1980-09-08 adjSeptember 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 8, 1980, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September
1980.
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, George R. St. John and County Planner, Robert W.
Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. Mr. Fisher announced
that Mr. Layton R. McCann had been appointed to replace Mr. Roudabush who resigned in August.
Mr. McCann was sworn in on September 5. Mr. Fisher then noted that Mr. Agnor was out of town
at a meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is the ex-officio member of the Planning Commission and would like
to request a leave of absence for several months while he teaches a class at the University
of Virginia. Mr. Fisher said he would like to ask if Mr. McCann would be willing to serve on
the Planning District Commission. Mr. McCann said he thought he would have to pick up Mr.
Roudabush's assignments, so had no problem with the suggestion. Mr. Fisher said if there was
no volunteer to take Mr. Lindstrom's place on the Planning Commission, he would request a
motion to appoint Mr. McCann as a member of the Planning District Commission. There being no
volunteer, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr.
McCann as a County representative on the Planning District Commission. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance.
revised draft of the Rural Areas District:
Mr. Tucker presented the following
X.O
RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA
X.1
INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED
This district (referred to hereinafter as RA) is hereby created and
may hereafter be established by amendment of the official zoning map
to permit a limited amount of lower density residential development
in areas of the county designated in the comprehensive plan as: other
rural lands which have no distinctive environmental characteristics;
critical slopes; and agricultural conservation areas. It is intended
that development occur in the locations and at scales compatible to
the physical characteristics of the land and availability of public
facilities and it is further intended that impact of roadside strip
development be minimized through the various design requirements
contained herein.
In regard to agricultural conservation, this district is intended to
conserve the county's active farms and best agricultural and forestal
lands for purposes of enhancing the economy, perpetuating scenic
beauty and maintaining employment and lifestyle opportunities. It is
intended that the continuation and establishment of agriculture and
related uses will be encouraged, that encroachment of large scale
development on the active farms and best agricultural lands be limited.
It is further intended that development be permitted on land which is
of marginal utility for agricultural purposes, provided that such
development be carried-out in a manner which is compatible with the
encouragement and preservation of agriculture in the area.
X.2
APPLICATION
RA districts may be applied to previously established A-~ districts in
accordance with criteria cited under "where permitted" above.
x.3
PERMITTED USES
X.3.1
BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted in any RA district subject to the
requirements and limitations of these regulations:
Detached single-family dwellings, including guest cottages and
rental of the same; provided that yard, area and other require-
ments in section X.5 conventional development by right shall be
met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual
lot subject to the provisions of section X.7;
e
Side-by-side duplexes subject to the provisions of Section X.7
provided that density is maintained and provided that buildings
are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot
meeting all other requirements for detached single-family
dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. Other two-
family dwellings shall be permitted provided density is maintained.
September 8, 1980 (Adj~.ourned from September 3, 1980)
×.3.2
e
11.
Churches, parish houses and adjunct cemeteries;
Agriculture, forestry, and fishery uses except as otherwise
expressly provided;
Game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses;
Wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products
produced on the premises;
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding
multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for
distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public
utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines,
pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise
expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage
systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle
and all other applicable law;
Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation:
(reference 5.2) and storage buildings;
Class A
Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18);
Temporary events of local non-profit organizations (reference
5.1.20);
Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds, and roads funded, owned or operated by local,
state and federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water
and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facili-
ties, pumping stations and the like, owned and operated by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12);
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance
standards in 4.15);
Veterinary services - off-site treatment only;
Agricultural Service Occupation (subject to performance
standards in 4.15);
Home for developmentally disabled (reference 5.1.7)
Divisions of land in accordance with Section X.7.1;
Tourist lodging.
