Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-11November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.42, Pg.329 (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 11, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain~ Jr., Mr. David Po Bowerman, Mrs. Char- lotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.mo Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4o Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Edward Eitelberg from Old Salem Apartments on Barracks Road came forward to request that the Board approach City Council concerning the golf fees charged to the County's senior citizens at the City's Penn Park. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has regular meetings set to discuss items of mutual concern, and one of those has to do with operation of parks and recreation facilities. Agenda Item NOo 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item 5.1 as amended below, and to accept Item 5.2 as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Request to Divide Buck Mountain Road into Seven Smaller Segments and Change Road Name. The following memorandum received November 5, 1992, was presented as follows: "During the Enhanced 911 road naming process, a twenty-one mile length of road from Earlysville to Yancey Mills was named Buck Mountain Road. Further review of this road by our emergency service providers and Mr. Campagna has identified the length to be a problem in providing efficient and responsive services. order to address this safety/service concern~ staff recommends creating seven smaller road lengths. Of these seven roadse three are new road names and the remaining four are previously approved roads and extensions of previously approved roads that follow a more natural road alignment. The attached staff report (on file) outlines the specific recommended changes. In adopting these changes at this time, there will be no addition- al cost impact to property owners or the County as these addition- al changes can be accommodated by our consultant, by the road sign manufacturer/installation and by the post office and telephone companies. If residents on the three new roads want to change the name, they may do so through the procedures outlined in the road name change policy. The following recommendations for approval by the Board have been made: 1. Retain Buck Mountain Road from 743 in EarlysVille to Route 601 in Free Union. 2. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Millington Road from Route 601 in Free Union to Route 614. 3. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Garth Road on Route 614 to Route 810 in White Hall (thus providing for the continuation of Garth Road from Route 654 to Route 810 - see Attachment B - on file). 4. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Browns Gap Turnpike from Route 810 to Route 680 (thus providing for the continu- ation of Browns Gap Turnpike from Route 240 to the end of Route 629 - see Attachment B - on file)o 5. Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to White Hall Road from Route 680 to Route 788 in Crozet. November 11~ 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) M.B. 42, Pg. 330 6o Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Railroad Avenue from Route 789 to Route 684.(thus providing for the continu- ation of Railroad Avenue from Route 810 to Route 684 - see Attachment C - on file)o 7o Change the name of Buck Mountain Road to Slabtown Road from Route 684 to Route 797 in Yancey Mill. (Note: Mr. Perkins requested that No. 7 be changed to name Buck Mountain Road as Lane Town Road from the Route 685 intersection to Route 691; and the section from Route 691 to Route 797 at Yancey Mill as Half Mile Branch.) With this suggested change, Item 5.1 was approved by the vote shown above. Item 5.2. Copy of Minutes for Planning Commission for October 6 and October 20~ 1992, were received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. !or Tax Exempt Status° 3, 1992.) Public Hearing on a request from Our Lady of Peace (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27 and The following staff report had been presented to the Board in written !orm: "On October 7, 1992, the Board authorized a public hearing to consider the tax exempt status of Our Lady of Peace for their assisted care facility. The Board will also be considering a policy to cover future similar requests. Discussion: In order to adopt a resolution of support, state statute requires that the following questions be considered at a public hearing: Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 20 Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to such organizations, for use on such property~ Whether any director or officer of the organization is paid compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for sala- ries or other compensation for personal services which such director or officer actually renders; 4e Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion of the service provided by such organi- zation is generated by funds received from donations~ con- tributions or local~ state, or federal grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the providing of personal services or the contribution.of in-kind or other material services; Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the public; Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organi- zation involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise at- tempting to influence legislation and whether the organiza- tion participates in, or intervenes in, any Political cam- paign on behalf of any candidate for public office; No rule, regulation, policy, or practice of the organization discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race~ color, sex or national origin~ and Any other criteria, facts and circumstances which the gov- erning body deems pertinent to the adoption of such resolu- tion. Please find attached a letter dated September 14, 1992 (from Ms. Ruth DePiro - set out in full below), which answers each of the questions listed above in a satisfactory fashion. Our Lady of Peace has agreed to enter into an agreement that they will make available 20 percent of their assisted living beds to Albemarle residents who do not exceed 130 percent of the income eligibility guidelines for the State Auxiliary Grant Program. Additionally, this agreement would contain a provision for our Lady of Peace to pay to the County a 20 percent service fee, to be paid in the same fashion as real estate taxes are paid to cover the costs of basic governmental services provided. These propos- als have been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and found to be legally acceptable. November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) M.B. 42, Pg. 331 Recommendation: If the Board desires to act favorably on the request, the following actions are recommended: Adopt the attached resolution (on file) supporting the tax exempt request which will then be forwarded to the General Assembly. Authorize the County Attorney to draft the agreement as outlined above and in accordance with the following policy to be used for all future requests of a similar nature: (a) provide at all times a minimum of 20 percent of avail- able beds to the indigent of Albemarle County. Indigent shall be defined as not exceeding 130 percent of the income eligibility guidelines for the Virginia Auxiliary Grant Program. Such provision of available bed space shall be at no cost to the Albemarle resident partici- pating in the program; (b) agree to a service fee, to be paid in the same fashion as real estate taxes are paid~ in the amount of 20 percent of the real estate tax liability owed on the exempted property to cover the costs of basic govern- mental services provided~ and (c) appropriately address the questions articulated in Section 30-19.04 of the Code of Virginia which the Board of Supervisors is required to consider." "September 14~ 1992 Mr. Richard E. Huff, II Deputy County Executive County of Albemarle Office of County Executive 401 McIntyre Road Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596 Dear Mr. Huff: Our Lady of Peace Board of Directors herewith respectfully re- quests that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reconsider Our Lady of Peace's real estate t.ax exemption request. The following information is provided for your review. ae Our Lady of Peace is prepared to pay a 20 percent service fee, as provided by the State statute. Co Our Lady of Peace will make available 20 percent of its assisted living beds, known as licensed Home for Adult beds, for Albemarle residents who do not exceed 130 percent of the income eligibility guidelines for the State Auxiliary Grant Program. The following information is provided in accordance with Subsection B of Section 30-19.04, as amended in the 1950 Code of Virginia: Our Lady of Peace is a tax exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). The exemption is under a group ruling issued August 12~ 1988, which exempts all agencies and instrumentalities operated~ supervised, or controlled by the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. Se Our Lady of Peace will not have an alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages. 3e No Director or Officer of Our Lady of Peace is paid any compensation whatsoever.. No earnings or remuneration of the organization adheres to the benefit of any individual. The Our Lady of Peace retirement community is being constructed utilizing tax exempt bonds. Our Lady of Peace will provide housing and services for the limited and moderate income elderly of the greater Albemarle County. An Endowment Fund will be provided from the Diocese of Richmond to provide assistance to Our Lady of Peace residents who may not be able to afford the cost of care in the future. Our Lady of Peace is not involved in carrying on propa- ganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation nor does Our Lady of Peace participate in or intervene November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) M.B. 42, Pg. 332 in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for political office. 7e No rule, regulation, policy, or practice of Our Lady of Peace discriminates on the basis of religious convic- tion, race, color, sex, or national origin° Our Lady of Peace will provide any additional facts which the governing body of the County of Albemarle deems pertinent to the adoption of the aforementioned resolution. De The need for a program to assist the limited income frail elderly within Albemarle County appears to be substantial. Although Our Lady of Peace has done no advertising, network- ing or case work, we currently have 19 limited income frail elderly from Albemarle County who have requested admission. Lastly, in an effort to distinguish Our Lady of Peace from other facilities offering assisted living in Albemarle Coun- ty, the following information is offered° Our Lady of Peace is a 501(c)(3) non-profit retirement commu- nity designed to meet the needs of the middle, moderate, and limited income elderly residents of the Albemarle area. As a 501(c)(3) organization, Our Lady of Peace must make a commit- ment to take care of its residents should they run out of money after entering the facility. This will be done through a Diocesan Endowment Fund. Our Lady of Peace does not require any type of founders or entrance fees. Further, it does not require potential resi- dents to have specific kinds of expensive insurance in place before admission. Our Lady df Peace offers a month to month lease with a thirty-day notice provision and a $350 refund- able security deposit° Our Lady of Peace is an effort by the three local Catholic Churches and the Diocese of Richmond to meet the needs of a frail and vulnerable population, not people who can live completely independently in apartments or single family houses. The average ages of the residents at the other three Diocesan facilities are: Our Lady of the Valley, Roanoke, VA St° Mary's Woods, Richmond, VA Marian Manor, Virginia Beach, VA 83 years 83 years 84 years In addition to providing care for the middle and moderate income elderly of Albemarle County, Our Lady of Peace hopes to address the needs of a certain number of very low income local residents needing assisted living services. Each of the three other tax exempt Diocesan facilities in Roanoke, Richmond, and Virginia Beach, devotes up to 20 percent of their assisted living beds to very low income (indigent) older adults. Many of these persons are screened and re- ferred through the local Department of Social Services Auxil- iary Grant Program. Others who are just a few dollars above the maximum allowable income for the State Grant Program ($600) are referred through Qther social service agencies assisting the elderly. Both the local Our Lady of Peace Board of Directors and Bishop Sullivan ardently desire to offer the same type of help currently being given in the other three Diocesan facil- ities to the frail poor elderly of Albemarle County. It is our earnest hope that you will give favorable consideration to Our Lady of Peace's request for tax exemption so that we may aid the most vulnerable among us° Sincerely, (Signed) Ruth DePiro President, Board of Directors" Mrs. Ruth DePiro, President of the Board of Our Lady of Peace, spoke first. She said that ten members of their Board are local residents. Present tonight are also residents of the facility. About 35 people stood. She thanked the Board for again hearing their request for tax exempt status. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed. Mr. Bain questioned the recommendation of the staff as pertains to criteria for approving future requests for tax exempt status. Mr. Tucker said November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 333 (Page 5) this recommendation will form the basis for the staff to review any future such requests. The Board will still have the option to deny any request. Mrs. Humphris asked the meaning of the words in Section 2a "provide at all times a minimum of 20 percent of available beds .... " She wished to know the meaning of the word "available". Mr. Tucker said that of the total beds in the facility, they would provide 20 percent of those beds for this purpose. Mrs. Humphris asked if the word "available" is the best term that can be used. Mr. Tucker suggested using the term "total number of beds." Mrs. Humphris said that to her the word "available" means the total number of beds that are not occupied at any given time. Mr. Bain said Mrs. DePiro's letter refers to "20 percent of their assisted living beds." Mrs. Humphris said there is a need to state which category of care is involved. Mr. Perkins said there seems to be a conflict between 2a and the letter from Mrs. DePiro in Part B where she states "Our Lady of Peace will make available 20 percent of its assisted living beds .... " Making them available and having a minimum 20 pemcent available could be a conflict. Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from representatives of Our Lady of Peace. Mr. Robert McNichols said they are prepared to make 20 percent of the "assisted living beds" available. That means that 20 percent of the total assisted living beds will be there for that purpose, period. Mr. Bain said that is why the word "minimum" is included, but he agreed that the words "assisted living~ beds" would be better language. He asked how many such beds are in the total facility. Mrs. Mary Elyn McNichols said there are 36 assisted living beds, which will translate (for the record) to eight beds being held for this purpose. These beds would be kept available for the people meeting this criteria. There are currently 18 applications from persons who are eligible, so they do not anticipate any problem in keeping these beds filled. They see this as a minimum, but hope to do better than eight. Mr. Bowerman asked if these beds are specifically reserved for Albemarle County residents, or must they be held for anybody who meets the criteria regardless of where they currently reside° Mr. McNichols said the State Department of Social Servicesv the regulating agency, provides that any citizen is eligible to live in Albemarle County. The Board of Supervisors can tell Our Lady of Peace how they would like to see these beds allocated, but the State could ultimately request compliance with their regulations. In the experience of Our Lady of Peace, it is local people who utilize these servic- es. Mr. Bowerman asked about the 18 people on the waiting list. Mr. McNichols said they all meet the criteria of the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Humphris said she feels the basis for the agreement as to tax exemption replaced by a 20 percent service fee would be based on the fact that the people who will be helped are Albemarle ~County residents. Can that be ~tied down"? Mr. Bain said Our Lady of Peace can't control that. He does not feel that someone 80 years old will move to Albemarle and wait five years to get in the facility. Mr. McNichols said he feels that a family member of the elderly person will already be living in the area. He thinks most of the elderly will be lifelong residents of Albemarle County, and want to be near their friends. Mrs. McNichols said she would like to reassure the Board that it is the intent of Our Lady of Peace to give preference at all times to County resi- dents. With the demand that has been evidenced thus far, there will be no problem having County residents in this facility. At this time, Mr. Martin moved to support the request for exemption from taxation by Our Lady of Peace pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia, by adopting the following resolution, and also authorizing the County Attorney to prepare the appropriate agreement, with the wording changes in 2a to say "provide at all times a minimum of 20 percent of the total assisted living beds to the indigent .... " Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins said he will not support the motion. He would have support- ed a request to have a tax exempt status for any unit that was used by indigent people. He thinks this opens up "pandora's box" and the Board will not see the end of it. Mr. Bain asked for an explanation. Mr. Perkins said there are people living in the County who are very poor and yet they have little relief from taxes. It is difficult for them to get the tax breaks that will be realized in this case. Mr. Bain said he does not disagree~ and he would like to mention a situation which he intends to discuss later tonight, that situation relates to the people who own their own homes who have been helped by AHIPv and now they cannot afford to pay their real estate taxes so are being forced from their homes. The Board needs to address that issue. Some of this issue can be addressed at the local level, but some will need state enabling legislation before it can be addressed. Mr. Perkins said he feels a better way to go about this would be to give tax exemption on the units that are being used by indigent people. That was November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) M.B. 42, Pg. 334 proposed a little over a year ago. He ~ould support that type of request, but he will not support tax exemption for the whole facility. Mr. Tucker said staff looked at assessing by the unit, and there is no provision in the Code of Virginia for that; this is the only way to provide this type of exemption. Mrs. Humphris said she will support the request even though she has grave doubts about it in light of other problems in the county where people are paying their property taxes. At least this gives some help to some very needy people. Weighing the good and the bad, she feels the good it will do outweighs the difficulties. Mr. Perkins said the Board might ask the General Assembly for some method to be used in exempting those units. Mrs. Humphris said it might be years before the Board could get the General Assembly to do anything. Mr. Bain said the information furnished to the Board earlier in the summer indicated there would be ten units used for this purpose. He asked for an explanation. Mrs. McNichols said they have actually set aside ten beds. They are going to try for eight people from Albemarle and if there are people from other jurisdictions they will put them in the two beds. Mr. Marshall said he will support this request. As an explanation, Mro Marshall said that some time ago he met with Mrs. Helen Towe and her son before he died, and he made a promise to Darden that he would support it, and he won't go back on that promise. At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrso Martin~ Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. (Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.) RESOLUTION ENDORSING LEGISLATION TO GRANT A TAX EXEMPTION FOR OUR LADY OF PEACE" WHEREAS~ Our Lady of Peace has asked this Board to endorse an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia granting its property exemption from taxation, state and local~ pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia: and WHEREAS~ Our Lady of Peace is a non-profit organization operated for the purpose of providing life care and other services to those persons over sixty-five years of age~ and WHEREAS~ this Board has considered, at a public hearing duly advertised as required by Section 30-19.04 of the Virginia Code~ held on November 11, 1992, whether property of Our Lady of Peace should be exempt from taxation; and WHEREAS, this Board has considered the provisions of Section 30-19.04(B) and finds that Our Lady of Peace: 1) Is exempt from federal taxation pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2) Holds no license from the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Con- trol Board; 3) Pays no compensation to any officer or director in excess of reasonable allowance for services rendered; 4) Does not distribute any part of its net earnings to any individual; 5) Provides services for the common good including housing and services for the limited and moderate income elderly of Albemarle County; 6) Does not and will not have a substantial part of its activi- ties including carrying on propaganda, influencing legisla- tion or participating in political campaigns; 7) Has no rule, regulation, policy or practice discriminating on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLgED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby endorses, supports and approves the adoption of an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia exempting property of Our Lady of Peace located in Albemarle County from taxation, state and local; and FURTHER~ after examining Section 30-19.04(B) of the Code of Virginia, the Board recommends that Our Lady of Peace be ¢lassi- November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) M.B. 42, Pg. 335 fied as a charitable organization for the purpose of obtaining this tax exempt status; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to convey certified copies of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly representing Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-92-6 & SP-92-33. Donnie & Catherine Dunn. Public Hearing on a request to apply the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District & to permit spring water bottling on 49.4 ac zoned RA. Property on W side of Rt 601 approx 0.47 mi N of Rt 749. TM7,P37&38. White Hall Disto (Property does not lie within a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27 and November 3, 1992.) 