public interest and in order to protect public investment would be prudent and appropriate. Mr. Tucker then read the following memorandum stating the Planning Commission's actions of April 5, 1983: "At its meeting on March 8, 1983, and public hearing on April 5, 1983, the Planning Commission took the following actions regarding the proposed Hatton and Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal Districts: 1. On March 8, 1983, the Commission received and endorsed the "Report of Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Regarding the Proposed Totier Creek and Hatton Agricultural and Forestai Districts"; 2. On March 8, 1983, the Commission received and endorsed the Staff Report "Discussion of Agricultural/Forestal Districts Act - Effects of Districts". 3. On April 5, 1983, the Commission held public hearing as required by Section ~_ 15.1-1511 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, during which the Commission received an.d endorsed the Staff Report, "Proposed Hatton and Totier Creek Agri- cultural/Forestat Districts: Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and other County Policies". In particular, the Commission endorsed Alternative #1 of the report, that the portion of property known as Valmont", which is currently zoned VR Village Residential, be deleted from the proposed Hatton Agricultural/ Forestal District. The Commission also requested that the Board be particularly mindful of Staff's comments regarding "Watershed Management". April 20, 1983 (R~gular Night Meeting) Lastly, Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres] dated March 24, 1983, as follows: "I am responding to two issues mentioned in the Agriculture Advisory Committee's report. First, Mrs. Caroline Whiteside talked with F. Pierson Scott about the recommendation to delete part of his farm, "Donegal" because of the soil being removed from it. This land is now an uneven pasture and after the removal of the soil, Mr. Scott assures us that it will be a better pasture with a more consistent grade. Under the contract, 18" of topsoil is to be stockpiled and respread at the end of the operation. It will not be a permanent borrow area. It is only for this one contract, and the land will be an improved pasture as mentioned above. He therefore, would like to keep this land in the Agricultural District. Mrs. Whiteside and I are also concerned about item number three, "Potential disadvantages to inclusion in an A/F District should be emphasized to parti- cipants''. It has been almost a year since many of these landowners signed the application. To receive an official letter from the CounTy government empha- sizing the disadvantages of an A/F District could only imply that the County does not encourage the formation of such districts, and in fact, The Compre- hensive Plan states the opposite - that the County does encourage these districts. We, therefore, think that the County should also emphasize the positive aspects of preserving farmland and the formation of the A/F Districts." ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked why there are two separate districts proposed; what the review process consists of at the eight year expiration date; and whether or not the Board of Supervisors retains authority to abolish such a district. Mr. Tucker said there are two districts because of State Code requirements for a "core" area. Mr. Tucker noted that there is no requirement that the parcels be contiguous to each other, only that they adjoin the core area. Mr. Tucker said regarding the review process, the Board of Super- visors retains the authority to review the district at any time, but an individual land- owner must petition the Board of Supervisors if that property owner wishes his land removed from an established A/F District. Mr. Lindstrom asked what advantage this district concept offers the landowner. Mr. Tucker said the landowner is freed from County regula- tions pertaining to use of the land such as construction within a required setback or certain watershed management practices. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any study of "by right" subdivision lots which could be created, has been done by the staff. Mr. Tucker said subdivision review would still be required, roads would be covered under the heading of public health and safety and would, therefore, be subject to County control of design. Mr. St. John said he was of the opinion that the A/F District regulations would only apply to land within the A/F District which is actually being used for agriculture. Mr. St. John said he felt all zoning laws would remain in effect and that the Board of Supervisors is not actually giving up any authority. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a condition could be placed on the A/F District restricting further subdivision of land within that district. Mr. St. John said he did not believe such a condition could be placed on an A/F District. Mr. Lindstrom then questioned the wording in State Code Section 15.1-1511(D) which states "shall not be developed to a more intensive use during the period which said parcel remains within the proposed district without the prior approval of the governing body". Mr. Lindstrom said he felt a subdivision would be classified as a more intensive use. Mr. Lindstrom asked if each A/F District application would receive individual review and could each have different conditions placed on it relative to restriction of subdivisions. Mr. St. John said he did not believe a condition could be placed on a district prohibiting subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the County could gain more protection from subdivisions which now occur by right if an A/F District Ordinance is enacted. Mr. Tucker noted that the Board can limit the intensity of use in a district by placing a condition on the individual district. Mr. Tucker added that the Planning Commission did not recom- mend such condition of limitation. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the establishment of the first A/F District in Albemarle County will set a precedent for such future applications and he felt these proposals before the Board tonight should be carefully studied prior to approval. Mr. Lindstrom added that if the Board restricted subdivision of lots within an A/F District, he felt it could be done only if the property owners in that district agreed to that condition being imposed on the district. Next, Mr. Lindstrom asked about the watershed management aspects of the district. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned because 25 percent of the Totier Creek watershed would be located in this district. Mr. Tucker noted the Clean Lakes Program and Best Management Practices which are currently in effect in the Mechum River Basin and said he hoped an A/F District designation would help Albemarle County gain additional funding for similar programs in the Totier Creek watershed. Miss Nash asked if the Board was obligated to create the A/F Districts which have been requested. Mr. Tucker said the Board does not have to establish the districts even though applications have been received. Miss Nash asked what effect an A/F District would have on adjoining properties not included in the district. Mr. Tucker said the most obvious effect would be in the form of public improvements such as public utilities, which could be substantially delayed by traversing an A/F District. Miss Nash asked if these A/F Districts would interfere with the Town of Scottsville's plans for development. Mr. Tucker said the districts are very near the town, but would not interfere with development plans. Miss Nash then asked what protection the A/F District affords property owners in such a district. Mr. Tucker said protection from nuisance suits and waivers from certain restrictions pertaining to agricultural and forestal uses. Mr. Agnor said he wished to note for the record the receipt of two letters supporting the establishment of the A/F Districts; one dated April 18, 1983, from Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., and the second dated April 20, 1983, from the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. (NOTE: A ~Copy of these letters is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 133 Mr. Henley declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres re~resenting, the Piedmont Environmental Council. Mrs. Van Yahres read statisitics of the dollar contribution agriculture in Albemarle County makes to total State production. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Van Yahres' opinion of the benefits of an A/F District. Mrs. Van Yahres said the County must take into account any major land use decisions which may be adjacent to an A/F District in order to determine the affect on said district. Mr. Lindstrom asked what incentives were indicated to property owners to encourage them to apply for establishment of an A/F District. Mrs. Elka Still~fried stated that as more homes are constructed near her farm, it becomes increasingly more difficult to farm because of nuisances from those nearby homes. Mrs. Stillfried said the problem of dogs coming onto the farm and chasing or injuring cattle is one of the most frequent problems. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Stillfried's opinion of subdivisions within an A/F District. Mrs. Stillfried said she is opposed to any further subdivision of farm properties and that is the major reason she hopes the Board will approve an A/F District for the area in which she is located. Mrs. Caroline Whiteside said she agreed with Mrs. Stillfried in that the farmers who signed the application to form an A/F District are not interested in subdivision, of their property, but they are concerned about extensive subdivision of properties surrounding their farms. Mr. Joseph Jones of White Hall spoke next stating that although he does not own property in either of the proposed A/F Districts, he feels that most farmers are not interested in subdivision of land. Mr. Jones said he was under the impression that if a property owner had intentions of subdividing a portion of his property, that portion could be left out of the initial application when the A/F District is requested. Mr. Henley said he personally would be interested in an A/F District to insure the availability of land use tax exemptions. Mr. Jones said he felt the A/F District is an enhancement to the land use policy and the Comprehensive Plan of the County. Mr. Jones said Albemarle County should do everything possible to protect the farms and be certain that current farm land is retained for agricultural production purposes. No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Henley declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Henley said he had been requested by Mr. Fisher to defer a decision on this matter if possible. Miss Nash asked if there were any difficulties created by the sudden death of Mr. F. Pierson Scott relative to this A/F District application. Mr. St. John said Mr. Scott signed the application and that the application is valid until such time as an heir to the Scott property requests said property be removed from the A/F District. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Van Yahres to investigate the potential number of by-right, two-acre subdivisions which could take place on the land proposed for the Totier and Hatton A/F Districts. Mr. St. John said he felt the establishment of the Totier and Hatton A/F Districts should be handled through both a "parent" and a specific ordinance in the County Code. Mr. St. John said all details should be clearly spelled out in the parent ordinance and as each A/F District application is received, an ordinance specific to that district could be adopted. Mr. St. John said he could present a draft of such ordinances at the next meeting of the Board. Mr. Tucker noted that there is a 180 day deadline which must be met on a decision for establishment of these A/F Districts, and that deadline will come about in early July. Mr. St. John said that there is sufficient time to advertise the required ordinances and still meet the deadline. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer this discussion to May 11, 1983, at which time Mr. St. John is to present draft ordinances to the Board for consideration. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters Not Listed On The Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom said he has received a letter from a citizen questioning the continued County subsidy of the Route 29 North Bus line. Mr. Lindstrom said it is stated in the letter that there is very little use of this bus service by commuters, and that the County is actually subsidizing the shopping malls. Mr. Lindstrom said if the statements in the letter are correct, Albemarle County in fact is subsidizing private enterprise, which he personally is against. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor if it would be possible to obtain a report on the nature of ridership on the Route 29 North Bus line prior to the adoption of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said a survey will be available in May, but he would contact Mrs. Helen Poore of the Charlottesville Transit Service for interim information. Mr. Lindstrom said he had a problem with the wording of minutes of the Board of Supervisor meeting of September 2, 1982. Mr. Lindstrom said he is quoted as saying that "there is a better way to deal with the deficit rather than letting teachers go"; and felt this statement was in response to a statement made by the Chairman. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not see the Chairman's statement in the minutes, and wished the Clerk to check on this point for clarification. Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting of September 16, 1982, and found no corrections necessary. [34 May 4, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) April 20, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Butler said he read the minutes of the meeting of September 23, 1982, and found those minutes in order. Motion was then offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes of September 16 and September 23, 1982, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Mr. Henley said he had received several telephone calls from citizens stating that Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke had received privileged information regarding the formation of a police department and felt the public should be allowed access to that information if in fact, it does exist. Mr. Henley said he was not aware of any such informatian, but felt the matter should be discussed. Mrs. Cooke said she felt those accusations were strictly rumors. Mr. Lindstrom said he had personal knowledge about the situation which he feels should not be made part of the public discussion regarding establishment of a police department. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Henley was present during all the discussions which took place by the Board, and that police department discussions were not held during executive sessions not attended by Mr. Henley. Mr. Agnor said he has received similar inquiries from citizens about information being withheld, and he is not certain where these rumors had begun. Mrs. Cooke said it is her feeling that the public is concerned about this idea not going to public referendum. Mrs. Cooke said she would have no problem with the idea being subject to referendum, but she has gotten the impression that the majority of her constituents desire the formation of a police department. Agenda Item No. 8. Adjourn. There being no other matters before the Board, at 9:50 P.M., Mr. Henley declared the meeting adjourned. Chairman May 4, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on May 4, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher said due to the exceedingly large number of people in attendance, agenda items one and two would be heard in Meeting Room #7 and the remainder of the agenda would be heard in the Auditorium. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-83-14. Lorimer T. Harlow, request to locate a mobile home on 18.90 acres, zoned RA, Tax Map 089, Parcel 87B. Property located on east side of Route 631 about two miles south of intersection of Route 706 and Route 631, Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 22, 1983.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: Request: Mobile Home Acreage: 18.9 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 87B, is located on the southeast side of Route 631, approximately one and one-half mile south of its intersection with Route 706.