Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-21 adjMay 21, 1980 (Afternoon) (Adjourned from May i4, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board o'f Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 21, 1980, at 2:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 14, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arriving at 2:20 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 2:22 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash (arriving at 2:03 P.M.), and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Attorney, George R. St. John; County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Assistant County Planner, Ronald Keeler; and County'Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. (arriving at 4:55 P.M.)'. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:22 P.M. by the Chairman. Mr. Fisher noted that he had attended a meeting in Richmond last Thursday with Mayor Laurence Brunton of Charlottesville, Senator J. Harry Michael, Jr., staff members from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and citizens from the Crozet area, to request that funding for the Crozet Interceptor be speeded up. Mr. Fisher said it was a good meeting and he feels there will be some word soon on the possibility of changing the timetable on that funding. He also noted receipt of a copy of the petition which Crozet residents submitted to the State Water Control Board on the same subject. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher noted that the public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance and map was held last week and comments from citizens seemed to be spread evenly on both sides of the issue. Most of the concerns expressed dealt with the Rural Areas district. Mr. Fisher said he would like to hold one separate meeting to work on the zoning map and sUggested June 4. He also said that Mr. Lindstrom has asked that next week's meeting be held on May 29 instead of May 28. He suggested that the Board begin this session by discussing the comments made at the public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said the comments seemed to be evenly split. No one spoke about critical slopes and no one mentioned the statistics presented earlier by the Planning Staff to the Board (discussed by the Board at several earlier ~work sessions). Mr. RoudabUsh felt the major concern was with the special use permit aspects of the ordinance. He did not feel there was any major objection to the number of lots proposed; even the Albemarle Property Owners Association proposed the same number of lots, as well as mandatory clUstering. Mr. Henley felt most of the speakers made some good points. Mr. Henley said one lady had said that subdivision of the countryside must stop and he knows that she has lived in three different subdivisions in rural areas in the last 12 years, so you have to take some comments with a grain of salt. Mr. Lindstrom said it was mentioned that this zoning ordinance will prohibit people from passing land onto their children, but there will not be that problem under the proposed ordinance. Miss Nash was surprised that there were few people speaking against the proposed ordi She said she is sympathetic to the owners of large tracts and suggested that 25 acre divisions be made exempt from the ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said that mandatory clustering is not satisfactory to him. Some land simply does not lend itself to clustering. Also comments were made that the only reason anything different is proposed for the rural areas is to preserve the visual effects. While that may be the end result, Dr. Iachetta said he is not in favor of using a zoning ordinance to provide open space, per se. The only valid basis for making changes is the cost to the taxpayers of servicing the population density that will be put down in the rural areas. Taking that into consideration, Dr. Iachetta said the proposal contains two areas with which he disagrees, l) The automatic rezoning to a higher density through the use of bonuses, and 2) the proposal does not address the problem of servicing two-acre subdivisions. The two- acre provision in the current ordinance was not intended to make land agricultural, but was used as a legal mechanism to make citizens apply for a rezoning to a higher density. Dr. Iachetta agreed that there should be some minimum number of lots by right in the-rural areas, but anything above that minimum should be obtained only through a rezoning. Dr. Iachetta said his concern is with the growing inability of local government to meet requirements for water, sewer, roads, schools, police and fire protection. Mr. Roudabush said he did not think that water and sewer can be provided to any development in a rural area unless these facilities just happen to be in the vicinity. He did not think that development in a rural area will need the same services as those needed in the urban area. Mr. Lindstrom said this County, from a developer's standpoint, is very sensitive ecologically. Water is a serious question and the ability of clay soil to perk is not reliable. He feels that the County does have some respOnsbility, unless lots are large enough, or developments are small enough, that there will not be this problem. Miss Nash said Dr. Iachetta had mentioned maintaining the visual aspects of the County as not being a high priority, but part of the County's economic viability is tourism. Dr. Iachetta said he does not question the need to preserve~ Albemarle County, but if that is all the Board is trying to do, then it is going about it the wrong way. He agreed with Mr. Roudabush that rural subdivisions do not have to be guaranteed the same services which are provided in the urban area, but if one of these subdivisions is built and then develops urban area problems (water and sewer, in particular), then these people do not have the same choices as to how to solve the problems. Mr. Roudabush said with the rules being set up, he does not feel that there will be any developments in the rural areas on large lots. In fact, the current proposal would probably create a land rush to use land in the urban areas where a higher density is permitted by right. Mr. Lindstrom said there are many thousands of small lots already approved and platted in the rural areas; enough lots to satisfy the need for rural development for the next 50 years. Therefore, he is not willing to see that pattern of ~ continue, particulary since the urban areas have been planned to take another 60,000 people. ~/~~ ----~C_ ~?