1~o Cilimberg presented the following staff report: Petition: Donnie and Catherine Dunn petition the Board of Super- visors to issue a special use permit in order to permit a spring water bottling facility [30.4.2.2(8)] and to rezone 49.4 acres to NR, Natural Resource Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 7, Parcels 37 and 38, is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the west side of Free Union Road (Route 601) approximately 0°47 miles north of Wesley Chapel Road (Route 749) in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Character of the Area: The site has a single dwelling with access over Buck Mountain Creek. The area adjacent to Buck Mountain Creek is in grass, the remainder of the site is wooded. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to collect water from three springs on site and bottle the water. The locations of the springs on the site are noted on Attachment C (on file). Each spring will be developed with a storage tank and piping system to a central collection point which will have a larger storage tank as well as bottling facilities. Planninq and Zoninq History: September 27, 1972 - Board of Supervisors approved SP-72-204 allowing a mobile home (No mobile home is on the property); August 1, 1990 - Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-50 for a stream crossing in the flood plain of Buck Mountain Creek; December 12, 1990 - Subdivision plat administra- tively approved creating three lots; June 10e 1992 - Board of Supervisors approved ZTA-92-02 which permitted this use by special use permit;. Additional History: The applicant has stated that the springs have been used in the past for drinking water. There is evidence on the site of a distillery. Staff has reviewed an 1870 map which shows that the ~'Walton's Distillery" was located on this site. This distillery, which ceased operations in approximately the early 1900's, used water from springs on site during its opera- tion. Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Rural Area 1. The Comprehensive Plan states generally that the County's water resources, surface and groundwater, are to be treated in such a manner as to preserve quality and quantity° The general issue of the compatibility of spring water bottling with the Comprehensive Plan was addressed during the review of ZTA-92-02, at which time it was determined that each request must be reviewed for its particular relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. The percent- age of capture is limited in order to protect downstream users including the public water supply. The volume of use, 30~000 gallons/month, is similar to the volume of water used by two (2) four-bedroom houses. The traffic volumes generated by this use are not substantially different in character from that which could be generated by some agricultural or forestal activities. Staff Comment: This request is for a rezoning to apply the NR district to this site and grant a special use permit. This report will address each issue separately. Rezoninq Request: The intent of the Natural Resource Overlay District is contained in Section 30.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance° This section says in part "This natural resource extraction overlay district (herein referred to as NR) is created to provide for the utilization of spring water for off-site consumption, sand, gravel, stone or other mineral deposits within the County in a manner compatible with adjacent land uses." The only resource identified by the applicant which ~s present on this site is spring water. The applicant has proffered to restrict the NR uses to spring water extraction or bottling. The special use permit review will address the criteria of Section 31.2.4.1 in order to ensure that the activity is operated in a manner compatible with adjacent land uses, which are RA. The criteria contained in Section 30.4 of the NR district are mainly applicable to quarry- November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) M.B. 42, Pg. 336 ing, mining and mixing/batching plants. However, the regulations do contain restrictions which would affect this use. Those regulations are contained in the recommended conditions of approv- al for the special use permit. Staff opinion is that with staff ~pproval of a site plan, all regulations of Section 30.4 can be addressed. A detailed analysis of this site's impact on adjacent properties is included in the special use permit review. Special Use Permit Request: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The applicant has identified several spring sites to be used. The location of the bottling facility is the location of a former distillery° None of the spring sites nor the proposed location for the bottling facility is visible from adjacent properties. The anticipated water usage is 30,000 gallons per month. Initially, only two springs will be utilized which would require that the two springs produce for capture 0.69 gallons per minute (or 0.345 gallons per minute per spring). This rate of flow would be captured continu- ously and stored at each spring site in a holding tank. The water would then be piped to the bottling facility and stored in a larger storage tank. This iow capture rate limits the effect on downstream properties and the capture facility can be designed to permit a continuous flow of water, including during periods of drought. To insure adequate stream flow, staff recommends that the capture facility be designed to capture not more than 20 percent of the flow at any given time. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. The applicant has stated that the bottling facility will not exceed 1500 square feet '(The maximum size of a home occupation is 1500 square feet). The structures involved will be designed to appear like a house or barn° The size and appearance of the structures and the distance from adjacent development limits the effect this activity will have on the character of the district° and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. During the review of ZTA-92-02 which permitted spring water extraction and bottling, it was noted that the use was generally consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. It was also noted that with each permit various issues regarding the use need to be reviewed in order to insure compli- ance with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Staff has reviewed ZTA-92-02 for comments and recommends that the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, subject to conditions regulating the use. with the uses permitted by right in the district. This use does not interfere with any by-right uses of the RA district and will not limit those uses on other properties. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Section 5.1.33 regulates 'spring water extraction and/or, bottling'. These regulations are included as conditions of the special use permit. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The adequacy of the water for consumption is regulated by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services with the assis- tance of the Department of Health. The main impact this use has on the public safety is truck traffic. This portion of Free Union Road is tolerable and the existing entrance was installed by the Virginia Department of Transportation at the time of cons=ruction of the bridge over Buck Mountain Creek. Other roads leading to this site are non-tolerable. Staff opinion is that while this use will generate more traffic (especially truck traffic) than is normally anticipated, agricultural/forestal operations could also produce increased truck traffic. Staff anticipates that this use will generate approximately 14 vehicle trips per day with four truck trips per day. If bottling does not occur on-site and tanker trucks are used, the number of trips Would be four or five per month. Thes~ figures are approximate and are based on discus- sions with the applicant. The increased traffic can be accommo- dated by this portion of Route 601 which is tolerable and by the entrance. However, non-tolerable roads leading to this site would be affected. Summary: Staff has reviewed the criteria of Section 31.2.4.1 for the special use permit. The Natural Resource Overlay District is appropriate only if the special use permit is to be approved. The November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) M.B. 42, Pg. 337 property has no identified natural resources other than spring water. Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this request: There is historic evidence of the use of the springs in the past. 2o The location of facilities will not affect adjacent proper- ties. The volume of water to be captured should not affect down- stream properties. Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this request: The use will increase truck traffic on rural roads~ many of which are nontolerable. Staff opinion is that this site is appropriate as a Natural Resource Area as proffered 'natural spring water is the only resource to be extracted'. The special use permit request ade- quately addresses the issues stated during the review of ZTA-92-02 and therefore staff recommends approval of the rezoning subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffer. Staff also recommends approval of SP-92-33 subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval (For SP-92-33): Use shall not commence without appropriate state approvals~ including approval from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and Department of Health if required; 2e Not more than 20 percent of each spring's flow may be cap- tured at any given time; Bottling facility shall not exceed 1500 square feet. Ail structures shall be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically com- patible in design and scale with other development in the area in which located; Use shall not be established without staff approval of a site development plan; Se Bottling facilities on-site shall be used only for the bottling of spring water obtained on-site. Water used for bottling shall not contain any additives or artificial carbonation other than those required by regulating agencies for purification purposes; 6. Compliance with applicable regulations of Section 30.4° Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission~ at its meeting on Octo- ber 20, 1992, by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of the above-noted requests. ZMA-92-06 was recommended for approval subject to a proffer reading: "Natural spring water is the only resource to be extracted.'' SP-92-33 was recommended for approval subject to conditions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as recommended by the staff, but No. 2 was reworded to read: "Not more than 20 percent of each spring's flow may be captured at any given time~ devices to achieve this requirement shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Engineering and periodically inspected by the appropriate agency during business operating hours." Mr. Cilimberg handed out the following letter from Mr. Jack Kelsey, Civil Engineer, dated November 5, 1992, dealing with the capability of collection of the spring water and the retention of only 20 percent of the total for the bottling operation: "Per your memo dated November 3, 1992, you are recommending as a condition of approval that the method of capturing 20 percent of the flow be approved by the Engineering Department and periodical- ly inspected by the appropriate agency. The intent of this memo is to provide Engineering Department comments as requested° You and I discussed one conceptual method by which 20 percent of the flow could be captured easily and with reasonable accuracy. This method involved the collection of all the flow from the spring into a tank. Then through the use ef orifices in the tanks 20 percent could be discharged to the bottling facility and the remainder discharged to the stream. As you mentioned, there may be other methods by which this could be accomplished. The exis- tence of at least one proves that it is possible. Whatever concept is submitted by the applicant will be reviewed by this Department for adequacy and coordinated with the appropriate inspection agency. November 11~ 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) M.B. 42, Pg. 338 It is my understanding that the agency responsible for routine inspection of the capture system has not been decided. The ordinances do not give this Department the authority to inspect and enforce the operation of this facility. Therefore, we will not be able to assist you in that aspect of the approval condi- tion.'' Mr. Cilimberg said he discussed this condition with the Zoning staff today and it was suggested that the word "periodically" should be changed to "twice a year." January and July were suggested since they would be able to accomplish this inspection with the help of the Engineering Department. Mr. Cilimberg also noted that he received a letter last week from Mrs° Marjorie Paul in which she asked numerous questions concerning this request. She is a neighboring property owner who voiced objection to this proposal. The staff has answered the questions which she posed. Mrs. Humphris said she has many questions concerning this request. In the staff's summary of items which are favorable to this request, No. 3 states that the volume of water to be captured should not be detrimental to down- stream properties. On what basis is that statement made? Mr° Cilimberg said it is based on the actual amount of water that would go into the operation° The amount noted is 30,000 gallons per month. Mr. Bain noted that that was the minimum amount stated, not the total usage. Mr° Cilimberg said 20 percent of flow was considered to be a nominal amount in terms of its effect on the overall water availability in the area for the potential Buck Mountain reservoir, etc. Staff also received a comment during review of the zoning text amendment from the Water Resources Manager indicating that he did not feel any spring water bottling operation, in terms of volume involved, would have a significant, or detrimental effect on water availability. Mrs° Humphris said in terms of the staff's comment on No. 3, what would happen if there were a severe drought, such as those in the late 1970's? Does staff have any studies to show that the capture of this amount of water will not affect any downstream properties under those conditions? Mr. Cilimberg said it is 20 percent of whatever the flow is~ even at a minimal level, and 20 percent of the minimal flow that would be occurring in a drought is still not seen as a significant increase in the problem of water availability° This whole idea of the 20 percent is based on the fact that 80 percent of the flow will be returned back to the normal, naturally occurring water flow. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Cilimberg what the flow of Buck Mountain Creek is in this area. Mr. Cilimberg did not know the answer° Mr. Perkins asked if there were studies made for the proposed reservoir. Mr. Tucker said "yes~. Mr. Perkins said it is probably one million gallons per day, and this applica- tion asks for 30,000 gallons per mOnth° It is the flow of the whole watershed that should be considered, and not just those particular springs. Mrs. Humphris said there is the entire watershed, but the neighboring property owners depend on the groundwater in their area. Mr. Cilimberg said the real effect is that the applicant would remove 20 percent of the water that normally goes to surface flow~ some of which recharges groundwater or runs off to streams. Mrs. Humphris asked for answers to Mrs. Paul's questions of November 4, particularly the difference in the two types of water required (product water which is bottled, and operational water used for sterilization, etc.). Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Dunn indicated that he intended to use 20 percent of the volume of the springs for both product and operation. Mr. Dunn does not wish to drill a well to provide water for the operation of this facility. If he has to, he will do so, but he does not plan to do that. The 20 percent maximum is not tied to product versus operation. It is tied to the maximum amount that can be used. Mrs. Humphris said there was also a question about the use of chemicals. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a potential in the purification process to use chlorine. Nonchemicals such as ultra violet can also be used or ozonization. Chlorination with dechlorination is another treatment to be used in the opera- tion. In terms of sterilization, Mr. Dunn has indicated that he will use steam for sterilization and not chemicals which are allowed under the regula- tionso Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the distinction between this application and the one the Planning Commission heard for resource extraction at Advance Mills. Mr. St. John said in that case they were going to draw water out of the ground, and call it spring water. Mr. Cilimberg said in this case the application is made under the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District which specifies that the water must come to the surface naturally before it can be converted for use, it cannot be withdrawn by mechanical means° That is explicit in the text of the ordinance. With no further questions of Mr. Cilimberg at this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Donnie Dunn said he had no opening statement, but he believes that through this process, a lot of the intricacies of this type of operation have November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) M.B. 42, Pg. 339 been covered. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Food & Drug Administration, have a lot of requirements that must be met for this type of operation. He asked to speak after members of the public had made their comments. Mrs. Marjorie Maupin Paul handed some materials to the Board members and then read the following statement: ~'I own land adjacent to the property specified in SP-92-33. You have a letter from me with two enclosures which address many of the issues that I want you to consider before a decision is made. To summarize, there are three major reasons why this permit should be denied, namely: There is reason to believe that the wells and springs on my property will be affected, possibly depleted~ if Mr. Dunn is allowed to collect water on his side of the small foothill we share. The roads leading to and from the proposed site will become more dangerous because of the tanker trucks and increased traffic~ and There is a real danger that the water supply for the Rivanna Water Authority will be endangered both as to quality and quantity° Since I wrote that letter, I have continued to study this issue and want to tell you some of my findings. You have before you four pieces of paper which I brought tonight. The first map is an enlargement of the map which Mr. Dunn fur- nished to the Planning staff. I have colored Rt. 601 brown~ Buck Mountain Creek is blue, and my property is enclosed in the green block showing three buildings and a blue pond. The circles are springs, the large block is the factory, and the small block is a future proposed spring. You will note two entrances from 601 to the property and BOTH of these roads lead to the bridge that was built by permission of SP-90-50 and then on to the factory and the springs° The map shows the elevations and locations of the proposed bottling factory~ springs and current houses. You can see that the springs in question are at~ or below~ the elevation of my houses and springs° You can also see that the bottling factory is located beside a blue stream which leads to Buck Mountain Creek. It appears to be in the buffer zone of the Buck Mountain watershed. Since chemicals may be used in the bottling factory to sanitize the equipment and the bottles, there is a great potential for contamination~of Buck Mountain Creek: in the transport of the chemicals and fuel to and from the plant and in the storage and use of same. It is my understanding that any discharge from this factory would require a State Water Control Discharge Permit. The second map shows what I am told is the flood area of the creek. It gives greater detail of the streams leading to BMC and shows where the old ford was. The bridge is just downstream from this, I believe. The third paper is a copy of a note I found in the Zoning Office files. Please read the highlighted section. How will SP-92-33 address this situation? The fourth paper is a copy of an article from the Washington Post on November 10. I suggest that if you think the water of Albe- marle should be made available to the public in bottles that you reserve the right to bottle it for the benefit of ALL of the people of the city and county~ It appears that you might be able to develop a new source of revenue and reduce the cost of water to those served by the Rivanna Water Authority if you follow Occoquan's lead! I am going to quickly ask some questions that have not been answered for me here tonight: 1. What assurance can you and Mr; Dunn give me that this opera- tion will not affect my water supply? What recourse will I have if it does? Will you revoke this permit if my wells and springs go dry? 2. What assurance do the people of Albemarle and Charlottesville have that the water supply will not be endangered by this opera- tion? November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) M.B. 42, Pg. 340 3. Who will determine the flow of these springs and monitor the amount of water that is taken on a continual basis? 4. Does the County Budget allow for hiring enough personnel to properly handle the health issues that this could possibly raise? 5. Why do we have a Comprehensive Plan if we are not going to abide by it? 6. Why do we continue to add more traffic to the narrow roadways but not update the roads and bridges to handle this traffic? 7. What requirements for fuel and chemical storage have been included? 8. What size vehicles are to be allowed on the non-tolerable roadways? Mr. Dunn has given the size and number at everything from many mid-sized vans to four or five tanker trucks° He has stated that if the business goes really well and there Ks more water than he can bottle at his local plant, then he would ship it to another location, thereby placing more tanker trucks on these narrow country roads and one-lane bridges. 9. Why, and how, have we reached this point in the process without someone with expertise in hydrology, ground water, or geology studying this specific location? 10. How can we justify allowing a commercial use of a bridge that was built, in the flood plain, under a special use permit, for the specific purpose of constructing a personal residence? ll. How do we address the bridge maintenance agreement? 12. Does the 20 percent limit recommended by the Planning Commis- sion include the 'Operation' water? If not, then where will the 'Operation' water come from? I understand that Mr. Dunn has told the planning office staff that he would drill a well if necessary to provide the operation water should the springs not furnish enough for all uses. The use of wells has an even greater chance of depleting the ground water on my property~ because I do not have a very large watershed area.