Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-06 adjOCtober 6~~_~djgurned from October ~ 19. An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, virginia, was held on October 6, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 1, 1980. Present: V. Nash. Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen Absent: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr. and C. Timothy Lindstrom. Officers present: County Executive, Guy G. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher noted~that in the paper work sent from the last work session, the 30,000 square foot provision in Section 4.2.2.1 had been changed to 40,000 square feet. Even though this change was part of the original motion, he thought the Board had agreed to discuss this further. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said Section 4.2.2.1 should then show 30,000 square feet until some other change is made. Mr. Tucker said at the end of last week's session, the Board was in the process of reviewing recommendations from the League of Women Voters in a letter dated October, 1979. He continued by reading the following: "Because Section 1.5, Relation to ~the Environment, is so poorly written, we submit the following which we believe is a better organized paragraph: 'This ordinance is designed to treat in like manner lands which are similar as to location and environment with reasonable consideration for the following: the existing use and character of properties; the Comprehensive Plan; the suitability of property for various uses (same as - the most.appropriate use of land throughout the County- ); the trends of growth or change; the current and future land and water requirements of the communi.ty for various purposes as determined by population, economic and other studies; a~d requirements ofltrans- portation and other public facilities and services; the conservation of natural resources; the preservation of flood plains.' Note the addition of water. We would omit the 'conservatiol of properties and their values' We don't see that this has anything to do with the environ- ment and would tie the hands of the County to rezonE." Mr Tucker said the Board last week had decided to take the wording for subsections 1.4.1 through 1.4.8 straight from the Code of Virginia. Section 1.5 would then be superfluous as would part of Section 1.6. Mr. St. John said he would not remove either Section 1.5 or Section 1.6 This is language the consultants supposedly took from cases in Virginia, or other states, whiCh has some legal impact in a court case. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board return to the League's suggestion to include the words "and water" in.Section 1.5. Mr. St. John felt that was a valid suggestion, although he said that in making land use decisions, he felt that water is included in that term. Miss Nash asked if the language would be clearer if those words were included. Mr. St. John said there is no risk to including the words. Miss Nash then offered motion to add the words "and water" between "future" and "requirements" and to strike the words "as to land" between "community" and "for". Mr. St. John said the Code of Virginia includes "housing, schools, parks, playgrounds and recreation areas, preservation of flood plains and for the conservation of properties and their values". Mr. Tucker said the League is saying that Section 1.4 in its entirely will probably take all of those things into account because they are part of the Code, but the League is also saying that they do not believe these things have any relation to the environment. Mr. St. John said the League mentions that this would tie the hands of the County, but he feels that "conservation of values" should be mentioned in the ordinance. Mr. St. John said this is a good example of what happens when you tamper with what the consultants have recommended simply because there is a good ring to the words. You will not legally know if you have something or not, and if economic considerations are'left Out, he predicted that someone will test this in court and say that the Code strikes a balance between economic considerations and conservation considerations, and in enacting this ordinance, the Board gutted the economic considerations and emphasized the conservation aspects. Miss Nash said that Section 1.5 is entitled~"Relation to Environment" and she would like to know if conservation of property and its value, really has any relation to the environment. Mr. St. John said he did not believe that the consultants meant this to apply only to the natural environment, but to the existing situation. The environment, in its broadest sense, includes not only trees, rivers, fields, mountains, but the tax base; buildings, businesses and the climate of business and the economy. Mr ' Fisher said that Section 15.1-490 of the Code of Virginia is titled "matters to be considered in drawing zoning ordinances and districts'' It is not written specifically in relation to the environment and he was worried that if it is implied that Section 1.5 is the whole of Section 15.1-490, that the section is mistitted. Mr. St. John said he did not feel it is mistitled if the word "environment" is treated in its !broadest dictionary definition. Dr. Zachetta asked the original intent of Section 1.5. Mr. Tucker said that basically the whole section on "Purpose and Intent", Sections 1.4 through 1.8, were taken from the State Code to give the ordinance the authority it should have, and to give the zoning admin- istrator and local government some guide in implementation and enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. St. John said these sections show that while enacting the zoning ordinance, the Board went through the proper process and considered the proper elements. It rebuffs any presumption that ~h~ordinance was adopted considering anything other than what the General Assem~y~a~d should be considered. Miss Nash felt the language of the Code could be fleshed out and improved grammatically. Mr. St John said when the individual districts of the ordinance are drafted, there is nothing in the statute which described the statement of intent for each district, so the Board can use its own judgment. The benefit that is derived from following the Code closely in the instance of Sections 1.4 through 1.8 is that there is a presumption the Code was watched while enacting the ordinance~ and the Board took pains to see that the prescribed guidelines were