Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-12 adj081 February 12, 1981 (Adjourned from February 11, 1981) February 11, 1981 Regular Day Meeting Agenda Item No. 26. At 4:56 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn until February 12, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. CHAI~N February 12, 1981 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 117 1981) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 12, 1981, at 3:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 11, 1981. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Attorney, George R. St. John, and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:10 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Agnor had to leave the meeting soon and agenda item 4 would be discussed first. (Dr. Iachetta left the meeting at 3:12 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 4. Extension of Lease, Wilhoit Building. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, presented the following memorandum dated February 6, 1981: "The lease on the Wilhoit building which houses Engineering, Planning and Inspections expires April 1981. The current lease provides for renewals in five year increments only. Last year when the McIntire Road Office Building (Lane) project began, the owners of the building, B.C.M. Partnership, were approached with a timetable of our needs, and a request to extend the lease until the offices could be moved to McIntire Road. They expressed a willingness to do so. The current lease is a complicated one which had rents ranging from $3,266 per month plus a percentage of lease hold improvements for twelve months, diminishing to $1,770 per month for thirty-one months, and to $850 per month for seventeen months, plus all taxes, insurance, utilities. These funds were put in an escrow account which will be exhausted at the end of May, 1981. The owners are willing to extend the lease to the end of 1981 for the interest expense on a mortgage held by Virginia National Bank on the property. The mortgage interest moves monthly with the prime interest. For the period of June - December, 1981 when the escrow account will expire, it is estimated the rent will cost $2,250-$2,500 per month. It is requested that approval be granted for the lease on this property to be extended on the basis of this proposal. Ail other provisions of the current lease will be regained." Mr. Agnor said his recommendation and request is to be authorized to sign a letter of agreement with the owner of the Wilhoit building in order to extend the. lease until December, 1981. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. (Dr. Iachetta returned to the meeting at 3:15 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Areas Made Nonconforming by Adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. This matter was deferred from the January 21, 1981, meeting in order that the legal staff could be better prepared to discuss the areas which have been made nonconforming by being rezoned to-RA on the recently adopted Zoning Map. Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, was present and did not feel there are any legal problems except where there is a development or subdivision in the RA district which could noH now be approved in the RA district even through the special use permit~process. He noted as an example, Squirrel Ridge. Februar~ 12, 1981 (Aftern?on_Meetin. _ ~,Adjourned from February 11, 1981) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., said the map presented today shows only developments or subdivisions where the lots are two acres or less in size. Mr. St. John said there are no legal authorities which state the results, ramifications or implications of recognizing and showing nonconforming lots as opposed to not recognizing them on the~-zoning map and just stating such lots are nonconforming. Mr. Fisher said one of the areas shown on the map has essentially the same status now as it had under the old A-1 zone; such development is at Lake Albemarle. Mr. Tucker said the areas colored green on the m~p are those areas which previously were conforming and those~In yellow were previously nonconforming lots. Mr. Tucker said one thing that has occurred with Squirrel Ridge is because it is not completely developed and the developer is having problems because he cannot meet the setback requirements of the new RA zone. Mr. St. John said his office has given an opinion that the new setbacks apply. A person can go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and obtain setback variance and the argument to the Board of Zoning Appeals will be that the plat was approved and the lots were designed under previous Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mr. Fisher then asked if anyone knows the number of areas where there are problems with nonconforming lots. Mr. Tucker said there is a problem in places where developments are not fully developed. Even though residents of Key West Subdivision have expressed their concern about being made nonconforming by the RA zone, it is fully developed. Mr. Tucker did not feel the subdivision has a problem since the only possible problem was the vacant lots in Key West. Mr. Tucker said all the lots on the map are recorded. There are not many areas like Squirrel Ridge and he felt the developer of Squirrel Ridge would request a rezoning anyway. Mr. Tucker said he had suggested to the Zoning Administrator the possibility of a blanket variance