~ 13. How will the discharge water from the bottling factory be handled? Would additional septic fields be needed? Is this allowed in the buffer zone? As you know, I am totally opposed to this permit being issued. I can find not one good reason to allow this operation in Albemarle County. It is projected to employ only one or two people once the factory is built. I fear that you will approve this permit and thereby set a prece- dent for many more such operations in Albemarle County. If we allow our water supply to be endangered, then we could soon be facing the same shortages that our friends in California and other states are plagued with today. Please protect our precious water supply. Vote 'NOd on $P-92-33. And if you can't 'Just say No', then please delay until these questions have real answers AND we have a water control manager who will look out for the public interest." Mrs. Paul then asked those present who felt the permit should be denied to stand (six people stood)° Mr. Curtis T. Wood said he is also an adjacent landowner° He owns property at a higher altitude then were Mr. Dunn is located° Mro Dunn will also be using the same right-of-way for'his trucks that Mr. Wood uses for his property. As long as it does not interfere with Mr. Wood's ingress and egress, he has no objection. Mr. Wood is not opposed to using runoff water~ but he is opposed if Mr. Dunn plans on drilling wells to collect more water° Buck Mountain stream almost dries up every summer. At one time, the Buck Mountain reservoir dam was to have been built just down the river a little below the bridge, backing water over the bottom land that Mr. Dunn now owns. It was moved down the stream to Route 665 to pick up a larger water supply. Mr. Wood said he feels a lot of people in the vicinity would be affected by approval of this request. Mrs. Catherine Dunn said she and her husband are life-time residents of Albemarle. They are committed to making Cool Springs a profitable venture while maintaining the environment° They will not be siphoning off water from the surrounding landowners. They too must live by the springs~ and they maintain rental property inclose proximity to the springs. Any detriment to the area would be hurting them since they have the most to lose. Mrs~ Dunn said that by voting for this operation, the Board will be supporting a busi- ness venture which they hope will be synonymous with what Albemarle County stands for. November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) M.B. 42, Pg. 341 Mrs. Dunn said she would like to reply to some comments made by Mrs. Paul. The bridge that was constructed is upstream from the ford, not down- stream. They never stated how many employees they would have, but probably would start with one or two,; hopefully, the business will grow. She said it would be interesting to have someone count the tandem trucks that use Route 601 everyday taking debris, not to the County landfill, but to Boonesville. It does not seem that the one-lane bridge is a problem for them. Mr. Dunn said he had a closing statement. The reason for bringing this request through the process is that he feels all should believe in the development of new or existing business while helping to sustain businesses which are already operational. Without doing that on which the local economy depends, revenues sink and jobs are lost, so the economy "stinks". He does not understand why there are skeptics as long as it is done properly. He hopes this idea will eventually end up "in the bottle". The good news is that it might generate some jobs and it might generate some additional revenues for the local economy. Mrs. Ginny Decker, President of the League of Women Voters, read the following statement: "The League has concerns about this proposal that relate to the fact that the springs are in the watershed of the site of the proposed Buck Mtn. Reservoir. We know that 30,000 gallons per month is not very much of the total flow that will feed the reservoir. But that 30,000 gallons is the minimum the applicant plans to withdraw. In order to limit withdrawal, the Planning Commission recommended --as one of its conditions--that withdrawal be limited to 20 percent of flow. However, at the meeting, flow was only estimat- ed. We believe that it is simply good stewardship of the County to establish clear standards by which withdrawal is to be mea- sured. Therefore, we recommend that withdrawal be limited to 20 percent of minimum flow of each s~rinq. According to one official we consulted, checking the yield should be done in the summer in order to establish the minimum flow. We also recommend that that condition be included among those adopted by the Planning Commission° The staff report did not indicate whether any of the bottling facilities would be within the buffer areas along streams~ as established by the Reservoir Protection Areas Ordinance and the Runoff Control Ordinance. We stronglY recommend that prior to site plan approval, conditions established by those ordinances be considered." With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris said she is a skeptic about this proposal. She has grave concerns about it under two headings: 1) protection of the watershed for the future Buck Mountain Reservoir which is critical to the future water supply of both the county and the city, and, 2) the effect of such a situation on neighboring individual's water supplies. She does not understand how the staff can state in its report that this would not affect downstream proper- ties. There is no data in the report to support that statement. Mrs. Humphris said she has a question about the method of measurement° Also~ in the Planning Commission's minutes there was a description of a situation where the water would flow into a tank and then later be pumped. She would like to know from some expert what effect the pumping of water at either end would have on the spring source. Mr. Cilimberg said the spring source will continue its natural flow and once it naturally flows to the surface, it would be reverted to a reservoir (also called a "tank") and pumped to the bottling facility~ at least that is the concept which was discussedo There is no site plan for this operation at this time. The pumping takes place after the naturally occurring flow, and not at the source. Mrs. Humphris said she has another very important question. If the Board were to allow this water bottling facility and it resulted in a detri- mental effect on the neighbor's wells, what would the Board do? Mr. Cilimberg referred the question to the County Attorney. Mr. St. John said the remedy would be revocation of the permit; but under the law, a person gets a vested right when a permit is granted and he pursues it and makes expenditures in pursuance of it. Mrs. Humphris said the Board appears to be looking at the potential for a great benefit to one person on the one hand, and the potential of a tremen- dous risk and great damage to a neighbor on the other hand. Mrs. Humphris said she will have other questions later. Mr. Martin said he would like to ask Mr. Dunn a question. Mrs. Decker had talked about 20 percent of the minimum flow and measuring the minimum flow during the summer° He asked Mr. Dunn his thoughts. Mr. Dunn said that capturing the flow was not his proposal; but 20 percent of the flow off of the spring would be 20 percent, at least that was his understanding. He was told November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) M.B. 42, Pg. 342 that engineers can devise some device to allow the excess water to flow by, and the 20 percent to flow in. Mr. Dunn said he would like to reply to Mrs. Humphris' question about the impact on the water table. This is a natural spring, and the only thing they plan to capture is 20 percent of its flow which goes into a reservoir. There is no pump, and there is no well, so the continual flow of water is what comes from the spring. It has no impact on the watershed or the draw down of a neighbor's well because he is not drawing any water from the ground. Mr. Martin said his original question was, what about the concept of having a maximum which would be established in the summer of 20 percent instead of just saying 20 percent of all the water flowing at all times. Mr. Dunn asked if Mr. Martin was saying 20 percent of each spring. Mr. Martin said "yes." Mr. Dunn said he thinks they could achieve that by storage. He said that what is being missed is that this water comes from the reservoir and goes to a storage facility located on the old distillery site. When the water goes to the building, excess storage can be achieved by having a larger tank in order to collect enough water to make up for those times of uneven flow. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Dunn the flow of the springs. Mr. Dunn said the average observed was generally 10 gallons per minute. There is the Cool Springs hollow which sometimes generates considerably more. There could be flows there from 25 or 30 gallons per minute. When he tried to pinpoint 30,000 gallons per month, he tried to establish that in a manner that would not be disruptive. If some demand were put on the operation, he might try to get more than 30,000 gallons per month. There are a lot of variables in- volved. If they get approval, they must then have a site plan drawn and determine if the water will be bottled on site or if it will be less expensive to have the water taken to a packer. Another thing is to sell office bottled water much as you see in local offices. There are a lot of facets to this type of operation. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Dunn how long he had lived on the property. Mro Dunn said he grew up on the property. His parents bought the property from other family members; from a generational standpoint, there have been family members on the property for six generations. Mr. Marshall said he asked the question in order to find out how familiar Mr. Dunn is with the water flow. Mrs. Humphris referred to a letter from the Watershed Management Official dated April 2, 1992. She quoted: "The larger issue is potential impact of bottling operations on public resources of the groundwater and surface water. Sanitary facilities, disinfectant agents, chlorine~ etc., fuel storage and other associated operational materials could have impact on area water resources, if not properly addressed. The magnitude of such impacts will depend on the nature and scale of the operation." Mrs. Humphris asked if she had missed this in the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg said that reference needs to be covered during site plan review, and there is no site plan at this time. Staff does not know what the chemical usage might be. It would likely be a steam operation of some kind, essentially from bottled gas. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to discuss her original question about staff's statement that the volume of water to be captured should not affect downstream properties. She asked on what that statement is based. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know what comments were received from the Engineer- ing Department, and there is no Water Resources Manager at this time to make comments. There was a comment made that "bottling operations which utilize a natural spring are typically not using all available water from the spring. Impacts from downstream water resources such as a public water supply would be negligible from a quantity standpoint~ probably difficult to detect° Use of springs and other water resources is governed by the common law principle of riparian rights."' The basic premise for the staff was what had been provided by the Water Resources Manager, and that was the sentence beginning with the word "Impacts" which he just read. Mrs. Humphris said the Water Resources Manager did not address any potential impact on the neighboring water supplies, only the public water suPPly. This is a matter of proportion. A total of 3.75 million gallons per year, which is what this minimum amount could be, could be negligible to the Buck Mountain reservoir when it is there, but any impact on a neighbor's water supply might be only a few hundred gallons a day, but that would be signifi- cant to the neighbor. Mr. Cilimberg said the neighbor's water supply was based on the recharge occurring from the springs. They ar~ not pumping water out. They are taking water that is already flowing on the surface. Mr. Bowerman said when the Water ~esources Manager spoke about the water supply watershed, the public water utility can process over 10 million gallons per day. Comparing 30,000 gallons per month or 1000 gallons per day against that amount~ it is not significant in terms of the total volume of water that is available. In terms of the adjacent property owner whose maximum usage may be only 500 gallons per day, there is a potential impact although not measur- able today. If the spring dried up there would be no water from that source anyway. If there was water being pumped out of the ground, it would still be available unless there was drought or an extreme situation. Mr. Martin said the water is coming up out of the ground, and Mr. Dunn will capture and divert 20 percent of that water. The only way it could affect the neighbor's well, which gets water from under the ground, is to November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) M.B. 42, Pg. 343 determine how much of the 20 percent coming out of the ground goes back into the ground to become well water for the neighbors° Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Paul if her water supply comes from a spring or a pumped water resource. Mrs. Paul said she has two houses, and each has a well. At one of the houses, in dry weather, there is already a problem. Mr. Bowerman asked what water is used from the spring during that dry weather. Mrs. Paul said their springs only feed their pond. They used to use two springs for one of the houses, but back in the early 1980's the springs did not produce enough water, so a well was drilled. She knows there is low groundwater in the area. Mr. Marshall related his experiences with springs and wells on his property. Mr. Marshall said he is pro-business and would like to see a man born and raised in Albemarle County use the land the way he wants to, but he will never vote for anyone to infringe on the rights of his neighbors. He feels Mrs. Paul has some good questions, but he has no answer to the majority of those. He needs more information before he can vote to support the request. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to support the request because it seems like it could be a clean business. She could never support it unless she knew that Mr. Dunn's benefit would not be to the detriment of his neigh- bor. Mr. Bain asked if the Board had access to a hydrologist who could enlighten the Board from a scientific point of view. Mr. Perkins said it seems as though the Board needs some expert advise° He asked Mr. St. John if the State Code addresses the question of who owns the water. Mr. Sto John said common law addresses this question in the State of Virginia. The person who owns the land owns the water in aquifers Under the land. Your right to it must be exercised in answer to your legitimate domestic needs° Mr. Dunn~s request is not to draw water out of an aquifer, but to capture what becomes surface water. You have the right to make any use of it for your own needs or agricultural needs, so long as you do not interfere with your downstream neighbor° Mr. Bowerman said it has been suggested that the Board seek a profes- sional opinion as to the question that has been raisedw which centers on the question of the adjacent property owners, and their ability to continue to get water as a result of issuance of this permit, whether there is a cause and effect° If the Board members can reasonably agree that that information would be forthcoming, he would recommend deferring this petition until that informa- tion is available. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff really needs a hydrologic report in this type of situation, because he thinks that any such request will have a potential affect on a neighboring water source° Calling for such a report was not made a part of the zoning text amendment, and no report was requested from the applicant. He does not know if the applicant can provide that informa- tion. Mr. Bowerman said the Board only needs a reasonable response to these questions, so he thinks the Board needs some professional advice, or an opinion as to the likelihood of a scenario as outlined by Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Bain said he has no problem with the County paying for that advise. Mr. Tucker said the staff has no idea how long that will take. Mr. Bowerman said any deferral should be based on this specific issue, Mr. Tucker said he wanted to address the issue mentioned by Mrs. Decker as to how to determine a minimum. He suggested that the question be deferred to December 16 and if that is not adequate time for a report, the adjacent owners can be notified that the information is not available, and an alternate date suggested. (Mr. Martin left the meeting at 8:37 p.m.) Mr. Perkins asked if there are other questions to be answered, such as what chemicals will be used. Mr. Bain said he is not concerned about that aspect since they have to meet state requirements. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris~ to defer this petition until December 16, 1992, to allow staff time to review all of the material handed in by Ms. Marjorie Maupin Paul and to make sure that every- thing to do with water hydraulics is addressed, to seek professional help as to the questions centering on adjacent property owners and their ability to continue getting water as a result of issuance of this permit. Staff is also to find a way to determine the meaning of the word "minimum" as suggested by the League of Women Voters. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins~ Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (Note: The Board recessed at 8:39 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. with Mr. Martin being present.) November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.Pg. 344 (Page 16) Agenda Item No 8. Public Hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in the Rural Areas and Village Residential Districts to allow individual mobile homes by-right. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27 and November 3, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report: "ORIGIN: Planning Commission resolution of intent of September 1, 1992. PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: To increase opportunities for affordable housing; to reduce housing costs associated with governmental review; to remove uncertainty related to special use permit process. STAFF COMMENT: Background information for these amendments is provided in the attached September 1, 1992, work session report (on file) to the Commission. Subsequently, after discussion with the Inspections Department a one-word change is recommended to the definition of mobile home. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Amend 3.0 DEFINITIONS as follows: Mobile Home: Ar. inductria!i-Jcd A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Cfficial~ Official and Code A~inistr~tcrs Administration Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family dwclling units. Under 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, repeal 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS and replace with the following: 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS While the Code of Virginia specifically provides for the restriction of mobile homes solely to mobile home parks among other regulatory provisions applicable to mobile homes, Albemarle County, in an effort to provide for affordable housing for all residents, permits mobile homes to be situat- ed on individual lots in certain zoning districts. To ensure usage of such mobile homes for residential purposes the following regulations shall apply: a. Such mobile homes shall be located on a foundation approved pursuant to Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; b. Such mobile home shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence. In the RA zone~ repeal 10.2.2.10 and add: 10.2.1.19 Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6). In the VR zone, repeal 12.2.2.10 and add: 12.2.1.14 Mobile homes on individual lots (reference 5.6)o Mr° Cilimberg said the Housing Advisory Committee~ in its report, had recommended allowing both single-wide and double-wide manufactured housing by- right in rural and growth areas if the criteria for both types of housing is met. There was a report provided for the Planning Commission's work session where the staff gave several possibilities for dealing with the Committee's recommendations, one of which was the allowance of mobile homes by-right in the Rural Areas (RA) and Village Residential (~VR) Districts. The others were to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to permit mobile home parks in the Light Industry (LI) zoning.district; and third, that Albemarle County take the lead in development of a mobile home park. The focus of the Planning Commission's recommendations based on that work session were only in the area of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that is before the Board tonight. The other elements of the recommendations have not been finalized. Mr. Cilimberg said the vote by the Planning Commission was 3/2. The two dissenting members did not feel the change was necessary since 97 percent of all applications are approved administratively, and that deregulation might lead to people taking advantage of the regulations, and also the possibility November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) M.B. 42, Pg. 345 of being deluged by mobile homes moving from other jurisdictions. Mr. Walter Johnson, Commissioner, asked that the record show that he wished to have the definition of "mobile home" be changed to one of "manufactured housing" as it exists in the Code of Virginia. The definition was not changed since the majority of mobile homes now in the County would not meet that definition, so would become nonconforming uses. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Ms. Karen Lilleleht~ Chairman of the Housing Advisory Committee, who read the following statement: "Finding housing in the Albemarle County area for low and moderate-income people becomes more difficult each year. They are increasingly being forced to spend more than they can afford for housing, to double up in overcrowded homes, or to move to another county where the commute inevitably drives up the cost of working anyway° One of the few affordable alternatives left for them is the single-wide mobile home, but the special use permits we are discussing tonight make acquiring housing even more difficult for people who already have the most economic difficulties of any group in the county. The fact is that this is primarily a ~'nimbi'v regulation without any basis in health, safety and welfare° Those concerns can easily be addressed by using the same requirements already imposed on stick-built and double-wide manufactured housing. In fact, the latter is by-right throughout Virginia, and it is no different in quality than a single-wide. It just looks different and its occupants are more like us than the often poor occupants of single-wides. I have heard people say they are afraid that someone is going to buy a lot in an established sub- division and put a mobile home on it. Well, I challenge anyone to find a lot in an established subdivision that is affordable to a person who can only afford a mobile home. There are a lot of equally, to my mind, farfetched theories going around, and even if there was some possibility of any of them coming true, it wouldn't change the fact that this Board should not, in my opinion, be in the business of regulating aesthetics for the benefit of the middle class and at the expense of the poor. Albemarle County certainly should not put up barriers to mobile homes beyond a genuine health and safety concern until the County makes other affordable housing available for them. You have a report full of ways to do that, ways which will ~ake mobile homes, hopefully, unnecessary. That will be harder than keeping barriers in place, but it is the only way to solve this problem equitably." Mr. Alvin Eqbert, a member of the Albemarle Housing Coalition, distrib- uted a statement to the Board, and then summarized same as follows: "The Albemarle Housing Coalition strongly endorses the recommended changes in the Zoning Ordinance. It would be a step in the right direction toward increasing the supply and stock in affordable housing for low and moderate income families in Albemarle County. This objective, while it is implicit in the documents dealing with the subject, needs to be spelled out and emphasized. Some people have pointed out that because 97 percent of all the petitions for mobile homes are approved, no change in the ordi- nance is necessary. However, there may be a large number of potential owners who are discouraged by the red tape involved° It is instructive that in Louisa County before 1985 productive homeowners had the option of constructing mobile homes on agricul- ture land by right° On April 21~ 1986, the County adopted a zoning ordinance that required mobile homes on individual lots to be approved by special exemption. In 1985~ 162 mobile homes were approved, but in 1986, only 91, it dropped to 45 percent° I think this is indicative, if not conclusive evidence, of what might happen. Low cost is another, and compelling feature of mobile homes. Some comparisons we were able to make about the cost of mobile homes and pre-fab homes~ which are the least costly alternative, show that mobile homes are 40 to 50 percent less costly. Furthermore, a single-wide mobile home could be afforded by a family with an income of around $15,000. Moreover, 19 percent of all the fami- lies in Albemarle County have incomes between $15,000 and $25,000. Obviously the cost of a mobile home or any other type of home is not only dependent on the expense of the house itself~ but also on the cost of the land. Low cost mobile homes are about one-third of the total cost of siting a mobile home, due to the lando Furthermore, in Albemarle County, many times individual building sites cannot be found at any reasonable price. In conclusion, we support any action by the Board that will reduce the number of families living in substandard housing in Albemarle County. Policies should yield programs that produce measurable November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) M.B. 42, Pg. 346 results as far as possible; otherwise the low income problem likely will remain." Next to speak was Ms. Ginny Decker, President, League of Women Voters, who read the following prepared statemeHt: "The League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County long has supported the development of policies and programs to make more affordable housing available in Albemarle County. At the same time, we have strongly endorsed the goals, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage development to locate in designated growth areas where services and utilities are available and to discourage rural residential development other than dwellings related to bona fide agricultural/forestal use° The League does not believe that the Planning Commission's recom- mendation to eliminate all special use permits for mobile homes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or that it will do much to address the need for affordable housing. We agree with the County Attorney's advice that further investigation of the need for and impact of regulation of mobile homes is essential before changes are made. There may be undesirable impacts on Albemarle County if it eliminates its permit requirements without similar deregulation or other changes in the adjacent jurisdictions. We concur, too, with the staff that an area for particular atten- tion is how the current regulation affects the housing stock for low and moderate income families and whether changing the regula- tions would appreciably increase housing for those families. The staff reports that 97 percent of the permit applications are approved. There is no evidence that the process imposes a hard- ship on applicants or that it has interfered with the use of mobile homes as residences. To the contrary, the use of mobile homes has kept pace with the substantial amount of residential construction. The staff notes that 'in 1970, mobile homes repre- sented 6.7 percent of the housing stock in the County,' while 'by 1990 mobile homes were 6.3 percent (or 7.2 using comparable category from the Census) of the total number of dwellings' The proposal to ease the regulations concerning mobile homes in RA and VR zones is put forth as a strategy for making more affordable housing available. If that premise is correct, development will increase in these zones. Such growth is appropriate in VR areas where services can be delivered more efficiently. On the other hand, such growth in RA areas contradicts the goal of the County in designating RA zones and the Comprehensive Plan's prescription that ~all decisions concerning the RAds should be made in the interest of the four major elements of the RA's, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural/forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development.~ We suggest, thereforev that the County consider this proposed zoning change in the context of the Housing Advisory Committee's overall plan for affordable housing andy in implementing that plan, allow mobile homes 'by right' only in VR areas and retain the use of permits in RA areas. If the permit process causes difficulty for some applicants--which has not been demonstrated-- improvements in the process might.be appropriate, rather than eliminating permits altogether. The League is not against mobile homes, but we believe the Board should evaluate whether mobile homes serve the County's long-term housing needs. We urge the County to take prompt action to implement the Housing Advisory Committee's strategies and to establish timetables for making safe~ sanitary and affordable housing available in the County. We are concerned that the proposed zoning change is taking the easy way out--giving the appearance of opening the County to affordable housing without truly making an impact. The Board should not lose sight of the bigger needs and the HAC's overall plan for dealing with the housing problems in this area. We encourage the County to explore financing techniques and other incentives which would make the development of mobile home parks and lower cost developments economically attractive options for developers° We also recommend that the Board carefully consider the funding strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and pursue state and federal assistance to help make affordable housing available. Mr. Jim Atkinson, President, Key West-Cedar Hills Community Association, was present to make the following statement: "We are not opposed to affordable housing. We are interested, however, in fairness and ask that you consider the following facts. The proposed change allows mobile homes by right in rural agricul- tural (RA) zoned areas of the county. It does not affect areas zoned single-family residential (R-1)o November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) M.B. 42, Pg. 347 Key West-Cedar Hills was planned and developed as a single family residential community. It was zoned R-1 for many years. People bought lots and homes here with that understanding, because they wanted to live in that type of community. Had we stayed R-i, I would not be here tonight. This would not affect USo However, the County changed our zoning from R-1 to RA in 1980o This was done against our wishes and without any opportunity for open discussion or comment. Changing Key West from R-1 to RA has been a problem to us and the county ever since, and that is true in the current situation. Regardless, we still are, in practice, a single family, residential community. Many of the homes here, in fact, do not conform to the RA requirements either for lot size or setback~ and this causes problems requiring variances any time we need to do anything to our homes. Technically we fall under the RA zoning requirements, but historically and practically, we remain a community of single family residences, and I think that anyone driving through our community would agree with that. Please consider our history and circumstances before imposing this change. As you know, the planning board believed that subdivisions like ours would not be affected because of restrictive covenants that would prohibit mobile homes. That may be generally true, but it is not true in Key West. In fact, in most of the areas~ the covenants have expired, and those that haven't are due to within a few years. I don't know if there are other communities in the county that are in a similar situation to ours, but if there are, they too should be excluded if that is possible. Given the above facts, we ask you the following: Is the proposed change really intended to affect communities like ours which historically have been, and for all practical purposes, still are single family residential? If that is the intent, then why aren't all single family residential communities included in this proposed change? If that is not the intent, is there not some reasonable way of excluding us without undermining the intent of the change? We support the intent of the change. We feel that there is a techni- cality that is hooking us due to situations beyond our control when we were rezoned from R-1 to RAo I thank you for your consid- eration.'' Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Atkinson if he feels that the price of the lots in Key West will impose a practical limitation on mobile homes being sited there. Mr. Atkinson said that is a valid question, and if this were a perfect world and people were rational all the time, he would feel that is a valid argument. Howevers it is not a perfect world, and they see no reason to "leave the door open." There has already been one incident where a spiteful neighbor did something, and he feels the same could be true concerning this amendment. There could the case of someone inheriting the land, and it would cost them no out-of-pocket money, so the price would not matter. They acknowledge that that is unlikely, but they would like to be excluded somehow from this regulation without undermining the change. They do support having affordable housing in the county and feel it is long overdue. Mr. Marshall asked if there are still lots available in Key West° Mr. Atkinson said there are. Most lots in Key West are one-half an acre or less, and many would not even meet today's R-1 zoning requirements for lot size. He does not believe it was the intent to affect subdivisions such as Key West with this type of change. In truly rural agricultural areas, this makes sense, but in a single-family residential area such as Key West-Cedar Hills, it does not make sense. Mr. David Martin said his mother had come before the Board with an application for a single-wide mobile home. The approval process took from May until October, and the trailer had already been on the property for twenty years (this was a replacement trailer). The person who lived within 500 yards of the single-wide did not want to see it. He does not understand why someone would object to a person having a home without asking for anybody else's help. He feels that most people who own single-wides are putting them on their own property, not in the middle of a subdivision. Mro Bob Provost, a manager for Oakwood Homes, said they turn away people every day because they "just can't help them." He feels the zoning text amendment before the Board tonight will solve a lot of problems the Board may not have heard about° He said builders want to build at the top of the scale, but no one wants to deal with the masses (nurses, firemen, policemen). He thinks this amendment will help these people to obtain housing, and also make this a strong community. He sympathizes with the people who live in Key West, but knows that there are associations which can be formed which have minimum design criteria to protect these people. He asked that the Board not make a decision for the whole county based on just six to 30 vacant lots in such a subdivision. He understands that 97 percent of mobile home applications are November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 427 Pg. 348 (Page 20) approved anyway, so why not eliminate the special use permit. What function does it serve? Mr. Provost said he read a comment in the paper recently by someone who felt that these are not real homes. He said they are real homes for the people who live in them. He asked that the Board consider voting favorably on this amendment. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Provost about his comment that he cannot help the people who come to him. He asked for the specific problem. Mr. Provost said the primary problem is location. Most of these people are qualified to buy and can spend between $200 and $300 a month for a mortgage payment for the financing that Oakwood can offer. Mr. Bowerman asked if these people already own a lot. Mr. Provost said most of these people want to put a mobile home on their own land. He said there is a supply and demand problem. Often he finds that mobile home parks charge whatever they want for an application (entry) fee and hE thinks that situation needs to be defused. He thinks that between 60 percent and 80 percent of the people want to put mobile homes on their own land. Mr. Bowerman asked what prevents them from doing do. Mr. Provost said he had a gentlemen recently try to put a double-wide mobile home on his half acre lot which was served by both public water and sewer~ but he was turned down for a HUD Code home (which is a mobile home) while on both sides of his lot are located single-wide mobile homes which have been in place for about 30 years. This man also had a substantial amount of cash in his checking account~ Oakwood increased the price by $12,000 and sold him a modular home. Mr. Bowerman asked how the amendment before the Board tonight will affect Mr. Provost's customers. Mr. Provost said it will provide them an opportunity to find land easier and at a lower cost. He does not think these people should be subjected to the special use permit procedure, which is just an extra hassle to go through. The cost of a well and septic system have been men- tioned as being cost prohibitive, although there is no difference in the cost of these for a mobile home than there is for a stick-built home. Mr. Bowerman said he asked the question because of the statement made by Mr. Provost that he could not help some.of these people. Mr. Provost said these people basically do not want to "go through the hoops."' Mr. Marshall asked what $300.00 a month will buy° Mr. Provost said Oakwood sells a single-wide mobile home, 14 feet x 80 feet~ with all options including air-conditioning, costing between $26,000 and $27,000~ and that amounts to about $290.00 a month. Mro Marshall asked what that "trailer" would be worth in ten years. Mr. Provost said if it is placed on the owner's property and it is affixed permanently to the land, it would be appraised as real estate. Incidentally, these are not "mobile homes", they are only pulled from the factory to where they are built, and the wheels and axles are taken off and recycled. Rarely are they ever moved again. Mro Marshall asked if the County taxes mobile homes differently than stick-built homes. Mr. Tucker said a mobile home is assessed as personal property, but using the real property rate. Mr. Bowerman said he did not want a lot of different questions at this time. Please reserve those questions until after the public hearing is closed. Mr. Marshall said there is a lot he does not understand about mobile homes so he needs to ask a lot of questions° Next to speak was Mr. Ernie Cook from Crozet Mobile Village° He has owned a mobile home for about 18 months. He would like to get his own land in the next 18 months or so and put this mobile home on that land. He under- stands that is quite difficult to do at'this time, much more so than a person putting up a stick-built house. Mr. Robert Johnson said he has been a resident of Albemarle County for 23 years. He thinks mobile homes should only be placed in mobile home parks with special use permits. Ne feels they are temporary housing, and depreciate in value while other homes appreciate in value. He does not think mobile homes are the problem, but maintenance goes down when they start to depreci- ate. On the property next to Mr. Johnson's there are three mobile homes, and he does not object since they were placed there by special use permit. They were placed by family members, and there was a condition placed which states that if the family members move out, the mobile homes must be removed from the property, so they are not permanent. He feels that is an appropriate use of mobile homes. To have a streamlined procedure so that the "loops'v people have talked about are made easier, should be done, but he feels that when a mobile home becomes a derelict, it should be necessary to remove it from the proper- ty. Because mobile homes depreciate in value, while other properties appreci- ate in value, he feels they should come under a special category, and when they are no longer being used by family members, they should be removed from the property. Mr. Ron Dunlap, Executive Director, Virginia Manufactured Housing Association, said the gentlemen who just spoke is about 40 years behind times in his knowledge of mobile homes. The Board needs to consider that manufac- tured housing is a single-family dwelling. Consider what people would live in November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.Bo 42, Pg. 349 (Page 21) if manufactured housing were not available. If the Board does not want these people living in Albemarle County, they could restrict mobile homes to mobile home parks and not allow private placement at all. If the Board did that, at some point in time, there might be a restriction against brick homes. Mr. Dunlap said his Association has fought many battles through the state, and he is partially responsible for recent state legislation which requires that counties allow double-wide manufactured homes on private property in agricul- tural zones. He came tonight to compliment the Board on a very important and futuristic decision. Manufactured housing is no longer temporary housing. A single-wide manufactured home requires two or three days of installation time, five to six days to be built in a factory where as many as 250 people work on that home and the exact same materials as those used in any stick-built house. Mr. Dunlap said he had talked with Mr. Marshall last weekend, and he felt this was an idea being considered seriously. He hopes the Board will do so. He said his office and his board of directors are available to come at any time and discuss the appreciation rate on manufactured homes (four to ten percent) on private property. Before the Board makes a decision based on what people think they know, he asks that the Board check with people who know what they are talking about. Mr. Kevin Cox said he knew the discussion would get away from what the amendment is about, and go to a discussion of whether or not single-wides are suitable for housing. That question was answered and resolved a long time ago in Albemarle County because single-wide.mobile homes are considered suitable as permanent, full-time housing, and they are allowed in the rural areas. The question is whether the County will continue to single out single-wide mobile homes for special treatment and require individuals to go through an excep- tional process for a permit. Mr. Cox said a person can take a pile of lumber and some plywood or cinder blocks and build a structure by right in the rural areas that is identical in appearance, and identical in impact on property values as a single-wide mobile home, and yet they can do it by right. What is the difference? Why does the applicant for a single-wide have to go through this process? Mr. Cox said he has appeared before this Board many times with appli- cants and it is a humiliating and degrading experience. Regarding Key West Subdivision, a check of the real estate records shows that many of the vacan~ lots are owned by the adjoining property owner who has a vested interest in seeing what is placed on that vacant lot. He also looked at the assessed values, and they range from $24,000 to $101,000. People in the market for a $20,000 mobile home are not going to buy a lot at this price. In Key West the owners can restate their covenants. There may be a problem with someone who will not put covenants in his deed, but that same individual can put a cinder block house, by right, on one of these lots and that house will be of poorer quality and have a greater impact on property values than a single-wide mobile home. Why should the County continue to single out applicants for single-wide homes? There is no point to it. These are good people and deserve the same treatment as everybody else. Mr. Cox said that essentially he agrees with the ideas and principles of the Comprehensive Plan and feels it is good planning to put residential growth close to the urban center. Buts does it apply only to people who want a single-wide mobile home permit, or does it apply to everybody? It is a matter of fairness. They have a right to fair treatment from their County govern- ment. Mr. Truby Kegley, Jr. said he lives in a mobile home in the Crozet Mobile Home Village. He has lived in a mobile home all of his life. He has been looked upon by some homeowners as if he is some kind of low life~ and he is not. He lived in Fluvanna County and tried to locate a single-wide mobile home on a piece of property that he owned. The permit was not issued~ and it was suggested that he get a "Jim Walters" for the same price as the mobile home to put on the property. Mr. Kegley said he has seen this dones and an seven to ten years, the owner has worse problems than he would have with a mobile home. If people who live in mobile homes are good enough to elect the Board members, good enough to educate your children~ good enough to be police officerss why are they not good enough to put a single-wide mobile home on a piece of property in a rural area with restrictions? Mr. Kegley said Mro Marshall said earlier that he did not know that much about mobile homes, but if Mr. Marshall doesn't maintain his homes the price will also fall on that home. Mr. Kegley said he purchased a mobile home for $6500 and lived in it for fourteen years. He traded the mobile homes in and was given the same price on the trade, but he had kept the home up. Mr. James R. Shifflett said he had been before this Board concerning mobile homes. He owns property south of town in the County. He had a lot of problems getting his permits approved. He believes there is a lot of land that is owned by familiess and these people would be willing to put mobile homes on the property, but the land is restricted as to the number of lots so this cannot be done. He has three mobile homes on his property. He has a nice FHA home on his property. He and his wife both work and are doing good. The people on his property also work. He believes the Board should approve the amendment. He had a lot of problems getting his permits. He knows that a lot of these mobile homes deteriorate because the people can't afford to fix them up. If there are rules and regulations to go by, they can be enforced to keep the mobile homes up-to-date. He asked those persons present at this November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.Pg.350 (Page 22) meeting who are in favor of the amendment to stand. About 40 people were present in support. Ms. Jane Gatewood said she is an educated person, a responsible parent, the holder of a college degree, and also has done some graduate school work. She lives in a single-wide mobile home. She is concerned that there are stereo types about