HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 04 85 PC MinutesJune 4, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, June 4, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, VA. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould and Mr. James
Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner;
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner;
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke,
Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Tim Michel
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the May 14, 1985 and May 20, 1985 meetings were
approved as written.
Rivanna Phase One Final Plat - Proposal to create 15 lots with an
average size of 1.4 acres, with 8.98 acres in open space and 6.06
acres in residue. Total acreage 35.98 acres, zoned PRD,
Planned Residential Development. Located on the east side of
Rt. 743, just north of the bridge over the reservoir on Tax Map
45, parcel 31. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
r Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She presented additional
information concerning the accident record for this section of
Rt. 743, as had been requested by the Commission. She indicated
research had revealed that this segment of Route 743 (from Rt. 676
to Rt. 844) is "safer" overall than County and Commonwealth roads.
The Chairman invited comment from -the Highway Department.
Mr. Echols addressed the Commission. He stated Ms. Joseph's
report was based on a summary of accidents on this 2-mile
section of road that had been received from the Richmond office.
He stated he has recently received specific information
on the section from Rt. 676 to state road 1560 (Windsor Subdivision),
which is only .8 mile. Both sets of information cover the same
five-year period (1980-1984). He stated there have been 4 accidents
within 500 feet of the proposed entrance and three of those were
alcohol or drug related. Mr. Echols stated he did not feel this
section of road is any more dangerous than any other road in the
County. Regarding the need for a left turn lane for traffic coming
from the direction of Earlysville, Mr. Echols stated he felt a
left turn lane is not needed since most traffic will be coming
from the other direction.
In light of the four accidents which have occurred within 500 feet
of the proposed entrance, Mr. Gould asked Mr. Echols to comment
on the recommended sight distance easement. Mr. Echols responded
that a sight easement would only be on this property and when
the turn lane is constructed, that easement will become right-of-way
in any case. He felt the construction of the turn lane will
r�i
June 4, 1985
Page 2
will "daylight" the curve and will be beneficial to both the
residents of this subdivision and the public.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Echol's information
indicated the four accidents had been single -car accidents.
Mr. Echols stated that to re -align the road, approximately
2,000 ft. of roadway would be involved and would cost
$150,000 to $200,000.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He offered the following comments:
--The original RPN plan, for what is now Rivanna, was
approved in 1980 with the entrance location the
same as it is now.
--In fall of 1984 the applicant engaged Mr. Foster to
proceed with the planning of Rivanna. At that time
the applicant desired to build his own home with
final road and entrance plans the same as they would
be for the subdivision, including the commercial
entrance and the turn lane. Thus those issues would
already be taken care of. That proposal was approved
by the Commission in December, 1984, with identical
entrance and road plans as currently exist. He
stated that approval had been based on the usual
conditions and approvals and Highway Department
approval had already been received for the entrance
location. The Highway Department had specified the
design for the entrance, the turn lane and the cross-
section and all those specifications were conformed
to. Also at that time the applicant (Mr. Walker)
had offered to donate the fill dirt to the County,
but the County could not accept the offer since they
had no current use for the dirt.
--He pointed out this is the third request for approval
of an identical entrance.
--The applicant has done everything that has been asked
of him.
--Based on the accident reports from the Highway Department,
he did not feel this section of road is any more
dangerous than any other road in the County.
--He emphasized that the applicant has met all the conditions
that have been required by Albemarle County and the State
Highway Department.
In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Foster stated that moving
the road will result in the loss of a lot and would not accomplish
anything at all.
In
69
June 4, 1985 Page 3
Om
Mr. Carter, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated he has prepared all the necessary easements and covenants
for the property. He stated he did not feel there was anything
in the Highway Department's accident data which could pinpoint
this proposed entranceway as the focal point for a dangerous
situation.
Mr. Foster asked Mr. Payne to comment on the fact that the approval
for this entrance was received five months ago and then it seems
that it was rescinded.
Mr. Bowerman, too, asked how this relates to a change in circum-
stances from prior approvals.
