HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 02 82 PC MinutesFebruary 2, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 2, 1982, in Meeting Room 7, Main Lobby, Second Floor, County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A.
Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, vice. -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Corwith
Davis, Jr.; Mr. Richard Cogan; and Mr. Allan Kindrick. Other officials present were
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of April 14, May 4, and June 23, 1981, were approved as submitted.
SP-81-63 Henry T. and Mamie M. Herring - Deferred from January 19, 1982. Request
to place a mobile home on 7.0 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, located on the west side
of Route 601, approximately 1 mile north of Route 671. County Tax Map 8, Parcel 13,
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler stated that he had received a long distance call from Baltimore from the
applicant today, explaining that he was too ill to attend tonight's meeting.
Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. Herring's ill health was related to high blood pressure
and was stress -related; he added that he was concerned that Mr. Herring's illness
might reoccur in the future, should the petition be deferred further.
' Mr. Keeler also explained to the Commission that the Board had this petition scheduled
for the following night, with no other matter on the agenda. Mr. Keeler said that it
was the policy of the Board to defer an item only if the applicant so requested in a
letter one week before public hearing. Mr. Keeler said if such a request was not
received one week in advance, the Board would at least open the matter to public
comment. Mr. Keeler said that he did not know how the Commission might want to proceed.
He added that Staff had no way of contacting adjacent owners and notifying the Board
members before tonight's meeting.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was anyone present for this petition. There was no
response from the public. Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners what they wished to do.
In reply to Mrs. Diehl's question concerning policy, Mr. Payne stated that historically
the Commission did not defer an item unless the applicant had given Staff sufficient
time to notify everyone. In this case, Mr. Payne observed that the health problem
was a factor, and could happen again after another deferral.
Mr. Keeler said that the applicant, Mr. Herring, had no objection to the Commission
hearing his petition without his being present. Mr. Skove said that if the applicant
had no objection, he would have no problem with proceeding. Mr. Davis said that he
would have no problem deferring the item until the applicant could attend, or going
ahead with considering it. Mr. Cogan agreed. with Mr. Davis.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to give the Staff Report. Mr. Keeler did so and explained
that there had been three letters objecting to the special use permit application, but
one of the objectors had withdrawn his complaint.
Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment. When there was none, she declared the matter to
be before the Commission.
3y
Mr. Skove observed that the letters protesting this mobile home were for placing
a second mobile home on the property.
Mr. Davis remarked that he did not believe a second mobile home should be allowed,
especially for vacation purposes; he added that he could support the petition if it
were stipulated that this mobile home were to replace the original mobile home.
Mr. Skove asked whether a nonconforming mobile home could be replaced.
Mr. Keeler replied that it could. He said that he had discussed this matter with
Mr. Herring and determined that the applicant specifically wanted both mobile homes.
Mr. Cogan asked whether the applicant had specified where on the property he would
place the mobile home.
Mr. Keeler replied that setback requirements would not be met if the mobile home were
located where the applicant wanted.
Mrs. Diehl observed that she had the same problem as Mr. Davis concerning its use as
a vacation home; she said that she tended to feel more conservative about the placement
of a mobile home for such a purpose, when it was not a permanent domicile.
Mr. Cogan asked whether, since the applicant was retired, that was an indication that
he would be living on the property permanently. Mr. Cogan said that he did not see
why he would need to keep the older mobile home. He added that he saw the issue in
two ways, one being putting the new mobile home where the old one is located and
removing it or placing the second mobile home somewhere on the property where it
would not be visible.
Mr. Davis observed that the applicant could turn around and sell both mobile homes.
Mr. Skove asked about the regulations on one dwelling unit per two acres.
It was determined that the applicant had seven acres and therefore had sufficient
acreage for more than one mobile home. Mr. Davis asked what constituted a trailer park.
Mr. Payne replied that a trailer park definition existed and was a separate use; he
explained that with a certain acreage, you could have a lot of mobile homes without
constituting a trailer park.
Mr. Skove observed that the biggest objection seemed to be to the deteriorated state
of the existing mobile home. He wondered whether, if the applicant were to live on
the property, one of the conditions could be to upgrade and improve the existing mobile
home.
Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler whether the applicant had actually stated
that he planned to retire to this property and live on it permanently. Mr. Keeler
replied that he had.
Mr. Davis suggested that permanent residence could be a condition on the special use
permit. Mr. Cogan wondered how such a condition could be enforced. Mrs. Diehl agreed,
saying that she did not know how you could follow-up on such a condition.
Mr. Cogan suggested two conditions, one being that the new mobile home be located 14000
where it could not be seen and two, that it be the permanent residence of the property
owner.
4
Mr. Payne said that he did not believe the residency requirement was enforceable.
He added that the legality of such a condition was dubious and not easily policed.
fir✓ Mr. Bowerman asked whether six months out of the year constituted residency.
Mr. Payne replied that it was a legal term, permanent residence, and might be what
you used on a tax return or license.
Mr. Cogan asked what the applicant intended to do about a septic field and well,
whether he intended to hook into the existing one. Mr. Keeler replied that he
would need to get public health approval.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that there was a need to have the applicant present to answer
some of these questions concerning residency.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne whether the nonconforming use status of the original
mobile home was jeopardized in any way by this application. He asked whether
there was any way to put conditions on the existing mobile home.
Mr. Payne replied that he believed the Commission could condition the original
mobile home by telling the applicant that he could have maintained his existing
mobile home as it was but that by requesting the special use permit for a second
mobile home, he was subject to having to comply with certain conditions affecting
the existing mobile home. Mr. Payne gave as an example, requiring only one mobile
home on the site.
Mr. Cogan stated that he believed the applicant could have replaced his existing
mobile home without coming before the Commission. Mr. Payne replied that perhaps
he could, but under limited circumstances, such as the size of the mobile home
having to be similar to the original one, and if the original one were removed for
a certain length of time, it could not then be replaced.
Mr. Davis stated that he would be in favor of approving the application with the
condition that the existing mobile home be removed and the new one installed.
He termed this action positive.
