Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-02385 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 2, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Vir- ginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Home. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept 4.1 and 4.2 as information, and to approve 4.3 as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Copies of the Planning Commission's minutes for its meetings of November 10 and November 17, 1987, were received as information. Item 4.2. Letter dated November 19, 1987, from Philip J. Bray, Attorney, The Potomac Edison Company, transmitting copy of the Potomac Edison Company's application with the State Corporation Commission to revi~e its fuel factor and cogeneration tariff, was received as information. Item 4.3. Statements of Expenses for the Commonwealth's Attorney, Direc- tor of Finance, Sheriff and Regional Jail for the month of October, 1987, were approved as presented. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-87-11. Republic Capital (deferred from Novem- ber 18, 1987). Mr. Way said the Board had received a copy of the proffer dated Novem- ber 20, 1987, from Mr. Blake Hurt. Mr. Horne said that Mr. Hurt had just handed him a letter amending that proffer, and he then distributed a copy of that letter to the Board members. The proffers read as follows: "November 20, 1987 Mr. John Horne County of Albemarle County Office Building McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Horne: In conjunction with our request for rezoning of our property at the Northside Industrial Park, we would like to summarize all the proffers that we have made to date. We have also added the two additional proffers suggested by Mr. Lindstrom at the Board meeting on Novem- ber 18. December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 386 In order to provide a tangible incentive for the extension of public sewer to this industrial property, but in recog- nition of the lack of same currently, we hereby proffer that prior to the installation of public sewer the uses that will be allowed will be those that donot require public sewer and which can be served by domestic septic fields. And further that the buildings wh~ich will be constructed will have less than a total of 225~000 square feet. Subsequent to the installation of public sewer, construction would be limited to an additional 225,000 square feet, or for both pre-public sewer and post-public sewer, a limit of approximately 450,000 square feet. We hereby proffer a restriction on the types of uses of the property once it is zoned heavy industrial. The uses that will not be allowed on the property would include the following list: brick manufacturing, concrete mixing plants; manufacturing of sewage disposal systems; manufac- turing and recycling of tires~ petroleum, gasoline, natural gas and manufactured gas storage; sawmills; wood preserving operations. We proffer to restrict the development of the property to the general outline of the master plan which has been submitted as part of this rez~ning application. In the way of road improvements, we proffer to limit devel- opment of the property to notiexceed the capacity of the access road until such time aJ the road is improved to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the added development of this rezoning, l The capacity of the access road is that capacity which w{ll accommodate the traffic from the contiguous propertie~ if fully developed under the existing zoning. !~ We agree to add the nine acre~ of Parcel 32-22C to the 26 acres for the purpose of restricting the heavy industrial use that we have proffered on lthe 26 acres. We will expand the undisturbe~ buffer area from the 30 foot width to the 50 foot width alQng all the lots at Airport Acres abutting the property. We will provide twice the screening requirement stated in the ordinance for any disturbed areas within 100 feet of the lots in Airport Acres. No portion of the buildings will be within 200 feet of the lots in Airport Acres. We will arrange Phase I so that the first two buildings to be constructed in this phase will be along State Route 1570 rather than parallel to Route 29 North. 10. The buffer area adjacent to the Airport Acres subdivision will be graded so as to maintain the natural topography of that property up to the area required to grade the bank on a two to one slope to the edge of the parking or roadway and in such a manner as to continum to provide adequate storm drainage facilities for that s~ction of the property. The planting of the screening trees or the building of berms will be done in a manner to ingulate as far as is feasible the glare, noise, and visibility of the project from the adjacent residential neighborhood. 11. The exterior architectural sty$ing of the buildings will be reasonably consistent throughout the project. The buildings will be substantially masonry or concrete wall construction 387 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) and will be reviewed in a schematic fashion with the Plan- ning Staff for their comments prior to construction. We hope these proffers adequately address the concerns expressed by the staff, the Planning Commission, as well as Mr. Lindstrom and the other Supervisors. Yours truly, (Signed) Blake Hurt, President Republic Capital Corporation" "December 2, 1987 Mr. John Horne Planning Department County of Albemarle 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Northside Industrial Park Dear John: After discussion with Mr. Lindstrom about his questions on the addi- tional proffers, I would like to modify proffers 10 and 11 of my letter to you dated November 20 to read as follows: 10. The buffer area adjacent to the Airport Acres subdivision will be graded so as to maintain the natural topography of that property up to the area required to grade the property on a two to one slope to the edge of the parking or roadway in such a manner as to continue providing adequate storm drainage facilities for that section of the property. The planning of screening and the building of berms will be done in a manner to insulate, as far as is feasSble, the adjacent residential neighborhood from the glare, ndise and visibili- ty of the project and screening shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Commission. All screening vegetation shall be maintained by the owne~. 11. The exterior architectural styling of the Buildings will be reasonably consistent throughout the project. The buildings will be substantially masonry or concrete wall construction with brick, stucco, textured concrete or m~sonry facades, finished in natural earth tones on all buit~ding sides facing residential zoned land. Structure heights ~hall not exceed 25 feet except that no portion of any structure within 300 feet of the Airport Acres boundary shall emceed 20 feet. Building designs shall be reviewed in the schematic fashion with the Planning Staff for their comments iprior to con- struction. I would appreciate it if you would add these changes to my proffer for the Board review. Sincerely, (Signed) Blake Hurt, President Republic Capital Corporation" Mr. Horne said that the proffer of November 20 was an attempt to incorpo- rate all the proffers into one document. Proffers 10 and ~1 (in the December 2 letter) are an attempt to react to some of the concerns ~f the Board of Supervisors expressed during the November 18 meeting. Mr.