HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 171-249l iI
February 18, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session February 18,
1975, Board Room, County office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider
the urban area and the proposed zones.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Ellen
Craddock; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent were Mr. Jack Rinehart and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley.
Lloyd Wood, ex-officio was present.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Mr. Humphrey opened the meeting by asking if the Planning Commission
wished to direct the staff to notify property owners of action taken during the
work sessions.
Mr. Carr said that providing the changes are final, then the property
owners should be notified.
A long discussion followed concerning downzoning of property, especially
in relation to the preservation of the green areas, the steep slopes, and the
flood plain areas.
Mr. Easter stated that the Planning Commission should guide the people
and then let the elected officials take action later.
Mr. McClure suggested that they try to tackle the property and then
discuss the "difficult" problem areas at a later date.
Mr. Carr stated that in some cases people felt that their property
is being down -zoned because they have failed to review the proposed ordinance
and do not understand that present uses can continue on the property. He also
noted that the term AL - Agricultural Limited - was a poor description of the
zone.
Mr. Easter suggested an individual approach on properties. He noted
that he was concerned that the Commission is acting too quickly in order to save
time. The Planning Commission can recommend a fair ordinance if they act on
the map on a large scale.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if it is right to ignore the public's letters of
comment if the Commission is not taking property on an individual basis.
Mr. McClure suggested that the staff sort comments according to areas
in the county and then the Planning Commission could act on them accordingly.
Mr. Fisher said that it would be necessary to talk to the property owners
if they disagree with the Planning Commission's action.
-2-
Mrs. Graves read the statement of intent for the commercial zones,
suggesting that the CL and CO zones be combined, leaving the CG as is.
The intention of the Commission, Mr. Carr explained, was to draft an
ordinance, reorganize the zoning map, and turn both items over to the Board of
Supervisors for their action. He stated that the Commission would not close its
mind to the public and felt that the Commission was willing to compromise.
Then he asked if it were necessary to re -address the entire ordinance, and
all members felt that it was.
Mr. Carr also reminded the Commission that it would be necessary to
forward the ordinance and map to the current Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Barksdale made a motion to attempt to tackle the matters that had
been brought to the attention of the Planning Staff.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
At this point procedural decisions were made as to how to handle
individual comments and suggestions from the public. It was decided that it
would be necessary to meet with each individual property owner who was dissatisfied
with the proposed zoning for his property.
Mrs. Craddock returned to the subject of the green belt, noting
that it was important to retain the objective of having buffer between Farmington
and West Leigh.
Mr. McClure addressed the undeveloped area here and moved to eleminate
the existing RR zoning in Farmington and Flordon.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
However, it was the consensus of the Commission that this should be
addressed at a time when the owners could be present.
Tax Map 60, Parcel 26:
The Commission deferred action on this until a later date when the
owner could be present.
Tax Map 60, Parcel 30A:
Action was deferred unii±l a later date.
173
-3 -
Tax Map 60, Parcel 36A:
It was unanimously decided to leave this property zoned R-3.
Tax Map 60A, Parcels 17, 18, 19:
The Commission voted unanimously to grant this property comparable zoning.
Tax Map 60, Parcels 69B,69E:
It was unanimously voted to zoned this property R-2.
Tax Map 60A, Parcel 25:
Action was deferred.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 5A:
The Commission voted to zone this property CG.
Tax Map 61, Parcels 24, 26, 29D, 29E:
Action was deferred.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 24B:
Action was deferred in order to talk to the property owner.
Westgate Apartments:
The Commission voted to zone this property RMH.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A:
Action was deferred until the owner could be present.
771�L
1515
Tax Map 61, Parcel 43D:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property RMH.
Tax Map 61, Parcels 120A, B, C, and 120:
The staff said that this property is currently zoned M-1, proposed for CG.
The owner has requested IL zoning. The question was why "mill shop" has not been
included under the CG zoning.
zone.
Mrs. Craddock said that with a special use permit it could fall within the IL
The staff was directed to check the definition of "mill shop".
Action was deferred.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 205:
The Commission granted comparable zoning, RT, to this property.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 143:
Comparable zoning, RT, was granted to this property.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 147:
Tax Map 61, Parcels 154C, D:
Action was deferred on these properties.
The staff was directed to notify those owners of PUD's that the existing
PUD will apply= -to the proposed zoning ordinance.
Tax Map 61-M-1:
Action was deferred on these properties.
�%Ww Mr. Humphrey stated that the staff recommends that Berkmar Drive be zoned
CG on Route 29 and north side of Berkmar Drive.
He also stated that the staff recommends that kennels be allowed in the
Pq
-5-
in the AGR, AL, and CVN zones.
Mrs. Craddock moved that kennels be allowed in the AGR, AL, and CVN
zones and in all other non-residential zones with a special use permit.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Rinehart, carried.
Tax Map 61M, 5 - lots 12, 13, 14, 8, 9, 10, 11:
Action was deferred on thses properties.
Tax Map 61W:
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
Action on this property was deferred.
Northfields:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the staff recommended R-2 zoning for this property.
This was put into the form of a motion by Mr. Barksdale. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, and carried unanimously.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 52L:
Action was deferred until the owner could be present.
Tax Map 76B, Parcels 17, 17A, 8, 12:
The staff was directed to write a letter of explanation of the zone.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 12:
Action was deferred until the owner could be present.
Action on some of the property owned by Dr. Hurt was deferred until a
special work session.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
hn L. Humphrey, creta y
February 24, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Monday, February 24,
1975, 7:30 p.m., Board of Supervisors Conference Room, County Office Building, Court
Square, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barks-
dale; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; and Mr. Peter Easter.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present, and called the meeting to order.
The Commission decided on the following meeting dates and places for regular meetings
and work sessions on the proposed zoning ordinance for the month of March:
March 3, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
March 5, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
March 10, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
March 17, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
March 19, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
March 24, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
March 26, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
March 31, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
Piedmont Community Auditorium
Board of Supervisors Conference
County Executive's Conference Room
Piedmont College Auditorium
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
The minutes of the following Planning Commission were approved:
November 5, 1974
November 12,1974
November 18, 1974
November 25, 1974
December 2, 1974,
December 9, 1974
December 17, 1974
January 7, 1975
subject to Mrs. Craddock's editions
Shopper's World Site Plan:
Mr. Humphrey stated that a general revised site plan had been submitted on this date
and that by 4:00 p.m. it had been revised as much as possible. The request is for a change
in the use of a structure from a bank to a McDonald's restaurant. He said that the request
also involved the parking layout. He told the Commission that the staff report would be
verbal since it had been such a last minute request. He stated that enough off-street
parking is available if the revised site plan is used. Some areas, the access drives, have
been changed in order to meet the parking requirements. He asked the Commission if under
these circumstances they wished to hear the request or if they wished to defer it.
Mr. Easter moved the request for a revised site plan be heard; Mr. Tinsley seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Humphrey again told the Commission that approval for the change of the structure's
use was needed and the change in the arrangement and location of parking spaces was needed.
He referred the Commission to the site plan of March, 1974, which had been approved.
Mr. Dolan, representing the applicant, explained the pick-up or fire lane in from of
A and P. He requested that the width of it be brought down from thirty feet to twenty-one
171
feet. He emphasized that any lay -out outlined by the Planning and Zoning Departments
would be abided by.
Mr. Kelly Reynolds, Albemarle County Fire Marshall, stated that everything
looked permissible from fire standards.
Mr. Humphrey noted that the staff did recommend some ideas for traffic flow, which
would mean that the number of spaces would be one less than the number required. He
stated that there would have to be strict adherence to employees parking in the proper
places.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that unless the leases specify certain parking areas to
be used by Employees, it will be impossible to enforce the suggestion.
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that more than arrows of channelization would be
necessary for traffic flow and suggested that perhaps an IN ONLY sign be placed.
Mrs. Graves asked if there would be an extension of asphalt toward Dominion Drive.
Mr. Dolan told her there would not be.
Mr. Humphrey stated that a barrier may be needed for safety reasons near the culvert.
Mrs. Craddock stated that McDonald's sign is garrish and that the cooking odors would
permeate a section of Berkeley.
Mr. Easter noted that the entrance to Shopper's World is a death trap, and pointed
out that McDonald's would generate more traffic than a bank would.
Mr. Humphrey acknowledged this and stated that the lane in front of McDonald's
will be one-way.
Mr. Carr asked if all the proposed parking bays are to be one-way.
Mr. Dolan stated that the petitioner would abide by the recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Easter inquired if bumpers were installed in the parking area, and Mr. Dolan told
him that they would not be installed.
Mr. Barksdale asked if a light could be required at the intersection at the expense
of the applicant and the highway department.
Mr. Carr suggested that perhaps the development of the Catholic Church would be held
in the possibility of the highway department's installing the traffic light.
Mr. Barksdale remarked that the lights from Dart Drug are blinding.
Mrs. Craddock emphasized the fact that the entrance is a death trap and that McDonalds
will mean more traffic.
Mr. Dolan remarked that the only accident had been in early October, when Dart Drug
had opened.
Mr. Early, who had previously represented the Berkeley Homeowners, stated that
the odor of McDonalds could be a problem, since homeowners in that area had already noticed
the odor from the Rustler Restaurant. He also noted his concern for the entrance to the
/ Tom;.
the Shoppers World.
Mr. Kelly Reynolds, Fire Marshall, stated that the vapor recovery system to be used
by McDonald's would suppress odors as well as help fire prevention.
Mr. Cosby suggested that perhaps the adjoining property owners could protest any
Planning Commission action on the basis that they were not properly notified.
Mrs. Graves cited a problem with tractor trailers at the main entrance, stating that
they usually come past the entrance to the shopping center to Dominion Drive, make a U-turn
which causes more traffic problems.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that approval should be subject to the light being placed at the
intersection and that the sign should comply with the ordinance.
Mrs. Graves asked if the hours of operation of McDonald's could be limited to 11:00
p.m.
Mr. Humphrey stated that there is no guide for hours of operation except in the case
of special use permits.
Mr. Carr stated that this is a case of working with a permitted right. The thing
that concerns him is the traffic flow - he felt that a study should be made of the traffic
situation.
Mr. Easter asked if legally a traffic light could be demanded.
Mr. Payne, deputy County Attorney, stated that the traffic light problem would have to
be taken up with the Board of Supervisors, since it was their responsibility to communicate
with the Highway Department regarding this.
Mr. Carr stated that he was unwilling to vote on this matter until the traffic flow
had been checked.
Mr. Easter moved deferral until the traffic flow could be properly checked and eval-
uated.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Work Session:
Mr. Humphrey stated that he had put on the map the RR areas that had previously been
scheduled to be AL.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the first thing on the agenda was the upper Pantops area,
which is presently zoned CG.
It was decided that the Planning Commission would discuss the entire area with Dr.
Charles Hurt, the owner. This would involve the following parcels:
Tm 78, Parcels 17, 17A, 17D, 17E; TM 78, Parcel 15C-1; TM 78, Parcels 20, 20B, 20B-1, 31,
30; TM 78, Parcels 57, 59A; TM 62, Parcel 29; TM 78, Parcel 55A.
The Commission decided to defer action on the following parcels as well:
TM 78, Parcel 53; TM 78, Parcel 55A-1; TM 78B, Parcels Al, A3, B1A, 1.
TM 79, Parcel 4; TM 79, Parcel 4A:
Mr. Easter moved that this property be proposed to be zoned CG.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, stating that if the homeowners in the area want
their property to be zoned RR, the Planning Commission should meet their wishes.
TM 79, Parcels 5, 5A, and 10:
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral, until the Planning Commission could talk to the owner.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 79, Parcel 24B:
This property is proposed to be zoned RR.
Mr. Barksdale moved it be zoned RM. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mrs. Graves moved it retain its RR zoning. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
TM 90A, Parcel D6:
Mrs. Graves moved deferral until the Planning Commission could speak with the
owner.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 32, Parcels 22B and 22B(1):
Mrs. Graves moved it stand as originally proposed.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 29, Parcel 41E:
Mrs. Craddock moved that this be proposed to be zoned CL.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45, Parcel 68(2), (3) :
Mr. Easter moved this be proposed to be zoned CL; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
TM 45, Parcel 68(4) and Parcel 68-1:
Mr. Easter moved that these parcels be shown as RM zoning.
M
TM 45B1, Parcel D1B:
The Commission decided to show this as CG.
TM 46, Parcels 28C and 14A will be given comparable zone as now exists, that of RR
Rural Residential (2 acre minimum lot size for residential purposes).
TM 60, Parcel 4M:
The Commission decided to show this as RR.
TM 32, Parcels 55, 54, 53, and 52:
This is to be shown as IL.