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Community center;
Clubs, lodges - civic, patriotic, fraternal;
Fire and rescue squads (reference 5.1.11);
Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference
5.1.25);
Private schools;
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related
towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave
and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances;
Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6);
Mobile home parks (reference 5.3);
Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5);
Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6);
Hog farms;
Horse show grounds, permanent;
Custom slaughterhouse;
Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and
subject to performance standards in 4.15);
15. Group homes;
September 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980)
x.4
X.4.1
X.4.2
x.5
Requirements
Gross Density
Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3);
Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance
standards in 4.15);
Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and
subject to performance standards in 4.15);
Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.11);
Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.5);
Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14);
Country store;
Commercial fruit packing plants;
Motels or inns;
Flood control dams and impoundments;
Restaurants located on or adjacent to motel premises;
Restaurants located within an historic landmark as designated in
the Comprehensive Plan provided such structure shall be restored
as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the
period and shall be maintained consistenv therewith;
Divisions of land except as hereinabove provided;
Boat landings and canoe livery;
Permitted residential uses except as hereinabove provided;
Home Occupation - Class B (reference 5.2);
Cemetery; crematorium; funeral home.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR CATEGORY I AND CATEGORY II DEVELOPMENT
The following provisions shall apply to any parcel of record on the
date of adoption of this ordinance.
REGULATIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT
Regulations in X.5 governing development by right shall apply to the
division of a parcel into five (5) or fewer lots or to the location
of five (5) or fewer dwelling units on a parcel.
REGULATIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Regulations in X.5 and X.6 governing development by special use permit
shall apply to the division of a parcel into more than five (5) lots
or the location on a parcel of more than five (5) dwelling units.
AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS
Divisions by Right
Development
0.5 du/ac
Divisions by Special Use Permit
Development Development
0.5 du/ac 0.5 du/ac
Minimum lot size
2.0 acres 2.0 acres 1.0 acre
Minimum frontage
Existing public roads
250 feet 250 feet 125 feet
Minimum frontage
Internal public
or private roads
175 feet 175 feet 100 feet
Minimum yard: front
Minimum yard: sides
Minimum yard: rear
75 feet 75 feet 50 feet
25 feet 25 feet 12 feet
35 feet 35 feet 25 feet
Maximum structure height
feet 35 feet 35 feet
X.6
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, GENERALLY
Ail cluster lots shall have access only to internal public or
private roads unless otherwise provided by the Planning Commission
in a specific case. Use of cluster provisions shall be subject
to other requirements of this ordinance, applicable health
requirements, and the subdivision ordinance.
September 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980)
X.7
X.7.1
X.7.2
x.7.2.1
SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS
LIMITATIONS ON DIVISIONS PERMITTED BY RIGHT
Divisions of land shall be permitted as provided hereinabove; except
that no parcel of land of record on the date of the adoption of this
ordinance may be divided into an aggregate of more than five (5)
parcels nor shall there be constructed on any~such parcel an aggregate
of more than five (5) units, except as provided in Section X.7.2 hereof.
WHERE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The Board of Supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use
permit for the division of a parcel into more than five (5) lots or
the construction on a single parcel of more then five (5) dwelling units
at a gross density not to exceed one dwelling unit per two acres
(1 du/2 ac); provided that the Board of SuPervisors shall determine
that such division and/or conStruction is compatible with the neighbor-
hood as set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of this ordinance, with reference
to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan relating to rural
areas and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the
following: ~
1. The size, shape, topography, and existing vegetation of the property
in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal pro-
duction as evaluated by'the United States Department of Agricul-
ture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of
Forestry.
The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal
production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published
maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conserva-
tion Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by
the Soil Conservation Service.
The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses.of the
property since 1950, to the extent it is reasonably available.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect of the proposed development on the character of the area.
For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be
in an agricultural or forestal area if 50% or more of the land
area within one mile (1 mile) of the border of such property has
been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five years
of the date of the application of special use permit. In making
this determination, mountain ridges, major streams, and other
physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area
shall be considered.
The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural
areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be
deemed to be located in a developed rural area if 50% or more of
the land area within one mile (1 mile) of the boundary of such
property was in parcels of record of five acres or less on the
adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination,
mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which
detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers, services, and emPloyment centers.