Mrs. Diehl said that it might seem positive from the Commission's viewpoint, but
that she did not know how the applicant might see such action. She added her
reluctance to take action without the applicant being present.
Mr. Payne said that the applicant had elected not to be present and had not
requested deferral. He explained that the burden lay with the applicant in a
special use permit request.
Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commission that the applicant had been in town from
Baltimore on the night the original public hearing was scheduled but cancelled
due to the weather.
Mr. Cogan asked whether there were any provisions for permits for vacation mobile
homes. Mr. Payne replied that there were not really any such. Mr. Cogan said
that by approval of this request, the Commission would in effect be so approving
vacation use of the original mobile home, since the applicant had indicated that
he would reside in the new mobile home.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Davis had in mind a motion. Mr. Davis said that his
motion would be for approval with the condition stated by Staff and a second
condition requiring removal of the existing mobile home from the property:
9-
1) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) Existing mobile home to be removed from the property.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. He stated that he generally looked favorably
on mobile homes when the owner of the land was going to reside in one and it was
about the only type of affordable housing available to someone. In this case, he
continued, he would not like to see two mobile homes on the property and would
like the existing one brought into compliance. Mr. Bowerman said that he did not
believe such a condition represented a hardship to the applicant.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne again what the applicant's recourse would be in the
event of objecting to the Commission action. Mr. Payne replied that he did not
know about appealing the action, but the Board's action was legislative and as
such could be amended, if the applicant chose to request such.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion among the Commissioners.
When there was not, she called for a vote on the motion, which carried 4 to 1 with
Mrs. Diehl opposed.
i;MP,-81-28 William A. Lynch, Jr. WITH PROFFER - Deferred from January 12, 1982.
Request to rezone 3.1 acres from R-4 Residential to C-1 Commercial with proffer,
including a general development plan. Property is located in the southeast
quadrant of the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 240. County Tax Map 56,
Parcel 32D, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mrs. Diehl informed the public at this time that the special use permit
application from the Town of Scottsville and the review of the proposal for
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan would not be heard this evening.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time.
Mr. David Pettit introduced himself as the applicant's attorney. Mr. Pettit said
that Mr. Lynch would speak to the Commission concerning the project, then he would
speak very shortly on its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, and finally
Mr. Max Evans would address specific, physical features of the site. Mr. Pettit
stated that basically it was a rezoning request with a proffer to limit the use
and did not give the applicant the right to build all that was contained on the
preliminary plan. Mr. Pettit stressed that the plan contained the maximum, optimum
amount of possible development and the applicant would still be subject to site
review, at which time some of the issues raised in Mr. Keeler's report would be
aired.
Mr. Lynch stated that he had a brief outline of the history of the property; he
told the Commission he had purchased the property in 1973 with a partner, Mr. Young.
The property at that time, he continued, was zoned B-1 or commercial. Mr. Lynch
said that nothing was done with the property until 1978, when they contacted
Mr. Max Evans to draw up a general grading and improvement plan to clean up the
property of a lot of debris that had collected over the years on the land.
Mr. Lynch said that in May of 1980 he bought out his partner and having an
interest in the property, asked Mr. Evans if the plan would still be feasible.
When Mr. Evans replied that it was, Mr. Lynch said that he applied for permits
to roughly grade the property in order for a realtor to show the land. He said
that at this time, in applying for the grading permit, he first learned that the
land had been rezoned.
3�
Mr. Lynch explained that he asked Mr. Evans what his recourse would be and
Mr. Evans told him that he would have to apply to the Board of Supervisors to
return his previously commercially zoned property (now zoned R-4) to commercial
zoning, which he told the Commission he had been working on for several months.
He respectfully requested the Commission to act favorably in this rezoning
petition.
Mr. Pettit stated that he had excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan adopted by
KDA in 1977 as well as the April, 1980, detailed land use amendments, which he
passed out to the Commission. Mr. Pettit gave a presentation on the requirements
by State Statute that localities adopt comprehensive plans that provide for long-
range planning. He stated that the Virginia Code contemplates that a comprehensive
plan addresses general application of specific planning principles and general
areas of development in the community and how those areas should be developed.
Mr. Pettit stated that he did not believe language in the Code indicated that
adoption of a comprehensive plan was a mandate to zone a particular piece of land
in a certain fashion.
Mr. Kindrick entered the meeting at this time.
Mr. Pettit proceeded to read from the KDA Comprehensive Plan, certain pertinent
paragraphs on commercial development. Mr. Pettit stated that the proposed
rezoning would provide for attractive commercial development. He said that the
Comprehensive Plan encourages conservation of energy and that this application
would accomplish such a goal because it would reduce travel time for area residents
who would patronize commercial establishments on this property rather than making
the trip to Charlottesville. Mr. Pettit continued to read from the Comprehensive
Plan, mentioning such goals as buffering, protection of adjacent properties,
incentives for close commercial clustering, all of which he said would be
accomplished by this rezoning application. He added that the commercial area in
the community of Crozet was not conducive to group commercial development. He
said that many of the parcels were small lots with fragmented ownership, not
conducive to a group commercial development.
Mr. Pettit read from page 16 of the KDA Comprehensive Plan, saying that the
community of Crozet was projected to have a population of 12,000 in 1995, and
commercial development to be planned at the intersection of Routes 240 and 250.
Mr. Pettit mentioned that a convenience store was already in existence across
from the proposed site. Mr. Pettit read from Table 10 of the Detailed Land Use
and Area Recommendations for the Crozet Community, which he stated shows
proposed development in the Crozet Community of 40 acres of new commercial land.
Mr. Pettit said that based on Mr. Keeler's report, there were currently
approximately 22 acres of developable land within the Crozet area presently
zoned commercial. Mr. Pettit said that this land amounted to slightly more than
50 percent of what the Comprehensive Plan recommends, leaving the total some 18
acres short of the recommendation. He said that the railroad provides a natural
boundary and the KDA Plan recommends limiting development north of it. Mr. Pettit
said that the remainder of Crozet's downtown area was surrounded by subdivisions
and residential development and therefore did not lend itself to this type of
project.
