Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-09-10A9-4-75 9-10-75 (Afternoon) 3O3 Vote was as fallows: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. AYES: NAYS: Wheeler: We need to refer this second portion to the Planning Commission. Carwile: I move adoption of the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, under Section 17-6-3 to read as follows: 17-6'3. Approval of a ~ite development plan pursuant to this article shall expire 18 months after the date of approval unless actual construction shall have commenced and is thereafter prosecuted in good faith. AND, FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said proposal and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. Wood: I will second Mr. Carwile's motion. Vote was as follows: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Henley: I would like to get a promise from you all that we do not pick this one to pieces like we picked the 14-day one to pieces. Wheeler: I am not promising anything. Can we have a motion to adjourn to Wednesday. Carwile: Ifmove that we adjourn until Wednesday, Sep%ember 10, 1975, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Wood: Second. Vote was as o!lo~s: ~YES: MAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Chairman 9-10-75 (Afternoon) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 10, 1975 at 3:00 P.M. in the County Office Building Board Room. This meeting was adjourned from September 4, 1975. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, William C. Thacker Jr., Gordon L Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ' ' ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. OFFIgERS PRESENT: Messrs. T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive; Robert Sampson, Assistant to the County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; John Humphrey, County Planner; Robert Tucker, Assistant County Planner; Ray Jones, Director of Finance; Hartwell Clarke, Zoning Administrator; and David Carr, Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheeler called the meeting to order at 3:25 P.M., and requested the Board to pass a resolu- tion instructing the Clerk to write a letter of thanks to the members of the Technical Committee, who drew up the Guidelines to protect the water supply of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Wood. Mr. Wheeler said he received a certified letter regarding the State Corporation Commission hearing scheduled for the Blanton Building in Richmond at 11:00 A.M. on September 18, 1975 of an application of public convenience and necessity for charter party groups made by E. Crawford Transit. Another letter from the State Corporation Commission, regarding a hearing scheduled for Septem- ber 23, 1975 for the Virginia Industrialized Building Unit Mobile Home Safety regulations, authorizing the Commission to establish fees to pay costs of implementing the safety laws. The proposed fee is $15.00. The hearing time is 9:30 A.M. in the Blanton Building in Richmond. Mr. Wheeler presented a letter to the Clerk from Mr. Bedford Moore, stating his Albemarle County property has been designated a historical landmark by the Virginia ~',l~a~m~alO~ar~m~ '~ ~' ' ' Co~mission. This property being called "Shack Mountain" Another letter received was from Mrs. Opal David, stating her opinions as to the Board's actions on the proposed Zoning Ordinance. ,-~_o_~ (afternoon) Communication was also received from the Albemarle County Taxpayers Association stating their views on the Reservoir and the zoning of the area around the Reservoir. Mr. Jack Dillard's letter was read to the Board by Mr. Wheeler, stating his opposition to the rezoning of his property to five acres minimum, and urging the Board not to adopt the ordinance as presently proposed. Communication from the'League of Women Voters regarding the Proposed Zoning Ordinance was noted as received by Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Wood arrived at 3:35 P.M. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has three possible directions they can take regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance: 1) start work now and make changes moving toward final adoption; 2) send the proposed ordinance back to the Planning commission to be reworked; or 3) shelve the ordinance entirely until the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed and the Reservoir study is completed. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the Zoning Ordinance~had to correspond to the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John~felt it was a wrong assumption. Virginia State Code Section 15.1- 456 says that no public structure, utility or use shall be placed in a County unless the Planning Commission shall find that they are in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. He then said the Supreme Court ruled that the Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance but only a guide, and the Zoning Ordinance has the true force of law. Mr. Fisher then asked if it strengthens a property owners case if certain boundaries are shown on the Comprehensive Plan that are not listed on the Zoning Map. Mr. St. John said it probably would unless you could show reason for the variation. Mr. Fisher