Mr. Payne explained this was a planned development which was
approved specifically with respect to a plan and the aspects of
the development having to do with road safety, etc. should have
been reviewed at that time. The current plat before the Commission
is, basically, a more detailed incarnation of the same development,
with no material differences between the PRD plan and the sub-
division plat. If the subdivision plat is not approvable, the
Commission has, in effect, denied the development which was
approved by the re -zoning, and that would constitute a negation
of the effect of that re -zoning. He stated he felt the
Commission could not do this without being able to show one of three
things: (1) Fraud (which is not an issue in this case); (2)Sig-
nificant change of circumstances since the time of the re -zoning;
or (3) Substantial mistake having been made at the time of the
re -zoning. He stated the only other ground on which this could
be denied is if the Commission determines that it is a hazard,
and in that case, the Commission will bear the burden of proof
of establishing that it is a hazard. He added that he felt
the Commission's chances of prevailing in such a situation would
be negligible.
The Chairman invited public comment..
Mr. Bill Tucker, owner of the land directly across Rt. 743,
addressed the Commission. He stated he was opposed to the
proposed location of the entrance because, in spite of the
statistics, this section of road is very dangerous. He stated
his opposition to the location was based on what he felt were
inadequate sight distance requirements established by the
Highway Department. He felt it was unrealistic to base these
requirements on the suggested safe speed for the road, rather
than on the speed at which the road is actually travelled.
He stated his research has shown the road is travelled at much
faster speeds than 40 mph, which is the speed on which the Highway
Department has based its recommendations. He stated he felt
the Commission has a duty not to approve a subdivision which
is dangerous to the public safety and welfare.
SIT
June 4, 1985 Page 4
Ms. Virginia Tegtmeyer, a neighboring property owner, addressed
the Commission. She expressed the following concerns:
--The questionable safety of the proposed entrance location
due to inadequate sight distance;
--The effect on the reservoir of the massive disturbance
of land due to grading, etc. and the impact of 15 septic
drain fields right on the reservoir;
--The possible negative effect of 15 new wells on already
existing wells in the area;
Ms. Max Gentry addressed the Commission and indicated she was
in favor of the proposal. She felt the answer to the dangerous
situation of the road was to change the speed limit. She
stated the applicant has made every effort to comply with the
County's requirements.
Mr. Foster once again addressed the Commission and pointed out
the 400 feet of sight distance was the Highway Department's
requirement. He stated when the entrance is constructed and
the high bank is graded down, the sight distance will actually
be much greater than that, possibly 1,000 feet.
Mr. Tucker stated he was concerned about the sight distance in
the second curve.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph confirmed the Commission's concern about the
renumbering of the lots had been taken care of.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the situation will be improved with
the construction of the de-cel lane and the improved sight
distance. He added that, in light of Mr. Payne's comments, he
could see no reason to "go against" the original approval.
He stated he did not feel this road was any more dangerous than
any other road in the County. He stated he was in favor of
the proposal.
Ms. Diehl stated she understood the concerns of the neighboring
property owners; however, all these issues had been considered
when the PRD was approved and she could see no evidence which
would justify altering that original approval.
Mr. Skove stated if a mistake was made at the time the PRD was
approved, it was one that we would have "to live with." He
stated he was not in favor of changing the original approval.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt there had been no mistake made.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Highway Department had determined
this proposed entrance location afforded the best sight distance.
He agreed with Mr. Cogan that the construction of the entrance
and the turn lane would result in a safer situation than now
exists. He stated that he was concerned that the Highway Department
has underestimated the speed limit on this section of road.
1//
June 4, 1985
Page 5
09
Ms. Diehl moved that the Rivanna Phase One Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat can be signed when the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
entrance;
b. County Attorney approval of homeowner's agreements to include
the maintenance of roads, open space, drainage and appurtenant
structures, and with special attention given to protection
of the natural buffer on the Rivanna Reservoir;
C. Note on plat: "Only those areas where structures, roads,
utilities, or other improvements are located shall be
disturbed, all other land shall remain in its natural state.";
d. Planning staff approval of technical items;
e. Issuance of runoff control permit;
f. Issuance of erosion control permit;
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Esmont Health Care Center Site Plan Amendment - Request for
permanent office trailer to be used for conferences, offices and
storage. Located on the west side of Rt. 627, south of Rt. 6,
Tax Map 128, parcel 79B. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. In response to Mr.