A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity
to the area or use described:
-Within one mile of the Urban Area boundary, as described in the
Comprehensive Plan;
-Within one-half mile of the Community boundary as described in
the Comprehensive Plan;
-Within one-half mile of the major crossroads of Type I or one-
half mile of a Type II'Village' as described in the Comprehensive
Plan;
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements programming in regard to increased provision of rural
services.
With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying
wholly or partially within the boundaries of the watershed of any
public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors
shall be considered: ~
The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as
related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals,
nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water
quality for human consumption.
The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be
removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any
development.
250
September 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980)
X.7.2.2
X.7.2.3
The amount of impervious cover which will exist after
development.
de
The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area,
structure, or drainfie!d to any perennial or intermittent
stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the
proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or
impoundment.
The type and characteristics of soils including suitability
for septic fields and erodability.
re
The percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance
during construction or upon which any structure, paved area
(pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall
exist after development.
go
The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase
of any proposed development and extent to which such duration
and timing are unpredictable.
The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover
have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit
hereunder.
The extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq.
(Run-off Ordinance) of the Albemarle County Code can only be
met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices
will:
aa. Require periodic inspection 'and/or maintenanCe;
bb.
Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off
associated with any 100-year or more intense storm.
MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
The Commission and Board may require the applicant to submit such
information as deemed necessary for the adequate review of such appli-
cation provided that such information shall be directly related to items
1, 2, 3 and 8 of Section X.7.2.1.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of approval of any such permit may be imposed by the Board
of Supervisors in any case in which the Board of Supervisors shall
determine that the same shall be reasonably necessary to insure the
compatability of the proposed development with the neighborhood provided
that any such condition of approval shall be directly related to items
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Section X.7.2.1.
Mr. Tucker said there is no provision in the RA zone for gift, craft and antique shops.
{e did not remember if the Board wanted to leave that use out or not. He also noted that
Item 17, tourist lodging should have a reference to 5.1.17 added after it. Dr. Iachetta
asked why the Planning Commission had left out gift shops, etc. Mr. Tucker said the Planning
Commission felt that the C1 district in the growth areas would be adequate to take care of
this use. Mr. Henley said many such permits have been approved in the last few years in the
rural areas. Dr. Iachetta said he saw no problem with including this as a use by special
permit and asked why it would not be a part of Home OccupatiOn A. Mr. Tucker said there is a
specific provision for Home Occupations in the text of the ordinance. Motion was then offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to add #36 under "By Special Use Permit" in the RA
zone to read: "Gift, craft and antique shops." The motion carried~by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Tucker noted that #7 under the special permit section - "Day care, child care or
nursery facility" is an addition to the ordinance. This use was not allowed in the A~i
district. The Planning Commission has occasionally had problems with such requests in rural
areas, especially on small lots, but they did feel there is a need for this type of use.
Mr. Tucker noted #32 under the special'permit section - "Cemetery, crematorium, funeral
home.'! He said that funeral homes were not allowed in the A~i district, but the staff found
while doing research on the crematorium amendment that funeral homes are now moving to cemetery
locations and that cemeteries are moving out into the rural areas because of the need for
additional space. Mr. Fisher did not feel that funeral homes should be encouraged to locate
in rural areas. Miss Nash saw no reason for funeral homes to be located in the country and
offered motion to delete "funeral homes" from the RA district. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not
feel strongly about the issue, but did think this is more of a purely commercial type operation
than some other uses and offered second to the motion.
September 8; 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980)
Mr. Henley said there have never been any problems with the funeral home in Crozet
except for parking. Mr. McCann said he saw no problem with having funeral homes in the RA
district, and he felt they might be better in the country than in congested urban areas. Dr.
Iachetta said he did not think funeral homes have a greater impact on the surrounding area
than motels, inns and restaurants. Mr. Lindstrom asked in which districts funeral homes are
permitted by right. Mr. Tucker said they are permitted in the C1 district. Mr. McCann said
he felt funeral homes could be controlled by the Board through the special permit procedure.
Mr. Fisher said he felt the question was whether or no~ funeral homes are appropriate at all
lin the rural area.
Dr. Iachetta asked if funeral homes automatically get the right to have a crematorium.
