Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-16 adjou±y ±o, ±you [Az'~er~oon-AmJournem ~'rom July 9~ 19~0) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors'of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 16, 198D, beginning at l:g0 P.M. in the~Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from July 9, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush (arriving at 1:30 P.M.). Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and County Attorney, George R. St. John (arriving at 1:44 P.M.). Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 1:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session: Personnel. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:39 P.M. with Mr. Roudabush present at this time. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of notice from Virginia Electric and Power Company dated June 1980, re: Investigation to determine appropriate tariffs pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 56-249.6. Agenda Item No. 3. Set Public Hearing to amend the Industrial Development Authority Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the Board has been furnished a copy of an amended ordinance drafted by the County Attorney which would add the following words to Section 2-49: "...and the power to finance multi-state regional or national headquarters offices or operations centers and commercial office buildings to be used as headquarters offices or operations centers." Request for this change was received from the Industrial Authority Board of Directors at the July 9 meeting. Mr. Fisher said he has received three communications this week from citizens questioning such a change. Miss Nash said she felt the words "commercial office buildings" made this change a much broader use. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no objection to going to public hearing with~the proposed change, since the ordinance could be changed again at the public hearing. ~e then offered motion to set a public hearing date for August 14. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Revision of Service Areas for the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following memorandum from the County Attorney dated July 10, 1980: "The question is what procedures to follow in conforming the jurisdictional areas (AKA Service or Project Areas) of the Albemarle County Service Authority to the 'growth areas' under the now-revised Comprehensive Plan, especially the Urban Area. The lines of the Urban Area for Neighborhoods 1, 5 and 7 and the Hollymead - Route 29 North growth area, as established in the booklet captioned 'Comprehensive Growth Area Land Use Plans, April 1980' are at odds with the present jurisdictional areas of the Service Authority as shown on page 21 of the original 1977 Comprehensive Plan; these lines are also at odds with the present official jurisdictional areas created by the Board of Supervisors in various resolutions. Two actions are therefore necessary: One, to amend the Comprehensive Plan at P.2~; two, to amend the official jurisdictional areas. The procedure for amending the Comprehensive Plan is prescribed by Code Section 15.1-431 which requires two advertisements, six days apart, with public hearing from six to 21 days after the second publication. (Planning Commission has already acted.) The procedure for altering the official jurisdictional area is prescribed ~by · Code Section 15.1-1243 and 1247; the requirement ±s one advertisement with public hearing not less than ten days thereafter and the action can be by resolution. Heretofore in establishing jurisdictional areas, the Board has used metes and bounds description; this is not required by statute but was done on the recommendation of consulting engineers and Bond Counsel. We believe that this jurisdictional area can be revised by map without metes and bounds so long as the map is precise enough for an engineer to locate the boundary on the ground, by reference to the map- i.e., as precise as the zoning map. It does not need to be an actual plat of survey. We are therefore of the opinion that, provided such map can be drawn, these actions can be advertised and public hearing held on or about August 13, 1980." Mr. Tucker said the staff has prepared maps which the Board can take to public hearing for revision of the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. The County Attorney has indicated that maps, similar to zoning maps, can be used to show the service areas rather than setting out same by metes and bounds descriptions. The staff outlined the service areas following general guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. There are eight July 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned ~from July 9, 1980) questionable areas which need to be discussed by the Board. Mr. Roudabush said he would prefer to have all of the discussion of this matter at the public hearing. Other Board members concurred and motion was then offere~ by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to advertise for a public hearing on August 14, 1980, to amend the Comprehensive Plan as recom- by the County Attorney and to amend the specif~c service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. L. A. Lacy, Chairman of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors, was present and said he would call a special meeting of his Board in order to provide the Board of Supervisors with specific comments relative to these changes before the public hearing. At 1:51 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 1:59 P.M. Agenda Item No. 5a) Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Discussion of Rural Areas District Mr. Fisher said this was the eighteenth work session this Board has held on the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The Board now has before it four separate proposals on the rural areas district; one from the Planning Commission, one from Mr. Roudabush, one from Mr. Lindstrom, and a joint proposal from Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher said he has thought and worried over these warious proposals and has not been able to make up his mind that any of them is entirely satisfactory. The problems seem to center on questions of arbitrary numbers of lots by right, of arbitrary lot sizes, of recordkeeping requirements, and of complexity. Mr. Fisher said he is sympathetic to the complaints of owners of large areas of land faced with a maximum of a few lots by right, no matter how much land they own. But, Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that whatever number of lots is ultimately permitted by right, that the number have some relation to the land, its capacity for development, but also that the Board help to preserve those qualities that make Albemarle County what it is: rural areas of operating farms and forests. Everyone knows the impact of these properties on tourism, quality of life, the economy, and so forth. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive Plan calls for the County to use soil studies to identify best agricultural lands, but the soil studies are not completely available at this time. It has been suggested that lands now under the land use tax preference program be defined as agricultural areas and zoned accordingly. Mr. Fisher said he is convinced that this approach may have legal difficulties. If the County is not able to define where the best agricultural lands are located to a degree of accuracy that would sustain a legal challenge, then what sort of a holding pattern would make sense until the soil maps are completed and a better designation can be completed. Mr. Fisher said the State enabled, and the County adopted, laws to grant favorable tax status to certain uses, on the legislative assumption that tax preference for agricultural and forestry property is an incentive to the preservation of land for these uses. If this assumption has a basis in fact, then a logical extension of that assumption is that parcels of land which now qualify for a land use tax preference should not be subdivided to a size that prohibits a similar preferred tax status for any future owner. If this can be ac¢omplish~ then the zoning law and the subdivision law will work with the land use tax law to provide future owners of land with the right to apply for tax preferences, thereby encouraging preservation of these lands into the future. Mr. Fisher said using this premise as a basis for considering zoning density, there would be three categories of land, as follows: Parcels of land 20 acres or larger, which may now qualify for agricultural, horticultural, or forestry tax preference. II. Parcels of land five acres or more but less than 20 acres, which may now qualify for agricultural or horticultural tax preference, but not forestry. III. Parcels of land of less than five acres, which now qualify for no land use tax preference in their own right. If parcels of land in Category I are divided into parcels of less than 20 acres each, they will lose the forestry tax preference, and so a new owner will possibly never again be able to qualify for that tax advantage. Similarly, if parcels of land in the 5.00 to 19.99 acre size (Category II) are subdivided into parcels of less than 5.00 acres, those parcels will lose all potential tax preference for any future owner, unless the future owner also happens to own other contiguous property which may qualify in a multi-parcel application. Parcels of land in Category III (less than 5.00 acres) do not now have any tax pre- ference in their own right, and ostensibly have nothing to lose by being further subdivided. Mr. Fisher said for this reason, he believes that one rational approach to the trouble- some issues of rural lands is as follows: RURAL AREAS ZONE: INTENT: Preserve agriculture and forestry Preserve rural quality Lessen capital costs for new services. (Others from Comprehensive Plan). 170 July 16, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from July 9, 1980) BY RIGHT: CATEGORY I: Parcels 20.00 acres or larger: Maximum density: 1 d.u./20 acres Minimum lot size: 20.0 acres Minimum frontage: 500 feet on existing state road 350 feet on new internal road. CATEGORY II: Parcels 5.00 to 19.99 acres: Maximum density: 1 d.u./5 acres Minimum lot size: 5.0 acres Minimum frontage: 250 feet on existing state road 175 feet on new internal road. CATEGORY III: Parcels less than 5.00 acres: Minimum lot size: 2.0 acres Minimum frontage: 160 feet on existing state road 110 feet on new internal road. GENERAL: No clustering of housing units will be permitted by right, on the following bases: Clustering may create densities which require sewer or water services, thereby intensifying the need for capital outlay. Clustering may tend to create a visual density that detracts from the rural quality of the area. Commonly-owned open space land may not be effectively used for agricultural purposes because of the potentially large number of persons having an interest in the property, leaving no responsible individual with the authority to make decisions as to its use. BY SPECIAL PERMIT: Maximum density: Minimum lot size: Minimum frontage: i d.u./5 acres 5.0 acres (2.0 acres if clustered) 250 feet on existing state road 175 feet on new internal road (110 feet on new internal road if clustered). SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROVISIONS: In considering any application for a special use permit hereunder, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall take into consideration, among other relevant factors, the following: The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent it is reasonably available. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, ~the probable effect of the 'proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if 50% or more of the land area within one mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five years of the date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if 50% or more of the land area within one mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In-making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services, and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: -Within one mile of the Urban Area boundary as desCribed in the Comprehensive Plan; -Within one-half mile of a Community boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan; -Within one-half mile of the major crossroads of Type I or one-half mile of a Type II Village as described in the Comprehensive Plan; The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of rural services; e With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries of the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment the following additional factors shall be considered: The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption; The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development~ de The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drainfield to any perennial or intermittent stream or impound- ment; or during the construction phase~ the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment; The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; The percentage, degree and length of all slopes subject to dis- turbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development; ge The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are unpredictable; The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; The extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq. (Run-off Ordinance) of the Albemarle County Code can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance; Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any 100 year or more intense storm. Mr. Fisher said although there are details to be worked out, he be!~eves that his approach offers the following advantages: 1. Zoning would remain a matter of density -- The largest parcels of land would have division rights proportioned to their size, rather than an arbitrary maximum number of lots by right. No additional recordkeeping would be required. Every parcel has development rights based on its present (and future) size. There is no way (other than by special permit) whereby land divided under one category can be further divided under another category. de Special permits can be granted where objective criteria are generally met. The sizes of parcels created are not arbitrary, but are based on area criteria established by the Commonwealth for agricultural and forestal uses, and which have been adopted by ordinance of the County. Mr. Fisher said he believes these sizes are both logical and defensible. Existing Category III parcels (less than five acres) have the same development rights they now have. Existing Category II parcels (5.00 - 19.99 acres) can be subdivided by right into a maximum of three parcels, without additional records. Parcels of 20 or more acres, those most likely to now be in agricultural or forestal uses, will have a significant restriction on development but a maximum tax incentive for agricultural and forestal uses. Mr. Roudabush said he thought that State law required regulations within a zoning district to be uniform. This proposal would have variable requirements. Mr. Fisher said he would not ask the staff to comment since they had not seen the proposal before today. Mr. Lindstrom asked for a response to Mr. Roudabush's statement from the County Attorney. Mr. St. John said he did not feel that this proposal would violate Code provisions requiring uniformity. How this proposal would be received by different groups of landowners, especially those owning large tracts, is a different question, but he thought it is completely within statutory requirements. Dr. Iachetta said he takes issue with the fundamental premise of the proposal since Mr. Fisher seems to be saying that just because the State set the acreage requirements they are not arbitrary. The whole problem involved is trying to arrive at a proposal to cover 80% of the County in setting a number of lots by right. He did not think that any combination of numbers will please'everybody. Dr. Iachetta said he strongly disagrees with the minimums in all categories. He also felt that the road frontage required in rural areas should be a minimum of 250 feet regardless of the type of road on which a lot is located. Dr. Iachetta said he agreed with the Albemarle Property Owners Association suggestion that frontage on State roads be 400 feet to minimize stripping. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it was Mr. Fisher's intent to include provisions the Board has discussed in the past concerning development on nontolerable roads. Mr. Fisher said he forgot to include those provisions in his proposal under the uses by special permit. He did not think those provisions are necessary in the by- right category. Mr. Fisher said since the County cannot at the present time identify best agricultural lands, it was his primary goal to preserve agricultural land~ using the zoning ordinance and the tax laws together. He asked what the other Board members wanted to do at this time. Mr. Lindstrom.said the Board really needs to make some decision on the Rural Areas district. He said he did not think there is any aspect of the problem which the Board has not addressed in some form by one of the proposals presented thus far.~ Miss Nash suggested that the Board discuss all of the suggestiOns made to date. (Note: The proposals are set out below). Planning Commission Proposal: 20 lots by right with five, two-acre lots and the remaining lots being five acres each~ Mandatory clustering. Divisions above 20 lots would require a special use Permit based on seven criteria set out in the ordinance. Roudabush Proposal: Five, two-acre lots by right. Six to 20 lots subject to an application plan which could be approved by the Planning Commission. A special use permit would be required for more than 20 lots. (Pages 55-56,~May 29, 1980.) Lindstrom Pro.posal: Six to 100 acres would be allowed three, two-acre lots by right. One hundred, plus acres would get one additional two-acre lot for each 25 acres in addition to the 100. A special use permit would be required for more lots than provided above. (June 18, 1980 meeting.) Iachetta Proposal: Three, two-acre lots by right. Four to 15 lots would be three acres each. Anything beyond 15 lots would require a special use permit or a rezoning. (May 29, 1980 meeting.) Mr. Henley said if Mr. Fisher's proposal were to be adopted, the Board would just be wasting land since.the owner could only get three lots if he owned between five and 19.99 acres. He~ felt two-acre lots are large enough to maintain, and saw no reason to require a minimum of five acres. Mr. Roudabush agreed. He said the Board is working too hard on the goal in the Comprehensive Plan to preserve agricultural land. Although it is a good goal, he could see no reason to require people to live on five or more acres. Mr. Fisher said there are already many existing recorded, two-acre lots which have not been utilized, and this might discourage