Bowerman's question, she stated the existing parking and
circulation are adequate.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Karen Brown, representing Southside Health Center, addressed
the Commission. She stated the Albemarle County School Board
has donated the trailer to provide additional office space.
She stated the current facilities are overcrowded.
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter
was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Patterson confirmed the application is a site plan amendment
and not a special use permit; however, it must still comply with
the usual conditions of a special use permit application. She
also confirmed the Commission can authorize permanent use of
the trailer as office space, thus approving it as a site plan
addition rather than as a trailer.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Esmont Health Care Center Site Plan
Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
following condition has been met:
a. Zoning Administrator approval of compliance with
Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
%12
June 4, 1985 Page 6
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
ZTA-85-5 - To amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for a zoning
district designed to accommodate residential facilities dealing
with all aspects of preventive, adaptive and rehabilitative
health services.
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report.
There was some confusion as to what action was required at
this time. The Commission did not recall having passed a
resolution of intent on this issue. Mr. Donnelly confirmed
that a Resolution of Intent had been passed at the May 7 meeting.
Mr. Donnelly explained that several inquiries have been
received relating to similar types of facilities (in addition
to Mr. Zuckerman's). He stated two approaches were possible,
either through a special use permit or through providing for
a new district to accommodate this type of use. He stated
staff feels, because of the size and impact of such facilities,
something more than a special use permit approach was warranted.
He added that some of the uses proposed by the applicant were
not in conformance with the intent of the rural area district.
He confirmed that other than rural areas might be proposed for
these uses. He stated staff feels a planned development approach
will provide more guarantees to adjacent property owners and
will also give the Commission and the Board an opportunity to
review these in greater detail.
It was the consensus of the Commission that further study of
this issue was required before taking action.
The Chairman asked for comments from Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne indicated he did not necessarily feel this was the
best way to handle the matter, i.e. a planned development
approach. He indicated it depends on how the Commission
views a use of this sort in relation to how it fits in with
the plan and the existing ordinance. He stated he views this
type of use as more of a resort -hotel concept, and he has
two reservations about the planned development approach:
(1) It may be a broader approach than is really necessary;
and (2) The structure of a planned district may be more
elaborate than is needed for this concept. He stated he
felt a special use permit approach might be more conducive
to development that will help the County.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the matter be
deferred until June 18. In the meantime, the Chairman requested
that staff prepare a statement explaining their rationale for
this type of approach and make it available to the Commissioners
by the end of this week (June 7) so that it can be discussed
briefly at the June 11 meeting. He asked that this information
include the pros and cons of each type of approach.
I
June 4, 1985
Page 7
Mr. Cogan asked also that the question "Under which zoning
districts would such a proposal be allowed under a special
use permit?" be answered. Mr. Cogan also questioned the need
for a height of 65 feet and the correctness of the 35 feet
setback requirement.
Mr. Skove commented that some of the accessory uses listed
in the proposed amendment imply almost a village is con-
templated. Mr. Donnelly pointed out the accessory uses
would be just for the people who use the facility and not
for the general public. Mr. Skove felt the approval of
something of this nature could possibly require a seperate
sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Skove moved that ZTA-85-5 be deferred until June 18.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously
approved.
The meeting recessed at 8:55; reconvened at 9:05.
ZMA-85-12 Green Acres Land Trust - Request to rezone a vacant
2.407 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas to CO, Commercial
Office. Property, described as Tax Map 60A-9, parcel 24 is located
on the north side of Barracks Road (Rt. 654) approximately 600'
west of Georgetown Road and adjacent to Huntwood Subdivision.
Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report. He stated staff was
recommending denial of the request because: (1) It is
inconsistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan; (2) It is inconsistent with the statement of intent of the
CO, Commercial Office district; (3) Reasonable use can be made
of the property under existing zoning; and (4) Commercial
designation of the property could result in similar rezoning
requests in the area.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Joe Gieck, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
stated he and Mr. Newall were interested in developing this into
something that would be consistent in the area. He stated
he had conferred with the planning staff and Mr. Keeler had
suggested that commercial offices might be the approach to
try. He stated he has had no interest in a rural -type use,
but there has been interest in office -type uses.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any commercial land on
Barracks Road west of Rt. 250 Bypass. Mr. Donnelly explained
there is an existing country store which is a non -conforming
use west of this location.