Mr. Tucker said that is a separate use. Dr. Iachetta said it would be hard to argue for one
and against the other when they are set out as they are under #32. Mr. Henley said he he saw
no reason why a funeral home needed a crematorium. Mr. Fisher noted that there is a motion
on the floor to delete funeral homes from #32. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board should
specifically address the question of mausoleums. Mr. Fisher said the definition of cemetery
is very simple. Mr. Lindstrom said maybe it should be referred to as "below the ground"
burial. Roll was called on the motion at this time, and the motion to delete funeral home
from #32 carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs., Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Henley (Mr. Henley said with the personal experience he has had with the funeral
home in Crozet, he does not feel it is a big problem.) and Mr. McCann.
Dr. ZIachetta said he could see no pressing need to delete this, but it can always be
added back to the ordinance at a later date.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that the Board discuss mausoleums. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. John
for his opinion. Mr. St. John said he felt the ordinance should carry a definition of
mausoleum because at this time the term can mean one grave in a crypt above the ground or it
can also m~an a "hotel for the dead". He suggested that this not be included as a use by
right but could be included as a separate use with a definition of same. Mr. Lindstrom said
if the Board does not do something, it will be assumed that a mausoleum is automatically a
part of a cemetery. Mr. St. John said it would be better to list the three items under #32
as separately numbered items. Then, if one use were granted, the other uses would not auto-
matically be granted. Mr. McCann said he did not feel that mausoleums should be excluded
from the county. The Board should not try to tell people how they can be buried, but should
make provisions for everybody. Mr. Fisher said the term mausoleum is not defined in the
ordinance. Mr. St. John said that for anything that is not defined you would use the dictionary
meaning.
Dr. Iachetta asked if there should be a limit on the number of crypts. Mr. St. John
said he did not think the Board should try to set out any numbers when there is no petition
before the Board. If this were listed in the ordinance as multi-crypt mausoleum, and included
as a use by special permit, the Board could then control the situation depending on the facts
presented when a petition is filed. Mr. Fisher said he would accept Mr. St. John's recommendat1
Dr. Iachetta asked if a cemetery would have the right to have above-the ground crypts.
Mr. St. John said his office has interpreted that to be the case. Motion was then offered by
Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to change Item #32 under "By Special Use Permit" to
read just "Cemetery"; to add Item #33 reading "Crematorium" and to add Item #34 reading
"Multi-crypt mausoleum." The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom ~said he would like to discuss #3 under the "By right" uses - "Churches,
parish houses and adjunct cemeteries." He did not feel that churches should be a use by
right in any residential district since they can have a major impact on surrounding lands.
If there are residential districts in the rural area, and churches are used by more than just
church groups, he felt they should only be allowed by special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said
he had no problem with "parish house" since he felt this was a use that is compatible to most
districts as long as the parish house is like a residence. Dr. Iachetta said he felt it was
inconsistent that a free-standing cemetery require a special permit, but an adjunct cemetery
is a use allowed by right. Mr. Tucker said that it has been felt in the past that an adjunct
cemetery is a compatible use, but a free-standing cemetery could be located in an area where
it would not be compatible. Mr. Lindstrom said if you separated the spiritual aspects of a
church building from the other activities that might take place in that building, it could be
seen that sometimes such uses have a negative affect on the community in terms of traffic
congestion and noise. Mr. Henley asked what effect it would have on churches that use school
buildings and community centers to require special permit approval. Mr. Lindstrom said he
had not thought about that aspect, but he did feel an obligation to people who might buy in a
residential area and then have a church buy one acre right next to them and squeeze a church
building on the property. Miss Nash asked if the church building is only the place where
worship services are held, or 'if that included kitchen~, community rooms, etc. Mr. St. John
said it includes anything in the building. Mr. Lindstrom said he really saw no reason to
mention parish houses at all. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
Henley, to delete "Churches, parish houses and adjunct cemeteries" from uses by right and to
include "Church building and adjunct cemeteries" as Item #36 under the uses by special permit.
