1980-10-20 adjOctober 20, 1980 (Adjourned from October 15, 1980)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on October 20, 1980, 7:30 P.M., County Executive's Conference Room, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 15, 1980.
PRESENT:
V. Nash.
Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen
ABSENT: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr. and F. Anthony Iachetta.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and Assistant Director of
Planning, Ronald Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the Board had
decided last week to concentrate on items which have been recommended by the staff and
concerns of the Board members. He found one suggestion from the staff concerning Section
33.8 entitled "Posting of Property" on which no action has been taken. The staff would
strike all but the first sentence concerning signs. Mr. Keeler said at one time, the
applicant was responsible for sending notices of impending hearings to adjoining property
owners and that caused some problems. Section 33.4 entitled "Public Hearing Notice'~
refers back to Virginia Code Section 15.1-431 which sets out how notices are to be sent.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to change Section 33.8 to read only: "Additional notice of
public hearings involving zoning map amendments initiated pursuant to section 33.2.1
above, shall be provided by means of signs posted on the property proposed for rezoning,
in the manner prescribed in this section." The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta.
Mr. Fisher then noted Section 33.9 entitled "Matters to be ~onsidered in Reviewing
Proposed Amendments." Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the staff's recommendation
to change this section to read: "Proposed amendments shall be reviewed in regard to
Sections 1.4, PURPOSE AND INTENT: 1.5, RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENT: and 1.6, RELATIONSHIP
TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN of this ordinance. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash, ~i'~J~
NAYES: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta.
Mr. Fisher asked Miss Nash if she had any items to discuss. Miss Nash said he has
been worried about language in the ordinance which is complicated and not very clear. She
said she had not seen an overlay on the watershed and asked about same. Mr. Lindstrom
said in the RA District there are eight special criteria to be considered in granting
special permits. He said there are some other things in the RA District he would like to
discuss when the full Board is present.
Miss Nash then asked about the word "yard" as used in Section 5.1.18 entitled "Temporary
Construction Headquarters, Yards, Residential DistrictsJ" Mr. Lindstrom said that does
not mean a yard as found in a residential district and needs to be distinguished from
other yards. He then offered motion to delete the words "residential districts" from
Section 5.1.18 and to change tihe title of Section 5.1.18.2 to "Temporary Construction
Yards." The motion was secondied by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. M
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta.
Miss Nash suggested that the word "conducive" in Section 5.!.13(a) be changed to
"compatible". The other Board members agreed.
Miss Nash said she did not understand if the Conservation District was to be left in
the ordinance or not. Mr. Keeler noted the following staff comments which were received
today:
"Staff has reviewed the statement of intent of the CVN district for the
viability and effectiveness of the district in the proposed zoning ordinance.
The CVN adopted in June, 1976 in staff opinion, has been effectively
replaced by current ordinances (existing and proposed) and is otherwise
outmoded.
Specific ordinances and provisions related to the CVN statement of intent
are: run-off control ordinance; urban stormwater ordinance; critical slopes;
flood hazard overlay district; natural resource overlay district; scenic
areas overlay district; cluster development and open space provisions;
forestry supplementary regulations; and rural areas district. Generally
speaking, these provisions are more precise in intended application than
the CVN district. A goodly portion of the CVN statement of intent is so
broad and vague as to invite protracted controversy in application of the
zoning district to the map, as was experienced during the previously
proposed ordinance. Therefore staff finds no particular utility to the
district which would warrant its inclusion in the proposed zoning ordinance."
Miss Nash then offered motion to delete Section 9.0, CONSERVATION, CVN, in its entirety.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
359
October 20, 1980 (Adjourned from October 15, 1980)
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Messrs. Henley and Iachetta.
Mr. McCann brought to the Board's attention, Section 26.9 under "Industrial Districts-
Generally" entitled "Minimum Landscaped Area." He said he feels the amount of land included
for landscaping is excessive and he did not feel this provision should be left to the
discretion of the Planning Commission. At one time while drafting this ordinance, the
area required was 10%. Mr. Keeler said the consultants had recommended some original
minimum landscaped area, the ratio for which was the same in all commercial and industrial
districts. He said the Planning Commission did change the ratio for commercial districts.
Mr. Fisher said he did not know if there was any valid reason for having different standards
in the two different districts. Mr. McCann said the last sentence of this section states
that the Planning Commission may require ornamental landscaping of street frontages. He
felt this wording should be stricken from this section and anywhere else in the ordinance
that such language appears. He said that ~screening residential areas from businesses and
industrial uses is no problem. Miss Nash thought that was a very general interpretation.
Mr. McCann said his problem with the language is the word "may". Mr. Fisher asked the
definition of "ornamental landscaping" Mr. Keeler said most of these districts will
occur in the growth areas and the County does not have a "Street Tree Ordinance". In some
localities, a developer is required to plant trees of certain types in order to maintain
consistency along streets. Since the County does not have that kind of ordinance, he felt
this section was included to help accomplish that idea. Mr. Lindstrom said the last
sentence in Section 26.9 could be eliminated and the authority for same is retained under
Section 26.12.2 entitled "Screening".
Mr. McCann then offered motion to strike the last sentence of Section 26.9 as set out
above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Messrs. Henley and Iachetta.
Mr. McCann then offered motion to strike any section referring to requirements for
ornamental screening wherever same may appear in the ordinance. He said the interpretation
of ornamental screening is left to the discretion of eight different members of the
Planning Commission and he hates to see this language left in the ordinance because it is
so general. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission had struggled with the zoning
ordinance provisions for a long time. There was no second, and the motion died.
