HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 14 77 PC MinutesJune 14, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 14, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Board Room of the
County Office Building, with the following members present: David Carr, Chairman;
Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Roy Barksdale; Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington;
Leslie Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were Paul
Peatross and Dr. James Moore. Other officials in attendance were Mr. Robert Tucker,
Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Minutes of May 10, 1977, and June 7, 1977, were approved by the chairman
as submitted.
SP-77-24. EARL BEACH:
At the request of the applicant, Col. Washington moved the Commission accept
the request for withdrawal without prejudice. The motion, seconded by Mr. Jones,
carried unanimously.
SP-77-30. Henry J. Javor:
Mr. Keeler informed the Commission and citizens in attendance that this
special use permit would be deferred until June 21, 1977, pending action by the BZA
on the variance.
Mr. Carr informed the public that the discussion of private roads and the
defintion of subdivision would be held at a later date, with the public properly notified.
ZMA-77-11. Caleb Stowe Associates, Ltd. has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to rezone ]a acre from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business.
Property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of
Routes 29 N and 631 ( Rio Road ). County Tax Map 61, Parcel 123B-1,
part thereof, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the conditions recommended
by the Virginia Department of Highways would have to be covered at site plan level.
He also informed the Commission that the area to be rezoned is approximate, however,
the Commission can address the size by covering the tax map and parcel number in the
motion, stating that it is the part that is currently zoned R-2.
Mr. Stowe, owner of the property, stated that the area is approximately
10,000 square feet; since it is small, it is impractical to locate a duplex there.
The surrounding property is zoned B-1, and the area can be better planned if all
of it is zoned B-1.
There was no public comment and Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves said that she saw no problem with the request, but asked what
happened to the site plan with one entrance which the Commission reviewed when
Dr. Catlin was chairman.
Mr. Stowe stated that he did not own the property at that time.
Mr. Tucker said that the plan she was discussing was a preliminary plan,
and the Commission had never acted on it.
Mr. Stowe said that he plans only one entrance from Route 29 to this property.
( Mrs. David entered the meeting. )
Mr. Easter moved approval of the rezoning request from R-2 to B-1 for Tax
Map 61, Parcel 123B(1) part thereof.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of
intent to repeal Section 7-1-26 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
which provides for billiard parlors and similar forms of entertainment
as a use by right in the B-1 District, and to provide for this use in
the B-1 District by special permit.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that as the provision
currently exists, several problems have occurred.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Carr noted that this is a very worthwhile amendment to the ordinance.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission recommend that Section 7-1-26 of the
ordinance be repealed, and that the Commission recommend that billiard parlors and similar
forms of entertainment be provided as a use by special permit in the B-1 General
Business District.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
ZTA-77-03. Duane Ramm has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for Home Occupation Class
B as a use by special permit in the A-1 Agricultural Zone.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the Zoning Ordinance
was amended in March, 1975, to define both Class A and Class B Home Occupations,
however Class B was not provided for in any zone. The staff suggested that the
current definition of Class B Home Occupation be revised to make such use unobtrusive
as a use by right in the A-1 zone. Mr. Keeler read the staff's proposal to the
Commission and the public.
Mr. Payne suggested that if the proposed amendment and definition are
approved, item (d) of 16-44-1 be revised to state "There shall be no sales
on the premises...."
—lea
Col. Washington asked if a man operating a trucking station for an
oil company could classify under this definition.
Mr. Keeler felt that this could happen only if every condition of
the definition were met, and he felt that a trucking station would create noise
and traffic.
Col. Washington said that he does not want to make such an operation as he
had just mentioned fit the A-1 zone with this amendment.
Mrs. Graves asked for the staff recommendation. Mr. Keeler replied that the
staff recommends that the use be permitted by right. Mrs. Graves then stated that
she felt that it should be readvertised. Mr. Keeler said that the simple fact that
Home Occupation Class B was advertised would draw interested citizens to the meeting,
and the Commission on several occasions has aitiended a request from what was advertised.
Col. Washington said that he does not favor the use by right provision.
Mrs. Graves agreed that the neighbors should know of a proposal as this before the
use actually comes into the neighborhood.
Mr. Easter said that this proposal bothers and concerns him , and he can't
support the amendment because he sees it ballooning in an agricultural neighborhood.
Businesses must grow to be successful, he noted, and he felt this would endanger
the privacy individuals should have in the A-1 zone. He said that he certainly feels
it might get out of hand, and be difficult to police.
There was no public comment on the proposed amendment.
Mr. John Streever, representing the applicant, stated that this amendment
had been proposed in order that Mr. Ramm, who will soon be moving to Albemarle County,
can continue his business here. Mr. Streever told the Commission that the Ramms
have a tape rental library operated out of their current residence, and all the business
is done by mail. There is no generation of business on the premises.
Mr. Easter asked how the tpes are transmitted. Mr. Streever said this was
done through the mail, usually in packages of 6. The postage generally runs around
$2,000 per month.
Mr. Easter said that his concern is the whole concept of Class B occupations
spreading through the A-1 zone.
Col. Washington stated that he can support the amendment as long as the use is
provided by special permit.
Mr. Jones asked at what point the Class B Occupation would be determined to
be commercial or industrial and be forced to move to another zone. He also asked
how the provision would be monitored.
Mr. Carr said that Mr. Jones certainly had a point, and that he himself
is always leary of laws or provisions that cannot be reasonably enforced.
Col. Washington said that a neighbor to such an operation will do a certain
amount of monitoring.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he felt like Mr. Easter - that the amendment would
have the potential of getting out of hand.
Mr. Easter said that he doesn't like the idea of monitoring only after
a complaint from a neighbor.
Mr. Jones noted that this is one way that someone could afford to start
a small business without having all the costs of office space rentals, utilities, etc.
He noted that these are big expenditures for even a small business.
Mr. Easter again stated that he does not like putting neighbors in a
situation of monitoring.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the conditions are spelled out pretty
precisely and the zoning office would have to monitor the use according to those
conditions. He also stated that he feels the conditions are straightforward.