~Horne pointed out the areas of concern on a map and explained the grading, s~reens and architec- tural styling proffered by the applicant. Mr. Horne said he had added a note to the plans stating "Tree symbols designate area requiring double screening December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 388 as described by proffer for areas graded within 100 feet of residential subdivision". Since the last public hearing on this matter, Mr. Way said, several concerned citizens have approached him and asked if they might address the Board. He said he would allow them to speak if they had material that had not come up at the last public hearing or that related to the new proffer. With these conditions, Mr. Way re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Carroll Goode addressed the Board and said he wished to comment upon the letter presented at the last meeting by the State Water Control Board. He said he had spoken with Mr. R. McChesney Sterrett, Chief Regional Geologist, who had written the letter. He said he asked Mr. Sterrett if he had been aware of the extensive grading that would occur on the property when he wrote the letter to Mr. Hurt. Mr. Goode said Mr. Sterrett replied "no". Mr. Goode said he told Mr. Sterrett that 20 to 40 feet of the earth above bedrock might be graded away and Mr. Sterrett told him this much grading would affect the groundwater. Mr. Goode said he also wished to commen~ upon Mr. Hurt's proffers. He said he is concerned that the proffer promises screening and berms will be provided "as far as is feasible", which he t~inks is too vague. Ms. Jane Jarvis addressed the Board and said she would like the Supervi- sors to remember three things when they vote on this request: the message the Board will be sending to other subdivisions; the possibility that residents of Airport Acres may experience depleted or contaminated water supplies; and, the dropping value of homes in the subdivision. Mr. Joe Heller, a resident of Hollymead subdivision, addressed the Board and said he would like to speak to comments made at the last meeting con- cerning the Comprehensive Plan. He said certain Board members supported the request for rezoning because they said it was in accordance with the Compre- hensive Plan. He said he cannot believe the ipeople who wrote the Comprehen- sive Plan in 1971 would want residential neighborhoods side-by-side with land zoned Heavy Industrial. He urged the Board to deny the request. Mr. Bruce Garwood addressed the Board and said he has lived in Airport Acres for 13 years. This summer, he said, he noticed two dying trees in his front yard and called the Forestry Department~ who sent someone to examine his trees. The forestry agent told him the trees were dying because of the grading done around his house when it was built, 13 years ago. He said he is concerned that the same thing could happen to~'the buffer proffered by the applicant and asked that the applicant guarantee, in writing, that there will always be a buffer between his property and the residential neighborhood. Mr. Lindstrom said that the applicant proffered to maintain the screening vegetation, which meant that he would replant!~any trees that died. Mr. Garwood answered that Mr. Horne had said the buffer might be composed of the trees that were already there. Some of those trees are between 30 and 40 years old, he said, and cannot be replaced that easily. Mr. Fritz Brittain addressed the Board a~d asked the Supervisors if they planned to discuss the letter from Airport Ac~es Property Owners concerning the possible contamination of the subdivisionis water supply. Based on the new information from the State Water Control Board, he asked that the Board guarantee that public water will be extended ~o Airport Acres when the subdi- vision's supply dwindles or becomes contaminated. Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Concerning Proffer No. 10, Mr. Bowie asked if the statement "Ail screen- ing vegetation shall be maintained by the owne[r" meant that the trees already on this property will be replaced if they die~ Mr. Hurt answered that he would replace only the trees that he planted.! He said he would not be grading close enough to existing trees to harm them. Mr. Bowie said he felt the applicant had ldone a lot to respond to the concerns of the Board. However, he said, he still cannot support this 389 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) request, because he does not believe that land only 200 feet from a subdivi- sion should be zoned Heavy Industrial. Moreover, he said, he did not want to make County residents afraid to live in subdivisions next to large parcels of land. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not believe that approval of this request would make County residents feel unsafe in subdivisions. He said he thinks resi- dents will feel more secure if they feel they can rely on the Comprehensive Plan. If the Plan is not followed consistently, he said, it cannot be used to protect residential areas or any other low density use. He said he has used the Comprehensive Plan to vote for the denial of requests of developers who wished to develop in areas of low-intensity usage and it would be hypocritical for him now to disregard the Plan. He said he is sorry that the Plan may be disadvantageous to the residents of Airport Acres, but he believes that it benefits the County as a whole. He said he is no5 completely satisfied with the proffers, but he believes that the architectural and buffering require- ments are more stringent than any in the County. Moreover, he said, of the 700 acres of land zoned for industrial use in the County, only 19 acres are zoned Heavy Industrial. This County, he said, needs land'zoned Heavy IndUs- trial. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-87-11 with Proffers One through 11, as presented in the letter dated Novemberi20, 1987, and amended December 2, 1987. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he would prefer that the zoning be Light Industrial. He said he supposed the only way to do this would be to defe~ action on this request and see if the applicant were willing to apply fo~ Light Industrial zoning. Mr. Way said he believed that this parcel is appropriate for Heavy Industrial usage but it is currently zoned R-1. He said parcels zoned Resi- dential should not be right next to parcels zoned Heavy Industrial. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. NAYS: Messrs. Bowie, Henley and Way. Agenda Item No. 6. Jacob's Run Agricultural/Foresta~ District. Notice of intent to create the Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District located on Routes 743, 660, 664, and 665. Comprised of Tax Map 18, ~arcels 40 and 40F; Tax Map 19, Parcels 25 and 25A; Tax Map 20, Parcel 7A; andI Tax Map 31, Parcels 16, 16B, 44C, 45, 45B, and 45C. The proposed district contains 742.222 acres. The Advisory Committee felt that Blades should be included in the district, and the growth area boundary moved, as recommended by the ~Land Use Subcom- mittee. Regarding the possible expansion of Earlysville, ~he Committee felt that if the district is still in place at the time of the Comprehensive Plan review, it might have an effect on the review. Therefore, they disagreed with staff's recommended time period of six years, and recommended eight years before initial review as requested by the property owners. The Committee noted that this district has a real purpose in that it provides protection of Chris Greene Lake. Regarding the configuration of the district, there was discussion whether two districts on either side of Earlysville would make better sense than one district with a village in the middle. It was not known when Panorama Farms would join the district, therefore, th~ Committee decided Heyward's property should remain with the district as proposed. The Committee also discussed the land use acreage requirements. Ail parcels were accepted as submitted. The Albemarle County Planning Commission on'October 20, 1987, recommended unanimously that the Jacob's Run District be approved for a time period of six years before initial review and with the condition that the staff provide additional information to the Board of SuperPisors regarding Tax Map 18, Parcel 40F, for the purpose of determining its suitability for inclu- sion in the district. (Advertised in the Daily Progress oh November 17 and November 24, 1987.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows: December 2, 1987 (Regular NightMeeting) (Page 6) 390 "~..,~ry: The Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee on September 29, 1987, recommended unanimously that the Jacob's Run District be approved as requested, for a time period of eight years before initial review. The Albemarle County Planning Commission on October 20, 1987, recom- mended unanimously that the Jacob's Run District be approved for a time period of six years before initial review and with the condition that the staff provide additional information to the Board of Super- visors regarding Tax Map 18, Parcel 40F for the purpose of determining its suitability for inclusion in the district. Location: The core area is located on both sides of Rt. 743, north- east of Earlysville. Other parcels are located at the intersection of Rts. 664/665; at the intersection of Rts. 743/660; and on the north side of Rt. 743, near Advance Mills. Acreage: Jacob's Run District contains 727.282 acres in four areas formed by ten landowners. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: Jacob's Run District is located mostly in Rural Area I, with part of one parcel (Blades) located in Earlys- ville Village growth area. Agriculture and forestry are appropriate land uses in the Rural Areas, but conflict with the goals of the growth area. The entire proposed district is currently zoned Rural Areas. Village Residential zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning (Earlysville Forest) occur within the Earlysville Village growth area adjacent to the proposed district. The Planning Commission is currently working on a five-year revision of the Comprehensive Plan. In recent work sessions, the Land Use Subcommittee recommended alteration of the Earlysville Village boun- dary by deleting the portion of the village which conflicts with this proposed agricultural/forestal district and by adding the existing Deer Run Subdivision to the Village. Issues: Growth Area Conflicts: The Board should consider the conflict between the proposed agricultural/forestal district and the existing village area. If the Earlysville Village boundary is changed as recommended by the Land Use Subcommittee, then there:~will be no conflict. Expansion of Earlysville: This is the first agricultural/forestal district which could limit the expansion of a growth area. Earlys ville is a popular growth area which has potential for future expan- sion. The Land Use Subcommittee did not,recommend expansion of the growth area at this time because expansion could affect the use of Chris Greene Lake as a supplemental water supply for the North Fork water treatment plant. If it is determined in the future that Chris Greene is not needed, then Earlysville could potentially be planned for expansion. Such expansion would have to occur to the north, since the South Fork Rivanna watershed is west~ and the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport is east of Earlysville.~ Therefore, the proposed district could conflict with such an expansion. If it is determined that Chris Greene is needed for drinking water supply, then the proposed district could offer protection %o the watershed. Staff has no problem with the proposed district at the present time. The need for an expansion of Earlysville bill have to be re-evaluated when the district is reviewed. Time Period: The property owners are proposing an eight year time period before initial review. Staff recommends the Board consider stipulating the review occur in six years which will be coincident with the completion of the next Comprehensive Plan review. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation for a six year time period. The state law was changed effective July 1, 1987, 391 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) to extend the permitted time period before initial review of a dis- trict from four/eight years or four/years. In the past, the Board of Supervisors has chosen not to specify a time period before the initial review. The amended law requires that the ordinance shall state any conditions to creation of the district and shall prescribe the period before the first review of the district. In prescribing the period before the first review, the Board shall consider the period proposed in the application. If~the time period proposed in the application is Changed by the Board, then notice must be published and sent to all landowners in the district at least two weeks prior to adoption of the ordinance creating the district. Small Parcels: The Planning Commission requested staff to provide additional information to the Board regarding Tax Map 18, Parcel 40F for the purpose of determining its suitability for inclusion in the district. The parcel was created prior to 1980, and contains 5.01 acres with a dwelling. The parcel has one remaining development right. It does not qualify for land use due to the acreage. The state law does not specify a minimum parcel size, but does list facotrs to consider in determining whether property should be included in a district. Configuration: The Board may wish to discuss the configuration of the district, and whether any problems may arise from the large gaps between participating landowners. Advisory Co-.-ittee Recoav.endations: The soils report prepared by Gordon Yager, District Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service is on file in the Clerk's office.. The Committee's recommendations are listed in the advertisement of this petition. Planning Commission Recommendations: The Planning Commission's recommendations are given ih the summary on page one of this report. Other pertinent comments were: The Planning Commission was in agreement with t~e Land Use Subcommittee regarding the proposed village boun!dary change. The Planning Commission was concerned about the possible future expansion of Earlysville in relation to the proposed district and, therefore, agreed with staff's recommended six year time period. The Planning Commission was concerned about the inclusion of small residential parcels which may be inconsistent with the intent of the district. Regarding configuration, one Commissioner expressed concern about appendages and long, narrow strips being included. There was discussion regarding the effect of the!district on adjacent parcels. It was determined that the district could affect a special use application on an adjacent property but probably would not affect properties designated as part of Earlysville Village. Staff's Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Jacob's Run District~as recommended by the Planning Commission for a time period of six years before initial review. In order to be consistent with a previous recommendation concerning small parcels, staff recommends that Tax Map 18, Parcel 40F not be December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 392 (Page 8) included due to the acreage and the dwelling which make the parcel ineligible for land use and which preclude any significant agricul- tural use of the parcel." After ascertaining that there were no more questions for Mr. Home, Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. de Hooge said he is 82 years old and has lived in Earlysville for 40 years. He said he believed the Jacob's Run District was a scheme to divest citizens of their right to use their property as they wished. The only people who benefit from these districts, he said, are developers. He claimed that many of the owners of property in this proposed agricultural/forestal district do not live on the property. He is not in favor of the district. Ms. Babs Huckle addressed the Board and said, with one exception, owners of these parcels lived on their property. She said Jacob's Run runs through the middle of her farm, so her property is considered a siltation basin for Chris Greene Lake. She said she wants her land in an agricultural/forestal district to protect the lak~. Mr. Guy de Ho~ge said ~is father is concerned that elderly residents may lose their rights {o sell their property if the Board approves this agricul- tural/forestal district. Mr. Lindstrom said no property owner was subject to the restrictions of an agricultural/forestal district unless they voluntarily applied that their property be included in the district. Mr. Steven Murray, Chairman of the Agricultural/Forestal District Advis- ory Committee, addressed the Board and said he would be glad to explain the procedure of establishing agricultural/forestal district, if anyone had any questions. Ms. Tamara Vance, a representative of the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Board. She urged that the Board approve the applicants' request for an eight-year review period. She said approving this agricultural/for- estal district will insure that the watershed for Chris Greene Lake is pro- tected. ~ With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Bay closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Bowie said he would vote to approve !the district, but.he would like to accept the staff's recommendation that th~ district be reviewed in six years, to coincide with the revision of the Comprehensive Plan, rather than the eight-year period requested by the applicants. He said the revised Comprehensive Plan may include a need for more growth in Earlysville and parts of the proposed district might conflict with this growth. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Bowie that a review period of six years would lessen the chance of any conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the district. Mr. Henley said he supported the request for a review period of eight years. He said he does not believe that Earlysville will grow as fast as has been predicted, and cited Crozet as evidence that sometimes growth areas grow very little. Mrs. Cooke said she agreed with Mr. Henley and would support a review period of eight years. Mr. Way said he supported the establishment of the Jacob's Run Agricul- tural/Forestal District, but would prefer a review period of six years. Mr. Bain said that he also supported a s%x-year review period. Mr. Horne asked that the Board also consider whether Tax Map 18, parcel 4OF, a five acre parcel, should be included in the district. Mr. Bain asked if there were just one dwelling on this property. Mr. Home answered "yes". 393 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Bowie said he believed small parcels should be included in agricul- tural/forestal districts if their owners wished to use their land this way. Mr. Henley said he would approve the inclusion of small parcels as long as they adjoined a larger block of. agricultural land. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District as presented in the staff report dated December 2, 1987, including Tax Map 18, parcel 40F, for a period of years. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. An Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4, Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle, by the addition of a subsection (i) to be known as the "Jacob's Run Agricultural/ Forestal District". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1987.) Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the ordinance as submitted, with the review period to be six years, and to include Parcel 40F on Tax Map 18. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: After this meeting was concluded, it was brought to the Clerk's attention that Virginia Code Section 15.1-1511 states that if the governing body makes any change in conditions or the period requested for review, notice must be sent by first class mail to all landowners in the district, and a notice published for two weeks prior to adoption of the ordinance. Therefore, this ordinance will be readvertised for a hearing in January, 1988.) Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-87-08. JWK Properties, Inc. Petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend Section 10.0 Rural Areas to allow !MUSEUM as a permit- ted use. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1~ and November 24, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Petition: JWK Properties petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend the RA, Rural Areas, district to provide for MUSEUM by special use permit. Staff Comment: A stated purpose of the Rural Areas district is that 'the continuation and establishment of agriculture an~ agriculturally- related uses will be encouraged.' During Comprehensive Plan committee work sessions, agriculture and forestry have receive~!emphasis as the main purpose of the RA district. Support for active measures to promote the agricultural industry has been endorsed. ~Therefore, staff opinion is that 'museum' would be an appropriate use ~n the RA dis- trict if it were explicitly related to agricultural support efforts. The public purpose to be served by such amendments wo~ld be to promote and publicize the agricultural/forestal sector of Alb~marle's economy. Staff recommends the following amendments: 1. Add to 3.0 DEFINITIONS: AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM: An establishment operated as a repository or collection of curiosities or objects of agricultural interest or significance for public display. Add to 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS (which may be modified by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in a particular case): December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 394 5.1.XX AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM a) Stems for display in such museum shall be directly related to past or present agricultural/forestal uses in Albemarle County; b) Activities may include: passive display; active demonstration including tours of processing areas; and public participation in such agricultural activity; c) Sale of display items and accessory items may be permitted only upon expressed approval by the Board of Supervisors. Add to 10.0 RURAL AREAS, a new section 10.2.2.XX, AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM (REFERENCE 5.1.XX)." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 17, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of this zoning text amendment as Shown in the staff's report. Mr. Horne said the current wording of paragraph "a" was the result of changes made by the Planning Commission. The staff had originally worded this condition to read: "Items for display in such museum must be directly related to the agricultural/iforestal use of the property upon which the museum is located". Mr. Lindstrom asked if this amendment would make agricultural museums a use by-right in rural zones. Mr. Home saidi?no"; this use would require a special use permit. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Horne why the Planning Commission changed the wording of paragraph "a". Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission believed the staff's wording was too restrictive; the Commission argued that displays could focus on any area of agricultural or forestal activity in the County, regardless of whether that activity took place on the land where the museum stands. Mr. Way asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak on this amendment. Mr. Williams, the applicant, was present, but did not wish to speak. Since there was no one present who wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Way said he would like it on the record that he understood this amendment would allow someone to open an agricultural museum that focused on horse-drawn carriages and used real horses. Mrs.'Cooke said she would like to know more about the museum. Mr. Lindstrom saidmore information would be given when a special use permit was requested. Mr. Way asked Mr. Williamson to make a few general comments concerning the museum. Mr. Williamson said the museum would display horse-drawn vehicles and involve a training center to train both horses and drivers for these vehicles. Mr. Williamson said the collection of vehicles is not exclusively agricul- tural; some of the carriages are pleasure vehicles. Mr. St. John said he believed that the only reason an agricultural museum should require a special use permit is because of the admissions charge. Certainly, he said, many farmers collect and display antique farm equipment and would not need such a permit unless they charged people to look at their displays. ~ Mr. Horne said staff was also concerned that principal uses be distin- guished from accessory uses: was the museum Go be the principal use of the property or was it to an accessory use, with farming as the principal use? He said he believes that agricultural museums should be allowed by-right if they are accessory uses and should require a special use permit if they are the principal use. 395 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie to approve ZTA-87-08 by adopting the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN SECTIONS 3.0, DEFINITIONS, 5.0, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS AND 10.0, RURAL AREAS BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of: Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Sections 3.0, Definitions, 5.0, Supplementary Regu- lations, and 10.0, Rural Areas, as follows: By the addition to Section 3.0, Definitions, of the following language: AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM: An establishment operated as a repository or collection of curiosities or objects of agricultural interest or significance for public display. By 'the addition to Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations, of a new Section 5.1.30, entitled "AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM", .reading as fol- lows: a) Items for display in such museum shall be directly related to past or present agricultural/forestal u:ses in Albemarle County; b) c) Activities may include: passive display; active demon- stration including tours of processing areas; and public participation in such agricultural activity; Sale of display items and accessory items may be permitted only upon expressed approval by the board of supervisors. By the addition to Section 10.0, Rural Areas, a use by special use permit numbered 10.2.2.43 entitled "AgriculturaliMuseum (reference 5.1.30)." The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-87-09. Albemarle County Fair, Inc. Petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend Section 10.0 Rural Areas to allow TEMPORARY EVENTS SPONSORED BY LOCAL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS as a pgrmitted use. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1987.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows: "Public Purpose To Be Served: To provide for temporgry events spon- sored by local non-profit organizations. Staff Comment: In 1982, the County amended the Zoning Ordinance to provide for this use in the LI, Light Industrial, zone in order to accommodate the first annual Albemarle County Fair. iAt that time, staff anticipated a future need to amend other zonin~ districts to permit large-scale temporary events. Since 1983, th~ county fair has been held in Claudius Crozet Park. Due to high interest and atten- dance, that location is no longer adequate. ~ In addition to conditions which may be imposed during special use permit review, temporary events are subject to supplementary regulations. December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 396 Staff opinion is that temporary events in the RA, Rural Areas, Dis- trict which are related to and supportive of the intent of that District are appropriate. Staff recommends amendment of 10.0 RURAL AREAS by the following addition: 10.2.2.42 Temporary events sponsored by local non-profit orEaniza tions which are related to~ and supportive of the RA~ Rural Areas zone (Reference 5.1.27). Additional Staff Comment: Throughout the years and most recently during an October 1987 Comprehensive Plan worksession, staff has recommended that consideration be given to establishment of a per- manent fairgrounds intended primarily as an agricultural support effort to accommodate agricultural expositions, farmer's market, and other such uses. Such a facility could also be made available for civic group functions and other uses of community interest, together with appropriate entertainment events sUch as a circus. The Board of Supervisors may wish to establish/participate in a process to identify such a permanent site." The public hearing was opened. Mr. James Kildea, President of Albemarle County Fair, said he wanted to go on record as saying that the present site used by the Fair is not large enough and whew they have looked at other sites in the Rural Areas, the use is not permitted. He requested that this use be included in the ordinance by special use permit. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to ~pprove ZTA-87-09 as advertised by adopting the following ordinance: ~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEN~ AND REENACT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN SECTION 10.0, RURAL AREAS BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Sqpervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 10.n, Rural Areas, by the addition under Section 10.2.2, uses BY iSPECIAL USE PERMIT, of the following use: 42. Temporary events sponsored by ~local nonprofit organizations which are related to, and supportive of the RA, Rural Areas, district (reference 5.1.27). The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr.~ Henley. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (Note: At 9:04 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Way said he would like to remind the people present that the Board has recently adopted a policy regarding smoking in the County Office Building and he hopes that people will conform to that policy.) Agenda Item No. 9a. ZTA-87-15. Planning Commission. Request to amend 30.5 SA, Scenic Areas, to permit expansion of residential structures which are non-conforming as to scenic road setback requirements. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: 397 "Origin: Planning Commission. December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) Public Purpose To Be Served: To reduce number of variance requests resulting from increased setback requirements. Staff Comment: The Planning Commission requested staff to develop zoning provisions which would permit expansion of dwellings made non-conforming by the SA-Highways designation. Staff offers amend- ments similar to provisions of the prior zoning ordinance which were added when the setback in the agricultural zone was increased from 30 feet to 75 feet. 30.5.6.2 SA-HIGHWAYS 30.5.6.2.1 No buildings or structures other than ne~e~sary-aace~ory appur~enan~-{enaem-andJor-waltm~ permitted under section 4.11, except as hereafter provided in the case of certain signs, shall be constructed within any SA-highways overlay district. Any residential structure~ or agriculturallstructure as defined by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, located within an SA-highways overlay district which was lawfully in existence prior to the establishment of such district may be enlarged~ expanded or extended in confor- mance with regulations of the underlying zoning district and other applicable law; provided, however~ that such expan- sion~ enlargement or extension shall not extend beyond the present front building line. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 10, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-87-15, but Changed the beginning of the second paragraph to read: "Any agricultural structure defined as such by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, or any residential structure located within an .... " Mr. Henley asked what the term "any agricultural structure" covered. Mr. Home replied buildings such as barns and storage sheds, i'iHe added that this waiver did not apply to all storage sheds; the Building I~spector must deter- mine that the shed is being used for agricultural purpose~. Mr. Henley asked what would happen if someone wanted to add a storage shed ior a holding pen near the road. Mr. Horne said the property owner must receive a variance to build any new structure not covered by Section 4-11 closer~ than 150 feet to the road. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Clarence Jones, a resident of White Hall, urged ~he Board to defer action on this matter and give the public more time to understand and respond to the issue. Mr. Henley said he believes Mr. Jones wished to speak con- cerning the next petition, ZTA-87-12. Since there was no one else who wished to speak on t~is matter, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before'the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZTA-87!-15 as described here tonight and as recommended by the Planning Commission, by adopting the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN SECTION 30.5.6.2.1, SA-HIGHWAYS BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 30.5, Scenic Areas Overlay Distr'ict - SA, by amending the language in subsection 30.5.6.2.1 to read as follows: December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 398 30.5.6.2.1 No buildings or structures other than permitted under section 4.11, except as hereafter provided in the case of certain signs, shall be constructed within any SA-highways overlay district. Any agricultural structure defined as such by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, or any residential struc- ture located within an SA-highways overlay district which was~in existence prior to the establishment of such dis- trict, may be enlarged, expanded or extended in conformance with regulations of the underlying zoning district and other applicable law; provided, however, that such expansion, enlargement or extension shall not extend beyond the present front building line. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-87-12. Request to amend 30.5 SA, Scenic Areas Overlay District to include as designated scenic roadways: Route 601 from U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass to Route 654; Route~601 from Route 654 to Route 676; Route 676 from Route 601 to Route 614; and Route 614 from Route 601 to end of state maintenance at Sugar Hollow Reservoir. (Advertised in the Daily Prog- ress on November 17 and November 24, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Proposal: This is a proposal to designate Old Garth and Garth/White Hall roads (Routes 601, 676 and 614) fr~m Route 250 West to White Hall as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. On March 18, 1987, the Board of SuperviJors unanimously accepted a resolution of intent to 'include in the Scenic Areas Overlay District of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance all or portions of Route 601, Route 614 and Route 676 between Rt. 250~29 Bypass and Sugar Hollow Reservoir.' The resolution was considered at the request of a number of citizens located along this roadway.