Loading...
1980-11-19Novemb~r~l~_198Q (Regular Meeting~) 422 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 19, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. at Jack Jouett Middle School, Lamb's Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Notice of change of meeting place was included in advertisement of this meeting.) Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:37 P.M.), Layton R. McCann (arrived at 7:32 P.M.), and Miss Ellen'V. Na~ Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. Joh~ and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fish~ Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Revised Zoning Ordinance and Map. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on November 5, November 8 and November 12, 1980.) Mr. Fisher said this meeting is being held to obtain public comments on the Board's proposed, revised zoning ordinance and map. The Ordinance is calculated to manage the growth in the County and to try and achieve the goals set out in the Comprehensive Plan for land use. The goals in their most simplistic form say that County citizens want growth but they don't want to change the rural character of the County, and do not want ithe growth to cost them a lot on their taxes. This is a difficult set of goals. Consultants iwere hired between 1977 and 1978 to develop an ordinance to achieve those and other goals of the Comprehensive Plan. A hearing was held with the Planning Commission in 1978 and everyone was concerned that the ordinance would be passed as presented, so the citizens asked that there be more study. The Planning Commission tried to revise the consultants report into abetter document. In December, 1979 the Planning Commission finished their work and gave the document to the Board. Beginning in the Spring of 1980, the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commissioners, and staff members held nine meetings in various parts of the County to obtain citizen comments. On May 14, 1980, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance and map. Citizens again called for more study. The Board then held numerous work sessions and arrived at the ordinance which is the subject of the public hearing tonight. The ordinance has not been changed substantially concerning growth areas, but there have been changes made in the rural areas. Protection of~rural lands and agricultural areas is a concept argued; many people feeling it is needed. There are growing concerns at the state and national levels about this issue. The Federal Government founded a National Agricultural Lands group which has studied the loss of agricultural lands. Mr. Fisher said he had recently received a report which states that within the ten years between 1967 and 1977, Virginia lost 1,400,000 acres of agricultural land to other uses. The problem the Board found in trying to implement the Comprehensive Plan was in trying to define best agricultural lands. The County is presently in the process of obtaining new soils studies and possibly, these studies will be available by 1981. In the meantime, there is a question of what to. do. Suburban growth sprawls because rural land is the cheapest. Rural land has the least services, the poorest roads and requires the citizens to transport school children the longest distance to every service. The Board's proposal on the rural areas allows an owner to divide off a few lots for his children, or for an occasional sale. Such divisions will not cause a significant public impact. Dividing beyond a certain number of lots may constitute an impact and may be defined as a development and should be scrutnized. There are amendments which will have to be made in the Subdivision Ordinance to go along with the changes in this new zoning ordinance. The Board has discussed excluding parcels of 25 acres or larger in the rural areas from the regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance, so that divisions can be made in any multiples of 25 as long as there is land available. This will provide some flexibility in agricultural areas, but still permit parcels divided to remain large enough to qualify for the forestry and agricultural land use preference ~ for all future owners. That is not in the text because it will have to be considered in !the Subdivision Ordinance. Divisions between adjacent property owners, adjusting lines !between adjacent properties, transferring a few acres between adjacent ownerS which do not !create new parcels, will be no different th~n at present. In general, if a person wishes to develop in the rural areas, then that person will have to give the County some specific facts about the land. There have been considerable concerns expressed about the zoning map and how parcels of land are shown on that map. The Board received many letters and requests about zoning designations, but the Board decided to bring for public hearing a map based on a principle rather than creating properties in different ways. If there is land in an area which the Comprehensive Plan says should not be used intensively for industrial or commercial use, but that land contains an existing use, the existing use is recognized. Vacant lands which were shown in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, are not recognized unless there is an approved site plan that is still current. Mr. Fisher said there may be some parcels of land surrounded by other development which the Board will study again. The Board does not intend to vote on adoption of this ordinance tonight. He then asked Mr. Tucker for a staff report on the ordinance and map, and noted that this proposal is not unanimously recommended by all Board members to the public. Mr. Tucker gave the following list of changes made by the Board in the Planning Commission's recommendations during work sessions: 1) The most substantative change in the text is the Rural Areas District. This district covers about 89% of the County and provides for five, two-acre lots by right with any division above that number requiring a special use permit. Exemptions in the RA District will be discussed by the Board at a future meeting. The special use permit section of the RA District was designed to consider the impact of development on existing agricultural areas, existing roads, future capital improvements needs, extension of water and sewer lines, impact on public drinking water supply impoundments, and the relationship of the proposed development on any existing rural development and the growth areas. 2) A major addition to the text of the Ordinance is a new district entitled "Planned Development-Mixed Commercial". This proposal will basically allow all of the commercial uses provided for in the ordinance, but the idea is to prevent road stripping as can be seen now on Route 29 North. This section requires internal orientation of uses and access with internal circulation. 423 November 19, 1980 6Regular Meeting) 3) The lot size for parcels has been maintained based on existence of public utilities. 4) Minor changes have been made in bonus factors. 5) The Moorman's River has been designated a scenic river. 6) A new section on nonconformities has been included. Under this new proposal, if a business or structure is completely destroyed, it can be rebuilt in the same place. Under the current ordinance, if 75% of the structure were destroyed, it could be rebuilt only according to existing zoning regulations. 7) The "Conservation" District has been deleted. It was felt that the RA District will protect the sensitive areas the conservation district was designed to protect. 8) The primary goal of the Board in working on the Zoning Map was to reflect as closely as possible the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Vacant residential, business or industrial lands located outside of the growth areas, where no site plan or subdivision plat has been approved, are not recognized, but if there is an existing use on the property or there is an approved site plan or subdivision plat, the land is recognized according to its current zoning even though it is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. 9) One significant change from the Planning Commission's proposal was removal of land in the South Fork Rivanna watershed previously proposed as part of the urban area. It is basically that area from the S.P.C.A. Road down to the Reservoir, then following the Reservoir and Ivy Creek over to Rio Road and Hydraulic Road. That area has been deleted from the urban area and existing zoning is not recognized unless there is a use on the property at this time, or a site plan has previously been approved. 10) The Pantops area was reworked and that is the area where the PD-MC District has been located in order to try and prevent road stripping along Route 250 East. 11) A major addition to the urban area is a portion of the Biscuit Run area in the southern part of the County between Route 631 and Route 20 South. 