Mrs. Graves was concerned about the use in a house that is located on a mere
two acres. She also said that she is concerned about the sanitary facilities that
would be provided, in view of the number of employees that would be permitted.
Another thing that concerned her was the large area - 1,500 square feet - that
would be permitted, and she noted that she did. not feel that a home occupation should
cover more square feet than are in her own house. She suggested deferring the
zoning text amendment until the size of the structure and the sanitary facilities
can be addressed.
Mr. Barksdale said that he will support the use by special permit, but he wants
the applicant to be put on notice that there are only two employees permitted, and
note the other conditions.
Mr. Easter said that two more employees mean more traffic.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he agreed with. Mrs. Graves that the matter should
be deferred.
Mr. Barksdale suggested adding a condition about a minimum of four acres for
such a use.
Mrs. Graves said that she can support the concept, not the provisions of the
concept though. She especially felt that the size of the building is too large.
Mr. Carr agreed that 1500 square feet is a lot of space.
Mr. Keeler suggested addressing the size, etc. at the special permit level.
Mr. Jones moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors
that HOME OCCUPATION - Class B be approved as a use by special permit ( Section 2-1-25(17.1
and that the following definition be recommended ( Section 16-44-1 ):
HOME OCCUPATION - Class B: An occupation conducted within a dwelling or within an
accessory structure on the site of the dwelling for profit, provided that:
(a) There shall be no more than two (2) employees, other than members of the household;
9
/9 --
(b) Such occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory
structure or both, provided that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation
and in no event, shall the total floor area of the dwelling accessory structure,
or both devoted to such occupation exceed one -thousand five -hundred (1,500) square
feet;
(c) There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises,
or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one
sign, not exceeding one square foot in area, non -illuminated. Accessory structures
shall be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn,
or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be
specifically compatible in design and scale with other development in the area
in which located;
(d) There shall be no sales on the premises, other than items handcrafted on the
premises, in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty
shops or one chair barber shops;
(e) No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than
would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking
generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street and
other than in a required front yard.;
(f) No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise,
vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal
senses off the lot. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process
shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television
receivers off the premises, or cause fluctuations in line voltage off the premises.
Boarding and rooming houses, tourist homes, and private educational institutions
shall not be deemed home occupations.
Col. Washington seconded the motion.
The vote was 4-3, with Mrs. Graves, Mr. Easter, and Mr. Gloeckner dissenting.
SP-77-29. Duane Ramm has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a Home
Occupation Class B on 20 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located
on Route 29 South, approximately 1� miles south of Covesville, Virginia.
County Tax Map 117, Parcel 1, part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. When questioned by Mr. Jones about
the number of employees, Mr. Keeler responded that the applicant is limited by the
definition.
Mr. Streever said that there will be no sales from the property, that it will
all be by mail.
There was some discussion about the business moving into the A-1 Zone, under
the definition just recommended by the Commission, since there are sales people over
the country, though they will not be at the particular site. Mr. Easter said that he
does not want the applicant to get boxed in by the definition.
Mr. Keeler explained to the Commission that this is a non-locational type
business, and this particular applicant does not want to be in the B-1 zone.
-0-
Mr. Carr said that is not a good reason to have this use in the ordinance,
because this is not a Home Occupation because of scope.
Mrs. Graves said that she does not see much difference in this and the
bloodstock company that was denied a special permit. Mr. Gloeckner agreed that the
bloodstock company was certainly a less intensive use.
Mr. Shreever stated that this is later to be a retirement home. Currently,
this is to be a house for a family with the operation done primarily by the children.
It is to be a family operation, and very small in nature.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Home occupation limited to the applicant's description ( with not more than two
employees on the site );
2. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
3. Any subdivision of this property ( County Tax Map 117, Parcel 1, part thereof )
will require an amendment to this special permit.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Jones abstaining ( he noted
for the record that he did not consider this to be a home occupation ).
Mr. Carr advised the applicant's representative to take note of condition #3.
ZTA-77-02. Centel has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend
the setback requirements of the CO Commercial Office, B-1 Business
District, and A-1 Agricultural Zone in the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to permit location of telephone booths within the required
setback, and no closer to the road than the established right-of-way.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and read letters from the Highway
Department and Centel to the Commission.
Mr. Ronnie Thacker stated that this amendment would bring existing booths
into conformance with the ordinance . He explained the free service and the time
schedules for the various exchanges, all scheduled to be completed prior to March,
1978. He noted that the number of additional booths is dependent upon the growth
of the area. He stated that the close location of the booths to the highway
enables CENTEL to serve the customer.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission recommend to the Board that
Sections 2-3, 7-3, and 7.1-5 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include the
following:
Public telephone booths may be located within the required setback but no closer to
any street than the existing right-of-way line or right-of-way reservation line,
provided that:
(a) Such booths shall be equipped for emergency service to the public without
prior payment;
(b) The location of every such booth shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator
to ensure that the same will not adversely affect the safety of the adjacent
highway;
(c) Every such booth shall be subject to relocation, at the expense of the owner,
whenever such relocation shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator to be
reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare or
whenever the same shall be necessary to accommodate the widening of the
adjacent highway.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves questioned the use along scenic highways. Mr. Keeler advised her
that this use along those roads had been overlooked, and that it should be addressed
in a resolution of intent.
Mr. Barksdale said that he would amend his motion to address scenic highways
as well, but Mr. Payne advised him that should be covered in a separate motion.
Mr. Easter encouraged Centel to make the phone booths less obtrusive in appearance.
There was no further discussion on the original motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Barksdale then moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent
to provide for this along scenic highways. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that this would have to be properly advertised and should be
passed along to the Board of Supervisors at the same time as Centel's request, in
order that they could be considered simultaneously.
The motion carried unanimously.
ZMA-77-14. Mel -Ray Corporation has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 3.60 acres from R-3 Residential to B-1 Business. Property is
located on Route 743 across from Georgetown Green, and near Albemarle
County High School. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 39, Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, reading the letter from the Highway
Department. He stated that their recommendations could be addressed at site plan
review, if the Commission and Board approve the rezoning request. He did note
that there has been some concern about the access, though.