Mr. McCann said he would have a problem in requiring that churches come before the Planning
Commission and the Board fOr a special use permit, so he could not support the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYEs: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, LindStrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. McCann.
o~M~,umu~r' o, ±dou t~ojourne~ iirom September 3, 1980)
Mr. Fisher asked why duplexes are allowed by right in the RA district. Mr. Tucker said
there are provisions for duplexes in the current A1 zone as long as the density is maintained.
This is a carry over provision from the current ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said he is adverse
to encouraging the development of r~ntal units in rural areas, but four acres is certainly
enough land for two families to live on.
Miss Nash asked about #15 under special use permit uses - "Home for developmentally
disabled." Mr. Tucker said State Code Section 15.1486.2 was added last year and this section
requires that provision be made for this use in all zoning districts.
Mr. Fisher asked if the State code required that this use be by right. Mr. St. John
said no. Mr. Fisher said no limit on the number of persons residing in the home is listed in
the ordinance. While he has no objection to small groups, if there were a regional or national
operation, such a use could have a big impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Keeler
said the definition of group home limits occupancy of those homes to no more that eight
persons unrelated to the adult supervisor. There is also a supplementary regulation relating
to homes for the developmentally disabled. Mr. Fisher said he felt it would be better to set
a limit similar to that for group homes.
Mr. St. John suggested that this use be transferred to the uses by special permit. He
read from the State Code: "It is the policy of this state that mentally retarded and other
developmentally disabled persons shall not be excluded by county and municipal zoning ordinanc
from the benefits of normal residential surroundings ... toward this end, it is the policy of
this state that none of such group homes and their locations throughout the state and within
any given political subdivision should be proportional in so far as possible within the state
and local political subdivisions ... locally adopted zoning ordinances shall provide for
family care homes, foster homes, or group homes serving mentally retarded or other develop-
mentally disabled persons, not related by blood or marriage, and appropriate residential
districts .. "
Dr. Iachetta suggested that #15 under "uses by right" and #15 under "uses by special
permit" be combined as one item under "Uses by special permit". Mr. St. John suggested that
this item then read "Group homes and group homes for the developmentally disabled as described
in Virginia Code Section 15.1486.2." Motion to delete Item #15 under "by right" uses and to
add the language suggested by Mr. St. John as #15 under uses "by special use permit" was
offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carred by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Tucker then described the chart set out under Section X.5, Area and Bulk Regulations.
Miss Nash asked if there were any restrictions on clustering under special permit provisions.
Mr. Tucker said the two-acre density would have to be maintained, although the development
could have a one-acre density. The remaining land would become part of the open space for
that development. Lots would need 40,000 square feet for an individual well and septic
field. Miss Nash asked if these provisions would apply to lands lying in the watershed of
the South Fork Rivanna River. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he had heard that the
State Health Department has recently changed to 40,000 square feet. Mr. Tucker said he has a
letter from the State Health Department in which it is stated that as long as the County
requires two drainfield areas on each site, the Health Department will agree to 40,000 square
feet (basically one-acre) for individual well and septic field. This is a reduction from the
previous requirement of 60,000 square feet. Miss Nash asked if there is anyway to stop a
developer frOm including unusable land on a plan only to achieve the proper density. Mr.
Fisher said that can continue, in fact, that type of thing is encouraged by any kind of
clustering provisions. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt fairly comfortable with the language
concerning clustering because clustering is allowed only by special permit.
Dr. Iachetta asked if there were any way to deal with residential neighborhood development
in the RA zone, similar to the way the RPN is presently handled. Mr. Tucker said in the new
ordinance there is a provision called PRD (Planned Residential Development) which is mainly
for the urban area of the County. Under the original proposal, clustering was allowed by
right in subdivisions in the rural areas, but that has now been changed to allow clustering
only by special permit. In order.to have the old RPN zone in the rural areas, some changes
would have to be drafted in the PRD. Dr. Iachetta said he has a problem with allowing
clustering in a rural area.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had a question for the County Attorney. The Comprehensive Plan on
pages 5, 6, 8 and i0 refers to agricultural land use and conservation land use, and on page
10 recommends specific residential densities. He asked if what has been drafted for the
RA district is a legitimate implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Legally speaking, is
the Board creating a conflict that could be a problem in the future. The proposal from the
consultants recommended a very specific way to attain the goal, but the Board has never
specifically discussed the consultants proposal. Mr. St. John said he sees the base starting
point at which development can take place to be a matter of time, that is, the day this new
ordinance is adopted rather than being any feature in the Comprehensive Plan. There is
.nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that gears any of the provisions to a given date. Mr.