for these divisions in order to allow the same setback ~Hat the developer had under the old zoning. However, the Zoning Adm~mistrator said he could not do such and requests would have to be made on an individual basis. Mr. McCann said during previous dis'¢mssions of this matter, some mention had been made about the financial aspects of nonconforming lots particularly with mortgage loans. He asked if any new information was available on that problem. Mr. St. John said zoning has a lot to dc with financing. He then gave an example of a case the County is currently involved in with th~ Garlick Tract. Mr. St. John said a person who has a construction loan and in the process of building a subdivision is delayed by having to go to the~Board of Zoning Appeals on a lot by lot basis. The person is paying interest on his loans and &ooses any profit he could have made. Mr. Tucker said there are many pros and cons on the matter. However, the only problem he could really see was the possibility of creating spot zoning in ~bme areas. Mr. St. John did not feel there was any argument of spot zoning because only what, exists ~s recognized. Mr. Tucker said from a practical point of view, he did not have any problem with recognizing the nonconforming lots, because he felt this was ~ust a housekeeping process. Mr. St. John then recommended that the Board keep what they have adopted for a while and the setback business becomes an unsolvable problem or hardship on p~o~la~y then such can be brought back to the B~ard. In summary, he recommended nothing be done at this time. Mr. Tucker said~ individual owners can initiate a rezonin~g on their own. Mr. St. John said the property owners in Key West can do the same. Mr. McCann said the residents of Key West are very disturbed about the matter and if there is a difference between R-1 and RA zoni~ as far as f~nancial institutions are concerned then there is a problem for the homeowners. M~ St. John said that problem was cur~ed by the new provisions on nonconforming ~s~s. Mr. Lindstrom asked ~at the recommendation would be if the lots were left as they exist and then someone comes in for a rezoning. Mr. St. John said the language i~n the ~an recognizes preexisting development and he did not feel there would be any problem on a case-by, case basis. Dr. Iachetta said on something like the developed part of Key West, he was inclined to agree with Mr. McCann to recognize what wa~ there and developed to get rid~of the problems people might have. Mr. Fisher said if the developed part of Key West is recognized, there will be a considerable amount of pressure year after year for ex~maion. Miss Nash rec011ect~ that the land which is m~developed in Key West has some topographic problems. Mr. Tucker Said there are steep areas and he felt the intent of the developer of Key West is to work toward a PRD for the undeveloped area. Mr. St. John said from the point of view of practicality, the scales weigh~comp~etely in favor of recognizing these areas. Discussion followed on re~ogni~ng such areas on the zoning map. Mr. Tu~k~r said the tax map and p~cel number and a~ mOt. e could be added to the zoning map saying that these areas are being recognized because they were preexisting uses. Mr. McCann did not know what benefit the ridge in Key West would be without any develoBment. Mr.. Henley did not know why the development could not be recognized on the map as being a preexisting use. Mr. Fisher felt the recommendation of the County Attorney was reasonable and he had not seen any indication of any problems associated with the new zoning map. Mr. St. John aaid there are problems. Dr. Iachetta said many of the Key West residents are very concerned. Mr. St. John said the Squirrel Ridge d~velopers are working on variances and there are big problems. A discussion then followed on how to solve the problem of nonc°nforming~reas. Dr. Iachetta a~ed if the zoning map needed to be changed. Several of the Board members expresse¢ concerns about l~ng on a nonconforming parcel which could not be e~panded without obtaining a variance. Miss Nash asked how many of such cases exist. Mr. Tucker said the Squirrel Ridg~ and Key West are the problems. Mr. Fisher felt the only real problem area is Squirrel Ridge He then asked if the developer is going to request a rezoning on the property. Mr. Tucker sa~ in discussing this with the developer today, he had indicated to him that the rezoning was probably the~better route. He also had informed the developer that ~e Zoning Administrator would not give a blanket variance for the area as a whole. Mr. St. John said he did not know how the Zoning Administrator could rule on this because that is the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. February 12, 1981 [Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 11, 1~981) Mr. Fisher asked if a decision is made to recognize ~.