Mr. Pickford, representing Mel -Ray Corporation stated that this is in line
with the Comprehensive Plan, since the Plan recommends medium to high density in this
area. There are other parcels in the area that do not comply with the plan, but he
noted that this applicant is willing to work with adjoining property owners on the road
situation.
Mr. Morris said that it is logical to have business use in an area with high
traffic volume.
Messrs. Martin and Stevenson supported the request(they are adjoining property
owners.
Mr. Morris stated that adjoining property owners would be benefically affected
by this rezoning request.
Mr. Stevenson noted that the proposed Comprehensive Plan shows this for
business use.
Mr. Martin said that he and Mr. Stevenson would work with this applicant
to have only one entrance onto the road for all the properties involved.
Mr. Keeler showed the proposed highway plans for this area to the Commission
and explained what might occur in the future.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that under a rezoning, the applicant could not be held
to the plans he has now, since circumstances might change and there might be several
entrances.
Mr. Keeler also noted that the highway plans he is showing the Commission are
preliminary plans.
Mrs. Graves said that she is concerned about a business use across from the
school, expecially in view of what is happening at the "Hop -In Food Market."
She also noted that the County had denied the rezoning request on the Stokes property.
She said that she is further concerned about the residue of Oak Forest Subdivision,
if this property is rezoned.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the reason for the original rezoning from R-3 to
B-1. Mr. Keeler replied that the reason offered by the staff report is that R-3
zoning is safer than B-1 zoning. He also noted., though, that that was seven years
ago.
Mrs. Graves said that was before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
Mr. Keeler agreed that was correct. v„tI
Mr. Gloeckner said that he considers the Comprehensive Plan a guide. However,
he questioned how much business zoning the County wants at that corner.
Mr. Keeler said that the proposed Comprehensive Plan considers this to be
a neighborhood business center.
Mrs. Graves again stated that she is concerned about the school across the street.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed, also noting the condition. of the road.
Mr. Carr pointed out that he sees the objections, however he sees the value
to the rezoning, especially if only one entrance is used for this and adjoining businesses.
He said that he is not sure this is the time for the rezoning, though.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion,
noting that it was to put the matter on the floor.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he is opposed to the request for safety reasons. He said
that he does not think this is the time to compound the problems on Hydraulic Road.
If the road were improved, he said that he did not think that he would be opposed to
the rezoning.
Mr. Jones agreed.
Mr. Morris asked the Commission if it had any alternative solutions.
since
Mr. Payne suggested that/the General Assembly has recently approved "proffer
zoning", to be effective July 1, 1977, perhaps the applicant would want to withdraw
this request, and resubmit at a later date. He also suggested that the applicant
--Zz --
discuss this possiblity with the staff.
Mrs. Graves called for the question.
Mr. Pickford said that before the vote, he wished to state that on behalf
of the applicant, he wished to withdraw the request for rezoning without prejudice.
Mr. Barksdale said that in view of this he would withdraw his motion.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that the proper way to handle this is
to vote if the Commission is ready to consider the original motion. The vote was
1-6, with Mrs. Graves supporting the call for question.
Mr. Gloeckner then moved that the Commission accept the applicant's request
for withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that if the applicant follows the route of "proffer
zoning", an agreement with the adjoining property owners should be reached prior
to submitting the request to the Commission.
At this point in the meeting, the chairman asked that the Commission defer
the Old Business scheduled on the agenda - the definition of "subdivision" and
discussion of private roads.
Mr. Easter put this in the form of a motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale.
The motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
(a) Request for resolution of intent - road inspection fees:
Mr. Payne explained that the Highway Department in the future will inspect
roads on a contractural basis and will charge the county for the inspection. The
major advantage to this resolution would be that the cost of the inspection would
not pass through the County.
Mrs. David said that the Engineering Department has felt that this would be
a good idea.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to take the
matter to public hearing.
The motion, seconded by Col. Washington, carried unanimously.
(b) Appointment of Nighborhoods Committee:
Mr. Carr said that in the review of the Comprehensive Plan, there should be
a study of seven neighborhoods, and the urban neighborhoods should be assisted by
members of the Planning Commission. He asked that Mrs. Graves serve on this committee,
and for a volunteer by the next meeting. Mr. Barksdale said that he
would like to serve on the Committee that will make the study of the Crozet area.
Mr. Carr said that it is very important that nothing be over -identified in these
plans.
_2-j-
(c) Whipporwill Hollow right-of-way:
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that this is an existing road
that has been improved. The applicant is asking the County to accept it into
the system. He read the letter from the Highway Department, which stated that
it is approved on the basis of 81 lots. If more than 81 lots are to be in the
subdivision, the road must be further improved.
Mr. Carr said that if it is approved, it must be on the basis of 81 lots,
according to the standards of the Highway Department.
Mr. Tucker stated that the memo from the Highway Department means there is
currently through traffic on the road, and that the Highway Department approves the
road for use of 81 lots.
Mr. Jim Hill said that this had not been his understanding with the Highway
Department. Furthermore, there has been no official communication between the owner
of the property and the Highway Department. He said that there had been a preliminary
plan on the property in 1973, however, nothing was ever approved. Mr. Hill informed
the Commission that in the future the developer might want some density arrangements.
Mr. Carr questioned how the County will regulate the number of lots in the
subdivision once the road is taken over by the state.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that once the road is accepted for dedication,
it will be taken over by the state.
Mr. Carr replied that development should be limited to the type road.
Mr. Tucker stated that with this dedication two parcels are created - 50 acres
and 150 acres. He stated that in view of the new information received from the
Highway Department at 5:00 p.m. that day the number of lots be designated.
Mr. Hill stated that the Highway Department approached the developer to improve
the road to state standards, since it was being used for through traffic. He said
that he is not willing to be limited to 81 lots.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the matter be deferred until everything can be clarified.
Mr. Tucker said that the Highway Department should have advised the applicant
what its recommendation would be, since the category of road will determine the number
of lots.