the continued development of two-acre lots, Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Fisher's proposal has one benefit that the other proposals do not have. Someone at the State level has decided that there is some validity to the figures of five acres and 20 acres for the Land Use tax law. Although that might be debatable, these are the first meaningful figures that the Board has had since the first text of the Rural Areas district was received. Mr. Lindstrom said he has not been concerned with the record- keeping aspects of some of the proposals, but while reading Mr. Fisher's proposal~, he thinkSi~i it might answer any concerns the other Board members have had about this aspect. Mr. Roudabush said he felt the Albemarle Property Owners Association proposal was as acceptable as any of the other proposals discussed. Mr. Lindstrom said that proposal permitte~ ten-acre lots by right. Mr. Roudabush said the proposal was for five-acre lots on existing State roads with 400 feet of road frontage. Lots on interior roads would be a minimum of two-acres each, with 125 feet of road frontage on that interior road. The Association also proposed a limit of 20 lots on any parcel if the lots were less than ten acres each. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about the Property Owners proposal. If the number of parcels in existence at this time could be .developed by right with 20 10ts on each, there would be f!ittle or no change in the existing development pattern. Also, considering the statistics presented by the Planning staff, the Board would only be dealing with 11% of the subdivision developmen~ in the County. Under the speoial use permit category, 89% of current development patterns could continue to occur, with the exception of the requirement for road frontage. He did not think there was much incentive in the ordinance for development of internal roads., Mr. Roudabush said the requirement for road frontage would probably discourage development of two-acre lots. Mr. Fisher said each of the proposals before the BOard at this time would probably only receive one or two affirmative votes. He was not sure what the Board should do to settle this question. Dr. Iachetta said that unlike Mr. Fisher he was not worried about whether land qualifies for a tax preference, since the public may become tired of subsidizing land use. Also, he feels the Land Use tax has the effect of keeping land off of the market and raising the price on land that is on the market. Mr. Fisher said the whole goal of the planning process is to encourage ~concentrating people in the growth areas.where public services can be provided. Mr. Lindstrom said there is already an adequate supply of two-acre lots of record. People who want to live on a two-acre lot in the country will have to recognize tha~ to do so is inherently more expensive. He said he has no problem with providing as one of the criteria for the rural areas, consideration of whether or not a project is designed to meet moderate income housing guidelines, but that potential, coupled with~lots that are already existing and platted, and the fact that a special use permit could be applied for, gives more than an ample supply of minimum size lots for the near future. Dr. Iachetta said if Mr. Fisher's proposal is followed, the Board is close to requiring a special use permit for anything developed on parcels containing more than 19.99 acres. Dr. Iachetta said in every proposal presently thus far, the Board comes right back to the same place. When you get past a minimum number of lots, everything is in the special use category. He asked if it would not be better to just create a minimum number of lots by right and have everything else by special use permit. Mr. Henley said he fe!t the Board should set some reasonable number of lots by right. Mr. Lindstrom said the value of Mr. Fisher's proposal is that there is intrinsic meaning to the number of lots permitted. This July 16, 198~ (Afternoon-Adjourmed from July 9, 1980) is good for the legal defensibility of the ordinance and it gives the kind of control which he feels is necessary if the Comprehensive Plan is to be implemented. None of the other proposals will stem the tide of rural development sprawl that has been seen in the past. Mr. Lindstrom said he also has serious concerns about granting special use permits in watershed areas and in places where the roads cannot handle the traffic. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Fisher' proposal essentially addresses the same issues that his proposal did, namely~ it provides the owners of large parcels of land with a limited number of lots by right. Dr. Iachetta said using Mr. Fisher's proposal~ under Category I if a person owned 20 acres but less than 40 acres, only one house would be permitted. If a person owned 40 acres~ but less than 60 acres, only two houses would be permitted, unless the owner applied for a special use permit. Dr. Iachetta said if the Board is really serious about going from Category II or Category III to something like Category I, it might as well say that after Category II there will be no subdivision permitted except by special use Permit. Dr. Iachetta said he did not want to encourage anyone to develop a house on 40 acres. Mr. Lindstrom said State law requires that provisions be made for the division of a piece of land. He has suggested that the Subdivision Ordinance be redefined to say that any division of a parcel under 25 acres in size comes under ordinance requirements; any new parcel 25 acres or larger in size would not be considered a subdivision under the terms of the ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said the problem he has with the numbers used for the Land Use tax is that common sense tells him that no one can profitably farm 20 acres in Albemarle County~ or anywhere else for that matter. Mr. Lindstrom said you can grow trees on 20 acres. Mr. Fisher said there are a number of parcels of 20 acres which are presently qualified for the Land Use ~ax in Albemarle County. Dr. Iachetta said he'does not think those parcels should qualify because he feels they are being sheltered from taxes while waiting for the land to turn into money another way. Mr. Henley said he has a problem with allowing so few lots by right. He feels that the Board can address road and other problems in