Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-15July 15, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 1 000077 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 15, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7;12 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: Ms. Sally H. Thomas. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and Chief of Planning, Mr. Ronald S. Keeler. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Roger Ray, a local land surveyor and land planner, complained to the Board about the way he was mistreated during his presentation to the Planning Commission the previous night. He said that both he and County staff were maligned, and their competency questioned. He asked the Board to individually listen to a recording of the Commission meeting to hear the tone and content of the discussion. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner said he also attended the Planning Commission meeting held the previous night. He was told the Commission had requested a review of his subdivision plat, but no one provided him with written notice or an explanation of why it was being discussed. He was eventually told the review was because of critical slopes. He was told he could not address the Commis- sion. Other applicants were treated in a similar manner. He was embarrassed by the conduct of the Commissioners, whom he said belittled Mr. Ray and County staff. Mr. Ray's information was correct and the Commission's was incorrect. In his opinion, the 60-day deadline on hearing applications should not have started until the submittal deadline. Requests for family divisions are supposed to be reviewed and acted upon within five days. He is still waiting for a decision on his application and suspects the Commission is deliberately delaying action on his request. He also has been made to revise his request several times. He was dismayed to hear that spouses will no longer be considered ~family", which affects financial and other planning matters. He feels strongly that spouses should be allowed division rights. He said that three Commissioners, Ms. Washington, Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Finley were the only ones who acted professionally. He asked the Board members to listen to a recording of the meeting and take whatever action necessary to prevent similar actions at meetings in the future. Mr. Wendell Wood, who also attended the Commission's meeting on Tuesday night, said he supported everything Mr. Ray and Mr. Gloeckner said. After the meeting Ms. Washington, a Commission member, told him she had never been so embarrassed in her life because of the conduct of some of the Commission members. He told the Board he had submitted a family subdivision plat. Staff told him it met all the necessary criteria and that the plat would be signed yesterday, but it has been delayed by the Commission. He made the many changes recommended by staff and did what the Zoning Administrator said was proper. Mr. Wood asked the Board to see that his plat be approved. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve items 5.1 through 5.2a and to accept the remaining items for information. July 15, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 2 000078 Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: MS. Thomas. Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to add environmental restoration projects as a use by-right in the Flood Hazard Overlay District in certain cases and add a definition for "bank erosion structure". The executive summary states that the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30.3.5.2.1) requires a special use permit for "bank erosion structures" within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. However, the ordinance does not provide a definition for "bank erosion structure." Recently, there has been some uncertainly about what types of projects would require the special use permit. Particularly, it is uncertain whether streambank restoration projects de- signed, undertaken and/or funded by public agencies would require the special permit. Also, the County has recently been asked by the community of Browns Cove for assistance with flood prevention, and it is this forthcoming public project that has led to the attempt to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide clarification on the permitting issue. In some cases, the cost and time involved with obtaining a special use permit would prohibit certain environmental projects from taking place, particularly in cases where the practice is cost-shared by the Thomas Jeffer- son Soil & Water Conservation District, or another public agency, as a conservation practice promoted by the state. In other cases, a project will not increase the flood plain elevation, and the project's purpose is to achieve a strictly public good (such as flood prevention or environmental restoration). Most often, such projects are designed and partially funded by public agencies, such as the County, Soil & Water District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, etc. Specifically, the resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance would be to allow flood control and environmental restoration projects as by- right uses within the floodway and floodway fringe in the following cases: The project is undertaken, coordinated, or designed by a public agency. The project receives technical review by the County through the Water Protection Ordinance, including for erosion and sediment control. The project's purpose is for the public benefit. No net fill is placed within the flood plain. The practice involves the use of natural materials, such as rock and plant materials. This would exclude "engineered" structures, such as retaining walls, gabion baskets, and concrete. Such projects would still require a special use permit. In order to achieve this, the amendment will be to add certain uses by- right in Section 30.3.5.1.1 and to provide a definition for "bank erosion structure" in Section 3.0. Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Humphris said there were three corrections to be made. The second line of the third paragraph of the executive summary should read, "restoration projects as by-right uses within the floodway..." The third line of the Resolution should read, ~hereby intend..." The first line of the second paragraph should read, ~...to hold a public hearing...