Loading...
1981-02-04February 4, 1981 Regular Night Meeting A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on'February 4, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony IaChetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, county Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: A resolution of intent to amend Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land of the Albemarle County Code in order to facilitate implementation of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Amendments prepared for this purpose include, among other things, the following: a) Amend 18-2 Definitions to define "subdivision" as any division or redivision of land for the purpose of .assignment of division rights a~s required by the RA Rural Areas Zoning District; b) Amend 18-13(a~ to increase~administrative approval of certain subdivision plats; c) Amend 18-52 and ~!!i~i~itn~aase~ilithe items to be shown on preliminary and final subdivision plats including, among other things, assignment of future division rights for properties zoned RA Rural Areas. ~(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 1981.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff report: "The Board of Supervisors, at a meeting on December 10, 1980, adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance in order to facilitate implementation of the newly adopted Zoning Ordinance. Amendments were drafted and reviewed ~by the Planning Commission which at its meeting of February 3, 1981, voted unanimously to defer action on Section 18-30, Location, until amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are considered. The Planning Commission, then voted unanimously to recommend the following subdivision amendments to the Board: Section 18-2. Definitions. Subdivision. The division, including resubdivision and the establishment of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting in two (2) or more lots, parcels or units for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, such that: (a) Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five (5) acres in area; or (b) Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts less than two hundred fifty (250) feet on a road which is part of the State Highway System or State Secondary Highway System. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall not be deemed a subdivision: (a) The sale and/or exchange of land between adjoining landowners, provided that: (1) The land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced by the plat or division and/or the instrument of conveyance thereof; and (2) No parcel which was five (5) acres or greater in area prior to such sale and/or exchange shall, as a result of such sale and/or exchange, be less than five (5) acres in area; and (3) No parcel shall, as a result of such sale and/or exchange, front less than two hundred fifty (250) feet on a road which is part of the State Highway System or State Secondary Highway SYstem; and (4) No additional lot or parcel shall be created by such sale and/or exchange. OR (b) The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of eminent domain by any public agency. foragoing notwithstanding all other divisions of land shall be deemed to subdiVisions for the s°le purpose of the application of Section 18-13(b) of this chapter. Section 18-13 Administrative approval of certain subdivision plats. (a) In the case of any subdivision involving lots, all fronting on an existing public road, the Director of Planning is hereby constituted the agent of the Commission for purposes of reviewing and approving subdivision plat applications; provided, that (1) nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to limit the right of the Commission to review any such application nor to restrict the right of any part to. appeal pursuant to Section 18-4; (2) the Director of Planning shall not approve any such plat which he determines to be in the urban area as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan~ a~4~<~.~.~nothing herein shall be construed as a delegation of the legislative authority of the Board of Supervisors reserved pmrsuant to Section 10.5 of~the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise. February 4, 1981 Regular Night Meeting add paragraph (b) Every division which is not subject to review in accordance with Section 18-13(a) or Section 18-41 shall be submitted for review by the Director of Pl.~ing to ensure compliance with Section 18-28 and 18,55(o),(p),(q),(r) ~nd (s) hereof. The Director of Planning shall review each such plat within five (5') days of filing. Section 18-22. Flood Control and drainage structures (a) Lands which are designated as lying within the flood plain of any stream in accordance with Section 30.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; Section 18-28. Size, Number. Lot sizes and number of lots shall conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Section 18-33. Remnants or outlots. Ail remnants of lots or outlots not complying with design standards set forth herein, as a result of any subdivision shall be added to adjacent lots rather than allowed to remain as unbuildable parcels. Section 18-52. Contents. (Preliminary Plats and Plans) (o) The location, area and dimensions of a ~lawful building site on each lot. (p) The number of lots, as assigned by the subdivider into which each such parcel may be further divided by right pursuant to Section 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordina~qe, if applicable. (q) The deed book and page citation of the instrument whereby the parcel to be subdivided was created. (r) County Tax Map and Parcel Number. (s) Owner's name. Section 18-55. Contents. (Final Plats) (o) The location, area and dimensions of a lawful building site on each lot. (p) The number of lots, as assigned by the subdivider into which each such parcel may be further divided by right pursuant to Section 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, if applicable; provided, however, that no such assignment shall be required to be shown on the copy of the plat which is to be recorded in the Clerk's Office. (q) The deed book and page citation of the instrument whereby the parcel to be subdivided was created. ~ (r) County Tax Map and Parcel Number. (s) O~ner's name." Mr. Tucker suggested adding the words "communities and villages" after"urban area" in Section 18-13(a)(2) in order