the specific requirements and feels that the Board is taking on a terrible burden if it is going to require special use permit applications for every division over two lots. Miss Nash asked how many lots by right Mr. Henley would recommend. Mr. Henley said two lots are too few and 20 lots by right are probably too many. The number lies between the two figures. Mr. Henley said he feels that someone who owns 20 or 30 acres should apply for a special permit to develop that amount of acreage, but he does not feel that this Board should have to hold a public hearing on all such applications. He said that two acres is enough land to live on. Mr. Roudabush said the citizens were not satisfied.with the Planning Commission's recommendation, but the more this Board talks, the better it looks to him. Mr. Lindstrom said that what Mr. Henley was talking about would in essence be a conditional use permit for a certain number of lots, with a special use permit bein~ required for an additional number of lots. That is more complicated. Mr. Henley said he was thinking more about where roads are adequate for ten lots, and listing some other conditions for development. Mr. Roudabush said his proposal essentially did just that. His proposal allowed five lots by right. Then he had listed conditions for development of between six and twenty lots and anything over twenty lots would require a special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board is goin~ to let subdivisions occur, the lots should not be made bigger as that just wasted the land. Mr. Henley agreed and said that two acres is plenty of land to live on. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support 15 lots by right, even at three acres each as proposed by Dr. Iachetta. He was willing to support Dr. Iachetta's proposal until he looked at the tax maps and found there are already too many small parcels of record. Mr. Lindstrom said Dr. Iachetta proposed 15 lots by right with minimal conditions to be met in terms of internal rOads, central water supply and road tolerability. Miss Nash asked if the Board could not discuss conditions which would be set out in the ordinance for a limit of five lots. Mr. Henley said the conditions Mr. Roudabush recommended in his proposal under special provisions are pretty good. Mr. Lindstrom said one thing about Mr. Fisher's proposal is that it contains standards adopted by the State to address specific issues ~this Board has discussed, in other words preservation of agricultural and forestal lands. Dr, Iachetta said Mr. Fisher's proposal has the effect of telling anyone who owns 20 acres.or more that they must obtain a special use permit for development. If that is what the Board wants~ the Board should just say so and not hide behind State law. Mr. Roudabush said there is no relation between the size of a lot you live on and the size of the tract of land that parcel came out of. They are two different things. Dr. Iachetta agreed, but said the Board is really lookin~ at what kind of criteria to use to govern a change in use. Dr. Iachetta said the Property Owners Association has raised a valid point. What happens to the man who owns a farm he can't sell as a farm? What does he do with the land? Mr. Lindstrom asked if Dr. Iachetta could support Categories II and III of Mr. Fisher's proposal with development of all parcels larger than 20 acres being by special use permit. Dr. Iachetta said that is what he thinks Mr. Fisher's ~roposal does. Mr. Lindstrom asked Dr. Iachetta how he would define the term "subdivision". Dr. Iachetta said he had not had time to think about that question. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 3:40 P.M.). Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to make a motion to see if the Board can get a majority vote so the staff can start to draft the ordinance language. Mr. Lindstrom said to start with Mr. Fisher's suggestions~ but in Category I, any parcel of 20 acres or larger would require a special use permit. In addition to that~ the staff should look at some way to address the problem of an owner who wants to sell a ~arcel, or divide a parcel from a tract 20 acres or larger, on a very limited basis~ for a member of his family. Dr. Iachetta said the problem he has with all of the proposals that have been discussed over the past six to eight weeks, is that if the history of what has happened in the County since zonin~ was adopted is studied~ he believes that whatever lot size is allowed by right in the rural zone, will happen. Mr. Lindstrom said he was just trying to get a feeling as to what size parcel Dr. Iachetta would agree could be divided. Dr. Iachetta said he had not thought about it. Mr. Fisher asked if Dr. Iachetta felt that any parcel 20 acres or larger in size should only be divided through special use permit, but lots of certain sizes should be excluded from the definition of "subdivision" in the Subdivision Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta July 16~ 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from July 9, 1980) said yes. Mr. Fisher asked what would be a reasonable size to exclude. Dr. Iachetta said he has not come to grids with that yet. Dr. Iachetta said he thinks that most people who have taken issue with this ordinance~ have not taken issue with anything other than with how many "dinky" lots they can get out of a parcel to maximize their dollar return, tf that is what the Board .has been hearing~ then ~eople are saying that their interest is not in turning tracts of land into small agricultural tracts~ but into residential tracts. Mr. Lindstrom said that is exactly what the Board is trying to prevent happenin~ without a special use permit. Dr. Iachetta asked what the minimim size lot should be. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think the Board would be able to come up with any number that has an intrinsic value~ so the Board would just have to find some number to be comfortable with. Mr. Henley said he feels it would be unbelievable to require someone who owned 20 acres to apply for a special use permit to sell off just a two-acre lot. Mr. Lindstrom said if there was some way to draft an ordinance for people who are not interested in starting an accumulation of two-acre lots~ he would have no trouble trying to do so. But, the Board must draw an ordinance to cover the worse situation imaginable. Dr. Iachetta said there should be some number of "by-right" divisions that a~p!ies to parcels twenty acres or less in size. Just because someone at the State level ~icked the numbers in Mr. Fisher's proposal for exclusion under the Land Use tax law does not make the number anymore intelligible when talking about creating home sites than any number this Board might create. He felt this whole criteria was wrong when thinking about residential uses. He felt the Board should say that a certain number of lots will he allowed at a certain density on parcels up to 20 acres, and everything over that will require a special use ~ermit. That is much simpler than what the Board has been discussing. Mr. Fisher said evidently Dr. Iachetta does not agree with his goal of tryin~ to retain the land's capability for qualifying for the land use tax ~reference. Dr. Iachetta said not on large tracts of land. Also. he does not accept a 20-acre parcel as being a viable agri- cultural tract in Albemarle County. Dr. Iachetta said since the Board could not agree on anything else~ it should tr~ to set some minimum number of lots b~ right regardless of the size of the tract~ and then have everything above that be by special use permit. Mr. Lindstr¢ suggested the number be set at three. Mr. Fisher suggested that any existing lot could be divided ~nto a maximum of three lots with a minimum two-acre size. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board would still have to decide what size parcel would be exempt under the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Henley said he could go alon~ with the three lots by right if there were another "by-right" category added which would allow a~proval under the special provisions suggested by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support that proposition. Mr. Henley asked if his suggestion was legal. Mr. St. John said it is legal~ but somebody would have to decide whether or not the ~ro~erty met those conditions before the rights were grante~ Mr. Henley said he was bothered by the idea that any division over three lots would have to be by special ~ermit. Mr. Roudabush agreed and said he could not support Mr. Lindstrom's idea anymore than Mr. Lindstrom could support his. That has been the ~roblem through all of these work sessions. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think that any ~roposal would receive six affirmative votes~ but he has felt there is at least some potential for a majority of the Board to vote on one think or another. Mr. St. John asked who would decide if the conditions listed by Mr. Roudabush had been met. Mr. Henley said from reading the list of ~roposed conditions~ he did not think that it would be that hard to make a determination. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think that meetin~ the conditions would do any. thin~ about stoppin~ the number.of divisions currently occurring in the County. Mr. Henley asked that the Board discuss putting divisions over three under special use permit ~rovisions. He said if the Board is just going to deny such applications, there is no use i.n an owner even applying for a ~ermit. Mr. Lindstrom said that simply because an owner ~uts in an internal road or a central well does not address all of the concerns he feels should be addressed in the rural areas. Mr. Henley asked what other conditi Mr. Lindstrom would suggest for a special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said he had listed many in his proposal that he felt were important in determinin~ if a piece of land should be subdivided into a commercial subdivision. Miss Nash asked if these conditions were applied to a permit~ if it would be proper for the petition to only be heard by the Planning Commissio~ rather than coming to this Board also. Mr. Lindstrom said in order to do so~ he felt there would have to more conditions than what have been suggested so far. Mr. Roudabush said he did not believe anyone would build an internal road system if the number of lots by right is limited to three. Mr. Henley said he had said the same thing about two hours ago. Mr. Lindstrom said his proposal to allow three lots by right did not require an internal road system. Mr. Henley said the Board could just as easily put conditions on divisions up to ten lots and not require a s~ecial permit, and not have to hold a hearing on everyone of such applications. Mr. H~nley then offered motion to draft the rural areas text to allow three lots by right; from four to ten lots to be allowed by right if the ~roperty can meet the special provisions listed in Mr. Roudabush's proposal~ anything else to be by special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom asked if these provisions would a~ply in the South Fork Rivanna watershed area. Miss Nash asked the density. Mr. Henley said the lots should be a two-acre minimum. Miss Nash said Mr. Roudabush's proposal states that lots shall be served by an internal road system where physically practical. She asked the meaning of "physically practical." Mr. Roudabush said an applicant would have to prove to the Planning Commission that an 'internal road could not be built. Mr. Fisher clarified by saying the language should be "unless physically impractical." Mr. Roudabush said he would second the motion just to see where the Board stood on the question. ns Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board votes for this proposal, there should be different conditions listed for development in the watershed. Mr. Fisher said he has been thinking about Mr. Roudabush's proposal and feels the motion is going in the right direction~ but not far enough, particularly if development will be permitted on every parcel of land including the watershed area an~ ~articularly if there is an absolute right granted. Miss Nash said in one of the proposals there was wording which said "a special use permit shall be required for the division of three subdivision lots which lie within the boundaries of the watershed." She asked if that language could be included. Mr. Lindstrom said he would suggest that there be a distinction between the watershed areas and other rural areas. Mr. Henley said there are already special provisions in the Runoff Control Ordinance to cover watershed areas. Mr. Fisher noted that almost all two-acre development is excluded from