Loading...
1980-01-14January 14, 1980 (Adjourned from January 9, 1980) Afternoon Meeting An adjourned mee$ing of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgind held on January 14, 1980, at 3~:00 P.M., in the County Office Building, Charlottes~ Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from January 9, 1980. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony C. Timothy Lindstrom, MisS Ellen V. Nash, and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Chairman Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 3:06 P Agenda Item No. 2. Appeal: Riveridge Final Plat. Mr. Roudabush said he wis abstain from discussion and vote on this plat appeal, as his firm prepared the sur plat on this property. Mr. Fisher said this appeal was brought to the Board of Supervisors at the re a Mrs. Barbara Payne, Route 2, Box 281A, Crozet, Virginia in the form of the follo' letter: "December 20, 1979 I would like to appeal the Planning Commission's December ITth decision regar~ proposed development, "Riveridge", on the grounds that 1) This development i; sistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and 2) Garth Road, in its present condi' cannot support~f~rt~er development. The impact of aPproved developments such "Waverely" and "Barracksdale" has not yet been felt, as only one of 80 propos, houses has been built. I feel that it would be unwise to approve any more de ments, whether they be 13 or 100 houses, at this time. My personal objections are: 1) The Moorman's River is unique in Albemarle Cz It is a beautiful cTear, rocky stream largely wild and certainly at least rur~ character. The public appreciates this fact, as hundreds of canoeists flock daily in the spring. Fishermen use it throughout the year. It is close enou~ Charlottesville to be an important source of outdoor recreation for many many this will be increasingly important as time goes on. Private development in form of subdivisions will benefit only the few who can afford to buy a lot, w~ in its persent wild state the river benefits everyone in the area. In my opi~ the scenic status proposed for this river, though a wonderful idea and well m( will do more harm than good, because it will draw attention to the beauty of river without really protecting it (65 feet is not very much, as you well kno~ time to protect it is now. There is no question in my mind that if this deve: is approved it will set the stage for further development. The precedent wil: set, the river will be lost. I believe that a property owner has the right to develop his/her property ins¢ it benefits surrounding property owners. This property was bought for the sol purpose of dividing and reselling at a large profit without regard to the feel surrounding property owners. This is not a personal comment on the developer~ comment on the laws that allow it, a situation that the majority of you disli~ much as I do, I know, i support a new zoning, ordinance. The site itse~1T is, I believe, unsuitable for development, lying, as it does, north facing slope with many evergreen trees. January 14, 1980 ~d~murned from January 9, 1980) Afternoon Meeting ~he pIat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: Written Health Department approval; No buildings are to be located on 25% or greater slopes on lots bordering the Moorman's River; Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1.~ County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; 2. County Engineer approval of road plans; ~. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinance; s. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance." ucker said at its meeting of December 17, 1979, the Planning Commission recommended ith the conditions as set out in the Planning staff report. Mr. ~Tucker noted five letters of opposition and a petition with 84 signatures which states "We e Moorman's River to be of great value to the citizens of Albemarle County for beauty rand its recreational uses. Hundreds of canoeists float this river every e feel that residential development along its shores would degrade this irre- resource." isher asked Mrs. Barbara Payne if she wished to speak to the Board about her r appeal. Mrs. Payne said she would like to let her letter stand. Next to Mrs. Natalie Jahrsdoerfer, who said she lived across the river from this pro~ e said she echoed Mrs. Payne's statements, adding that it was her feeling that rty would be difficult to develop and~maintain.