~Lindstrom said he was concerned that five or ten acre lots would eat up more agricultural
land,than such a provision would save, but such a recommendation is in the Comprehensive
Plan. He said he can imagine someone raising that point in court and objecting to the zoning
ordinance because it does not implement the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said that the
third line of Chart #4 on Page 10 (1 du/2ac) is basically all that will be implemented in
this ordinance because the County cannot yet identify prime agricultural land. Mr. St. John
said someone with 1000 acres might argue that the land is not prime agricultural land, therefore
he is entitled to one dwelling unit per two acres, or 500 units. Actually, he would be
allowed only five dwelling units. Mr. Lindstrom said that is what concerns him. What he
has been trying to do is related to the standards set out under "recommended residential
scale" on Page 10. Dr. Iachetta said he interprets what is being done to mean that if someone
wants more than five lots, he must apply for a special use permit, and the two-acre density
would apply to the first four lots. Mr. Lindstrom said there would be no higher density than
one dwelling unit/two acres unless the development was clustered. Dr. Iachetta said a develop-
ment can be clustered and still maintain the density, although the gross acreage does not
ichange' Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think all of the Board members had been keeping the
September 8, 1980 (Adjourned form September 3, 1980)
table on Page 10 in mind during these discussions. He wanted to be sure that the Comprehensive
Plan is addressed in this amendment process and that nothing is left out that will create any
Confusion later. Mr. Fisher said he felt the goal was good, although there is a problem at
~this time with the soils maps. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board basically agreed with the
recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan, or does the Board feel the Plan should be changed
to reflect what is being contemplated in this ordinance change. Mr. Lindstrom said if the
soils maps were cOmplete at this time, and he was faced with the question of enacting a
density of one dwelling unit per five or ten acres, he would have reservations because he
does not think that such a provision would preserve agricultural land. Mr. Fisher said he
feels the record is clear. There has been an attempt made by the Board to follow the Compre-
hensive Plan, but for practical reasons that has been abandoned at least temporarily. Mr.
Fisher asked if Mr. Lindstrom had any further concerns. Mr. Lindstrom said the reason the
Agricultural-Forestry and Rural Residential districts were replaced by the rural areas
recommendation is because there was not sufficient soils information. He feels that when
this information is available, the Board will have an opportunity for further review. Mr.
Henley said he feels the Board will be surprised when it tries to apply soils information to
the tax maps. He said it is just wishful thinking to believe it will simplify the problem.
Mr. Lindstrom said the considerations listed under section X.7.2.1 are clearly specifically
oriented to the questions raised in the Comprehensive Plan and result in a case by case
determination of whether land is mountaineous, impoundment watershed, best agricultural, etc.
He feels that this ordinance provides for that kind of limitation, and is consistent. Dr.
Iachetta said the Buck Mountain Creek impoundment has been identified as well as Totier,
Beaver Creek and the South Fork Rivanna. Now would be the time to treat those areas differently
if the Board wants to do so. Miss Nash said she did not believe the Board had ever contemplated
increasing the acreage in these areas to five acres. Dr. Iachetta said he thought the Board
had agreed with the Planning Commission's reasoning that it did not want to encourage ten-
acre lots. Mr. Fisher said from his purview of the draft, the staff has done exactly what
they were directed to do in drafting the RA district.
Miss Nash questioned #4 under Section X.7.2.1, (... a property shall be deemed to be in
an agricultural or forestal area if 50% or more of the land area within one mile of the
border ...) saYing she felt the land would be closer to the urban area than one mile of the
border. Mr. Tucker said the Board may want to change that one mile designation under #4 and
#5 to one-half mile in order to be consistent with the community and village boundaries. Mr.