12) In making a comprehensive review of the zoning map, there are numerous areas where the zoning has been changed to a use less intensive than that allowed under existing zoning. Mr. Fisher said the preliminary figures of the Census taken in 1980 indicate that the number of dwelling units in the County has increased by 72% during the last ten years. If that kind of growth continues during the next ten years, by 1990 there will be three times the number of dwelling units as were in the County in 1970. This proposal will accommodate a population growth of over 60,000 new people in the urban area alone. Many people may be concerned that the meeting yesterday with City Council (annexation) should not arrest all of the efforts to deal with the growth in the County. Mr. Fisher said he does not believe there will be any change in the County's boundaries within the next year and the Board will be dealing with the present boundaries for sometime in the future. He then asked if other Board members wanted to speak. No one wanted to comment at this time. The public hearing was opened at 8:06 P.M. Mr. Lewis Simons was present to speak as a member of the Colthurst Property Owners Association Board. He said they commend this Board for zoning the watershed area east of Ivy Creek in a manner that affords both reasonable development, and also protects this community's main source of drinking water. They appreciate the thought given to urban area conservation and the spirit of compromise among Board members that brought forth the solution presented tonight. Personally, he hopes the Board will create in the future a new land assessment standard for the undeveloped, nonagricultural properties located in the urban watershed to reflect the decline of the values and to encourage the owners of those tracts to preserve the land in its present pristine state. Next to speak was Mr. Ray Rice an owner of a 150 acre farm near Scottsvitle. He urged the adoption of the zoning ordinance. He said it is designed to protect the beautiful areas and environment in the County.· Although every line in the ordinance may not be written as all would like them to be, if that is attempted, the ordinance will never be adopted. Mrs. Victoria Craw said the County has been waiting for 32 years for some way to protect itself against the costs of uncontrolled growth. Soon after World War II the population began to increase, In 1948, the League of Women Voters recommended zoning to control that growth. It took 20 years to get the first ordinance on the books. During that time, the widening of a mile of Route 29 from Route 250 doubled in cost because there had been no setback provisions. In 1980, Albemarle County is very different in population, in its occupational and financial makeup, from the rural character of old. The pressures on its services and resources are growing and will continue to grow. Water is just one frightening example. Long ago it was thought that a man's home is his castle to do with as he pleases. Now is the time to live by another American ethic that says the greatest ~g~ood for the greatest number is paramount for survival. The future generations will only be protected by a far-seeing, strong and equitable zoning ordinance to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Future boards can revise what is done in 1980, but someone must take the first step. Mr. Clyde Gouldman was present to speak on behalf of'Martin Marietta Corporation and S. L. Williamson Company. He said that these people will be dealt an economical blow if the present ordinance is adopted. Martin Marietta owns 100 acres of land off of the Route 29 North corridor, which is presently zoned M-2 and is proposed for RA. Assuming that M-2 land in the County is presently worth $2,000 an acre, and good farm land in the County is presently worth $3,000 an acre, the difference per acre in loss is $17,000. Multiply that by 690 acres in the Red Hill site and that is an $11.0 million loss. Mr. Gou!dman asked if this land is really usable as residential property. It is solid rock. A good portion of the land on the Route 29 corridor is in the Airport glide path. In the Red Hill area, November 19, 1980 (Regular Meeting) the land is near a railroad siding. This land has been zoned for M-2 for many years and has not caused an environmental problem or caused problems for neighboring landowners. From a land use standpoint, almost all roads in the County and many of the houses lived in today have products from these two companies. The Natural Resource designation has been given to the Red Hill site and to the Airport site, b~t that does not cure the problem. If the land is to be used for anything other than quarrying, the NR designation does not help at all. Mr. Gouldman said he was not sure what Mr. Fisher and Mr. Tucker meant during the presentation of the ordinance, but because these are existing uses, maybe reconsideration will be given to the M-2 zoning on these parcels. During the past five years, his firm has written many letters on behalf of Martin-Marietta about the problems with the text of the NR district. He then presented for the record (on file) copies of letters dated February 4 and September 10, 1975 and July 3, July 16, September 19 and October 15, 1980. One of the problems in the NR text is the requirement for fencing of quarries in active operation. He said there are many farm ponds which are not required to be fenced. Martin-Marietta has no problem with fencing a quarry which has been abandoned. Mr. Gouldman said the S. L. Williamson Company does not have the same amount of acreage as that of Martin Marietta, but the same principles are involved. Mr. Bill Stevenson said there has apparently been an error, or an injustice done, with respect to land shown as Tax Map 61, Parcel 40, at the intersection of Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads. This property has always been zoned B-1 and was shown as a neighborhood center in the 1971 Comprehensive Plan. During work on the new Comprehensive Plan, a request was made to show this property as a neighborhood center and the owner was informed that the Comprehensive Plan is a general guide and a specific parcel such as this would be shown on the zoning map. This parcel was shown for business on the map drafted by the Planning Commission, but recently Mr. Stevenson said he found that the property has been changed from a business designation to R-2. This designation is inconsistent with the owner's plans for the property and the neighborhood. Under proposed zoning, it adjoins a nonconforming business use and a heavy density of apartments which wrap around the rear of the property. This appears to be an example of spot downzoning. Development of the property has been deferred by the owner because of plans for the upgrading of Hydraulic Road. He asked that the Board consider this spot downzoning and correct this error on the zoning map. Mr. Roy Patterson was present to present the following statement for Citizens for Albemarle, Inc.: "We compliment you on the productive revision of the County's proposed zoning ordinance. We can see that you have made some hard compromises, and we appreciate the tenacious effort. Now we urge you to adopt it in its present form as soon as possible. Tonight would be fine with us. If any revisions seem advisable, for fine tuning, amendments can be adopted next year. Our attitude of urgency is not motivated by any hopes of financial gain. Our objective for this past decade has been that of the majority of County residents-- to protect the property values of our homes and the attractive qualities of Albemarle County that make this a desirable place for all of us to live in. Our organization's membership is drawn from suburban developments, from country acreage, and even from extensive estates. A number of members have enough acreage to allow development, and they accept for themselves the same obligations of environmental responsibility they advocate for others. Ail are concerned in working out an enlightened land use policy to prepare for growth that the coming decade will bring. Our years of conscientious study and discussion convince us of the urgent need for adopting this ordinance now. We can't be blind to what has been going on in Albemarle--the fastest growth in the five-county Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Population has jumped 44 per cent in ten years. More people bring more demand for water, more soil erosion and water pollution. More cars bring more traffic congestion and air pollution. If these conditions necessitate more regulations, we cannot be surprised and need not be resentful. Our prime concern is with water, and we commend the. precautions you have written into the ordinance to protect our drinking water supplies. These are desperately needed. Legal battles over water have broken out nation-wide from Los Angeles to Norfolk and Suffolk. The reservoir watersheds in the County should not be without the ordinance's protection another day. The County has already agreed on a comprehensive master plan for land use~. Now world events are highlighting its wisdom and warning us not to postpone implementing it with the new ordinance. I see at least five reasons for urgency, in addition to our concern for the reservoirs. 