~ (A petition filed by those residents is on file in the Clerk's office). Staff Comment: State Scenic Byway Designation: Section 30.5.4.2 of the Scenic Areas Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance states that the 'Board of Supervisors may designate as a County scenic highway any public road in the County which meets state scenic ~esignation standards except with regards to signs.' This proposed =oad segment was designated as a Virginia Scenic Byway on July 16, 198~ (State Scenic Byway designa- tion was endorsed by the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 1987). Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive ~lan indicates this proposed alignment for possible inclusion in the !County ScenicRoad System. The Plan also indicates that two sites on the National Historic Landmarks Register are located along th{s road (Farmington and Mid- way), and three other sites of local historic significance are located along this alignment (The Barracks, DarSy's Folly, and Old Tilman Road area). The current Plan also indicates ithree scenic vistas along the road, while the 1971 Comprehensive Plan !indicated seven scenic vistas. Staff opinion is that the 1971 Plan more accurately indicates the number of significant scenic vistas along this road. The Comprehensive Plan's land use plan is supportive of the scenic highway designation. Rural land uses and activities are recommended along the entire length of the alignment proposed for scenic designa- tion. This proposal also falls entirely in the South Rivanna Reser- voir watershed, which is the most restrictive area of the RA, Rural 399 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Areas District. The Plan's recommended residential density for watershed areas is one dwelling per ten acres. Therefore, the character of the area, given development objectives of the Comprehen- sive Plan, is not anticipated to change significantly in the near future. Existing Land Uses Along Road: The area consists primarily of a mixture of large agricultural tracts, woodlands, and'rural residential development. Much of the agricultural land is in pasture or hay production, including several prominent horse farms. The Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District is located along portions of the north and south side of the road, with some areas actually front- ing on the road. As mentioned previously, two nationally significant historic sites, and several sites of local historic Significance are also located along the road. Several subdivisions are located directly off of this road. Most of these are served by internal public roads and, therefore, are not readily visible from Garth/White Hall Road. Strip development is not prevalent along much of the road. The existing Rural Areas zoning district supports the continuation of agricultural activities with limited rural residential development, therefore, existing character of this area is anticipated to be maintained. It is this character of pastoral land uses, including active farming, woodlands and open spaces, along with views of the Blue Ridge Mountains, which contributes significantly to the visual quality of this road. · Existing Condition of Road: This is the first secondary road proposed to be designated as a County Scenic Highway. The Garth/White Hall Road is functionally classified as a rural collector~ The three existing scenic highways, Route 6, Route 20 South and Route 250 West are all primary roads, which are anticipated and designed to carry higher volumes of traffic. ~ Many secondary roads, including Garth/White Hall Road, run along ridge lines. Therefore, properties along the road tend tolslope away from the roadway and down the ridge. With the 150 foot s~tback requirement of the Scenic Highway Overlay District there is a potential for building sites to be pushed back onto steeper slopes~ or possibly below septic field sites, thus requiring pumping to ~hose sites. Staff opinion is that additional variances from the ~ront setback requirement may be requested along this road if it ix designated a County scenic highway. A zoning text amendment (ZTA, 87-15) is being proposed which would allow existing buildings to be 9xpanded or enlarged based on the existing front building line. iNew detached structures, however, would have to meet the 150 feet~front setback or obtain a setback variance. ~ Portions of the road proposed for designation are razed as non- tolerable by the Virginia Department of Transportati~c~. Garth/White Hall Road carries an average of 1,700 vehicle trips Der day. Old Garth Road ('21 Curves') carries an average of 1,150 vehicle trips per day. It is anticipated that the State Scenic Byway designation may generate additional traffic due to its identification on state highway maps and signage posted along the roadway recognizin~ it as a scenic road. However, it is not believed that the County designation will generate additional traffic. Summary and Recommendation: This zoning text amendment is consistent with objectives and recommendations of the Comprehens!ive Plan, and meets the requirements of the Scenic Areas Overlay Dilstrict for such designation. Staff is of the opinion that County Scenic Highway Designation will not have a significant effect on the level of traffic using the road. It is possible that additional variance requests from the 150 foot front yard setbacks will be made to the Board of Zoning Appeals due to the nature of the topography on properties adjacent to the road. Staff recommends approval of this zoning tsxt amendment. December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) z~OO (Page 16) A letter has been received regarding this request, from a property owner on Old Garth Road. The owner does not feel that Old Garth Road ('21 Curves') should be designated as a County Scenic Highway. Mr. Horne said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 10, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-87-12 with the notation that this motion is made in expectation of the Board's approval of ZTA-87-15. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. First to address the Board was Mr. Forbes Reback, a resident of the White Hall District. He said he thinks the Garth/White Hall Road is unique and offers many magnificent vistas to the traveler. He asked the Board to follow the Comprehensive Plan and the unani- mous vote of the Planning Commission and approve the scenic area overlay. Mr. John English addressed the Board and presented a petition listing 76 names and asking that the Board refuse to make Garth Road a County Scenic Highway. These property owners listed the following objections to the request: Garth Road is already both a designated bicycle route and a State Scenic Byway, which has increased traffic on the highway. He said the peti- tioners do not want the traffic to become more dangerous. According to Chief Johnstone, Mr. English said, there have beene53 traffic accidents on this road since January 1, 1987. Mr. English said that residents who signed the petition were also con- cerned that the proposed designation would lower the value of homes with setbacks of less than 150 feet. He said he knows variances can be requested; he also knows they can be denied. He said h~ and other petitioners believe that the existing zoning suffices to control~setback and building require- ments. He suggested that the Board look at the map and notice that many of the parcels were white, the color used if prgperty owners did not sign the petition requesting the road be designated aiiCounty Scenic Highway. It is his opinion, he said, that most property owners along the road are against this designation. After speaking, Mr. English handed the petition to Mr. Way. Ms. Ellen Craddock, a resident of WhitelHall district, addressed the Board. She said she considers the Garth/Whi~e Hall Road to be one of the most beautiful in the eastern United States. Shelsaid she appreciates Mr. Eng- lish's reservations, but she believes the Coqnty's designation would increase the value of property along this road. She asked that the Board approve the designation. Ms. Sherry Buttrick addressed the Board iand said she had collected signatures in favor of the designation. She said she would like to explain why so much of the map is left white. She said it was not always true that these property owners were against designating Garth/White Hall Road a County Scenic Highway, as Mr. English suggested. She said she collected signatures by knocking