Loading...
1982-12-01 adjDecember 1, 1982 (Adjourned from November 17, 1982) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 1, 1982, beginning at 2:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from November 17, 1982. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 2:42 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. 'Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. (Arrived at 3:06 P.M.); Georg~ R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 2:38 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. (Deferred from November 17, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said the staff had been requested to further study the impoundment proposed on Lickinghole Creek. He then pointed out on a map the various drainage basins in the Crozet growth area. He said that the Board had wanted the staff to determine whether one impoundment built for sedimentation purposes would take care of runoff from the entire Crozet area; an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek would suit the purpose and it is already shown in the Comprehensive Plan. No impoundment has been proposed for the Parrott Branch which flows directly into Beaver Creek, although there is some area along Parrott Branch north of Route 240 proposed for industrial use. Mr. Tucker said the Engineering Department has been trying to find a suitable location for a dam and has selected a site without any detailed study being made. He pointed out an area on a map of between twelve and fifteen acres which could be used solely for a sedimentation basin. He noted another larger area, about 75 acres, which could be used for both a sediment basin and for recreational purposes. The general location of the Crozet Interceptor which runs along Lickinghole Creek and through the proposed lake has been shown on the map. Additional study would be necessary to relocate manholes, design for their usage above the lake, or realign the interceptor. The staff needs some direction from the Board as to whether this facility would be just a sediment pond, or used for recrea- tional purposes also. Mr. Fisher said when the Crozet interceptor is in place, Crozet will be the only area lying in the South Fork Rivanna watershed that will be intensively developed because of the availability of public sewage collection. If a way can be found to improve the quality of water runoff from the Crozet area using just one impoundment, that is good, but if it takes several such facilities, or if development p~ollutes the Crozet water supply, that is a problem. Mr. Fisher asked how effective one of these lakes would be in reducing pollution going to the Mechum River from urban type development in Crozet. Mr. Tucker said the design of the lake itself would make that determination. Mr. Tom Muncaster, County Engineer's Office, said that in the 208 Watershed Study, Dr. Frank Browne indicates that there could be 90 percent removal of solids and approximately 50 percent removal of phosphorus using such a lake. Mr. Fisher said he feels the Board now needs some definite information on whether this impoundment would be feasible to construct. Now that the Crozet interceptor is a possibility in the near future, it is likely that the Crozet area will begin to grow rapidly. Mr. Tucker continued his presentation by noting the following items: The Planning Commission has proposed that Stony Point be deleted as a village because there has been no growth in the area during the past five years. In order not to lose the growth that was shown in Stony Point in the previous plans, the Commission proposes an expansion of the Piney Mountain village on the east side of Route 29 including some commercial area with the remainder in low-density residential. Because of the School redistricting study which is presently underway, the staff now feels that the Board may want to reconsider deleting Stony Point as a village at this time. It is possible the Stony Point Elementary School will not be closed. If Stony Point is retained, Mr. Tucker said the staff recommends that a correspon- ding change be made to the Piney Mountain plan. Mr. Tucker said that the Hollymead Community remains basically as originally adopted. Also, the Earlysville Village changed little. Although the Earlysville Forest PRD is not a two-acre category, it does seem to fit in the plan, so has been included in the Earlysville Village. Mr. Tucker said the village of Scottsville is basically the same, however, the Planning Commission did try to better define the boundaries. A small portion of land shown near Totier Creek was deleted. There were no significant changes made in the North Garden village plan. In the Ivy Village, an area south of Ivy (Spring Hill) was deleted because a develop- ment plan submitted to the County shows a density lower than village residential. In Crozet, the most significant change proposed is the deletion of the commercial and medium density residential areas south of Route 250. The Planning Commission moved the commercial area into the downtown part of Crozet and expanded it somewhat to accommodate that move. Miss Nash noted that neither Keswick nor Cismont is shown in this plan. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. These areas were not shown in the original plan; the Commission has not recommended that any Type II villages be included in the plan at this time. Mr. Tucker then noted that for the urban neighborhood plans there are no significant changes proposed, although the western boundaries of the urban area have been better defined; the mountainous areas originally shown have been deleted. One change made for some existing subdivisions such as Carrsbrook, Northfields, and Bellair is to show a new land use category called "suburban residential". This category allows a maximum one-acre density and was placed on these areas because of the way they originally developed. This idea was discussed at the time of adoption of the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Tucker said some other changes were made in the urban plans to reflect changes made at the time of adoption of the new zoning ordinance. On Commonwealth Drive and in the Westfield area where development has occurred at a density lower than that shown in the original plan, the area is now shown at the density actually taking place. There is no requirement that an area be built at a maximum density, and the developer chose to develop some of the area at two units per acre. Mr. Fisher asked if the property will be rezoned to reflect what is taking place on the property. Mr. Tucker said that rezoning actually occurred in April, 1980. 