1. The master plan recognizes in theory the advantages of concentrating growth in designated areas, thus fostering public transportation, saving mileage on commuting to jobs, and avoiding unlimited extension of our school bus routes. Now the soaring price, of gasoline mandates our doing something to accomplish this. 2. Another advantage of thus concentrating the growth will be to conserve our resources of agricultural land in the County. World-wide shortages of food and of other agricultural products now warn us not to continue carving up our most fertile cropland heedlessly. 3. The energy crisis and high costs of timber construction make us see our wooded areas as something else we need the ordinance to help us conserve. 4. A bonus we foresee from conserving agricultural and forest lands is that we can save some vestige of the rural vistas that make Albemarle a beautiful place to live in as well as to visit. Hundreds of people whose jobs depend on the County's $11 million tourist industry will thank you for that. November 19, 1980 (Regular Meet~~ 5. A large number of County residents depend on their own wells for water. Uncontrolled haphaZard development would pose the threat of many new wells, possibly depleting underground aquifers and diminishing the water reserves of existing wells. If the ordinance channels growth toward areas with public water supply, this threat will pass, and there should be enough water for all. Incidentally, we hope that your special permits for large developments in the Rural Areas District will deal with the need to assure a proven availability of water for new home owners. In future amendments to the ordinance, you may see fit to incorporate such safeguards into the ordinance itself. But meanwhile, we strongly recommend that you adopt the present draft promptly, so that our environment can benefit from its protection before damage becomes irreversible." Mrs. Marjorie Jordan said she owns 200 acres on the Mechum River. need this ordinance to help them express their rights.responSibility. Property owners Mr. Morris ChiSholm said he is in the heavy construction business and has owned a large working farm just west of the Airport for 30 years. He is opposed to the ordinance because it is socialistic. It takes away development rights from property owners without compensation and will run the price of lots sky high. The big developers will love the ordinance because the law of supply and demand is on their side. It will'torpedo the dreams of the young who hope to have a place in the country some day. It will torpedo the dreams of the old who invested in land instead of stocks and bonds in the hope they could cash it in when needed. Mr. Chisholm said what is granted by right in this ordinance is a zero minus. The owner will be faced with spending a considerable amount of money only to find out he had nothing to start with except a political process. If the Board of Supervisors is hell-bent on having such a restrictive ordinance, he begged that the Board study ordinances like the one passed in King County, Seattle, Washington, and similar ordinances. The people in King County voted to buy development .rights on land they deemed necessary for the well-being of the people. They did not take this right, but paid for it. Mrs. Darlene Samsell of Keswick presented the following statement: "Before this night is over you will have listened to a number of voices say, for the umpteenth time, that the restrictions contained in the proposed zoning ordinance will price the poor person out of the housing market. That poor person is already priced out of the housing market and it is due to the high price of materials, high labor costs, high interest rates, and high energy costs, not zoning ordinances. I challenge these same voices to tell me of one place in the U. S. where reasonable land use regulations priced the poor person out of the market. I can name dozens of places where unrestricted growth has sent.taxes, land and housing costs sky high. For two plus years, citizens of this county and members of the governing body have been exchanging views on what should be in the proposed zoning ordinance. This lengthy process reminds me of a familiar passage in the marriage ceremony: "For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, till death do us part". For better or for worse, let's get this ordinance passed before death does us part." Mr. David Wood said he was present to speak about three parcels of land. He has addressed these parcels many times before the Planning Commission and this Board and has also sent letters. He said his remarks seem to be falling on deaf ears. The first parcel of land is that of Meredith Bickers in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Route 250 East and 1-64. The proposed zoning on this property is RA. In the northeast quadrant is the Sheraton Inn. The northwest quadrant is under consideration for a shopping mall (Gazebo). The southwest quadrant is topographically not suitable for any development. That leaves only the southeast quadrant; a 60 acre parcel of land. Mr. Bickers has owned this land for 30 years and has negotiated with a number of people for business uses but none of the negotiations have been fruitful to this point. To zone this land RA would deprive Mr. Bickers of the value he has anticipated in the land. Mr. Wood asked that the Board reconsider this property one more time before adopting the zoning map. The second parcel of land is that of William H. White, III, at Yancey's Mill. This property is in the northeast quadrant of Route 797 and Route 784. The property immediately adjacent to the intersection is zoned VR. Mr. White's~land lies between VR and a large R-1 area adjacent to Crozet. Mr. Wood said it does not make sense to leave this strip of land in agricultural use. The line that divides the R-! from the RA zone literally runs across the center of a field. There is no distinction between the two properties and he asked that the Board look at this zoning again and decide that the proper place for the R-1 boundary is the road. Mr. Wood said the third property is that of the Southwest Mountain Farm, formerly known as Stone Farm, just south of Ash Lawn on the other side of Carter Mountain. The property contains approximately 3000 acres. The restriction of division of this land into not more than five lots is not realistic. A restriction that says you can divide 3000 acres into five parcels should be equitable with the restriction that you can divide a 10- acre piece into five parcels. Mr. Wood said he believes that the court would consider such an ordinance unreasonable, unwise and irresponsible. The ordinance states that this restriction is designed' to conserve farmland in the County. The only thing that will conserve farming is economic feasibility. He urged that the Board seriously consider amending the ordinance to somehow control restriction through the number of acres. November 19, 1980 (Regular Meeting) 4; 6 Mrs. Margaret Melcher was present to speak on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She read a prepared statement, which was not presented for the record, basically urging adoption of the .ordinance presented tonight. The ordinance provides more protection for water resources and farm lands, and more protection against inadequate septic drainfields and undue economic burdens which might be placed on the taxpayers. It is more readable and would better implement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Although, the League still has reservations about some parts of the ordinance, it urges adoption of same without delay. Next to speak was Mrs. Lilly Patterson who has lived in Crozet for 20 years. She served on the Watershed Management Committee and has become concerned about the water supply. This ordinance will reduce the density at which construction can take place within part of the watershed so it will help to maintain this source of supply for the community. She urged adoption of the ordinance before the water supply is depleted by eutrophication. Mr. Bob Merrill said a lot of people speaking tonight are enthusiastic about restricting other people's property rights. He said that property rights are one of the most essential things in the free enterprise system and the republican form of government. These rights cannot be restricted to a point where they become nonusable. Mr. Merrill said he believes that a zoning ordinance is not necessary in a rural area. Mrs. Treva Cromwell supported the ordinance. She said that recent growth in the County has not always been in the best interest of the community. Future growth, unless carefully planned, will incur more costs than benefits. She is concerned about adequate protection for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Failure to protect critical areas of the Reservoir can significantly reduce the usable life of the Reservoir. She