people who live in mobile homes; the underlying percePtion is that "we don't want to live next door to this kind of people." As a returning adult student and single mother she was living in a rented house, and her experience with the rental market was not good. The house she was renting did not pass a Section 8 inspection, and the rent was out of reach for a person with a low income. (Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 9:37 p.m.) Mr. William Fitzgerald went on record to support the memorandum of the League of Women Voters. He said that in the past 3000 years man has discov- ered that if there are not certain administrative and governmental checks on potable water to drink, both sanitary and storm sewer, and in the modern ages, electric power and landscaping, you are looking for trouble from infectious diseases, and any number of things. Mr. Bowerman said what Mr. Fitzgerald just mentioned is already covered by ordinance regulations in either case. The specific issue being addressed is between the special permit process nd the building permit process. Mr. Fitzgerald said, nevertheless, a procedure for placement of these homes should be kept at the current level. If the standards are dropped, or rearranged, so that too many of these things are encouraged, what guarantees the standard of the mobile home~ and who deter- mines whether it can be a single-wide or double-wide mobile home. What is the difference between a camper and a recreational vehicle? He thinks the procedure in place is sufficient to cover mobile homes for the present and future. He thinks the LOWV's memorandum is quite explicit. Mr. Richard Aust said he is the president of the Advanced Mills Village Homeowners Association which is located in the rural area of Albemarle County. He read the following statement: "Our Association opposes the proposal to allow mobile homes by right in RA zones. While we support increasing affordable housing in the County, we are concerned that this proposed change would have a significant negative impact on our property. We also believe there are alternative approaches which could better achieve the County's housing goals and serve the County's inter- ests. The proposed modification ~ould remove a significant protection for us. With advanced notice of the proposed location of a mobile home, concerned neighbors are in a position to voice their objections and work with prospective mobile home owners to minimize-the physical and economic impact of proposed sitings on existing land. Uncontrolled placement of mobile homes on lots adjacent to Advance Mills Village could severely depress the value of our homes. Our concerns go beyond the immediate impact on property values and costs. We believe that the County must approach the provision of adequate housing in a comprehensive way. The proposed modification in the zoning law may or may not in- crease the availability of housing significantly. We believe the County should examine thoroughly the likely impacts of this proposal on the availability of housing for low and moderate income families, and also examine alternatives to this proposal. The development of sites for low cost housing or mobile home parks may also be preferable to having mobile homes scattered on indi- vidual lots throughout the RA zones. Not only could they provide a greater number of affordable homes, they are likely to have a smaller impact on the value of other property in the County. We strongly urge the Board to maintain the current zoning provision under which special use permits are required for mobile homes in RA zones and to explore the impact and alternatives available.~' Mr. A1 Doherty said he lives at the north end of the County~ and this is the first time he has attended a Board meeting. After listening to the discussion, he suggests that the Board send this proposal back to the Planning Committee. This has been pulled out of the overall plan and sent to the Board in the form of a Trojan horse which has created a cause celebre for the mobile home industry. Mr. Doherty said he is appalled that the special interests are here pleading their cause without this being put into the context of the overall plan. He recommended that the Board send the amendment back to the Commission. Mr. Bowerman said he would close the public hearing at this time, and he announced that Mr. Martin had to leave the meeting soon due to his job. The Board needs to deal with the question now, or defer it since he feels that all six members should make the decision. Mr. Martin said the police had given him 35 minutes to get there~ and since he is only five minutes away~ he can stay that for a while longer° Mrs. Humphris said she assumes that every member of this Board is on record as being in favor of affordable housing. She asked Mr. Cilimberg why the growth area is not included in this proposed change. Why is it limited to RA and VR? According to the Comprehensive Plan, the highest density is wanted in the area where water, sewer and other services can be provided in the most November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) M.B. 42, Pg. 351 efficient way. Mr. Cilimberg said for the Planning Commission's delibera- tions, the limitation to RA and VR was because those are the two districts where individual mobile homes were required by special use permit. They are not permitted in any other zones on individual lots, but are permitted in mobile home subdivisions or mobile home.parks under the higher density zones by special use permit. That is why the move was made. They have not complet- ed their deliberations or discussions of further possibilities. Mrs. Humphris noted many quotes from the Housing Committee's Report, and from the League of Women Voters on this subject° She said that she is in favor of a broad approach to provisions for mobile homes in the County, but at the same time, in ways that will have no negative impact on the neighboring ss. She feels the Board has been rushed into this without a broad enough investigation of the situation, so tonight she is in favor of deferring action on this amendment until there is more investigation into where the County is headed, how it will be achieved, in other words~ how to provide for mobile homes in the best and fairest way for everybody. Mr. Cilimberg said that during the Planning Commission's review of the Housing Committee's report a majority of the Commissioners wanted to do whatever could be done to the provisions for mobile homes to address the immediate need. That is the reason for this amendment being presented without consideration of other recommendations of other recommendations in that mobile home report. A majority of the members felt the subject of special use permits needed to be addressed immediately° Mrs. Humphris said the overriding recommendation of the Housing Commit- tee was to investigate the "ins and outs" before doing anything~ and that is not what the Planning Commission did. They wanted to go right to one area instead of investigating the entire subject and making decisions based on the best information that could be obtained. Mr° Bain said he does not feel this amendment to the ordinance is a major issue. The subject of mobile homes has been discussed for a long time, and at length. Mobile homes are affordable housing. Ninety-seven percent of the permits have been approved, so he is in favor of just eliminating the provisions from the ordinance. If the Board wants to permit mobile homes by right in the R-I, R-2 and R-3 zones, the Board should go ahead and do it, but that provision is not before the Board tonight. He would, however, vote to approve such a provision. Mr. Bain said he does not think allowing mobile homes by right is the answer the Board is looking fOr in terms of a comprehen- sive approach to affordable housing. He favors the Board becoming proactive, but he does not see this amendment as a negative or a cause celebre at this time. The people from the manufactured housing industry can come to these meetings; they do not influence his vote. He sees this as something the Board should have consider a long time ago. He does not think this amendment will lead to a proliferation of mobile homes in the rural areas. It is not what he would want to see as a final answer, nor does he want to have a proliferation of standard subdivisions in the rural areas. He wants more growth in the growth areas because it is not happening as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan although it is better than it was five years ago. Mr. Bain said he has no problem with the amendment at all and he MOVED to adopt the amendment as presented by the Planning Commission. Mr. Martin said he would SECOND the motion using the same rationale. Mrs. Humphris asked for the thinking of other Board members because the Housing Advisory Committee recommended that before anything was done~ the question be looked at regionally becaus~ of the varying provisions for mobile homes in adjacent counties. Mr. Bain said he feels the primary issue is to get on with affordable housing in Albemarle County, and making changes in these provisions is the first step. He did not read the Housing Committee's report as recommending that before any action is taken by this Board that the issue be studied regionally. Mr. Martin said if the Board waits to do something regionally, it probably would be five years before anything happened. He had talked to people at the VACo meeting from Fluvanna and Louisa counties, and he did not get a feeling from those board members that they are willing to discuss anything along these lines. Mro Bowerman said if the applicant for a mobile home permit only went through the normal building permit procedure, the issues of health and safety addressed by the County would be identical to those for a stick-built home. There would be no screening.required and there would be no need for skirting because the mobile home would be placed on a permanent foundation° Mr. Bain said the ordinance requires that the mobile home be the primary residence. That is a part of the definition. Mr. Cilimberg said the term "permanent foundation" also includes "piers"; the mobile homes does not have to be on a block foundation all around the entire perimeter of the home. Mr. Tucker said Section 5.6 which requires the skirting, etc., will be amended by the changes before the Board tonight. Mr. Bowerman said the other health and safety aspects, of a mobile home, which were mentioned by members of the public tonight, would be the same as November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 352 (Page 24) those for a stick-built home. Mr. Bain said the nuisance factor, which many people have mentioned in the way of abandoned and deteriorated homes, can be addressed by the Board in the same way that the Board addressed provisions concerning abandoned vehicles. Mr. Martin said he has talked with several of his constituents who live in subdivisions which were classified as R-1 and are now RA, and some were concerned about this amendment.' Is it possible to adopt an exclusion for these subdivisions? Mr. Martin said he personally does not think it matters one way or the other. Mr. Bain said he would vote to allow mobile homes in both R-1 and R-2 zones. He does not believe that someone would pay $25,000+ for a lot on which they plan to locate a mobile home. Mr° Martin agreed. He said you can look at the argument either way° Mrs. Humphris said that if a subdivision has lost its restrictive covenants, the covenants can be reinstated, but only upon a unanimous consent of all of the owners. Mr. Bain said not all subdivisions require that the consensus be unanimous. Mrs. Humphris mentioned the League of Women's Voter letter of October 6, and asked if repealing Section 5.6 would eliminate the requirements for adequate potable water, sewage disposal, etc.? Mro Cilimberg said this was an unnecessary condition in the present ordinance, it is redundant. Mr. Marshall said he has been more concerned with affordable housing than some people think he should be, but he is in a profession where he sees large numbers of people in that predicament. He knows what they go through. He does not think the Board will downzone any property by allowing a mobile home on adjacent property. Present day mobile homes are very modern homes and well built. They are fairly well built and nice looking° Most objections come from people who don't want the mobile home dweller next to them, it is not the home itself. All of the people who were born and raised in Albemarle County, and those who have moved in, have just as much right to live here as everybody else, and just as much right to a decent place to live. If $300 a month will buy a mobile home, he is amazed. He owns a substantial amount of rental property and his rental is double that figure. None of these people could afford to live in any of his houses. They need a place to live and the County needs to provide for the means for these people to live. He thinks the Board should adopt the ordinance, and he will support the motion. There being no further discussion, Mr. Bowerman asked for a vote on the motion. Roll was called, and the motion to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact certain sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance relative to mobile homes carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs° Humphris and Mr. Marshall° None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that certain sections of the Albemarle County ZOning Ordinance be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Section 3.0 DEFINITIONS Amend and reenact the definition of mobile homes to read as follows: Mobile Home: A building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industri- alized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Build- ing Official and Code Admini. stration Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family units. Section 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Repeal the wording under 5.6 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS in its entirety and adopt in its place the following language: While the Code of Virginia specifically provides for the restriction of mobile homes solely to mobile home parks among other regulatory provisions applicable to mobile homes, Albemarle County, in an effort to provide for afford- able housing for all residents, permits mobile homes to be situated on individual lots in certain zoning districts~ To lx0o0E November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) M.B. 42, Pg. 353 ensure usage of such mobile homes for residential purposes, the following regulations shall apply: a. Such mobile home shall be located on a foundation approved pursuant to Virginia Uniform Statewide Build- ing Code; b. Such mobile home shall not be used for any purpose other than a primary place of residence. Section 10.0 RURAL AREA DISTRICT, Repeal 10.2.2.10 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS in its entirety and adopt as a use by-right Section 10.2.1.19 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS (reference 5.6). Section 12.0 VIT.LAGE RESIDENTIAL, VR Repeal 12.2.2.10 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS in its entirety and adopt as a use by-right Section 12.2.1.14 MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS (reference 5.6). (Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 10:05 p.m. for a work-related matter, but said he would return. Mr. St. John left at the same time.) Agenda Item No. 9. CPA-92-02. Public Hearing to amend Hollymead Community to include approx 30 ac for low density residential use. Property on Rt 643, 1 E of Rt 29N. TM46,P22C&98A. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from August 12, 1992.) At the request of the applicant, in a letter dated November 11, 1992, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, to defer this petition until January 13, 1993. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-92-05. Towers Land Trust. Public Hearing to amend Comprehensive Plan to expand the Growth Area Boundary of the Hollymead Community to include Regional Service, Office Service & Low & Medium Density Residential uses. Area under consideration for these designations is E of Rt 29N, S of North Fork Rivanna River, W of Rt 785 and N of Proffit Rd (Rt 649). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 27 and November 3, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report: CPA-92-05 TOWERS LAND TRUST (HOLLYMEAD EXPANSION) REQUEST: This is a request to expand the Hollymead Growth Area north of Proffit Road (Route 649), east of U.S. Route 29, west of Route 785, and south of the North Fork Rivanna River. The total study area consists of approximately 450 acres. The Towers Land Trust request consists of 257 acres. The proposed land uses include Regional Service (41 acres), Office Service (29 acres), Neighborhood Service (13 acres), and Low and Medium Density Residential (174 acres). Attachment A (all attachments are on file in the Clerk's Office) is the current Hollymead Land Use Map which also depicts the proposed expansion area. The applicant's request is Attachment B. Attachment C is the applicant's concep- tual plan for development. BACKGROUND: This request was originally submitted in 1989 after adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan. During the review of the Plan, a number of requests to expand the Hollymead Growth Area were proposed by the landowners. The Board of Supervisors decided to adopt the Plan as proposed at that time without modifying the Hollymead boundary and advised the applicants that, after the Plan's adoption, their requests would be considered as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the Hgllymead Growth Area for expan- sion. Five requests were submitted which were located within three general areas adjacent to Hollymead. These became the study areas evaluated by staff (Attachment D). The five requests are as follows: University Real Estate Foundation (UREF): Request to include within the community boundary approximately 285 acres located west of Rt. 29, north of the exist- ing community boundary to the North Fork of the Rivanna River, and west to Route 606. The request is for industrial service land use designation in order to permit the development of a 525 acre research 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) M.B. 42, Pg. 354 office park consisting of 3,'000,000 square feet build- ing area. UREF presently owns 240 acres of adjacent property to the south zoned PD-IP, Planned Develop- ment-Industrial Park, and LI, Light Industry. All properties are to be developed under one consolidated plan. Kessler Grou:: Request to add approximately 100 acres to the community for low density residential use. The property is located north of Route 643, west of the Norfolk-Southern Railway and east of the existing Hollymead Community. The intent according to the applicant would be to develop this property along with other adjacent land already within Hollymead under a planned development approach. Donald Brown: Request to add approximately 24 acres of land between the existing eastern boundary and west of Prcffit Road to the community to be designated for low density residential use. Terry Spaid: Request for low density residential land use in the area between the existing eastern boundary and Proffit Road. The total area is ll acres. Towers Land Trust: This request to add approximately 257 acres to the community.- The Kessler Group, Brown, and Spaid requests are potentially impacted by the Meadow Creek Parkway-Timberwood Connector align- ment and should not be considered until the Meadow Creek Parkway study is completed. The UREF proposal may be resubmitted by the applicant in the near future. UREF is aware of the Commission's and Board consideration of this request. Prior to the Board's review of the Hollymead expansion~ the Tower's Land Trust indefinitely deferred their amendment request. This deferral was based in part on the staff's and Planning Commissions' recommendation to not amend the Plan until certain studies had been completed and issues resolved. The Board of Supervisors decided not to amend the Hollymead Growth Area until the following stUdies/issues had been completed or resolved: 1. Development of a Community Facilities Plan~ 2. Development of a County Open Space Plan; 3. Development of a fiscal impact model and analysis of the County to determine impact of growth on the County; 4. Resolution of the Route 29 Bypass location; 5o Resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway location. It has been the County's position that requests for expanding Hollymead or significant changes in land use designation in Hollymead not be considered until the above-noted items are completed. Once this work is completed, a comprehensive evalua- tion of the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area would be undertaken. However, based on recent decisions by the Board to consider and adopt amendments to the Hollymead and nearby Piney Mountain Growth Areas~ the applicant believes this is no longer the County policy and has requested Board consideration of the request. SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS 1. AS noted above, the County policy concerning the expansion to Hollymead had been not to consider major expansion or land use changes until all issues/studies had been completed or resolved. However, the Board has recently approved two major amendments in this area (new Industrial Service designation in Piney Mountain and new Regional Service/Office Service/ High Density Residential west of Route 29 and south of Air- port Road). All but two of the five issues/studies identified have been completed. Only the fiscal impact model and analysis and Meadow Creek Parkway alignment still need to be completed. The Meadow Creek Parkway does not directly impact this site~ although the evaluation of the Timberwood Parkway alterna- tives may be impacted by this expansion. 2. Sewer capacity is now available at the Camelot treatment plant to support some level 6f development in this drainage area. However, both water and sewer service will need to be upgraded in the ultimate demands in the existinq designated Growth Area (Albemarle County Service Authority comments are Attachment E). According to the Albemarle County Service Authority, adding this area under consideration into the Growth Areas will not precipitate the need to expand water and sewer service. That is already dictated by the require- (Page 27) 3e 4e 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 355 ments of the existing growth area. An incremental increase in the size of any new facilities will need to be provided for the expanded growth area. The Open Space Plan designates the stream valleys of the North Fork Rivanna River and Flat Branch for consideration for protection. Both are perennial streams affected by the current Water Resource Protection Areas (WRPA) buffer re- quirements. Because U.S. 29 is a designated entrance corri- dor route, a buffer area is also recommended along the route. Otherwise the bulk of the area is not shown as containing significant open space resources° All areas identified for possible protection can be incorporated into development plans for the area. Police, Fire and Rescue Service currently do not meet the recommended response times for service to the Hollymead Community. Development of a Police Satellite Station in the northern portion of the Urban Area or Hollymead community is currently recommended for funding in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Also under study will be the location of a new fire station, possibly i~ the Hollymead area. This expansion area is currently located in the Hollymead Elementary School district and will also be served by the new Hollymead Middle School and Albemarle High School° It is difficult to project enrollment without knowing more detail concerning the type of development (breakdown of current type, size, rental/owner). However, high and low projection would range from 350 to 1380 pupils with ultimate development of the site. It should be kept in mind that the growth management policy is to encourage anticipated growth in designated Growth Areas. While facilities may be impacted by ultimate devel- opment, those impacts would have to have absorbed within the system regardless of location. The intent of the Plan is to concentrate development into Growth Areas to allow for more efficient resource delivery while also protecting rural areas. 