Mr. Pettit said that their conclusion had been, therefore, that the central
business area of Crozet could not meet the community's need for increased
commercial development. He added that since such development could not take
place north of downtown Crozet, or east, west or south, the logical place for
�,]
commercial development was at the intersection of Routes 240 and 250. He added
that there was a discrepancy between the KDA recommendation of 40 acres of
commercially zoned land and the Land Use Amendments of 1980, which recommend
80 commercially zoned acres in the Crozet community. Mr. Pettit suggested the
use of multipliers as a possible explanation for the difference, further
explaining the theory of overprojecting commercial acreage in the belief that
not all of it would ever be developed.
Mr. Pettit said that Mr. Keeler had given two reasons for the medium density
zoning of the property instead of commercial: one, in order not to compromise
the intersection of Routes 240 and 250. Mr. Pettit said that as evidenced by
the letter included with the Staff Report, the Highway Department did not believe
the rezoning request would in fact compromise this intersection and therefore,
this was no longer an issue. The second reason, Mr. Pettit continued, given by
Mr. Keeler was that commercial development or zoning at this site would compete
with downtown Crozet business. Mr. Pettit said that based on both the KDA Plan
and the Land Use Amendments, it was not possible for the downtown business area
to accommodate all of the recommended commercial zoning required by the community.
In conclusion, Mr. Pettit stated that the proposed rezoning was consistent with
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, to minimize energy consumption, to provide
concentrated commercial development in convenient areas, to protect residential
development from impact from commercial development, to locate commercial
development outside of the Beaver Creek watershed. He added that such a rezoning
would further utilize a large highway, Route 250, and bring the zoning map closer
to the projections made by the KDA consultants and citizen committees for the
needs of the Crozet community. He said that at this time he would yield the
floor to Mr. Max Evans.
Mr. Evans explained that the plan, a preliminary site development plan, showed
how the site might be developed to its maximum potential. He added that a site
plan would have to be filed for any future development of the site. Mr. Evans
explained that a wide range of uses had been chosen to illustrate what might
appropriately locate at the site: a fast food restaurant, a card and sweets shop,
a hardware store, a savings and loan bank, a beauty parlor, a t.v. and appliance
store, a barber, an antique shop, office space, clothing store, saddle and boot
shop, shoe store, and a small grocery. Mr. Evans said that the square footage of
the commercial space had been kept to a modest amount and that the physical
arrangement consisted of clustering various uses in several separate buildings
with parking around the small buildings, designed for a good pedestrian environment.
Fie said that a buffer of trees would be retained around the development. Mr. Evans
pointed to a chart on the general development plan which gave the square footage
for each use, the required parking area according to that square footage, the
gallons of flow and septic field area required, etc.
Mr. Evans gave an illustrated presentation on the physical features of the site,
showing the contours and soil types. He added that the grading of the site would
be on two levels. Mr. Evans stated that the site was very definitely separated
from the highways. He said that the flow standards of the Health Department
were met for the septic fields and offered more details on the physical evidence
that this site was appropriate for commercial development. Mr. Evans stated that
the land once had commercial zoning and being within close proximity of a busy
intersection, did not lend itself to residential use. Further, Mr. Evans said
that public sewer would not be available he understood for at least another five
years and residential development would not be feasible at the density permitted
because of having to locate septic fields for such use.
3y
Mr. Evans said that he would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Pettit whether he wished to make a concluding statement at
this time or whether he wished to await public comment before speaking again.
Mr. Pettit indicated that he would like to speak after the public responded.
Mrs. Diehl opened the matter to public comment.
Mr. Gale Pickford stated that he lived in the neighborhood and had no strong
position on the matter of the rezoning. He said that it was possible that a
commercial development on this site might benefit downtown Crozet in a competitive
sense, but lie was not altogether convinced that it was needed to serve future
growth in the community. Mr. Pickford said that the issue of most concern should
be the intersection, which he said was already a dangerous one. Mr. Pickford
voiced concern over increased traffic with a shopping center in close proximity
to Western Albemarle. He said that he did not feel strongly pro or con to the
proposal, as long as it was developed safely and avoided any further highway
hazards.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment, concerning this
rezoning request. When there was not, she asked Mr. Pettit if he wished to
speak in conclusion.
Mr. Pettit replied that he would and said he would like to remind the Commissioners
that the proposed plan called for a decel lane, sight distance, and would address
appropriate access points and any dangerous traffic situations to the satisfaction
of the Highway Department. He said that he would like to point out that the
peak traffic flow from Western Albemarle would not coincide with that from a
shopping center. Mr. Pettit said that on the matter of competition with local
businesses, the free market would determine what uses actually went in and the
uses mentioned were suggestions but not necessarily reflective of what the
community might determine would add needed competition to area businesses.
Mr. Evans next gave a brief concluding statement, saying that the general plan
intended to show the maximum feasible development of the site with the clear
understanding that no more than what was illustrated on the plan could be done
and more than likely with the proffer, less would be done. Mr. Pettit and Mr. Evans
both reiterated their belief that the proposal was consistent with the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan and the need for further commercial development in the
Crozet community.
Mrs. Diehl declared that the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Keeler asked to clarify the record by directing two questions to Mr. Lynch:
(1) in reference to a statement in the letter submitted by Mr. Lynch, which
said a general grading and improvement plan for future development was approved
by the Planning Commission, Mr. Keeler established that such plan was in fact
a grading plan that was approved by the Soil Erosion Committee and that no site
plan had ever been submitted to the Planning Commission.
(2) in reference to a statement made by Mr. Lynch that he was advised that the
rezoning would not affect his property, Mr. Keeler established that Mr. Lynch was
not so advised by any County employee in the Zoning or Planning Departments.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether two separate actions were needed, one to determine whether
"l'--)
the proposal was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and one on the
rezoning request. Mr. Payne clarified that the Commission had only to act on
the rezoning request.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners what questions they had.
Mr. Davis said that he would like to know precisely how far the distance was
from the eastern end of the property to the western end along Route 250. He
said that it looked to him as though there were 300 feet from the intersection
to the entrance.