Col. Washington stated that if part of the property is in the flood plain,
and considering the roads, there might not be a problem here, and the developer may be
able to get only 81 lots after all.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission accept the dedication of the right-of-way.
Mr. Easter said that the problem would not occur if the developer consulted
the County and Highway Department prior to construction of the roads.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion to accept the dedication, which carried unanimous'-,,-.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m., th no furt er business.
t(
Ro `ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Se retar
_,2Y
June 21, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
June 21, 1977, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were David W. Carr, Chairman; Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Roy Barksdale;
Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Mrs. Joan Graves; Paul Peatross; and Mrs.
Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials in attendance were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Director of Planning; Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary
Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Absent were Mr. Jones and Dr. Moore.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Minutes of June 13, 1977, were deferred until the next meeting.
Mr. Carr noted for the benefit of the public that Ethel Maupin's
plat had been withdrawn from the agenda.
ZMA-77-07. Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Inc. has petitioned
the Board of Supervisors to rezone 27.893 acres from A-1 Agricultural
to RPWR-1. Property is located on the northwest side of Route 240
north of Route 250 West, approximately one mile south of Crozet,
Virginia. County Tax Map 56, Parcel 14, part thereof. White Hall
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that it is doubtful that
there is adequate fire flow, since the 6" line needs to be replaced with an 8" line.
He read the two letters from the Highway Department.
Mrs. Lillehelt, representing the housing foundation, stated that the
purpose of the project is to provide housing for the elderly and the elderly deaf.
She stated that there would be several phases of the presentation, and asked
the Commission to hear these comments.
Mr. Peter Daley, Housing Coordinator for the County, addressed the
Commission ( see attached comments ) .
Mrs. Carole Stewart, representing the Jefferson Area Board for the
Aging, made a brief presentation, stating that she coordinates housing and programs
for the elderly through this agency, whose purpose is to better provide for elderly
citizens. She felt they can be better cared for when they are grouped together.
She stated that there would be transportation from this facility to Charlottesville
and back twice daily. She stated that there are health facilities nearby, and
there will also be recreation and education programs for the future citizens of
this community. She presented a petition signed by the elderly people in the White
Hall and Samuel Miller Districts showing the need for the project.
Mr. Frank Smith, architect for the project, reviewed the proposed site
plan. He said that the plan is geared for those elderly people who will be caring
for themselves. Also it is designed for those able to pay only a certain amount
in rent monthly. He said that the site is very desirable for a housing project of
this sort.
z<,
Mrs. Jane Saunier stated that the corporation has twice met with the Crozet
residents and has tried to respond to their questions and concerns. She said that the
intent is to contract with a professional rental firm for the management of the
complex. There is also proposed a Crozet Advisory Committee to assure the on -going
progress of the community. She stated that the project fits the FHA requirements,
there is public water and sewer, the site is located in the Crozet cluster, 60 percent
of the people to be served currently live in the Samuel Miller and White Hall District,
and the area has good access to Staunton.
Mr. V. Shackelford, appearing on behalf of an adjoining property owner,
stated that the citizens of that area had not been aware of this proposal until very
recently, though apparently the county had been aware of it since the early part of
the year. He pointed to the impact this would have on the community. Mr. Shackelford
felt that there should be some input from the citizens of the area prior to making
definite plans for this project's location. He questioned if there would be any
impact on the South Rivanna Reservoir. He noted that there have been sewer problems
in Crozet for quite some time, and felt that citizens living there should have fir:�;.t
access to available sewer taps. He also felt that the Scottsville District would be
the most desirable location for such a project. Mr. Shackelford questioned if housing
like this should be segreated from health services, libraries, and other services.
He also noted that for 28 housing units and a community center, approximately 3/4 million
dollars is proposed to be spent. He felt that this project would change the land use
in this particular area. He suggested that the Commission defer any action on this
request until it is ascertained that the funds are approved for this site.
Mr. Carl Van Fossen, a resident of Crozet, noted the mass opposition from
the Crozet citizens to this request. He said that this plan conforms to neither the
proposed or existing master plan of the county.
Mr. Conway
Stanley, a pharmacist living in Crozet, presented a petition
of opposition to the proposed rezoning. He noted that it is the citizens living in
Crozet who will be most affected by this proposal, not citizens living elsewhere in
the County.
Mrs. Kenneth Frank, an adjoining property owner, presented a map representing
the sentiment of the citizens of the Crozet area.
Mrs. Marsh, a Crozet citizen, stated that for two years she has been looking
for a reasonable place to live. This project would satisfy her needs and asked that
the Commission approve it.
Mr. Roy Patterson pointed to the Commission that this is not a welfare project
and that it will add to the attractiveness of Western Albemarle. He said that it is
designed for people able to care for themselves. There will be little traffic generation.
He said that he knows of no existing housing in the county that meets the needs described
in this petition.
Mr. Rosenkrans questioned what would happen to the prospective residents
of this community once they were no longer able to care for themselves. He said that
no nursing -care facility is proposed.
Mrs. Saunier stated that those who become suddenly ill will be immediately
transferred to nursing home, and those who deteriorate slowly will be cared for
by neighbors, the social service agency, and will be moved as soon as possible
into the necessary surroundings.
1
Z la --
Statement to the Planning Commission, June 21, 1977
Mr. Carr, members of the Planning Commission and ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Peter Daly and I am the Housing Coordinator
for Albemarle County, employed since February 1, 1977. I
am happy to be here to talk with you about the proposed
housing for the elderly known as the Meadows. Public hearings
like this are not only occassions for decision but forums for
us all to listen and understand each other and are celebrations
of the principles of participatory democracy that we all
hold dear.
With the indulgence of the Commission and the audience I would
like to show a few slides and talk with you about two things:
first, to review the housing conditions in Albemarle that
show a need for this type of housing. Second, I would like
to review the financial and organizational arrangements related
to the proposed housing.
Informed citizens have no doubt that there is a serious need
for housing for the elderly in Albemarle County. Like this
couple in North Garden many elderly find that their retirement
incomes are just not sufficient to maintain their property and
pay their bills. Even though many elderly own their own
homes, like this one here, often they find it necessary to
call for help from groups like the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program which provides volunteer labor to repair owner occupied
homes. Approximately 25 elderly home owners were helped
to fix up their houses in the first of the program, 1976.