The meeting adjourned.
09
L. Humphrey, 'tary
/P,/
March 3, 1975
The regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held on March 3,
1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium of Piedmont Virginia Community College.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter
Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Deferred items:
Site Development Plan Ordinance
By unanimous vote of the Planning Commission, this was deferred to the end of the
meeting.
ZMP-316 and SP-446. Holy Comforter Church
Mr. Tucker stated that hopefully the traffic situation had been worked out on the site
and gave the staff report addendum to the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if another crossover had been created on Route 29 North.
Mr. Tucker told him that it had been and that about the same distance would be between
all crossovers.
Mr. Barksdale asked about the bank that was a sight distance hazard.
Mr. Tucker told him hopefully that this would be taken care of.
Mrs. Graves stated that she is concerned about the number of entrances along this road
and hopes that at a later date the Berkeley crossover will not be closed, since sometimes
crossovers are closed.
Mr. Tucker stated that he, too, felt that a closing of the Berkeley would be a mistake.
Mr. Easter said that it had been the policy to close crossovers only when there are
sight distance problems.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the entrances now include more than just the commercial
areas as was originally presented.
Mr. Easter noted his support for the plan, citing the fact that it is on the only four -
lane highway in the county.
Mr. Carr stated that there will be well -documented site plan approval in particular
areas of the planned community.
Mr. Tucker said that property will only be sold in sections, and that site plan approval
must be written into the deeds.
Mr. Easter moved that ZMP-316 be approved and that SP-466 be approved with the followinc
conditions:
A. Density - Land Use - Concept
1. That the density and land use proposed by the applicant and noted on the plan
prepared by Max Evans, landscape architect, and dated "Received 12/13/74" be adhered to and
approved as the maximum density to be allowed.
2. That the cluster arrangement, providing for a minimal number of entrances on to the in-
ternal road system be adhered to, as indicated on the density plan and as shown on the more
detailed conceptual site plan also dated "Received 12/13/74" and indicated as being exhibit
#2 of the applicant's submittal.
3. All Sections of the proposal, when being developed shall adhere to the acreage allotted
as shown on the density plan noted above.
B. Site Plans - Subdivision of Land
1. All commercial and multi -family construction shall submit detailed site plans and land-
scape plans to the Planning Department for approval by the Planning Commission.
2. All subdivision of land shall require approval by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors as specified under the County's Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
3. No grading permit shall be issued for roads, streets, or highway until approved plans
and profiles have been obtained by the Virginia Department of Highways and bonding in keeping
with the requirements of the County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
C. Sewer and Water
1. All plans for sewer and water shall be submitted to the County Engineer for approval
prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit on any section of development. The
design of all water and sewer lines shall be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service
Authority. No installation of said utilities shall take place without periodic in-
spection by the Albemarle County Service Authority or County Engineer. The Authority or
County Engineer shall be advised when ready for inspection just prior to the covering of the
lines.
2. The developer or developers shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle County Service
Authority all water and sewer lines on site and those sewer and water lines off -site which
are owned by the developer, which are necessary to serve Branchlands, at no expenses to the
Service Authority. This shall be accomplished prior to connection to any water and sewer
line in which the County Service lines from any building or structure to the water meter and
the sewer line to the trunk line shall remain the property and responsibility of the owner/
owners.
3. The developer or developers shall create an easement with a minimum width of 15 feet for
the maintenance of the dedicated water and sewer lines by the County Service Authority.
4. The developer or developers shall pay for the cost of acquisition of all off -site ease-
ments and rights -of -way.
D. Transportation System
1. Entrances, crossovers of U.S. 29 North, and streets shall conform to the layout shown
on Alternative #1.
2. Once Entrance A (see Alternative #1 plan) is constructed, the existing entrance into
Branchlands shall be closed to through traffic.
3. Rights -of way shall be reserved, as shown on Alternative #1, for future potential con-
nections into Montague Miller tract and Westfield Section II.
4. Rights -of -way widths for all interior streets will be determined as individual si+-^
development plans are submitted.
E. Other
1. A minimum of one (1) acre in tot lots should be provided.
2. A minimum of three (3) acres in playfield should be provided.
3. A minimum of three (3) acres in sport facilities (tennis, handball, swimming, etc.)
should be provided.
4. Bike paths should be constructed along open space corridors (stream beds) or sewer ease-
ment.
5. All subdivision plats and site plans must show methods of discharging storm water and
approved by the County Engineering Department.
6. Homeowner's Association to maintain driveways, open space, etc. and to be reviewed by
the office of the County Attorney as it is developed.
7. Approval of deed restrictions for sections to be sold by the office of the County Attor-
ney.
UP-75-03. Amend Article 3, Residential Suburban District, RS-1, by adding Section 3-1-
14, Home Occupations - Class A.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that they had requested that a more complete defini-
tion be written for Class B.
The Commission decided to defer this item of business until the end of the meeting.
Georgetown Woods:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that the staff recommends that Mr. Craig submit a master
site plan for the entire project and then bring in sectional site plans as the project deve-
lops.
Mr. Craig stated that in February of 1973, he submitted a master site plan, but remarked
that it can only show that the property will be used as zoned.
Mr. Tucker stated that there are no provisions for preliminary site plan approval.
Mr. Carr emphasized that preliminary site plan approval has no validity.
Mr. Easter asked if the proposed site plan ordinance could be made to include preliminar
site plan approval.
Mrs. Scala stated that in Section 2 of Georgetown Woods, one of the points of concern
was the sidewalk along Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Craig stated that he will put the sidewalk along Hydraulic Road whenever the Com-
mission wishes it to be done.
Mrs. Graves moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit;
2. Sidewalk along Hydraulic Road across the front of this property to be installed
at such time agreed upon by the developer and the Commission;
3. A tot lot between blocks B and E.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
/
Skyline Crest:
Mrs. Scala remarked that the problem with this plat is the slopes.
Dr. Jordan, an adjoining property owner, stated that he is very concerned about
the water situation.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Combine lots 13 and 14;
2. Common entrances between lots 2 and 3, 6 and 7, 8 and 9;
3. Lot 25 to enter onto internal road;
4. Final Virginia Department of Highways approval;
5. Grading permit for internal road;
6. Outlot must be dedicated to the Highway Department. If this is not possible, it
may be left as part of lot 25.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion for approval, and the vote was unanimous.
Mary Carter plat:
Mrs. Scala explained that the Commission had deferred action on this plat in order to
try to increase the lot size to 1.5 acres.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval; Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Brookwood preliminary plat:
Mrs. Scala explained that a soil survey had been made quite a while ago. Health Depart-
ment approval will be on an individual lot basis.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following condition:
When a lot is sold which is not already built upon, there must be a provision in the
contract that the lot must meet Health Department approval for a septic system.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion.
The vote was 7-1, with Mr. Rinehart voting "no."
UP- 75-04
Mr. Easter was absent from the discussion and the vote.
This is a request to amend the B-1 Commercial District of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to allow wholesale commercial establishments and warehouses; moving and storage
establishments by right.
Mr. Tucker noted in the staff report that the Planning Commission has already approved
this in the CG zone in the proposed zoning ordinance. He reminded the Commission that this
property is presently zoned B-1, proposed to be zoned CG.
148)
Mr. Reid Cornwell, representing the applicant, stated that this would be a retail
establishment for apartment dwellers who lack storage space at their residence.
Mr. Early, an adjoining property owner, stated his concern over the width of Berkmar
Drive.
Mr. Rinehart stated that this particular use seems to change the concept of the commer-
cial zone.
Mr. James Cosby acknowledged his concern about the precedent it will set for the ordi-
nance, since it will be used differently from the way the amendment is to be read.
Mr. Carr stated it be considered in the entire scope of the zone.
Mr. Payne suggested that the applicant could either withdraw the request and come in
later with a more refined request or he could ask to amend the ordinance to include mini -
storage by special -use permit.
Mr. Rinehart and Mrs. Craddock stated that they could support mini -warehouses in the
B-1 zone with special use permits.
Mr. Carr asked if the definition were too broad for the B-1 zone.
Mr. Cornwall stated that mini -stores would like to move along rapidly as possible,
since at the same time that he had submitted a request for an amendment to the ordinance,
he had submitted a request for rezoning and then a special use permit.
Mr. Rinehart moved that no action be taken and that later a request for a special
use permit be submitted.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMP-318. John H. Garver has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to
rezone 1.0 acre from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on
the east side of State Route 684 and the south side of the C and 0 Railway adjacent
Orchard Acres. Property is further described as County Tax Map 55, Parcel 53B, part
thereof. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mrs. Craddock suggested that public water be provided.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval and Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried un-
animously.
SP-448. Clifton Morris and Clifton Marshall have petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a General Country Store on 16.9 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is situated on the north side of State Route 20 North at its intersection
with State Route 600. Property is further described as County Tax Map 48, Parcel 11.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
j
1. Site Plan approval by the County Planning Commission, following
procedures;
2. Health Department approval of water and sewer facilities;
3. County Building Official approval of store renovations;
4. Signing limited to wall signs not to exceed an aggregate area of
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
site plan submittal
30 square feet.
SP-499. Snow Man, Inc. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to lo-
cate a wholesaling use on land zoned M-1 Industrial Limited. Property is situated on
the south side of the C and O Railway in the Woolen Mills area. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 77A, Parcel A7. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Cris Johnson, representing the applicant, stated that after a month's delay, a
one year permit was granted on Commonwealth Drive.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Screening of parking area with evergreens, from the residencies to the east and
along the 25 foot right-of-way;
2. Parking lot is to have a dust -proof surface;
3. Limit number of vehicles being parked to 7 (seven); and
4. Review by zoning inspectors to assure compliance with above conditions prior to
issuance of certificate of occupancy.
SP-450. Southern Capital Fund, Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
Supervisors to locate a Planned Community on 698.62 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Pro-
perty is situated on the east side of State Route 601 and the south side of State Route
671 at Buck Mountain. Property is further described as County Tax Map 17, Parcels 5,
part thereof, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 26D, 26E, 26H, 26I, 26J, 26K, 27-1, 27-2, 27-3, 27-4,
27-5, 27-6, 27-7, 27-8, and 27-9. White Hall Magisterial District.
The Commission voted to defer this item of business until the end of the meeting.
SP-451. Crozet Moose Lodge has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to
locate a fraternal lodge on 8.73 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated
on the west side of State Route 789, near its intersection with State Route 810. Pro-
perty is further described as County Tax Map 56, Parcel 5E. White Hall Magisterial
District.
Mr. Barksdale disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. C. A. Jessee, representing a group of citizens and property holders in Sunrise
Acres, presented a series of petitions against the location of the fraternal lodge, on the
basis that the road conditions around the property are inadequate to handle the traffic and
on the grounds that the roads are dangerous. They also objected to the location of the
lodge on this property on the grounds that it is very close to the housing develop-
ment, and they do no feel it fits in with the neighborhood.
Jane Fisher supported Mr. Jessee's statements, stating that there are some petitioners
who are in good standing with the Moose Lodge.
Mr. Rinehart suggested deferral till a representative of the lodge could be present.
Mrs. Craddock moved the request for a special permit be denied on the basis of lack of
interest of the applicant and on the interest of the people in Sunrise Acres.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-452. George W. Bailey has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to
locate a central well on 16.7 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on
the north side of State Route 676. Property is further described as County Tax Map
58, Parcel 1A, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report and told the Commission that the well had been dug
and that it was drawing 12 gal./min.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of SP-452; Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Site Plan Ordinance:
Mrs. David Levin, a member of the Board of Citizens for Albemarle urged the Planning
Commission to retain its right for site plan review and also requested that the adjacent
property owners continued to be notified.
Mr. Richardson, representing Ivy Citizens, likewise urged the Planning Commission to
retain its right to review site plans.
Mr. James Cosby took issue with Section 17-7-5, noting that large developments such as
Four Seasons should come before the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Martha Seldon supported the statements of Mr. Cosby.
The Commission deferred action until the end of the meeting.
SP-450. Southern Capital Fund, Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a Planned Communityon 698.62 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Pro-
perty is situated on the east side of State Route 601 and the south side of State
Route 671 at Buck Mountain. Property is further described as County Tax Map 17, Par-
cels 5, part thereof, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 26D, 26E, 26F, 26G, 26H, 26I, 26J, 26K, 27-1,
27-2, 27-3, 27-4, 27-5, 27-6, 27-8, and 27-9. White Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Evans explained the slope and soil maps to the Commission.
Mrs. Craddock asked what percentage of the land had sever limitations.
Mr. Tucker told her that as yet that had not been established.