believes that these critical areas will be better protected by this ordinance and urges adoption of same. Mr. Cecil Maupin said he lives in Free Union and owns more than 300 acres of land. Mr. Maupin said if he understands the ordinance, everytime he wants to sell or give away a parcel he will have to go to the Planning Commission and Board for approval. Mr. Maupin said he has a large farm, and has a good many lots that could be built on and not affect the farm at all. He asked if he would have to go to the Planning Board for the five lots. Mr. Fisher said no. Mr. Maupin said if it was true that whether you have 10 acres or 300 acres, the number of divisions are the same, that is not right. Mr. Maupin said if you can make a living on a farm, the land will be used for farming, but the Board can't expect people to farm if they can't make something. He said he thinks that taxes should be cut if the zoning is going to be downgraded. Mr. Fisher noted that 63% of the land in the County is now qualified under the land use preferential tax. That is an attempt to make agriculture more economically feasible and he hopes it is working because a lot of people are taking advantage of this tax. Mr. William C. Gentry said he feels that this zoning ordinance will be passed regardless of what anybody says or does tonight. He noted that an earlier speaker said that people are already priced out of the market for housing and this ordinance will only add increased regulation and increased bureauracy. Another speaker referred to "our" farmland, "our" natural resources, "our" water, and Mr. Gentry said he would like to remind the Board that "our" water supply, which is a sensitive, issue, belongs to the City. "Our" farmland belongs to many people who will see the value of their land decrease by the action of the Board. Mr. Gentry said he is not opposed to downzoning as long as the Board pays for it, but he does not think that will happen. Mr. Gentry said the Comprehensive Plan has been cited as a guideline for this ordinance, but when that Plan was being worked on, less than % of the County's population attended those work sessions. In other areas of the country here zoning has been used to restrict growth, it has never worked, and he does not believe it will work in Albemarle County. The consultants said no matter what zoning restrictions are placed, the Ivy area, etc. will continue to grow. He does not believe zoning can be used validly to restrict growth. The ordinance is unnecessarily restrictive. The results of this zoning ordinance will be felt in several places. The taxpayers will pay the ccst of needless law suits by some whose land will be devalued by the downzoning. Some of the Board members will pay at the polls. He quoted Will Rogers "The trouble with some people is that they are always trying to fix something that ain't broke." Mr. Gentry said if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Mr. Bernard Chamberlain said he did not want anything he is going to say to be taken in jeopardy of passing this ordinance. He said the Board has been fiddling and fooling with the Ordinance ~or~yea~s~.~and~no~that~th~e~is~adC~p~ehensi~Plan~© the zoning ordinance on the books and a~end it as needed at later dates. Mr. Chamberlain said he is interested in the water situation because five or ten years from now the locality will be facing a sever problem. He is also interested in preserving historic sites and hopes something will be put into the ordinance later on this subject. He said that as land values have gone up, people have become competitive trying to make their share out of the land. This is often done without proper consideration for their neighbors and the good of the county. Some regulation is needed to keep in check the unbridled ambition of people not working for the good of the ~otal county. He asked that the watershed be protected, the scenic value of the County and historic sites. Mr. Bedford Moore was present to support the ordinance. your courage to the sticking place, and do it." Do it now. He quoted Shakespeare "Screw- Mr. Chuck Rotgin, President, Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, was present to speak for this organization and himself. Although he supported what had been said tonight in opposition to the Rural Areas District of the Ordinance, his comments were on the technical aspects of the ordinance. He said the biggest obstacle to providing affordable housing is government regulations. Builders in this area have had little support from the Board, other than lip service. Mr. Rotgin said one item deals with the 25% slope restriction contained in the ordinance. If a house is 32 feet long and there is an eight foot slope, that is 25% and eight feet is the ideal height for a basement. Mr. Rotgin said he has spoken with engineers and other developers and has found no justification for such a November 19, 1980 (Regular Meeting) stringent requirement. The next problem is bonus density allowances which are arbitrary and unreasonable in several cases and thus unachievable. The 30% credit for low and moderate income housing is a good concept, but from a practical standpoint, will not work. In the R-15 classification, a bonus would give 4.5 additional units per acre, but in that case, one half of the standard density must be low and moderate units. The only way to build low cost housing today is through some government program. If done, it would have to be all low cost housing or an 80/20 plan where 20% of the apartments are rented through the Section 8 rent subsidy program, with the other 80% being market rent apartments. Another item is that this proposed zoning ordinance and map will make most of the existing apartment complexes in the County nonconforming uses. Two and one-half years ago, developers submitted this problem to the Board and a change in the terms "gross" versus "net" was adopted to make these apartment uses conforming under the ordinance. Making these nonconformin now is of importance because many of these apartment complexes have "call provisions" in their loans and low interest rate loans. Out-of-town institutional lenders will use almost any excuse they can find to get out of low interest rate loans. Even though there is a section in the ordinance which speaks to nonconforming uses, there is a good chance that these lenders will not accept that section. The Board has used the zoning suggested in the Comprehensive Plan to place zoning classifications on existing parcels, but the Board has assumed that full bonus levels of 50% can be achieved. In high density areas where the Comprehensive Plan allows 11-34 units per acre, the highest density in the proposed ordinance is R-15 and the highest bonus achievable is 33 1/3% or 20 units per acre. Other items which need attention are: open space requirements, parking space locations, treatment of trees, boundary surveys and provisions regarding dedication or highway use. The last item of concern to builders has to do with approval of site plans and subdivision plats. Timing is extremely important to builders and he gave the following example. Several years ago when the plan for Solomon Court Apartments Was submitted, it took thirty days to obtain approval. He paid $!0.00 for a building~permit, there were no inspection fees, construction began on June 15 and people were living in the apartments by September 15, a $100 option was paid on the land, the Units cost less than $10,000 each and rented for $165. Westgate Phase IV has just been completed on part of the Mowinkel property which was optioned in October, 1977. The property was zoned and all utilities were there. It took seven public hearings before approval was finally obtained in August, 1978; $50,000 was spent on the plan before it was known whether the property could be used; construction began and it took six months before moving people in; $600.00 was paid in tap fees. There were bonds, building permit fees, zoning inspection fees and the cost was $22,000 per unit with the rent being double that on Solomon Court and the rent should have been higher but the .public could not pay a higher rent. Mr. Rotgin said the County government is lucky to have a quality staff. He feels the Board should consider getting some of the technical site plan procedures out of the public hearing process and let the staff take care of those. He did not think it is reasonable to assume that what has been done in the last ten years will be undone. Political realities say that in spite of what is said tonight, the ordinance will pass. Mr. Rotgin said while he thinks that the Board's decision on the rural lands is wrong and the decision to downzone land is wrong, he will leave that to others to argue. What he specifically requests is that the restriction imposed on 25% slopes be eliminated. He asked that the Board include another zoning designation such as R-20 and recognize the eXisting uses that will be made nonconforming, make the bonuses more realistic, and to'put zoning classifications on the map in the mid-range of