Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-20 adjOctober 20, 1980 (Adjourned from October 15, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 20, 1980, 7:30 P.M., County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 15, 1980. PRESENT: V. Nash. Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen ABSENT: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr. and F. Anthony Iachetta. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and Assistant Director of Planning, Ronald Keeler. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the Board had decided last week to concentrate on items which have been recommended by the staff and concerns of the Board members. He found one suggestion from the staff concerning Section 33.8 entitled "Posting of Property" on which no action has been taken. The staff would strike all but the first sentence concerning signs. Mr. Keeler said at one time, the applicant was responsible for sending notices of impending hearings to adjoining property owners and that caused some problems. Section 33.4 entitled "Public Hearing Notice'~ refers back to Virginia Code Section 15.1-431 which sets out how notices are to be sent. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to change Section 33.8 to read only: "Additional notice of public hearings involving zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1 above, shall be provided by means of signs posted on the property proposed for rezoning, in the manner prescribed in this section." The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. Fisher then noted Section 33.9 entitled "Matters to be ~onsidered in Reviewing Proposed Amendments." Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the staff's recommendation to change this section to read: "Proposed amendments shall be reviewed in regard to Sections 1.4, PURPOSE AND INTENT: 1.5, RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENT: and 1.6, RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN of this ordinance. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash, ~i'~J~ NAYES: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. Fisher asked Miss Nash if she had any items to discuss. Miss Nash said he has been worried about language in the ordinance which is complicated and not very clear. She said she had not seen an overlay on the watershed and asked about same. Mr. Lindstrom said in the RA District there are eight special criteria to be considered in granting special permits. He said there are some other things in the RA District he would like to discuss when the full Board is present. Miss Nash then asked about the word "yard" as used in Section 5.1.18 entitled "Temporary Construction Headquarters, Yards, Residential DistrictsJ" Mr. Lindstrom said that does not mean a yard as found in a residential district and needs to be distinguished from other yards. He then offered motion to delete the words "residential districts" from Section 5.1.18 and to change tihe title of Section 5.1.18.2 to "Temporary Construction Yards." The motion was secondied by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. M NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Miss Nash suggested that the word "conducive" in Section 5.!.13(a) be changed to "compatible". The other Board members agreed. Miss Nash said she did not understand if the Conservation District was to be left in the ordinance or not. Mr. Keeler noted the following staff comments which were received today: "Staff has reviewed the statement of intent of the CVN district for the viability and effectiveness of the district in the proposed zoning ordinance. The CVN adopted in June, 1976 in staff opinion, has been effectively replaced by current ordinances (existing and proposed) and is otherwise outmoded. Specific ordinances and provisions related to the CVN statement of intent are: run-off control ordinance; urban stormwater ordinance; critical slopes; flood hazard overlay district; natural resource overlay district; scenic areas overlay district; cluster development and open space provisions; forestry supplementary regulations; and rural areas district. Generally speaking, these provisions are more precise in intended application than the CVN district. A goodly portion of the CVN statement of intent is so broad and vague as to invite protracted controversy in application of the zoning district to the map, as was experienced during the previously proposed ordinance. Therefore staff finds no particular utility to the district which would warrant its inclusion in the proposed zoning ordinance." Miss Nash then offered motion to delete Section 9.0, CONSERVATION, CVN, in its entirety. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: 359 October 20, 1980 (Adjourned from October 15, 1980) AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. McCann brought to the Board's attention, Section 26.9 under "Industrial Districts- Generally" entitled "Minimum Landscaped Area." He said he feels the amount of land included for landscaping is excessive and he did not feel this provision should be left to the discretion of the Planning Commission. At one time while drafting this ordinance, the area required was 10%. Mr. Keeler said the consultants had recommended some original minimum landscaped area, the ratio for which was the same in all commercial and industrial districts. He said the Planning Commission did change the ratio for commercial districts. Mr. Fisher said he did not know if there was any valid reason for having different standards in the two different districts. Mr. McCann said the last sentence of this section states that the Planning Commission may require ornamental landscaping of street frontages. He felt this wording should be stricken from this section and anywhere else in the ordinance that such language appears. He said that ~screening residential areas from businesses and industrial uses is no problem. Miss Nash thought that was a very general interpretation. Mr. McCann said his problem with the language is the word "may". Mr. Fisher asked the definition of "ornamental landscaping" Mr. Keeler said most of these districts will occur in the growth areas and the County does not have a "Street Tree Ordinance". In some localities, a developer is required to plant trees of certain types in order to maintain consistency along streets. Since the County does not have that kind of ordinance, he felt this section was included to help accomplish that idea. Mr. Lindstrom said the last sentence in Section 26.9 could be eliminated and the authority for same is retained under Section 26.12.2 entitled "Screening". Mr. McCann then offered motion to strike the last sentence of Section 26.9 as set out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. McCann then offered motion to strike any section referring to requirements for ornamental screening wherever same may appear in the ordinance. He said the interpretation of ornamental screening is left to the discretion of eight different members of the Planning Commission and he hates to see this language left in the ordinance because it is so general. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission had struggled with the zoning ordinance provisions for a long time. There was no second, and the motion died. Mr. Lindstrom said under Section 5.1.11 (d), Commercial Kennel, Veterinary, Animal Hospital, he could not decide if the noise level would be tested with the animals inside or outside of the building. Mr. Fisher said it was probably with the animals inside of the building. Mr. Lindstrom said under Section 5.1.12(d), Public Utility Structures/Uses, he would suggest that the end of the sentence be changed to. read: "...and it shall insofar as practical, condition such approvals so as to minimize the proliferation of such easements and crossings as described by the Comprehensive Plan." He offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. L~ndstrom asked about Section 5.1.20, entitled "Temporary Events Sponsored by Local Non-Profit Organizations." He said this creates a whole new floating use that does not exist at the present. Reading this section, it appears that all of the things the Board would like to have some control over, can occur under this section. Mr. Fisher said he was not comfortable with this section. Mr. Lindstrom said unless this section can be rewritten quickly, he would rather see the entire section dropped. Mr. Fisher ~uggested that the staff do some more work on this seciton. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to discuss Section 5.1.24(b) when Mr. Henley is present because he feels that the words "or in order to provide access for livestock or for another permitted uses" should be struck. He does not feel the Board should encourage that local streams, particularly in the South Fork watershed, be used to waver cattle. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board should do something toward starting amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance which will make the Zoning Ordinance effective. Mr. Fisher said the Board is not at a point where this can be done. He noted the language drafted by the staff at the request of Mr. Lindstrom for quarterly review of zoning and special permit petitions; said language set out in the minutes of October 6. Mr. Fisher said the staff has indicated that mobile home and home occupation petitions should be reviewed as the applications are filed. This idea started with the consultants who suggested that rezonings be done in groups, so the Board would have a better overview of the land use decisions being made. Originally it was suggested that these be reviewed once every six months, but the Planning Commission said they would be involved with subdivision and site plan reviews anyway and did not see any particular advantage to stopping one phase of their work load, and had discarded the idea. The Board then discussed at length October 20, 1980 (Adjourned from October 15, 1980) 360 which Board meetings could be cancelled each month and what type of schedule could be set up to hear petitions from various sections of the county on particular nights. Mr. Fisher said if the Board is interested in changing to such a schedule, it might be tried to see if it will work. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the idea. He felt the additional staff time would allow the staff to review the long range impact of the requests, which could enhance land use planning. Mr. McCann said he would rather hear the requests as they are received. Mr. Fisher said he did not think any action should be taken on this item until the full Board is present. Mr. Fisher said he was fairly comfortable with the draft of Section 4.7, Regulations Governing Open Space, which was prepared by the staff and is set out in the minutes of October 6. Miss Nash said she was concerned that land for public utilities could be counted as part of the open space. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the purposes of open space is as an amenity for the people living in that subdivision. The first three uses listed could qualify as amenities, but he was concerned about including "wells and septic systems" as part of the open space. Mr. Fisher said if there was a small development where all the septic tanks had failed, that would be a way to solve the problem, and he suggested that language be added to limit this use only to these circumstance. Mr. Keeler brought the Board's attention to "public utilities", one of the uses permitted in open space. He said that provisions must be made for public utilities in all districts. If there is a cluster development, he did not know whether public utility easements are more desirable on the lots or in the open space. The same is true with stormwater detention and~flood control devices. He said that in Section 4.7.3, Character, the words "public utility easements and stormwater detention and flood control devices" could be added. Mr. Keeler did not believe that anyone would get any appreciable increase in density because these ~easements are used. Mr. McCann said he had no problem with the way the section is presently worded. He did not object to open space being in steep slopes or flood plains. Mr. Fisher said most people will take better care of their own property than someone else's and that is why he feels that the septic field location should be retained on the lot itself. Mr. McCann said with the requirement for a 30,000 square foot lot and two septic field locations, open space probably will not be needed, but it should be left in as a use for emergencies. Mr. Fisher said the requirement for two septic field locations does not require the owner to use either of those locations. As long as open space can be used for septic systems, he feels that someone will want to do that. Mr. Keeler suggested the wording "wells and septic systems in accordance with Section 2.5". He said Section 2.5 requires two septic field locations on each lot and wording could be added that the Health Department may approve septic drainfields in the.o~en space only after the two locations on each individual lot have proved to be inadequate. Mr. Fisher said he did not believe this use belongs in this section. Mr. McCann said he would rather see it left in for emergencies. Mr. Fisher suggested listing "wells and septic systems for emergency use only (reference 2.5)". Mr. Keeler suggested that in Section 2.5, Health Regulations; Lot Size, the following paragraph be added: "In a cluster development, open space may be used for septic field locations only after the septic field locations on such lot are determined to be inadequate by the local health department.'' Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt both of the above referenced changes. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann an~ carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ~ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the words "public utility easements, stormwater detention and flood control devices" be added to Section 4.7.3. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ~BSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 3. At 10:10 P.M., the' meeting w~s adjourned. ~ ·