-. By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION OF INTENT Whereas, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has determined in order to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practices, it does hereby intend to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to define "bank erosion structure" and to allow certain uses by right in the Flood Hazard Overlay District; July 15, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 3 oooo79 Further the Board requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that the Planning Commission forward its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. Item No. 5.2. Adopt Resolution regarding VDOT construction of telecom- munication facilities (deferred from July 8, 1998). By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the vitality of the County of Albemarle is dependent upon maintaining the character of the County by protecting its significant scenic, historic, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the land use regulations of the County have been developed to protect these resources and to assure the public's health, safety, and welfare; and W~EREAS, the County finds that telecommunications towers can severely impact the resources of the County unless such towers are strategically placed and are constructed in ways to minimize the detrimental consequences to adjacent property owners and the County as a whole; and WHEREAS, the County has engaged a consultant to analyze the best locations for towers to provide telecommunications service in the County and this consultant's report will provide valuable information for VDOT to consider in planning the need for or the location of any telecommunications towers within its right-of-way; and WHEREAS, to assure that full consideration, understanding, and public input is achieved, it is critical that the construction of any telecommunica- tions tower be subject to local review and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA that the Virginia Department of Transportation is requested to: Construct no towers within the VDOT right-of-way within Albemarle County unless such towers have been submitted for review and approval under the special use permit provisions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; (2) Limit any use of VDOT towers by private telecommunications entities unless and until such towers are constructed after full review and approval under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and have been determined to be consistent with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan; and (3) Construct no towers until a long range VDOT plan for such towers has been studied and adopted after receiving and giving full consideration to County input and addressing issues of critical importance identified by the County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transportation is urged to recognize the importance of this issue to the County of Albemarle and that irreparable damage to the County will occur if towers are constructed which blight the landscape of the historic entrance corridors to the commu- nity. Item No. 5.2a. Request to set a public hearing for August 5, 1998, to authorize right-of-way dedication to Mill Creek Drive. The executive summary states that Mill Creek Drive was constructed by the County to provide access to Monticello High School, and to serve as a connecting road between Avon Street and Route 20 South. Right-of-way for the road was previously dedicated based on the original design alignment. However, minor modifications during construction caused a small section of the road to be located outside the dedicated area. July 15, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 4 000080 Additional right-of-way for the road, approximately 2,000 square feet, must be dedicated to public use. This is a requirement for VDoT to accept the road into the state system for maintenance. Staff recommends the Board set a public hearing to consider dedication of additional right-of-way for August 5, 1998. By the above shown vote, the Board set a public hearing for August 5, 1998, to authorize right-of-way dedication to Mill Creek Drive. Item No. 5.3. Monthly update on the FY 1997/98 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering & Public Works as of June 24, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.4. Copy of letter dated June 22, 1998, from Mr. J. T. Mills, State Location and Design Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notice that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved the location and major design features for the Route 631 (Rio Road) project (from Brookway Drive to Stonehenge Road), was received for information. Item No. 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board Authority for May 14, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.6. Notice that the County of Albemarle has received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), was received for information. Ms. Humphris expressed the Board's appreciation to Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, and his staff for their work on the CAFR. Mr. Tucker said staff will prepare a press release and make a presentation before the Board in August. Item No. 5.7. Copy of the Albemarle County Service A~thority's operat- ing budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1998, was received for information. (Note: the following two items were discussed concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on an ordinance to adopt and enact a new code for the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be entitled, "The Code of Albemarle County, Virginia, 1998" (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 7, 1998.) STA-98-01. Subdivision Ordinance. Public hearing to con- sider an ordinance to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the Code of Virginia & current practice related to Validity of Plans, Length of Review Prior to Action, Notifi- cation, Appeals and Administrative Procedural Matters: (1) amend to codify current administrative review process; (2) amend to revise time period for site plan/subdivision re- view; (3) amend to revise time period of validity of site plans/ subdivision plats; and (4) amend content of prelimi- nary & final site plans & subdivision plats (continued from June 17, 1998). Bo Public hearing to consider imposing or increasing certain fees in an ordinance to recodify Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land (continued from June 17, 1998). Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-98-06. Section 32.0 Site Plan of the Zoning Ordinance. Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: (1) amend to codify current administrative review process; (2) amend to revise time period for site plan/subdivision review; (3) amend to revise time period of validity of site plans/subdivision plats; and July 15, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 5 00008:1. (4) amend content of preliminary and final site plans and subdivision plats (continued from June 17, 1998). Mr. Marshall said he was disturbed by what he heard from the public regarding the Planning Commission. Ms. Humphris said the Board should listen to a copy of the tape from the meeting before discussing the matter. Mr. Martin agreed with Ms. Humphris. However, he stated that the Board had made it clear all requests ~'in the mill" were to have been handled as usual, and not delayed pending any decisions that might have been made by the Board at this meeting. He wants to know if anyone is doing anything to the con- trary. Mr. Bowerman asked the status of the four applications discussed at the Commission meeting last night. Mr. Keeler said before June 19, Mr. Tice called up all subdivision applications that involved Mountain Resource Area and private roads, including family divisions with private roads. Staff also received, on that date, a list of questions from Mr. Tice. Mr. Kamptner, from the County Attorney's office, responded to the questions on July 7. The Commission discussed the responses at that night's meeting, but the Commission made no decision on the applications at that meeting. One request was later approved at the July 14 Commission meeting. The question remains whether or not the Commission wants to review family divisions, because of the limited discretion the Ordinance offers regarding such divisions. Mr. Davis said the Commission is authorized to review such applications. The real question was whether or not there was any practical reason for the Commission to do so, since there are very specific sections of the Subdivision Ordinance that are only applicable to family subdivisions. Mr. Bowerman commented that such applications are usually approved administratively. Mr. Keeler said the section of the Code dealing with family divisions limits what the County can do. The Ordinance does not provide any discretion, and it is up to the agent, the Director of Planning, to review the applications. Mr. Davis said the status of the remaining referenced plats is that they have been reviewed and staff has been working through issues. He had thought the Commission would authorize the staff the authority to review them. However, last night's Commission meeting ran late, and things were not finalized, so the authorization was not obtained. The plats are therefore still pending. If the Board would accept the changes he recommends to recodify the Code, he felt this matter would be resolved before any change to the Subdivision Ordinance is made. He suggested postponing recodification of the Code until August 5, 1998. This will not create any detriment to pending applications. Mr. Martin said these plats were singled out for review, which is proper and legal. However, there is not much for the Commission to review; the review will take place by staff. Mr. Davis said staff has 60 days from the submittal day to review and approve the plats. There is a five-day period to review the plats for completeness; the applications are well within that time period now. Because of the Commission's involvement, it has taken staff longer to approve these requests than normal. He added that these plats are more difficult. Staff said the requests are ready to be signed as soon as the Commission's concerns are resolved. Mr. Tucker said there is a difference of opinion between some Commis- sioners with the interpretation of how staff are examining these applications. He asked how that would be resolved by August 1, when the 60-day time period ends. No one responded. Mr. Martin asked why what staff has been doing for years has come under scrutiny. Mr. Davis said there is a question regarding critical slopes; if there needs to be a demonstration of whether there is an alternative location for an accessway before it can be located in a critical slope area. This has not been done previously, because that level of detail has not been requested with family subdivisions. Mr. Marshall asked why the plats have not been signed, if the same criteria is still being used as has been used in the past. Mr. Keeler said he could not answer that question, because the delay rests with the Commission. ooooaz July 15, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 6 Mr. Bowerman said when he served on the Commission, these requests were never called up. They were handled administratively by the agent, and the plats were signed. He wanted to know the official status of the applications. Mr. Davis said the agent will not approve them until the Commission finishes its review. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission can direct the agent as to what to do. Mr. Davis said the agent would value the Commission's comments as to approval or disapproval. The Planning Director is named as the agent who has the authority to approve or deny these types of plats without the Commission's involvement, under recodification. However, the current ordinance is somewhat ambiguous. Mr. Martin repeated that last week the Board said staff was to proceed as they always had. Somehow someone has taken it upon themselves to do something different. Ms. Humphris said she disagreed. The Commission did not know what was said at the Board meeting. The situation is the Commission decided they wanted an interpretation of the law as to whether critical slopes should be a part of the review process. Mr. Davis said the Commission had asked if a certain section of the Zoning Ordinance is applicable to these plats. Mr. Kampner advised the Commission that it was not. The Commission was not totally satisfied with that and did not reach a resolution. He expects it to be resolved at the next Commission meeting. Mr. Martin said it looks bad for this to have occurred just as the Board is getting ready to change family division regulations. Ms. Humphris said the matter actually came up on June 18. Mr. Marshall said the Commission is trying to create a new ordinance without a public hearing. Anything in the mill should be processed, and should not be under the