Mr. Lindstrom said under Section 5.1.11 (d), Commercial Kennel, Veterinary, Animal
Hospital, he could not decide if the noise level would be tested with the animals inside
or outside of the building. Mr. Fisher said it was probably with the animals inside of
the building.
Mr. Lindstrom said under Section 5.1.12(d), Public Utility Structures/Uses, he would
suggest that the end of the sentence be changed to. read: "...and it shall insofar as
practical, condition such approvals so as to minimize the proliferation of such easements
and crossings as described by the Comprehensive Plan." He offered motion to this effect.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta.
Mr. L~ndstrom asked about Section 5.1.20, entitled "Temporary Events Sponsored by
Local Non-Profit Organizations." He said this creates a whole new floating use that does
not exist at the present. Reading this section, it appears that all of the things the
Board would like to have some control over, can occur under this section. Mr. Fisher said
he was not comfortable with this section. Mr. Lindstrom said unless this section can be
rewritten quickly, he would rather see the entire section dropped. Mr. Fisher ~uggested
that the staff do some more work on this seciton.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to discuss Section 5.1.24(b) when Mr. Henley is
present because he feels that the words "or in order to provide access for livestock or
for another permitted uses" should be struck. He does not feel the Board should encourage
that local streams, particularly in the South Fork watershed, be used to waver cattle.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board should do something toward starting amendments to the
Subdivision Ordinance which will make the Zoning Ordinance effective. Mr. Fisher said the
Board is not at a point where this can be done. He noted the language drafted by the
staff at the request of Mr. Lindstrom for quarterly review of zoning and special permit
petitions; said language set out in the minutes of October 6.
Mr. Fisher said the staff has indicated that mobile home and home occupation petitions
should be reviewed as the applications are filed. This idea started with the consultants
who suggested that rezonings be done in groups, so the Board would have a better overview
of the land use decisions being made. Originally it was suggested that these be reviewed
once every six months, but the Planning Commission said they would be involved with subdivision
and site plan reviews anyway and did not see any particular advantage to stopping one
phase of their work load, and had discarded the idea. The Board then discussed at length
October 20, 1980 (Adjourned from October 15, 1980)
360
which Board meetings could be cancelled each month and what type of schedule could be set
up to hear petitions from various sections of the county on particular nights. Mr. Fisher
said if the Board is interested in changing to such a schedule, it might be tried to see
if it will work. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the idea. He felt the additional staff
time would allow the staff to review the long range impact of the requests, which could
enhance land use planning. Mr. McCann said he would rather hear the requests as they are
received. Mr. Fisher said he did not think any action should be taken on this item until
the full Board is present.
Mr. Fisher said he was fairly comfortable with the draft of Section 4.7, Regulations
Governing Open Space, which was prepared by the staff and is set out in the minutes of
October 6. Miss Nash said she was concerned that land for public utilities could be
counted as part of the open space. Mr. Lindstrom said one of the purposes of open space
is as an amenity for the people living in that subdivision. The first three uses listed
could qualify as amenities, but he was concerned about including "wells and septic systems"
as part of the open space. Mr. Fisher said if there was a small development where all the
septic tanks had failed, that would be a way to solve the problem, and he suggested that
language be added to limit this use only to these circumstance.
Mr. Keeler brought the Board's attention to "public utilities", one of the uses
permitted in open space. He said that provisions must be made for public utilities in all
districts. If there is a cluster development, he did not know whether public utility
easements are more desirable on the lots or in the open space. The same is true with
stormwater detention and~flood control devices. He said that in Section 4.7.3, Character,
the words "public utility easements and stormwater detention and flood control devices"
could be added. Mr. Keeler did not believe that anyone would get any appreciable increase
in density because these ~easements are used. Mr. McCann said he had no problem with the
way the section is presently worded. He did not object to open space being in steep slopes
or flood plains.
Mr. Fisher said most people will take better care of their own property than someone
else's and that is why he feels that the septic field location should be retained on the
lot itself. Mr. McCann said with the requirement for a 30,000 square foot lot and two
septic field locations, open space probably will not be needed, but it should be left in
as a use for emergencies. Mr. Fisher said the requirement for two septic field locations
does not require the owner to use either of those locations. As long as open space can
be used for septic systems, he feels that someone will want to do that. Mr. Keeler suggested
the wording "wells and septic systems in accordance with Section 2.5". He said Section
2.5 requires two septic field locations on each lot and wording could be added that the
Health Department may approve septic drainfields in the.o~en space only after the two
locations on each individual lot have proved to be inadequate. Mr. Fisher said he did not
believe this use belongs in this section. Mr. McCann said he would rather see it left in
for emergencies. Mr. Fisher suggested listing "wells and septic systems for emergency use
only (reference 2.5)". Mr. Keeler suggested that in Section 2.5, Health Regulations; Lot
Size, the following paragraph be added: "In a cluster development, open space may be used
for septic field locations only after the septic field locations on such lot are determined
to be inadequate by the local health department.'' Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt
both of the above referenced changes. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann an~ carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
~ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the words "public utility easements, stormwater
detention and flood control devices" be added to Section 4.7.3. The motion was seconded
by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
~BSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann.
Messrs. Henley and Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 3.
At 10:10 P.M.,
the' meeting w~s adjourned. ~ ·