Mr. Evans and Mr. Davis calculated the distance and determined that the distance
was in fact greater than 300 feet. Mr. Davis stated that Byron Coburn had
required a minimum distance of 400 feet on Route 250 East between an intersection
and an entrance onto a commercial property. Mr. Davis also expressed interest
in the Scenic Highway designation and how this proposal was affected by it.
Mrs. Diehl suggested that Mr. Keeler answer this question.
Mr. Keeler said that the proposal complied with the setback requirements for a
Scenic Highway, the parking setback being 50 feet and the building setback being
150 feet. He explained that it was for this reason that the plan showed the
buildings on the back of the site rather than up on the gradual level along the
highway.
Mr. Keeler said that the Commission might want to consider this issue of
growth areas along highways designated Scenic Highways, putting some flexibility
into the Zoning Ordinance for such areas as Crozet and Ivy. He said that this
matter had been discussed in the past; he added that in drawing up the original
setback regulations, many lots along the 250 corridor had been discovered that
could not possibly meet the 150 foot setback requirement, due to topography or
lack of depth to the lot. He added that he believed that the Board of Zoning
Appeals heard more requests for variances from Scenic Highway setback regulations
than from sign regulations.
Mrs. Diehl determined, however, that the general plan shown in this proposal did
conform with setback regulations for the Scenic Highway designation. She asked
whether there were any further questions.
Mr. Skove observed that the project seemed to be technically feasible, but he
questioned how it fit in with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Davis said that it would take action by the Board to amend the Service
Authority jurisdictional area for public water to be available.
Mr. Payne explained that technically water was not legally available. He said at
least once recently the Board had amended the Service Authority's jurisdictional
areas to conform to the Comprehensive Plan's growth areas.
Mrs. Diehl said that this had been one of her questions, also, the availability
of public water. So, she ascertained that the capacity for public water
existed if the Board chose to act favorably on the rezoning and to amend the
Service Authority jurisdictional area. Mrs. Diehl observed that the question of
public sewer was more dubious, depending on the development and also a pumping
station could be needed. She asked what regulations exist in the Zoning Ordinance
O
on the matter of public sewer for planned commercial development.
Mr. Payne replied that the matter was debatable at this time, depending on whose
interpretation one sought. Mr. Keeler said that the regulations were not covered
under the statement of intent, but in another section of the ordinance were
addressed primarily for industrial uses. In addition, he said that planned
development - shopping center zoning was located primarily in growth areas where
public water and sewer already existed. Mr. Keeler said that the problem in
Crozet was the lack of funding for the interceptor and that the State Water
Control Board would not permit any plant expansion.
Mrs. Diehl asked how the general regulations applied in this case. Mr. Payne
asked whether she was refering to the 60-40 rule. She replied that she was.
Mr. Payne said that this was a matter of debate also. He said that his
interpretation was that 40,000 square feet were required per shop or commercial
establishment; he said that another interpretation was 40,000 square feet per
building, not per shop, but he did not support this position. Mr. Payne said
that with sixteen uses, as shown in the general development plan, clearly water
and sewer would be required. He added that with five buildings, 200,000 square
feet would be needed or about five acres and there were three acres of land.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the projections for 1995 were given based on the
assumption that the Crozet interceptor would be in place by that time.
Mr. Keeler responded that the entire concept of.the Crozet growth area was based
on this assumption. He said that five years into the design period there did
not seem to be any more guarantee than ten or fifteen years ago that the
interceptor would become a reality. He said that this was precisely the difficulty
with any rezoning or development in the Crozet area, because it was simply not
known when and if the interceptor would materialize.
Mr. Skove concurred that this was his main problem with this rezoning request
and he seriously doubted that the interceptor would ever be built. He added
that he did not see the need for this much commercial development at this time.
Mr. Davis said that he had grave reservations about an entrance off 250. He
said that he was not certain about having so extensive a commercial development
at this site but could envision some commercial zoning at this quadrant of the
intersection of these two major roads. Mr. Davis said that he thought the proposal
conformed pretty well to the Comprehensive Plan and that he could support the
rezoning with a restriction on the entrance.
Mrs. Diehl observed that it was very difficult to separate a rezoning from a
schematic that was in front of you. She stated that in looking at the general
development plan it appeared to be far too intensive a use for the site. She
added that she could envision either commercial or medium residential use as
being feasible at this site, since there exists sufficient buffer from the
highway. Mrs. Diehl suggested that the owner if he so chose could probably
develop a reduced commercial use or the residential use, but she would want in
either case to see water and sewer available to the site.
Mr. Cogan said that he was most concerned with the safety aspects of the proposal.
He stated that he was quite familiar with this intersection and was not convinced
by Mr. Coburn's assurances; he declared that it was a most dangerous intersection,
several bad accidents had occurred at it and intensification of use could only
increase a hazardous situation. Mr. Cogan added that he was not convinced either
� Z
that the proposal was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated
that the site was at the outer boundary of the Crozet community and that at
least for the next several years or until water and sewer were available, he
believed that sufficient commercial land existed in downtown Crozet to meet
the needs of the community.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he agreed with some of the remarks of Mr. Davis,
Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Cogan. He said that he would find commercial zoning at this
intersection appropriate, but not to the extent being shown to the Commission
tonight. He said that such intensive use was too much for the limited acreage
especially without water and sewer available. Mr. Bowerman said that he did not
have a problem with the entrance because he believed it would be more dangerous
to have a lot of left turns if it were limited to the other side of 250,
requiring people to go down Route 635 to enter the shopping center. Mr. Bowerman
said that as Mr. Cogan had said, it was already a very dangerous intersection;
he added that perhaps a signal light should replace the blinking light.
Mr. Bowerman stated that what was before the Commission tonight was a rather
large scale commercial development., proffered to be no greater. However, he
added it was difficult to separate the rezoning request from the plan before
them and he would have liked to have seen a schematic with less intensive use.
Mrs. Diehl said that she believed sewer should be available, rather than septic
fields, but even if it were, she stated that there would be no way to regulate
the uses put into the shopping center, some of which might be much more intensive
than desired.