the ~e~ulations of the Runoff Control Ordinance. Miss Nash said she was confused as to what the motion is at this time and asked if Mr. Henley would substitute Conditions D through F of Mr. Lindstrom's proposal (set out in full on pages 107-108, June 18, 1980, meeting). Mr. Lindstrom suggested includin~ Condition G of that proposal also. Dr. Iachetta asked if the watershed exclusion is included in those conditions. Mr. Lindstrom said it is included in Condition E and COndition G(8). Mr, Roudabush asked if the motion meant that anywhere in the County there cOuld be three lots by right, but outside of the watershed an owner could also get four to ten lots by special use permit provided these conditions were met. Mr. Lindstrom said that was correct. He then asked if Miss Nash were sug~estin~ the aforementioned as an amendment to Mr. Henley's motion. Miss Nash said yes and moved the amended motion, Mr-~ Henley said he felt the Runoff Control Ordinance would take care of the problems for a small number of lots. If you include the watershed areas, that takes in about one-half of the County. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Henley if he would accept the amended motion. Mr. Henley said it is nOt what he had in mind. Miss Nash then offered motion to amend the previous motion Mr. Fisher asked for a second. · Mr. Lindstrom said he had no objection to the amendment, but he had a problem with the original motion. He felt it would be better if the number of lots permitted by right was the same throughout the County and no overlay district was created for the watershed areas. He said he had suggested an overlay simply because he thought the number of lots by right was large and there needed to be special considerations for divisions in the watershed areas. Mr, Fisher said since there was no second, the Board was back to the motion made by Mr. Henley and seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Roudabush said the motion is not exactly what he would like to see adopted, but he was willin~ to support the motion at this time in order to be able to move on to discussion of other parts of the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he would have supported the motion before he looked at the tax maps and saw the number of parcels which could be divided under this proposal. Mr. Fisher said the State plannin~ people had projected that Albemarle County would have a population of 54,400+ people by July 1, 1980. Today, preliminary census figures were received which show the population to be 54,355. State planners have now predicted that there will be 25,000 additional people in Albemarle County by 1995. Sufficient areas for the expected population are provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he feels the Board is at a place where some measures, although they may not be politically palatable, need to be taken or the County will be lost to the agricultural industry, and to a large extent to the tourist industry, in the next two decades. Mr. Fisher said he feels that is the real key to whether or not every parcel of land should have a right to be further divided into 10 parcels or more. Mr. Roudabush said he felt that the new zoning categories in the Urban Area will attract development in that area because it will be much easier to develop. He also said that he felt the cost of transportation will make a dramatic change in living styles and living places in the next few years. Miss Nash said Mr. Henley's proposal brings to mind what happened with the Bishop Hill Subdivision and she does not think it improves such a situation and cannot support the motion Mr. Lindstrom said he ran for office because he felt that the four years he would be in office would be th~ years during which the decisions which would shape the County for a number of years would be made. Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot vote for something he does not honestly believe will significantly change the existing pattern of development. At the last public hearin~ on the Zoning Ordinance, there was substantial support for a stron~ zoning ordinance and comprehensive Dian. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks that communities who have been unwilling or unable to look forward have suffered from such action everytime. At this time, Mr. Fisher called for a vote on the motion. followin~ recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley and Roudabush. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. The motion failed by the Dr. Iachetta immediately offered motion to establish for the RA district, five lots by right, with a minimum two-acre density with any further divisions being by special use permit, and required road frontage for these lots being 250 feet. Miss Nash asked if there would be any other conditions imposed on these five lot divisions. Dr. Iachetta said no. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Roudabush said if this motion passes, the Board should also consider some way to define "subdivision" so the definition does not preclude the division of large tracts of land for resale purposes. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. Fisher said for an owner with a small amount of acreage, this motion would not make a big change, but for the owner of a large amount of acreage, this would be a bin change. Mr. Fisher asked if this proposal would require recordkeepin~. Dr. Iachetta said yes. Mr. Roudabush said that every proposal made thus far, except for the one made today, would require recordkeeping. (Mr. St. John returned to the meetin~ at 4:54 P.M.) Mr. Fisher said the intent of this motion is to have the staff draft a RA proposal based on the motion, taking some assumptions from the conversation today. If the motion passes, the staff should present a proposal soon for the Board to study. The roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the followin~ recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ' Agenda Item No. 5b. Work Session: Zoning Map. Mr. Tucker said the staff has noted a list of areas on the proposed zoning map which are in conflict with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. Some of these conflicts exist on smaller parcels which may not have been recognized on the detailed land use plans in the Comprehensive Plan and some were mentioned by property owners durin~ work sessions on the detailed plans. The Board decided at that time that if an area was too small to show on those plans, that they would be deal with these areas on the zoning map. Mr. Tucker then presented the following list for consideration: Neighborhood No. ]: 1) The Comprehensive Plan shows Commercial Office but the Planning Commission recommended Highway Commercial for Jim Price Chevrolet. The property owner has requested that the existing commercial frontage be designated a comparable designation. 