Mr. Evans explained the slope map, stated that the clusters are on the most gentle
slopes; the open areas are the mountain tops. He explained the soil map in connection with
slopes, and stated that these two maps together would be used as guidelines for development.
Mr. Easter noted that some houses are right on the road, and stated that the
applicant had stated that we wanted to keep the rural atmosphere. Other than that,
it seemed to be a very good plan.
Mrs. Graves asked what would happen if water were not found where the developer expect
to find it.
Mr. Evans stated that there is a drainage wave throughout the land, and that several
branches are in the area. He emphasized that four lakes have already been built. He
pointed out that aground water study will also help.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Staff recommends deferral of action until a water survey
could be made.
Mr. Rinehart moved deferral on these grounds; Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously.
Pauline Coles plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for a 1-acre parcel in an area that is zoned
RS-1. She stated that other lots had been cut off before water and sewer were requirements.
Mr. Barksdale asked if a permanent water right could be given by Mrs. Coles to the
granddaughter.
Mrs. Coles stated that she would deed a permanent water right to her existing
well to lot 2.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the deed of a permanent water right to her
existing well to lot 2.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Rush Estates plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary plat had been approved and this is a request
for final approval.
Mr. Easter moved approval; Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. It carried unanimously.
Monticello Home Builders Plat:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the 20 foot right-of-way to serve lots 4D and 4C, pro-
vided that these two lots be required by deed restrictions to maintain the right-of-way,
and that all four lots share a common entrance.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Site Development Plan:
Mr. Rinehart moved deferral. Mr. Esater seconded the motion, which carried unani-
mously.
Home Occupation Class B:
Mrs. Craddock moved that Class B read as was originally submitted:
16-44-2. Home Occupation - Class B: Any other home occupation requiring employment
other than members of the household OR requiring the use of accessory structures on
site of the dwelling.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
W"
March 5, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on March
5, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock;
and Mr. Peter Easter.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Charlottesville Shoppers World - Parking Layout:
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the bank site had been changed to
a MacDonald's site, which had made it necessary to change the parking layout. There
will also be changes in access. The parking layout is such that the parking require-
ments of 793 will be met. Even the general parking concept will remain. He stated
the need for a one way system provided there is proper aisle marking. He stated that
raised signs could be a hazard, and suggested that they be painted in the aisles. He
noted that there could be problems in using some spaces, but technically there was
sufficient spaces to meet the off-street parking requirements.
Mrs. Graves questioned the location of trash recepticles.
Mr. Humphrey told her what provisions would be maje and what other
provisions had been suggested.
Mr. Dolan, the project manager for Shoppers World, told the Commission that
he had spoken with the manager of Dart Drug and had learned that the maximum number
of employees for the drug store would be twenty-five, except during the Christmas
season and noted that fifty-nine spaces had been provided. He pointed out that the
same formula for utilizing space is presented at this time as was originally
approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Joe McPhail, an adjacent property owner, stated that it had at one
time seemed impossible to him that the parking situation would be worked out,
but that obviously it had been. He questioned the sewer situation.
Mr. Carr told him that sewer must be available in order to obtain a
certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Humphrey stated that sewer accommodations are on a first -come,
first -served basis.
Mr. Rinehart stated that the parking movability there is critical.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Highway Department could change the speed
limit from 45 mph to 35 mph up to Rio Road since so much traffic will be generated.
Mr. Carr suggested that this be in the form of a resolution to the Board of
Supervisors and not part of the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner then moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. That a safety barrier fence be placed parallel to the parking area in the
vicinity of the open drainage ditch where it parallels Route 29 North
(Seminole Trail). Care should be taken to insure that the extension of
the parking bays in this area will not be undermined by the steep slope of the
open drainage ditch. The barrier is to be installed to the satisfaction
and approval of the Planning Department.
2. That all travel ways providing access to parking bays be marked to the satis-
faction and approval of the Planning staff.
3. That the traffic island divider at the entrance of the shopping center from
Route 29 be installed as proposed on the site plan.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 6-0.
Mrs. Craddock did not vote due to her late arrival.
Site Development Plan Ordinance:
Mr. Robert Huskie, an interested citizen, asked if all site plan reviewal
will be turned over to the technical review committee.
Mr. Payne explained the technical committee and the process by which an
agrieved person could appear before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Huskie pointed out the human approach of the Planning Commission which
perhaps the technical committee would not have, and noted that he did not want to lose
this part of site plan approval.
Mr. Easter stated that Mr. Huskie's remarks were well taken, and stated that
if the ordinance is passed as presented, he suggested that the Director of Planning
lead the efforts to increase the scope of research in approving site plans.
Mrs. Graves read the following statement:
I have become increasingly concerned with portions of the proposed Site
Development Plan amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This
ordinance relies in part on provisions of other ordinances, but as the new
Soil Erosion ordinance and new Zoning Ordinance have not yet been passed,
I am wondering whether the present ordinance offer as much protection as
could be desired. One important provision of the Subdivision Ordinance,
namely 3-8-3, has been substantially changed in 17-5-17 of the proposal.
No provision has been made for the re -notification of adjacent property
owners in case of a change in the site plan. Article 31 of the new
Zoning Ordinance which was a previously proposed Site Plan Ordinance
Speaks to both of these issues. I am also concerned whether buffer zones
could be provided.
My greatest concern is with the provisions of 17-6-2 and 17-7-1 through
17-7-7. Wile I recognize the desire of the developer to have the technical
details of his plan approved as rapidly and economically as possible, I
nevertheless firmly believe that Commission and public input is necessary
and desirable. The Commission has placed great reliance in the Site Plan
hearing. For years the pbulic has been told they'' have to wait for the
site plan to come in when asking for specific information when a rezoning
case is being heard. As recently as last week the Commission put great
faith in future site plan control when discussing specific zoning on the
proposed new zoning map.
While I know that Planning Commissions are charged with many other duties,
I do not believe this Commission should recommend to the Board of Supervisors
that it should relinquish site plan hearings at this time. Should the
Board decide that it wants the agent to approve site plans administratively
then it can do so after proper deliberation.
Should the Commission disagree with me I would suggest that we require
control over the proposed Site Plan Review Committee. Agendas should be
sent to each Commission member in adequate time before each meeting, and full
reports of each meeting likewise circulated less than ten days afterwards.
I however remain opposed to these suggestions, and wish the whole
ordinance subjected to careful scrutiny.
Mr. Rinehart noted that the Planning Commission offers a stop -getter for
future problems.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would like the Planning Commission to review site
plans, closed to the public comment, since it is his feeling that the public should have its
input to the technical committee.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he does not feel that the review committee can
handle public comments and still do their technical job.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that public input could be by phone calls or correspond-
ence to the Planning Commission members, except in the case of the applicant.
Mrs. Craddock stated that she felt that the Planning Commission should keep
its review policy.
Mr. Humphrey stated that he felt public input should be at the site review
committee meeting.
Mr. Carr at this point noted that several issues were being attempted to
be addressed:
1. the items that the developer needs to submit
2. time element should be shortened for the developer
3. relations with the developers hsould be improved, since the process as it is now
is quite costly; also relations with the community should be improved.
4. time element should be shortened for the Planning Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance as proposed is comprehensive, that
the number of submissions will be increased - under existing, only certain things are
submitted for iste plan approval - citying rental units as an example.
Mr. Rinehart stated that a booklet outlining site plan criteria should
accompany the ordinance in order to eleminate some of the problems.
M
lei
Mr. Humphrey acknowledged that there have never been any specific
guidelines and now that these guidelines are being set, the Commisison should
make sure that they are placing enough guidelines. He stated that the site plan
ordinance is the technical device to development, and it is his opinion that
public input should be only at the review committee level, and that this input
should not have to go to the Commission, except in the case of appeals. He
noted that only certain things can be legally imposed on a site plan.
Mr. Carr noted that the following items should be worked with when
revising the ordinance for another presentation to the Commission:
1. 17-5-22, the utility aspect should remain.
2. 17-5-17, the Director of Planning recommends that this be left in, but
the deputy county attorney stated that if any aspect of the ordinance is
challenged, it would be this phase. However, it was noted that the county
felt as though it could defend this provision.
3. 17-7-2, should state that 2 members of the Planning Commission will be members
of the technical review committee.
4. 17-6-2, should change in order that the Planning Commission will receive for
its review a finished product after the following process has been followed:
The site plan will be submitted to the Planning Department and will then go to the
review committee where public input and technical advise will be received. The
Director of Planning will then either mark the site plan with his approval or
disapproval, and will take the finished product to the Planning Commission.
At this time, Mr. Humphrey told the Commission about the plans for a
meeting, headed by Mr. Joe Gibson, in relation to the Ivy area. He stated that
March 26, should be set aside for the work on this area.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
J n . Humphrey, ecret IYY
March 10, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on March 10, 1975, 7:30
p.m., Board of Supervisors Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Wilbur Tins-
ley; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Tax Map 61M - Parcel 1 (Berkmar Drive)
The owner has requested a comparable zone for CG for both the northside and southside.
The northside is proposed to be zoned CL and the southside is proposed to be zoned CO.
Mrs. Graves moved that the owner appear before the Commission.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
TM 32-5A:
Mr. Barksdale moved a comparable zone for RR be assigned to the property.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 46-05:
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the property remain RR.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM61M-120M:
Mr. Easter moved it remain as CG.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM61M-121A:
Mr. Gloeckner moved that this property remained in the proposed zone of CO.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45-93A:
The existing zoning of this property is B-1, and it is proposed to be zoned CL and RT.
Mr. Rinehart moved action on this property be deferred.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45-68:
Mr. Barksdale moved that if the owner wishes zoning other than CL and RM, for the
Commission to hear him.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 61W-A2:
The existing zoning on this property is B-1 and it is proposed to be zoned CL.
Mrs. Graves moved that if the owner wishes zoning other than CL that the Commission hea
his request at a later date.
CVN.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45-3, 3F:
Mr. McClure moved that these two parcels remain in the 5-acre zone.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45-6B, 5B1:
Mr. Gloeckner moved that these two parcels remain in the CVN zone.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcels 8A, 12, 13 ,14, 17, 18:
Mr. Rinehart moved that these parcels remain as proposed, in the RR zone.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcels 45, 7, 8, 12, 9:
Parcels 8, 12, and 9 are proposed to be zoned RR. Parcel 7 is proposed to be zoned
Mr. Rinehart moved that zoning remain as proposed.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 35 Parcel B:
Mr. Rinehart moved the zoning remain as proposed, RR.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcel 10:
This property is proposed to be zoned RT and CVN.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the zoning remain as proposed.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1. Mrs. Graves voted"no."
TM 25, Parcels 19A and 20A:
Mr. Easter moved that this property be proposed to be zoned RT.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45, Parcel 26:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the disussion and vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Graves moved the property retain a comparable zone of RT.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45, Parcels 28 and 29:
This property is proposed to be zoned RT.
Mr. Rinehart moved the proposed zoning be changed to CVN.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45, Parcels 58, 60, 61, 70, 59(g) and 59A(1):
Parcels 58, 60, and 61 are existing M-2 zone and proposed to be zoned NR. Parcels
70, 59(g) and 59A(1) are proposed to be zoned RR.
The Planning Commission voted to leave these zones as proposed and would consider re-
zoning 70, 59(g) and 59A(1) as NR only if it goes through the special use permit process.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that they be left as proposed. Mr. Easter seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
TM 88, Pacels 18 and 13:
Parcel 81 is proposed to be zoned NR and Parcel 13 is proposed to be zoned CVN.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the proposed zoning designation stand. Mr. Easter seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45, Parcel 64:
Mr. Rinehart moved this remain in the 5-acre density, which will probably be designated
as the AGR-CVN zone.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcels 68C and 68A:
It was moved and seconded that these parcels be given the proposed zone of CG. The
motion carried unanimously.
TM 45C Parcel J16A:
Mr. Easter moved this be proposed to be zoned R-2.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM45B-1-C4:
Mr. Easter moved that this remain as proposed, R-1.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 46A Parcel F6:
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Humphrey to tell the owner of the property that the designation
of R-2 means that the lot size is conforming.
TM 16 Parcels 32, 31, 34, 7, 30, and 6:
These had been proposed to be in the AL zone, which has been changed to the 2-acre
zoning of RR.
Mr. Easter moved that they remain in the proposed RR zone.
Mir. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 43-40A; TM 26-40B, 40C; TM 15-35; TM 27-4 8:
Mr. Easter moved that these remain in the proposed CVN (5-acre) zone. Mr. McClure se-
conded the motion, since these parcels have steep slopes.
area.
The motion carried unanimously.