control of the Commis- sion. Mr. Bowerman asked if it was appropriate to put the status of these applications in the hand of the agent. Mr. Davis said denial of the plat could be appealed, but, for now, responsibility has been delegated to the agent, in the case of family subdivisions. He recommended that if the Board does not act on recodification tonight, to let this item be resolved at next week's Commission meeting. If it is not resolved at that time, he could come up with a recommendation as to how the Board should deal with the matter. Mr. Perkins said a lot of property would become inaccessible if it did not cross a 25 percent slope. Mr. Davis said an applicant would have to demonstrate there is no reasonable alternative to crossing critical slopes. The question is whether this section is applicable at the plat stage or as a building application issue. Ms. Humphris asked that the Board receive copies of the tape of last night's Commission meeting. Mr. Tucker said Planning staff could edit and record pertinent portions of the tape and provide copies to the Board. Mr. Gloeckner interrupted and said one Commission member called an executive session. He said he thought that was supposed to be up to the Chairman. Mr. Bowerman said the Board would have to listen to the tape to see what had transpired. Mr. Davis said this is the first recodification of the County code since 1975. The Code has become inconsistent over the years. In December, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia was recodified, and numerous changes were made which must be incorporated into the County Code. The proposal is that, once it is recodified, the Code be maintained internally, giving the County control over maintaining up-to-date copies, to be able to put it out on the Internet, to make Code amendments, etc. It is now in a more user-friendly format. Changes were also made to conform with existing processes that varied from within the Code. He has provided an outline of proposed changes in a memo to the Board (copy on file in the Clerk's office). Changes have been made to the Subdivision Ordinance since the work session was held. Members of the immediate family has been amended from the earlier draft of the Subdivision Ordinance to delete "spouse" from the definition, the holding period for family subdivisions has been amended from one year to two years, and the review process has been clarified to state the review period for family division plats and other administrative plats is the 60 to 90 days permitted by the Code. That does not mean staff will take that long to review them, but that is the process that is available. July 15, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 7 000083 Mr. Martin said when the Board made the modification suggestion about "spouses", they were listening to one side of the issue. Now he thinks it is more complicated. It sounds to him as if the Board is encouraging divorce in the County. He asked staff to provide more information before the next public hearing is held. Mr. Davis said staff's recommendation would still be to delete ~'spouse". Mr. Marshall said Mr. McClure's (a land owner) questions also need to be answered, because he is concerned that one of his grandchil- dren will be adversely affected by this change. He added that many other people have expressed similar concerns. Mr. Davis said he wanted the opportu- nity to consult with real estate attorneys. Mr. Davis suggested the Code not be adopted at this meeting, because the Zoning Ordinance is not in a format which he would recommend because of some format and numbering problems uncovered in his review. He also hopes to insert the revised Site Plan Ordinance into the recodified Zoning Ordinance so there would then be no need for an amendment to the Code later. He asked that this item be deferred until August 5, 1998. Mr. Bowerman asked whether it is likely there are other submittals for family division that could be submitted between today and August 5, which would run through the process in time to not be covered by recodification, if the Code is adopted August 5. Mr. Keeler said he reviewed a list of what is in hand at this time. There are three applications before the Commission that would be affected by the deletion of spouses. The only ones who might come in in the meantime are spousal transfers. Mr. Davis said applicants could be advised that plats may or may not be approved before the Ordinance is adopted. Mr. Marshall asked if someone could submit an application for review tomorrow and get it approved. Mr. Davis replied, ~Yes." Mr. Keeler said all three plats that deal with spousal transfers have to be decided before the August 5, 1998 meeting because of the 60-day deadline. Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearings. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearings. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to defer action of recodification of the County Code, STA-98-01, and ZTA-98-06, to August 5, 1998. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 8. Exccutivc Scssicn; Lcgal ~4attcrs. agenda.) (Removed from the Agenda Item No. 9. agenda.) None. (Removed from the Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: July 3 and December ii(N), 1996; August 6, 1997; and February 18, 1998. Mr. Bowerman read the minutes from December 11 (N), 1996 and found them to be in order. He also read the minutes from August 6, 1997, pages 17 (Item #8) end. He provided the Clerk one minute book correction. A paragraph on page 21 was corrected to read, ~Mr. Bowerman said if the elected law enforce- ment officer recomends the amendment and says that wihtout the amendment, safety is jeopardized; then he supports the amendment because it is not changing anything and does not add a burden to the Sheriff's Department." Ms. Humphris read the minutes from July 3, 1996 and provided the Clerk a few corrections. She also read the minutes from August 6, 1997, pages 1-17 (Item #8) and provided one typographical error. July 15, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 8 000084 Mr. Martin read the minutes from February 18, 1998 and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes with corrections. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins NAYS: None. · ABSENT: Ms. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. There were none. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to a joint meeting with the School Board at 6:30 p.m. on July 27, 1998. ' Approved by Board