2) On Route 29 North, the CQmprehensive Plan shows medium ~density residential on. Tax. Map 45, .Parcel 1.08,.but the Pla. nning Commission Highway Commercial. This ms the Co~gln property which nas re'~ommenmem was rezoned in 1977. 3) On the north side of Rio Road, west of Route 29 North, the Comprehensive Plan shows commercial, but the Plannin~ Commission'has recommended R-10. Current zonin~ is R-2 and in residential usage. 4) For the Minor Tract off of Whitewood Road, the Comprehensive Plan shows high densit~ residential, but the Plannin~ Commission has recommended R-4 and R-6. The ~roperty is currently being developed at lower densities. 5) In the Westfield Road area~ the Comprehensive Plan shows Commercial Office while the Planning Commission has recommended C-1. The staff recommended a mix of Commercial Office, C-1 and Light Industry, with an internal street system. 6)On Commonwealth Drive Extended, the Comprehensive Plan shows Commercial Office, subject to a~reements for Commonwealth Drive. 7) On the north side of Hydraulic Road across from the Hop-In Store~ the Comprehensive Plan shows low density residential· The Plannin~ Commission recommended R,4~ R-15 and C-1 in order to recognize existing zoning and approved plans. Neighborhood No. 2: 8) The Comprehensive Plan shows a commercial/commercial office mix from Albemarle Square Shoppin~ Center to the South Fork Rivanna River. The Planning Commission recommended commercial office at the entrance to Carrsbrook and on the Real Estate III site. This was done to recognize approved plans, property owners requests and staff recommendations. 9) Behind Albemarle Square Shopping Center~ the Comprehensive Plan shows medium densit residential. The Planning Commission recommended R-10~and Highway'~Commercial to recognize existing uses and zoning. 10) Near Wakefield Subdivision, the Comprehensive Plan shows high dens[t~ residential. The Planning Commission recommended R-2 and R-6. Mr. Tucker said'_t~ Board may wish to reconsider the proposed zoning on Tax Map 61, Parcel ~40,' W~ Fountain Court Apartments and the duplexes are located at the Corporate Limits on Rio Road. The Planning Commission recommended a density comparable to the way this area is presently being developed. 11) The Comprehensive Plan shows open space between the City Limits and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway (McIntire Road Extended). The Planning Commission recommended R-4 and R-15 to recognize some of the existing zoning near Melbourne Road, but also recommended lowering the density because some of this area is shown as a sensitive area in the Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood No. 4: 12) The Comprehensive Plan shows medium density residential and commercial along Avon Street Extended. The Planning Commission recommended R-1. The medium density and commercial areas could not be located on the Comprehensive Plan so as to identify specific areas or parcels. Also, the Hillcrest PUD petition is still pending before the Board and if it is ever a~proved and developed, there are commercial areas provided i'n that plan. Neighborhood No. 5: 13) The Comprehensive Plan shows low density designation between Routes 780~ 631 and 1- 64. The Planning Commission has recommended R-4, R-15 and C-1. At a property owners request, the Planning Commission recognized some of the existing zoning but commercial acreage was reduced and residential densities were reduced. 14) The Comprehensive Plan shows property on the north side of Old Ivy Road for high density residential and commercial. The Planning Commission has recommended low density because recent zoning petitions for high density and commercial uses have been denied by this Board. CroZ~_t~Community: Mr. Tu~ker said there are some areas shown for a residential density higher than that which can occur before the interceptor is built. ~ 1 mead Community: Hal y ~.. ~ ........... ~ ,.,~re the Comprehensive Plan called . cker said there were some ar~as mn ~omm~~~ ~e~o~nized because they are ~' ~['~ ~d~um and high density, but these areas~h~v~ ~ ~ ..... daries should be recogniz ~ '~,~,: ~ .......... · · · - me~ermmn~ whmch boun ' '~'~'~fairly large parcels and mt ms~dmff~cult,t~_,~ ~ e~ be rezoned at time of proposed m~ ~eas are shown for low mens y ........ ~ ~ tributary of Powel! Creek. ~ ..... ' r for the ~o±±ymeaa ar~ ~ ~ · ment. The actual bounda ~_ , ,l ~ ~ ~t~' area in the Plan. develop .... ~ ~ ,~ creex is show~ ~ ~ ....... ye The area on ~ne easy sm~ ~ ~,~ .' desi nations in the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Tuc Mr. Fisher, asked abou~ zo~mn5 .... 5~a which has been recognized ms that.for th~ said the only ex~st~ng zonmng ~n.~n~ wa~ ....... -'--ed .... ~ ~'~ w~er saim that zoning was oraer _ ~ ~ -~ .~ ~a~ ~lan If the Evergreen ro~. ~'~-'~'~ _ · had ordered approva± · , . ' had to ce shown smnce the co~t ..... ~ ~ .... *~ a~nrove it regardless of that zonmng · CounvF wo~z~ applicant decides to use the smte ~U' ~= =~ ~+ i~ an area that should be developed · shown on this zoning map. Tn ~- ~~ ~id many counties in Virgmnma what is ~ · · ~a s. ~. ~'~ irtue of these specmal cm~cums ~c~ ,, .... ~ ~ *~ court" He then asked mf the except by v . - s no,em as mo~ ~ ..... · · · have zoning maps whmch have suc~ ~o~mng .... ~ ^e *~e recommendations of the Plannmng Commmss map shown today had been, ca{rec revised Comprehensive Plan. Tucker as well as changes the s~a~r ~o~a r~u~% ..... have been noted by landowners are snown. ~. , Mr Fisher asked i~ ~ne appea±s ~na~ · said yes. · . otes on June 25. Tucker said only those on whmch the Board took v seconded by Mr. Agenda Stem No. 6. At 5:23 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, RoudabUsh, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. At 7:30 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned.