Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-08 adjSeptember 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 8, 1980, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 1980. 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 Attorney, George R. St. John and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. Mr. Fisher announced that Mr. Layton R. McCann had been appointed to replace Mr. Roudabush who resigned in August. Mr. McCann was sworn in on September 5. Mr. Fisher then noted that Mr. Agnor was out of town at a meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said he is the ex-officio member of the Planning Commission and would like to request a leave of absence for several months while he teaches a class at the University of Virginia. Mr. Fisher said he would like to ask if Mr. McCann would be willing to serve on the Planning District Commission. Mr. McCann said he thought he would have to pick up Mr. Roudabush's assignments, so had no problem with the suggestion. Mr. Fisher said if there was no volunteer to take Mr. Lindstrom's place on the Planning Commission, he would request a motion to appoint Mr. McCann as a member of the Planning District Commission. There being no volunteer, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr. McCann as a County representative on the Planning District Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. revised draft of the Rural Areas District: Mr. Tucker presented the following X.O RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA X.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED This district (referred to hereinafter as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the official zoning map to permit a limited amount of lower density residential development in areas of the county designated in the comprehensive plan as: other rural lands which have no distinctive environmental characteristics; critical slopes; and agricultural conservation areas. It is intended that development occur in the locations and at scales compatible to the physical characteristics of the land and availability of public facilities and it is further intended that impact of roadside strip development be minimized through the various design requirements contained herein. In regard to agricultural conservation, this district is intended to conserve the county's active farms and best agricultural and forestal lands for purposes of enhancing the economy, perpetuating scenic beauty and maintaining employment and lifestyle opportunities. It is intended that the continuation and establishment of agriculture and related uses will be encouraged, that encroachment of large scale development on the active farms and best agricultural lands be limited. It is further intended that development be permitted on land which is of marginal utility for agricultural purposes, provided that such development be carried-out in a manner which is compatible with the encouragement and preservation of agriculture in the area. X.2 APPLICATION RA districts may be applied to previously established A-~ districts in accordance with criteria cited under "where permitted" above. x.3 PERMITTED USES X.3.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any RA district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: Detached single-family dwellings, including guest cottages and rental of the same; provided that yard, area and other require- ments in section X.5 conventional development by right shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lot subject to the provisions of section X.7; e Side-by-side duplexes subject to the provisions of Section X.7 provided that density is maintained and provided that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. Other two- family dwellings shall be permitted provided density is maintained. September 8, 1980 (Adj~.ourned from September 3, 1980) ×.3.2 e 11. Churches, parish houses and adjunct cemeteries; Agriculture, forestry, and fishery uses except as otherwise expressly provided; Game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses; Wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products produced on the premises; Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law; Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation: (reference 5.2) and storage buildings; Class A Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18); Temporary events of local non-profit organizations (reference 5.1.20); Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds, and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state and federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facili- ties, pumping stations and the like, owned and operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12); 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.15); Veterinary services - off-site treatment only; Agricultural Service Occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.15); Home for developmentally disabled (reference 5.1.7) Divisions of land in accordance with Section X.7.1; Tourist lodging. BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Community center; Clubs, lodges - civic, patriotic, fraternal; Fire and rescue squads (reference 5.1.11); Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.25); Private schools; Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances; Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6); Mobile home parks (reference 5.3); Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5); Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6); Hog farms; Horse show grounds, permanent; Custom slaughterhouse; Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.15); 15. Group homes; September 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980) x.4 X.4.1 