June 4, 1985
Page 8
Mr. Skove stated he felt staff had summarized the situation well
and moved that ZMA-8512 for Green Acres Land Trust be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on July 17, 1985.
SP-85-28 Keswick Equine Clinic, Partnership - Request in accordance
with Section 10.2.2.18 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for an
outpatient equine clinic and office on a vacant five acre parcel,
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 50, parcel
29H, is located on the north side of Rt. 640 approximately 1/4
mile west of its intersection with Rt. 231, near Cash's Corner.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report.
Mr. Cogan asked for an explanation of condition (2.)--Amendment
of this permit shall be required for overnight on site treatment
and/or overnight treatment facilities. Mr. Donnelly explained
the current application is just for an outpatient clinic and
if animals are to be kept on the premises overnight, the permit
will have to be amended. He explained further that an
amendment to the special use permit would have to require
Board review.
There being neither applicant nor public comment, the matter
was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the referral to Section 5.1.11 of the supplementary
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Donnelly explained this
deals primarily with noise related to veterinary operations.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this was an appropriate
use in this area.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-28 for the Keswick Equine Clinic,
Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of site plan and Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation commercial entrance approval;
2. Amendment of this permit shall be required for overnight
on site treatment and/or overnight treatment facilities;
3. Residential use shall be limited to one apartment unit
located in the basement of the office building;
4. Written Health Department certification that the septic
system facilities are adequate for veterinary use;
5. Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the supplementary
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, where applicable to
the intended use;
6. Discontinuance of equine clinic activities under SP-78-11
after commencement of activities provided for in
SP-85-28.
n
19
In
7'tr
June 4, 1985
Page 9
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
This matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on June 19.
SP-85-29 Kenneth L. Gibson, Jr. - Request in accordance with
sections 31.2 and 5.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to locate a single wide mobile home on property described as
Tax Map 71, parcel 57, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Property, located on east side of Rt. 689, ±.6 mile south of its
intersection with Rt. 637.
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Clinton Gibson, son of the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated the proposed mobile home would be
occupied by himself and his family (4 people).
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Robert Johnson addressed the Commission. He expressed concern
that the predominance of mobile homes in the area would devalue
property. He was also concerned that the unit would not be
owner occupied. He stated also he was concerned that special
use permits seem to be forever.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Regarding condition (3.)--Occupancy shall be limited to Mr.
Gibson's son and his family --Mr. Donnelly stated if Mr. Gibson's
family should vacate the unit, the special use permit would
cease. Mr. Payne explained that, in the absence of a specific
condition, that is normally not the case. It was determined
this condition means if Mr. Gibson's son vacates the unit,
it cannot be rented, but it does not require that the unit
must be removed.
Mr. Clinton Gibson indicated he understood the implications of
this condition, i.e. that it was for his use only and could not
be rented to others.
It was determined some screening would be required.
Ms. Diehl indicated she felt strongly that the mobile home
should be removed from the site if it should cease to be
occupied by Mr. Gibson's son.
It was determined that condition (3.) should be expanded to
include the requirement that the mobile home must be
r removed within 90 days if Mr. Gibson's son and family should
vacate the unit.
7&
June 4, 1985
Page 10
Mr. Cogan suggested the following language to be added to
condition (3.): *400
• Should Mr. Gibson's son and family vacate the mobile home,
the special use permit is rescinded and the mobile home
must be removed within 90 days of vacation.
Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-29 for Kenneth L. Gibson, Jr. be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Access to Route 689 shall be limited to the existing
private drive;
3. Occupancy shall be limited to Mr. Gibson's son and his
family; should Mr. Gibson's son and family vacate the
mobile home, the special use permit is rescinded and the
mobile home must be removed within 90 days of vacation.
4. Location and screening of the mobile home to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning administrator.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on June 5, 1985.