~ Mr. James Childress said he ee the Comprehensive Plan misused. He said people who will live in this sub- ill probably commute to Charlottesville, not work in the White Hall community. to speak was Mr. James Hahn, applicant for RiYeridge, who said the rustic nature ~rman's River will not be disturbed in any way. He said the conditions placed on ~lan by the Planning Commission would protect the river and its shore area. Mr. there would be an architectural control committee to grant permission for removal .nd protection of the river. He concluded by saying that as the developer, Le use of covenants and deed restrictions, he will regulate design, the appear- ~se of the lots and improvements thereon in such a manner as to preserve and ~s value, to maintain a harmoneous relationship among structures, natural vege- [ topography and conserve existing natural amenities. Mrs. Virginia Hahn said .opment is close to schools as well as major indust~!a~ of Albemarle County. She ~d that as an absentee owner, the property presently has become a dumping ground is no way for it to ba properly policed and maintained; but if owned by several ~omeowners, it would be better maintained than is now the case. Mr. Green, ~or Mr. and Mrs. Hahn, presented a topographical map to the Board to show the ~acteristics of the property in question. ~isher no,cd'receipt of two additional letters of~opposition by Mr. J. T. Henley, · representing the Crozet Magisterial District. One letter is from Mrs. Nelle the other is from Elbert L and Irene M. Dale. ~isher stated for the members of the public present, that it is the duty of the ~pprove subdivisions according to state law. If the subdivision plat presented ~eet area ordinances, then it is the duty of the local Board of Supervisors to can be done to improve the subdivision so it can be approved. Mr. Lindstrom as a member of the Scenic River Committee he would like to see the Moorman's [gnated as a Scenic River by the State of Virginia to protect the Moorman's from ~t, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said that as far as he is aware, there is nothing on this does not meet the County's current ordinance requirements, and he could see no ~ oppose it's approval. January 14, 1980 (Adjourned from January 9, 1980)Afternoon Meeting) Dr. Iachetta asked if condition lC, recommended by the Planning Commission wl sary in approval of this plat. Mr. St. John said he did not feel it was necessar~ Mr. Cropp comply with the County's private road provisions. Since Mr. Cropp woul~ only person using the easement. Discussion ensued as to whether the easament ser~ one lot (Mr. Cropp's) or two lots (Mr. Cropp's and Miss Craig's). The outcome of was that Miss Craig's property is not served by this easement, the easement only her property. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the plat with conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with the deletion of condition reads as follows: 1.Co Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following record AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. P.M. At 4:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a five minute recess. Meeting reconvened s Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not on the Agenda~ A) Mr. Fisher said Mr. Paul David has agreed to serve as a representative o Library Board, to replace Mrs. Katherine Hallock. Motion to appoint Mr. David to Library Board, with said term to expire on June 30, 1982, was offered by Miss Nash seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Miss Nash, and Mr. Roudabush. None. B) Miss Nash offered the name of Mr. Thomas Bruce to the IndUstrial Develop~ Authority. Ths motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. St. John asked if this ' same Mr. Bruce who served on the Albemarle County Service Authority. Miss Nash sa was, Mr. St. John suggested there might be a conflict of interest if Mr. Bruce sel both commissions, and sUggested this item be deferred until the matter is investig~ Mr. Fisher agreed, and recommended deferral of the vote until Mr. St. John reports the Board on the possible conflict of interest. C) Mr. Fisher said he had received several telephone calls from handicapped that non-handicapped citizens use restricted parking, rendering it almost impossibl handicapped people to visit stores and shopping areas. Mr. Fisher said he informe~ callers that it was the responsibility of the Sheriff to enforce the ordinance reg~ handicapped parking, but he was not sure how the law worked with regard to private Mr. Agnor said he would be glad to talk with the Sheriff and find out how this can better enforced. D) Mr. Lindstrom requested the Board to instruct the Planning Staff to rese~ areas of the County and determine exactly what utilities are available in each are~ information would then be added to the Comprehensive Plan Map which is nearing com~ Mr. Lindstrom ~ ~h~ ~,~ *~ ~ ~ ~ .... "~ ..... ~ .... ~--~ January 14, 1980 (Adjourned from January 9, 1980) Afternoon Meeting BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this letter be recommended to the Honorable J. Harry ~el, Jr., the Honorable James B. Murray, the Virginia Association of Counties, he Virginia Municipal League as an important description of problems that local 'nments are experiencing in land use management responsibilities. Letter referred to in the above resolution is set out in full below.) Lary 3, 1980 ~able Thomas J. Michie, Jr., Esquire Proposed Land Use Legislation ~quested by our Board of Supervisors, I have drafted two amendments to our ~ing land use legislation. These go beyond merely countermanding the recent case Tlton Enterprises v. Prince William County because as I see it the problem faced ~unties in land use decisions goes beyond this one case. If I may explain: ~ackbone of all local planning is the Comprehensive Plan. Under Code Section -456, it locates all public facilities including roads, to be constructed in the ~y as of the