TM 17 Parcels 26 (B-K) and 27 (1-9):
It was noted that these parcels are taken care of through the PUD planned for that
R
TM 16, Parcels 45 and 46; TM 17, Parcels 18 and 19; TM 17, Parcels 16B, 17, 17A; TM
29, Parcel 25; TM 29, Parcels 41D, 41F, and 43:
It was noted that the Maupin Store and garage would be zoned either CL or CG, as would
any country store in the county.
The other parcels that do not have the store and garage would be proposed to be zoned
RR.
Mr. Rinehart made the above motion, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. The motion
carried unanimously.
TM 20 Parcel 3
Mr. Rinehart moved this remain as proposed to be zoned RR.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 22 Parcels 4 and 4A:
Mr. Rinehart moved that this be proposed to be zoned RR.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Eq
Humphrey,L. :r -
March 17, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular site plan meeting
on March 17, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Ellen Craddock;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-officio. Absent was
Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Avis Rent -a -Car:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request to revise the site plan since
the gas pump was to be beside the wash room. She noted that they had to be put in front
with screening. This put the site plan in violation.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to screening around the pumps being
maintained.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Albin Coburn plat:
Mrs. Scala explained that a 2.5 acre parcel is being cut from a 3-acre
parcel. She noted that the plat is before the Planning Commission because the
subdivision is on an existing 50' right-of-way.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
John J. Arbaugh plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for six 2-acre lots on Route 630.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to lots 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6 sharing
entrances. He suggested that if this is not possible, then the Commission should hear
the matter again.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Monticello Home Builders - Carver plat:
In the staff report, Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this is a request
to waive the road frontage along Route 631.
Mr. Rinehart stated that there is a better way to divide this property and
suggested revising the plat if further subdivision is anticipate. He moved that
action be deferred.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Jessie and Genevieve Shiflett plat:
W"
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request to waive the sewer and water requirements
and the dedication of right-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala stated that the Board approved this property for R-1 zoning and that
the lot does not meet the 60,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for this zone and a
variance would have to be obtained for the shed. She further stated that there is not
enough property to make a dedication of a 25' strip of right-of-way.
Mr. Joe Henley explained that the Board did not want to re -zone the property,
but that the reason the property had been re -zoned was that it was to be given to one
of the owner's children.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A variance must be obtained for the shed since it does not meet side setback
requirements; and
2. An easement for the septic system for lot 1 should be noted in the deed.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, whihc carried unanimously.
Lewis Hill Section I Subdivision:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for a subdivision of 7 lots on a
restricted road; the property is zoned A-1.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Lots 1 and 7 must enter onto the restricted road;
2. All County Requirements for the restricted road must be complied with:
a. Board of Supervisors approval;
b. Road plans approved by County Engineer;
c. Grading permit;
d. Deed restrictions have been approved by County Attorney - the staff needs the
approved copy.
e. Virginia Dept. of Highways approval of entrance;
f. Bond posted in lieu of construction•
3. Health Department preliminary approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Easter
did not vote, due to his late arrival in the middle of the discussion.
George Bailey - 4 rental units site plan:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that a new gravel road will be built.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that the units be built at least 50 feet apart, should
there ever be a desire to subdivide.
Mr. Easter moved approval; Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Pampered Pet Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala explained that there is a desire to change the use of an existing
building, and that the M-1 zone allows kennels. She stated that the owner will use
a stockade type of fence for outdoor kennels.
Mrs. Graves questioned the soundproofing.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the Commission would have to speak to sound as
far as adjacent property owners are concerned.
Mr. Chris Conte, an adjoining property onwer, stated that there is a small
kennel on the other side of Rio Road that provides the neighborhood with occasional
noise.
Mr. Tucker stated that he felt soundproofing of the building is a reasonable
condition.
Mr. Gloeckner moved deferral on this plan to clarify the parking situation.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Springfield Subdivision:
Mrs. Scala stated that this subdivision will use county water.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval.
2. Written preliminary Health Department approval.
3. Fire Marshal approval of the fire hydrant location.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Nancy Lawson preliminary subdivision:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that all but two lots will run on the restricted
road.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, stated that she wanted it laid out
such that if she wishes to sell, she will be able to do so.
Mr. Gerald Ferguson, an adjoining property owner, stated that a house built
there may interrupt the flow of the creek and pollution could result, thus ruining his
crops.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department preliminary approval;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances;
3. Board of Supervisors approval of the restricted road;
4. Lots 3 and 4 on the restricted road.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Thacker Construction Storage Yard site Plan:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report stating that this is a request for site
plan approval for the construction site.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that this is a temporary
use for the property. He said that there is no public traffic, so there will be
minimal traffic flow.
Mr. McCauley, an adjoining property owner, voiced his concern about the use of
Parcels 2 and 3.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance;
2. Screening along the south fence line;
3. Road must be kept in dust -free condition.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ednam Forest Section 7 Subdivision:
Mr. Rinehart disqualified himself from the vote and discussion.
Mrs. Scala stated that preliminary approval was given in January of 1974,
and that this is the final section to be approved.
Mr. Snow stated that the old reservoir was a state road and Ednam Forest feels
as if it has the right to use it.
Mr. Rick Richmond, representing Mr. Knickerbocker, stated that the middle
of the old reservoir road is the property line of Mr. Knickerbocker and that since Ednam
Forest has always had private roads, he is objecting to this proposal.
Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, stated that the situation is one such
that there is an old public road abandoned because of maintenance reasons.
Mr. John Rogan stated that Ednam Forest has consulted with its attorneys and that
the matter does need to be clarified.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Board of Supervisors approval of restricted roads;
2. Written preliminary approval of Health Dept.
3. County Engineer approval of water line plans;
4. Old Reservoir Road dispute clarified before the Board reviewsthis plat.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Oak Hill Multi -family building:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for approval of a 6-unit dwelling.
Mrs. Lou Matthews, an adjoining property onwer, questioned the septic system.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Written preliminary Health Department approval of 6 units;
2. Evidence submitted to the County Engineer's approval that the existing well is
capable of handling these 6 units;
3. A grading permit must be obtained;
4. When public sewer becomes available, this project must hook onto it.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Westside High School final site plan:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report.
Mr. Elwood Hall explained the planting plan.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Faculty parking only in the lot closest to the west Laing of the building. This is
due to possible congestion when cars back out into the main driveway;
3. The landscape plan for the entrance to be followed;
4. The auxiliary parking lot near the entrance to remain a grassed area. If the School
Board wishes to use stone in this area, or change the location, etc., any such changes
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Georgetown Woods Subdivision:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this is the section that will have town-
houses for sale.
The Commission told the staff that prior to any more approval of any section of
Georgetown Woods, a master site plan must be submitted.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Millpond Drive road plans approved and bond posted for construction to state
standards;
2. Show end of dedication of Millpond Drive on plat;
3. Sewer and water easements to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service
Authority ( on plat ).
4. Homeowners' Association documents to be approved by the County Attorney.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
John B. Moore:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request for a 25' easement to serve two
2.5 acre lots on Route 704. Due to the topography, one can't reach the property except
where the easement is shown. The lots will share driveways.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned.
o L. Humphrey, Se r tary
March 25, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Monday, March 24, 1975,
7:30 p.m., Board of Supervisors Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chair-
man; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs.
Joan Graves; and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
UP-75-05. Amend Article 16, Definitions, by adding Section 16-92-1, Warehousing,
Light: Storage establishments designed to accommodate primarily individual households,
not intended for use by heavy commercial users and not involving heavy trucking.
Amend Article 7, General Business District, B-1, by adding Section 7-1-42(10), Ware-
housing, Light.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that they had heard this amendment as UP-75-04, and had
asked the staff to reword the amendment. He stated that this use had originally been per-
mitted by right in the CG zone.
Mrs. Craddock emphasized the need for such storage establishments but inquired how citi-
zens would be protected if heavy trucking became a nuisance.
Mr. Tucker said that violations should be reported to the zoning office.
Mr. Reid Cornwell, representing the applicant, stated that facilities for heavy truck-
ing are not available on the site.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unani-
mously.
SP-460. Ministor Associates have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a Light Warehousing establishment (proposed amendment) on 2.55 acres zoned
B-1 Business. Property is situated on the east side of Berkmar Drive near its inter-
section with Rio Road. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 121A
part thereof. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Site Plan Approval;
2. County Building Official approval;
3. Planting plan submitted along with site plan;
4. All storage shall be enclosed, i.e., no outside storage to be allowed;
5. A tree buffer to be provided along the eastern boundary of property for width of
ten (10) feet, existing vegetation may be sufficient.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Pampered Pet:
Mr. Tucker explained that the field inspection showed that the closest house to
the kennel would be 153 feet.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing the applicant, stated that noise abatement is considered
only in the RTM zone.
Mrs. Craddock suggested that a planting plan be considered.
Mr. Carr pointed out to the Commission that the two things at hand were the parking and
noise situations.
Mrs. Graves stated that the Commission should have the right to ask for noise screening
Mr. Carr stated that he was not clear as to what restrictions could be placed on a per-
mitted use.
Mrs. Craddock stated that this site seemed to be a poor location for such a facility.
Mr. Gloeckner asked where it would be possible to find a reasonable sound level.
Mr. McClure suggested that there should be such guidelines in an architect's office.
Citing the fact that it would be impossible to have too many restrictions on the use,
Mr. McClure moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Highway Department approval;
2. All dogs kept inside between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.;
3. Noise abatement on both buildings in order that sound will be audible within `e
150 feet;
4. Landscaping as may be required by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Rosamund Payne subdivision plat:
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a request for waiver of frontage requirements.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval; Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Work Session:
Mr. Humphrey stated that he and the staff would like to end work on the ordinance and
map by the end of the month of April. He suggested to the Commission that April 14th meet-
ing date be changed to April 16th, which was tentatively set as an all day work session
with the public. He also suggested that Wednesday, April 2, 1975, be set aside as a work
session.
Tax Map 7, Parcel 8:
Mr. Humphrey stated that this property is proposed to be zoned CVN and that the
owner desires 2-acre zoning. The property has steep terrain.
� 1 l
Mr. Barksdale moved that the request be deferred until the Commission could have con-
sultation with the owner.
1 Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 29, Parcel 64:
Mr. Barksdale moved that this property be changed fron the proposed CVN zoning to a
2-acre zoning.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1. Mrs. Graves voted
"no."
Tax Map 28, Parcel 36:
Mr. Tinsley moved this be proposed to be 2-acre zoning.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 29, Parcel 61:
Mrs. Craddock moved that this property remain CVN as originally proposed.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 29, Parcels 7, 7A, 8, 14, 15, 16, 59:
The Commission decided that Mr. Humphrey should secure from the property owner a clari-
fication of what plans the owner had for the land.
At this point, Mr. McClure moved that a 200 foot AGR-CVN strip extending from both
sides of the shore line shall be shown where flood plain studies have not been accomplished
and accepted and where the streams traverse areas not zoned AGR or AGR-CVN.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 31, Parcels 56 and 57:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the owner requests RR zoning.
Mr. Easter made motion to this effect, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. The motion
carried unanimously.
Tax Map 42, Parcel 33-3:
Mr. Tinsley moved this property be proposed to be zoned RR.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously
Tax Map 42, Parcel 5, 7, 8:
Mr. Tinsley moved, and Mrs. Craddock seconded, that this property be proposed to be
zoned AGR-CVN. This passed unanimously.
Tax Map 31, Parcel 23:
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral of action on this property.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 32C, Parcel B; Tax Map 32C, Parcel A; Tax Map 32, Parcel 49D:
Mrs. Craddock moved action on this property be deferred; Mr. Easter seconded the motion
which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 32, Parcel s 28, 26B, 26, 29:
The zoning of this property was taken care of through action of the Commission at
an earlier work session, at which time it was designated to be RR.
Tax Map 32, Parcels 4, 4J:
The Commission deferred action on this property until such time they could discuss
this with the property owner.
Tax Map 32, Parcel 32:
The Commission unanimously voted to assign a comparable zone to this property.
Tax Map 32, Parcel 41B:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Graves moved that this property be proposed to be zoned RR. Mr. Tinsley seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 32, Parcels 42B and 42D:
The Commission decided that this property retain a comparable zone.
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22-0:
The Commission unanimously decided for this property to have a comparable zone of RR.
Tax Map 33, Parcel 4B:
Mrs. Graves moved this property be zoned AGR-CVN.
19
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 33, Parcel 18:
Mr. Easter moved this property be zoned RR. The motion was seconded by Mr. Barks-
dale, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 42A, Parcel 18, 9, 3, 66A; Tax Map 42, Parcels 66, 65, 64, 55, 54, 51, 52:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property RR, except for that area in
the flood plain.