what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, he asked that the Board recognize that timing is critical when dealing with an interest rate that fluctuates six points in three months. Where it takes 60 to 270 days to get a building permit in this locality, a building permit in the City of Lynchburg for properly zoned land can be obtained in two weeks. He asked that the Board carry out the terms of the Comprehensive Plan in the spirit of that plan, to encourage urban area development by moving forward with the committee recommendation for tap-fee credits for both on and off-site utility extensions in the urban area, and to review the technical problems mentioned. Mr. Rotgin said, to obtain these ends, the Home Builders Association has designated three members who are willing to attend work sessions to quickly resolve the problems, before the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Rotgin asked that the Board enact reasonable regulations everyone can live with. Mr. Mercer Garnett said he thinks the Board knows how he feels and he knows what the Board thinks. He supported what Mr. Morris Chisholm said, but while Mr. Chisholm said do not adopt the ordinance as it is, he says that if it is adopted at all, "we" will meet you at the polls next year. Mr. David Carr said it seems as though the Board and the public had this same session six months ago and not a lot has been learned since that time. The public was concerned about the Planning Commission's recommendation at that hearing and the Board's ordinance is even more restrictive. The only reason given for making this change is to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. He feels that the Comprehensive Plan is only a guide and not a law in the County. Mr. Carr said many people felt the Comprehensive Plan was a utopia when adopted, but the County cannot arrive at a utopia by the stroke of a planning ordinance which changes everything that exists. He said his comments are emotional because he feels that during the time he has lived in this County, when things needed to be discussed between elected officials and the citizens, there has been less listening by the elected officials on this issue than any other issue he has ever been involved in. He said this ordinance is unreasonable and is more restrictive than is needed to accomplish the things being mentioned by the groups speaking tonight. He said the one thing about the ordinance that concerns him most is that every decision from the day this ordinance is adopted henceforth, will become a political decision and it will no longer be a land use decision. Many people have tried to tell the Board that farm land cannot be saved by edict. He said he does not feel that the Board should ask those with farms to preserve same so that those people who have the small lots can look out (scenic vistas) across these farms at the farmers expense. He said this is unfair. He said as long as his health permits, he will retain his farm, but if his health should fail and he is not able to hold that farm, the Board is devaluing his property and that is not right. He said the Board is asking those persons who own land, in 1980, to contribute their land to all the people here. It is not fair, it is not right, and it is not necessary. Mr. Robert Franklin said he knows the County well and owns two small percels of land populated by very fertile squirrels. He said if he owned 10,000 acres his viewpoint might be different, but he feels tht the citizens owe a debt to the Board of Supervisors and its staff who have taken a lot of criticism, often abuse, and very little thanks for a very November 19, 1980 (Regular Meeting) difficult job. zoning is a necessary evil. It has been in effect in the County for over ttten years and the County cannot get along without it. There are some people preSent who lprefer to have no zoning, but with the current population that is impractical. Mr. Franklin lsaid he speaks not only for himself, but for the unborn and those who have not moved here lyet. If a better ordinance is not enacted, those people will curse us for the mistakes land the lack of courage the elected officials have. He said he hopes that the ordinance will be passed and if it needs amending, it can be done at a later time. Mrs. Peggy VanYahres said she does not live in the County now, but both of her families own land in the County. She commended the following additions to the ordinance: performance standards for industrial districts and bonus factors. Mr. Clifton McCture said he does not think that anything he would have said two years ago, six months ago, or tonight, will make much difference. He appreciates the hard work of the Board but he is disappointed with the conclusions. At the last public hearing, there was about an equal balance between the different points of view. However, there have been no compromises; the proposal has become more ~t~-i~tiH~. He believes the Board was asked to strike a balance between private property rights and the public interest and he does not believe that the ordinance as proposed recognizes private rights. He said he has two concerns. 1') The limitation of five lots by right with the remainder being by special use permit is far too restrictive. 2) The downzoning is financially devastating to the landowner. He said the Board has overlooked the personal sacrifices that the citizens and their families have made to carry these lands, to pay the taxes and upkeep, and mortgage payments, expecting to obtain some financial security. He said he was not referring to land speculators, but to the person who has paid fair market value for R-3, or B-I, or industrial land. That person has invested his money in the knowledge that he can use the land according to the existing ordinance, and now this new ordinance says he can't ~do that. Mr. McClure says he knows that there is a faction in the community that feels that land should not be a commodity, but this is not the law of the state. If this ttis to be the law in Albemarle County, make it effective for the future and not rob the Ipresent citizens of their economic security.' Mr, McClure said he would not argue the IteChnical aspects of the ordinance, but would ask that the Board reConsider the striCt Isrovisions of the ordinance. He said he wants a reasonable ordinance and has always supported a reasonable ordinance. He is not anti-zoning. He asked that the Board have another work session so the Board Can listen to the harsh financial consequences of the downzoning. If downzoning is borderline, give the benefit to the citizen and not the map. He asked that the Board consider the human aspect in any downzoning. He did not feel there is any great rush to get this ordinance adopted. Mr. McClure said he does not know of anyone in the County who wants to go to court because next year there will be plenty of problems fighting annexation, but many landowners will have no choice because of the financial consequences if the Board does not listen to them. All'of this can be avoided if the Board will be reasonable and fair. Mrs. Jane Heyward said she feels the Board has gone out its way to be reasonable and fair and she agrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Franklin. She hopes the Board will get on with it and get it passed soon. Mrs. Helen Owen said she attended the last public hearing on this ordinance and is delighted that the Board is so stalwart and here still listening to all these foolish complaints. The zoning ordinance is long over-due. Anyone who has looked at the United States knows this. Developers, landowners, etc. in Albemarle County will support the zoning ordinance if they love the County. The ordinance should be passed immediately. Mrs. Elizabeth Peters said she represents a group of citizens (unnamed) who have asked her to make a statement that they approve of the proposed zoning. She said if there is not controlled growth in the County, there will be no need to worry about the rural areas because there won't be any to worry about. Mr. Richard Cogan said he would like to speak about the downzoning of a parcel of land in the near perimeter of the City; Tax Map 78, Parcel 47A. He said when the Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan, he found that this parcel which was zoned B-1 when he purchased it in 1974, was not recommended for business zoning in the Plan. He sent a letter to the~Planning Department asking that this be reconsidered. He received a reply on November 30, 1977, in which his letter was acknowledged as being received, and in which it was stated: "The Comprehensive Plan is a policy guide adopted by the Board of Supervisors for future land use development. No change in your zoning has been made. It is still zoned B-i, Business. In the next six to twelve months, the County will be reviewing the zoning ordinance to determine its compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan." There has been other correspondence since that time. Mr. Cogan said he followed the drafting of the zoning ordinance closely