followed. Miss Nash said the suggestion made by the LOWV's is not draWn contrary to the Code, it only picks up and clears up certain language. Mr. St. John disagreed. Mr. Fisher said the 308 October 6, 1980 (Adjourned from October 1, 1980) League has~a~.new ~ntradmcto~y~lin~and. then~thadremain±ng lamg~ag~gseems as though the League intended to follow the standards set out in Section 15.1-490. Miss Nash again made a motion to change Section 1.5 to read as follows: "This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suit- ability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community a~-~-~a~ for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas, and other public ~a~$~e,-a~ services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains and for the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county." Miss Nash said she would agree to leave in the part about "conservation of properties and their values" even though she disliked the words. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Mr. Tucker continued with a question from the League's letter on Section 2.1, Reduction of Yards below Minimum. "What is the criterion for '~nreasonable~?'' Mr. Tucker said his only answer to the question is that when something is reduced below the required minimum, there has to be approval given by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The BZA should take into account what would be "unreasonable" Mr. Fisher said if no one made a suggestion for a change in this paragraph, the wording would remain as stated. No suggestion was made. The Board proceeded to another suggestion from the League on Section 2.1.5. The League suggested that the words "water and sewerage" be added in the second sentence between the words "air" and "prevention". The sentence would then read "In such cases, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall determine the minimum requirements consistent with provision of adequate light and air, water and sewerage, prevention of loss of life .... " Mr. St. John said he did not feel this suggestion was at all appropriate. The land could be in an area where there are no water and sewerage facilities. Mr. St. John said he felt the League had misunderstood the intent of this paragraph. Mr. Fisher said the language contained in Section 2.1.3 stating that "no part of a yard, or other open space, area, or off-street parking or loading space requirement about or in connection with any building for the purpose of complying with this ordinance, shall be included as part of a yard, open space, area, or off-street parking or loading space similarly required for any other building" should also apply to septic fields, runoff control devices and all sorts of things. He asked if there were a place in the "general regulations" of the ordinance where such a statement could be placed. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Fisher were specifically referring to location of septic fields on adjacent property. Mr. St. John said he would question limiting a person's ability to do that. Mr. Fisher asked about building a new building and using someone else's land to meet minimum requirements. Mr. St. John said the owner of a tract can draft an easement, then divide the land subject to that easement. That mechanism is as old as the law of real property itself. It gives flexibility that enables people to do a lot of things with their land that they could not do otherwise. An easement for a septic field on another person's land is not unusual at all. Easements for waterlines and ingress/egress are the most common, but there are a lot of cases where septic fields are on another person's land. Mr. Fisher said he would like to discuss the Runoff Control Ordinance and the devices required by that ordinance. There is, at this time, no mechanism set up for maintenance of these devices and if the devices were built on another's property, then the other property owner might be held liable at some future time. Mr. St. John said the Runoff Control Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance must be kept separated. If the Board were to rely on its zoning powers to require these devices, then about two-thirds of the force of the Runoff Control Ordinance would be lost. Easements on adjoining land for these types of runoff facilities may be practical and useful in some cases. The solution would be to have a legal mechanism where the easement is created and the person who builds the facilities maintains a recorded right to go on that land. Dr. Iachetta said he did not see how you could get a double entry out of the same parcel. Mr. St. John said if there were two adjoining lots, and one lot lacked the space required for parking, but the other lot had more than enough space for parking, there is nothing in the ordinance which says that the owner of the larger parcel cannot give a parking easement to the owner of the smaller parcel. This section says that you cannot use a portion of the bigger lot required for parking on that lot, simultaneously for required parking on the smaller lot. Mr. Tucker said both lots would have to meet their own parking requirements. In this case, it would be cooperative parking. Dr. Iachetta said he saw nothing wron~ with that provision. Miss Nash asked about the cluster development situation where open space is required and a septic field is put in that open space. Mr. St. John said that is allowed if approved by the Planning Commission and Board. The next suggestion from the League pertained to Section 2.2.4. "Note that permitted uses of open space do not include land used for electrical transmission lines or septic fields. We, therefore, object to this type of space being credited as 'open space'." Mr. Tuck~ said the staff has drafted a new Section 2.2, Cluster Development, the definition of Open Space under Section 3.0, and Section 4.7, Regulations Governing Open Space, and he then handed out copies of the wording, which read: 309 October 6, 1980 (Adjourned from October 1, 1980) 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 3.0 4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT DENSITY Unless precluded by other applicable regulations, the maximum number of lots within a cluster development shall be determined by multiplying the number of acres in the parcel by the permitted density within the applicable zoning district. MINIMUM NUMBER OF LOTS Cluster developments shall consist of at least three lots for dwelling units, except