Many more are now waiting for help from AHIP.
Rehabilitation, such as AHIP provides is not for everyone,
however, some elderly people are simply not capable of
keeping up the homes they have had since their younger days.
Very often they do not own any property, but like this
elderly Albemarle County resident, rent their housing. She is
just one of over 800 elderly households in Albemarle that
are in need of some type of housing assistance on the basis of
income. She rents two rooms in this substandard house
for $75 per month. This is not an untypical condition. Here is
her water service at a nearby house. This outhouse was recently
constructed to give her some type of sewage disposal. This
is her front door.
This elderly man also rents in Albemarle County. This is a view
of his house, which rents for over 100 dollars per month. He
is on crutches because he fell down the stairs, which as you can
see have no railing. He has no water in the house, but like
the elderly lady before, must carry it. He heats with a tin
heater which burns inefficiently, taking large quantities of wood.
2
_2 7
These shots of other rental units occupied by Albemarle County
residents are typical of the 1336 housing units in Albemarle
that were identified as substandard in a field survey done by.
*4w the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in the fall
of 1976. The Virginia Housing Development Authority did a
statewide study of housing needs all across Virginia in 1974.
They found that 467 one and two elderly households were living
in Albemarle County then, 383 of them with incomes below
$4,000. As Carol Stewart will tell you in a few minutes,
many of these people have already expressed a desire for the
type of housing proposed here tonight.
This elderly man might be one such candidate for this type
of housing. He is fairly healthy but he is going blind.
He can no longer live by himself in this trailer. He needs
the special facilities and the support of a residential
community concerned about his problems around him.
What is proposed here for the Crozet is the type of community
that many elderly need. Not a nursing home but a community.
Thousands of such units have been built all across the
United States since the Farmers Home Section 515 program of
the Housing Act of 1949 was first put into effect. Here
are some examples. This housing for the elderly is in
Center Coloradoand is much like the type proposed for Crozet.
Note the low rise, residential size buildings. No children
are permitted to live in these projects. This 515 facility
is in South Carolina. This is a picture of a Farmers Home
sponsored community in Mississippi. Here is one in Missouri.
This housing program, the 515 rental program, has a solid
history and good reputation. It only finances in small towns
and rural areas. It has been especially popular in the
Midwest, notably in Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri.
Forthe Crozet housing for the elderly there are four components
to the financial package that will make it possible and that
make it an imaginative use of various community and governmental
efforts. The four parts are, first, the private funds from
the rent paid by the residents; second, the rent supplements
provided for those residents who are too poor to pay the
full rent themselves; third, the long term financing for
construction of the housing under the Farmers Home Rural Rental
Program (Sec 515), and fourth, a one time block grant from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide for
site purchase and preparation. There may also be donations
made from private sources, but these are expected to be a
very small part of the total picture.
The Community Development Block Grant from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development will provide $288,280. This grant
program is administered entirely by the local unit of
government, in this case the County of Albemarle. President
Ford called the Community Development Grant program a
Em
In
3
"hands -off" federal assistance to locally initiated programs
and projects. CDBG funds for counties like Albemarle come
1%.+ from a discretionary fund. Local governments decide what
types of projects they envision and apply to HUD for funds.
Because funds are short, however, only the highest priority
items are generally funded. Since the CDBG program of the 1974
Act replaced several low income housing programs, highest
priority is given to projects which will increase the supply
of housing for low and moderate income persons.
There are two things to remember about the Community Development
funds. First, they are locally controlled and second, they
are a one-time, one-shot involvement. After the funds
are expended, there is no continuing presence of either
the federal agency or the County government.
As this commission is aware, two public hearings were held
on this very application in January, on the forth by the
Commission and on the fifth by the Board of Supervisors. Both
hearings were advertised in the Daily Progress and both
advertisements specifically mentioned the proposed project
in Crozet as well as the health center for Esmont.
If the grant is made, a check will be sent to the County
Finance Department. The only further control that HUD will have
will be a financial audit at the completion of the grant
expenditure to be sure that the funds were spent for the
purposes stated in the application. The County will, of course,
have to certify that it complies with all relevant federal
law such as the Davis -Bacon Act and the Clean Air Act, etc.
Of course, no citizen or group is ever exempt from the law of
the land.
The site purchased and developed with the block grant funds, where
ever it is located, will be either donated or leased to a
private non-profit corporation, namely the Jordan Corporation
for the development of housing for the elderly. The exact
method of transfer has not yet been determined by the Board
of Supervisors, though it is the tentative recommendation
of the County Attorney that it be transfered in fee simple
absolute. The County would retain a measure of control over the
project, if it wished, through restrictions in the use of the
land in the deed or by appointing members of the Jordan
Corporation Board of Directors.
The housing constructed on the site will be built with a
loan from the FmHA. This is a guaranteed loan program. The
way the program works is the FmHA of the USDA makes a loan to
the Jordan Corporation for about 10,16 below the market interest
rate. FmHA takes a deed of trust on the property for the
term of the loan which is 50 years. This means that at no
time can the property be transfered, expanded, changed in function
4 —2 1
or altered in any way without first having the express
permission of the Department of Agriculture. Farmers
... Home will review the management procedures and establish
basic standards for design and maintenance. FmHA is a
relatively conservative agency and since they operate as
a rural development bank, selling their notes on the commercial
money markets, they have a very business orientation.
Once the project is built the funds for the project will come
from two sources. First and foremost they will come from
the rent payments made by the tenants from their own incomes,
about $70,000 per year. Since the Jordan Corporation is a
non-profit, with no stock holders to pay, and volunteer
directors, and since much of the front end money for
construction of the utilities and community center will
come from a grant, it is anticipated that the rents will
be low.
The project will be able to have an economic mix of residents,
though just what it will be has not been determined. To avoid
stigmatizing the housing it may be a good idea to have a few
higher income residents, though the majority will have incomes
below the $8,300 limit established for an elderly couple.