6° Route 785 is currently considered non-tolerable. Although recently paved, the road contains some deficiencies in geo- metric (curvature of alignment.and road width). Depending upon traffic splits and access points to public roads, Route 785 and Proffit Road may need upgrading. The proposed devel- opment could generate 36,000 to 40,000 vehicle trips. Prima- ry access would be anticipate~ on to U.S. 29. Ultimate build-out of this area will likely require additional im- provements to U.S. 29 north of Airport/Proffit Road. Inter- changes are a possibility at major intersections on Route 29. Additional residential areas have been identified as being needed by staff during the previous review of the Comprehen- sive Plan. The Housing Advisory Committee Report has also identified the designation of more residential areas as a strategy to improve housing affordability by providing a greater inventory of land available for residential develop- ment, thereby creating a more competitive market for land available for development. With the recent approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to provide 50 acres of Regional Service in Hollymead, the Land Use Plan now contains two times the anticipated demand for Regional Service uses. This is the standard established in the Comprehen- sive Plan for providing the total area for non-residential land use designations. There are now only two sites in the Land Use Plan in excess of 25 acres (Neighborhood 3 on U.S. 250 East and the new Hollymead site). This proposal provides a logical exten- sion of an existing Regional Service Area with a good location relative to major road intersections, and one that meets most of the Comprehensive Plan standards/guidelines for the location of commercial uses. The Neighborhood Service is not seen as being necessary to serve this area given the proximity of the proposed regional service area and the existing commercial zoning along U.S. 29 in the Piney Mountain Village. The Office Service designation provides a logical and appropriate transitional use between a major commercial/service area and residential areas. However, the total area being requested is in excess of that anticipated to be needed. The Office Service designation is considered to be a designation which accommodates employment generating uses, and is seen as being similar to the Industrial Service designation. There is sufficient area now designated in the Plan to support employment generating uses° November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.Pg.356 (Page 28) (Note: Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:10 p.m.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff continues to believe a comprehensive evaluation of all requests to modify the Hollymead Growth Area should be undertaken upon completion of the fiscal impact model development and analysis and the Meadow Creek Parkway Study. Should the Commission and Hoard choose to consider this request, staff opinion is that this area is an appropriate location for expansion of the Hollymead Community for the land uses proposed with the following changes: -Delete Neighborhood Service designation along U.S. 29; -Limit access to U.S. 29 to three locations for the entire study area. The Towers property should.be limited to two access points to UoS. 29. The northernmost access to U.S. 29 should be aligned with the future access to the UREF Office/Research/Industrial Park. -Specific location of low, medium and high density residential should be identified within the residential area. Staff has identified a deficiency in land designated for High Density Residential use in the Growth Areas. Consideration should be given to designating High Density Residential area within this expansion area. STAFF ANALYSIS: Site Suitability: This area is located north of Route 649, east of Rt. 29 North, and south of the North Fork Rivanna River. It consists of approximately 450 acres of land available for develop- ment. Slopes: About 15 acres of critical slopes were identified mostly along stream valleys. Most is located adjacent to the North Fork Rivanna River flood plain° Flood plain: Approximately 30 acres of one hundred year flood plain were identified from HUD and FEMA maps~ mostly along the North Fork Rivanna. Topoqraphy: The site lies within.the drainage basin of the North Fork Rivanna River watershed, below the intake point. The area consists of rolling topography consisting of moderate slopes. Some drainage areas exist with associated steep slopes. Soils: Soils generally consist of Elioak, Glenelg, and Hazel loam and Fauquier silt loam. Soils have few limitations for develop- ment~ Stream valley areas limited by critical slopes and shallow depth to bedrock. Existinq Land Uses: Existing uses in this area consist of: building supply store~ truck sales dealership; one church; nurs- ery, bank, mobile home park; scattered single-family residential development along Route 785. Utilities: The Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant and North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant serve the Growth Area north of Air- port/Proffit Road. There is existing capacity available in the Camelot plant to accommodate some short term demand. However, the plant is not adequately sized to service the ultimate build out of the existinq Growth Area located within its drainage area (primar- ily north of Airport/Proffit Road). Eventually, the plant will have to be eliminated and replaced with a sewer interceptor or pumping station/force main to the Powell~s Creek interceptor. This area would be served by the North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant. Although the plant capacity is adequate to serve ultimate development, raw water supply is £nadequate. Additional water would be needed to serve the existing Growth Area. Additional water supply can be provided from either Chris Greene Lake or through a connection to the South Rivanna water system. Swimming would have to be prohibited at Chris Greene Lake if it were to be used as a water supply. The proposed expansion will not precipitate the need to expand water and sewer service. Expansion of service is already required under the existing Land Use Plan for Hollymead and Piney Mountain. However, the expansion will affect the extent of additional service that will need to be provided. Roads: The proposed expansion area is bounded by U.S. 29, Route 785~ and Route 649 (Proffit Road). U.So 29 currently carries 27,000 vehicle trips per day north of Airport/Proffit Road. Route 29 from Airport/Proffit Road to the South Fork Rivanna is sched- uled to be widened to six lanes beginning in FY 1995-96. The November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 357 (Page 29) northern access to U.S. 29 is not located at an existing cross- over. Route 785 is currently considered non-tolerable by VDOT. Although recently paved, the area still has substandard road geometrics. Route 785 carries 315 vehicle trips per day. Proffit Road from Worth Crossing to just east of Jefferson Village is considered non-tolerable. Proffit Road carries 4332 vehicle trips per day. Community Facilities: Police: Hollymead lies within the Police Department Sector C response area. Response times are in excess of that recommended for the urban area (ten minutes). Twenty-seven percent of all calls originate from the 29 North Corridor. The Community Facilities Plan recommends the location of a police substation to serve the northern area of the County. Based on service demand and existing roadway network and traffic patterns, a location in the Hollymead Community would hold the best poten- tial to serve the area. Funding for construction of such a station (possible government satellite facility) is scheduled for FY 1995-96. Fire and Rescue: The Hollymead area is primarily served by the Earlysville Fire Department and secondary service is provided by the Seminole Trail Fire Department. Also, the City and County have a contract where the City agrees to provide supplementary twenty-four hour protection to the County. The City generally responds with one truck to this area. Response time in the Hollymead area is in excess of the recommended response time to Urban Areas (five minutes). Currently, aerial truck service is provided only by the City. The City provides aerial truck service if the required staffing is available and the truck is not needed in the City. Estimated response time to the Hollymead area is fifteen minutes. The Facilities Plan recommends the location of a new fire station to serve Hollymead and Piney Mountain. At this time, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) provides ALS and Basic Life Support (BLS) service to Hollymead. The Earlysville Fire Department and the Seminole Trail Fire Department also provide BLS service thorough its "first responder" program. Responding with emergency medical technicians (EMT's), they are simultaneously dispatched with rescue squads. Estimated response time for CARS is thirteen minutes. The Community Facili- ties Plan recommends four minutes or less. The Community Facili- ties Plan recommends that related and complementary services be located within one complex and centralized whenever possible. Therefore, the possibility of a rescue squad in conjunction with a new fire department should be considered. Parks: Park service is adequate to the Hollymead areas. Communi- ty level service is currently being provided by Hollymead Elemen- tary. The northern portion of the Hollymead area is lacking in district park service; however, the new Hollymead Middle School is expected to provide adequate district park level service to the Community. County park level service is provided through Chris Green Lake. Library: The Northside Branch (Albemarle Square Shopping Center) is the closest library to provide service to the Hollymead area. Schools: This area is currently located in the Hollymead Elemen- tary School, Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle High School districts. This area will be located within the new Hollymead Middle School district. It is difficult to estimate enrollment at this time without more specific information concerning the total number of units, and the characteristics of those units including unit type (apartment, townhouse, single-family detached), size of units, and the like. However, low and high enrollment projections range from 350 to 1380 pupils, with the likely total enrollment anticipated somewhere at the mid-point of these extremes. Build-out of this area would likely impact elementary school facilities the most, with either expansion or redistricting of existing schools and/or construction of a new school required. An additional elementary school in the northern portion of the County has already been considered as a mid- to long-term need by the Long Range Planning Committee for schools. The new middle school is already in the planning and development stage in the Hollymead area. An evaluation of high school capacity and expansion is anticipated to be undertaken in the next fiscal year. November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 358 (Page 30) Concerning Community Facilities, it should be kept in mind that the growth management policy is to encourage anticipated growth in designated Growth Areas. While facilities may be impacted by ultimate development, those impacts would have to be absorbed within the system regardless of location. The intent of the Plan is to concentrate development into Growth Areas to allow for more efficient resource deliver while also protecting rural areas. Open Space Plan Analysis: Stream valleys are identified along the North Fork Rivanna River and Flat Branch. Both are perennial streams which would fall under the WRPA buffer requirements. A greenway corridor along the North Fork should be considered if the Hollymead/Piney Mountain Growth Areas are expanded. There are no important agricultural or forestal soils in the area. Route 29 North is a designated entrance corridor. There is one historic site in study area 2, the Laurel Hill Church. A designated buffer is shown in the southwest corner based on the regional service designation in Hollymead Community. Depending upon the ultimate land uses designated in this area, this buffer may not be necessary. The bulk of the area is not identified as containing significant open space area. All areas identified for possible protection can be incorporated into development plans for the area. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The entire site currently lies outside the boundary for the Hollymead Community. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include this area within the designated growth area of Hollymead. This project proposes a significant scale of development for both commercial and residential development, therefore, this report will review the residential and commercial aspects of the project separately. Residential - A total of 174 acres are proposed for iow to medium residential with a gross density of 7.5 dwellings per acre. At this density~ a total of 1305 dwellings could be developed, housing a total of 3100 residents. At this time, the applicant has not speci- fied the unit type or other design aspects of the residential area. Generally the higher density devel- opment will likely be between U.S. 29 and the internal spine road. Residential Land Use Standards in the Comprehensive Plan primarily focus on more detailed design issues and are not relevant at this stage of review. A primary concern of staff related to residential development is the availability of adequate iow density residential areas in the County to accommodate market demand for iow density, single-family detached housing. Staff has also-identified the need for addi- tional high density areas, due to development of existing land designations. The growth management goal in the new Comprehensive Plan promotes a combination of: (1) growth areas to support future growth; and, (2) conservation of rural areas for resource protection purposes. The Plan states that this and future plans must make adjustments that can influence development patterns to better meet growth management goals, including the addition of growth areas. Early in the discussions of the revised Plan, the Planning Commis- sion discussed enlarging existing growth areas to help attract building activity away from the rural area° A concern was the great reserve of potential rural area building lots as compared to the growth areas' dwelling unit potential. In particular~ iow density areas were determined to be lacking in the existing growth areas. Expansion areas were added to the Urban Area, Crozet and North Garden. The Board of Supervisors supported these recommen- dations and further analyzed other expansion areas. However~ in its final decision, the Ivy and Stony Point Villages were deleted as Growth Areas. The Rivanna Village was added in 1989. As a result, the imbalance of rural area to growth area dwelling unit potential (estimated in 1990 to be a maximum 54,500 lots in the rural areas versus a range of 15,400 to 39,900 dwelling units in growth areas) still exists. Conditions present when the Planning Commission began reviewing the Comprehensive Plan in 1987 still exist. An existing and future rural/growth area development imbalance remains. Residen- tial development in the rural area continues at a rate average 40 percent of total new residential development annually. Recent developments such as Mill Creek, Mill Creek South, Forest Lakes November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 359 (Page 31) and The Highlands at Mechums River, have helped maintain the Growth Area percentage of total development at 50 to 60 percent over the past few years. With the development of the UREF Re- search office Park, there will be additional demands for housing, and potential pressure for more development in the Rural Areas. Commercial - This request includes 41 acres of Region- al Service potentially accommodating 450,000 square feet of building area and 29 acres of Office Service accommodating 350,000 square feet of office space. Specific recommendations of the Land Use Plan for commercial service areas in Hollymead are as follows: o Reqional service on Route 29 North at Route 649. This area is intended to serve commercial service ne~ds for the Hollymead Community, the Airport, and Route 29 North traffic. This location is expected to accommodate multiple uses for future commercial development conve- nient to a variety of users. o No commercial uses on either side of Route 29 up to the entrance of the existinq Hollymead Subdivision. It is the intent of the plan that the large regional use area south of the Rivanna River not extend north of the river on the east or west side of Route 29. Service areas as shown in the plan are sufficient for the foreseeable future. The applicant has stated that the existing regional service area available in this area is inadequate to serve future needs and is requesting the additional area as an expansion of this regional service area. From a locational standpoint, this area is general- ly consistent with the recommendations for concentrating regional service activity in the Routes 29/649 area. This proposal's consistency with the commercial land use standards of the Plan are as follows: Locate commercial zon~nq districts only in planned qrowth areas. This is a request to include this area within the Hollymead growth area boundary. Concentrate and cluster hiqhway-oriented commercial activi- ties to min~mlze traffic hazards and adverse visual impacts. This proposal basically extends the existing regional service area at Route 29 to the north. Provide linear landscape areas alonq public roads and prop- erty line. Plans for the PUD have not been developed. Accomplish rezoninqs to a commercial desiqnation for site of three acres or more under a planned development zoninq desiq~ nation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan. The applicant would be developing this project under a Planned Unit Development approach. A transportation study has not been provided for this development, therefore~ spe- cific impacts from this regional service area cannot be determined. Traffic estimates are that 36,000 to 40~000 vehicle trips per day would be generated from this area, approximately 23,000 of which would be generated by the regional service and office service activity° Employ commercial office uses as transitional areas between residential areas and heavier commercial or industrial are=s. An office service area is shown as a transitional area be- tween the regional service and residential sections in the proposed PUD. However~ no transitional area or buffering is indicated between the regional service area and the existing residential areas to the east. With the recent approval of the Regional Service area east of U.S. 29, south of Airport Road, the reservoir of designated commercial land in the Land Use Plan is currently at two times the anticipat- ed need for commercial land which is the minimum ratio recommended in the Comprehensive Plan to provide adequate location flexibili- ty. The additional 41 acres would take the inventory slightly above this two times demand ratio. With the recent approval of a Plan amendment to provide 50 acres of Regional Service in Hollymead, the Land Use Plan now contains November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 360 (Page 32) two-times the anticipated demand for Regional Service uses. This is the standard established in the Comprehensive Plan for provid- ing the total area for non-residential land use designations. There are now only two sites in the Land Use Plan in excess of 25 acres (Neighborhood 3 on U.S. 250 and the new Hollymead site). This proposal provides a logical extension of an existing Regional Service Area with a good location relative to major road intersec- tions, and one that meets most of the Comprehensive Plan stan- dards/guidelines for the location of commercial uses. The Neighborhood Service is not seen as being necessary to serve this area given the proximity of the proposed regional service and the existing commercial zoning exiting along U.S. 29 in the Piney Mountain Village. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria: The following are staff comments regarding the consistency o~ this proposal with the criteria established for review of a Comprehensive Plan amendment request (See Attachment F for criteria). The applicant has not provided specific comments regarding these criteria. Criteria A: The general location of this request is considered to hold potential as an expansion area for Hollymead in regards to location and physical characteristics of the area. The primary constraint to expansion to this area is the availability of adequate water and sewer serviceto serve the ultimate development of this area, and adequacy of existing roadways to accommodate additional traffic, particularly in regard to traffic generated from the commercial and office activity. Development of the UREF Industrial Park will increase the need for more residential to the population growth associated with that development. This area could provide a reasonable location to meet that housing need. Criteria B: In regard to the proposed residential development, this proposal would tend to support the County's growth management goal by providing for additional residential areas within a designated growth area and discouraging growth in the rural area. However, it is difficult at this time to determine whether the proposed residential development would provide the type of housing which is now being provided in the rural area, thereby drawing development away from the rural areas. The growth management goal emphasizes the need to promote the efficient utilization of the County resources, this includes the fiscal and land resources of the County. In this regard, the timing/phasing of development and ultimate build-out should be taken into consideration. The applicant has not provided a specific phasing of development and build-out. Currently Route 785 and Proffit Road are considered non-tolerable. Route 785 was recently paved, but still contains some substandard road geometrics (curvature of road). Additional improvements will probably be necessary on Route 785, Proffit Road and Route 29 to maintain an adequate level of service on these roads, however, to date, a traffic analysis has not been done for this development. A traffic study would be required with the submittal of a rezoning request. Three access points are being shown for the Towers request, two on U.S. 29 and one on Route 785. The northernmost access is not located at an existing crossover. This access point should be aligned with the existing crossover to the north across from the UREF Research Office Park access. All access to U.S. 29 from this study area should be minimized. Approval of the expan- sion area may impact the consideration of Timberwood connector alternatives to the Meadow Creek Parkway. Utility and Community Facilities have already been addressed previously in this report. Sewer capacity is now available at the Camelot treatment plant to support short-term demand for service within this drainage area. However, both water and sewer service will need to be upgraded in the ultimate demands in the existinq designated Growth Area (ACSA comments are Attachment E). Accord- ing to the Albemarle County Service Authority, adding the area under consideration into the Growth Areas will not precipitate the need to expand water and sewer service. That is already dictated by the requirements of the existing growth area. An incremental increase in the size of any new facilities will need to be provid- ed for the expanded growth area. Criteria D~ Compliance with County plans and policies has been addressed throughout this report. The applicant has not submitted a traffic study for this project. This will be a requirement of a rezoning request. Criteria E: Development of the UREF Airport Research Office Park will likely increase the demand for housing and need for addi- tional residential areas for the County. Further review of the employment projections and land use allocations as part of the November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 361 (Page 33) UREF proposal will determine whether there is a need for addi- tional industrial, office and commercial land use designations. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Octo- ber 20, 1992, by a vote of 5/2, recommended approval of CPA-92-05. He added that the applicant had, this date, provided an update which may change some parts of their application. Tonight, he will present only the basics an the concept. The actual text language and map will be returned to the Board for approval at a later date. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board should have before it tonight a letter from UREF requesting that the Board consider their request for expansion of the Hollymead growth area on the west side of Route 29 concurrently with this request from the Towers Land Trust. Staff would like to look at all of the requests in a comprehensive manner. However, if the Board chooses to proceed independently with the Towers request, staff believes this is an area which is appropriate for expansion, but suggests that the Neighborhood Service not be included because there is substantial commercial area in the Regional Service designation; that access to Route 29 be limited to three locations along its entire length on Route 29 (the applicant has that stipulation in his propos- al); and, there be specific locations for low, medium and high density residential (which the applicant has provided). Mr. Bowerman asked how many other applications are pending. Mr. Cilim- berg said the Kessler Group and two other owners requested residential expansion, as well as the South Fork Land Trust~ which was deferred earlier tonight because that land may be in the alignment of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway); and UREF. Staff has not looked at other possible expansions as far as the Piney Mountain Village is concerned. The only reactivated request, other than The Towers, is UREF's. Mr. Bain asked if the Board would have the Planning Commission's recommendation on the next five-year update of the Comprehensive Plan by the end of 1993. Mr. Cilimberg said that date is doubtful. Mr. Bowerman asked if this Board could look at the area in question in terms of the land uses without full consideration of the entire growth area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Could this question be put on the "'fast track" in order to look at all the uses proposed in the Hollymead Community all the way to the Piney Mountain Village, including the Wendell Wood site where the Board looked at a request for industrial zoning? Mr. Cilimberg said the staff had indicated in its first report on the status of the Comprehensive Plan, that that could be done first because it was anticipated that there would be a need for an expansion area, and this was the most logical general area to look at. Mr. Bain said he does not agree with looking at the Holly- mead area ahead of the Urban Area° Mr. Bowerman said he is sorry the Board is discussing this matter at this time, but he is not willing to wait for another couple of years. Mr. Cilimberg said one thing the Board needs to decide on is how important the report of the Fiscal Impact committee is to this question. He believes that the location of the Meadow Creek Parkway can be taken care of, the Utilities Plan can be taken care of, but he has no way of knowing when the Fiscal Impact Committee report will be ready. Mr. Marshall said he personally believes the Fiscal Impact report is not the only thing the Board needs to consider this request. The committee needs an additionalw and even that will not be sufficient to tell the Board what it wants to know about this subject. Mr. Bowerman said he intends to meet with four or five different members of that Committee~ individually, since there are significant differences being evidenced by different members of the committee. He may then attend a couple of the Committee meetings to get this sensitized in order to get the committee's work "back on track." Mr. Marshall said he does not believe the Fiscal Impact report alone will give the Board all the answers it needs. He and Mrs. Humphris disagree as to what the charge to the Committee was. He assumed the Committee was charged with deciding how a building with one million square feet under roof on Route 29 North would impact the County. The impact module the Committee is looking at now will not give the Board that information. Mr. Bowerman said he knows what information he wanted, and he would like to talk to Committee members to see whether they can convince him that the scope of their charge should be broadened. If they can, he believes the charge needs to be dis- cussed by this Board again. He said Mr. Marshall has raised reasonable issues which need to be addressed, and he would like to have some first-hand experi- ence hearing those issues from other committee members so he can then bring that information to this Board. However, that issue cannot be addressed here tonight. Mr. Marshall said that is why he thinks this public hearing should be postponed. Mr. Bowerman said one of the criticisms the Board hears all the time is about the length of time it takes to arrive at a decision in terms of lost opportunities because of the mechanisms the County employs when reviewing requests. In 1988 this request was premature. It is now almost five years later. Is this request being pushed ahead another two or three years? He does not know if that is reasonable. Mr. Bain said the revision of the Comprehensive Plan took too long the last time. The Commission spent 18 November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 362 (Page 34) months working on the revisions, and then the Board spent another seven months, which is a ridiculous length of time. The work was important and of benefit, but there has to be some way to reduce that time period. Mr. Cilimberg said the last revisions to the Plan were major in scope; it was almost a complete rewrite of the Plan. He said there are going to be some major issues involved this time. Mr. Marshall said he believes the Fiscal Impact model will help a great deal, but it will not give all of the information needed. There are negative impacts as far as this plan is concerned, but on the other hand, there are proven industrial impact analysis modules that can give some answers, and he thinks the Committee needs to look at both of them. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board is not going to consider the Towers request now, there needs to be a realistic expectation of when the work can be completed in order to communicate that date to the public. Mr. Bain agreed, and suggested the Board find out by the middle of December about the work of the Fiscal Impact committee. The Growth Area is the urban ring, so maybe the growth areas should be studied before getting into a study of the complete Comprehensive Plan if there is a time problem. The Board needs a Planning Commission recommendation on the growth areas by the middle of next summer. Mr. Marshall said he feels the County really needs an Economic Impact Committee/Department, or whatever. The Fiscal Impact Committee has been dealing with a person in Loudoun County who is in charge of their Economic Department. A lot of people feel creation of such a department means growth, but in actuality it could mean no-growth. That department is trying to show Loudoun County what it is costing for certain types of growth. On the other hand, it has the industrial analysis impact module. This department uses those two modules to analyze those two factors and puts them into the overall picture of where the county is calculated to grow. Albemarle County will be bankrupted if all growth is residential, there has to be industrial growth as well. Mr. Bowerman said he felt it was time to open this discussion to the applicant, saying he knows the preference would be to go ahead with the public hearing on CPA-92-05 tonight. He asked for comments from Mr. Don Wagner. Mr. Wagner said he had a presentation ready, but after hearing this discussion he will do something different. In 1988, during the Planning Commission's work on revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Towers requested that this land be shown in the growth areas. The Planning Commission said the request was premature and the Board of Supervisors followed the Planning Commission's recommendation but said the application had merit. Mr. John Horne, who was the Director of Planning, wrote them a letter and invited them to make an application to have the land placed in the Comprehensive Plan immediately, rather than waiting any extended period of time. The staff report was drafted and set out a list of items which needed to be completed before a thorough review of the request could be considered. They were assured that this work could be done in a year, so they requested a deferral of six months. It is now 1992, and as of now, these items have not been completed, and the Board is saying to defer the request until studies are made and all facts are known. The applicants have consistently communicated with County staff during the intervening time and said that if any other request came up for consider- ation in the Hollymead area, they wanted their application to be considered at the same time. In the Board's packet is a letter dated November 26, 1991, asking that the Towers proposal be put before the Planning Commission for review as soon as possible, and that the Board's consideration be simultaneous with any other major Comprehensive Plan amendment, or zoning map amendment for the Hollymead area. They were referring to Wendell Wood's request (which was approved a couple of weeks ago) and "Industry X." They had talked with the State Economic Development Office about "Industry X" coming to this parcel. That is why they requested in November, 1991 that the requests be considered simultaneously; that did not happen. When the Towers request was finally scheduled to be heard, County staff contacted people who had made other applications and asked if they would like to be heard at the same time. They all said "no." Now the Towers request is before the Board, and three members of the Board have again suggested defer- ral. Consequently, he feels that he needs to speak as to why the request should be approved at this time. Mr. Wagner said the applicants have waited all these years, and even if approved, they will not be moving dirt tomorrow. Approval would only give them the opportunity to plan something for that area in the future. Planning takes at least two years. The other affordable housing areas in Albemarle County are filling up. These are areas such as Mill Creek, Crozet, a portion of Hollymead. If the Board wants any affordable housing in the growth areas, some land must be put into the growth areas for that purpose. When Agnor-Hurt School was built, the County bought a huge piece of land shown in the Compre- hensive Plan for high density residential. When "Sam's" was built, that was another piece of high density residential land changed to another use. There is not much high density residential land left in the growth area. Approving the Towers request will not cause someone to move to Albemarle County and build a home that would not have been built anyway. In fairness, he feels the Towers request should be heard, and not deferred again. He is prepared to November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 363 (Page 35) make his formal request, but sees no reason to do so if the request is to be deferred~again. Mr. Bowerman said he is sensitive to what Mr. Wagner has said about the length of time they have been involved in the process. He is concerned about the Board's ability to reach decisions in a timely fashion with reasonable facts available, and at the same time, while being responsible to the communi- ty in terms of these issues. Mr. Bain said he is also concerned about that, but does not put it ahead of the overall review. In terms of losing high density residential lands, that use has been shown in the Comprehensive Plan and no one has built using that density anyway. Mr. Wagner said it is not built now, but when the University of Virginia starts to expand in three years, it will be needed. Mr. Bain said he was talking about other existing high density residen- tial areas which Mr. Wagner referred to as being deleted. He admits that some areas were changed to a lower density because the owners told the Board that the market demand was for a lower density. The land that was lost probably would not have been built as high density anyway. Mr. Bain said if any of the applicants had demanded that a vote be taken in 1989 or 1990, they could have brought it to a ~ote and gotten an answer. He wants the whole system includ- ing water, sewer, roads, etc. considered at the same time. Mr. Bowerman said he feels it is highly likely that this will all be incorporated into a Comprehensive Plan amendment within the next two or three years anyway. Mr. Bain said he is not sure that is correct. Mr. Wagner said thiS is the first time he has heard anybody on this Board, any member of the Planning Commission, or any member of the County staff question whether this is a proper place for the kind of development the applicant has proposed. Mr. Bain said he is not saying "never", he is questioning "now." Mr. Bowerman said he does not agree about the issue of the timeliness in which the County undertakes these studies. It is true that in order to make the proper decisions, the information is needed, but he feels that at some point, it is not reasonable to continue to push off these questions always looking for more information. Mr. Bain said he feels the issue is dollars. If the Board wants the information done by County staff, then the Board needs to hire the staff to do the work. This is a growing community. The Board should recognize that. Mrs. Humphris agreed. Mr. Bowerman said when the Board gets to the budget process the majority of the members do not want to spend the money. Mr. Bain said Loudoun County is doing things because they are spending the money. Maybe it is time that Albemarle County did the same. Mrs. Humphris said the answers would be available now if the Board had spent the money. Mr. Bowerman asked what should be done about this situation now. Mr. Bain suggested giving staff directives as to when the information should be back to the Board as to both the Hollymead and Urban Areas. The Board can give some specific guidelines. Mr. Bain said he opposed the request from Mr. Wendell Wood involving the Fortune 500 company. Part of that opposition was tied to not having the studies mentioned. He feels the Fiscal Impact study should be completed. Some of their report was due in May, and now they are talking about not having their work completed until the end of 1993. That is nonsensical as far as he is concerned. Mr. Marshall said he wants to see this application approved, but if a vote is taken on it tonight he feels it will be denied. Me. Bowerman said he does not agree that that is the case since the Board has not yet held the public hearing on CPA-92-05. He said he is willing to hear the application tonight with no guarantee of the outcome. Me wanted Mr. Wagner to know his concerns, mainly the Board's reticence to have applied the resources necessary at an earlier time to get the answers necessary for review of this request tonight. Mr. Bowerman said he knows it is five years since the applicants first applied for this amendment and the Board still does not have the information. He suggested that Mr. Wagner make his presentation and the Board hold the public hearing and see what happens. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 10:39 p.m. and expressed surprise that the Board was just beginning the public hearing on this re- quest.) Mr. Wagner proceeded with his presentation referring to maps posted on the wall showing the growth area as it exists. Towers original request in 1988 asked for a larger area, but staff suggested Route 785 as the boundary. Towers Land Trust and others jointly agreed to develop an area of 200+ acres. At the same time as the Comprehensive Plan amendment was filed, a plan for a PUD was filed, and that zoning map amendment is still pending. Since that time, one of the properties has changed hands and that owner has agreed to combine that parcel with Towers property in order to develop the area in an integrated fashion. At the corner of Routes 649/29 there are many separate parcels which contain active businesses which were recently constructed. There is no way for someone to buy up all of these parcels to develop the area in an integrated fashion as regional service. Even if they did, the existing businesses are on opposite sides of the public highway so this would not work. November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 427 Pg. 364 (Page 36) Towers developed a conceptual plan which could be used as a starting point for discussions with County staff members. Me explained the different uses proposed, pointing to a map posted on the wall. He said there are a number of subdivided lots along Route 785 which would be eliminated by their plan so the area could be developed in an integrated fashion. Mr. Wagner said at the time this plan was filed with the County, the limits of that property were somewhat different than the proposal before the Board tonight. It was said that it would be desirable for their road to tie in with a road coming from the UREF property exiting at an existing crossover. At this time, Towers has seven different parcels which tie into Route 29. On the original plan they shoWed two tie-in's to Route 29, and staff recommended that these be limited to three. It occurred to them that it would be appro- priate to have a different tie-in from the commercial property for people heading north, rather than driving through the residential area to get back to Route 29. Mr. Wagner pointed out eight lots which have seven individual driveways onto the road. There is also the road into the Northside Industrial Park, the trailer park, and when plans are more complete, they hope to line this new road up with one of those existing entrances to make a better intersection. There is a good intersection on this property across from the existing entrance to Airport Acres, and the other is across from the future UREF road. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:47 p.m.) Mr. Martin asked about the number of entrances to the property in question. Mr. Wagner pointed out the seven entrances he had mentioned as being condensed down to three entrances. He said the existing houses on Route 785 do not have public water or sewer service, so he believes they must be designated as low density residential now, and that definition would remain. Mr. Perkins asked what consideration has been given along Route 29 for setbacks for future expansion. Mr. Wagner said they are only trying to get their property recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. Once that is done, they can start spending "real" money to study needs. They cannot make a huge plan with a lot of detail until the land is recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:50 p.m.) Mr. Wagner said the staff report on CPA-92-05 is fairly positive. He referred the Board members to staff's recommendations as set out on Pages 5 and 8 thereof. Their statements say that this proposed expansion meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. There are public utilities available in the area, the highway is adequate, the Airport is close by, and the UREF property across the road is zoned for the industrial park that will go on that proper- ty. There will be employment in that park, and it only makes sense to have the other facilities that those people need close by. In order to do so, work needs to begin now. Mr. Wagner referred to Page 4 of the staff report about commercial development, reading: "This proposal provides a logical expansion of an existing regional service area with a good location relative to major road intersections and one that meets most of the Comprehensive Plan standards and guidelines for the location of commercial uses." On Page 11 it reads: "This proposal basically extends the existing regional service area of Route 29 to the north," and it also says: "The area is generally consistent with the recommendations for concentrating regional service activity in the Routes 29/649 area." Mr. Wagner said a couple of weeks ago, the Board was consider- ing adding some commercial area across the road and back toward town. The applicants for the Towers Land Trust tried to have their application on that same agenda, but were unable to do so. That staff report clearly said the Towers Land is preferable for commercial service. He has no problem with somebody else having commercial service nearby, but he wants the same opportu- nity to have commercial service in an area where the staff has said on two different occasions it is the best place to have that use. He does not know what type of business might use the property in the future, but if the property he mentioned earlier is shown in the Plan and the Towers Land is not, he is not "in the game." Concerning residential development, Mr. Wagner said everybody recognizes that Hollymead has not developed as densely as the Comprehensive Plan would have allowed it to be developed. There are one-half to one-third less units than were called for by the Comprehensive Plan. On Page 4 of the staff report it is mentioned that additional residential areas are needed in the growth areas to offset a demand for housing in the rural areas when the UREF property is developed. He thinks this property would help to ease that pressure on the rural areas. Towers is asking the Board tonight to provide a place for moderate income housing that is not a mobile home. In the staff's report, they made certain recommendations if the Board decided to approve this request, and Mr. Wagner said Towers is ready to work out the broad details with staff. Mr. Bowerman asked the meaning of "modest cost" housing. Mr. Wagner said that is $85,000 to $125,000. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible to build a house for $85,000 with the land values in the County. Mr. Wagner said it is being done at the present time. November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B~ 42, Pg. 365 (Page 37) Mr. Cilimberg said he failed to mention that when the Planning Commis- sion took action recommending approval of the basic concept, one of the things discussed was whether this is the appropriate time to make this change. Two commissioners voted against the proposal because they did not think it was the right time, but the motion passed by a 5/2 vote. Mr. Nitchmann felt that the Fiscal Impact Committee report was so far away from being finished that if it were needed before considering this Comprehensive Plan amendment (CPA), the CPA would be delayed for quite a long time. The other issue concerned utilities, and whether growth areas should be designated before there are utility plans available for those growth areas. The Planning Commission ended by recommending approval with the addition of "Zoning action in development of the area shall not occur until issues concerning ultimate provision of water and sewer service are resolved by the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority." Mr. Cilimberg said that realistically that would need to happen anyway, but that was part of their recommendation to the Board along with the concept of the expansion. Mr. Bowerman then asked for comments from members of the public. First to speak was Ms. Jana Briedis-ruiz who said she owns a house on Route 785. She read the report and is present because she is frightened about the development taking place in her area. She bought the house and 2.8 acres of land. She loves the quality and character of the road. It is residential and yet it has rural qualities. When she hears high density mentioned she is afraid that quality will be lost. The report says the vehicle trips per day will go from 350 to 3000+. She is a nurse at University Hospital and although it was mentioned that this area is close to the urban area, it takes her 30 minutes to get to work from her home during non-rush hour traffic. One Friday during rush hour traffic it took her one hour and thirty minutes to get to University Hospital. She is concerned that if Route 29 remains the only way to get into town, it will take longer and longer. Mr. John Snyder said he lives on Route 785. Like the person who just spoke, when they moved into this area, they looked at what it was and not what it might become. They had no idea anything like this was proposed. He is present to determine the impact on the residents of Route 785. The new zoning would allow 7.85 dwelling units per acre with some low density next to Route 785. The increased traffic is a hazard now without increasing the traffic at the exit onto Proffit Road. The staff report states that north of this property there will be an increase in traffic of between 36,000 and 40,000 vehicle trips per day. He thinks this must be a mistake since this is a 150 percent increase in traffic on Route 29. With water and sewer coming to that development, would the current property owners on the eastern side be required to connect to the public system? They have wells and septic systems which are operational at this time. Mr. Snyder noted that going from one dwelling unit an acre to 7.85 dwelling units per acre is a tremendous increase. Mr. Martin interrupted to be sure Mr. Snyder realized that the zoning suggested along Route 785 is low density, and most of the lots in that area are already subdivided and could be sold individually at this time. The proposed plan will not be much different if the applicant keeps the low density on that side of Route 785. Mr. Snyder said it would not be different if the road exiting onto Route 785 did not also connect to the other road. In other words, if that road were cul-de-saced, but people in that development would not have access to Route 785. This plan shows two exits onto Route 29 and that should be adequate for that area. He asked for some comment about the current traffic count of 27,000 as opposed to the 36,000-40,000 additional traffic suggested in the staff's report. Mr. Cilimberg said based on the types of land uses shown in the appli- cant's plan, this area would generate 36,000 external trips. That figure was arrived at by taking the ITE Book and applying those factors to the types of land uses proposed. A lot of those 36,000 external trips will obviously be on Route 29 going south. Mr. Wayne Smith said has lived on Route 785 since 1969. He is totally against this plan. The traffic on Route 785 today is about 300+ cars, and with those new vehicle trips will create additional danger. At this time, with Route 785 being tied into Route 29 there are people cutting through to miss the traffic light. Route 785 was updated a couple of years ago, but with that much additional traffic, he feels the road will need to be widened. His property actually goes to the opposite side of the road. When the improvement was made to the road, the Highway Department went back to the 1932 Byrd Act and said that because the road was being used as a private road, they could take the land on that side. They took the land and moved his fence, but he continues to pay taxes on the land on the opposite side of the road today. Mr. Smith said it was mentioned earlier that the County could not afford to pay someone to study this area. How then can the County afford to put in all the sewer and water, a schoolhouse, updating the road, all out of taxpayers' money. He thinks the money should be spent in upgrading Route 29. Ms. Ginny Decker, President, League of Women Voters, read the following statement: "The League of Women Voters has consistently supported the Coun- ty's policy concerning the expansion of the Hollymead area, and that was, not to consider the Comprehensive Plan amendments to enlarge the growth area until certain studies and issues had been November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 366 (Page 38) completed and resolved, and then to consider all the proposals simultaneously. We do acknowledge that the Towers group agreed to that policy, and did defer its request in 1989. However, during the last year, the County abandoned that position when it approved major amendments in the Piney Mountain and Hollymead growth areas. In approving those changes, the County did not wait for the completion of the critical studies deemed necessary to determine the impact of growth on the County, the fiscal impact models and analysis and the master utilities plan. In each case, the decision was made on the basis of a perceived urgent issue. In the first instance to provide jobs, and in the second, to provide affordable housing. But, no urgent need exists today that would warrant the County's ignoring the sound policy it adhered to for almost three years. We can understand the frustra- tion of the applicant who has deferred this request pending the completion of the five studies. The Towers group land may well be an appropriate location for expansion of the Hollymead growth area, but their request should be a part of a comprehensive review considered along with UREF's amendment and other proposals for the area~ The UREF application will have an effect on the Towers group development because it will determine to what extent addi- tional housing, industrial, commercial, and office spaces will be needed. In addition to the lack of studies and questions, there are other reasons why this request should be deferred. There are just too many unknowns. A transportation evaluation has not been provided, making it difficult to evaluate the impact on development° Police, fire and rescue services to the area are currently inadequate° No buffer- ing is indicated between regional service areas and residential areas. Types of residential development and its relation to school enrollment are unknown. Specific phasing and build-out is not provided. Questions remain about water and sewer facilities. This development will not precipitate the need to expand the water and sewer services which are needed to serve existing growth areas, but water and sewer facilities being planned will have to be increased in size to provide for additions to the growth area. The staff report notes that the primary constraint to expansion along the north 29 corridor is the availability of water and sewer and adequacy of existing roadways, particularly, in regard to traffic generated from commercial and office activity. These are serious considerations that shouldn't be ignored. Therefore, the League urges you to defer this request, but to press for prompt completion of the necessary studies so that a comprehensive review of these applications can be taken simulta- neously.'' Next to speak was Ms. Ann Price who lives on Route 785. She lived in Northern Virginia when Manassas as a country town. It is not like that anymore. She moved to Route 785 because it is country-like, but convenient to Charlottesville. It is getting less so. She has goats on her property. Her neighbors have horses, cows, dogs, cats, children, and they don't want to lose their road. She invited the Board to drive through Northern Virginia, and then to drive down Route 785 and decide which is the most tolerable. Mr. Wagner said in response to the remarks about the impact of the Towers plan on Route 785, that ~he conceptual plan was drawn by a consultant in 1989. He does not know why the road connection was put in the plan~ but said that if they connect to Route 785, he knows they will be required to spend money to improve Route 785. He would be just as happy to leave Route 785 as it is and not connect to it, if Ghat is what the County wants. If they don't connect to Route 785, there will be development along Route 785 with individual driveways, and those people will be traveling on Route 785. If this development is done without connecting to Route 785, the traffic will all be internal and the backs of the houses will be toward the highway. Mr. Wagner said he missed mentioning the Meadow Creek Parkway in his earlier presentation. At the time this plan was presented to the County in 1989, they suggested that the Meadow Creek Parkway be brought across the South Fork Rivanna River and continue on to the parcel where Industry "X" wanted to locate in order to get traffic off of Route 29. They still think that is a good idea if the County can find a way to route that road. If the County wants to bring the Meadow Creek Parkway into their property, they would welcome a scheme to do so. Mr. Wagner said on the question of the traffic increase~ the studies mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg were taken from a book. They do not take into account that people from within three-tenths of a mile shop within the area~ and do not go onto Route 29. If it is possible to fill in all of the indus- trial and employment area around the Airport, and if these people can live within the area, it will decrease traffic in the rest of the County. November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.Bo 42, Pg. 367 (Page 39) In answer to the question of who pays for utilities, it is the developer who pays those costs. Last to speak, Mr. Chuck Rotgin, said he has watched this process from afar for the last four years. Anything to do with land use in Albemarle County is difficult. There are many sides to all of these issues. If he felt that what they are requesting tonight is unreasonable, or premature, or unnecessary, they would not be here. They have owned the property since the late 1970's. They bought the land because they felt that at some point in the future, that would be an area which could accommodate growth. Mr. Rotgin said they felt in 1988 that the Comprehensive Plan map was "cockeyed". It is through their property that a good deal of the land on the west side of Route 29 has to be sewered. The sewer line comes under Route 29 into Flat Creek and then to the Camelot Plant. In 1988 when they first brought this petition to the Board, they felt the time was appropriate for a change. It takes a tremendous amount of time, effort and money to plan any development. With a development this size, it takes several years. Sometime in late 1994 or early 1995, a residential area might get started on this property if the request is approved now. Ne feels that the moderate income lots in this County will be about used up by then. This piece of property will be a service area for UREF. The schedule of development on their property will be based on UREF's development schedule. If UREF does not develop the way they anticipate, this property will not develop no matter how it is shown in the Comprehensive Plan or on a zoning map. UREF already has about 250 acres zoned industrial, and when UREF's project starts, it does not matter what they do with the other 250 acres they presently own. With 2.5 million square feet of office and research/development buildings in the existing appropriately zoned areas there will be an absolute need for what Towers proposes in the way of residential use, as well as the regional ~ervice, and perhaps the office service. Mr. Rotgin said Towers has been patient. They worked closely with staff. Every time staff asked them to do something, they have done it. They have waited for the studies which everybody feels are necessary and most of them are in. The Fiscal Impact study and the Meadow Creek Parkway plans are no closer to being completed than they were in 1988. Mr. Rotgin said that .is unfair. They will not declare that the Board set a precedent because it ~ecently approved some changes to the Comprehensive Plan in this area, but they do feel their request should have been on that agenda. The fact that the Board would act favorably on this request tonight does nothing more than give them a license to begin the time-consuming and expensive effort of developing an overall PUD plan for that property so it can be done in an integrated fashion. He feels it is important to have sufficient land in the growth areas to accommodate growth or there will be urban sprawl. For that reason, he hopes the Board will act favorably on the request tonight. If it is the will of the Board to not take that action tonight, they would prefer deferral rather than denial. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 11:28 p.m. Mr. Martin said to Mr. Snyder and the other people speaking tonight that he wished they had called him personally. He talked with Mr. Clemmer who lives on Route 785 this week, but received no other phone calls or letters opposing this request. He was surprised to see people from that area present tonight. Mr. Martin said he likes a couple of things about this plan. One, it keeps the low density residential use toward the back of the property; two, it turns what could be seven entrances onto Route 29 North into three entranc- es. It possibly could turn fourteen entrance onto 29 into three if something can be worked out with the other seven lot owners. He also likes the high density residential on the side of the property nearest Route 29. Concerning the complaints he heard from property owners on Route 785 tonight, the lots are already existing and could be sold at this moment. The applicant has proposed keeping the same type of low density on that property, but it will be part of an overall plan. As far as the road coming out onto 785, that is just a line on a map now, and if the residents on 785 oppose that exit, he feels the Towers is more than willing to drop that exit from the plans. Mr. Martin said if the chair wished to have a motion at this time, he would offer a motion to approve CPA-92-05. Mr. Perkins gave second. Mr. Bowerman said he served on the Planning Commission for ten years and he has been a member of the Board of Supervisors for three years, This par- ticular issue has been "on the plate" for at least five of those years. He thinks the applicant has been reasonable and the time to hear this request has passed. He thinks it is unreasonable to defer this request when the Board does not know when the informatiOn necessary to look at all the pending requests as a cohesive package will be available. If the issue was just to pass or defeat this request tonight, he would vote to pass it. If this Board can agree to hearing a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Hollymead growth area by some date certain, with whatever resources the County needs to commit to accomplish that, he would suggest December 31, 1993, or 13 months from this date. He is sure the applicant will not be happy with that length of time, but he person- ally does not feel it is an unreasonable period of time. Whether the fiscal impact modeling is done or not, and whether work on the other issues are done or not, the Board would hear this issue and make a decision on this part of 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 42, Pg. 368 (Page 40) the growth area. Failing to get agreement to do that, he will support the motion. Mr. Martin said he does not want to rehash the argument that took place while he went to the Police Station and filled out many forms and came back only to find the Board at the same place on the agenda as when he left. However, if the Board were to defer for a week or a month, he would be in favor, but to suggest deferral for 13 months, he will just leave his motion on the floor~ Mr. Marshall said whether this request is deferred or not has a lot to do with what the Fiscal Impact Committee brings forth. He does not think the Committee will have a module in place because the sample they are using has been worked on since 1989 but has never been finalized, and he does not feel it is adequate to give the needed information. He supports Mr. Bowerman's suggestion that the request be deferred based on getting a study, but he does not think that study will materialize in the length of time mentioned, so he will support the motion on the floor. Mr. Bowerman said he feels the applicant deserves a date certain as to when his application and the Hollymead growth area will be heard by this Board. He assumes that he would favorably support the request because it is close to what he has envisioned for the area. He is mindful of what Mr. Bain said, and that the Board has not looked at the remainder of the UREF property or the Piney Mountain area, or utilities. He thinks all of these things can be dealt with during review of any PUD plan, and are not insurmountable problems. He has concern about continuing to look at the Comprehensive Plan piecemeal. He thinks the implications for growth and development in this County are too important to look at in a piecemeal fashion, on the other hand, this applicant has waited almost five years without a decision. Mr. Martin said he respects the Comprehensive Plan, but knows that each year the assumptions need to be readjusted. The Board is about to begin an update of the Plan, and he thinks it is proper to assume that a plan put together years ago will not fit today's needs. Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen if the eastern branch of the Meadow Creek Parkway were planned to miss the Forest Lakes development, go through the middle of this property and connect to Route 29 at General Electric? If this plan were approved tonighte the County might not have the opportunity to do that. He asked if that is an important issue. Mr. Martin said he does not believe the Meadow Creek Parkway will ever be planned in that manner. Mr. Bain said he would be willing 'to move the request to September 30, 1993, if a report would be ready. However, if the Board intends to have a report by that time, then he believes that additional help must be given in the way of staff. This is a big development, with lots of uses, so he believes it is extremely critical to at least look at the northern end of the growth area. Mr. Martin said the Board has been discussing this issue for one hour and forty minutes, so he thinks the chairman should call the question, and let the motion either be approved or denied. He does not believe that further discussion will change anybody's mind. Mr. Marshall agreed and called the question. Mrs. Humphris said she had not said a word. The vote went ahead on the motion to call the question. The vote was as follows: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Marshall. NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. Mrs. Humphris said she feels the County has been unfair to the Towers Land Trust in the way the petition has been handled. When the Board consid- ered Company X, that was not fair, and when the Board considered the mobile home issue that was not fair to the Towers Land Trust. She thinks it is critical for an area as large and important as this is, and the huge impact it will have on the future of Albemarle County, that the area be considered all at one time for extension and with as much information as can be obtained by a date certain. She agrees to putting a deadline on the work, with the addition of staff, to get a solution to a difficult situation. At this time, Mr. Bowerman called for a roll call on the motion which failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins and Marshall. NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Howerman asked staff if UREF is ready to come forward with a proposal on their 250 acres. Mr. cilimberg said "yes'*o He then asked if The Kessler Group is ready to add input to the request. Mr. Cilimberg again answered "yes". Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be possible to have the needed information by September 30, 1993. Mr. Cilimberg said the only thing that will not be ready is the Fiscal Impact Committee report. If it is not ready~ staff can give the Board a Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Plan that will show the Board all that is possible for growth area expansion. November 11, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. Pg. 369 (Page 41) Mr. Bowerman asked if staff will be able to give the Board information on the holding capacity of the balance of the urban area to make an informed judgment about what the applicant has requested, plus other proposed uses in that area. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes". Mr. Bowerman said he would suggest that the Board do this. Mr. Martin said the date should be September 30 and not December. Mr. Martin said he does not want this request to go through another election cycle. Mr. Bowerman said September would insure that the present members of this Board make the decision. He knows this is not what the applicant would prefer, but he thinks it is a reasonable approach to dealing with the issue that satisfies his concern about the Comprehensive Plan questions and also gives the applicant a date by which they may expect a decision so they can move forward with their plans. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff would, out of necessity, put their effort into this study before any other work on the Comprehensive Plan. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to defer action on CPA-92-05, Towers Land Trust, until no later than September 30, 1993. The staff is to undertake a study of the entire area including the Hollymead community, Piney Mountain Village, the South Fork Land Trust request, UREF's property and the urban growth areas, with the understanding that this work will supercede work planned for the next five year update of the total Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the motion carried~by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: December 4 and December 11, 1991; and August 5, 1992. No minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Bain requested that the staff make a report on the feasibility of providing real estate tax relief for people whose homes have been improved by AHIP and who cannot now afford to pay their taxes. Mr. Bowerman noted that the meeting scheduled with City Council on November 13 has been canceled and rescheduled for December 11. At that time, the two bodies will discuss the Child and Youth Commission's proposal for a Teen Center and consolidation of purchasing services. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:56 p.m. Chairman