that the Planning Commission may permit a lesser number of such lots if they form a logical extension and/or addition to an existing cluster development. MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIRED Except as otherwise provided in the PRD and PUD districts, a minimum of 25% of the total land area of the cluster development shall be in open space, subject to 4.7 Regulations Governing Open Space. DEFINITIONS Open Space: Land or water left in undisturbed natural condition and unoccupied by building lots, structures, streets or parking lots except as otherwise specifically provided in 4.7. REGULATIONS GOVERNING OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE: INTENT Open space provisions are intended to encourage development approachs reflective of the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan by permitting flexibility in design. More specifically, open space is intended to service such varied Comprehensive Plan objectives as: -provision of active/passive recreation; -protection of areas sensitive to development; -buffering between dissimilar uses; and -preservation of agricultural activity. To this end, in any rezoning, subdivision plat, or site plan proposing - inclusion of open space areas, the Commission shall consider the appropri- ateness of such areas for the intended usage in terms of such factors as location, size, shape and topographic characteristics. USES PERMITTED IN OPEN SPACE Unless otherwise permitted by the Commission in a particular case, open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any man-made feature. Where deemed appropriate by the Commission, open space may be used for one or more of the following uses, subject to the regulations of the zoning district in which the development is located: -agriculture, forestry and fisheries including appropriate structures; -game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and the like; -noncommercial recreational structures and uses; -public utilities; -wells, septic systems; -stormwater detention and flood control devices. OPEN SPACE: CHARACTER In such case where open space is required by provisions of this ordinance, not more than thirty percent of such minimum required open space shall consist of one hundred year flood plain, lands in slopes of twenty-five percent or greater; and land classified as having permanent or seasonally high water tables. OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE Open space in private ownership shall be protected by legal arrangements sufficient to insure its maintenance and preservation for purposes for which it is intended. Such arrangements shall be subject to Commission approval as a part of the site plan and/or subdivision plat approval process. 3-t.O October:~6, 1980 (Adjourned from October 1, 1980 Open space may be dedicated to public use subject to approval and acceptance by the county. Open space so dedicated shall be counted as a part of the minimum required open space. Mr. Keeler said since open space is required in a PRD and a PUD, the staff felt it was necessary to include open space regulations in some part of the ordinance rather than just under"Cluster Development", therefore the number of items covered directly under Section 2.2, have been reduced; the definition in Section 3.0 has been rewritten to be just a definitio~ instead of a regulation;, and the actual regulations have been placed under Section 4.7-in the general regulations section of the ordinance. Mr. Keeler said the League's comments are specifically in relation to what has been moved to Section 4.7.2. When this original section was worked on, the Planning Commission had added the words "public utilities" to this section and the staff now recommends adding "wells, septic systems, stormwater detention and flood control devices." At last week's meeting the Board discussed requiring two drainfield locations on each lot or parcel. In the past, the staff has recommended having open space available in RPN's as another backup location for drainfields and this is still recommended even though two drainfield locations will be required on each lot. Mr. Fisher said if he could be sure that there were two good sites on a lot initially, he might go along with this suggestion, but he did not. think that open space should be used where the soils are not particularly good. Dr. Iachetta said he could not see how open space could be retained as usable area if both stormwater detention and flood control structures are allowed in same since both items require sediment basins which usually become a nuisance over a period of time. Mr. Tucker said that Section 4.7.3 says that only thirty percent of the required twenty-five percent of open space can be a part of flood plains, etc. Some of the steeper slopes or swales in open space might be the natural location for sediment basins. Dr. Iachetta said he did ~not think the County wanted to encourage placement of septic systems on twenty- five percent slopes. Mr. McCann said the Planning Commission has approved the use of open space for septic fields in a number of RPN's. Requiring two sites on a parcel is a separate question from that of using open space. He personally did not have any problem with allowing the use of open space for septic fields. If open space cannot be used for anything except open space, the County will end up with a lot of big lots rather than clustering dwellings on smaller lots. Mr. St. John said when the County started with the concept of open space, one of the intents was to promote economical and efficient land use. Now, anybody who uses a flood plain or steep slopes as part of the required open space, and gets credit for that use, is condemned as being unfair. Mr. St. John said the main concept of open space was to have ravines and steep slopes included in the open space instead of being proportioned out amongst the various lots. Dr. Iachetta said he believes the Board has condemned such practices in places where that is all there was to the open space which defeated the useful nature of same. He did not mean to imply that ravines and flood plains should not be included in the open space category, only that there should be more land in open space than just the undevelopa~ land. Mr. Fisher said the Board had strayed from the main question of what to do with wells and septic systems and stormwater devices in open space areas. Dr. Iachetta asked the meaning of the first sentence in Section 4.7.4. MMr. St. John said that refers to the homeowners agreements. Mr. Tucker said he did not know if the Board understood that Sections 2.2.4 through 2.2.7 would be shifted in the ordinance and now included as Sections numbered 4.7. Dr. Iachett~ said he would have been opposed to Section 2.2.7, Private Ownership, anyway, since he would not want an open invitation to add land to the County's holdings which would require taxpayer's money for maintenance. (Note: The LOWV's letter also contained the statement: "We question the advisability of public money being used to maintain cluster open space.") Mr. Fisher asked if the language in Section 4.7.4 takes care of the original proposal set out in Section 2.2.7. Mr. Tucker said the new language clarifies that open space may be dedicated. It is optional. Mr. St. John said if the land is dedicated it may be used by the general public and not just by the people in that particular subdivision. He said some statement should be included in the ordinance to require affirmative action by the Board of Supervisors to evidence acceptance. If there is no such statement in the ordinance, approval of a plat with the words "dedicated to public use" written on same could be approved and recorded and the County would have accepted the land without kna~n~ it. Mr. Fisher suggested striking the words "by the county" in the second line of the second paragraph of Section 4.7.4, and adding'the words "by separate resolution of the Board of Supervisors." The Board went next to discussion of Section 2.4, Intent of Bonus Factor Provisions. "Where application of Bonus makes possible an increase in density equal to a higher density zone (e.g., R-6 density in an R-4 zone), the developer should have to apply for rezoning. We question whether the bonuses reward the developer for actions he would be required to make anyway." Mr. Tucker said the League is questioning the fact that the bonuses permit a 50% increase in density, thereby moving up to the next category in a zoning district. The Board discussed this very thing at another meeting and decided to leave the 50% provision in the ordinance as the maximum that could be obtained. The next suggestion was on the definition of "Residential Area, Gross". "We object to including water in determining the total area within a residential development since the residential density is determined by dividing the number of dwelling units by the Gross Residential Area. Water should not be included since it is not usable for septic drain fields, and has limited use as a recreational asset, depending on the age of the residents and the time of the year." Mr. Tucker said that water has been utilized and considered as part of the gross density in other developments. Water is usually used as an amenity in a development. Many times, the fire official requires ponds. In conventional developments, property lines often go to the center of the lake so that the lake is sometimes a part of the lot itself. The concern of the League is mainly on RPN's where a lake has been used as October 6~ 1980 ~_j~urned from October primary area to arrive at a higher density for that RPN. Dr. Iachetta asked if the County could in any way be held legally responsible for anything if one of these lakes is part of the common area in an RPN. Mr. St. John said the County should never accept dedication of a lake or dam. These facilities can be approved as part of the common open space and a home- owners covenant required, and that does not subject the County to any legal ramifications. Mr. Fisher asked what is done if three-fourths of a property is covered by water and the developer tries to get the same number of dwelling units that would be allowed if the land were dry. Mr. St. John said you do not use a measure of gross density if there are individual lots. Mr. Fisher asked how a 60,000 square foot lot would be defined in these circumstances. Mr. Tucker said he felt Mr. Fisher wanted to assure that the area outside of the lake meets ithe 60,000/40,000 square foot requirements for an individual well system, and that does not ihave anything to do with the gross density. Mr. Fisher asked if this were the same as the discussion held last week on "building site" were it was stated that a building site must have a minimum of 30,000 square feet, and the staff is now saying that no more than one-half of the required 60,000 square foot building lot can be under water. Mr. McCann said he did not see the problem if all requirements for setbacks can be met. He felt the League was referring particularly to RPN's where a lake has been used to meet open space requirements. Mr. St. John said the definition of "gross density" has an entirely different definition and you achieve an entirely different result from applying that factor. He gave as an example: In~ the R-2 district, the density if not stated in terms of minimum lot area. In fact, there is no minimum lot area if water and sewer are available. The density is 8.5 units per gross acre. If you had 16 acres gross density multipted by 8.5 dwellings per acre, that is the number of houses that could be placed on that property, even though a lake were part of the property. Mr. Fisher said under Section 4.2.1, Building Site Required, area in flood plains and steep slopes is excluded from the definition of what constitutes a building site. He felt that same criteria should be used if the land is under water. Mr. McCann said this was discussed last week, and the Board is still confusing "area requirements" with "building site" Mr. Fisher said he felt some minimum amount of dry land area should be spelled out in the ordinance. Mr. McCann said if the Board tries to cover everything that might go wrong, there are going to be a whole lot of words in the ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Board has gone far enough. There are too many loopholes in the ordinance and it worries hin. Mr. McCann said the more governmental agencies try to regulate everything, the more that has to be done to control the regulations. Dr. Iachetta said if the County does not have these regulations, some fellow will do what he wants to do regardless of the consequences. Mr. McCann said there was a whole lot more red land in Albemarle County thirty years ago, and it was not taken care of by government regulations. Miss Nash said no one had explained why 30,000 square feet is required as the minimum area for a building site. Mr. Keeler said the consultants were looking for some way