The poorer residents of the Meadows will be able to get some
help in paying their rent though a federal program administered
through the FmHA. This program, Section 8 of the Community
Development Act of 1974 for new housing, will certify households,
not complex, for assistance. It will mean that elderly
people who qualify will not have to pay over 25% of their
adjusted household income for their housing. For example
an elderly person with $400 a month income will pay only
$100 for rent and utilities, the federal government
will pay the rest. Households will be checked every year to
be sure that they are still eligible. On the chart
you can see that this eligibility is determined by HUD
regulations. It should be stressed that HUD will have no
other involvement in the management of the project. They
will not own it, they will not run it, they will not screen
tenants they will not be involved in any other way.
One concern voiced by a number of County residents is that
the housing might be filled up by people from outside Albemarle.
From a legal standpoint under the Section 8 Program, according
to the HUD Equal Opportunity officer in Richmond, the
Jordan Corporation will be able to establish priorities for
residents of Albemarle County so long as they do not discriminate
on the basis of race, sex, creed or national origin. This
project then is a creative and positive combination of public
and private resources. It will be privately owned. It will
pay taxes and it will have local management and advice. It will
benefit out elderly residents of Albemarle County who have lived
and worked long and now only seek a clean and safe place to live
in the community where they have friends and family.
Mrs. Van Fossen stated that she opposes multi -family housing of any type
in this area.
Mr. Louis Eaton said that he objects to the site itself, since the land
is virtually unusable. He said that the terrain is very steep, and except for
the fact that water and sewer are available, it has no amenities for a housing project
of this sort.
Mrs. Joanne Moyer opposed the request and asked that the Commission consider
the effect a project of this sort would have on Lickinghole Creek. She felt that the
sewer connections should be first made available to existing problems in the Crozet
area.
Mrs. Jo Anne Perkins stated that she travels Route 240 daily, and it is
a dangerous road. She said that in her opinion, teenage drivers and elderly people
do not mix on a road like this. She also questioned the expense to the taxpayers.
Mr. Paul Stacy, on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle, supported the request.
Mr. Dennis Yatchesen said that he favors the project, since he feels that
citizens of the area should be responsible for the care of the elderly who cannot afford
to take care of themselves with adequate housing. He said that he is concerned, though,
about the water supply for Albemarle County and noted the problems with sewer that
already exist in Crozet.
The Rev. Blackwell told the Commission that the current taxes on the property
are $495/ year, and with this project the taxes will be $2,000/year.
Mr. Louis Staley, an adjoining property owner, opposed the request, and noted
that he had understood that there were to be no apartments, duplexes, and only a few
s ubdivisions in that area because of the water and sewer sitution. He felt that people
of Crozet should have the first option on the sewer connections. He asked that the
Commission deny the request.
Mrs. Ruth Wadlington, representing the League of Women Voters, supported
the concept.
Mr. Marvin Vess said that those people in support of the request do not
live and work in Crozet.
Mr. Moyer noted the traffic on Route 240 and the dangers that deaf people
would have on this route.
Mrs. Saunier said that there is a two year transportation grant for these people,
and the number one priority of the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging is transportation.
These citizens will never be without transportation. Mrs. Sonya also stated that the
rent on the units will be $200-$220 per month. The tenants will pay what they can
afford, and the remainder will be subsidized.
Mrs. Sally Thomas, stating that this had been a concern of the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission for quite some time, supported the request. The reason
the Planning District has never done anything about the existing problem of housing
for the elderly is that they are not allowed to implement any of their plans. She
said that thus far the Jefferson Board for the Aging has been able to provide many
services, but not any housing for the elderly. She did not feel the project would have
any effect on Beaver Creek.
-31
Mr. S. Barnes noted that U. S. tax dollars will be used for this project.
He suggested if a vast amount of money is to be spent on such housing, it should be
at least in the form of a condominium in order to house a greater number of people.
He feared that the county will later have to pick up the cost of the water and sewer.
Mr. David Kudravetz, representing the Jordan Development Corporation, stated
that the 28 hook-ups have been available for five years to the citizens of Crozet.
In 1981 the Crozet Interceptor will be completed.
Mr. Kenneth Frank, a resident of Crozet, said that he has had no knowledge
of available hook-ups.
Mr. Peter Daley pointed out to the Commission that there is no housing
assistance plan in Albemarle County. He said that financing is contingent upon the
approval of this rezoning.
Mr. Peatross questioned the success of similar projects.
Mr. Daley replied that most have been constructed since 1962, but he is
not prepared to speak to their success. All have been relatively small projects.
Mrs. Graves aked if the money would be available for any site besides this
one.
Mr. Daley stated that that question has not been addressed, since this site
is the one that has been discussed all along.
Mr. Carr said that the site had not been engineered when the Commission
reacted to the request for funds.
Mr. Easter agreed that only a concept was presented to the Commission, not
the location.
Mr. Carr said that the location was mentioned, however he was unaware
that funds were subject to this site.
Mr. Barksdale inquired if there were any alternative sites.
Mr. Daley stated that the County has looked at two other sites, however
neither water nor sewer is available at either site. He said that he does not know
about the Jordan Corporation.
Mrs. Sauniersaid that they did look at other sites, even those with
water and sewer.
Mr. Easter asked if financing is guaranteed if this rezoning is approved.
Mr. Daley said that financing were be rather routine if the property were
rezoned.
Mr. Newbillsaid that most of the contingencies will be met with this
rezoning.
Mr. Carr said that if the application is approved, then financing
does not follow, the RPN is nevertheless tied to this particular application.
Mr. Barksdale asked if Charlottesville Housing Foundation has applied for
the 28 sewer connections. He said that it is his understanding that sewer is on a
.- L2
first-come/first-served basis.
Mr. Keeler read a letter from Mr. E. E. Thompson which stated there can
r be no reservation. The letter merely addresses the point that the 28 connections
are available.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that if the Brownsville plant is completed first,
this project might not get the sewer connections they have been counting upon.
Mr. Frank Smith advised the Commission that even if 80 units are approved,
there will be less than 100 land use.