Tax Map 42, Parcel 53:
Mrs. Craddock moved this property have a 5-acre zoning.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 42, Parcel 36A:
The Commission voted unanimously for this property to have a 5-acre zoning.
Tax Map 42, Parcel 37B:
The Commission voted unanimously for this property to have a 5-acre zoning.
Tax Map 43, Parcel 25C:
Mrs. Craddock moved this property have a 5-acre zoning.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 30, Parcel 13; Tax Map 18, Parcel 38; Tax Map 44, Parcels 8, 9D, 9E; Tax Map
44, Parcels 12F, 23B:
The Commission voted unanimously to defer action on these properties until they could
speak to the property owner.
Tax Map 44, Parcel 35A:
Mr. Easter moved this property be zoned RR zoning.
The Commission voted unanimously for this property to be zoned RR.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
P9
March 26, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the proposed zoning
ordinance and map on March 26, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board of Supervisors Conference Room, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman;
Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Peter
Easter and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
The members of the Commission were reminded that the following meeting dates had been
set for the next few weeks for work on the proposed ordinance:
March 3, 1975, Board of Supervisors Conference Room, 7:30 p.m.
April 2, 1975, Board of Supervisors Conference Room, 7:30 p.m.
April 7, 1975, Piedmont College, 7:30 p.m.
April 16, 1975, Board of Supervisors Conference Room, 10:00 a.m.
Tax Map 44, Parcel 35:
The Commission voted unanimously to apply the 200 strip CVN zone and leave the remainder
of the property as proposed to be zoned RR.
` Tax Map 44A, Parcel 11:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property RR.
Tax Map 46, Parcel 28A:
Action on this parcel was deferred until the Commission could speak to the property
owner.
Tax Map 44, Parcels 19, 20, 23, 23C, 23J, 27B, 27, 21-B:
Mr. Carr disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room.
The Commission unanimously voted to defer action on this property until it could speak
to the property owner.
Mr. Carr assumed the chairmanship by returning to the room after the vote was taken.
Tax Map 18, Parcel 17A and 17D:
The Commission voted unanimously to put this property into a 5-acre zone.
R
Tax Map 19, Parcel 28A and Tax snap 2 0-9E:
The Commission voted to defer action on the property.
Ivy Cluster:
Mr. Carr explained to the Commission that on March 25, 1975, Mr. Joe Gibson had met
with the citizens of the Ivy Cluster, hoping to obtain some generalized information con-
cerning this area, and that Mr. Gibson was at the meeting to present the data he had re-
ceived.
Mr. Gibson told the Commission that his meeting had been successful in some respects,
yet he had arrived at no consensus on the desire from the members of this particular area.
He did point out that the property holders there did not wish the population to increase
to 16,000 by 2000 A.D. and that they wished no high density zoning.
Mr. Hugh Davidson stated his concern about the amount of development in the Ivy area,
citing the water situation as the basis for his concern.
Mr. Richardson supported the statements of Mr. Gibson, emphasizing that he hoped
strip suburban development along Route 250 West to Crozet would not be permitted.
Mr. John Ewald discussed the four quadrants of the Ivy interchange of I-64, explaining
that this property is much too expensive to be zoned agriculturally.
Mrs. Loretta Davidson asked for an explanation of Mr. Ewald's planned uses for this
property.
He explained his plans for development for this property.
Mr. Carr told the citizens from the Ivy area that were present that the water situation
in that area is a concern to everyone.
Mr. Max Kennedy, representing Dettor, Edwards and Morris, stated that he had spoken to
Mr. McClure of the school system concerning this property and stated that there is a request
for this property to be zoned IG.
Mr. Clifton McClure explained to the citizens that were present how putting their pro-
perty in a voluntary 10-acre zone would discourage growth, stating that it had been his opi-
nion that this had always been the desire of the property owners of that area.
Mr. Carr acknowledged Mr. McClure's point, stating that if the Ivy citizens want to see
controlled growth in Ivy, this point must be addressed on a continued basis. He said that
the Commission is trying to deal with problems of growth in the county, and that when the
master plan was developed the County saw Ivy growing between the General Electric property
and the Ivy store. He pointed out that the General Electric site had fallen through, and
that it is very difficult to flatly stop growth. He pointed out that what is needed is
compatibility with what is existing.
Mr. Easter stated that hissentiments are with Mr. Carr.
Mr. Carr again told the Ivy citizens that it will take a community effort to cont--1
growth in that area. He pointed out that the problem has not been solved, it has
merely been addressed.
N
Tax Map 54, Parcel 68; Tax Map 55, Parcel 105:
The Commission voted unanimously to put this property into the CL zone.
Tax Map 54, Parcel 52B(16)
Tax Map 54, Parcel 52D(18):
The Commission voted unanimouslt to give this property comparable zoning.
Tax Map 55, Parcel 19B:
Mr. McClure moved, and Mrs. Graves seconded, this property be proposed to be zoned CL,
except for that property which included the country store.
Tax Map 55, Parcel 70:
The Commission voted to defer action onthis property.
Tax Map 55, Parcel 68-1:
The Commission voted unanimously to zoned this R-2.
Tax Map 56, Parcel 69:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property AGR-CVN.
Tax Map 59, Parcels 7B, 7C-2:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property AGR-RR.
Tax Map 57A, Parcel 8A:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property AGR-RR.
Tax Map 57, Parcels 42 and 30A:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property AGR-RR.
Tax Map , Parcel 81A:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property AGR-CVN.
Tax Map 55, Parcels 72B, 73F, 73:
The Commission asked Mr. Humphrey to write a letter of explanation to the property
owner, which would explain the uses of this property.
Tax Map 55, Parcels 73E and 98A:
The Commission asked Mr. Humphrey to write a letter of explanation regarding the
proposed zoning for this property.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
9
March 31, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the
proposed zoning ordinance and map at 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Wilbur
Tinsley; and Mrs. Joan Graves.
In the absense of Mr. David Carr, Chairman, Mr. McClure presided. He
established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Mr. Humphrey handed out to the Commission an agenda of the April Planning
Commission meetings with a brief explanation of what the Planning Staff hoped would
be addressed at each meeting. He asked that the Commission consider completing work
on the proposed ordinance by the end of the month of April.
Tax Map 56, Parcel 17B:
�Irr
The Commission voted unanimously to zone the 500 feet depth on Route 250 to
be CL. The zoning of the rear of the property was deferred until another meeting.
Tax Map 55, Parcels 111B and 112:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the owners request CG zoning for these two parcels
instead of the proposed CL zoning.
The Commission voted unanimously to defer action until they could talk
to the owners.
Tax Map 55B-15:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property CL, and not
CG as the owner requested.
Tax Map 55B-Parcel 16:
The Commission votscunanimoulsy to grant comparable zoning to this property
which would be CL.
In
-2-
Tax Map 55A-Parcel 44:
The Commission voted unanimously to leave this property as originally
zoned, residential.
Tax Map 55B, Parcel 16A, 1, 2, 3, 4:
Action was deferred on this property.
Tax Map 56, Parcel 17:
Tax Map 55, Parcel 106A:
Action on these properties was deferred.
Tax Map 56, Parcel 5A:
Comparable zoning was unanimously voted for this property, along with other
small lots in the area.
Tax Map 56, Parcel 17B:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the owner requests R-2 or R-3 zoning.
The Planning Commission deferred action on this property until they could
talk to the owner.
density.
Tax Map 56, Parcels 91 and 92:
The Commission unanimously voted taht this property be zoned with a 5-acre
Tax Map 56A2, Parcel 71:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property IL.
After this action, Mr. Barksdale moved to zone the Yancey Mill property
( that part with the saw mill to IL ). This motion was seconded, and carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission also agreed that service stations should be
permitted in the CL zone with a special use permit.
em
-3 -
Tax Map 56, Parcel 98A:
The Commission unanimously voted that 2-acre zoning be given to this property.
Tax Map 56, Parcels 109B, 110, 110A, 110B, 110C, 110D, 110E:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the staff had received a letter requesting CL
zoning in that area.
In view of this, the Commission unanimously voted to zone this property CL.
Tax Map 56A (1) -73:
R-2 zoning was unanimously voted upon for this property.
Tax Map 56A (1) u-126:
The Commission unanimously voted that CG zoning will be granted for that
1rr- part of the property that has the service station, and CL zoning for the remainder
of the property. They noted that if the owner is not satisfied that they will
hear his request.
Tax Map 56A(1)-126A:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property CL.
Tax Map 56A(1)-124:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property CL.
Tax Map 39, Parcel 16:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 56.A (2) -28:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property RT.
-4-
Tax Map 57, Parcel 20:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 57, Parcel 45, 44, 46, 43C:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property CVN.
Tax Map 58A (1) -40D:
The Commission unanimously agreed that this property should be zoned
CVN, but that they will need to hear the owner is he requests any sort of business
zoning.
Tax Map 60, Parcel 3:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property RR.
*r.r
Mr. Barksdale moved, and Mrs. Craddock seconded, that all of Colthurst be
zoned R-1. The motion carried unanimously.
Tax Map 61, Parcels 121A, 119, 56C, 26, 26A, 26C:
Action on these properties was deferred.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 135B, 135C, 136, 136A:
The staff was instructed to write a letter of explanation concerning the
proposed zoning for these parcels.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
OJonL. Humphrey, S retar
09
April 2, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the proposed zoning
ordinance and map on Wednesday, April 2, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Build-
ing, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chair-
man; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Absent was Ellen Craddock.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Tax Map 61B, Parcels B1 abd B2:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this RT.
Tax Map 61T, Parcels B8, B9, B7, B13, B14, B12, Bll, B10, B15, B16, B1, B2:
The Commission unanimously voted to zone this property RT where there are townhouses
and the remainder of the property is to be R-2.
Tax Map 61W, Parcel X:
Action on this property was deferred until the Commission could speak to the property
owner.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 177:
The Commission voted to zone this property RT.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 184:
The Commission voted to zone this property RT and also to notify all other property
holders that land in this area has been changed to RT.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 179:
The Commission voted to zone this property RT.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 127:
This property is to be zoned R-2.
Tax Map 62, Parcels 2A, 16, 16A:
This property will be zoned AGR/CVN except that part in the flood plain.
Tax Map 62A, Parcel 145D:
This property is to be zoned CG.
1400
Tax Map 62B, Parcel 2HI:
Mr. Rinehart disqualified himself from the vote and the discussion.
This property is to be zoned R-2.
Tax Map 69A, Parcels 36, 37, 76, 77, 78, 84, 86, 96, 97, 98:
This property is to be zoned R-1.
Key West and Cedar Hill:
This property is to be given comparable zoning.
Tax Map 69, Parcels 5A, 5B, 5C:
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 69, Parcels 51-5, 51-4, and 51:
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 72, Parcel 37A:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property AGR/RR.
Tax Map 73, Parcel 7G:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the vote and discussion.
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 75, Parcels 45, 46, 48:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote.
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 75-8:
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
19
Tax Map 75, Parcel 58:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discusssion and vote.
This property is to be zoned with a comparable zone.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 1OH3:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote.
The Commission placed this property in the 1-acre zone.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 21A-1, 22A, 24B:
Action on this property was deferred.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 24:
This property was given a comparable zone.
Tax Map 76D, Parcel B21:
The Planning staff is to write a letter of explanation to this property owner.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 52K:
This property is zoned R-3 and the staff will write a letter of explanation.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 56C:
This property is to be zoned R-3.
Tax Map 76C, Parcel D19:
The Commission decided that the staff should write a letter of explanation to the
property owner.
Tax Map 79, Parcel 18:
The Commission decided to zone this property IL.
Tax Map 78, Parcels 39, 37, and 42:
This property was discussed at an earlier work session of the Planning Commission.
09
Tax Map 78C, Parcel A-1:
This property was assigned a comparable zone.
Tax Map 79, Parcels 5, 5A, 10, 11, 12A, 12C:
Action on this property was deferred until a later date.
Tax Map 79, Parcel 7:
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the natural resource line be extended. Mr. Barksdale second-
ed the motion.
Mr. Rinehart offered a substitute motion to leave the property zoned as originally
proposed. Mrs. Graves seconded this motion, which was defeated by a vote of 2-6.
The motion to extend the natural resource line was then voted on. It carried by a
vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Rinehart voting "no".
Tax
Map 79B, Parcel t2:
The
Commission decided to have the staff write a latter of explanation
to the property
owner explaining the zone.
Tax
Map 85, Parcels 33-B, 39 and 41A:
The
Commission voted to zone this property
AGR/CVN.
Tax
Map 88, Parcels 6 and 8:
The
Commission voted to zone this property
AGR/CVN.