506 December 1, 1982 (Adjourned from November 17, 1982) Mr. Fisher said that in looking at the map, the recommendation of the Planning Commission for an expansion on the east side of Route 29 in the Piney Mountain Village, would appear to make a suburban strip all the way from the Hollymead community area to the County line along Route 29. It worries him because it appears that this would essentially be continuous urban development all through that area, and this is something the Board has tried to avoid. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had discussed this because the recent request for expansion of the Camelot Treatment Plant will not accommodate any growth in this expanded area. Mr. Bill Brent of the Service Authority has said that no further expansion of the Plant is proposed, so if the growth did occur, sewage collection would have to be through an interceptor piped to Powell's Creek. Miss Nash asked if this area is within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Tucker said no. Miss Nash said she thought the Board had deliberately left this area out of the service areas. Mr. Tucker said that was correct; adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation would require an amendment of those service areas. Miss Nash said this would seem to change the Board's policy. Mr. Fisher said no one knows what expansion plans are proposed by General Electric which would call for a change in the Piney Mountain Village. On the other hand, Stony Point has a fire station, a school and a general store. (Mr. Agnor arrived at 3:06 P.M.) Mr. Fisher noted that this revision of the Comprehensive Plan carries more information about social needs. He asked for an explanation. Mr. Tucker said an attempt has been made to include some of the social programs and social needs which the staff has been reviewing for budgeting purposes. More information has also been included under "community development", where it was found that more information was needed in the area of housing when applying for a HUD grant. Mr. Fisher then returned to discussion of the Crozet Community plan. He felt the staff should be directed to prepare a recommendation on the best method for dealing with pollution from the Crozet area. Mr. Tucker said the staff needs some guidance. Although Mint Springs Park is in the area, by the time the population of Crozet reaches the expected 12,000 persons, there will be a need for another recreational facility in the area. Lickinghole Creek has been proposed for a lake for environmental and recreational purposes. However, the impoundment would be entirely different depending on use. Mr. Fisher said he felt water quality should be the determining factor. Mr. Agnor said if the lake were to be used just for environmental purposes, it would not be designed to retain the water for a long period of time. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said the detention basin which has been discussed would capture some phosphorus. If the water can be retained for a longer period of time, then some of the dissolved sediments can also be retained. Mr. Elrod said that during development, the most benefit would be derived from a pure detention basin for trapping sediment. After an area is fully development and not much soil loss is occurring, then it is possible that a benefit can be derived in the quality of runoff by having a larger lake. Mr. Fisher said the staff has recently suggested that an on-site stormwater detention basin for runoff control is not as effective as just one structure would be for a much larger area. If that is true, there are provisions in State law which would allow the County to require people~ as they develop their land, to contribute money to construction of such an off-site facility. Mr. Fisher said that Beaver Creek Lake and Mint Springs Park offer two kinds of recreational activities in the Crozet area, so he feels that the question of an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek should be decided based on the quality of the runoff. Mr. Henley said he feels the question of using such a lake for recreational purposes would have to be decided by how the facility would be paid for; he felt it should be planned for water quality control in the near future. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about stimulating development in an area that drains into Beaver Creek. Mr. Tucker noted that there is an area shown on the east side of Route 810 and the north side of Route 240 that still has some development capabilities. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the Board should treat all watersheds in a similar manner. There should not be any areas shown for growth in the watershed unless the runoff from that area can be handled by some type of facility. Mr. Henley said the area mentioned contains many customers of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Lindstrom said if a change is made in this area, it would not affect those persons presently being served with public water. Mr. Henley asked if the sewer collections lines would be installed in this area. Mr. Fisher asked if this is no~ the area where most of the sewage problems presently exist. Mr. Fisher asked if the staff could have some recommendation on the Lickinghole Creek detention basin within two weeks. Mr. Elrod said he could formulate a recommendation, but was not sure how comfortable he would be with the figures. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the former County Engineer had also written a report on Lickinghole Creek and if the recommendations in that report hold true, there should be no growth areas in the watershed unless those areas can be handled with a detention basin. Mr. Tucker noted that in the Earlysvill'e Village, an area on the west side of Routes 743 and 663 drains into the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir. Mr. Fisher asked about the village of Ivy. Mr. Tucker said that all of the Ivy Village drains into the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom said there are two aspects to be considered relative to this revised comprehensive plan. There needs to be a reduction of as much activity as possible in the watersheds and the Board also needs to preserve, from a legal standpoint, the actions that have been taken in the past to preserve the watershed. There is a legitimate distinction between the villages of Earlysville and Ivy and the community of Crozet. The Board cannot wipe out Ivy as a village because the development is already there. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were a similar situation with the village of Scottsville. Mr. Tucker said that none of the area draining from Scottsville into the Totier Creek reservoir is at a density greater than village residential. Miss Nash asked about requests for highway commercial and industrial zoning in Scdttsville. Mr. Tucker said no commercial or industrial expansion was shown in Scottsville within the watershed. Mr. Fisher asked for a more detailed map of the village of Scottsville. At this point, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to make the northern boundary of the Crozet community consistent with the watershed line for Lickinghole Creek. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Henley said he did not necessarily agree with drawing back the community boundary line in that area. He felt that one of these days this action may create other problems such as loss of Federal funds. Mr. Lindstrom said if it appears that that might occur, the Board could reconsider this action. He remembers that the Board had a lengthy debate a couple of years ago about the area along Hydraulic Road. Mr. Lindstrom said he 507 December 1~_~1982 (Adjourned from November 17~ 1982) had recently been to Federal District Court helping to defend that action by the Board against a person seeking to develop in the area. The Court was impressed with the consistency of the Board's actions on reservoir protection. Mr. Henley said he would have supported the motion if the undeveloped land in that area of the community had not been a part of the motion, but he would not support the motion the way it was stated. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS': Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. Henley. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wanted to continue with a discussion of the Planning Commission's recommendation for the Piney Mountain ~illage. Mr. Lindstrom said the original idea for Piney Mountain came about because of the development plan for Briarwood. The development plan provided a mix of housing which was felt to be important., and Piney Mountain was included so the development plan would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel any consideration should be given to making Piney Mountain a major community and he then offered motion to eliminate that portion of Piney Mountain village lying on the east side of Route 29 North. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher asked about restoring Stony Point to village status. motion to retain Stony Point in the Comprehensive Plan as a village. by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Butler then offered The motion was seconded AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board hold another work session on the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on December 15, 1982, at 2:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Scenic Areas (Rivers) Overlay District-Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, had written the Board a memorandum dated November 24, 1982, in which he requests a clarification of the Board's intent when adopting the scenic areas overlay district in the new zoning ordinance. The scenic areas overlay district allows a person to "maintain" an existing ford or bridge over a stream which has been so designated in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Vaughn wishes to know if the Board intended that impravements be allowed to crossings to eliminate a danger to the users of the crossing, or if the provision for maintenance is intended to be limited to keeping the crossing in usable condition. A problem has arisen by the fact that W. D. Buxton (Tax Map 25, Parcel 18) lives on land that is accessible only by a ford that is blocked when there is a storm of a two-year frequency. The Buxtons want to raise the level of the ford so that they can exit the property during a storm and so emergency vehicles could get in during a storm. Mr. Vaughn feels the plans presented by the Buxtons show a substantial improvement to the ford rather than just maintenance. Mr. Vaughn has turned to the flood hazard district regulations (underlying district) and determined that the improvements planned would require a special use permit. Mr. Vaughn has advised the Buxtons that an interpretion would be sought from the Board prior to his final ruling on this request, and prior to their filing of an application for a special use permit. Mr. Fisher said he has gotten the sense over the years from the County Attorney that a legislative body is not supposed to interpret its own laws. Mr. St. John said he feels that is correct, but the Board members can voice an opinion into the record even though it is not binding and is rather bizzare. Mr. St. John said he would not want to see this become a common practice. Also, there are members on the Board who were not members when this law was adopted, plus there are those persons who were members when the law was adopted who are not members of the Board now; what is their role? There are a lot of reasons why a legislature does not interpret its own laws. There is a check list of steps to be used in interpreting a statute or ordinance, and going back to the legislature for its interpretation is not one of those steps. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County Attorney's Office had rendered an opinion in this case. Mr. St. John said yes, but the County Attorney is only advi~ory to the zoning administrator. The County Attorney's staff does not feel that the term "maintain" or "repair" includes "improvements" and disagrees with the proposition that the zonin~ administrator should make all of his interpretations with a view toward what is good for the public health, safety and welfare. The County Attorney's staff does not think the scenic areas overlay distri regulations allow for "improvements" if by improvement something~larger or more inclusive is to be constructed. The improvement proposed by the Buxtons would do that. The Buxtons have already been to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get a variance for the embuttments needed for this improvement. Mr. St. John said he did not go back in the record and read the thoughts of the Board at the time the scenic areas language was adopted, but based his opinion solely on the language in the ordinance right now. Mr. St. John said he did not see anything wrong with the Board members expressing their thoughts to Mr. Vaughn since Mr. Vaughn has made such a request. December 1, 1982 (Adjourned from November 17, 1982) Mr. Lindstrom said because the County Attorney has said that a statement by a Board member will not be binding in this situation, he would like to make a statement. He served as a member of the Scenic Rivers Committee. He is concerned about the people who may navigate this stretch of stream which is re~owned state-wide as a Class 5 rafter and which can be navigated only under fairly severe water conditions. Mr. Lindstrom said he would rather see an amendment made to the scenic areas provisions rather than interpreting the language in a way that might open the door to a number of other kinds of improvements. Mr. Henley said he feels canoeists must be the dumbest people in the world. When he voted for these provisions, he did not intend to vote for something that would not allow a property owner to have a decent way to get in and out of his property. Mr. Lindstrom said if this interpretion is one that could be applied to a number of different situations, he feels there may be a more specific way to deal with the Buxton's problem rather than opening the door to a lot of improvements that may not serve anybody's interest. Mr. Henley said the Buxton's have stirred up everybody owning land along the river. Mr. Vaughn said the Board of Zoning Appeals did grant a variance to the Buxton's for work in the floodway, but the work will need to take place in the flood plain, so he feels a special permit is needed. Also, any construction permit would require clearance from the State Water Control Board and the Corps of Engineers would have to be notified. Mr. Vaughn said the Buxtons do have a foot bridge, and if it washed out completely, they would not be allowed to replace or reconstruct that bridge, but he feels that in common usage the word "maintain" could be interpreted to allow replacement of a causeway, a bridge, or a ford. Any damage over fifty percent would trigger the flood hazard overlay district and would require issuance of a special use permit. Mr. Vaughn said that is his interpretation and he will so notify the Buxtons. Of course, the Board of Supervisors may appeal his decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks Mr. Vaughn has decided that there is someone he wants to help and the language of the ordinance is being twisted. The plain meaning of the word "maintain" does not mean building a ford several feet higher than the existing ford. The scenic areas overlay was designed for a specific purpose and to say that this request falls under the special permit provisions of the flood hazard overlay district denies the significan¢ of the scenic stream and the intent of the committee. It would be best for Mr. Vaughn to ask the Board of Supervisors to consider the problem and address the language in the ordinance rather than making a legislative decision. Mr. Lindstrom said he is dismayed by Mr. Vaughn's decision to arrive at a certain conclusion in spite of the language of the ordinance. Mr. Agno said he had read the "intent" section of the scenic areas overlay district and he did not see anything referring to navigation of the stream. Mr. Lindstrom said he was a member of the Scenic Rivers Committee, he is also a lawyer and reads language, and "maintain" does not mean "improve". Mr. Agnor said he found no language in the ordinance to indicate that the scenic river would be navigated under flood conditions. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the primary considerations for reviewing the Moormans as a scenic river was because of its recreational capacity. Mr. Agnor said his second point is that the scenic areas overlay district specifically refers to the district regulations which are underlying so Mr. Vaughn has said that the flood hazard district applies. Mr. Lindstrom said that is true where the underlying district is not inconsistent, but he thinks it is inconsistent in this case. It is also his personal opinion that the word "maintain" does not mean "improve". Mr. Fisher said he may have missed something, but he did not think that Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Vaughn were saying anything that much different. Mr. Vaughn said that was correct. Mr. St. John said if he understands Mr. Vaughn correctly, Mr. Vaughn is saying that if there were no flood plain ordinance, and the problem was only with the scenic areas overlay district, the Buxtons have a right to build the structure they have applied for; the scenic areas overlay does not even require a special use permit. However, since the flood plain overlay district requires a special use permit for enlargement of this structure, they have to apply for a special permit under the flood plain ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board could consider both of these ordinances on a special permit application. Mr. St. John said no. He also would like to disagree with Mr. Vaughn on a procedural point. Mr. Vaughn is announcing at this point that he has decided that according to the scenic areas overlay district this structure is permissible, and that this announcement he made triggers the time for appealing his decision (if someone doesn't appeal the decision within thirty days, it stands unappealed). Mr. St. John said he has to disagree because the Attorney General has said that a ruling of this type by the zoning administrator gives rights, and the ruling stands unless it is appealed. However that provision is actually triggered by the issuance of a permit of some kind and this is simply an advisory opinion that he will give the Buxtons, so until a permit iS issued, there is nothing to appeal. Mr. Lindstrom said to him the whole situation is simple. Mr. Vaughn is trying to deal with a particular individual's problem by an interpretation of the ordinance which denies one of the major thrusts of the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the best way to handle this problem would be to amend the language of the scenic areas (rivers) overlay district to provide for improvements by language couched in certain terms. Mr. St. John said' Mr. Vaughn does not want to lead these people into applying for a special use permit if the permit cannot be lawfully granted. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not feel the present language of the ordinance allows the granting of such a permit. He thinks the problem brought forth by the Buxtons is one that needs to be addressed, but he feels nothing should be done until an amendment to the scenic areas overlay district can be formulated. Mr. Vaughn said he had intended to talk with the County Attorney about an amendment to the scenic areas overlay since there is nothing in the ordinance which would allow for a bridge to be replaced if it were to be completely destroyed. Mr. Vaughn said he feels that the Board could review .the proposed plan of the Buxtons since it would come under the flood hazard district. The structure proposed would be 28 inches from the bed of the river. Within three feet of this structure there is barbed wire fencing which is in excess of three feet in height. There are also boulders and outcroppings of rock which are in excess of three feet. Mr. Henley said this section of the river can't be canoed unless it is in flood stage. When he voted for the scenic rivers section of the ordinance, he did not think that anybody would be dumb enough to try and canoe the river during a flood. Actually, in the summer you can wade across the river at this point. In some places the river is not as wide as this room and people have fences across the river. Mr. Henley said he has 435 acres on the other side of the river and he has to ford the river to get across and when he comes back he does not have any brakes on his truck for miles. December t, 1982 (Adjourned from November 17, 1982) 509 Mr. Lindstrom said if there is a problem with the ordinance, he feels the ordinance should be amended and not interpreted in such a way as to eliminate what he perceives as a problem. He does not think the interpretation is reflective of the intent behind the ordinance and it also puts the zoning administrator into the position of being a legislator instead of an administrator, and that makes him jealous since he had to fight twice for election to do that. Mr. Vaughn said he agrees, but feels that he went by the intent of the ordinance; although he did.have a problem with the word "maintain". Miss Nash asked why the Board does not make a change by legislative means instead of arguing. Mr. Fisher said he felt the staff should bring back some recommended language for a change. Mr. Vaughn said he felt the Buxtons will want to wait and go by the law. He will delay giving his decision until the Board has decided on an amendment. Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said he had received a notice of a training session sponsored by the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia State Sheriff's Association. It is a five day training session for members of the Jail Board and Jail Administrators. No one indicated a willingness to attend. Mr. Fisher announced that there will be an open house at Blue Ridge Hospital on Sunday, December 5, 1982, at 3:00 P.M. The University departments of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry are moving to Blue Ridge. Mr. Fisher announced that there will be an open house at the new Research Group Building on Route-250 West on Saturday Afternoon, December 4, 1982. Mr. Fisher noted that an Equalization Board needs to be appointed soon. He suggested that the Board might like to discuss appointments to this Board ~n executive session as a personnel matter. Mr. Agnor said the Board also needs to discuss sale of property in reference to the Old Scottsville School. At 5:02 P.M., motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and sale or acquisition of property. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned the meeting which had begun at 2:30 P.M.