Mr. Carr said that this is certainly a difficult decision. There should be
some type of care for the elderly. However, he noted the lack of desire on the part
of the Crozet citizens to have it locate here. He asked if Mr. Van Fossen could
address the situation in terms of the quality of housing presented at that public
hearing.
Mr. Van Fossen said that he has gathered that citizens of Crozet are
not oppoed to this type of housing or this project in the county, only to this
location in Crozet, since they fear it will be precedent setting for other multi -family
units. He did note that the Yancey Tract is properly zoned, and has reserved sewer.
Mr. Carr asked if the Yancey Tract would be more agreeable to the Crozet
residents.
Mr. Van Fossen stated that even more land could be purchased with the Yancey
Tract at a lower price.
Mr. Carr questioned Mrs. Sonya about the Yancey tract. Mrs. Sonya
replied that the topography is more prohibitive: the land is rolling, wooded, and
more costly to prepare for construction. Besides, she stated that a great deal of
money has been spent in preparation for this rezoning request.
Mr. Van Fossen reminded the Commission that the neighborhood citizens are trying
to preserve the character of the neighborhood, but he had thought the Yancey tract
was already properly zoned for such a project as this.
Mrs. Graves stated that she is not sure that FHA will approve the project
if the internal streets are not built to state standards.
Mr. Smith stated that the roads will be built to state standards, but
whether the Highway Department will accept them may be another matter.
Mr. Newbill , representing FHA, stated that the project will be approved
because Route 240 is a state road. However, FHA is anxious that the internal roads
also be state roads.
Mrs. Graves asked if the Jefferson Area Board is able to help Mrs. Marsh
at this time.
Mrs. Fisher stated that they have not been able to find a place for her to
live, however she will readily qualify for the Crozet project.
Mr. Easter noted his concern about this being the proper location for the
project. He said that he feels it will have a tremendous effect on the character of
the neighborhood. In his opinion, proper work had not been done to find the proper
location with the necessary facilities and services. He moEzed that the Commission
recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors.
_3;
Mr. Gloeckner, stating that the density is not compatible with the existing
neighborhood, and noting the dangers of Route 240, seconded the motion.
Col. Washington stated that he cannot accept the fact that this project
will fall through. He stated that in January of that year it had been apparent
that a rezoning request would follow. He suggested deferring the matter in order
that an alternate site could be sought.
Mr. Keeler stated that if another site is chosen, another application must
be submitted.
selection.
Col. Washington suggested that perhaps the County could assist in a site
Mr. Gloeckner felt that would create a conflict of interests.
Col. Washington said that he could support the motion for denial for this
particular site, however he does support the concept.
Mr. Barksdale agreed with Col. Washington.
Mr. Peatross said that he supports the application. He noted the staff
report, and said that there is very little difference in this tract of land and the
Yancey tract that had been discussed that evening. He felt this is the proper way
to fulfill a definite need.
Mrs. Graves said that she wished to offer a substitute motion that the
applicant be afforded the opportunity to withdraw the application without prejudice
and seek an alternate site.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion.
Col. Washington said that if this site is suitable in terrain, so is the
Yancey tract.
Mr. Barksdale did point out that the sewer available to the Yancey tract
is due to the fact that the County and Mr. Yancey jointly built the sewer.
Mrs. Saunier said that this delay would be a hardship because of all the
preliminary work.
Mr. Carr said that can't be considered in this decision that evening.
He said that in some cases the government does things backwards.
The substitute motion to defer lost by a vote of 3-4, with Messrs. Carr,
Easter, Gloeckner, and Barksdale dissenting.
The motion to deny carried by a vote of 5-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Peatross
dissenting.
Wilco Gas Site Plan - north side of Route 250 East near Rt. 20 North:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that in the recommended
conditions of approval that the condition of the variance has not been met.
-- 34 -
Mr. Barksdale moved that any action on the request be deferred since
the condition regarding the carnT8K has not been met. He felt that any Commission
action should not take place/to t e Zoning Administrator's stand on the matter.
attorney for Virginia Gasoline Retailers Association
Mr. Gary Denton^addressed the Commission on safety factors of all gasoline
stations and made suggestions to the Commission on haw these should be handled.
Mr. Carr asked him to forward his comments to the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion for deferral, which carried unanimously.
SP-77-30. Henry Javor - request for a veterinary Hospital:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting the revised recommended
conditions of approval. He also noted that the BZA has granted a 76 foot frontage variance.
Mr. Javor addressed the Commission. He stated that he is proposing to build
the clinic for a vet in Staunton, though it will serve the residents of Charlottesville.
The proposed operating hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Minimal boarding facilities
will be provided. The clinic will have 2-6 employees. All runs will be indoors with
ventilation. He stated he has only one disagreement, and that is with reverse flow
of traffic. He said that he intends to develop only the western portion of the property.
The Virginia Department of Highways will consider an entrance off Route 250 West, with
a 100' de-cel lane and adequate site distance.
Mrs. Graves supported the staff's concept of the service road.
Mr. Javor stated that the topography is rather restrictive.
Mrs. Selden stated that at the BZA meeting Mr. Payne had spoken against the
variance, noting that no hardship really exists. She said that she is concerned about
safety and the scenic designation.
Mr. Gloeckner said that this application could have something to do with
future development of Route 250.
Mr. Tucker stated that the policy of Route 29 North does not have anything
to do with other roads in the county.
Mr. Carr stated that Route 250 is fairly developed up to the Christian Mission.
Mr. Barksdale said that he is agreeable to a de-cel lane.
Mr. Javor said that he has checked with the Health Department and they
felt that 40,000 square feet is adequate for this proposed use.
Mr. Barksdale suggested one road as the entrance to the property.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that a condition requiring a service road
would be lawful and the Highway Department does have basis for denying the permit to
Route 250. In the future this property will have public utilities and at that time
it could have a service entrance.
-3 -
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the County can reserve the frontage road space for
future development of the remainder of the property.
Mr. Payne replied that is difficult to enforce withbout bonding.