~e areas which have been made non- conforming by the recent adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, would R-I make all those areas conforming? Mr. Tucker said he was not sure. Such would work for Squirrel Ridge, but another development, Deer Run~ has one-half acre lots and R-2 would be appropriate there. The only tim~ a person would have problems would be with setbacks and the setbacks are the same for R-i, R-2 and R-4. Mr. Fisher asked if such could be cured by changing the Zoning Ordinance~o ~ate that in the RA zone, where a lot has been platted under previous zoning, the setback requir,em~n~ of the next highest density would apply. Mr. Tucker felt it would. Mr. Lindstrom asked how th~ would work if someone wanted to expand his house. Mr. Tucker said there would be a setback problem because he would be expanding in the RA district. Discussion then followed on expandin a house on a nonconforming lot. Mr. Tucker s~id a house could be expanded in such a case if the setback could be met. Mr. Lindstrom felt the simplest thing to do is to have a special provision~for setback instead of changing the zoning. Mr. Fisher suggested adding a section numbered 10.4.1 which creates an exception to yards, minimum, front and rear for previously platted lots. Dr. Iachetta sa~d since the setbacks for R-i, R-2 and R-4 are the same, such would take care of Squirrel Ridge. Mr. ~isher felt that might be worth considering. Mr. Tucke felt such would take care of 90% of the problems that might come~p. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the planning and legal staffs examine amending the RA d±strict to make provisions for exis~ lots of record that are nonconforming in order that such ~ould meet the R-! distr~t~setback and yard regulations. The Board agreed. Agenda Item No. 3. Appointments. ~r. Iachetta felt since all of the appointments l~sted on the agenda were advertised and responses have been rec~ed, these should be collected and analyzed. Mr. Fisher then suggested the manner of handling the responses be further discussed in ~xecutive session. Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion: University of ~irginia~ Medical Center Relocation. Mr. Fisher said he had asked~the Planning Staff to expedite its work towards finishing the staff report on the University of Virginia Medical Center Relocation because he was concerned about the timetable that the University of Virginia planners have s~t. He had a meet today with Mr. Agnor, Dr. Catlin, President Hereford and Mayor Buck and one of the items discussed was the timetable for the University's review of the relocation. The timetable is th they expect to employ a consultant on or about March 1, 1981. The consultant will be given eight weeks to submit a master plan for the whole area which means any input from the County should be submitted soon. Therefore, Mr. Fisher recommended that the staff report be referred to the Planning Commission for their expeditious review and recommendat~mns and if the Planning Commission desires a public hearing, such would be fine. He also recommended that the staff report, along with a letter from Mr. Agnor, be se~ to the University of Virginia stating that this is only a staff report and that such is being reviewed by the Planning Commission and additional comments may be made in a couple of weeks. Mr. McCann suggestedha~±ng a joint hearing with the Planning Commission an~this. Mr. Fish~ preferred that the Commission invite the Board if a public hearing is held but not to have a joint hearing. Dr. Iachetta felt the City and County should be working together on the matter. Mr. F~she~ did not feel such is possible because the City is looking at the economical aspects of loosing the commercial facility. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to submit a staff report to the Planning Commissio~ for their information and for a recommendation to be sent back to the Board. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: ing AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Linds~rom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. ng ~t Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to submit a staff report to the University of Virginia with a letter from Mr. Agnor stating that this is only a staff report and comments will be made later. Mr. McCann seconded the motion~a~d same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley~ Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted seven notices f~r utility companies for the State Corporation Commission which were as follows: 1) Application of Rappahanock Electric Cooperation to the State Corporation Commission for new rate schedules and terms and conditions of service. Public hearings before the State Corporation Commission to receive evidence related to establishment of c~mpanies levelized fuel factor fDr twelve month period commending April 1, 1981: 3) March 10, 1981 - 10:00 A.M.--Potomac Edison Company March 13, 1981 - 10:00 A.M.--VEPC0 March 17, 1981 - 10:00 A.M.--Appalachian Power Company State Corporation Commission hearing at 10:00 A[[M. on June 1, 1981 to receive oral comment from the public on whether electric utilities should implement a lifel~ne~na~e: 5) 6) 7) Rappahanock Electric Cooperative Potomac Edison Company Central Virginia El. ectric Cooperative February 12, 1981 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 11, 1981) O84 Agenda Item No. 7. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Mr. Fisher requested ~he executive session to include personnel matters. At 4:05 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Henley to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal-and personnel matters. Dr. Iachetta secondad the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fiaher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 5:05 P.M., the Board reconv~n~d into open session. Agenda Item No. 8. Adjournment. Mr. McCann offered motion to adjourn to February 18, 1981, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta~ Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None.