Mr. Davis observed that septic fields on commercial sites would have to be
accepted in the future if no interceptor were constructed and growth continued
in this area. He said that there was a commercial designation on opposite
quadrants for this intersection of two major highways. Mr. Davis said that it
would be more palatable to see one building instead of five on the general plan.
Mr. Cogan said that he could see this site commercial some time in the future
when there were more utilities to support it; he deemed it a little ahead of its
time. He also hoped there might be some future improvements to the road and
intersection to support a commercial use.
Mr. Kindrick said that he would not have a problem with the rezoning, but to a
less intensive degree. He said that he would like to see the development proposal
in phases. Mr. Kindrick said that he did not share most of the concerns expressed
on the intersection, especially if the Highway Department were to replace the
blinking light with a signal in response to existing traffic flow.
Mr. Davis said that he believed with the proffer the opportunity would be present to
widen the road and create the necessary turn lanes to make it safer.
Mr. Evans asked to speak to the concerns expressed by the Commissioners.
Mrs. Diehl agreed to his request, asking that he be brief as she believed all
issues had already been addressed earlier.
Mr. Evans said that he believed with or without the interceptor, growth would
continue in the Crozet area. He predicted normal population growth in the future.
With respect to the entrance off 250, he said that it met the Highway Engineer's
safety requirements for distance; he added that another full lane would be
developed for right-hand turns along the frontage. *400
73
Speaking to the concern that the general development plan showed too intensive a
use, Mr. Evans said that he had repeatedly stated that this was the maximum
possible development of the land, but that any detailed site plan would fall well
within this deliberately designed optimum use plan. Mr. Evans said that it
would be absurb to develop commercial property without sufficient septic field
area and thereby be unable to rent space. Mr. Evans said that the improvements
required by the Highway Department to this intersection would indeed make it a
safer intersection. Addressing the issue of separating the rezoning from the
plan, Mr. Evans said that he should again stress that it was a proffered rezoning
and as such the applicant would be receptive to suggestions on changes in the
proffer, such as limiting square footage or making the buildings two-story, etc.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Evans, and asked the Commissioners whether they had any
more questions or whether they were ready to take action.
Mr. Skove said that he still believed it was a premature proposal and would move
for denial of the rezoning request, leaving the zoning as currently designated.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed 4 to 2, with Messrs. Davis and Kindrick
opposed.
SP-81-61 Monticello Memory Gardens, Inc. - Deferred from January 12, 1982.
Request, in accordance with Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to locate
a mausoleum on 26 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property is located on the north
side of Route 53, approximately one quarter mile east of I-64/Route 20 interchange.
County Tax Map 77, Parcel 33, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr.'Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Darryl J. Roberts, President of Monticello Memory Gardens, described his
business as one of memorialization, saying that the sales of plots or crypts
was a quasi -religious, quasi -commercial operation. He described several ways
in which people prefer to be buried, explaining in particular that burial by
mausoleum appealed to many as clean, dry and above -ground. Mr. Roberts stated
that there was a demand locally for this service and that in fact a small
mausoleum already existed in the community, River View. Mr. Roberts went on to
explain that historically mausoleums had been popular for centuries; he named the
Taj Mahal, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and Westminster Abbey as examples.
Mr. Roberts said that another reason for building mausoleums was land conservation.
He explained that of the 26 acres at Monticello Memory Gardens, about 20 were
already devoted to burial and the remaining 6 did not lend themselves at all to
underground burial. He said that his only alternative was to construct some sort
of mausoleum. Mr. Roberts next described the design of the proposed building,
saying that the original design a couple of years ago had caused a lot of public
concern. He said that this concern had not been known before a public meeting
and if it had, the design would have been changed at an earlier point. Mr. Roberts
said that he had agreed to change the design of the building at that time. He
exhibited a drawing/painting of the proposed mausoleum, describing it as having
three stories with the first at ground level and two lower stories off the back.
Mr. Roberts said that the building was designed with the grade of the land in
``e mind. He said that pictures were taken from the steps of Michie Tavern and that
since the building had been moved about 100 yards, it was virtually impossible to
see.
Mr. Roberts said that pictures taken in reverse, from the mausoleum site
towards Michie Tavern, also proved that it would be very difficult to even see
the Tavern from the mausoleum. Mr. Roberts said that a second group of pictures
taken from Monticello, Jefferson's home, proved that it was impossible to see
the cemetery nor in reversing the picture -taking had it been possible to see
Monticello from the mausoleum site.
Mr. Roberts next described somewhat the interior of the proposed mausoleum,
which would include a chapel, rest rooms, elevator. He said that it was a
modern design, but one suited to the historic quality of the Charlottesville
community. He next introduced Mr. J. R. Copper, land surveyor for this property.
Mr. Copper presented the basic site plan. He explained that the second page of
the site plan contained the erosion plan, which had already been submitted.
Mr. Copper further stated that changes had been made to the plan since a meeting
by the Soil Erosion Committee on the previous Friday. Mr. Copper said that the
grade of the slope had been checked since this meeting and it was determined
that the percentage of the slope was approximately 27�, making it just above
the maximum allowed in the ordinance. Mr. Copper explained that this would be
the average grade at the building site. He said that it had been difficult
earlier to get the necessary topographical shots of the grade, due to its being
heavily covered with trees and leaves. Mr. Copper said that at this time more
accurate shots had been taken.
Mr. Copper said that the building had been specifically designed for this slope.
He added that the drainfield would be quite small and the Health Department had
basically given its approval or go-ahead to apply for approval.
Mr. Ron Tweel, the attorney for Monticello Memory Gardens, Inc., explained that
the applicant was here responding to the objections of his prior application.
He asked to briefly address the issues raised and at this time show the change.
Mr. Tweel said that the design was modified and the Monticello Foundation's
architect approved it. Mr. Tweel said that this design problem had been the
major concern originally and had been resolved with this new building design.
Secondly, Mr. Tweel said that the issue of establishing a crematorium had been
a problem with the original application. Mr. Tweel said that the applicant in
attempting to respond to this objection, was now withdrawing this request and
it was not included in the current application.