to deal with steep slopes. A district cannot be placed on the map that just takes in steep slopes. This regulationswill apply to property specifically and the number of building lots which can be put on the property will depend directly on the topography of the land, the presence of steep slopes and flood plains. But, the building site w~thin the parcel is intended to accommodate the septic drainfields. Miss Nash asked how much land is actually needed for a building site. Mr. Tucker said for a house and septic field, no more than 15,000 square feet. Miss Nash asked why 30,000 is set out in the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said this gives a margin for error in the event the septic system goes bad. Mr. Keeler said the Health_Department has said that if a property is served by a'central water system, there is a high probability that a 30,000 square foot building site would have room for two septic systems. What the ordinance does is to remove those characteristics of the property that the· County does not feel are acceptable to septic systems, such as steep slopes and flood plains. It may be an overkill situation. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would like to consider reducing the 30,000 square foot requirement in Section 4.2.1 and exclude land that is under water from the definition of building site. Dr. Iachetta said he felt 20,000 square feet would be sufficient as a minimum. Mr. Fisher asked if that would be based on the assumption that two drainfields could be placed on the property, with that assumption based on soil tests. Dr. Iachetta said the suitability of soils for septic systems could be determined the way it is now determined, but if two septic drainfield locations are required, it should be on a ~o~n~y~ide~basis. i~Mr. McCann said if that is ithe feeling of the Board, he was sure it would pass, but he was not totally in agreement. Dr. Iachetta said 20,000 square feet is a little less than one-half an acre and he felt that makes a good site as a minimum. Mr. Fisher said he did not disagree, but if all of these things can be put on a 20,000 square foot lot, why require 40,000 or 60,000 square feet. Dr. Iachetta said that is a density problem. Mr. Tucker said for section 4.2.1, Building Site Required, he would recommend adding the words "or which is located under water." Dr. Iachetta said the Board must ~henab~Ld~scussing Section 4.2.2.1, A~ea Regulations. Mr. Fisher felt language should be added to that section to require location.~tw~septic drainfields. Mr. Keeler said the language might be added instead to Section 4.2.1. Mr. McCann said if that was done, he could see no need to have a bUilding site requirement. Mr. Agnor said with yard regulations and the requirement for two septic drainfield sites, he did not understand why a minimum is needed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission wanted some provision in the ordinance to provide that the area outside of the 25% slopes was a buildable area so the Health Department would be mindful to discourage location of drainfields on slopes of 25% or greater. Mr. Fisher said if there are two drainfield sites by tests, then the 20,000 square feet might work, but just saying that there should be 20,000 square feet outside of slopes and flood plains won't do it. He said he felt the Planning Commission was on the right tract in having a minimum site size. Mr. McCann said he had argued this ~oint at the Planning Commission meetings and had lost there also. Mr. Fisher said he !agreed that Section 4.2.1 should ~ave the words "which is located under water" added. D~'~I~aha~t~!~sa~ddi~f2~'~'~'000s~uare feet is set out as a minimum based on the concept that two septic drainfields, the house and amenities, all outside of slopes of 25% and flood plains, can~be located within that area, then all of those required~items shall in fact fit within that 20,000 square feet. Mr. Keeler said the provisions under Section 4.2.5, Modification of Regulations, seem to fit exactly what is being said. Mr. Fisher said he will not support anything less than a 20,000 square foot minimum, and might not support that. Dr. Iachetta said that Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2 prohibit putting the structure on any land other than what is defined as~the building site. Mr. Fisher said those provisions do not provide that the septic drainfie!ds have to be in that area. Dr. Iachetta said that Section 4.2.4, Location of'Septic Systems, suggests that they do not have to be in that area. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said he would like to come to some decision on this question. He felt October 6, 1980 (Adjourned October 1, 1980) that Mr. McCann would like to lower the size~of the hui~!ding site. Mr. McCann said he did not say lower the size, but felt that'if all of the things discussed will be required, the size makes no difference. Mr. Fisher said he still feels there is some validity to having some minimum size excluded from all of these provisions. Mr. McCann said if the Board is going to require 20,000 or 30,0~0 square f.eet as a minimum building site, he did not think there was need for more than one septic field location. Miss Nash then offered motion to leave the 30,000 square feet in Section 4.2.2.1, Area Regulations, and to add another sentence to that section reading: "Such building site shall have adequate area for location of two septic drainfie!ds as approved by the Virginia Department of Health." Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board return to the defintion of "Residential Area (Gross)" as mentioned by the LOWV's letter. He said he did not disagree with the way the definition is worded. Mr. St. John said he felt it would be a mistake to change the wording. Mr. Tucker said the Board did not take any action to add the words "or which is located under water" to Section 4.2.1. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. The next item in the League's letter read: "On Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, we recommend that lots less than 40,000 square feet shall have both central water and sewer. Those of 40,000 to 60,000 shall have either central water or sewer. Lots over 60,000 may have individual.septic and water systems. (Further modified as in 4.1.5.) We ask that additional requirements of space for the location of two drainfields be included. In addition, we ask that a requirement be included that specifies that a well must be at least 100 feet from any part of the septic drainfield." Mr. Tucker said the consensus a week or so ago was to change the 30,000 square feet in Section 4.1.2 to 40,000 square feet; and the 40,000 square feet in Section 4.1.3 to 60,000 square feet.. In reference to the last sentence in.the League's suggestion, the Health Department already requires that and if a requirement is added to the County's Ordinance, the County would have to provide a zoning inspector to enforce such a provision. Mr. Fisher said it has been mentioned to him that the State law requires that a septic drainfield be at least 150 feet from a well, but the State law does not read the other way. Mr. St.'John said he felt this was a matter where the Health Department regulations should be amended. The ~next suggestion read: "Section 4.15 - Performance Standards. The ordinance lists seven violations of performance standards -- noise, vibration, glare,~ air pollution, water pollution, radio-activity and electrical interference. Unless the County possesses equipment and staff skilled in monitoring these possible violations, performance standards cannot be relied on to protect the environment." Mr. Tucker said it has been the hope of the staff, that if these performance.standards applied to the entire ordinance, rather than one specific district, then the zoning staff would' acquire the proper equipment and learn to use it. Mr. Fisher said from what he has heard, builders across the countrY are asking for performance standards. Mr. McCann asked if there were presently any problems with these things. Mr. Tucker said the only place that performance standards are presently being used is in the RTM zone. Next was a notation on Section 4.15.4, Air Pollution. "Omit 'visible' in the third line. Some of the most damaging pollutants are not 'visible'." Mr. Tucker said he agreed with the League's suggestion. Mr. Fisher asked that the word "visible" be stricken from that paragraph. Miss Nash inquired about Section 4.15.6, Radioactivity, and asked how that tied in with the County's Ordinance on radioactive waste which was recently enacted. Mr. St. John said the Radioactive Waste Ordinance currently in the County Code conflicts with a lot a things, but it is on the books and that~is all he can say for it. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. St. John had received a copy of the Attorney General's opinion on the ordinance. .Mr. St. JohI said not yet. Next was Section 4.15.8, Certified Engineer Report Submittal.~ "Does the County Engineer's staff include people qualified to evaluate all those different and complex reports?" Mr. Tucker said his staff had discussed this suggestion today and would recommended that "certified engineers report" be stricken from this section. That same wording is also included in Industrial Disticts, Generally. The staff feels that the County Engineer is capable of reviewing these reports. Also, by taking out those words, it would give the County Engineer a little more discretion because he might find an industry where it would be ridiculous for the owner to haVe such reports prepared. He suggested starting that paragraph with the words: "Each occupant of an industrial character shall comply ,, with standards set forth, and submit to the county engineer, as he deems necessary, .... 312 October 6, 1980 (Adjourned 0ctobe,r 1, 1980) that Mr. McCann would like to lower the size~.of the building Site. Mr. McCann said he did not say lower the size, but felt that if all of the things discussed will be required, ~the size makes no difference. Mr. Fisher said he still feels there is some validity to having some minimum size excluded from all of these provisions. Mr. McCann said if the Board ~is going to require 20,000 or 30,000 square f-eet as a minimum building site, he did not think there was need for more than one septic field location. Miss Nash then offered motion to leave the 30,000 square feet in Section 4.2.2.1, Area Regulations, and to add another sentence to that section reading: "Such building site shall have adequate area for location of two septic drainfields as approved b.y the Virginia Department of Health." Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. McCann. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board return to the defintion of "Residential Area (Gross)" as mentioned by the LOWV's letter. He said he did not disagree with the way the definition is worded. Mr. St. John said he felt it would be a mistake to change the wording. Mr. Tucker said the Board did not take any action to add the words "or which is located under water" to Section 4.2.1. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. The next item in the League's letter read: "On Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3, we recommend that lots less than 40,000 square feet shall have both central water and sewer. Those of 40,000 to 60,000 shall have either central water or sewer. Lots over 60,000 may have individual septic and water systems. (Further modified as in 4.1.5.) We ask that additional requirements of space for the location of two drainfields be included. In addition, we ask that a requirement be included that specifies that a well must be at least 100 feet from any part of the septic drainfield." Mr. Tucker said the consensus a week or so ago was to change the 30,000 square feet in Section 4.1.2 to 40,000 square feet; and the 40,000 square feet in Section 4.1.3 to 60,000 square feet. In reference to the last sentence in the League's suggestion, the Health Department already requires that and if a requirement is added to the County's Ordinance, the County would have to provide a zoning inspector to enforce such a provision. Mr. Fisher said it has been mentioned to him that the State law requires that a septic drainfield be at least 150 feet from a well, but the State law does not read the other way. Mr. St.'John said he felt this was a matter where the Health Department regulations should'be amended. The next suggestion read: "Section 4.15 - Performance Standards. The ordinance lists seven violations of performance standards -- noise, vibration, glare,, air pollution, water pollution, radio-activity and electrical interference. Unless the County possesses equipment and staff skilled in monitoring these possible violations, performance standards cannot be relied on to protect the environment." Mr. Tucker said it has been the hope of the staff, that if these performance~standards applied to