X.4.2 x.5 Requirements Gross Density Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3); Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.15); Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.15); Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.11); Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.5); Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14); Country store; Commercial fruit packing plants; Motels or inns; Flood control dams and impoundments; Restaurants located on or adjacent to motel premises; Restaurants located within an historic landmark as designated in the Comprehensive Plan provided such structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistenv therewith; Divisions of land except as hereinabove provided; Boat landings and canoe livery; Permitted residential uses except as hereinabove provided; Home Occupation - Class B (reference 5.2); Cemetery; crematorium; funeral home. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II DEVELOPMENT The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record on the date of adoption of this ordinance. REGULATIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT Regulations in X.5 governing development by right shall apply to the division of a parcel into five (5) or fewer lots or to the location of five (5) or fewer dwelling units on a parcel. REGULATIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Regulations in X.5 and X.6 governing development by special use permit shall apply to the division of a parcel into more than five (5) lots or the location on a parcel of more than five (5) dwelling units. AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS Divisions by Right Development 0.5 du/ac Divisions by Special Use Permit Development Development 0.5 du/ac 0.5 du/ac Minimum lot size 2.0 acres 2.0 acres 1.0 acre Minimum frontage Existing public roads 250 feet 250 feet 125 feet Minimum frontage Internal public or private roads 175 feet 175 feet 100 feet Minimum yard: front Minimum yard: sides Minimum yard: rear 75 feet 75 feet 50 feet 25 feet 25 feet 12 feet 35 feet 35 feet 25 feet Maximum structure height feet 35 feet 35 feet X.6 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, GENERALLY Ail cluster lots shall have access only to internal public or private roads unless otherwise provided by the Planning Commission in a specific case. Use of cluster provisions shall be subject to other requirements of this ordinance, applicable health requirements, and the subdivision ordinance. September 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980) X.7 X.7.1 X.7.2 x.7.2.1 SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS LIMITATIONS ON DIVISIONS PERMITTED BY RIGHT Divisions of land shall be permitted as provided hereinabove; except that no parcel of land of record on the date of the adoption of this ordinance may be divided into an aggregate of more than five (5) parcels nor shall there be constructed on any~such parcel an aggregate of more than five (5) units, except as provided in Section X.7.2 hereof. WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The Board of Supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for the division of a parcel into more than five (5) lots or the construction on a single parcel of more then five (5) dwelling units at a gross density not to exceed one dwelling unit per two acres (1 du/2 ac); provided that the Board of SuPervisors shall determine that such division and/or conStruction is compatible with the neighbor- hood as set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of this ordinance, with reference to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan relating to rural areas and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following: ~ 1. The size, shape, topography, and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal pro- duction as evaluated by'the United States Department of Agricul- ture 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 Conserva- tion 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 (1 mile) of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five years of the date of the application of 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 (1 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 the 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. 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. 250 September 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980) X.7.2.2 X.7.2.3 The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development. de The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drainfie!d to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; 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. re The percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development. go 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: aa. Require periodic inspection 'and/or maintenanCe; bb. Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any 100-year or more intense storm. MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT The Commission and Board may require the applicant to submit such information as deemed necessary for the adequate review of such appli- cation provided that such information shall be directly related to items 1, 2, 3 and 8 of Section X.7.2.1. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditions of approval of any such permit may be imposed by the Board of Supervisors in any case in which the Board of Supervisors shall determine that the same shall be reasonably necessary to insure the compatability of the proposed development with the neighborhood provided that any such condition of approval shall be directly related to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Section X.7.2.1. Mr. Tucker said there is no provision in the RA zone for gift, craft and antique shops. {e did not remember if the Board wanted to leave that use out or not. He also noted that Item 17, tourist lodging should have a reference to 5.1.17 added after it. Dr. Iachetta asked why the Planning Commission had left out gift shops, etc. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission felt that the C1 district in the growth areas would be adequate to take care of this use. Mr. Henley said many such permits have been approved in the last few years in the rural areas. Dr. Iachetta said he saw no problem with including this as a use by special permit and asked why it would not be a part of Home OccupatiOn A. Mr. Tucker said there is a specific provision for Home Occupations in the text of the ordinance. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to add #36 under "By Special Use Permit" in the RA zone to read: "Gift, craft and antique shops." The motion carried~by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker noted that #7 under the special permit section - "Day care, child care or nursery facility" is an addition to the ordinance. This use was not allowed in the A~i district. The Planning Commission has occasionally had problems with such requests in rural areas, especially on small lots, but they did feel there is a need for this type of use. Mr. Tucker noted #32 under the special'permit section - "Cemetery, crematorium, funeral home.'! He said that funeral homes were not allowed in the A~i district, but the staff found while doing research on the crematorium amendment that funeral homes are now moving to cemetery locations and that cemeteries are moving out into the rural areas because of the need for additional space. Mr. Fisher did not feel that funeral homes should be encouraged to locate in rural areas. Miss Nash saw no reason for funeral homes to be located in the country and offered motion to delete "funeral homes" from the RA district. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel strongly about the issue, but did think this is more of a purely commercial type operation than some other uses and offered second to the motion. September 8; 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980) Mr. Henley said there have never been any problems with the funeral home in Crozet except for parking. Mr. McCann said he saw no problem with having funeral homes in the RA district, and he felt they might be better in the country than in congested urban areas. Dr. Iachetta said he did not think funeral homes have a greater impact on the surrounding area than motels, inns and restaurants. Mr. Lindstrom asked in which districts funeral homes are permitted by right. Mr. Tucker said they are permitted in the C1 district. Mr. McCann said he felt funeral homes could be controlled by the Board through the special permit procedure. Mr. Fisher said he felt the question was whether or no~ funeral homes are appropriate at all lin the rural area. Dr. Iachetta asked if funeral homes automatically get the right to have a crematorium. Mr. Tucker said that is a separate use. Dr. Iachetta said it would be hard to argue for one and against the other when they are set out as they are under #32. Mr. Henley said he he saw no reason why a funeral home needed a crematorium. Mr. Fisher noted that there is a motion on the floor to delete funeral homes from #32. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board should specifically address the question of mausoleums. Mr. Fisher said the definition of cemetery is very simple. Mr. Lindstrom said maybe it should be referred to as "below the ground" burial. Roll was called on the motion at this time, and the motion to delete funeral home from #32 carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs., Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Henley (Mr. Henley said with the personal experience he has had with the funeral home in Crozet, he does not feel it is a big problem.) and Mr. McCann. Dr. ZIachetta said he could see no pressing need to delete this, but it can always be added back to the ordinance at a later date. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the Board discuss mausoleums. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. John for his opinion. Mr. St. John said he felt the ordinance should carry a definition of mausoleum because at this time the term can mean one grave in a crypt above the ground or it can also m~an a "hotel for the dead". He suggested that this not be included as a use by right but could be included as a separate use with a definition of same. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board does not do something, it will be assumed that a mausoleum is automatically a part of a cemetery. Mr. St. John said it would be better to list the three items under #32 as separately numbered items. Then, if one use were granted, the other uses would not auto- matically be granted. Mr. McCann said he did not feel that mausoleums should be excluded from the county. The Board should not try to tell people how they can be buried, but should make provisions for everybody. Mr. Fisher said the term mausoleum is not defined in the ordinance. Mr. St. John said that for anything that is not defined you would use the dictionary meaning. Dr. Iachetta asked if there should be a limit on the number of crypts. Mr. St. John said he did not think the Board should try to set out any numbers when there is no petition before the Board. If this were listed in the ordinance as multi-crypt mausoleum, and included as a use by special permit, the Board could then control the situation depending on the facts presented when a petition is filed. Mr. Fisher said he would accept Mr. St. John's recommendat1 Dr. Iachetta asked if a cemetery would have the right to have above-the ground crypts. Mr. St. John said his office has interpreted that to be the case. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to change Item #32 under "By Special Use Permit" to read just "Cemetery"; to add Item #33 reading "Crematorium" and to add Item #34 reading "Multi-crypt mausoleum." The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom ~said he would like to discuss #3 under the "By right" uses - "Churches, parish houses and adjunct cemeteries." He did not feel that churches should be a use by right in any residential district since they can have a major impact on surrounding lands. If there are residential districts in the rural area, and churches are used by more than just church groups, he felt they should only be allowed by special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with "parish house" since he felt this was a use that is compatible to most districts as long as the parish house is like a residence. Dr. Iachetta said he felt it was inconsistent that a free-standing cemetery require a special permit, but an adjunct cemetery is a use allowed by right. Mr. Tucker said that it has been felt in the past that an adjunct cemetery is a compatible use, but a free-standing cemetery could be located in an area where it would not be compatible. Mr. Lindstrom said if you separated the spiritual aspects of a church building from the other activities that might take place in that building, it could be seen that sometimes such uses have a negative affect on the community in terms of traffic congestion and noise. Mr. Henley asked what effect it would have on churches that use school buildings and community centers to require special permit approval. Mr. Lindstrom said he had not thought about that aspect, but he did feel an obligation to people who might buy in a residential area and then have a church buy one acre right next to them and squeeze a church building on the property. Miss Nash asked if the church building is only the place where worship services are held, or 'if that included kitchen~, community rooms, etc. Mr. St. John said it includes anything in the building. Mr. Lindstrom said he really saw no reason to mention parish houses at all. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to delete "Churches, parish houses and adjunct cemeteries" from uses by right and to include "Church building and adjunct cemeteries" as Item #36 under the uses by special permit. Mr. McCann said he would have a problem in requiring that churches come before the Planning Commission and the Board fOr a special use permit, so he could not support the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYEs: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, LindStrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. McCann. o~M~,umu~r' o, ±dou t~ojourne~ iirom September 3, 1980) Mr. Fisher asked why duplexes are allowed by right in the RA district. Mr. Tucker said there are provisions for duplexes in the current A1 zone as long as the density is maintained. This is a carry over provision from the current ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said he is adverse to encouraging the development of r~ntal units in rural areas, but four acres is certainly enough land for two families to live on. Miss Nash asked about #15 under special use permit uses - "Home for developmentally disabled." Mr. Tucker said State Code Section 15.1486.2 was added last year and this section requires that provision be made for this use in all zoning districts. Mr. Fisher asked if the State code required that this use be by right. Mr. St. John said no. Mr. Fisher said no limit on the number of persons residing in the home is listed in the ordinance. While he has no objection to small groups, if there were a regional or national operation, such a use could have a big impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Keeler said the definition of group home limits occupancy of those homes to no more that eight persons unrelated to the adult supervisor. There is also a supplementary regulation relating to homes for the developmentally disabled. Mr. Fisher said he felt it would be better to set a limit similar to that for group homes. Mr. St. John suggested that this use be transferred to the uses by special permit. He read from the State Code: "It is the policy of this state that mentally retarded and other developmentally disabled persons shall not be excluded by county and municipal zoning ordinanc from the benefits of normal residential surroundings ... toward this end, it is the policy of this state that none of such group homes and their locations throughout the state and within any given political subdivision should be proportional in so far as possible within the state and local political subdivisions ... locally adopted zoning ordinances shall provide for family care homes, foster homes, or group homes serving mentally retarded or other develop- mentally disabled persons, not related by blood or marriage, and appropriate residential districts .. " Dr. Iachetta suggested that #15 under "uses by right" and #15 under "uses by special permit" be combined as one item under "Uses by special permit". Mr. St. John suggested that this item then read "Group homes and group homes for the developmentally disabled as described in Virginia Code Section 15.1486.2." Motion to delete Item #15 under "by right" uses and to add the language suggested by Mr. St. John as #15 under uses "by special use permit" was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carred by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker then described the chart set out under Section X.5, Area and Bulk Regulations. Miss Nash asked if there were any restrictions on clustering under special permit provisions. Mr. Tucker