date of the Plan - our Plan is addressed to the year 1995. It is to )dated at least every five years, if the plan is reasonable, it will be upheld ~ially and Z know of no comprehensive plan that has been struck-down or otherwise ~ted by any court in Virginia. Thus, clearly, it is intended that local govern- ~ are to be masters of their own fate in directing the growth and development of ~ county, rather than fate itself - in the form of individual development - being naster. nplement this plan four tools are provided by Code Section 15.1-447: official capital improvements program, subdivision ordinance, and zoning ordinance. aese, the capital improvements program, more than any other, addresses the time- e of development under the Comprehensive Plan. That is to say, development ~ercial and high-density residential especially) creates need for public facil- s. Now, all the public facilities envisioned by the Plan for 1995, cannot be ed at once - so there has to be a time-table for these facilities. The Plan if locates them but the capital improvement program stages their funding by the ty and their construction. close our five-Year Capital Improvement Program as a sample. This document is product of laborious staff work and public hearing. Note that it does not include ndary road improvements. That is because these are funded by the state but Code ion 33.1-70.01 provides for the local government and highway department, jointly,: r public hearings, to establish a "six-year secondary road plan" which for practical oses should actually be considered as a part of the County's capital improvement ram for land-use decision-making purposes. brings us to the problem: If high-density development can spring up helter ter - albeit within the area designated for it, ultimately, by the comprehensive , but out of the order envisioned by the time-increments in that plan and in the tal Outlay Program and Six-Year Road Plan - and thus require either an unbudgeted ay or an abrupt shifting of the priorities established in those plans - then the .1 government is no longer controlling development - it is being controlled by it the planning process is exposed to unplanned for, wrenching disruptions. .ther words, if a developer can go to court and get a decree which recites that project will, create a drastic need for schools, utilities, or roads, which are January 14, 1980 (Adjourned from January 9, 1980) Afternoon Meeting this area to be developed exactly as developer proposes. The only trouble is this land is served by Old Ivy Road which is bottlenecked by a one-lane railr underpass which floods in heavy rains and which immediately past the underpas with Route 250 West. This road is tolerable for the present number of users; the Resident Engineer of the State Highway Department, on whose advice and re dations the Board of Supervisors bases its decisions, states that it will be incapable of handling the traffic, and will present a distinct safety hazard meets Route 250, if these additional users are thrown onto it. The Board of visors, therefore, feels it would be a gross abdication of its duty to the pu' approve this site plan for these rental developments without some solution to access problem; the developer says he has a right to develop his property in dance with the existing zoning. The six-year secondary highway improvement plan does not call for any improvel this underpass within the next six years; this is because public hearings haw held at which the governing body and the highway department concluded that ot] areas of the County constitute a more pressing need for secondary road improw Under these circumstances, lets take a look at the options the Board of Super~ has and the statutes and decisions bearing on these options: 1. Can they deny the subdivision/site plan on the grounds that it will detriment to the public safety? Will this hold up in Court? I have to advise no. The cases of Fairfax v. Horne, 216 Va. 113 and Prince William v. Hylto~, 582 (Hylt.on~!) both say that subdivision and site plan approval are not only ~ datory, but are ministerial acts, if the proposed subdivision/site plan compl~ the existing ordinances. And it is difficult for one to argue with these jud~ decisions in light of present Code Section 15.!-491(h) and 15.1-475. 2. Can they downzone the property to A-i? Not only would this be diff~ sustain if challenged in Court; it is my judgment that if this land were prese zoned A-1 and the developer were seeking rezoning to R-3, it is likely that a of the rezoning would be overturned by the Court under Williams and Allman, s~ The Comprehensive Plan calls for high density there; all the public services e an adequate road are available. So you would be confronted with the Supreme C doctrine that "services including roads follow development, rather than preced it". (It is that philosophy that we are attempting to overcome, here). So it likely that a "downzoning" would fail here. 3. Can the County pay for the required improvement? Yes; specifically the 1979 revision to Section 15.1-26.2, for the first time counties were allow expend general funds for secondary road construction and maintenance. But see position this would put the County