SP-85-30 General Electric - Request in accordance with Sections
10.2.2 and/or 10.2.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to allow the use of a vacant three bedroom, one story brick house
with basement as a recreation center and meeting area for
General Electric employees and guests. Property, described as
Tax Map 20, parcel 19D, is located on the north side of Rt..606
across from General Electric Plantapproximately 1,850 feet west
of the junction of Rts. 763 and 606. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report.
It was determined the nearest residential dwelling is approximately
300-500 feet to the north.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. James Neblett, representing GE, addressed the Commission. He
offered the following comments:
--GE has no intention of doing anything that will create
a nuisance or will devalue neighboring properties.
--GE owns four lots that were originally part of the North
Pines subdivision and these four lots act as a screen
between North Pines and the parcel in question.
--GE also owns lot 13A and it is intended that this lot
will remain vacant.
--This property had been purchased to act as buffer
property between GE and the residential area.
%1
June 4, 1985
Page 11
--The house in question will be upgraded and repaired.
--The house will be used as a "business activity center",
since only activities of a business -related nature
will be permitted there.
--Possible uses are: a resting area for out-of-town
visitors; informal meetings with out-of-town customers;
business -related employee meetings such as rewards
dinners. The activities will be tightly controlled.
--The use will not be a "recreation center as such" as
indicated in the staff report.
--He asked that condition (1.) be reworded to include
employee guests.
--Though most activities will take place from 4:00 p.m. to
8:00 p.m., he asked that the recommended time
restriction (8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.) be changed since
some out-of-town customers may arrive as early as 7:00 a.m.
A night-time curfew will be strictly enforced.
--He felt that the limit of 25 persons, as stated in
condition (3.) was too restrictive, and some flexibility
should be allowed.
--He felt the same activities should be permitted as would
be permitted at a normal residence.
--He suggested that GE be required to follow the same
guidelines and restrictions as are stated in the North
Pines Homeowners Association agreement.
--Current screening vegetation will remain; only the
usual mowing, etc. will be done.
--There are no plans to install any outdoor lighting that
would create a nuisance for neighboring properties.
He asked, however, that usual security lighting be allowed
as might be allowed at a private residence. He indicated
any lighting would be directed away from neighboring
properties.
--It is intended that the existing roadway will be maintained.
No elaborate parking facility is intended. Most cars
will park in the plant parking lot and walk across
Rt. 606.
--He confirmed there would be no overnight guests.
In response to Mr. Gould's inquiry, Mr. Neblett stated he
would be in chxge of the operation.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Ray Cavedo, a residence of North Pines, addressed the
Commission. He questioned the need for the facility to be
in use 7 days a week if it- were going to be used just for
business functions. He felt the hours and the days per week
usage should be more restrictive.
Mr. Ken Wiegand, a resident of North Pines, addressed the Commission.
He stated if this area had been purchased by GE to serve as
a buffer area, it should remain as such. He felt the underlying
purpose of this request was to ultimately construct a ballfield.
He felt the restriction to 25 persons was reasonable. He felt
no lighting at all should be allowed since outdoor recreation
June 4, 1985
Page 12
lighting would not fit in with the residential neighborhood.
14*4
Mr. Darden Battle, a residence of North Pines, addressed the
Commission. He stated when he had purchased his property he
had been led to believe, by the realtor and the planning staff,
that the area adjacent to the area in question was owned by
GE and could only be used as a buffer zone. He was concerned
if this present application is approved, eventually the
buffer area will also be put to some other use. He made
reference to the GE Plant in Salem, VA which has large
outdoor recreational facilities for its employees.
Mr. Charles Besancon, a residence of North Pines, addressed the
Commission. He stated GE has been a good neighbor to the
subdivision. He was concerned about the intended buffer zone
being put into use. He asked that no overnight use be allowed
and that this be added to the conditions of approval. He
asked that the restriction on the number of people remain
as suggested by staff. He stated he was in favor of the
property remaining as is, i.e. a buffer zone.
Mr. George Miller, a resident of North Pines and an employee of
GE, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the
noise level and the suggested long hours of usage. He
stated he would prefer that the area remain as a buffer zone.
Ms. Vicky Cavedo stated she was concerned about the possible
use of alcoholic beverages on the premises.