and about six months ago, he was informed by one of the Board members, that the property would remain commercial. Mr. Cogan said the property is surrounded on four sides as follows: the Sheraton Inn, Moore's Well Drilling, Route 250 East on the front with a traffic count in excess of 13,000 vehicles, per day, and the rear of~the property is almost abutted by 1-64. There are about nine acres in the parcel and it has been downzoned. He said he only found out about this change this morning. The RA zone put on this property is unrealistic since there is no way the property can be used for any agricultural purpose. Mr. Cogan said he considers this to be condemnation without compensation. Mr. Roy Clark of North Garden said he was born and raised in the area. He seconded those comments made by Mr. Chisholm and Mr. Carr. He also said if the elected body had used as much money to protect the Rivanna Reservoir by buying the property as. they have spent in discussing the situation, the citizens would not have to worry as much about this new zoning ordinance. Mr. William Woodworth of White Hall said he is a rural landowner and his land is used for agricultural production. He said, except for discussion of a few individual parcels of land and some technical points from the Home Builders Association, this has developed into a classical confrontation between those who want to make money out of the land and those who feel that land is a permanent natural resource and for the good of the public and the generations to follow, the good land suitable for growing crops needs to be protected. 4 November 19, 1980 (Regular Meeting) He commended the Board on what has been proposed in the ordinance and endorsed remarks of citizens for Albemarle and the League of Women Voters. He reminded the people who do not think that way, that they had better face up to the fact that the U. S. is losing two to three million acres of land each year to some type of development. If this rate continues, what will the people who come to this County in 2050 do for food. Although a person has a right to just compensation if that person is denied the right to use his land, Mr. Woodworth said he does not know what the Board could do in the way of compensating. Mr. John Rogan said he has spoken to the Board many times and the Board has probably heard everything he has to say except for one final remark tonight. If the ordinance goes through as planned, there might be long and costly court suits involved. He has recently talked with the members of a planning commission for a community in California. This community has a very restrictive zoning ordinance, but, the planning commission gets what it wishes by using the subdivision ordinance rather than the zoning ordinance where a person must appear before the Board of Supervisors and through a political process ask what he can do. Mr. H. H. Tiffany said he has lived in the Greenwood area for some 22 years. He has tried to determine since moving to the area what made the County such an attractive place to live. Twenty-two years ago, this was the only county in Virginia which had a protective statute prohibiting the enactment of a zoning ordinance without a referendum of the people. Twenty-two years ago this County had an agrarian economy because it was still economically feasible to farm. Mr. Tiffany said he has recently heard that this is a confrontation between those who believe in the use of private property and those who want to preserve that property. He has heard members of this Board say the purpose behind this ordinance is not to prevent growth although the majority of the Board is known all over this County as anti-growth. He wondered if this ordinance is being used as a subterfuge to prevent growth and said he doubts the Board's word tonight. He said if the Board is really concerned about the Rivanna Reservoir, will the Board admit to the press here tonight that raw feces have come into Lickinghole Creek through the Crozet sewer line and gone untreated into the Rivanna Reservoir for the last 20 years, and the Board has not seen fit to put up even a portable plant during that 20 years. With that type of inaction, how can the citizens believe that the ultimate goal of the Board is to protect the reservoir, and not to stop growth. Mr. Tiffany said he has looked at the Rural Areas District in the ordinance and he does not know of any land in the County that could comply with the standards for divisions over five acres. He felt that all land in the county is probably suitable for agricultural or forestry uses, except the quarries, and therefore would not be incapable of development for more than five lots. Mr. Tiffany said this ordinance is not a facing off between those who want to use the land for private enterprise and those who want to develop that land. It is a facing off of those who believe that government is responsive with those who believe the government tells the people what to do. Mr. Tiffany said for his own supervisor, he is surprised that he supports this ordinance. Mrs. Joan Graves said the Berkeley Community Association supports the new zoning ordinance and map as steps toward meaningful land use control in the County. Also, if in the future the Board decides to include a workable conservation zone, the Association will support that action. Mr. Mike Ludgate, representing the Chamber of Commerce, said for two years the Chamber has expressed concern about several concepts and operating principles being considered for the ordinance. The Chamber shares the Board's concerns about land use planning, however, it feels the proposal presented tonight would be costly in implementation, and also encourage the use of land in an inequitable manner and at a faster rate than under current zoning. In February, 1979 the Chamber expressed concerns about major and minor areas being considered for the ordinance. To date, most minor concerns have been resolved, but there are still problems on major issues. In May, 1979 the Chamber Board adopted and sent to this Board a request that this Board give the best possible notice to affected property owners concerning any rezoning proposal. Notification is still necessary. The Chamber is against downzoning as a way to control growth. It is inequitable to the owners that may have planned for use of their property according to its present zoning. Large lot residential development will use up land in an inequitable manner and at a faster rate. The Chamber is on record as being opposed to downzoning individual parcels of land, particularly in the urban area. Also, the severe restrictions placed on rural area development which comprises about 80% of the County. The Chamber believes that individual notice to the citizens of these drastic changes is the only proper way to proceed. Currently, when a landowner applies for a rezoning, the law requires that his neighbors be notified of the proposed amendment by mail. In conclusion, Mr. Ludgate said that he has heard Board members say that the Chamber wants to study, study, study and defer, defer, defer. The Chamber wants action, but it wants that action to be the will of the people and not the will of the "so-called experts". Mr. Jim Hahn of Earlysville said there are certain conditions when the citizens need an active government; danger to public health, a need for a public service, a need to protect public resources during an emergency. Agriculture may be a future emergency and this should be considered, but there is just a certain amount of agricultural land in the County. There is a lot of forest land and a lot of mountain land. Water resources should be protected. Historic sites have been mentioned as needing protection, and the County has to be protected against pollution. Private ownership and individualism also needed to be protected as much as possible. There are zoning restrictions in place now. There are times when these restrictions need to be revised, updated and amended, but to come in suddenly with a big change may not be in the best interest of the citizens. Once the ordinance is enacted, what must be done to change it again? Government controls over the land in the past have been a thing that has made Albemarle County great, or were they? The best way to determine how land should be subdivided is through economics. Price is a great discriminator. It should not be determined by an arbitrary decision of a few people. If the goal of the zoning ordinance is to protect agricultural land, then protect it by identifying it. If it is to prevent urban sprawl,.do it in an unbiased and fair manner by considering all factors. Do not just impose a 25% slope limitation or penalize people who have a large parcel of land by limiting the size and number of subdivisions that can be made. This ordinance works to the advantage of the developer or the people who are well- entrenched. The ordinance does not help the entrepreneur who is trying to make a living. November 19, 1980 (Regular Meeting) The Board may say it can grant waivers after hearing all the