in; these funds are limited; Proposition 13 catching on; there are 60 million dollars worth of road improvements already n for existing roads whose residents have endured inadequate roads longer than t developer; how can the Board of Supervisors justify - and how will you get the citizens to accept - expenditure of their tax monies for this development's ne unless you are going to fund all of the other pressing needs in the County - w clearly beyond our resources? It is submitted this is not a realistic solutio 4. The Board of Supervisors can - as you suggested at your meeting with Board of Supervisors - approve this development and then reorder the prioritie secondary road improvements under the six-year plan. But I submit that this w grossly unfair to other citizens, as well as completely inconsistent with the purpose and concept of Code Section 33.1-70.01 which establishes the procedure implementing the local six-year plan for secondary highway funding. This stat~ envisions planning six Years in adva~a~, w~ ~~ ~,,~ ~~ January 14, 1980 (Adjourned from January 9,.1980) Afternoon Meet ILLUSTRATION 2 same as Illustration 1 - tract of land Ivy Road, developer wants to develop 800 apartment complex; water and sewer available; comprehensive plan calls for high ty residential; all a-okay except the aforedescribed underpass. Only difference Illustration 1 is that this land is zoned A-1 and so developer is seeking rezoning .3 (or RPNR-3) whereas in Illustration 1 he already had his zoning and was simply .ng site plan approval. The Resident Highway Engineer says this rezoning will sate traffic intolerable to the existing road; it will create a safety hazard ~ it intersects Route 250; and there are other prior and more pressing needs so ~ not in the current six-year plan. does the governing body do with the rezoning request? ~n deny it though under Williams and Allman, .supra, it will likely be overturned ~ut an amendment to the present legislation. ~hat if the developer himself proposes that he will construct the needed improve- to this underpass if the rezoning is approved~ thus supplying needed housing )ut using up valuable farm land, and without a penny's cost to the public? This ~lly happened in Albemarle county and the crowning absurdity was that we had to the developer he couldn't do this even if he agreed to it. That is because this )nditional zoning - done by proffer under Section 15.1-491.2 - and proffers of site improvement to roads is forbidden even voluntarily under that statute, asibly out of fear by the legislature that otherwise the statute will be abused. such.a proffer would be unenforcable so of course we could not grant the rezoning ~cated on being able to enforce the developer's promise, and he was just as trated at this situation as was the governing body. rather than create a public hazard, the Board of Supervisors had to deny the aing, and our farmland continues to be developed while that particular piece ds unused. If we could have accepted that developers offer with knowledge it d be enforced, it would have benefited everyone concerned. ggest therefore the following amendment to Code Section 15.1-491.2: "Such proffer may include construction or improvement of any public facility, on-site or off-site, need for which is specifically generated by the proposed rezoning, if the local capital outlay program including the six-year secondary highway plan does not envision such construction or improvement prior to or at the time the need will be generated by the rezoning." lieve the'highway department will agree with me on these ideas. Local governments - ainly ours - rely on our Resident Engineer in assessing the need generated by proposed development. I believe they are in accord in these views of the problem, the proposed amendments. ! point out that' these amendments in no way require a ate developer to pay for needs generated by the public as opposed to needs gen- ed specifically by his project; that would be contrary to the federal and state titutions as analyzed in Rowe v. James City County, 216 Va. 128. ummary, my view is that the local governments of Virginia, without any repeal of .ons Rule, have perfectly adequate tools to deal with the stupendous problems they , in land use matters, with some fine tuning of the present legislation in response he three cases of Williams, Allman and Hylton II. This fine tuning as suggested ~he two amendments set out above, give local governments some power in timing ~lopment without absolutely prohibiting a development which precedes its scheduled '~ ~,~ ~ ~~ ~tl~v ~ro~rams. Orovided the developer is willing to pay January 14, 1980 (Adjourned from January 9, 1980) Afternoon Meeting Roll was then called, and the motion to adopt the above resolution was carrie following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. F) Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Agnor to notify the appropriate homeowner assocl of the Board's~intention to discuss the "Birdwood" project at its meeting of Janua: Mr. Agnor said a letter has been drafted for the Board Chairman to send to Univers: Virginia President, Frank Hereford; as well as a Planning Staff report prepared by County and based on