Mr. Tweel continued to the third issue, that of being too close to the highway.
He explained that the building site had been moved 100 yards further off the road.
Mr. Tweel stated that this was the only site available other than the original
one. He said that from this new site a vehicle on the road was only visible
for a second or two. Mr. Tweel said that the applicant had tried to alleviate
the concerns raised in his original application and as a businessman wished to
have good relationships with his neighbors. Mr. Tweel referred to a meeting
held in his office, attended by neighbors and residents of the Monticello area,
during which all of these concerns and issues had been addressed. Mr. Tweel
said that the applicant agreed to all of Staff's conditions and had no problem
with any of them. Mr. Tweel explained that in response to a question concerning
what a Westminster crypt might be, it was a crypt between floors, less expensive.
Mr. Tweel stated that a couple of small crypts already existed at the cemetery.
Regarding the debris already on the site, Mr. Tweek stated that there was no
problem whatsoever in removing this material immediately. He asked all due
consideration from the Commission for Mr. Roberts' creative range of service.
am
AIN
Mrs. Diehl called for any public comment concerning this application.
Mr. Gale Pickford said that he represented Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Mailloux, owners
of Parcel 32 on County Tax Map 77. Mr. Pickford stated that the Maillouxes bought
their property, across from the Monticello Memory Gardens site, for several reasons
one being the nature and character of the area. Mr. Pickford stated that the
applicant had indeed met with adjoining property owners, including the Maillouxes,
and was very candid and frank, as well, in attempting to make the proposal more
palatable to those objecting. Mr. Pickford said that as the applicant had stated,
only six acres remained at Monticello Memory Gardens and that made a mausoleum
economically more feasible. He suggested that the applicant had another cemetery
out Route 29 North, where a mausoleum could just as feasibly be located.
Mr. Pickford explained that the construction of mausoleum and Commission approval
alarmed the Maillouxes, who believed that other applications for mausoleums
would follow. Mr. Pickford asked on behelf of the Maillouxes, that if the
Commission did consider approving this special use permit, it consider conditions
requiring screening and removal of debris in the future in addition to any other
conditions. Mr. Pickford stressed that Mr. and Mrs. Mailloux hoped that the
Commission would not, however, approve this special use permit application.
Mr. R. Tweel asked Mrs. Diehl whether he could correct for public record a statement
he had made inadvertently earlier. Mrs. Diehl suggested that he wait until the
close of public comment, when he could make a final statement to the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment on this special use
permit application.
Mr. Benjamin Dick identified himself as the attorney representing Michie Tavern
�irr+ and the Contes. He said that these adjacent owners, along with others, were
opposed to this special use permit application because such a commercial use
was not appropriate at this site. Mr. Dick said that there was no objection to
the cemetery because it had been in existence for a long time, but that the
proposed mausoleum was a new use. Mr. Dick suggested that the applicant already
had property, ample enough for both a mausoleum and a crematorium, on Route 29.
Mr. Dick said that the special use permit provisions in the Zoning Ordinance take
into account the general character of the area and that such a use in this case
would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Dick called
Monticello Mountain a reverend area where a new building of three stories would
certainly have adetrimental affect on the natural, rural quality of the hill
which overlooks Charlottesville and the Blue Ridge Mountains in the distance.
Mr. Dick declared that the applicant's purpose was economic, although he allowed
that the current design was a great improvement over the building's original design.
Mr. Dick said that he had visited the site today and believed that the proposed
location of the mausoleum was on the steepest slope on the property, a grade which
he said he suspected was even greater than 271:i percent. Mr. Dick stated that in
any event it was a heavily wooded slope that would require a great deal of grading
and removal of trees. Mr. Dick said that there was a cottage at the bottom of the
slope and he belived that this application would affect the topography and slopes
of that property. Mr. Dick added that he believed this building would be in
violation of the Ordinance with regard to critical slopes and might even require
a variance before coming before the Commission. Mr. Dick also stated that the
design of the building was not in character with the district and should therefore
1.r' be turned down. Mr. Dick suggested that the Health Department, although certainly
a competent agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, had been known to be wrong on
KLU-
occasion. Mr. Dick said that he would seriously doubt that a homeowner at the
bottom of this slope would accept that there was no problem with a drainfield
coming out of the back of that building. He added that he did not know the
character of the soil makeup but would strongly suggest that soil tests should
be submitted by an engineer before the Commission ever considers the project.
Mr. Dick said that Mr. Tweel had indicated that he and the applicant had made a
goodwill effort to meet with adjacent property owners. Mr. Dick said that such
a meeting had been held, but that Mr. Roberts failed to mention that none of them
agreed on anything. Mr. Dick called the meeting more of a show -and -tell
presentation with none of the objecting adjacent property owners satisfied with
the proposal.
Mr. Dick remarked that the County Sheriff was already overtaxed with duties all
over a large county. He said that he would really only expect a deputy to be
available on occasion for a funeral.
Mr. Dick said that when the original application had been filed, the Highway
Department had declared that the site did not have sufficient sight distance.
Mr. Dick said that a bad curve existed at the entrance. Mr. Dick said that in
the case of Michie Tavern a 400-foot deceleration lane had been required.
Mr. Dick suggested that if the Highway Department did not require improvements
at this much more dangerous location on the part of the applicant, he would
object that such was an arbitrary decision. He added that 1,500 crypts in a
three-story building was certainly an intensification of use to that property.
Mr. Dick said that traffic county were not an issue, but that special use permits
were a particular kind of permit, taking into account the politics, character,
topographical makeup, environment of an area. He completed his comments by
saying that an old cemetery in a meadow with trees and shrubbery could be called
a religious experience, but that coming upon a three-story mausoleum, whether in
the architectural design of Monticello or Mount Vernon, was not. He asked that
the Commission deny this application on the basis of questionable compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance with regard to slopes, commercial entrance requirements, traffic
safety and due to its being out of character to the area.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment at this time.