the entire ordinance, rather than one specific district, then the zoning staff would acquire the proper equipment and learn to use it. Mr. Fisher said from what he has heard, builders across the country are asking for performance standards. Mr. McCann asked if there were presently any problems with these things. Mr. Tucker said the only place that performance standards are presently being used is in the RTM zone. Next was a notation on Section 4.15.4, Air Pollution. "Omit 'visible' in the third line. Some of the most damaging pollutants are not 'visible'." Mr. Tucker said he agreed with the League's suggestion. Mr. Fisher asked that the word "visible" be stricken from that paragraph. Miss Nash inquired about Section 4.15.6, Radioactivity, and asked how that tied in with the County's Ordinance on radioactive waste which was recently enacted. Mr. St. John said the Radioactive Waste Ordinance currently in the County Code conflicts with a lot a things, but it is on the books and that.is all he can say for it. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. St. John had received a copy of the Attorney General's opinion on the ordinance. Mr. St. John said not yet. Next was Section 4.15.8, Certified Engineer Report Submittal'. "Does the County Engineer's staff include people qualified to evaluate all those different and complex reports?" Mr. Tucker said his staff had discuSsed this suggestion today and would recommen~ that "certified engineers report" be stricken from this section. That same wording is also included in Industrial Disticts, Generally. The staff feels that the County Engineer is capable of reviewing these reports. Also, by taking out those words, it would give the County Engineer a little more discretion because he might find an industry where it would be ridiculous for the owner to have such reports prepared. He suggested starting that paragraph with the words: "Each occupant of an industrial character shall comply with standards set forth, and submit to the county engineer, as he deems necessary, .... " October 6 1980 (Ad'ourned from October 11~__~_~ 311 primary area to arrive at a higher density for that RPN. Dr. Iachetta asked if the County could in any way be held legally responsible for anything if one of these lakes is part of the common area in an RPN. Mr. St. John said the County should never accept dedication of a lake or dam. These facilities can be approved as part of the common open space and a home- owners covenant required, and that does not subject the County to any legal ramifications. Mr. Fisher asked what is done if three-fourths of a property is covered by water and the developer tries to get the same number of dwelling units that would be allowed if the land were dry. Mr. St. John said you do not use a measure of gross density if there are individual lots. Mr. Fisher asked how a 60,000 square foot lot would be defined in these circumstances. Mr. Tucker said he felt Mr. Fisher wanted to assure that the area outside of the lake meets the 60,000/40,000 square foot requirements for an individual well system, and that does not have anything to do with the gross density. Mr. Fisher asked if this were the same as the discussion held last week on "building site" were it was stated that a building site must have a minimum of 30,000 square feet, and the staff is now saying that no more than one-half of the required 60,000 square foot building lot can be under water. Mr. McCann said he did not see the problem if all requirements for setbacks can be met. He felt the League was referring particularly to RPN's where a lake has been used to meet open space requirements. Mr. St. John said the definition of "gross density" has an entirely different definition and you achieve an entirely different result from applying that factor. He gave as an example: In the R-2 district, the density if not stated in terms of minimum lot area. In fact, there is no minimum lot area if water and sewer are available. The'density is 8.5 units per gross acre. If you had 16 acres gross density multipled by 8.5 dwellings per iacre, that is the number of houses that could be placed on that property, even though a lake were part of the property. Mr. Fisher said under Section 4.2.1, Building Site Required, area in flood plains and steep slopes is excluded from the definition of what constitutes a building site. He felt that same criteria should be used if the land is under water. Mr. McCann said this was discussed last week, and the Board is still confusing "area requirements" with "building site". Mr. Fisher said he felt some minimum amount of dry land area should be spelled out in the ordinance. Mr. McCann said if the Board tries to cover everything that might go wrong, there are going to be a whole lot of words in the ordinance. ~Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Board has gone far enough. There are too many loopholes in the ordinance and it worries hin. Mr. McCann said the more governmental agencies try to regulate everything, the more that has to be done to control the regulations. Dr. Iachetta said if the County does not have these regulations, some fellow will do what he wants to do regardless of the consequences. Mr. McCann said there was a whole lot more red land in Albemarle County thirty years ago, and it was not taken care of by government regulations. Miss Nash said no one had explained why 30,000 square feet is required as the minimum area for a building site. Mr. Keeler said the consultants were looking for some way to deal with steep slopes. A district cannot be placed on the map that just takes in steep slopes. This regulation~will apply to property specifically and the number of building Lots which can be put on the property will depend ~irectly on the topography of the land, the presence of steep slopes and flood plains. But, the building site within the parcel is intended to accommodate the septic drainfields. Miss Nash asked how much land is actually needed for a building site. Mr. Tucker said for a house and septic field, no more than 15,000 square feet. Miss Nash asked why 30,000 is set out in the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said this gives a margin for error-in the event the septic system goes bad. Mr. Keeler said the HeatthDepartment has said that if a property is served by a central water system, there is a high probability that a 30,000 square foot building site would have room for two septic systems. What the ordinance-does is to