~. ~ / O39 May 21, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 14, 1980) Dr. Iachetta said if there is a public reason to control the number of lots by right, and where those lots are placed, it seems that any residential use in the rural areas should · start with a rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that there be no subdivision in the rural areas of the County and that the Subdivision Ordinance be changed to exempt lots of 25 acres or greater. This proposal would more effectively address the three concerns that the Planning Commission discussed. Any other proposal would mix the concept of land planning and the concept of rights, without any review of a proposed development. Miss Nash asked if anyone had considered Mr. Clifton McClure's suggestion on road stripping. Dr. Iachetta said if five-acre lots, with 400 feet of road frontage are required, then the lot would be almost 900 feet deep. Mr. Lindstrom felt that considering only strippint of road frontage misses the real problem. Miss Nash felt that landowners and not developers~ would be the people developing in the rural areas. Mr. Lindstrom said if the present proposal is adopted, developers of less than 20 lots will become numerous. The ability of under~ capitalized persons to do a good job of developing in the rural areas is nil. Mr. Henley said he was not in favor of requiring a minimum of 500 feet of road frontage~ He could go along with limiting-lots to either three or five, by right. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has previously discussed using the PRD concept as a device in the rural areas. He asked Mr. Tucker if the staff had examined this idea. Mr. Tucker said it can be done, but the PRD in the proDosed ordinance would have to be redesigned. Mr. Fisher said he has been struggling with the question of uses by right and how many lots should be allowed, particularly considering bad roads, etc. Mr. Fisher said any kind of use by right that goes with the land regardless of the condition of roads, and lack of facilities, does not go very far toward solving a very basic problem. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the County will soon have to start supplementing construction of roads, and this should~ be m&de a part of the Capital Improvements budget. Mr. Henley felt that the citizens will have to get used to using the roads which the country people have been using all along. Mr. Lindstrom said he has heard that it is not fair for elected officials to say what people can do with their property, but he does not agree since elected officials are responsib~ for the public's investment in schools, roads, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said he is in favor of a.~ zoning ordinance that deals with the rural areas in a very restrictive way. He is also willing to go to task, in a reasonable way, to raise the money needed for utilities. He suggested that the ordinance allow three~ two-acre lots by right on each parcel in existence on the date of the adoption of the ordinance, and that the Subdivision Ordinance be amended to allow lots of 25 acres or greater by right, and that records be kept of divisions, and that everything else in the rural areas be through a rezoning. Mr. Roudabush said he did not~ feel that type of an ordinance would be acceptable to the people in this County and he did not think it would be any use adopting something that the people don't want. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that the Planning Commission's proposal is a lot of fuss and fury, confusion and agony, without any benefit to the general public. Mr. Henley said he thought Mr. Lindstro~ proposal was too drastic and felt there must be a compromise between the two. Mr.. Fisher said he has been considering the Planning Commission's recommendation of requiring a special use permit for divisions aboVe a certain number,~with that special use permit being granted based on certain standards set out in the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom has suggested a rezoning bus a special, use permit is a form of rezoning. Mr. Fisher said of utmost concern are roads, location and scale of development, and relation of developments to other growth areas. Some of those concerns have been addressed in the Ordinance, but he wondered if the ordinance should not state that beyond a certain distance from the growth areas, no special use permit for development above a certain size would be considered at all. Mr. Fisher said he did not see anyway to have large scale developments in the rural areas and continue to have a rural area. Dr. Iachetta said the County has twice developed a cluster approach to development and no one was against that concept. When it comes to the point of saying how such development will occur, someone has to be in a position to say that this type of development cannot happen in a certain area, period. If the Board believes that the County should grow in centralized areas, then it will have to accept the proposition that certain areas cannot be subdivided in small lots. How such a criteria would be developed is~ a different question. Miss Nash said development in the urban area and development in the '~ rural areas, are two different things. Mr. Fisher said the lines drawn on the Comprehensive~ Plan maps to define the urban areas, should be hard lines, but he believes there will be some rural growth. The proposed ordinance would allow special use permits to be issued anywhere for any number of lots in the rural areas. He felt there might be some encouragement given for applying for special use permits within a one-mile radius of the growth areas. He has been struggling with~whether to provide public water, or whether water and sewer should be provided at all outside of the growth area. Personally, he does not feel that public sewage service should be contemplated, even for high density developments outside of the growth area. Mr. Fisher said the ordinance, as written, does not discourage people from apply for special use permits in outlying areas, and he does not intent to encourage such petitions. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees that the Board cannot adopt an ordinance which the people will not support. He has no problems with the concept of a special use permit, but it i's complicated. It puts the burden on this Board to come UP with specific criteria for issuance of such permits. It also brings up the question of whether the staff should be responsible for making an assessment of what is presently in existence, or does the County have to rely on what the developer says. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the County Should have Sufficient ~' staff in the Planning Department to make such assessments and also more staff in the departmenl to help this Board make better decisions. Mr. Roudabush said he was not sure the public should pay for such assessments. The applicant should bear the burden of furnishing the necessary, information for the staff to review. Miss Na~h asked how the information furnished by a developer would be reviewed-if the County di~ not/~rts on its staff to do so. Mr. Roudabush said the County should have persons qualified to review the material, but he did not think the County should generate the information. Mr. Lindstrom said these are the kinds of issues involved with issuance of a ~pecial use permit. May 21, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from May 1~.' 1980) Mr. Fisher said he agrees that mandatory clustering will be hard to do, although clusl can be good if not all of the land in common open space is unusable. Some land should be left in low slopes and the area be compact enough for active recreational or agricultural use. Dr. Iachetta said the Planning Commission's proposal implies that the developer must bring in a plan of some sort. The plan would then go through the same review procedure required of an RPN even though the use were by right. The only thing this procedure provides, that is not provided Under the existing ordinance, is that the Board has no control over where the development occurs. Mr. Lindstrom said the reason for the new ordinance is to do away with existing procedures. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John has mentioned that the way the special use permit provisions are written, they are more like the old conditional use permit provisions. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. John what should be changed in Section X.7.2.1 to avoid this problem. Mr. St. John said the word "shall" should be changed to "may". Mr. Lindstrom said it did not make any sense to waste time on a provision that has no meaning in practice. He suggested that the best possible approach to the rural areas district would be to start with his suggestion (three, two-acre lots by right, no clustering, everything else to be by rez-oning, no special use permits, and amend the Subdivision Ordinance to exempt divisions of 25 acres or greater) and proceed from that point. Miss Nash asked what control the Board would then have over a rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom said it would have the maximum discretion allowed under the law. He suggested that a list of criteria be drafted which would address certain problems on a rezoning request. Mr. St. John said when the first application was received, the Board would not have any criteria, but would build a "track" record as rezonings occurred. The Board would have to grant all future rezonings based on the factual situation which existed at the time of the first rezoning. Mr. Fisher asked what densities would be proposed for the rural areas district. Mr. Tucker said the densities would be governed by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any way to distinguish between agricultural areas and other rural areas. Mr. Tucker said this would have to be done on an individual basis until the soils maps are completed. Mr. Lindstrom said one problem he has with an across the board rezoning is that there are some properties which are not susceptible to any kind of density. Whether rezonings are considered under a special use permit or some other kind of provision, there is a need to recognize these differences. Mr. Henley said all of the soils in'Albemarle County are good for something, therefore something must be taken into consideration other than soils types. Mr. Roudabush said he had been thinking about five, two-acre minimum size lots by right, with a PRD by right up to 20 lots, with development standards set oUt in the ordinance in- corporating such things as internal roads, minimum frontage requirements, existing roads, possibility of central water systems with back up systems for lots between five and 20, and if a density other than a two-acre density is requested, or a large number of lots, that would require either a special use permit or a rezoning. Mr. Fisher said he has trouble with the concept of a PRD by right. Mr. Tucker said some of the criteria spelled out by the Planning Commission for issuance of special use permits, are "cut and dried". Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission was addressing an entirely different matter with the seven criteria set out in the ordinance. They felt the seven criteria would be reviewed to determi if the land was in an agricultural area shown in the Comprehensive Plan, or in other rural areas. At the time, they were discussing both an Agriculture/Forestry district and a Rural Residential district. Mr. Fisher said the basic difference between the two proposals is not the :miDimum number of lots, but whether any number over that minimum should be by right or by ~iscretion. Mr. Henley said when more than 20 lots are requested, it should be in a special location and with special conditions. Mr. Lindstrom said if the 20 lots by right is left in the ordinance, the provisions do not address facts external to the subdivision. He did not feel that is correct and did not think the Board could design a PRD category which would address the fact that some land is not suitable for development. Mr. Roudabush felt standards could be developed which would address those problems. Mr. Henley suggested that Mr. Roudabush draft something for the next meeting. Dr. Iachetta said the Board is back to where it started this discussion several months ago. Mr. Fisher said in order to facilitate this discussion, he felt it would be a good idea to write something down. The Board then launched into another discussion of the record- keeping which would be required of development rights under proposals made thus far. (Mr. Agnor arrived at the meeting at ~:55 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 3. Executive Session. At ~:59 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested an executive session on land acquisition and personnel matters. Motion to this effect was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.