said he was willing to go over the comments from the Public Hearing, all the complaints and problems with definitions in work sessions, and bring the proposed ordinance back to the Board this year. Mr. Thacker said that in 1976 under State Code the Comprehensive Plan must be readopted or revised, and felt our present Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map should be in accord with each other. He also felt the Board should meet with the Planning Commission to review the proposed ordinance. Mr. Wood said when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the existing zoning was not considered. He said he felt the Comprehensive Plan and proposed zoning map were not that far apart, and felt the Board should take the time to bring the two closer together. He said he would prefer not to see the proposed ordinance and map shelved at this time. Mr. Carwile said that before the Zoning Ordinance and map can be adopted and the Comprehensive Plan readopted, the Board and Planning Commission should make policy decisions. He felt the problem of low and moderate income housing should be addressed, as well as the preservation of open space in the County. He felt the Board should decide which document the County wishes to place the greater emphasis on, the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Map, and then revise the other to conform. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, said the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance submitted by the consultant ~nvisioned five and two acre zones. The Planning Commission and staff felt added zones were~necessary to assist in establishing clusters, preserve open space and steep slopes, and agriculture. The Planning Commission adopted a 10 acre agricultural zone, a five acre conservation zone and a five acre agricultural zone. This was not accepted by the general public, possibly because of confusion about the term conservation. Mr. Humphrey said he felt today's map and ordinance b~i~H~o~h~r~objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He said if the County decided to shelve the proposal it would have to be for at least two years, leaving the staff to deal with an unworkable ordinance and map. Mr. David Carr, Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, said he agreed with Mr. Humphrey that the ordinance should not be shelved. He said the Commission pondered the question of a conservation zone for many hours and finally decided to make it a part of the agricultural zone category. He felt they had not strayed as far from the Comprehensive Plan as some Board members and public felt, and that he would be glad to go over the ordinance with the Board. He concluded by saying the Planning Commission had input from almost 2,000 citizens and they tried to react to that .input when making their decisions. Mr. Wheeler said the Comprehensive Plan was only approved as a guide, and that hopefully this Board and future Boards will base their zoning decisions on the best interest of the citizens, not strictly the master plan. Mr. Wheeler felt the ordinance should be put aside for the remainder of the year 1975 and brought back for a new Board to look into. He added that before the proposed ordinance is changed, a few questions must be answered; do the citizens of the County want cluster communities; and the type of zoning required to protect water supplies. He then recommended the proposed ordinance be sent back to the Planning Commission for review of the conservation district, the cluster concept, and review of the Comprehensive Plan, and have the proposed zoning ordinance ready for review by the Board of Supervisors by March 1, 1976. Mr. Wood said there were a number of things in the proposed ordinance that he liked, such as the expanded number of zones. He said if the Board decides to send the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Commission, the text should be considered simultaneously with the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan. He concluded by saying he did not wish to see the matter buried. Mr. Wheeler agreed with Mr. Wood that the expanded zones are a good proposal, and that if it is sent back to the Planning Commission, the ordinance, map and Comprehensive Plan should all be reviewed at the same time. Mr. Wheeler said policy decisions must be made as to whether or not the Board wants cluster communities etc., but that any recommendations should not be brought back to the Board during the next 60 to 90 days because the Board must get things in order for the coming of the new Board. ~ Mr. Thacker felt if the Board decides to continue work on the proposed ordinance, they should first meet in a joint work session with the Planning Commission. Mr. Batchelor suggested'the Board and Planning Commission pull out the most important and urgent parts of the proposed ordinance, and work on those, for implementation into the present ordinance. This would allow more time to refine the proposed ordinance, yet make the present ordinance more workable. Mr. Carwile agreed with Mr. Batchelor, and said he would support deferral of this matter until - 9-~0175 (~ftern~o~)- 9-10-75 (night) 3O5 Mr. Carr and Mr. Humphrey felt they would need at least three weeks to extract the most important areas from the proposed ordinance. Mr. Wheeler said the section known as "definitions" seems to be the most controversial. Mr. Humphrey said there are only a moderate number of definitions used, and that most are considered standard. Mr. Carr added most of the definitions are not specific as to numbers, because it adds to the administration costs in attempting to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Wheeler agreed that the County and its citizens could not afford to add significantly to its inspector staff in implementing this ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he felt there was merit in reviewing the map and Comprehensive Plan at the same time as the proposed ordinance. He agreed there seemed to be little problem with the types of zoning and the general language of the ordinance. He added that he did not want the work of the Planning Commission and staff to be lost. He supports a joint work session with the Planning Commission to discuss extracting the most important points of the proposed ordinance for possible implementation into the present ordinance. Mr. Wheeler suggested the Planning Commission and representatives of the Planning Department come back before the Board on October 1, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the Courthouse. Ail Board members and Planning members agreed with the suggested date. Mr. Wheeler then asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Patterson disagree with downzoning. No one else from the public wished to speak. Mr. Carwile wished to discuss the Hessian Hills Subdivision Plat which is pending before the Planning Commission. This proposed final plat is for six or seven additional lots in sections 5 and 6 of Hessian Hills at the end of Old Forge Road. -He said he was concerned to have additional lots subdivided and sold when Old Forge Road is not yet in the State Highway System nor sufficient bond ~posted. He added that the Board set September 1~5, 1975 as the deadline for the road work to be accomplished, and as yet nothing has been done. Mr. Carwile said he spoke to Mr. St. John who stated it was within the Board's power to withhold approval of the plat until there is sufficient bond or the road is accepted into the State Highway System. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to do same. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote~ AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley At 5:15 P.M., Mr. Wheeler requested a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley At 7:25 P.M. meeting was reconvened in the County Courthouse. the meeting adjourned. Chairman Mr. Wheeler immediately called 9-10-75 (Night) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 10, 1975 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher-, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Robert Sampson, Assistant to the County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney, James Bowling and Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorneys; John Humphrey, County Planner; and Hartwell Clarke, Building Official & Zoning Administrator. The Board conducted public hearing on the following items: No. 1. SP-446 and ZMP-3!6, Holy Comforter Church (deferred from July 23, 1975). (Mr. Carwile abstaining)Mr. John Humphrey reviewed highlights from the staff report, relating to density and land use concept, site plans and subdivision of land, sewer and water, transportation system, and miscellaneous (recorded in full in minutes of March 5, 1975 meeting). Mr. Max Evans, Landscape Architect, said they wished to reduce the commercial property, reduce the density, and allow for more open space. He stated the homeowners would have to aontribute to~ the changes required in Route 29 with the Virginia Depar~tment of Highways, as well as paying for the roads throughout the Branchlands complex. Mr. Evans said they agree to all t~e conditions suggested by the Planning Commission with the exception of having all the roads dedicated for acceptance into the State Highway Secondary System. Mr. Wood questioned if the area shown for open space on the maps presented, was a firm commitment. Mr. Evans said it was, and Mr. Humphrey proceeded to elaborate. Mr. Humphrey said the proposed development is broken down into sections, and each section has a certain amount of area alotted for open space and recreation. Mr. Wood asked if a definitive property line was to be established between Branchlands and adjoining properties. Mr. Evans said the adjoining property owners have agreed to a fence between the two properties. Mr. Fisher then asked if a road bond would be required on all roads simultan- eously or in?each section as it is developed. Mr. Humphrey said it could be worked and bonded in sections. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Wheeler suggested the Board handle ZMP-316 first. Mr. Wood expressed concern that the adjoining property owners had not been properly notified of this meeting, due to the fact that this petition had been deferred a number of times. Mr. Evans stated that citizens and adjoining property owners made statements at the last meeting, and recalled specifically a gentlemen