McCann said the Board is trying to discourage sprawl and also discourage development in the
rural areas. He asked where development will be encouraged. Miss Nash said in the urban
area. Mr. Tucker said as long as the urban area boundary is fixed, there should not be the
leap-frogging there has been in the past, since you would only have the one mile beyond that
boundary. Dr, Iachetta said that the urban area has been zoned to hold four times the
population increase expected in this planning period. Now, i~ discussing the area immediately
adjacent to the urban area, it should be a rural type density. Miss Nash said she would
rather see that one mile changed'to one-half mile, since a mile from that urban area boundary
goes a long way out into the country. Mr. McCann said he feels that most people in the
county prefer a rural setting and he wonders how far they can be restr±cted while living in
that rural setting. He said when he was a member of the Planning Commission, he had voted
against just 20 lots by right and now the Board is discussing limiting lots to only five. He
had also voted against the seven criteria set out under X.7.2.1 and now the Board is talking
about eight criteria with nine sub-headings under #8. Mr. Henley said he did not think the
one mile would be a big problem since it would require issuance of a special permit for
development in that area and the land would still be in the rural areas. Mr. McCann asked
the meaning of "rural services" in #7. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the word "rural" should be
deleted because there are no typical rural services. Mr. McCann said if the ordinance is
adopted as proposed, the extra one-half mile under #4 might encourage people to settle in
that area rather than trying to get further out into the county. He felt.there might be a
problem if people are restricted to just living in the urban area. Mr. McCann said he had
listened to the people at the public hearings held by the Board and Planning Commission, and
he did not think that any person has asked for such restrictions. Mr. Lindstrom said leaving
in the "one mile of the urban boundary" is not intended to facilitate development in that
area, but it means that the Board should consider whether or not the land should be converted
from agricultural use.
Mr. McCann asked how much information required under X.7.2.1(8) will be available to the
Planning staff and other county offices. He felt these criteria would effectively keep a
~erson with only 40 or 50 acres from doing anything with his land. Also, he was not in favor
lof requiring a special permit for family divisions. Mr. Keeler said the Board has discussed
!having exemptions for certain size parcels, but that was not worked into this draft because
the Board has not yet decided what that exemption should be. Mr. McCann said he would
rather just set a specific number of lots of a specific size instead of requiring a special
permit. Mr. Tucker said he feels it will be difficult for the smaller landowner to go through
this process to divide land. Most of the required information will have to be provided by
the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom said a number of t-hese criteria are already being required on
RPN applications. Mr. McCann asked if these criteria were being recommended to supplement
the Runoff Control Ordinance because it is felt that that ordinance is not strong enough.
Mr. Lindstrom said no, but a lot of these things are already being required at the present
time on RPN applications. Mr. McCann asked why these criteria must be included if the Board
goes with an RPN in the RA district. Mr. Lindstrom said that for any major development in or
out of the watershed, the Board should have the· discretion to apply the kind of criteria
presently applied to RPN's. Mr. Henley said he felt Mr. McCann was talking about something
he had mentioned earlier. He cannot see any reason to require a special permit if certain
guidelines set out in the ordinance are followed. Mr. Henley said he would rather see
everything written down and let the staff give approval, rather than the Board holding a
public hearing on such special permit requests.
Mr. Lindstrom said that in an earlier version of the RA district, there was a reference
to road tolerability. Mr. Tucker said that provision was accidently left out of this draft.
September 8, 1980 (Adjourned from September 3, 1980)
Mr. Fisher asked if it was clear that under X.7.2.1(7) the word "rural" is an incorrect
word. Mr. St. John said he did not think the Planning COmmission meant Urban services, and
that is the reason for the word. Dr. Iachetta felt "rural" should be struck.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that he was uneasy about the language in Section X.7.2.3, COnditions
of ~pproval. Mr. Tucker said this language was probably taken from the Planning Commission's
proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission basically had a conditional use permit
section and he just wanted to be sure that that concept was nOt transferred to this ordinance.