Mr. Neblett stressed that there would not be any "recreational
lighting as such" on the premises and only security lighting
is intended, essentially what is already there. He added
that there will be no outdoor recreational activities after dark.
He stated further that GE does not feel the construction of a
ballfield would be practical since it would detract from the
aesthetic quality which they wish to maintain in the buffer
zone. Regarding weekend use, he stated this would involve
customers only and not employee functions. He indicated
weekend use would be rare. He stated he would have no objection
to the Sunday hours being more restrictive.
Mr. James Walker, Sr., a resident of Piney Mt. addressed the
Commission. He expressed concern that if this proposal is
approved, further expansion will be requested in the future.
Mr. Adrian Brown, a resident of North Pines, addressed the
Commission. He asked that the alcohol question be answered.
He also expressed concern about the traffic on Rt. 606 and
tractor trailer usage of that road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
7c�
June 4, 1985
Page 13
The Chairman asked Mr. Neblett to respond to the additional
questions regarding alcohol and traffic.
Mr. Neblett stated there would be no excessive alcohol usage
though a wet -bar would be present. He added that alcohol
would not be allowed outside the house. He stated there should
be no change at all in the amount of traffic on Rt. 606 since
those customers currently come and go. He indicated he
felt most parking would be in the plant lot.
Mr. Payne stated he did not feel the Commission could make
a recommendation for additional parking since the Ordinance
contemplates shared parking between uses.
Regarding traffic on Rt. 606, Mr. Neblett added that fork-lift
traffic will soon be removed from that road since a road is
going to be cut through the plant.
It was determined Mr. Neblett's position at GE is Manager of
Facilities.
Regarding possible future expansion into the buffer zone, Mr.
Neblett stated he felt restrictions could be placed by the
Commission to prohibit such expansion. He confirmed that he
would have no objections to prohibiting overnight use, nor
to further restriction of Sunday hours.
Mr. Cogan stated that though he was in sympathy with the
public concerns, GE has shown itself to be a good neighbor.
He stated many of the items that have been requested would
automatically be permitted if this were a single family
residence in the RA zone. He suggested the following
amendments to the conditions of approval:
• Add the words and business guests to condition (1.).
• Change condition (2.) to read: Hours of operation shall
be limited to 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. six days a week;
12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays; with no overnight
use permitted.
He suggested the remaining conditions should remain as presented
by staff.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-85-29 for General Electric be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The recreation center shall be only for the use of General
Electric employees, customers; family members and business
guests.
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. -
10:00 p.m. six days a week; 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m.
on Sundays; with no overnight use permitted.
U
June 4, 1985
Page 14
3. Maximum usage at one time shall be limited to twenty-five
(25) persons:
4. Construction of outdoor recreation facilities such as
ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc., shall
not be permitted;
5. The existing vegetation along front, rear and side lot
lines shall be maintained for screening purposes;
6. Outdoor lighting shall be so designed and located so as to
shield the light source from adjacent lots;
7. Approval of site plan and Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval of commercial entrance permit.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
This matter is scheduled to be heard by the Board on June 19, 1985.
Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposed on the east and
west sides of Rt. 20 North and the north and south sides of Rt.
612 near Eastham. The proposed district is comprised of
764.75 acres as shown on the attached tax map.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She stated that no action
is required of the Commission at this time, but on June 18
the Commission will be asked to refer the proposal to the advisory
committee.
Regarding the statement in the staff report which states
"The effect of the district is to provide increased protection
and real estate tax benefits in exchange for relinquishment of
the right to develop to a more intensive use during the period
which the parcels remain in the district", Mr. Cogan stated
there are no more real estate tax benefits in this district
than now exist in farmland that is under the Land Use Program.
He stated he was concerned because the way the program is
set up a minimum amount of acreage is required to get into
the program and this could eventually harm the small farmers
who will not be able to get their land use taxation benefits
if they are not in the AF district.
Mr. Bowerman confirmed that the up -coming party at his home
is set for July 27.
The Chairman asked Mr. Donnelly to check with the maintenance
staff to see if the temperature on the thermostat in the
room could be lowered.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
AAAA A OlhA4,-iA 0&
James R. Donne , Secretary
IM
M