Tax
Map 89, Parcels 91, 83 and 50D:
Mr.
Gloeckner moved that the staff look at
this property and recommend
where the AGR
zoning should begin.
Mr.
Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax
Map 90, Parcel 9:
The
Commission voted to zone this property
AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 90, Parcel 36:
The Commission voted to give this property a comparable zone for the existing
use.
} 7 �
Tax Map 90A, Parcel B10B, B9, B8, B5, B14A, 1, C4:
This property will be zoned R-3 by a unanimous vote of the Commission.
Tax Map 90A, Parceks BlOG, B14, B10F, BlOE, BlOD, B10C:
The Commission voted to leave this property zoned R-3.
Tax Map 90A, Parcel 1A, 1B, 1C:
This property is to be zoned R-3.
Tax Map 90B, Parcel Al:
This property is to be zoned R-1.
Tax Map 90B, Parcel B-2 and B-1:
The Commission voted unanimously to zone this property R-1.
Tax Map 91, Parcels 1A, 1B, 1E:
The Commission voted to leave this property as originally proposed to be zoned.
Tax Map 93, Parcels 2, 6, and 8:
This property was placed in a 2-acre density zone.
Tax Map 98, Parcels 15, and 15C; Tax Map 100, Parcel 30:
Action on these properties was deferred.
Tax Map 101, Parcel 20B:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the voet and discussion on this property.
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 103, Parcels 16 and 17:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and vote on this property.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that this property be zoned AGR/RR.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 110, Parcel 17:
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 112, Parcels 19, 19C, 19D, 18, 26A, 27, 29, 16B, and 25:
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 114, Parcel 5:
This property is to be zoned AGR/RR.
Tax Map 123, Parcel 14:
This property is to be zoned AGR/RR.
Tax Map 123, Parcel 26B:
This property is to be zoned AGR/RR.
Tax Map 120, Parcel 25:
This property is to be zoned AGR/CVN.
Tax Map 130, Parcel 48:
This property is to be zoned AGR/RR.
Tax Map 130A, Parcel 1-23:
This property is to be zoned AGR/RR.
Tax Map 71, Parcel 3:
This property is to be zoned CVN.
Tax Map 120, Parcel 27:
This property to be zoned AGR/RR.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
hn L. Humphrey, Secr ary
April 7, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Monday, April 7,
1975, auditorium, Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chair-
man; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wil-
bur Tinsley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
SP-450. Southern Capital Fund, Inc.
This item was deferred from a previous meeting.
The Commission decided to defer this until the end of the meeting when Mr. Max Evans,
the representative of the applicant, would be present.
ZMP-320. James and Alice Browning have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super
visors to rezone 2.7 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is
situated on the west side of Route 729 at its intersection with Route 53 at Nix. Pro-
perty is further described as County Tax Map 93, Parcel 47C.. Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. He pointed out that another dwelling can be placed
on the property and it will still meet the setback requirements.
Mrs. Browning pointed out to the Commission the location of the existing dwelling.
Mr. Easter moved approval, and Mr. McClure seconded the motion. It carried unani-
mously.
The Commission pointed out to the applicant that if the property is ever divided,
it must be done in equal proportions.
SP-454. G. Jaeger, W. Jaeger, D. Damon, M. Buckley and P. Philhour have petitioned
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a craft shop - woodworking on 24.5
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 641
at Burnleys. Property is further described as County Tax Map 22, Parcel 18. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr.. W. Jaeger stated that the land is owned by five people and he had been told that
the petition had to be in the name of all property owners.
Mr. Tinsley asked about storage facilities for the shop.
Mr. Carr stated that since the Commission was dealing with 24 acres, there seemed to
be sufficient room for storage without the storage facilities presenting a site problem.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Rinehart amended the motion to include the condition that sales be limited to
only products of the applicant.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The conditions are:
1. Any renovations of the existing structure shall have County Building Official
approval;
2. Production be limited to custom-made items, i.e., no assembly line production
to be permitted;
3. Employment to be limited to a maximum of three (3) persons, any additional employ-
ment will require an additional special use permit;
4. Signing be limited to one free standing sign, not to exceed six (6) square feet;
5. All wood working equipment shall be located within an enclosed area.
6. Sales be limited to only products of applicant.
SP-455. Northern Piedmont Electric Cooperative has petitioned the Albemarle County
Supervisors to locate an electric substation on 3.0 acres zoned M-1 Industrial. Pro-
perty is situated on the west side of Route 29 North about 1 mile south of its inter-
section with Route 641. Property is further described as County Tax Map 21, Parcel
14, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. James Cubbage, representing the applicant, stated that Northern Piedmont is the
contract owner of the property on which the substation is to be located.
Mr. Tucker stated to the Commission that if the embankment comes down, the Com-
mission may wish to have the special use permit brought back to the Commission in order
that further screening can be insured.
Mr. Mickey Pugh, an adjoining property owner, asked for a description of the substa-
tion.
Mr. Cubbage answered him by stating that there will be no steel above thirty feet, and
that with the embankment, there is no way the substation can be seen.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the embankment is a very important part of the screening.
Mr. Pugh asked the members of the Commission to view the site before making a decision
On this basis, Mr. Easter moved that action on the special permit be deferred until this
could be done.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Max Evans made the observation that with rolling topography a substation can be
suppressed and hidden by the land form with evergreens planted on top.
Mr. Carr stated that the public hearing is still open.
9
SP-456. Charles W. Weakley has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a general store on 0.74 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated
on the west side of Route 29 North at the Greene County line. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 21, Parcel 6I, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the voting by leaving the
room.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mrs. Graves asked the zoning history of the property.
Mr. Tucker told her that it has always been A-1.
Mr. Weakley stated that he owned the property behind the store.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that it is operating under the old ordinance and
noted that this business has been in continuous use. He stated that this decision must
stand on the merits of Mr. Weakley's request.
Mrs. Graves suggested the condition that the special use permit be issued to the appli-
cant only since the special permit runs with the land.
Mr. Barksdale said that it should run with the land in case the owner ever wishes to
sell his business, and on this basis moved approval with the following conditions:
1. Building Official approval of any renovations;
2. Site Plan approval by Planning staff to insure adequate parking and circulation;
3. Health Department approval of water and sewer facilities;
4. Signing be limited to one wall sign in conformance with the County Sign RegulationE
5. Parking spaces 9-11 be used for employee parking.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Craddock recommended to the owner that he improve the site by riding the premises
of the windmill.
SP-464. Vernard C. and Ruth S. Blick have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a Country General Store and Gift, Craft and Antique Shop on
13.52 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the southeast side of
Route 626 near Howardsville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 139,
Parcel 30E, part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Blick gave a report to the Commission which stated the residents of the community
supported the proposal for the location of the general store.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Building Official approval of any renovations;
2. Site Plan approval by Planning staff to insure adequate parking and circulation;
3. Health Department approval of water and sewer facilities;
4. Signing be limited to one wall sign in conformance with the County Sign Regulations
5. Parking spaces 9-11 be used for employee parking.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-450. Southern Capital Fund, Inc.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the County Engineer has reviewed the water report
and found no problem.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, commented on the individual wells that have
been drilled. He stated they are now in the process of being measured for a 48 hour time
period. He noted that one well yielded 60 gal./min. and the other 3 gal./min. in a period
of eight hours. He also stated that each lot would have a secondary source of water.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that a central well would require the applicant for a special
use permit.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Any changes in the plans, as may be warranted as a result of the water studies be
made prior to final approval;
2. Concept, densities, and open space acreage shown on the plan entitled "Buck Mount-
ain - Preliminary Subdivision Layout: and marked Received 2/24/75" shall be ad-
hered to;
3. All roads to be built to State Highway Specifications with the exception of the
access roads into the clustered areas, which are to be privately maintained and sc
stated in the homeowners agreements (limited to no more than 10 lots or structure:
4. All homeowners agreements to be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's
Office;
5. Only those areas where roads, driveways, lakes, pedestrian and horse trails,
and structures are to be located shall be distributed with grading opera-
tions;
6. Each lot shall have Health Department final approval for septic systems prior to
any subdivision approval;
7. All wells, whether central or individual, shall have final Health Department and
County approval, where applicable, prior to any subdivision approval;
8. Maximum density of 1 du/5 acres not be exceeded and no additional lots be placed
on plan.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
B. L. Thurston plat:
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a request for 2 acres to be cut from a parcel, whicl
would be given to the daughter. This would leave Mr. Thurston 7.5 acres. He also request:
that the right-of-way be extended on the eastern boundary in order to give access to the
2-acre parcel.
Mr. Easter moved approval; Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously
Brooklayne Subdivision:
Mr. Tucker stated that this is a request for six 2-acre lots on Route 663 near
Earlysville.
� y^
G? 1
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject t:o lots ). and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6 sharing en-
trance.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Several members of the public at this time had suggestions to the Planning Commmission
regarding the zoning of the Ivy area, especially around the Ivy interchange.
Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
V Manw opeol
ZA -
70- - A I
A. W�etarj
M
April 9, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the proposed zoning
ordinance and map on April 9, 1975, 7:30 p.m., County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Wilbur Tins-
ley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio was absent.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
The first item on the agenda was the deferred item of SP-455. This item was deferred
to enable the Planning Commission members to review the site. The Chairman opened the dis-
cussion on the request with Mr. Easter and Mr. Tinsley speaking to the concern that the faci-
lity will be seen from the southbound lane of Route 29 North.
It was the general consensus of the Commission that a screening by way of landscaping,
changing grade and setback should be accomplished to reduce the visual impact of this facili-
ty at this location.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that the actual facility be set back on the right-of-way on Rt.
29 for 60 feet instead of the minimum 30 feet; that an embankment of burn be left on the
northern line of the property as abuttment. It was felt that the embankment was needed.
Mr. McClure thought possibly that there should be a 100 feet setback from the right -of-
way of Route 29.
Mr. Easter was of the opinion that the embankment suggested by the staff was not enough.
The trees must be planted near the crest of a burn along the northern property line. They
referred to Mr. Max Evans' suggestions at the previous meeting which Mr. Easter thought very
good.
Mr. Abanion, representing Northern Piedmont Electrical Company spoke and presented a
large plat showing coutour lines explaining what the electrical company had in mind and dis-
cussed with the Commission the possibilities of terracing the site to assist in reducing the
visual encounter from Route 29 as well as providing for a cut to drop the facility below the
road bed with a burn on the northern property line.
The Chairman was of the opinion that some guidelines should be given to the representa-
tive of the power company so that they could take this information back to the Engineers so
that a site plan could be prepared. Hopefully with this information there would be a minimum
of discussion with no possible deferral for lack of information being on the site plan.
After the discussion by the Commission, Mr. Easter made a motion to approve, seconded
by Mr. Rinehart, with the following conditions:
1. All structures should be set back 75 feet from Route 29 North right-of-way, except
fencing which should be no closer than 55 feet to the right-of-way of Route 29 North,
2. The staff recommendations be incorporated as conditions of approval with the exception
that only actual structures be fences and not the entire site;
3. Embankment and existing trees fronting on 29 North be left undisturbed to serve as a
buffer;
4. Chain link fence be placed around the property of the substation for protection;
5. Evergreens be located along the exterior of the chain link fence on the northern bound-
ary of the property to screen the substation from the south bound lane of 29 North
Staff recommends that these plantings be placed on 10 foot centers and suggest ,
that the existing trees on the property be used whenever possible;
6. Grading plans approved by Zoning Administrator;
7. That a site plan be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval indi-
cating grading to take place, location of the facility, sufficient bearing on the
northern property line to the extent that the bearing reduces the visual encounter on
Route 29 southbound lane and that bearing to have evergreen trees planted on top of the
finished bearing.
This motion carried by unanimous vote of the Planning Commission.
The next item of business was staff presentation regarding the proposed zoning map and
the staff's comments on that map based on Commission action and letters of communication
from property owners which have not been seen by the Commission dealing with property in the
original proposed agricultural limited zone. A discussion followed on what had been accom-
plished with reference to the proposed map which involved the philosophy of the agricultural
zones and two acre zones as reflected by the map as presented on this date.
At the conclusion of the discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that addi-
tional requests, which the Commission had acted on, with reference to two -acre type zoning,
should also be reflected on the map. There upon, Mr. Gloeckner made the following motion
which was seconded by Mr. Easter that the staff place on the map those requests in the AL
zone acted on by the Commission plus suggestions for expansion of two -acre type zoning and
that the staff obtain locations of the thought upon active farm lands now existing in the
areas designating in the original proposed AL zone.
This motion passed unanimously. It was the consensus of the Commission that once this
was done, then a final decision could be made with reference to finalizing the zoning map,
in particular, the agricultural and two acre zone philosophy.
Prior to the Commission taking action on Mr. Gloeckner's motion, Mr. Carr had spoken
of a possible alternative regarding the AL zone which was that the Commission could possibly
proceed on the basis of previous action by the Commission regarding the AL which was that tk
rate of percentage of the original proposed AL zone would become two acres. This alternatiN
did not reach the motion stage. At this time, the Chairman opened discussion on the propose
zoning map as it relates to the Ivy area:
Item 1: County Tax Map 58A, Parcel 3 and 4, presently zoned A-1. Proposed map indicates e>
tention of commercial and commercial limited zones. Commission action to remove the commer-
cial extension shown on the proposed map and place this property in a comparable zone on the
proposed map.
Item 2: Discussion was held with reference to the existing commercial zoning in the imme-
diate area of Ivy at the intersection of Route 250, 738, and 678. It was noted that this
area should be shown on the proposed map as CL Commercial Limited Zoning in lieu of grantin<
a CG category on the proposed zoning map. At this time the Chairman referred to a letter
from Mrs. Martha Seldon regarding the proposed CG Commercial Zoning the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of I-64 and Route 250 West sugggesting the reduction of the intensity
of that property to a CL category. Subject property is identified as County Tax Map 55,
Parcels 99, 100, 98A, 98B, and County Tax Map 58A, Parcel 28. It was the consensus
of the Commission that this property should be indicated on the proposed map for
Commercial Limited instead of the Commercial General as originally proposed. The property
owner is to be notified of this change.
Item 3: The next item was in reference to land owned by John Ewald located in all quadrants
of I-64 intersection with Route 637 (Ivy Interchange). With reference to the above property,
the Commission directed the staff to show the IR Industrial zone in the former G.E. property
with AGR/CVN on, the remaining land holdings of Mr. Ewald ("The Rocks", Verulum, and the
southwest quadrant.)
It being 11:00 p.m., the Planning Commission adjourned the meeting.
?JL- Humphrey, Secr ary
April 16, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the
proposed zoning ordinance on Wednesday, April 16, 1975, commencing at
10:00 a.m.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton
McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs.
Joan Graves; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart;
and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley. Absent was Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Mr. Carr explained to the public attending the meeting that it had
been scheduled in order that individual property holders could explain
to the Planning Commission reasons for requesting zoning on certain parcels
of property throughout the county other than that zoning which the Com-
mission had thought proper for the area.
Caleb Stowe:
Tax Map 32, Parcels 22B and 22B1 - existing zoning A-1:
Mr. Stowe circulated a letter among the Commission members stating
his position and said that he asked Mr. Bill Roudabush to view the pro-
perty. The property is owned by Merchants Realty, and in the four years
that he has been familiar with the property, he has never had anyone
interested in it for residential purposes. He emphasized that long slender
lots would be necessary to build residences. The purchase price was
$100,000, illustrating the fact that it had been purchased with businesses
in mind. He stated that with careful site plan review which would limit
the number of accesses onto Route 29, the property could be developed
commercially without being detrimental to the area. He said that the water
line is in the front of the property. He noted that utlitiy demands
would be rigorous for private residences. He stated that close to this
property is land zoned CL, as well as other property zoned for commercial
use. He requested that the property be zoned CG or CL. He also noted
that the tax assessment concerns him since it is out of line with the pro-
posed zoning.
Mr. Carr stated that there is too much land zoned for commercial
M
-2-
now in the county. He noted that the Planning Commission thought that
if land remained in a comparable zone, it could take its course.
Mrs. Craddock asked the legal counsel present if the tax
schedule is such that the owner has a vested interest.
Mr. Payne: "No."
Mrs. Graves stated that changing the zoning of this property
will set a precedent in the area, since a large amount of the property
in that area is agriculture.
Mr. Easter moved that the property in TM 32, Parcels 22B and 22B1
remain in a comparable zone.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion; it passed unanimously.
C. G. Porritt:
Tax Map 21, Parcels 14A and 12A:
Mr. Humphrey pointed out the four acres in question, noting
that it is presently zoned M-1. The property owner is requesting
CG zoning rather than the proposed CL zoning.
Mr. Porritt familiarized the Planning Commission with the use
of the property, asking for zoning that is comparable for the existing
use in order to make the use conforming. He stated that the property
has been in use since 1948.
Mr. Rinehart stated that with a special use permit the present
activity can continue.
Mr. Barksdale stated that it the owner has to acquire a special
use permit his business is ruined if he decides to sell it, since
the owner will be able to sell only the building.
Mr. Easter pointed out that special permits are limited to
the owner only in the case of mobile homes, that special permits run
with the land.
Mr. Carr said that the existing use should be recognized.
Mr. McClure said that CG zoning next to IL zoning is not
detrimental and moved that the owner be granted CG zoning for 14A
and 12A.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Rinehart: "IL zoning is planned for areas next to residential
uses."
The vote was 6-2 in favor of the motion; Mr. Rinehart and
Mrs. Craddock voted against the motion.
-3-
Zunka Property:
Tax Map 46, Parcel 28A:
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the property is presently
zoned A-1, and that the owner is requesting either CL or CG zoning.
He noted that the existing use is presently non -conforming. The owner
wishes zoning that is conforming to the existing use.
Mr. Zulus represented the property owner, stated that the property
has been owned by its present owner for 16 years and can't develop the
property for residentila use.
Mr. Carr noted that the property is in transition. He stated
that the future would be the time to rezone the property when the exact
use can be determined.
At this time, Mr. McClure asked that this request be deferred
untilthe Haugh property is heard.
Mr. Zulus agreed that this would be in order.
Haugh Property:
Tax Map 46, Parcel 18:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the existing strip, which is commercial
is proposed to be done away with, and is proposed to be zoned RR with
the exception of the flood plain area.
Mr. Nunnally,representing Mr. Haugh, asked that the property
be given an industrial use since the quarry is near -by.
Mr. Rinehart stated that the 488 acres could best be utilized
as a PUD, since a good one-third of the property is in the flood plain,
thus putting the density in the other area. He stated that he is not
in favor of strip planning.
Mrs. Craddock and Mrs. Graves agreed with Mr. Rinehart.
Mr. Carr felt that some land could be commercial, with such a
use as a PUD. He acknowledged that it is in the interest of the
county and of the property owner to remove strip zoning. When a planned
use is presented, he felt that that is the proper time for the county
to consider it.
Mr. Nunnally then suggested that the property be zoned PUD.
Mr. Carr noted that this is a considerable down zoning, but
said that it is his feeling that the county needs to see the use.
Mrs. Craddock moved that the property be proposed to be zoned
for RR except for that part which is in the flood plain.
IFE
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote
of 6-2. Messrs. McClure and Barksdale voted against the motion.
Zunka Property:
Mr. McClure stated that Tax Map 46, Parcel 18 must set the
precedent.
Mr. Carr said till the county sees the proposed use of the
property, at Which time it will consider a rezoning request, the
property of Tax Map 46, Parcel 28A, should have comparable zoning.
Mr. Barksdale moved that this property be zoned RR.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Airport Properties:
Tax Map 32, Parcel 9E, "Camelot", Tax Map 32E:
Mr. Zurkel stated that Wendell Wood is the new owner of TM32,
Parcel 9E. He said that the existing zoning is A-1 but asks that the
frontage on Route 606 be industrial.. He explained the possible use of
the land. He asked that the property in Camelot retain the R-3(RM)
zoning, and that the 2600 feet from the river to the second crossover
be zoned CL; he asked that the other remain RR and that IL remain along
Route 649.
Mr. Easter stated that this request seemed to be reasonable,
and moved that the Commission approve the above request,, eliminating the
industrial along Route 606.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of
8-0. Mr. Tinsley did not vote.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the property in Tax Map 20, Parcel 19
the Piney Mountain property be zoned AGR/CVN.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-4.
The following voted against the motion: Mr. Gloeckner, Mr. McClure,
Mr. Barksdale, and Mr. Easter.
J. W. Wright Property:
Tax Map 45, Block A, Parcels A and B:
Mr. Wright stated that this property is adjacent to the Real
Estate III property. He noted that the existing zoning is B-1.
Mr. Humphrey said the property is proposed to be zoned CL and
that the owner is requesting CG zoning.
-5-
Mr. Wright said that the character of the property does not
identify it as CL and that a down -zoning would affect business.
Mr. Easter explained that the size and depth of the lot are
the reasons for the CL zoning.
Mrs. Graves moved that Parcels A, B, and C be zoned CL.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. The vote on the motion
was 4-4, Mrs. Craddock being momentarily out of the room.
Due to the tie, there was a re -vote upon Mrs. Craddock's return
to the room.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-4. Those voting against the
motion were Messrs. Gloeckner, Barksdale, McClure and Carr.
David Turner property:
Tax Map 78, Parcel 53:
Mr. Humphrey explained that this property is currently zoned
B-1 and is proposed to be zoned CO. The parcel contains 37.5 acres.
Mr. Boyle, representing Mr. Turner, requested that the property
be zoned CG.
Mr. Humphrey said that the surrounding property is zoned RR,
except that the existing use of the Sheraton Inn has been recognized
as CG.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the appearance of I-64 should be
maintained as a scenic highway.
Mr. Barksdale said that he feels that CL is the proper zone
for this property.
Mr. Rinehart said that he feels that CL is the proper zone
for this property.
Mr. Rinehart put this into the form of a motion.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion that the property be zoned CL.
It carried unanimously.
Harley Easter Property:
Tax Map 78B, Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, lA and 200 foot strip extending west
from Glenorchy Drive, Paralleling Route 250 E
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote
by leaving the room.
Mr. Humphrey said that this property is currently zoned B-1 and is
proposed for RR zoning.
Mr. Easter explained that with the surrounding commercial
zoning, he did not see how this property could be used if it is
zoned RR. He stated that the property must be zoned in order that
the use can be at its best, asking that the Planning Commission
zone the property CG. He stated that there has been no residential
development in that area since I-64 came through.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that perhaps this property should
be zoned CL.
Mrs. Craddock thought that perhaps a higher residenital
density would be more appropriate, since there is no need for further
commerical stripping.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the property be zoned RR.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried by a vote
of 5-3. Those voting against the motion were Messrs. Gloeckner,
Easter, and Barksdale.
Wilhoit Property:
Tax Map 78, Parcel 12:
Mr. Humphrey stated that these 27.2 acres of property were
currently zoned B-1 and were proposed to be zoned RM.
Mr. Bill Stevens, representing the owner, asked for commercial
zoning - CG - stating that there is no public water and sewer available
and there is none committed for the future for the property.
Mr. Rinehart moved that action on this property be deferred
until the Hurt tract were considered.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charles Hurt Property:
Tax Map 78, Parcels 17, 17A, 17D, 15C, 15C-1, 20, 20B, 20B-1,
30, 31, 57, 59A; and Tax Map 62, Parcels
29 and 55A.
Dr. Hurt requested that there be no down -zoning for all this
property. He asked for the integrity of his plan to be up -held, citing
Worrell Newspapers as an example; He said that development will be put
in a rough situation if htere is no consistency in zoning.
Mrs. Craddock pointed out that this is only a concept, therefore
it is not binding to the developer.
Mr. Stevens, representing the owner of property which has a
mile of common boundary, stated that they are in accord with Dr. Hurt's
proposal.
-7-
The Work Session Continued.
ykw Mr. Carr asked if the Planning Commission wished to concur with
Dr. Hurt.
Dr. Hurt again asked for stability of zoning, since many projects
are 20-30 year plans.
Mr. McClure stated that the plan was approved when the re -zoning
was approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the decision on this property be deferred
until the Planning Commission could have a work session on this particular
property.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, noting that the motion should
include a note that the Wilhoit Property (Tax Map 78, Parcel 12) would
be considered at the same time.
The Commission unanimously voted to approve this motion.
J. Todd Samperton:
Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A-1:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the existing zoning for this property
is B-1, and that the owner asked for the same rights to develop it as
he had when he purchased it.
Mr. Carr stated that this property should be considered at the
same time as the Hurt and Wilhoit properties.
The Commission unanimously decided to defer this until the
work session on these properties.
B. J. Shaw - Kennedy Property:
Tax Map 79, Parcel 24B:
Mr. Humphrey pointed out that this property, currently zoned
R-3, abuts A-1 property. He stated that it is proposed to be zoned RR.
Mr. Skipp Edelson stated that the 25.98 acres, as well as the
5 plus acre lot has had R-3 zoning use since it was purchased. The owner
has already engaged in multiple house units. He does not feel his pro-
perty should be down -zoned, especially since the property was purchased
with an R-3 use in mind.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that whatever is done will be controlled by
water and sewer availability, and moved for comparable zoning RM zoning.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission had a brief luncheon recess, and Mr. Carr
stated that the meeting would commence promptly at 2:00 p.m.
John L. Humphrey, Secretary
April 16, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission continued its all
day work session on the proposed zoning ordinance on Wednesday, April 16,
1975, commencing at 2:00 p.m.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton
McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart;
and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley. Absent was Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
J. P. Yancey:
Tax Map 56, Parcel 17B:
Mr. George W. Mumford, Jr., representing J. P. Yancey Realty
Co., stated that this property is currently R-3 and is proposed to be
zoned RR. He asked that the density support the tax assessment for
the 22.8 acres.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the staff proposed R-3 zoning.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the rear parcel of 17B be zoned
R-3. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 56, Parcels 17 and 17D:
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that Parcel 17 has A-1
zoning at the present except for the 300 feet of frontage.
He said that Parcel 17D is currently A-1, too. Both are proposed for RR
zoning.
Mr. Barksdale moved that these two parcels be zoned R-1.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 55, Parcel 106A:
Mr. Humphrey remarked that the 50 acres are currently zoned A-1
and are proposed for A5 zoning. The applicant wishes zoning comparable
to the area.
Mr. Barksdale moved for comparable zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion.
Mr. Easter offered a substitute motion that action be deferred.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the substitute motion, which carried by a vote of 5-4.
-2-
Tax Map 32, Parcel 22K:
The existing zoning on this property is B-1 and it is proposed
to be zoned CVN. Mr. Humphrey stated that the owner requests 2-acre
zoning.
Mr. Easter moved that the property be zoned RR with the exception
of that property which is in the flood plain area, which should be zoned
AGR/CVN.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Farmington Undeveloped Areas:
Mr. Rinehart disqualified himself from the discussion and the
vote by leaving the room.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the area is proposed for 5-acre density
and that Farmington, Inc., is requesting 2-acre density.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the true green belt ( 5-acre density )
should be dept until an extensive plan for development is submitted by
°ilrr Farmington.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he had no objection to a 2-acre density
in this area.
Mr. Humphrey stated that it is the staff's feeling that existing
Farmington development should be made conforming with either R-1 or RR
zoning and the undeveloped area should be put into the 5-acre density.
Mrs. Craddock moved that action on this be deferred on exisLing
development and undeveloped areas.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which lost by a vote of 2-5
against the motion.
Mrs. Graves then moved that the Undeveloped areas of Farmington,
the Dure property, and Northlea property all be zoned 5-acre density.
This motion did not carry - the vote was 3-5 against the motion.
Mr. McClure moved that three areas be considered
together and that action be deferred.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Barksdale then moved that the developed areas of Farmington
be made conforming with R-1 zoning.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
-3-
Tax Map 69, Parcels 51-5, 51-4, and 51:
Mr. Humphrey said that the property is currently zoned A-1 and
proposed to be zoned CVN.
Mr. Charles Smith, Jr., said that the 180 acres are steep toward
the back, but that the front is gently rolling for residential use.
He asked for RR zoning except for that which fronts on Route 250, which
he asked be zoned commercial.
Mr. Rinehart moved 5-acre density ( AGR/CVN ) zoning.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Wingfield Property:
Tax Map 100, Parcel 30:
Mr. Bill Stevens, representing the owner, said that it is
economically not feasible to have CVN ( 5-acre ) zoning for this area
since it would depress the value of the property.
Mr. Humphrey pointed out that an agricultural endeavor is permitted
in the CVN zone.
Mr. Barksdale moved that 35.6 acres on the west side of the road
be zoned RR.
The motion died for lack of a second.
The Commission therefore recommended that the property remain
as proposed for 5-acre zoning.
Hugh Burruss Property:
Tax Map 7, Parcel 8:
Mr. Humphrey said that the 125 acres are on Fox Mountain.
Mr. Burruss wants to develop this property so that there is 1 dwelling
unit per 1.5 acres.
Mr. Easter moved that the property remain in the AGR/CVN zone.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 29, Parcel 64:
Mr. McClure moved deferral of action on this property.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
in
-4-
Tax Map 29, Parcel 61:
Mr. McClure moved deferral of action on this property.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
R. O. Burton Property:
Tax Map 32C; Tax Map 32C, Parcel B; Tax Map 32C, Parcel A;
Tax Map 32, Parcel 49D:
Mrs. Burton stated that the existing development should be made
conforming and asked for the right to continue developing the back acreage
in the same fashion, which she could not do if the property is zoned RR,
as proposed.
Mr. Humphrey stated that this request would require R-2 zoning
for the existing development and R-1 for the undeveloped area.
Mr. Tinsley moved R-2 zoning for the developed area.
This motion, which carried unanimously, was seconded by Mr. McClure.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the back section -- undeveloped area --
be zoned RR. Mr. Tinsley seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 44, Parcels 19, 20, 23, 23C, 27B, 27, 12B:
Mr. Carr disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote
by leaving the room. In his absence, Mr. McClure assumed the chairman-
ship.
Mrs. Garnett stated that this property is joined by all possible
proposed zones, and therefore requested that the 5-acre proposed zoning
be changedto 2-acre zoning.
Mrs. Graves moved action be deferred, until a decision could be
made on 2-acre zoning.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1.
Tax Map 61 U, Parcels 8 and 10:
Tax Map 61U, Parcels 9A and 10A:
Tax Map 61U - Parcel 12:
Tax Map 61, Parcel 119:
Tax Map 61, Parcel 24B, 24, 26, 29D, 29E:
5-
Wood: I'm going to speak for Mr. Robertson, Mr. Birckhead, and my
brother, and myself. With respect to the parcel on the south -
side of Dominion Drive, the corner on the northside of Dominion
Drive, the corner on the northside of Dominion Drive, a piece of
land that is not marked on here, and should be marked on here.
It's a triangular parcel adjoining the Shopper's World - it ists
right in here like that ( pointed to the tax map. )
Carr: Draw it on there please, somebody.
Wood: You got a pen?
Carr: Do you happen to know the tax parcel of that, Mr. Wood?
Wood: I don't think they've given it one - it was only divided in March.
Carr: Oh, I see; all right.
Wood: But it sits there just like that, being treated as part of these lots
here.
Carr: All right.
Rinehart: Mr. Wood, would you also show the one at the south end?
Wood: Yes, that's 200 x 200, roughly. Lot 11, Mr. Birckhead's - No, Mr.
Robertson's; Lot 10, lot 9, Mr. Birckhead's; Lot 8, Mr. Robertson's.
This is really one here - yeh, there's the one, one this blue here,
blue is my brother and myself and CG here is my borther's and mine.
Ah - before I begin, I think it would be only proper to ask that
Mrs. Graves disqualify herself in this capacity, in the semi -
judicial capacity in which she sits; since she is a resident of
the Berkeley Subdivision which adjoins this property and has opposed
at every turn any commercial ventures in this area for many years.
I do not think it would be proper for her to sit in the judicial
capacity at this time.
Carr: All right, Mr. Wood, let's address that question. I seek advice
of counsel on that unless Mrs. Graves wishes to, unless she has
some comment on that prior to asking Mr. Payne what his views are
on that.
Graves: I'll listen to Mr. Payne's views.
Payne: I assume that Mr. Wood asks Mrs. Graves to step down on basis
of Conflict of Interests Act. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you're
well aware, official opinions on the Conflict of Interests Act
are to be rendered by the Commonwealth's Attorney. Therefore,
anything I say is to be treated purely advisory, but I have
viewed this matter previously with Mrs. Graves and with others
and I believe that any property interests Mrs. Graves has in
this area is obviously not related to this immediate area - it is
the Berkeley Subdivision, as I understand it. And I believe that
any property interests she has would be only indirectly affected
by any decision that would be made here. And that, in such
effect, is to promote and constitute the Conflict of Interests.
Therefore, I think that unless Mrs. Graves wishes to speak
her views, or you wish to speak to the Commonwealth's Attorney,
I think this is a matter for Mrs. Graves' conscience, whether
she thinks she can deal fairly with the matter.
Graves: Mrs. Graves has dealt with her conscience on this matter. Every-
thing I have done has been in the public eye; my opposition has
been well-known - I was neither appointed to the Planning Commission
because of it or in spite of it. I have spoken with Mr. Helvin
who has promised to get me a letter stating that as far as he was
concerned, I had no conflict of interests. I don't have the letter
to hand. I do not consider that I have any conflicts - I may
have interesting conflicts, but so do other members of the
Commission. I will not step down from here. You may challenge
me if you wish.
Carr: The Chairman has looked to the matter and the Chairman feels that
Mrs. Graves has a right to make her own decision in that matter -
that legally she is qualified to sit and to vote on this matter.
And if you disagree with that, Mr. Wood, we will do one of two
things: we will defer this hearing until that question can be
resolved, or we'll proceed, and I'll be glad to ...
Wood: I would like to note my objection to the Chair's ruling and pro-
ceed.
Carr: All right, sir.
Mr. Wood stated that he was requesting CG zoning for the
Robertson property and for his own property. He requested this on
the basis that the use will be restricted and it would give comparable
zoning. His alternative was to permit kennels in CG zone.
CG.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the triangular piece of land be zoned
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Rinehart then moved that all property fronting Berkmar
Drive remain as originally proposed.
CL.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion.
In discussion, Mr. Easter suggested that the property be zoned
Messrs. Barksdale, McClure and Tinsley agreed.
Mrs. Craddock questioned if CO zoning is not to be observed
as part of the proposed zoning for the area.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that CO zoning is too restricted,
that CL zoning is better use for the land.
-74
OrC
Mr. McClure amended the motion that the CO zoning be made
CL zoning, the property behind Shoppers World be zoned CL and the
two lots on Berkmar Drive be zoned CL
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote
of 7-2. Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Craddock voted against the motion.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 119:
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the vote and discussion.
Action was deferred on this property until a later work session.
Mike Burton Property:
Tax Map 61W, Parcel 3A:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the applicant is requesting CG zoning.
Action was deferred until a later work session of the Planning
Commission.
l Charles Echols:
Tax Map 61, Parcel W4:
The applicant requested CG zoning due to the fact that he
wished to rely upon the stability of zoning.
Action was deferred until a later work session.
Greg Williams:
Tax Map 61W, Parcels Al and B:
Mr. Deets spoke for the property owner, pointing out that
the property is well buffered, and therefore requests CG zoning.
Gerald Tremblay:
Tax Map 61W, Parcels 12, 5B, 4B, A-3, 1-X-6:
*#46W Mr. Humphrey stated that the owner is requesting comparable
zoning and recognized that it would be necessary to consider the setback
that would be required.
Also considered at the same time were the following:
cm
��
Tax Map 61W, Parcels 1-X-6, 12, 5D, 4B:
Tax Map 61, Parcels 24, 29B, 29E:
Tax Map 61, Parcel 154C and 154D:
Tax Map 61W, Parcel A2:
Tax Map 61W, Parcels 1 and 8A:
Mr. Rinehart moved that all of the above areas in Westfield be
zoned CG, except that property which borders Berkeley and those would be
zoned CO ( Tax Map 61W, Parcels 4B, and 4, part thereof ).
6-2.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of
Tax Map 61, Parcel 119:
Mr. McClure moved the property be zoned CG.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-3.
Mr. Rinehart and Mrs. Craddock left the meeting.
Tax Map 61, Parcel 147:
This property is proposed to be zoned CL, and the property owner
is requesting the property be zoned CG, which is comparable to existing
zoning.
Mr. Tinsley moved the property retain the CL zoning.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 61, Parcels 5 and 5A:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the property is presently zoned M-1
and is proposed for CO zoning. He stated that the staff recommends CG
zoning with textual changes.
Because of long range reasons, Mr. Gloeckner recommended IL
zoning for the property.
Mr. Tinsley moved the property be zoned CG, a compromise.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
I&OM
Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A:
Mr. William T. Stevens, speaking for the owner, asked for
RHM zoning, since the property would be conducive to a high-rise
apartment.
Mr. Easter moved the RM zoning be retained.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
David J. Wood Property:
Tax Map 61, Parcels 24, 29D, 29E, and 26:
Mr. Carr disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote
by leaving the room.
Mr. Humphrey stated that all the property is proposed to be
zoned CL.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that Parcels 29D and 29E be zoned CG and
that Parcels 24, and 26 be zoned CL.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 60, Parcels 25 and 26:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the owner requested CG zoning,
which would be comparable to the existing B-1 zoning.
Mrs. Graves moved that the property retain the CO zoning
that had been originally recommended.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned.