Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-06-26A6-26-74 (afternoon) 359 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 26, 1974, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from June 20, 1974. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwi!e, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley~ Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive and-County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order. He explain that this meeting had been called for the Planning Commission to bring the Board up-to-date on their work on the proposed Zoning Ordinance and map. Mr. David Carr, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said their efforts have not been toward the collapse of Albemarle County, but rather toward continued development. The Planning Commission feels that some errors were made in the original adoption of the zoning map in 1968, and that adjustments must be made. At the beginning of their work on the proposed ordinance and map, the Planning Commission decided they must reach a certain plateau in decision making before soliciting public input. For this reason, public input has not been sought. This policy has been critized. Mr. Ca~r asked that John Humphrey, County Planner, give a short history of the Planning Commission's work. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission had a big job transferring the existing zoning ordinance and map to a new ordinance and map. Where the existing ordinance had only eight or nine categories, the proposed ordinan~et,~i~>-~ave 18 standard zones and four.floating zones. The Planning Commission began work in January 1973 dealing primarily with the written part of the ordinance submitted by the consultant. The written text has been adapted to meet the needs of Albemarle County. Mr. Humphrey said after the text was completed soon after January iD 1974, the Planning Commission began work on the zoning map. The staff researched and evaluated areas of prime agricultural land for consideration in establishing agricultural and conservation zones. They also evaluated vacant lands. From this evaluation, the staff presented their ideas fof zoning of vacant lands keeping in mind the Comprehensive Plan. In some cases, the Planning Commission accepted the ideas of the staff and in some cases they did not. Mr. Humphr~ey then pointed out all zoning categories on the proposed map, relating these to the text of the proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission still must wrestle with the problem of vested rights. Mr. Carr said emphasis was placed on establishing the proper purpose and intent of the difference zones. They have tried to comply with the Comprehensive Plan in making such decisions. The Planning Commission, unanimously, wants to preserve green belts between clusters, feeling this is important to the future planning of the community, one of the most difficult problems they have faced, is that of correcting errors in zoning. They have been told by lawyers that the County can change zoning of land, if the zoning was in error, or if changes in the area dictate that the zone is no longer logic.al. In the outlying areas, where the Planning 360 6-2~-74 (afternoon) Commission is considering moving certain lands from the agricultural zone to the proposed conservation zone, they are speaking of thousands of acres. They feel the public will be receptive to this change. But, in an area such as Route 29 North, changing from one zone to another becomes more difficult. The Planning Commission has tried to benefit clusters through zoning. Mr. Carr said water impoundments have been and still are a problem. Because one of these impoundments is now partially surrounded by land which is zoned for h±gh density, they have been concerned as to how to deal with the landowners and yet preserve the water supply. Mobile homes have been a great concern. The Commission has discussed mobile home park subdivisions and how to make these attractive to both the mobile home user and the mobile home park developer. Mr. Carr said the Planning Commission has received excellent advice from the County Attorney and the language in the final copy is that written by his office. He asked that after comments from Others present, that procedures to be followed from this time forward, be discussed. Mr. Clifton McClure said the Board will note quite a few changes for the betterment of the County in the proposed ordinance. He asked how far the governing body wants to go in down ~oning property. He said it would save the Planning Commission time, if the Board would indicate whether the Planning Commission should consider down zoning on vested interests, hardships, etc. He was also concerned about the new agricultural Zone of 10 acres. At one time, the Board was receptive to 10 acres, but since that time an all inclusive agricultural zone of 5 acres has been included. This consumes a lot of land that was rural residential. Mr. Jack Rinehart said the proposed map, at the present time, is in close compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Messrs. Peter Easter, Wilbur Tinsley, James Sams, Louis Staley, and Avery Catlin~ members of the Planning Commission, were also present, but made no comments at this time. Mr. Carr said the agricultural limited zone, referred to formally as rural residential for two-acre lots, was recognized as land which from a soil standpoint is not prime agricultural land, nor as prime land for residential development, although some will probably be used for residential and some for grazing. Mr. Carr said he voted for this to be five acre zone feeling that any developer or user could request a rezoning for location of subdivision. Mr. McClure opposed this because he felt this limited the one-lot owner. Since the one-lot owner is important, he received a lot of attention in these disucssions. The Planning Commission decided to leave the one-lot owner two acres in the agricultural limited zone, and decided to let him rezone for that one lot. Mr. Carr said this was one of the most difficult zones to deal with. This is the land which the Planning Commission feels will be transitional over the next 25 years. residential, commercial, and industrial Mr. Wheeler said the proposed map indicates that the present/zones have been cut down. He asked if there is any surplus land in those zones. 6-26-74 (afternoon) 36 2 Mr. Carr said the industrial and commercial zones reflect only what currently exists. He feels this is good planning. There is six times as much land zoned commercial as Rosser Payne~predic~'ed would be used in the next 25 years. Whether this zoning is properly located is a difficult question to answer. Mr. Wheeler again asked if there is any surplus land in these zones and if so in what period of time would that surplus land be used up. Mr. Carr said the Planning Commission did not approach the question in that manner. For an example, if the Earlysvilte area grows and water and sewer is made available, the area will expand. If the water and sewer go elsewhere, the expansion Will go elsewhere. The additional land required wil~ have to be rezoned as circumstances change. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. St. John advise the Board of their position in the matter of down zoning. Mr. St. John said down zoning is a hotbed of potential litigation, since some owners may lose money by virtue of such down zoning. Zn the State of Virginia, the Supreme Court has been very conservative. They value highly the landowners right to any profits he can reasonably expect from his investment. This is not an absolute, and if the public interests require down zoning, Mr. St. John said he believes where there are vali'd reasons, it will be sustained. In speaking about down zoning of land around the reservoir, any such down zoning must be justified by almost compelling reasons. The County would be taking away from the landowner for the public benefit. Therefore, the public benefit must so heavily override the individual owners interests as to require this down zoning. The Supreme Court of Virginia has said there are only two categories of reasoning to justify down zoning. If the original zoning was a mistake, is the first reason. It was a mistake to ever zone that area around the reservoir for high-density and facts can be presented to show that high density development will pollute the reservoir. The interests of a landowner who purchased his property, at a high price, since 1968, may fall before the public interest in preserving a pure and clean water supply. This is also a potential recreational area, and aesthetics may be considered. In order to down zone this land, facts which constitute a clear showing that the original zoning was a mistake must be presented. The second reason for down zoning would be to show that although the original zoning was not a mistake originally, there has been a change in circumstances that requires a down zoning. Mr. St. John said he believe the Board can do this if they feel there are valid reasons. He said the Board should do this without the fear of litigation. If they win, they win and if they do not win, they do not. It will just mean arguing this in court for two days. He would rather go to court than have the Board forfeit the chance to do something that is in the best interest of the public. Mr. St. John said where there is strip commercial along a major highway and the Board feels this should be changed, it is in their power to do this. 362 6-26-74 (afternoon) This down zoning would be no different from other rezoning cases. If there are valid reasons to do this, and those reasons are fairly debated, no court should overturn the Board's decision. Mr. Carwile said the concept of down zoning if of concern to him. be guided not only by legal ramifications, but also moral implicatio-ns. the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors, it was stated that this Plan would not be used as a basis for down zoning of property. He said people have purchased their property on the basis of the zoning and refrained from selling the The Board should At the time property based on the value of the zoning. To a certain extent, taxes are based on zoning. The zoning on certain pieces of property has influenced many people in their investment of funds. Mr. Car~ile said it is a question of people's pocketbooks when talking of down zoning property, and he was not prepared to that in that fashion. Mr. Wood said he felt the Planning Commission has tried to present somethin~ that makes an ideal situation in Albemarle County. He said trying to make an ideal situation is a good way to get a good zoning ordinance either defeated or changed to a point where it does not have the true meaning of zoning. His~higgest concern was that the individual property owners be allowed to have input on the ordinance and map as soon as possible. Mr. Wood said if the Planning Commission and members of the public think the new zoning map, when .adopted, is an absolute, this is an error. They must realize that in the future there will be changes to deal with day to day situations. Mr. Thacker said there are many ramifications of down zoning that will effect the entire county, as well as individual property owners. At this time, he preferred to have the Planning Commission proceed with all possible speed to bring their final recommendations to the Board, so this matter may be finalized. He felt the Board and Planning Commission are already reaching into pockets. There are some people who are of the ~rd~nance and yap uncertain as to the adoptio~nd ne ~elt they Should be given input on their individual pieces of property~if they so wish. Mr. Fisher said when the Board considers any kind of a zoning application for up zoning they are putting money in somebody's pocket. He has always felt that this is a judgment made in the public interest. He said that. local governments must at times admit that mistakes have been made and the public interest now is different than it was at the time the decision was made formerly. It has always seemed arbitrary that the public interest is judged to only be such as to i~crease the value of property, but never to decrease the value of property. He said the question of public interests is preceived differently depending on our backgrounds. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about commercial strip zoning that exists on some of the highways in defiance of, any planning standards. This ~rip commercial develops in such a fashion that the highway becomes hazardous, speed limits are continuously reviewed, and traffic lights installed every block or so to a point where this is no longer a major highway. By virtue of this, the area becomes less attractive to tourists and more hazardous. The Board needs to think about whether there have been mistakes, whether it is consistent with the public interest that these mistakes 6-26-74 ('afternoon) 363 continue, and whether the Board is going to bit the bullet and say these mistakes should be corrected in a way that-provides justice for the most people. Mr. Fisher said he honestly feels the Board should do the best job of planning they can do. He encouraged the Planning Commission to do what they feel is best f~r':'~ the planning of the County and to hold public hearings and make recommendations to the Board. The final decisiOn will then be left to the Board, the elected officials. Mr. Wheeler commended the Planning Commission for their work to date. He felt they have carried out the directives of the Board thus far. He said although he had previously asked the Planning Commission to take a middle-of-the-road approach, the .concensus of the Board at that time was for an ideal zoning map. He felt they have complied with the Board's wishes. Mr. Wheeler said the Planning Commission should hold public hearings in each sector of the County. If a particular piece of property is being considered for down zoning, or any chan~e in the present zone, that property owner should be notifiedq and input received from that property ownerL~. Mr. Wheeler said if the Board had had all the zones proposed in the new Qrdinance, some of the zoning applications denied in the past may have been approved. He said mistakes have been made in the original zoning map, and some correction must be made. But, to consider down zoning property around the reservoir from R-3 to conservation is a drastic step and will be difficult for him to support. He said that he expects to listen and do his best for all citizens of the County, but does not expect to take any drastic action. He hoped the Board would have the ordinance in hand by September 1 or October 1. Mr. Carr said it was never the intention of the Planning Commission not to hold public hearings. They had envisioned that every parcel under scrutiny would have to go the public. At the moment, anyone who has a parcel of land he is concerned about, can write to the County Planner, and these requests will be discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheeler said a number of Citizens have called him and they think the map has already been approved. He said he had assured them that this was not so. A decision will not be made until after public hearings and there will probably be a number of changes. Mr. Wheeler said if the Board had not given the Planning Comm±ssion sufficient directions, they could ask more specific questions. Mr. Cart said there was one other item which the Planning Commission would like to discuss; that of site plans. The Board has delegated authority for the approval of these to the Planning Commission. Certainly the Board has the right to review every site plan if they so choose. However, the Planning Commission questions the wisdom of reviewing selected site plans. Site plans are a difficult problem. He was not sure these are being handled in a manner which is satisfactory to the County or the petitioner. He was not sure that individual review of selected site plans by a higher authority , at this time, will assist the efforts of the Planning Commission in trying to resolve this problem. He asked that the Board reevaluate its position on this matter. Mr. Wheeler said that in those instances where the Board has ask~ed to review particular a~./ site plan, this has been requested by citizens. He said this is not always pleasant and does get out of hand sometimes. However, the Board in their official duties does often review actions of boards and commissions appointed by this Board. Mr. Cart said as a citizen he appreciates the fact that the governing body of Albemarle County will hear problems and complaints of the citizens. The Planning Commission is concerned that if the Board continues to review site plans, they will be asked to review a higher percentage of these. Mr. Wood said several years ago, because of the work load of the Board, the Board delegated site plan approval to the Planning Commission except for cases where either the staff or the Planning Commission felt the Board should make a review. He feels that 99% of the site plans are presently dealt with by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheeler said the Board must consider their work load and try to streamline their procedures. He then called on members of the public who were present for comments. Mr. A. D. Edelson asked Mr. St. John if the word mistake, as used by the Supreme Court, is to be interpreted broadly as being a mistake in judgment or to be interpreted narrowly to mean a mistake in fact. Mr. St. John said it is his