said the two-acre density would have to be maintained, although the development could have a one-acre density. The remaining land would become part of the open space for that development. Lots would need 40,000 square feet for an individual well and septic field. Miss Nash asked if these provisions would apply to lands lying in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he had heard that the State Health Department has recently changed to 40,000 square feet. Mr. Tucker said he has a letter from the State Health Department in which it is stated that as long as the County requires two drainfield areas on each site, the Health Department will agree to 40,000 square feet (basically one-acre) for individual well and septic field. This is a reduction from the previous requirement of 60,000 square feet. Miss Nash asked if there is anyway to stop a developer frOm including unusable land on a plan only to achieve the proper density. Mr. Fisher said that can continue, in fact, that type of thing is encouraged by any kind of clustering provisions. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt fairly comfortable with the language concerning clustering because clustering is allowed only by special permit. Dr. Iachetta asked if there were any way to deal with residential neighborhood development in the RA zone, similar to the way the RPN is presently handled. Mr. Tucker said in the new ordinance there is a provision called PRD (Planned Residential Development) which is mainly for the urban area of the County. Under the original proposal, clustering was allowed by right in subdivisions in the rural areas, but that has now been changed to allow clustering only by special permit. In order.to have the old RPN zone in the rural areas, some changes would have to be drafted in the PRD. Dr. Iachetta said he has a problem with allowing clustering in a rural area. Mr. Lindstrom said he had a question for the County Attorney. The Comprehensive Plan on pages 5, 6, 8 and i0 refers to agricultural land use and conservation land use, and on page 10 recommends specific residential densities. He asked if what has been drafted for the RA district is a legitimate implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Legally speaking, is the Board creating a conflict that could be a problem in the future. The proposal from the consultants recommended a very specific way to attain the goal, but the Board has never specifically discussed the consultants proposal. Mr. St. John said he sees the base starting point at which development can take place to be a matter of time, that is, the day this new ordinance is adopted rather than being any feature in the Comprehensive Plan. There is .nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that gears any of the provisions to a given date. Mr. ~Lindstrom said he was concerned that five or ten acre lots would eat up more agricultural land,than such a provision would save, but such a recommendation is in the Comprehensive Plan. He said he can imagine someone raising that point in court and objecting to the zoning ordinance because it does not implement the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said that the third line of Chart #4 on Page 10 (1 du/2ac) is basically all that will be implemented in this ordinance because the County cannot yet identify prime agricultural land. Mr. St. John said someone with 1000 acres might argue that the land is not prime agricultural land, therefore he is entitled to one dwelling unit per two acres, or 500 units. Actually, he would be allowed only five dwelling units. Mr. Lindstrom said that is what concerns him. What he has been trying to do is related to the standards set out under "recommended residential scale" on Page 10. Dr. Iachetta said he interprets what is being done to mean that if someone wants more than five lots, he must apply for a special use permit, and the two-acre density would apply to the first four lots. Mr. Lindstrom said there would be no higher density than one dwelling unit/two acres unless the development was clustered. Dr. Iachetta said a develop- ment can be clustered and still maintain the density, although the gross acreage does not ichange' Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think all of the Board members had been keeping the September 8, 1980 (Adjourned form September 3, 1980) table on Page 10 in mind during these discussions. He wanted to be sure that the Comprehensive Plan is addressed in this amendment process and that nothing is left out that will create any Confusion later. Mr. Fisher said he felt the goal was good, although there is a problem at ~this time with the soils maps. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board basically agreed with the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan, or does the Board feel the Plan should be changed to reflect what is being contemplated in this ordinance change. Mr. Lindstrom said if the soils maps were cOmplete at this time, and he was faced with the question of enacting a density of one dwelling unit per five or ten acres, he would have reservations because he does not think that such a provision would preserve agricultural land. Mr. Fisher said he feels the record is clear. There has been an attempt made by the Board to follow the Compre- hensive Plan, but for practical reasons that has been abandoned at least temporarily. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Lindstrom had any further concerns. Mr. Lindstrom said the reason the Agricultural-Forestry and Rural Residential districts were replaced by the rural areas recommendation is because there was not sufficient soils information. He feels that when this information is available, the Board will have an opportunity for further review. Mr. Henley said he feels the Board will be surprised when it tries to apply soils information to the tax maps. He said it is just wishful thinking to believe it will simplify the problem. Mr. Lindstrom said the considerations listed under section X.7.2.1 are clearly specifically oriented to the questions raised in the Comprehensive Plan and result in a case by case determination of whether land is mountaineous, impoundment watershed, best agricultural, etc. He feels that this ordinance provides for that kind of limitation, and is consistent. Dr. Iachetta said the Buck Mountain Creek impoundment has been identified as well as Totier, Beaver Creek and the South Fork Rivanna. Now would be the time to treat those areas differently if the Board wants to do so. Miss Nash said she did not believe the Board had ever contemplated increasing the acreage in these areas to five acres. Dr. Iachetta said he thought the Board had agreed with the Planning Commission's reasoning that it did not want to encourage ten- acre lots. Mr. Fisher said from his purview of the draft, the staff has done exactly what they were directed to do in drafting the RA district. Miss Nash questioned #4 under Section X.7.2.1, (... 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 ...) saYing she felt the land would be closer to the urban area than one mile of the border. Mr. Tucker said the Board may want to change that one mile designation under #4 and #5 to one-half mile in order to be consistent with the community and village boundaries. Mr. McCann said the Board is trying to discourage sprawl and also discourage development in the rural areas. He asked where development will be encouraged. Miss Nash said in the urban area. Mr. Tucker said as long as the urban area boundary is fixed, there should not be the leap-frogging there has been in the past, since you would only have the one mile beyond that boundary. Dr, Iachetta said that the urban area has been zoned to hold four times the population increase expected in this planning period. Now, i~ discussing the area immediately adjacent to the urban area, it should be a rural type density. Miss Nash said she would rather see that one mile changed'to one-half mile, since a mile from that urban area boundary goes a long way out into the country. Mr. McCann said he feels that most people in the county prefer a rural setting and he wonders how far they can be restr±cted while living in that rural setting. He said when he was a member of the Planning Commission, he had voted against just 20 lots by right and now the Board is discussing limiting lots to only five. He had also voted against the seven criteria set out under X.7.2.1 and now the Board is talking about eight criteria with nine sub-headings under #8. Mr. Henley said he did not think the one mile would be a big problem since it would require issuance of a special permit for development in that area and the land would still be in the rural areas. Mr. McCann asked the meaning of "rural services" in #7. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the word "rural" should be deleted because there are no typical rural services. Mr. McCann said if the ordinance is adopted as proposed, the extra one-half mile under #4 might encourage people to settle in that area rather than trying to get further out into the county. He felt.there might be a problem if people are restricted to just living in the urban area. Mr. McCann said he had listened to the people at the public hearings held by the Board and Planning Commission, and he did not think that any person has asked for such restrictions. Mr. Lindstrom said leaving in the "one mile of the urban boundary" is not intended to facilitate development in that area, but it means that the Board should consider whether or not the land should be converted from agricultural use. Mr. McCann asked how much information required under X.7.2.1(8) will be available to the Planning staff and other county offices. He felt these criteria would effectively keep a ~erson with only 40 or 50 acres from doing anything with his land. Also, he was not in favor lof requiring a special permit for family divisions. Mr. Keeler said the Board has discussed !having exemptions for certain size parcels, but that was not worked into this draft because the Board has not yet decided what that exemption should be. Mr. McCann said he would rather just set a specific number of lots of a specific size instead of requiring a special permit. Mr. Tucker said he feels it will be difficult for the smaller landowner to go through this process to divide land. Most of the required information will have to be provided by the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom said a number of t-hese criteria are already being required on RPN applications. Mr. McCann asked if these criteria were being recommended to supplement the Runoff Control Ordinance because it is felt that that ordinance is not strong enough. Mr. Lindstrom said no, but a lot of these things are already being required at the present time on RPN applications. Mr. McCann asked why these criteria must be included if the Board goes with an RPN in the RA district. Mr. Lindstrom said that for any major development in or out of the watershed, the Board should have the· discretion to apply the kind of criteria presently applied to RPN's. Mr. Henley said he felt Mr. McCann was talking about something he had mentioned earlier. He cannot see any reason to require a special permit if certain guidelines set out in the ordinance are followed. Mr. Henley said he would rather see everything written down and let the staff give approval, rather than the Board holding a public hearing on such special permit requests. Mr. Lindstrom said that in an earlier version of the RA district, there was a reference to road tolerability. Mr. Tucker said that provision was accidently left out of this draft. September 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980) Mr. Fisher asked if it was clear that under X.7.2.1(7) the word "rural" is an incorrect word. Mr. St. John said he did not think the Planning COmmission meant Urban services, and that is the reason for the word. Dr. Iachetta felt "rural" should be struck. Mr. Lindstrom noted that he was uneasy about the language in Section X.7.2.3, COnditions of ~pproval. Mr. Tucker said this language was probably taken from the Planning Commission's proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission basically had a conditional use permit section and he just wanted to be sure that that concept was nOt transferred to this ordinance. Mr. St. John said this section is not necessary at all. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to delete'the paragraph numbered X.7.2.3. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: - AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta~Lindstro~ and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Miss Nash questioned the language in Section X.2, Application, asking if the words "previously established A-1 districts" included any business or commercial area that just happened to be in the A-1 district. Mr. Tucker said yes. Miss Nash asked what will happen if the land has always had a B-1 designation, but never been developed. Mr. Tucker said that is something the Board will have to discuss when working on the zoning map. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any reasons to have an "application" section. Mr. Fisher asked if this section were included only to show where the district came from. Mr. St. John said he believes that was the reason. It is a way of correlating the old ordinance with the new ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he could see Miss Nash's point. This section may confuse if a new area is added to the map that is a section referred to under "application". Mr. St. John said that is why the word "may" is used in this section. One of the two points made by the Albemarle Taxpayers Association is that they did not want any downzoning of business properties. Miss Nash asked if that was just for the rural areas. Mr. St. John said a lot of this property was in the A-1 district and that is why this paragraph reads as it does. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. St. John saw any problem with the wording. Mr. St. John said it is not absolutely necessary that the paragraph be included, but he did not see any problem with leaving it in for explan- atory purposes. Dr. Iachetta said he wanted to be sure that what the Board is doing is reasonably clear to the citizens. Mr. Tucker said he had never seen this type of thing done in ordinances. The consultants did this initially because of questions being raised at the citizens meetings. Mr. Lindstrom said those meetings were held before the Planning Commission started working on the map. Miss Nash said she has been thinking about the Runoff Control Ordinance since the perimetez of the Buck Mountain Creek impoundment was set at 200 feet. She then offered motion to start the procedure to change the setback for the Runoff Control Ordinance to 200 feet for the whole watershed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom who said the setback should be ten vertical feet Mr. Fisher asked if this motion was for a resolution of intent to amend the Runoff Control Ordinance to make the setbacks the same in the South Rivanna and Totier and other watersheds as that setback for Buck Mountain. Miss Nash said that was correct. Mr. Henley said he could not support ten vertical feet until he knew more about what such a provision would do. He probably would not support 200 feet around the older reservoirs although he did support it for Buck Mountain because it probably will not have much of an impact around the newer reservoir. Mr Fisher said if the Board.is going to amend this ordinance, a public hearing should be set. Miss Nash then amended the motion to set a public hearing on the resolution of iintent for the nearest possible date. Mr. Fisher suggested October 22. Mr. Lindstrom iaccepted the amendment. Mr. Fisher asked what analyses of the impacted areas would be needed ifrom the staff. Mr. Henley asked what setback was originally enacted in the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. McCann said it was 200 feet originally, and the Board changed that to 100 feet. Mr. St. John said the State Health Department had changed their setback requirement from 200 to 100. Mr. Lindstrom said he has heard that the Health Department has changed the requirement again. Mr. Henley said he would like to have some information on the 10 feet vertical. Mr. Keeler said the 10 feet vertical was an in-house estimate of flood stage at Buck Mountain. It is not known what the flood will be, but the staff does not feel it will exceed that at the South Rivanna. The flood levels at the South Rivanna are known to be at the 394 contour. Mr. Fisher asked if Miss Nash would like to amend the motion to make the setback 200 feet horizontal from the 100-year flood level contour for all reservoirs. Miss Nash and Mr.~ Lindstrom both agreed. Mr. McCann said he would support holding a public hearing, but he would have to hear some good reasons to increase the setback after it had been decreased just last year. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Fisher said in order to finish work on the Zoning Ordinance he would like the Board members to set aside September 22, September 29, October 6, October 13, and October 20, all for 7:30 P.M. meetings. The meeting was adj~our~a~0 P._ MC~H~~MA~ Agenda Item No. 3.