Mr. Max Kennedy stated that he represented the Dettors, who live down in the
hollow described earlier by Mr. Dick. Mr. Kennedy said that Mr. and Mrs. Dettor
were out of the state and had wished to attend the public hearing to protest
this special use permit application. Mr. Kennedy said that a group of friends
had purchased the property together some years ago, but as several had died, it
now belonged to the Dettors. Mr. Kennedy said that due to the steepness of the
slope he doubted that any screening could be provided as protection to the Dettor
property. Mr. Kennedy said the Dettor house wwld look directly into the back of
the mausoleum. Mr. Kennedy said that with the late hour, he would not have any
more to add to what had already been said.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment on this petition.
When there was not, she asked Mr. Tweel if he wished at this time to make a
concluding statement or the clarification he had requested to make earlier.
Mr. Tweet said that he wished to make clear
that the Monticello Foundation
had
not approved the mausoleum or demonstrated
approval for the proposal. He
said
*410
that he wished to say that for two years he
had worked with Jim Murray and
Mr.
Palmer
T7-
who assisted with the design of the building, but he had not meant to imply in any
way that the Foundation was behind the project. Mr. Tweel expressed concern that
his earlier remarks might have been misinterpreted in this respect.
Mr. Tweet went on to take exception to Mr. Dick's recollection of the meeting held
between the property owners, Mr. Roberts and himself. Mr. Tweel said that there
had been a lot of discussion at that meeting, which had taken place in his office
and which Mr. Dick had not attended. Mr. Tweel said that at that time several of
the adjacent property owners had raised the issue of screening and his client had
expressed his willingness then and presently to provide reasonable screening.
Mr. Tweel reiterated that the applicant wished to show good faith as a neighbor and
citizen.
Mr. Tweel said that it might be a question of semantics when Mr. Dick called the
mausoleum a new use; he suggested that it was simply another form of burial and
calling it a new use might be misconstrued. Mr. Tweel further stated that the
property his client owned on Route 29 was not economically suited for use as a
mausoleum. Regarding special use permits, Mr. Tweel said that the concerns Mr. Dick
mentioned had been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Tweel also stated that Michie
Tavern was right on the road and the mausoleum would be off the road, so it was
difficult to compare the two. He said that the Highway Department would have expressed
concerns, having been advised throughout the application process, if any existed.
Regarding slope, Mr. Tweel said that he was uncertain as to what Mr. Dick was saying
about the integrity of the Health Department, but the facts of the case were that
the Health Department had given temporary approval after review of the application.
Mr. Tweel stated that a concerted effort would be made on the part of the applicant
to avoid removal of any but a minimum number of trees. He pointed out on the plan a
row of four trees which would be an integral part of the mausoleum. Mr. Tweel said
that the trees on the site would enhance the mausoleum. Mr. Tweel said that Mr. Dick's
remark about needing the variance was an incorrect reading of the County's ordinance.
Mr. Tweel said that the house at the base of the slope was not quite accurately
portrayed; he described the house as being beyond a ravine up the other side slightly,
with trees in between. Speaking to the Sheriff being overtaxed, Mr. Tweel suggested
that the Sheriff's office would devise some mechanism which was acceptable to their
work force. Mr. Tweel said that whatever the Sheriff's office suggested, his client
would be happy to comply with.
In conclusion, Mr. Tweel said that on the issue of the special use permit not being
proper or consistent with other uses in the area, he would suggest that it was not
accurate to separate the mausoleum use from the existing cemetery use. He reiterated
the applicant's efforts to be responsive to the character of the area, citing the
assistance he sought from the Monticello Foundation in order to ensure that the
building conformed to the character of Monticello Mountain. Mr. Tweel added that
mausoleums exist all over the United States. Mr. Tweel informed Mr. Kennedy that
many trees grew between the Dettors' home and the mausoleum; he also suggested regarding
Mr. Kennedy's references to the sewage treatment plant and I-64 already having taken
some of the Dettor property, that he would hope the mausoleum was better but he could
not see how you could equate them. Mr. Tweel said in conclusion that he would hope
the Commission would act favorably on this petition; he again observed that the
mausoleum would offer a service to the community.
Mrs. Diehl declared the public hearing closed and the matter before the Commission.
Ye
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Copper whether the slope where the sewage system would be
installed had been determined.
Mr. Copper said that the sewage system would be right behind the building, which had
measured between 27 and 28 percent slope. Mr. Keeler said that the Health Department,
in a letter from Mr. E. S. Roseberry, had indicated the slope to be about 23 percent.
Mr. Keeler went on to offer an explanation on the question of steepness to the slope.
He said that when he and Tom Trevillian of the Engineering Department examined the
site, they found an unnatural steepness due to the overburden in front.
Mr. Copper concurred that this overburden had not been considered in calculating
the percentage of slope. He added that this overburden would be completely excavated
out when the construction started. Mr. Copper said that all of his figures were
based on an average taken from natural ground below the overburden, when refer41
to slope percentages.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether he had Section 4.2.5, the Critical Slope Section
of the Ordinance, available. Mr. Payne replied that he did not have this section
with him but that it basically stated that construction of buildings could not take
place on 25 percent slopes, but that the Commission could authorize such construction
on recommendation of the County Engineer and with specific appropriate controls to
protect the soil. It was ascertained that this step would come at the time of site
plan review. Mr. Keeler said that the issue was raised now because it had been
established that only two building sites existed on this property and both County
Engineer and Health Department comment had been received.
Mr. Payne said two other issues were also raised, the building site location should
probably be stated in one of the conditions and the record should show,or a condition
made on this special use permit, that this application is subject to site plan
approval. Mr. Payne said that if the Commission did not permit the variation from
the critical slope provisions, it should be clear that the project could not be
constructed. It was determined that the tape recording of this discussion made the
public record clear on this point.
Mr. Keeler said in regard to Mr. Payne's comments, he had three additional conditions
to offer. Mrs. Diehl suggested that Mr. Keeler read these new conditions to the
Commission so that they might be considered along with the conditions contained on
the Staff Report. Mr. Keeler suggested a condition reflecting the applicant's
voluntarily submitted drawing of the facade of the building, a condition specifying
the location of the building as that shown on the plan approved by the Soil Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Advisory Committee on January 29, 1982, and a condition
requiring removal and appropriate disposal of overburden and debris.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners for their comments and questions.