information the staff has been provided regarding Birdwood. Mi Fisher said he would give Mr. Agnor a list of people to whom notification of the B: discussion should be sent. Agenda Item No. 4. At 5:1~ P.M., Mr. Fisher called for a recess until 7:30 P. which time the meeting reconvened in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Presentation: Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map. that this presentation would be made was published in The Daily Progr. ess on Januar~ Mr. Fisher said this meeting was scheduled so that the Director of Planning c¢ a public presentation of the zoning ordinance and map recommended by the Planning This meeting is not intended to be a public hearing, but is primarily to acquaint with the details of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Fisher then recognized members of Planning Commission who were present: Messrs. William Washington, Chairman, James former member, Joan Graves. Mr. Tucker began his presentation by stating that the Planning Commission, at meeting on December 13, 1979, by a vote of 5/1, recommended approval of the text o£ ordinance, with certain amendments, "bearing in mind that individual member reserva certain items, may be subject to separate comment." At the same meeting, by a vote the Commission recommended approval of the proposed map by replacing the Agricultur Forestry (AF) and Rural Residential (RR) Districts with one rural district, i.e., t Areas District (RA), "bearing in mind that individual member reservations, on certa may be subject to separate comment." (The ordinance presented to the Board was dat "Revised July 19, 1979, and included a memo from the Director of Planning, dated De 1979, to which was attached the textural changes recommended by the Planning Commis Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission changed the number of proposed zoning from 23 to 22 when they combined the Agricultural-Forestry and Rural Residential di into one district called the Rural Areas district. The Rural Areas district (RA) i to accommodate a limited amount of rural development in a manner compatible to the rural and agricultural character of the County. Subdivisions of five or fewer lots developed at a density of one dwelling unit per two acres in either conventional or lots. Subdivisions of six to 20 lots would require mandatory clustering at a densi' dwelling unit per five acres. Subdivisions of more than 20 lots would require asp, permit. Explicit and objective criteria for special permit review and conditions i~ in the text of the ordinance. Also contained in the new ordinance is a Conservation district (CVN) which lim: intensity of development to one dwelling unit per five acres. This district is a c~ from the current zoning ordinance Within the growth ~reas designated in the Comprehensive Plan, (Urban Area. Hol] January 14, 1980 (Adjourned from January 9, 1980.) ~creasing to 20 du/acre with bonuses). Both the R-10 and R-15 provide for simila~ ~e R-6. In addition, professional offices and retail stores and shops of limited ,ermitted by special use permit. ldition to the residential districts, the proposed ordinance contains two planned ~1 districts intended to be employed in both growth and rural areas of the County. led Residential Development (PRD) is an outgrowth of the Residential Planned ~od (RPN) provisions in the current ordinance. The PRD is intended to encourage ~y toward the natural characteristics of the site and toward i~mpact on the sur- ~rea in land development. The PRD is intended to promote economical and efficient an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, Lye design consistent with the best interest of the County and the area in which it 1. In a PRD, at least 25% of the site must remain in open space, which may serve ~d uses as recreation, protection of areas sensitive to development, buffering Lssimilar uses, and preservation of agricultural activity. In recognition that ~t at such densities generally requires careful planning with respect to impact, it ~tended that the PRD be employed in areas where the Comprehensive Plan recommends in excess of 20 du/acre, however, in no case would density exceed 35 du/acre. aed Unit Development (PUD) serves the same residential purposes as the PRD and, in permits planned commercial and industrial development. The PUD is an outgrowth of at Planned Community provisions. Since the PUD is intended to function as a or new village, commercial and industrial~uses are proportional to residential at within the PUD and also serve surrounding areas. number of Commercial districts has been expanded from two in the current ordinance n the proposed ordinance in recognition that a wider variety of districts is by the Comprehensive Plan. Commercial districts are proposed to be applied primaril llages, Communities, and Urban Area. Provisions not found in the current ordinance equired minimum landscaped areas and parking setbacks from public roads and resident ercial (C-I) district is intended as a central business district (CBD) type of zone appropriate to that function. The C-1 is intended to be applied in the Communities Area and is intended to be the primary commercial zone for the Villages. In order e the CBD atmosphere and to recognize existing patterns of development in villages, ing Commission may modify, vary, or waiver landscaping and parking setback require~ appropriate cases. ~ercial Office (CO) district permits primarily administrative, business, and pro- office uses. This district is intended as a transition between residential areas intensive commercial and industrial areas. ~way Commercial (HC) district permits commercial development, other than shopping which are primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to centralized concentrations. HC provisions are intended to limit sprawling strip commercial int by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access streets. med Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) is intended to permit the development of lood, community, and regional shopping centers in accordance with standards of the ~sive Plan. Regulations provided are intended to encourage planned commercial ~ith carefully organized buildings, service areas, parking areas, and landscaped ?D-SC districts are intended to have direct access to public streets adequate to ~ ~ff~a ~enerated b~ the development. January 14, 1980 (Adjourned from January 9, 1980) Mr. Tucker said there are several developmental concepts in this ordinance tha in the present ordinance. Bonus factors have been provided in the growth area dist The Planning Commission spent a good deal of time outlining the criteria these bonu have. The bonuses encourage certain design approaches and objectives for developme are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. If objectives can be met, use of these bo would allow a 50% increase in zoning. Cluster provisions are provided by right in ordinance. Critical slopes is another major concept. This provision would require each lot have a building site on slopes of less than 25%. Mr. Tucker said he had other changes to the wording of the ordinance which thc Commission has not seen, although the Commission did know these would be forthcomi~ text of the Airport Overlay district has been reworded since comments were receive~ Airport Manager, as well as the State Division of Aeronautics. Amendments have alt received from the County Fire Official. Mr. Lindstrom asked where "critical slopes" is defined in the ordinance. Mr. said this is not an overlay district, but is a provision in the text of the ordina~ is dependent on the topography and physical characteristics of the land. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board discuss the proposed RA district. Dr. Iachet~ how this district differs from the concept of an RPN. Mr. Tucker said it is simil~ allows some uses by right that at the present time come under special permit appro~ Iachetta said allowing 20 lots, but requiring mandatory clustering, would seem to that most people would have to use a land planner for this sort of thing. Mr. Tucl that in 98% of the cases, a landowner would have to seek the aid of a planner or si prepare a plan. The Planning Commission thought that by requiring mandatory clust~ more open land could be preserved for agricultural purposes since the ordinance doc require that the open land be used. The open land does not have to turned over to residents for use as common open space. If a farmer wanted to develop his land (ii 20 lots - five acre density - clustered), he would lose his development rights, bu~ retain the open land for agricultural purposes. Mr. Fisher asked what provisions ordinance to assure that this open land would not be developed again in the future Tucker said there would need to be monitoring by the County to prevent any future of that property. Once a subdivision were approved, and the land set aside for op~ that land could be prevented from being developed. Mr. Fisher asked about special permit provisions for approving subdivisions o~ lots each. Mr. TuCker said there are seven criterion set out in the ordinance whi~ be used in determining the feasibility of the land for agricultural purposes. If ~ criterion are favorable, and the property does not have any agricultural potential the likelihood that the land could be developed at a higher density, but there is 1 higher than the two-acre density in the rural area. If clustered, the gross densi be higher. Mr. Tucker also noted that the bonus factors do not apply to the rural district because the Planning Commission felt that providing incentives for develo' this district is just the opposite of what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Fisher said there was no mention in these criteria for considering the la~ as a determinant. Col. William Washington said that fact would be a part of the h use of the land, so he feels it is included in the criteria. Dr. Iachetta said he there were some lands presently under the land use tax that are not good agricultu~ lands, but qualify under State statute. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Dr. Ia said that fact alone would not be a sufficient condition to assure that it is good cultural land. There continued from this point a general question and answer session on the ordinance. At the end of this discussion, Mr. Fisher asked that the Board members