Loading...
1980-06-09 adjJune 9, 1980 (Adjourned from June 4, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 9, 1980, at 7'30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from June 4, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arriving at 7:35 P.M.).~ F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 7:40 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. !. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who said he had met this date with both the outgoing Mayor and the incoming Mayor of Charlottesville. A number of issues were discussed and he will continue to discuss local issues With the Mayor. Agenda Item No.'2. Work Session: Zoning ordinance. Mr. Fisher said at the work session on May 29, the Board was presented with a new proposal by Mr. Roudabush and a sug- gested change by Dr. Iachetta. One of the provisions suggested by Mr. Roudabush would require that a public road would remain tolerable to the nearest intersection or one-half mile in both directions, after development; such determination being made by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Fisher said under this provision the deter- mination by the Highway Department would control the rights of people to use their property. He asked Mr. St. John if this is a reasonable delegation of authority under the zoning ordinance, and if not, what other way could such a mechanism be made to work. Mr. Fisher said he was not sure what spe~cific standards the Highway Department used to determine tolerability or how those standards work. Mr. St. John said he felt the provision would be enforceable as long as it is spelled out in the ordinance. He has heard the Highway Depart- ment standards cited several times and they seem to be reasonable. The Highway Department takes a traffic count and compares that count with a table of standards for speed. The Highway Department will not say that a road is unsafe, but they will say that it is non- tolerable if the traffic does not move at a certain speed. Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department would have to be requested to make traffic counts at every location where a development is proposed since they presently only take traffic counts once every two years. Also, what would happen if a road were presently in a tolerable condition, and adding even ten lots would put the road into a nontolerable category. Mr. Lindstrom said there are als© many subdivisions which have been platted, but which have not been developed. Could the Highway Department make their projections taking into account those subdivisions and not just potential traffic counts from new, proposed subdivisions? Mr. St. John said the whole idea of tolerability is an internal Highway Department mechanism used to determine if a road will need repairs more often than on the ordinary maintenance schedule. Mr. Fisher asked how the staff would deal with a property owner who applies for a subdivision where the road may be thrown into the nontolerable category. Mr. Tucker said he has thought the staff would prepare a map which is updated periodically or when the Highway Department traffic counts are taken. It would be easy to include a record of lots which have been recorded but which are undeveloped, to add into the calculation on vehicle trips per day. Then, if there is a question of road tolerability, that would be the time to bring in the Highway Department. Otherwise, the staff would make calculations based on the map. Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department would be willing to certify the staff's calculations. Mr. Tucker said that is the impression he has gotten from Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Lindstrom said that legally this approach may be defensible, but trying to address how well the road can handle traffic for one-half mile in each direction really does not address the capacity of the road for its full length. Dr. Iachetta said he could see no easy answer to this question unless some plan is brought to bear which puts the finished work down where it is needed. Mr. Roudabush said this proposition is not a solution to road problems in the County, but it may generate some road improvements. Mr. Lindstrom said there were some other things he would like to discuss before formal- izing a proposal. One is the problem with watersheds. He asked Mr. St. John if the Board could distinguish between the densities permitted by right in watersheds from those densities permitted in areas outside of public drinking water impoundments based on the Board's exper- ience with development thus far. He asked if such a distinction would be legally defensible. Mr. St. John said yes, as long as the densities prescribed for the watershed areas have some rational basis. Mr. Lindstrom said that in the "Cole" case, one criticism of the special use permit process was that there were no standards for granting a permit. Does that mean that standards are necessary or was this a peculiar case? Mr. St. John said the Supreme Court has said that this has been the law all the time. There was another case 'two years ago that said no standards were necessary as long as the board of supervisors granted the permit because granting of the permit is a legislative act, but standards are clearly necessary at this point in time when granting a sPecial use permit. Such standards are set out in the proposed ordinance, but when densities are affixed in watershed areas, there has to be some rational basis for those densities. Mr. Lindstrom said he had also seen a recent study that indicated that the real way to deal with watershed management and urban runoff problems was through land use management. Mr. St. John said there is a danger in having two descrip- tive ordinances (Zoning Ordinance and Runoff Control Ordinance) that are inconsistent with each other. It is unrealistic to have a zoning ordinance which allows a density which is impossible to attain under the Runoff Control Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said he saw nothing June 9, 1980 (Adjourned from June 4, 1980) wrong with setting a density which may make an amendment to the Runoff Control Ordinance necessary if it would provide a better tool for dealing with watershed problems. Mr. St. John said the Runoff Control Ordinance is still a valuable tool because there are a lot of existing subdivisions which have vested rights. The Runoff Ordinance is needed to deal with those subdivisions. Mr. Lindstrom said he has always had misgivings about the effectiveness of the Runoff Ordinance and has serious questions about the maintenance of devices constructed under requirements of that ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lindstrom what kind of standards he thought should apply to water- shed areas. Mr. Lindstrom said the amount of impervi~us cover created, how much vegetation is disturbed, the on-going develop~.~stage, the post-development stage, sl~ setback from streams for placement of septic fields, soils, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said he would personally prefer that there be no development by right in watersheds. Dr. Iachetta said his problem wit~ the Runoff Control Ordinance is that it does not address the changed state; post-it. development. Mr. Lindstrom said he had one more concern. He does not feel it is equitable to limit every parcel to the same number of lots. He suggested a system which is used in Iowa which would allow three lots by right on parcels from six to 100 acres and for each additional 100 acres, four - two-acre minimim size lots would be allowed. Dr. Iachetta said under this proposal, an owner with 1000 acres could have 40, two-acre size lots by right all bunched in one place. Dr. Iachetta said the proposal discussed thus far would allow 15, three-acre size lots by right, and he did not see how things would be better by allowing 40 lots. Mr. Lindstrom said the overall impact would be less than with 15 lot subdivisions scattered all over the County. Also, it limits the pressure on this board to approve special use permits on large tracts. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the number of fairly small parcels jammed together, ~but under separate ownership, which could be developed with no cohesive planning. The county could end up with a number of small subdivisions all blocked together. This proposal would limit the ability of owners of smaller parcels to create that kind of thing. Miss Nash asked if 100 acres were divided into four lots of 25 acres each, if the 25 acres could be redivided. Mr. Lindstrom said it could be done only by special use permit. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Lindstrom's proposal is basically to allow four, two-acre minimum size lots on parcels up to 100 acres in size. Basically, for any parcel up to eight acres, there would be no difference from existing rights. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be glad to write down his proposal. Mr. Fisher said the question of what to do in the watershed areas continues to be of concern. If it comes down to a question of limiting the number of lots by right, or limiting the density, that is a fairly simple thing to write in the ordinance for the rural areas. This would not require a special ordinance, or an overlay district, to which people must refer, ilar. Lindstrom said he had talked to Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, ~oday, and Mr. Bailey indicated that in watershed areas it would be better to have a two-acre lot served by a septic field, then to have five or six dwelling units on one acre served by public water and sewer. The basic problem is the amount of impervious cover. Mr. Fisher said he has scheduled a review of the Runoff Control Ordinance for next Wednesday's meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said the reason he had made his suggestion tonight is that when t~e Board first started talking about the rural areas zone, he had thought the number of lots by right would be so limited that it would address a significant part of the concerns about the watershed. During these work sessions, subsequent proposals have changed that concept. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should continue this discussion of the rural areas and what to do about the watershed issue at the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 3. At 9~:23 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Chairman