to be consistent. Dr. Iachetta asked what limits the number of lots which the planning staff can approve. Mr. Tucker said the Zoning Ordinance does. Mr. McCann felt the real concern is with the rural areas and did not understand why rural areas could be approved administratively and communities and villages could not. Therefore, he agreed with Mr. Tucker's request to be allowed to administratively approve communities and villages. Mr. Tucker noted that the only thing which can be administratively approved in the rural areas is the six lots. Mr. McCann felt since the Planning Staff takes care of the technical aspects of a plat and determines if the requirements of the ordinances have been met that there was no real benefit to Planning Commission review. Miss Nash then asked where the five acre provision in the definition of subdivision comes from as this is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker was unsure where it came from and asked the County Attorney to comment. Mr. St. John said the State Code defines subdivision as being any division of three acres or smaller unless the local governing body has another definition. Mr. St. John said when the first Zoning Ordinance was enacted, some loopholes were discovered and hearings were held by the Planning Commission and Board to resolve those loopholes. Thereafter, the five acres definition for subdivision was decided upon. The public hearing was then opened. Mrs. Joan Graves was present and noted her misunder? standing about the five-acre exemption. She then asked if a lot was over five acres and exempt from the Subdivision Ordinance, how someone would apply for administrative approval. She then asked if Section 18-4 concerning appeals would apply to this procedure. Mrs. Graves did not feel there was any way an adjacent property owner would be aware of a division of property if notification was not given before the administrative approval. Therefore, she felt the process should be further discussed. Mrs. Graves then asked if Section 18-3(b), Variations and Exceptions, could be applied to administrative approval. Mrs. Graves also questioned whether Section 18-28 meant that each lot had to have either 40,000 square feet with one utility or 60,000 square feet with no utilities. Mrs. Graves said she just wanted to be sure that Section 18-28 means that each lot has to conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.-F±sher asked if the ordinance allows the staff to waive any part of lot size requiremt or if that right is reserved~only for the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said only the Planning Commission can waive requirements. Mr. Tucker also noted that the Zoning Ordinance has the same provisions, 40,000 and 60,000 square feet, as the Subdivision Ordinance. .nts February 4._ $q81 Regular Night Meetin~ Speaking next was Mr. Tom Blue. He questioned Section 18-55(P) concerning development rights on the final plat. He questioned assignment of division rights not being shown on the plat which will to be recorded. Mr. St. John said the assignment of development rights under Section 18~55(P) is part of the zoning map. The State Code states that the zoning map is to be kept in the Zoning Administrator's office. The argument that the title examiner is being deceived or that the plat does not have any of the regulations including the delineation of rights he felt was fallicious because the title examiner should not expect to see matters of zoning in the permanent chain of title in the Clerk's office both as a matter of practice and a matter of law. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Map and text are likely to be changed and repealed and if such are on record in the Clerk's office, they cannot be erased. Mr. St. John said Mr. Blue's fear is that if he puts one thing on a plat in the Zoning Office and then the recorded plat omits important factors which could affect the piece of land and the title examiner or the owner does not see the factors on the plat in the Clerk's office, that the owner could sue the surveyor. He felt that was a matter of law applicable to surveyors and if the surveyor wants to put that information on the plat for his own protection that can be done. Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. St. John except with putting all of the burden on the surveyor. He felt the information should either be required to be put on the plat of recordatJ or specify that it shall be removed but not leave it as a voluntary thing. Mr. Blue said he was concerned about the procedure outlined to him: a surveyor presents a plat showing division rights to Mr. Tucker for administrative approval. Mr. Tucker signs the plat, makes a photocopy of the plat and then the surveyor removes the note about division rights. Mr. Blue said he feels that if a surveyor can tamper with the plat after it is approved to that extent, he can tamper with anything. Mr. Blue urged that there be some clarification of the procedure because he did not feel it should be left as a voluntary matter since it places an undue burden on the surveyor. With no one else to speak about the amendments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board take the items of concern in order. The first issue was notification to adjacent ~ ~ property owners of plats to be administratively approved~ said issue submitted by Mrs. Joan Graves. Mr. Tucker said if the Board desires such notificat~ then he would prefer that all plats, preliminary and final, go to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Tucker said if the notice is just to notify an adjacent property owner that land is to be divided, then that is fine. However, if an adjacent property owner would have the right to review the plat, make comments and even appeal the plat, then he would prefer that such be left with the public forum of the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta felt the Ordinance spells out what is required when five lots have been created and did not feel there was an option, either the plat meets the criteria or not. He did not feel there was any need for public discussion. Mr. McCann agreed and noted that he had a problem with the public having to know everything. Mr. Tucker noted to the Board that notification of adjacent property owners of subdivision requests is strictly a policy. There is no requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance or the State Code which requires that the public be notified. Mr. Lindstrom said although three years ago he felt a lot of i'tems before the Planning Commission should be appealed, his opinion has changed because there is no real benefit to appealing plats when such plats meet the criteria of the ordinances. Mr. Fisher said that in the past, some information presented to the staff has been somewhat inaccurate and he felt the hearing process has helped bring out information which has in some cases affected the staff's opinion about whether a request conforms to the ordinance or not. He felt the staff should be more careful about the statement of facts that they accept on a subdivision and if there is any reason to believe that all of the information is not correct, then the plat should be directed to the Commission. Mr. Fisher then questioned the words "or otherwise" at the end of Section 18-13(a). Mr. St. John said the words are really not necessary and suggested deleting them and in'serting the following "pursuant to Section 10.5.2 or any other section of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Fisher said the next issue for discussion was the five acre exclusion. Mr. Lindstrom said, in all but the rural areas and communities, plats have to be approved by the Planning Commission. In the rural areas, the plats are either exempt or have been approved through the special permit process, or contain parcels of twenty-one acres or more. Mr. St. John said it is not a question of when a plat has to be reviewed but rather a question of whether the plat is subject to the requirements of the whole chapter on design standards. He felt five acres still has the same significance that it had before the new ordinance was adopted because lots bigger than five acres are still exempted from improvements, etc., that are required in the Subdivision Ordinance. After a lengthy discussion about the five-acre exclusion, Miss~Nash offered motion to change "five" to "ten". Mr. Lindstrom said if the number is to be changed, he would suggest just eliminating the number. Mr. St. John said if the number is eliminated, then there is no definition of subdivision. Also, if every lot of every subdivision up to the size of twenty-one acres is subject to the requirements of the improvements in the Subdivision Ordinance, there should be a good reason for requiring such. Mr. Henley did not agree because he did not feel a person with five acres of land should be restricted to comply with all the requirements in the ordinance. Therefore, he suggested leaving the five-acre exclusion. The consensus of the Board was to leave the five-acre exclusion and Mr. Fisher did not feel it could be increased tonight without an advertisement of such an amendment. The next issue was Section 18~55(P) regarding whether or not the assignment of division rights should be recorded in the Clerk's Office and whether it should be optional or mandatory on the part of the applicant. Mr. St. John did not feel the recordation of division rights should be required, but should be optional. If it is to be mandatory, then the rights should not be recorded in the Clerk's Office unless the owners intend to make it a covenant and not just a zoning requirement. Dr. Iachetta agreed with Mr. Blue that the surveyor was having to bear the burden. Mr. Fisher agreed with Mr. Blue that there should not be different plats and suggested striking the last phrase in Section 18~55(P). Mr. St. John said he was not advocating that the division rights be shown on the plat, but on a separate piece of paper. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt Mr. St. John was saying that after the plat is presented, a separate piece of'paper signed by the owner would be presented to be'-kept in the Planning Department. Mr. St. John said he was trying to decide how this material could be kept safe 061 February 4~ lg81 Regular Night Meetin~ and not lost. Miss Nash asked how the Planning Department could keep a permanent record without microfilm or bound books. Mr. Fisher said he felt that if people who buy and sell lots are concerned about this requirement, they could put the words "to satisfy zoning requirements" on the plat. Mr. McCann agreed with Mr. St. John. Mr. St. John then said if it is the Board's desire is to have the information filed in the Clerk's Office, such could be worked out. Mr. Fisher said it is not being required that the information be filed in the Clerk's Office, but rather tha~ the final plat show where the rights go. Mr. Agnor noted that the Planning Department does not now keep anything but a-copy of the original plat. He suggest.ed that when Mr. Tucker has signed the plat and the plat is ready to be recorded and-Mr. Tucker receives a copy for his file, that the copy have the zoning information put on it then. Therefore, the copy to be filed with the deed would not have the zoning information shown. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel there was any problem for the staff to make notations on the plat and have it signed as part of the application process. Mr. Fisher felt those not having a copy of the plat with the written notation would have a different impression a year later. After a discussion, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to delete the following words in Section !8-55(P) "provided, however, that no such assignment shall be required to be shown on the copy of the plat which is to be recorded in the Clerk's Office." Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher then noted a question raised in the past about the need for a preliminary and a final plat and felt this requirement seems to be optional and is confusing. He then asked if Mr. Tucker felt it should remain optional. Mr. Tucker said the preliminary plat is a valuable document but he did not feel a preliminary plat should be mandatory for administrat~ approval only. Mr. Lindstrom expressed his concern about whether the word "division" has a different meaning than "subdivision". He asked if there was some way that someone would know the difference. Mr. Tucker said the word "division" could be defined in the ordinance but his staff has always defined it as dividing land into two pieces. Mr. Lindstrom felt the definition of "division" should be spelled out in the ordinance. Mr. St. John said he would work on a definition. Mr. Fisher then noted the suggestion by Mr. Tucker for the insertion of "communities and villages" after "urban area" in Section 18~~2~ and the suggestion by Mr. St. John to change the words "Section 10.5 of the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise" to "Section 10.5.2 or any other section of the Zoning Ordinance." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the Subdivision Ordinance amendments set out above as recommended by the Planning Commission and with the noted changes. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 9:40 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:48 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Agnor had been requested by the Western Albemarle High School faculty to have the Board proclaim the week of February 8-14 as Vocational Education Week. He then asked that such be included in the minutes of this meeting and Mr. Agnor inform the faculty of such action. (Copy 'of the proclamation on file in the Clerk of the Board's office.) Mr. Fisher said a meeting needs to be held with the School Board on the issue of Capital Improvements. Mr. Agnor said the School Superintendent has suggested either February 23 or February 26 as a meeting for this purpose. Mr. Fisher said since the Board will have an afternoon meeting on February 23 that the meeting be held on February 23 at 7:30 P.M. and the meeting place to be announced later. Mr. Fisher then reported to the Board on the issue of redistricting. He said the Board had discussed leaving the Scottsville and Rivanna districts as they are, trying to change Charlottesville District by a certain portion, moving that area into Jack Jcuett District and putting a part of Jouett in Samuel Miller District. However, the piece of Jouett that lies between Route 29 South and Route 250 West that incorporates Piedmont Faculty Housing, most of Observatory Mountain, Lewis Mountain, and the commercial and apartment areas on Route 250 West has just about the right population to bring Jouett to the right standards. But, there was a problem in that all of the districts should be contiguous and leaving the main dormitory and campus area'of the University would leave those areas isolated from the rest of the Jouett District. Also, if any part of Charlottesville District is moved into Jouett District, it would eliminate all rural areas in the Charlottesville District and violate one principal rule of redistricting by taking the incumbent out of his district. Mr. Fisher said he had finally decided that there was no way to change Jack Jouett District. Samuel Miller and White Hall Districts are low in population, so he had decided not to change those boundaries. Rivanna District surrounds Charlottesville District and there is no way to transfer any part of Charlottesville District into White Hall without going into the Rivanna District somehow. The part of Scottsville District around Sherwood Manor and County Greene Apartments has a population of just under 1,000 and that added to Samuel ye February .11, 1~81 Regular Day Meeting February 4, 19~1 ReguIar Night Meeting 06:2 Miller would bring Samuel Miller to the population limit and give it a larger part of the growth area. However, that unbalances Scottsville District and Miss Nash has suggested the Board look at taking territory from the Rivanna District up to the Rivanna River and placing it in Scottsville District. A piece of Earlysville can be moved into the White Hall District and then the main difference is between Rivanna District and Charlottesville District. That imbalance can be corrected by changing some of the Hollymead area on both sides of Route 29. This would leave most of the districts the same. If this proposal is not acceptable, there is no simple way to make the change. Mr. McCann said he was concerned about the report because he felt this matter was to have been studied in committee and he was very disturbed that this has not taken place. He also stated that he would have preferred that this be worked out in citizen committees rather than having the Board undertake the project. Mr. Fisher then requested copies of his proposal be made available for the Board. Agenda Item No. 4. At 10:15 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. adjourned. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:00 P.M. and immediately ~ CH~! AN Febru~Fy~ll, 1981 Regular Day Meeting A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 1!, 1981, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, ~' Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John, The meeting was called to order at 9:15 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: March 5 and May 7, 1980. Since Mr. Lindstrom had not read the minutes of March 5, 1980, Mr. Fisher requested same be placed on the February 28, 1981 agenda. Miss Nash noted the following correction on the May 7, 1980, minutes: Page 2, third paragraph from the end of the sheet, third line, insert the word "be" between "to" and "imposed". Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the minutes of May 7, 1980, with the above correction. Roll was called on 'the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Route 637 Project Overrun. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated February 6, 1981: "Subject: Rt. 637 (Ivy Landfill) Road Project - Cost Overrun When the above project was completed, the County was advised by the Resident Engineer, Mr. Roosevelt, that the total project cost exceeded earlier estimates by approximately $482,900. Mr. Roosevelt provided a tabulation of the overrun cost with explanations for each. The County Engineer and City Director of Public Works studied the overruns, conferred with the Resident Engineer, and confirmed their validity. The costs mostly involved an asphalt price adjustment clause in the contract ($73,000), excavation yardage exceeding estimates given bidders ($52,700), additional work required ($66,300), adjustments in erosion due to weather problems ($17,000), traffic control over a longer construction period due to weather delays ($55,000) and numerous smaller items of dust control, utility adjustments, etc. The total project is now estimated to be $1,903,083 with the City paying $932,707 and the County paying $970,376, the difference of $37,669 being the cost to the project borne solely by the County for the County using Federal Revenue Sharing funds, requiring Davis-Bacon wages and records.