facts, but this is like going to court where you are guilty until proven innocent. If the County is going to protect free ownership, free enterprise, and the society is to endure, free enterprise must not be stymied by political considerations or by certain groups of have-nots who may not be willing to put forth the effort to acquire. As Mr. Chisholm said earlier, this is a form of creeping socialism. To invade a man's property is much like invading a man's home. He asked that each member of the Board accept his responsible position to protect not only the general public in the way of their rights and privileges, but also to protect the Constitution, the principles that made the country and the county great in the first place. Mr. George McCallum said he was not present to speak to general concepts although he does not agree with the treatment of the rural areas, however, he would like to mention one technical aspect of the ordinance, particularly the definition of "family". There are numerous larger, older homes in the County where more than two unrelated people live together to share the exPenses. Under this definition, only two unrelated people could share a house with six bedrooms, while a family of 14 could occupy that same house. In the existing ordinance, the definition speaks to six, unrelated persons. Mr. McCallum said he also had comments about five different properties which are being rezoned. The first is that of Mary Patricia Brown, Tax Map 61, Parcel 119, on Route 29 North adjacent to Berkeley.near Commonwealth Drive, about seven acres, triangular in shape. Monticello Motors used to be located on the property. A subdivision plan was presented in March, 1980 that was praised by this Board for its internal road design. The land is presently zoned B-1 and the proposed zoning is C-1. The owner objects to C-i because of the lose of two uses by right; fast-food restaurant and hotels and motels. He asked that these uses be included by right in the C-1 District; or at least as useS by special use permit. He said these uses are critical because when the subdivision plan was approved, there was a 100,000 square feet parcel set aside for hotel/motel use. Without these uses being in the ordinance, the applicant does not even have the right to apply for a special use permit. Mr. McCallum said the next parcels are Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E, owned by Lloyd F. and Patsy Wood and the adjacent parcel, Tax Map 61, Parcel 124, owned by Charlottesville Oil Company. These two properties contain approximately 17 acres of B-1 land and approximately 35 acres of R-3 land. Contained within this land presently are the Putt-Putt Golf Course and the Bonanza Restaurant. The land is located on Rio Road. The property has depth, utilities, and fronts on a good road. The Planning Commission recommended that the B-1 land be changed to HC and the R-3 land be changed to R-10. In June, the Board was requested to zone the R-3 land to R-15. Mr. Wood was shocked and dismayed to learn last week that the 17 acres of HC had been reduced to an R-10 designation with the exception of the one acre where the Bonanza Restaurant is located. This represents a great devaluation of property values. HC is comparable to the zoning that has been on this land since zoning was constituted in the county. What is the rationale of the Board? The property owners would like to develop the property in an attractive, cohesive manner. It is a large, 54 ~Cre tract The property has utilitieS and the road and there seems to be no better place for an intense use. Mr. McCallum also spoke about property of BMC Corporation, Tax Map 76, Parcel 52(L). The property (6.11 acres) currently contains the Oak Hill Grocery and Oak Hill Trailer Park containing 28 mobile homes. The property is currently zoned R-3. The commercial use is a nonconforming use under the existing ordinance. The proposed zoning is C-1 for the land under the store, but the remainder of the property has been reduced to R-2 allowing two dwellings an acre instead of 20 dwellings an acre. This property has been reduced in intensity of development, along with other parcels in that same area. Formerly the dividing line between the R-2 and the higher densities was further down Old Lynchburg Road. The dividing line has been pulled closer to Oak Hill. This represents a great devaluation of the property which was bought in 1972 as an investment by the owners. The real value of the property is in the R-3 zoning which is being lost under this proposal. The next property is that of Richard Cogan, Tax Map 78, Parcel 47(a), which Mr. Cogan spoke about earlier. The property fronts on Route 250 East and contains 8.92 acres. A current use on the property at this time is the Sleepy Hollow Trailer Court. It is immediately adjacent to Moore's Well Drilling. The property is really in a hollow and for commercial purposes, taking topography into account, would be limited to one use rather than to several uses off of an interior road. Mr. Cogan bought the land for an investment and is in the process of making plans for another commercial use other than the mobile home court. He was told that in order to do this he would need a commercial entrance with a deceleration lane. He has paid $2,800 to the Highway Department to widen a near-by bridge to put the decel lane in. Mr. McCallum said the property has always been zoned B-I and he asked why that zoning should be reduced. He asked that the Board look at each of these cases since substantial value is being taken from these people and that should not be done unless there is some clear, convincing and compelling reason to do that. Mr. Bill Edwards, representing the Greater Charlottesville Area Development Corporation, said the Corporation has voiced its concerns about the proposed zoning ordinance and its future ramifications. The Corporation agrees that the Board should be concerned with land use planning and the protection of the environment, but it believes that this zoning ordinance will prove costly and inequitable to present landownerst He said the RTM zone has been dropped from the proposed ordinance and the Ewald tract at the Ivy exit of 1-64 will be zoned down to a PUD classification. The Corporation laments any loss of property previously thought to be suitable for industrial development. In this case, a research type activity could be of benefit to the county. The Corporation is against downzoning as a means to control growth. This is unfair to present landowners and to future users of the limited amount of commercial and industrial property remaining. Mr. Edwards said he would also like to speak for himself as a resident of White Hall District and as an owner of property on Route 29 North in the Charlottesville District. He said if he were trying to relocate his business somewhere out of Charlottesville District, he would find few parcels on the zoning map suitable for the business. Also, he would have to pay more money for the property under the new ordinance regulations. A lot of people have mentioned how much money they would lose, but no one has mentioned how much they would gain from properties sold for business such as his. Mr. Edwards said he feels it is time to adopt a new ordinance, but the Board has not addressed the kinds of problems faced by business. It seems the Board has either chosen to ignore the concerns of a good segment of the people the Board has been elected to represent, or the Board has taken it upon itself to force the new ordinance regardless. '431' November 19, 1980 (Regular Meeting) Mrs. Barbara Yatden-Thompson from Earlysville said that many in Albemarle County have been waiting for this new ordinance for years. She urged the Board to adopt this Ordinance and said there is no claim that the ordinance is without fault. The ordinance can and will be improved by amendment. In so doing, the citizens will have the means to plan for the future instead of just letting it happen. Mrs. Ellen Craddock urged passage of the ordinance as presented, with possible amendments being made in the future. She said she is resentful of the people here tonight who have attacked the character and judgment of the Board. She said she fully supports the Board in finally completing the ordinance needed to follow the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Douglas Caton said he is involved in the real estate business; largely in apartments. He is concerned that in rural areas only two unrelated people can live in a house. He feels this should be changed. Also, a good number of apartments and other commercial dwellings will be made nonconforming uses under the proposed ordinance. He was concerned about how this change would affect lenders. He feels that these nonconforming uses are outside of the classic definition of this word. Mr. Caton said he owns a farm in Keswick and is interested in buying some additional acreage which contains five dwelling units and he would like to build a residence on the property. His lawyer has advised him that he probably would need a special use permit to build a home because of the new ordinance. He feels that the whole thrust of the ordinance reflects the flavor of a particular group of people, generally those who have been the receipients and beneficiaries of the developers and entrepreneurs in the community. Mr. Caton said he spent his youth in Southeast Asia and if he never sees another tree it will be too soon. He likes sunshine, wide vistas, and open spaces. The way this ordinance is structured, on streambanks within 15 feet of a stream, he would not be allowed to cut trees and he is totally against this restriction. He expressed his concern about downzoning and he felt people speaking tonight have worked hard to provide financial security for themselves and they have relied on the stability of expectation under the existing ordinance and that is being jerked out from under then and the rules are being changed. He said this is unfair, unfortunate, and totally unrealistic and it is an unnecessary burden on the productive people of this country who should not have to bear this burden. Mr. Wendell Wood said he feels there are quite a few things wrong with this ordinance. He asked that the Board take economics into consideration. If the Board members think this ordinance will hold the price of development in this county, that is reason for the Board to vote in favor of the ordinance. Personally, he does not think that. He feels it will drastically increase the cost of development in the county. Regulations increase costs and this ordinance will be expensive to enforce. Mr. Wood said a considerable amount of his land is being downzoned. He asked why he as an inHividuai should be singled out and forced to pay above everybody else in the county. He said the people who are so anxious to take his land are the same people who when a road is to be widened for the betterment of the people, stand up and say, don't widen the road, don't take my property, although tonight they say take Wendell Wood's property and protect the reservoir with his land. Mr. Wood said he still does not believe it has been proved that the reservoir is being polluted by other than nature, but if the land is needed let the public pay. He said when land bought with a certain zoning designation, he feels the Board has a moral obligation to honor that zoning on the new map. He felt the Board should deal with the ordinance in a more compassionate manner. Ms. Suzanne Grove, owner of Grove Corporation, said she was speaking as an individual. She said she spoke about the market place at the last public hearing and also about the "big brother" aspect of trying to channel growth into places where people may not want to live. She said the people who have Spoken tonight, and the 19 people who spoke against the ordinance at the last hearing, are trying to tell the Board something. Evidently the Board has not heard these people since the ordinance has become more restrictive. Mrs. Grove said she feels the ordinance in its present form is reprehensible and will cause irreparable harm to the landowners in the county and everyone who lives here. She said she personally feels the ordinance is a piece of trash. The Board has a moral obligation to listen and respond to the wishes of the people in its constituency. The only thing that gives value to land is its use and when the use is restricted, its value is reduced. She said it is not too late for the Board to change its mind. She said it will take more courage for the Board to change its mind than to relentlessly pursue a course that is wrong. Ms. Grove urged the Board to change its mind and hold the confidence of the people. Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr., a farmer in southern Albemarle County, said he believes the deletion of the conservation zone is a mistake. Although this zone has been underused, it could be a valuable tool in the conservation and preservation of open space and agricultural and forestry land. The conservation zone provides a certain amount of tax relief for those willing to accept some restrictions. It is important to retain the taxation option in order to preserve the livelihood and life styles of farmers, foresters and conservationists from prohibitive taxation without relying on political whim. Mr. David Carr, Jr. said he supports clustering of development and preservation of open space. The Comprehensive Plan supports clustering around rural centers and he also supports that concept, but this ordinance seems to abort this purpose. By restricting developing to five lots on each parcel, it will cause leapfrogging all over the CoUnty. This will drive up the cost of land and eat up land faster. He asked how the County would provide services on these five lots stretching all over the County. He also feels it is inequitable to allow just five lots for any parcel, no matter the size of the parcel. He proposed a system being used in other areas of the country, called sliding-scale zoning, which is based on something like a 100-acre gradation and allows five lots for each 100 acres contained in the parcel. There would then be some equity in the ordinance. He suggested that the ordinance be reconsidered, although it would take a lot of time to implement these new ideas, but he feels the citizens of the County would more support'these ideas, than those put before them tonight. November 19, 1980 (Regular Meeting) Mr. Frank Kessler agreed with the goals read and the things the Board is trying to achieve in the county, but he disagreed with the method being used to get there. He said moving development out of the county is easy to do, but there is a Problem in moving it into the urban area which is not ready with water, sewer and roads. Utilities are a major problem. He did not think you can move into a new ball park until the park is ready. He felt that all persons present agree with the Board's goal. He suggested that the Board study the community of Lexington, Kentucky, which was in the same situation ten years ago (annexation, zoning). He said the communities are very similar, but Lexington is today about twice the size of Albemarle. Lexington has a ten acre restriction on subdivision in the rural areas but they have provided water, sewer and roads for development in the urban area for all types of zoning. This is working in this community. Mr. Kessler said he would like to see Albemarle County reach its goals, but he believes that if you stop development in the County and the City is not ready, at that point, it is no-growth. If the transition could be made, he feels the Board would have 100% support. Mr. Mike Boggs said he endorses most of the concerns over the restrictive controls on the rural lands. The main concern of the supporters of this ordinance seems to be protection of the public water supply. He agrees with the need for measures to protect the reservoir, however, the many reports from consultants state that the main source of pollution is sewage from the area of Crozet and farming, not rural development. He said this proposed ordinance will move more people into the urban area where they will need more water instead of in the rural areas of the county on their own private system. Instead of trying to provide false restrictions on rural development, he asked that the Board take a positive step and build a sewer line to Crozet and not increase even more needs for public water. Mr. Bill Edwards came forth again to comment on the restriction against development on 25% grades. He built a house and purposely (on a 40% grade) sited the house so it had an eight-foot ceiling in the basement. He said this works well and is attractive. He said it does not make sense to arbitrarily say that a 25% grade is unbuildable. Mr. Don Gaston, an urban planner, said he had worked on this zoning ordinance for Albemarle County while working a year or so ago as a member of the County Planning Staff. Upon his first reading of the ordinance, he felt it was too complicated and much of it was unnecessary. Since that time, the ordinance has been changed and altered, but he still feels the same. The Board has other tools with which to work to guide and to allow growth to occur in the proper places. Many of those alternative have not been fully looked at and given due consideration. Mr. Gaston said he feels the Board has been caught in the position of having something before it and having to act on the ordinance. Mr. Gaston said that roads guide growth. With some adequate planning for roadways, and working with the developers in that area, he feels the Board can alleviate a lot of the problems it is trying to solve. He does not feel that any of the developers in the County are in favor of raping the land, but are very responsible people. In conclusion, he felt the type of zoning proposed is too much and unnecessary. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:15 P.M. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn this meeting until November 20, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. ~~~ ~~~ ~6~hair-man ~