remove those characteristics of the property that the· County does not feel are acceptable to septic systems, such as steep slopes and flood plains. It may be an~overkill situation, Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would like to consider reducing the 30,000 square foot requirement in Section 4.2.1 and exclude land that is under water from the definition of building site. Dr. Iachetta said he felt 20,000 square feet would be sufficient as a minimum. Mr. Fisher asked if that would be based on the assumption that two drainfields could be placed on the property, with that assumption based on soil tests. Dr. Iachetta said the suitability of soils for septic systems could be determined the way it is.now determined, but if two septic drainfield locations are required, it shoul~ be on a ~e~n~y~ide~basis. ~Mr. McCann said if that is the feeling of the Board, he was sure it would pass, but he was not totally in agreement.' Dr. Iachetta said 20,000 square feet is a little less than one-half an acre and he felt that makes a good site as a minimum. Mr. Fisher said he did not disagree, but if all of these things can be put on a 20,000 square foot lot, why require 40,000 or 60,000 square feet. Dr. Iachetta said that is a density problem. Mr. Tucker said for section 4.2.1, Building Site Required, he would recommend adding the words "or which is located under water." Dr. Iachetta said the Board must ~hen?b~L~d~scussing Section 4.2.2.1, A~ea Regulations. Mr. Fisher felt language should be added to that section to require location ~g~tw~i~septic drainfields. Mr. Keeler said the language might be added instead to Section 4.2.1. Mr. McCann said if that was done, he could see no need to have a building site requirement. Mr. Agnor said with yard regulations and the requirement for two septic drainfield sites, he did not ~nderstand why a minimum is needed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission wanted some srovision in the ordinance to provide that the area outside of the 25% slopes was a buildable ~rea so the Health Department would be mindful to discourage location of drainfields on ~lopes of 25% or greater. Mr. Fisher said if there are two drainfield sites by tests, then the 20,000 square feet might work, but just saying that there should be 20,000 square feet outside of slopes and flood plains won't do it. He said he felt the Planning Commission was on the right tract in having a minimum site size. Mr. McCann said he had argued this point at the Planning Commission meetings and had lost there also. Mr. Fisher said he agreed that Section 4.2.1 should have the words "which is located under water" added. D~i~I~h~ta~sa&ddiiff2~00©s~uare feet is set out as a minimum based on the concept that two septic drainfields, the house and amenities, all outside of slopes of 25% and flood plains, can~be located within that area, then all of those required items shall in fact fit within that 20,000 square f.eet. Mr. Keeler said the provisions under Section 4.2.5, Modification of Regulations, seem to fit exactly what is being said. Mr. Fisher said he will not support anything less than a 20,000 square foot minimum, and might not support that. Dr. Iachetta said that Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2 prohibit putting the structure on any land other than what is defined as~the building site. Mr. Fisher said those provisions do not provide that the septic drainfields have to be in that area. Dr. Iachetta said that Section 4.2.4, Location of Septic Systems, suggests that they do not have to be in October 6, 1980 (Adjourned from October 1, 1980) lDr. Iachetta permits from and/or said that was 313 said if there are air and water problems, the applicant would have to obtain the Air Pollution Control Board the State Water Control Board. Mr. Tucker correct. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be appropriate to have this section apply only to heavy industry. Dr. Iachetta said if the industry go into the land or air, or solid waste that is hazardous, or chemical wastes, then a report should be required. Mr. Fisher suggested that this be discussed at another meeting. Mr. Tucker said the staff was requested to draft some language for quarterly review of rezoning and special use permit applications for tonight' meeting and he handed out the following: ' "From January 1978 to September 1980, a total of 309 rezoning and special use permit petitions were filed. A breakdown on a quarterly basis is as follows: Rezoning petitions Special Use Permits Total Per Quarter 8 2O 28 Staff opinion is that consideration of mobile homes and home occupations on a quarterly basis would be burdensome to the applicant and would add little to the intended overview of development activity (this may also be valid for other uses by special use permit). Special procedures for mobile home and home occupation petitions are provided in the proposed ordinance. The remainder of the report assumes mobile homes and home occupation petitions would not be heard on a quarterly basis. Therefore, staff would estimate a quarterly average of about 20 rezoning and special permit petitions plus special permit petitions for larger subdivisions in the RA district. Based on recent experience, meeting time involved would be about 34 hours for the Commission and 15 hours for the Board. Recommended Language 33.10 SCHEDULE OF REVIEW 33.10.1 For the purpose of providing for orderly growth and reasoned consideration of the potential impact of proposed rezonings, and special use permits upon the Comprehensive Plan, the Board of Supervisors shall establish timing procedures for consideration of rezoning applications. 33.10.2 Except as otherwise expressly provided in 5.2 and 5.6, the Board of Supervisors shall consider rezoning and special use permit petitions by property owners at the specified inter~als of three months. Hearing times in accord with such intervals shall be established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors during the.month of January of each calendar year following enactment of this ordinance, and said resolution shall be published at least once per week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Albemarle Count~. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board wait and discuss these amendments at another meeting. He also disagreed with the amount of time the staff suggested would be needed for hearing these petitions. Agenda Item No. 3. At 9:55 P.M., the meeting Was adjourned.