Mr. Keeler suggested the applicant's getting central well approval prior
to any proposed subdivision.
Mr. Barksdale told the Commission that if the applicant presents the plan
for the entire property it can be tied to one entrance.
Mr. Javor said that he is willing to have that as a condition of approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of SP-77-30 subject to the following conditions:
1. Site Plan approval;
2. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
3. All animals to be kept inside between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.;
4. Soundproofing of building to be provided and maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator such that noise eminating therefrom
shall not be audible at the nearest point of any neighboring property zoned for
residential use;
5. Access from subject property to U. S. Route 250 to be provided through, and shared
with the remainder of the 5.03 acre parcel; no direct access is to be permitted
from subject property to Route 250.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further
discussion.
At the request of the staff, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority site plan
was unanimously deferred.
Arthur P. and Diane M. Strickland final plat - south side of Route 676:
Mrs. Scala reported that this A-1 property is on a 50' private right-of-way.
The proposal is a division of exisitng 12.332-acre parcel into two parcels containing
7.001 acres and 5.331 acres. The smaller parcel will be served by a proposed 50'
right-of-way off the existing 50' right-of-way. Mrs. Scala then read the history of
the property. The staff commented that a maintenance agreement has been joined into
by the Lawsons and Sloans, Stricklands, Tulls and Burmeisters. This agreement has been
approved by the County Attorney and recorded. It is necessary that a disclaimer of
liability to the County be shown on the plat, which has been done. The purpose of this
division is to convey the new parcel to the adjacent owner's children. The staff recommend-
ed approval subject to the following conditions ( Health Department approval has already
been received ) .
1. Waiver of frontage granted for Parcel C-2;
2. Highway Department approval.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
E. F. and Sophia C. Gibson Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. The staff stated that as the plat is
now shown, Parcel C-1 would require a variance for lot width before the Commission
could approve the plat. Where the house sits, the lot is approximately 125, wide -
150' is required. Staff recommended that Parcel C-1 retain all the frontage as well
as the minimum 150' lot width. Parcel A-2 would also need adjustment for this.
Parcel C-2 could be served by the same easement serving Parcel A.
Mr. Morris Foster stated that the applicant has no objection to the
staff's suggestion of the access easement.
Mr. Peatross said that in that case he moved approval and recommended that
the staff's comment be followed. He recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Waiver of frontage granted for Parcel C-2;
2. Highway Department approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
James Trefil and Jeanne L. Waples final plat:
Mr. Peatross disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that this A-1 property is located
on a 25' access easement off Route 784 near Stony Point. The proposal is division of
one 2-acre lot from 19.6-acre residue for parents of the applicants. The existing
easement appears to serve 11 parcels and 5 dwellings. Mrs. Scala stated that Health
Department approvalbeen received and therefore, no conditions of approval are necessary.
has
Mr. Gloecker moved approval of the plat as submitted.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no discussion.
( Mr. Peatross returned to the meeting. )
Celeste Scrimshaw final plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that the A-1 property is located
on the north side of Route 250 West near Ivy opposite Greencroft Club. The proposal
is a division of an existing parcel into three parcels containing 7.7 acres, 4.85 acres,
and 2.29 acres. The plat was signed in October, 1976, but not recorded within the
necessary six months.
The staff recommended approval subject to no conditions.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval as recommended by the staff. Mr. Barkdale
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Im
37
Wolverly-Midway Rental Units Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala located the A-1 property at the end of Route 791 at
Midway. The proposal is 33 rental units to be served by septic systems ( one
per two houses ) and a central well system on 66.98 acres. Access roads will have
20' clear roadway with 16' travelway. She read the recommended conditions of approval.
She also noted that there are four letters of opposition to this request.
Col. Wolfe, owner of the property, stated these will be similar to the cottages
in Ivy and will not be seen from the state road. The land is private and the units will
be located in the woods. He also noted that roads are usually upgraded by the state
with more users.
Mr. Gerald Sutherland said that his wife breeds horses in the area and he
feels this site plan will damage their business investment and change the character
of the area.
Mr. Tom Wyant was concerned about the traffic that would be generated.
He read the statement of intent of the A-1 zone. He felt this is commercial in intent.
Col. Wolfe said that he abhors the trend to jam students into houses and
has no intent of doing this. He said that he does not intend to destroy the whole rural
atmosphere on his own property.
Mr. Wyant said that this site plan will create a great deal of congestion
on Route 791, since the road is about 8 feet wide.
Mr. Easter questioned the safety of the road.
Mrs. Scala replied that it is 15' at least. She said that the Highway
Department recommends no improvements be made.
Mr. Barksdale suggested the Commission view the site.
Mr. Easter moved deferral until the site could be viewed.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Miller division final plat:
Mrs. Scala said that this property is zoned A-1 and located on the south
side of Route 743 near Advance Mills. Eight lots are proposed; the average size is 2.4
acres. The applicant is requesting approval with a waiver of the requirement of the
state road. Staff could not recommend waiver of the road requirements due to the
minimum size lots. She read the recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Morris Foster said that the purpose of the plat is to be able to leave
land to the children.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested a private road, with County Attorney approval
of the Homeowners' Agreement.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions:
---.39 m-
1. Private road to be constructed on a 50' easement;
2. Maintenance agreement to be approved by County Attorney and recorded with plat;
3. Lot 8 to contain a minimum of 60,000 square feet;
4. Reduction of frontage granted for lots 4 and 5;
5. Existing dwellings to enter onto new road ( note on plat );
6. Highway Department approval;
7. Grading permit for road;
8. Drainage easement shown.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Auburn Hills Section 2 final plat - lots 1-5; 14-23; 32:
Mrs. Scala reported that this A-1 property is located on the southeast side
of Route 732 near Milton. The proposal is 16 lots, average size 2.2-acres. State
roads are proposed. The plat has originally been approved by the Commission but was
not recorded within the 6-month time period. She stated that the plat is exactly
as approved by the commission ( conditions recommended at that time addressed on the
plat ). Staff recommended approval with no conditions.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval as submitted.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secre ary
09
61-9