Mr. Cogan suggested some more conditions: appropriate screening to be installed
subject to Staff approval for the protection of adjacent property owners and that
any future stockpiling of overburden be free of debris and maintained in such a way
as to prevent soil erosion.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether landscaping should be addressed at site plan review.
Mr. Keeler responded that the Commission could approve the landscaping plan, a
course of action that had been followed in the past when the question of a buffer
for adjacent property owners had been an issue.
'�9
Mrs. Diehl said that she believed such a step would be positive and allow adjacent
property owners the opportunity to review the landscaping plan and offer comment.
Mr. Payne suggested that it was not necessary to address landscaping at this time,
unless something extraordinary was being contemplated, because it could be covered
adequately at the time of site plan review.
Mr. Cogan expressed again his concern about soil erosion with future stockpiling of
overburden. Mr. Payne concurred that this would be an appropriate condition on the
special use permit application.
Mrs. Diehl asked for further Commission comment.
Mr. Pickford asked to address some questions to Mr. Tweel. Mrs. Diehl explained that
the public hearing was closed and that Mr. Tweel had made concluding remarks in his
capacity of representing the applicant. Mr. Pickford asked Mrs. Diehl to hear his
questions and decide whether they were appropriate to address. He asked about who
would determine the terms of how such a mausoleum would be maintained and whether
the Commission would entertain more than one application for a mausoleum.
Mr. Payne advised that he did not believe the Commission actually had the authority
to address the maintenance of the mausoleum and he did not believe it appropriate for
the Commission to answer the question of future mausoleum applications. Mr. Payne
said that such speculation would be premature and improper, that only one application
was before the Commission at this time and the Commission could only act on what was
brought before it.
Mr. Pickford said that he was not asking the Commission about proper maintenance of
the building, but inquiring of Mr. Tweel. Mrs. Diehl suggested that he discuss the
matter, then, with Mr. Tweel.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners for further comments and questions.
Mr. Skove observed that the applicant had made a good effort to respond to objections.
Mrs. Diehl said that her objections to the first application had concerned the Highway
Department comments, which had now been amended. She further observed that placing
the mausoleum on the Route 29 property might in fact create a greater safety hazard
than establishing on on this site. Mrs. Diehl said that her other objection to the
original application had concerned the establishment of a crematorium. She concluded
that she believed the plan now with the recommended conditions would be acceptable
to her.
Mr. Davis agreed that the deletion of the crematorium greatly relieved the traffic
problem and he found the plan to be very satisfactory.
Mrs. Diehl reviewed for the Commissioners the conditions of approval.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the Health Department plays a role in the design of a
mausoleum. Mr. Roberts asked whether he was speaking to the architectural design.
Mr. Bowerman clarified that he was speaking to storage of corpses. Mr. Roberts
replied that the storage chambers were filtered, but that to his knowledge no Health
Department regulations existed pertaining to the internal design of mausoleums.
When there was no further discussion, Mr. Skove moved for approval of the special use
permit, subject to the following conditions.
SU
1. Mausoleum shall be limited to 1,500 crypts;
2. Traffic controls shall be provided for funeral processions to the reasonable
satisfaction of the County Sheriff;
3. Removal and appropriate disposal of existing debris on site prior to any
construction;
4. Fac;ade of mausoleum to be substantially in compliance with ren0ering(drawing)
submitted to Planning Commission on February 2, 1982;
5. Location of mausoleum building to be as shown on plan approved by the Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Advisory Committee on January 29, 1982;
6. Any future stockpile of overburden to be maintained in such manner as to prevent
soil erosion.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mr. Kindrick moved to defer SP-81-68 Town of Scottsville to February 9, 1982;
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Skove moved for deferral of the review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
of the James River flood control levee to February 9, 1982; Mr. Kindrick seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Mrs. Diehl asked about how the Monticello Mausoleum soil erosion report had been com-
?,led before coming before the Commission fcx review. Mr. 'reeler said that such a
sequence was not unusual in the past, in fact, he added at times actual grading took
place before Commission review of a site plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked in this case specifically, whether if any changes took place in
the plan before coming before the Commission or if the Commission should wish to
address certain issues, the plan would be reviewed again. Mr. Payne said absolutely,
that this was why no permit could be issued until site plan approval.
Mrs. Diehl asked specifically about reconvening the soil erosion committee. Mr. Keeler
indicated that another review of the soil erosion plan would depend on how significant
a change were made to the originally reviewed plan. He also said that the Zoning
Administrator had in the past made the decision on whether another review was warranted.
NEW BUSINESS
Request for Resolution of Intent to amend 23.0 CO COMMERCIAL OFFICE DISTRICT to
delete floor area restriction for dwellings;
Request for Resolution of Intent to amend 22.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS of the C-1
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT to correct reference numbers.
Mr. Keeler explained why these amendments were needed and suggested including 5.0
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS. He said that an oversight at the time of drafting the
new zoning ordinance had resulted in including "dwellings" as an accessory use in
the commercial office district section. Mr. Keeler said that the limit of twenty
percent of the floor area for a professional office located within a residence was
not the intent of staff. He suggested that dwellings be regulated under separate
provisions. He further explained that the Comprehensive Plan recommended locating
professional offices within villages, the idea being that a dentist or physician
might well have offices within his private residence.
61
When there was no further discussion among the Commissioners, Mr. Bowerman moved
to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend 23.0 CO COMMERCIAL OFFICE DISTRICT and
5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, as relate to floor area restriction for dwellings.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler explained that the amendment to 22.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS of the C-1
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT was strictly a housekeeping one, to correct the sequence of
numbers.
Mr. Cogan moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend 22.3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
of the C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT to correct reference numbers. Mr. Davis seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
When there was no further NEW BUSINESS, the meeting adjourned at approximately
11:00 P.M.
ert W. Tucker, Jr., Sec
62