opinion that the mistake can be either a mistake in judgment or fact. But, the judgment has to be that a mistake in judgment has been made, and this has to be substantiated by fact. Mr. Frank Patterson said he owns land bordering on the reservoir. He bought the property only because it was zoned R-2. He has a specific use for that property and will suffer a great loss by any down zoning. Since this is the only piece of property that he owns, other than his residence, this may be an irrecoverable loss. He said no one present had mentioned the fact that thera are other means to protect the reservoir. Technology does exist to protect those waters. There are adequate means through engineering, and site plan review to protect and enhance the beauty of the property. He said those present'would be appalled at the way the'property has traditionally been abused. What he contemplates for the property is better than the use the property now receives. Mrs. Phyllis Garcia said there is a depression in the County and the Board is helping it. She owns five acres near the reservoir and she feels the Board is depressing her land. She asked what she cannot do with her land that she could this morning. Mr. Humphrey said for development purposes, the density has changed from one dwelling unit per two acres to one dwelling unit per five acres. Mrs. Garcis said she has offered her land for sale in lots and now cannot sell. She asked how long the citizens will have to wait for a final decision. Mr. Wheeler said a decision will be made in the near future. At this time, nothing has changed. Mr. James Fleming asked where the working person, the poor person, or the black person is going to live in Albemarle County if they must buy from one and one-half acres to 10 acres of land. He said there are such people in Albemarle County. 6-26-74 (afternoon) 365 Mr. Fleming said he also owns land at the reservoir. By putting his land into a one and one-half acre category, this will cause the working person, the poor, the black person, to be segregated because he will not be .able to pay $20,000 for a house site and built an F.H.A. house. Mr. Tremblay said he owns property on Route 29 North. When he bought this property, it was not zoned. When the County adopted the original zoning ordinance, he was asked how he wanted the property zoned. He subsequently asked for M-1 and has been taxed on that zoning. Now, that land has effectively been taken off of the market. This will have economic effect until the Zoning Ordinance ±s passed and through the courts. If this is a long process, it will have an overall economic effect on the County. Mr. Stevenson said he went to the Zoning Ordinance to get a copy of the ordinance and was told that it was at the printers. He pointed out that in 1971 changes were made in the Comprehensive Plan, but ware not made in the Plan itself because of the cost of revising a plan which had already been printed. He said it has been indicated that the zoning map is not complete. He suggested it would be more helpful to the citizens if the Planning Commission was directed to complete the map before soliciting comments from the public. Mr. B. B. Woodson asked if the Board would direct that there be no more public meetings on the Zoning Ordinance until a draft of that ordinance is available to the public. Mr. R. Grant asked what type of notice will be given to the individual property owners whose property will be changed. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Virginia Code states only that a general notice in the newspaper, with possibly a map, is required. There is no requirement that the individual owners be notified. Mr. Wheeler said he would personally like for each individual property owner to be notified. Mr. Batchetor said a print out of the January 1, 1974, real estate tax records could be utilized for this purpose. It would take be~ quite a lot of work but he felt it would be effort well spent. Mr. Fisher said he felt property owners should be notified, but did not think that the Board could direct at this time that every parcel receive a notice. Mr. Edelson said he has property which is now R-3 and has had apartments on it since the first day zoning went into effect in Albemarle County, That parcel is now marked for RR. He asked if the Board had considered the fact that they also have the power of condemnation with this zoning; He said he does not believe the Board has the authority to force him to tear down apartments that already exist. Mrs. Flora Patterson said ~veryone is interested in keeping the water pure. There is an indication that it is becoming less pure, even without high density. She said it can be argued, even though a property o~ner has not spent any money 6-26-74 (afternoon) on his property, that he paid a higher price and this gives him a vested interest. She said the zoning was originally put on the property by the Board and if they decide that was a mistake, maybe the County should help pay for the mistake. Mr. Wendell Wood read to the Board those minutes of the B~oard when they adopted the Comprehensive Plan. He said there was a controversy at that time and now, two years later, the County is in the same process. He said until a decision is made, all land if off the market. This will cause economic chaos and may put people in bankrupty. Mr. Benton Patterson said he understood at the Planning Commission's work session on Monday that Mr. Rosser Payne had said that real estate tax paid is a vested interest and the courts, more or less require that there has to be justification in down zoning. Mr. Wheeler said the public will be given additional time for input at both Planning Commission and Board public hearings. At 5:06 P.M. the Chairman requested an executive session to discuss the purchase of land. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned. Chairman