Mr. St. John said this section is not necessary at all. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to delete'the paragraph numbered X.7.2.3. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
-
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta~Lindstro~ and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Miss Nash questioned the language in Section X.2, Application, asking if the words
"previously established A-1 districts" included any business or commercial area that just
happened to be in the A-1 district. Mr. Tucker said yes. Miss Nash asked what will happen
if the land has always had a B-1 designation, but never been developed. Mr. Tucker said that
is something the Board will have to discuss when working on the zoning map. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if there were any reasons to have an "application" section. Mr. Fisher asked if this
section were included only to show where the district came from. Mr. St. John said he believes
that was the reason. It is a way of correlating the old ordinance with the new ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said he could see Miss Nash's point. This section may confuse if a new area is
added to the map that is a section referred to under "application". Mr. St. John said that
is why the word "may" is used in this section. One of the two points made by the Albemarle
Taxpayers Association is that they did not want any downzoning of business properties. Miss
Nash asked if that was just for the rural areas. Mr. St. John said a lot of this property
was in the A-1 district and that is why this paragraph reads as it does. Mr. Fisher asked if
Mr. St. John saw any problem with the wording. Mr. St. John said it is not absolutely necessary
that the paragraph be included, but he did not see any problem with leaving it in for explan-
atory purposes. Dr. Iachetta said he wanted to be sure that what the Board is doing is
reasonably clear to the citizens. Mr. Tucker said he had never seen this type of thing done
in ordinances. The consultants did this initially because of questions being raised at the
citizens meetings. Mr. Lindstrom said those meetings were held before the Planning Commission
started working on the map.
Miss Nash said she has been thinking about the Runoff Control Ordinance since the perimetez
of the Buck Mountain Creek impoundment was set at 200 feet. She then offered motion to start
the procedure to change the setback for the Runoff Control Ordinance to 200 feet for the
whole watershed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom who said the setback should be ten
vertical feet Mr. Fisher asked if this motion was for a resolution of intent to amend the
Runoff Control Ordinance to make the setbacks the same in the South Rivanna and Totier and
other watersheds as that setback for Buck Mountain. Miss Nash said that was correct. Mr.
Henley said he could not support ten vertical feet until he knew more about what such a
provision would do. He probably would not support 200 feet around the older reservoirs
although he did support it for Buck Mountain because it probably will not have much of an
impact around the newer reservoir.
Mr Fisher said if the Board.is going to amend this ordinance, a public hearing should
be set. Miss Nash then amended the motion to set a public hearing on the resolution of
iintent for the nearest possible date. Mr. Fisher suggested October 22. Mr. Lindstrom
iaccepted the amendment. Mr. Fisher asked what analyses of the impacted areas would be needed
ifrom the staff. Mr. Henley asked what setback was originally enacted in the Runoff Control
Ordinance. Mr. McCann said it was 200 feet originally, and the Board changed that to 100
feet. Mr. St. John said the State Health Department had changed their setback requirement
from 200 to 100. Mr. Lindstrom said he has heard that the Health Department has changed the
requirement again. Mr. Henley said he would like to have some information on the 10 feet
vertical. Mr. Keeler said the 10 feet vertical was an in-house estimate of flood stage at
Buck Mountain. It is not known what the flood will be, but the staff does not feel it will
exceed that at the South Rivanna. The flood levels at the South Rivanna are known to be at
the 394 contour.
Mr. Fisher asked if Miss Nash would like to amend the motion to make the setback 200
feet horizontal from the 100-year flood level contour for all reservoirs. Miss Nash and Mr.~
Lindstrom both agreed. Mr. McCann said he would support holding a public hearing, but he
would have to hear some good reasons to increase the setback after it had been decreased just
last year. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Fisher said in order to finish work on the Zoning Ordinance he would like the Board
members to set aside September 22, September 29, October 6, October 13, and October 20, all
for 7:30 P.M. meetings.
The meeting was adj~our~a~0 P._ MC~H~~MA~
Agenda Item No. 3.