on doors. In many cases, she said, there were no houses on parcels, so she collected no signatures. Of the people she talked to, she said, she ran into little opposition. In response to Mr. Henley's reservation about the setback, she said she understood that cattle loading chutes and holding pens would be allowed right up to the road. Mr. James S. Kennon addressed the Board and said he was speaking for his mother who opposed the designation and owned iproperty along Garth/White Hall Road. He said he and his mother opposed the .designation because it would create another level of property restrictions which could hamper the small landowner. He said that 150 feet, half the size of a football field, was a lot of land to be left unused. He said he had planned to retire on the property his mother owns, but he could not build a house with that kind of setback because of the slopes. Mr. Kennon said he did not think the people speaking for this proposal are personally affected. There are a diversity of uses along Garth Road, with many houses on small lots. He asked that the Board consider the implications of this resolution for the small landowner. Ms. Barbara Payne, owner of property along Garth Road, addressed the Board and said she supported the designation of Garth/White Hall Road as a County Scenic Highway. 401 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Ms. Mary Bergen, owner of property along Garth Road, said she had four children and it would be a great help to her family if her children could build on her property. But, she said, she believes in putting the public good before the private good. If residents do not protect this road now, she said, it will soon be too late. She said the small landowner should be able to put the good of the public over profit. She added that she is willing to give up some of her property rights so that the beauty of this road might be pre- served. Ms. Lucille English, a property owner on Route 614, said she has lived there all her life and has watched traffic grow. She urged the Board not to do anything that might increase the traffic and make the road more dangerous. Mr. Jack Rinehart, a property owner along "21 Curves!', said he repre- sented 23 property owners along this portion of the highway. He said he believes that Garth/White Hall Road and "21 Curves" are two very different roads: the former runs along a ridge and offers beautiful vistas, the latter' is low and tree-lined and affords no view at all. He said he agrees that Garth/White Hall Road should be designated a County Scenic Highway, but not "2 Curves". Moreover, he added, there are too many encumbrances on property along "21 Curves" already. He said he feels there is a consensus among the property owners along "21 Curves": the Board should vote against designating this portion of the road a County Scenic Highway. Mr. Craig Van de Castle, a resident of the White Hall District, addressed the Board. He said the designation is a sensible and prokective measure which should help preserve the rural character of this road. Ms. Mary Scott Birdsall, a property owner along this~road, said the Charlottesville-Albemarle area is known world-wide for its rural beauty. Anything that can be done to preserve this beauty should be done, she said. She said she sympathizes with some of the landowners she has heard speak this evening, but she feels certain that the Board of Zoning A~peals will grant variances in cases of economic hardship. She urged the B6ard to approve the designation. Ms. Tamara Vance, a representative of the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Board. She said a setback of 150 feet is a.~small but signifi- cant step toward protecting this rural area, the protection of which is called for in the Comprehensive Plan. It is not the County who has taken the initia- tive to protect this land, she said, it is the landowners themselves. With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Bowie said he had totaled the number of signatures on the petitions and comse up with 53 in favor and over 99 opposed. Since~the petitions against the designation were presented tonight, he said, no one has had a chance to verify them. ~ Before he became a Supervisor, Mr. Bain said, the Bogrd asked that the State designate this highway a State Scenic Byway. He said he would like to know why. Mr. Lindstrom, who made the motion, said he supported the designa- tion because it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plah and because this road was one of the most beautiful in the County. He said he is not sure whether the designation would have included "21 Curves,'. iMf. Horne said the Board included the entire road in a resolution of intent in order to have the option later of deciding which sections would be designated scenic. Mr. Henley said it was important to remember that there are no restric- tions placed on land along a road declared a State Scenic~Byway, such as the zoning restrictions placed under the County's designation. He said he had supported designating Route 250 a County Scenic Highway because of the possi- bility of commercial development. He said he does not think commercial development threatens Garth/White Hall Road because the Virginia Department oJ Transportation (VDoT) had declared two-thirds of the road to be non-tolerable. He said he is concerned that there may be too much traffic on Garth/White Hall road already and he thinks designating it a scenic highway might increase traffic. December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 402 (Page 18) Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to address the concerns expressed by citizens during the public hearing. He said he could almost guarantee that the County designation would not increase traffic; probably no one but the people who lived on the road would be aware that it was a County Scenic Highway. Nor, he said, does he think property values will drop. Several citizens, he said, are concerned that the Board of Zoning Appeals will not grant variances. If the setback requirements make a lot unbuildable, he said, he would be very surprised if the BZA denied a request for a variance. Some citizens, he said, have claimed that the existing restrictions and zoning will protect the view. He said he cannot believe this after seeing some of the building that has been allowed under the existing setback. Mr. Lindstrom said it comes down to the fact that this is the most beautiful road in the commun- ity. What must be determined tonight, he said, is whether the people who live on this road will be allowed to decide what this road will become, even though every one in the County might lose a little by the decision. He said he believed the impact of this decision on private interest was minimal when compared to the impact on public interests. Although he supports designating Garth/White Hall Road a County Scenic Highway, Mr. Lindstrom said, he agreed with Mr. Rhinehart concerning "21 Curves". He said "21 Curves" is not a road with vistas that may be impeded by residential structures. On the other hand, he said, the topography of the area surrounding Garth Road makes its views vulnerable to development. He disagreed with Mr. Henley and said there is a very good possibility that this area will be developed and if the development continues as it has been, the views will be lost and with them one of the most well-known symbols of the County. ~ Mr. Bain said he believed that the additional 75 feet of setback would better protect the beauty of the area without affecting the owners of small properties. He said no one will be denied the right to build on their prop- erty; if someone must build a house closer td the road than 150 feet, he believes the Board of Zoning Appeals will grant them a variance. Mrs. Cooke said she would support the d~signation if "21 Curves" were excluded. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZTA-87-12 with the excep- tion of the portion of Route 601 South of Garth Road known as "21 Curves". Mr. Bowie said he could not support thelmotion because most of the landowners along Garth Road did not want the road designated a County Scenic HighwaY. Mr. Way said he agreed with Mr. Bowie. Mr. Horne reminded the Board that the staff has not had the chance to verify the signatures on the petitions against the designation. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems that at least two of the Board members were deciding their vote on the basis of these petitions. If these petitions have not been verified, he said, he believed the Board should defer action and allow staff the chance to investigate the lists. Mr. Lindstrom withdrew his previous motion and offered a substitute motion that this matter be deferred to January 6, 1988, in order to allow both the proponents and the opponents time to update the petitions updated and present them in time so that names can be verified as actual property owners. Mr. Henley said he opposed the motion; he would like to see this matter settled before he leaves the Board, at the end of December. The motion was then seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: Mr. Henley. 403 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-87-13. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend 3.0 definition of "agriculture" as it relates to poultry and livestock and to define "home garden" as an acces- sory use. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24 1987.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows: "Origin: Zoning Administrator. Public Purpose To Be Served: To distinguish between agriculture and accessory residential activity such as home gardening. Staff Comment: Currently, the definition of 'agriculture' is inade- quate to distinguish between an agricultural industry use and home gardening or keeping of household pets. Staff recommends a rewording of the definition of agriculture to include replacing 'animals and fowl' with 'livestock and poultry.' (Livestock and poultry are currently defined in the Zoning Ordinance). Also a definition of 'home garden' is offered for inclusion into the ordinance. Agricul- ture would be permitted in the RA, Rural Areas, and VR, Village Residential, districts, while home garden would be permitted as accessory to residential use and permitted in any zone permitting dwellings. Staff recommends the following amendmentg: Replace existing definition of agriculture which reads: Agriculture: ~he-~tting-of-~he-$o£t~-the-rai~ng-o~-arop~; horticut~nre~-~ore~ry-and-garden~ng-~n¢tnd~ng-~he-~eep~ng-~ an~mat~-and-fow~-and-~n¢tuding-~ueh-agr~ent~urAt-~ndn~r~e~-~r bu~nes~e~-as-fru~t-paek~ng-ptan~;-dair~e~-~r~hards~-nnrser~e~ wayside-s~ands-~r-simi~ar-nses= with the following Proposed language: Agriculture: Horticulture~ viticulture~ silvicMlture, or other gardening which may involve the tilling of s°il~f°ri the raising of crops~ the keeping of livestock and/or poultgy~ and/or agricultural industries or businesses such as but not limited to orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies~ nurser~es~ or wayside stands. · " Add to 3.0, Definitions, new language reading: HOME GAP~DEN: An activity accessory to residential usage of property involving the c~ltivation' of flowers~ ~egetables, fruit and/or other plants primarily for the consumpti4n or enjoyment of the residents of such property, but expressly e~cluding the keeping of livestock and/or poultry." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 27, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-87-13, as submitted by staff. The public hearing was opened. With no one to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. iBowie, to approve ZTA-87-13, by adopting the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN SECTION 3.0, DEFINITIONS BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact Section 3.0, Definitions, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by replacing the existing definition of "Agriculture" with the following language, and by adding a new definition entitled "Home Garden" with the following language: December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 404 Agriculture: Horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or other gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of livestock and/or poultry; and/or agri- cultural industries or businesses, such as, but not limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies, nurseries or wayside stands. Home Garden: An activity accessory to residential usage of a property involving the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, fruit and/or other plants primarily for the consumption or enjoyment of the residents of such property, but expressly excluding the keeping of livestock and/or poultry. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-87-14. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend 2!7.0 Light Industrial Zone to permit certain warehousing and wholesaling uses by right. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24¥ 1987.) Mr. Home said the staff report as follows: "Origin: Planning staff. Public Purpose To Be Served: To provide more reasonable and permis- sive zoning regulation; to reduce unnecessary public hearing. Staff Comment: Currently, 'wholesale business'I~'" and 'warehouse facili- ~pecial use permit in the LI, Light Industrial, zone. Y 'Wholesale business' is permitted by right in the HC, Hmghway Commer- cial, zone and 'warehousing facilities' is a use by right in the HI, Heavy Industrial, zone. Neither the HC nor HI zones permit both uses. Many localities provide a heavy commercial or warehousing zone re- served for such uses as warehousing, wholesaling, moving businesses, and truck terminals which do not require'retail locations. The County's zoning ordinance does not have such a district. The result has been rezoning and special use permit,requests within the LI zone to develop areas in warehousing/wholesaling uses. Many of the permit- ted uses in the LI zone also include substantial warehousing and distribution as an accessory use. Staff opinion is that many special use permit reviews are unnecessary and would recommend that uses not involving hazardous materials be permitted by right. Staff recommends the following amendmentS: ADD Section 27.2.1.17 reading: Warehouse facilities and whole- sale businesses not involving storag.e of gasoline~ kerosene or other volatile materials; dynamite Blasting caps and other explosives~ pesticides and poisons~ and other such materials which could be hazardous to life in ,the event of disaster. o Amend 27.2.2.5 and 27.2.2.6 as follows: 27.2.2.5 Warehouse facilities not permitted under Section 27.2.1.17. 27.2.2.6 Wholesale business not permitted under Section 27.2.1.17. ADD TO 3.0 DEFINITIONS: WHOLESALE BUSINESS: An establishment for the sale and distribu- tion of goods and merchandise to a r&tailer for resale as opposed to sale directly to the public." 405 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 27, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-87-14 as submitted. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne why this use was not permitted under the original ordinance. Mr. Horne said it was once thought that warehouse uses generated more traffic than manufacturing uses. It has proven to be the case, he said, that some warehouse uses actually generate much less traffic than some manufacturing uses. The public hearing was opened. With no one coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve 'ZTA-87-14 amending the word "disaster" to "accident", by adopting the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN SECTION 3.0, DEFINITIONS, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW DEFINITION ENTITLED "WHOLESALE BUSINESS", AND IN SECTION 27.0, LIGHT INDUSTRY, LI BE IT ORDAINED the the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact Section 3.0, Definitions, and Section 27.0, Light Industry, LI, of the Albemarle COunty Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS, add the following definition Of wholesale business: Wholesale Business: An establishment for the sale and distribution of goods and merchandise to a~etailer for resale as opposed to sale directly to the public. 27.2 PERMITTED USES 27.2.1 BY RIGHT Add subsection (17) reading: Warehouse facilities and wholesale businesses not involving storage of gasoline, kerosene or other volatile materials; dynamite blasting caps and other explosive~; pesticides and poisons; and other such materials which could be hazardous to life in the event of accident. 27.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Amend 27.2.2.5 to read: Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 27.2.1.17. Amend 27.2.2.6 to read: Wholesale buSiness not permitted under section 27.2.1.17. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Request from Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees. Letter addressed to Mr. Agnor from Mr. David Schmidt, dated November 27, 1987, December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) 406 (Page 22) asking that the Board allow the Jaycees to set up a nativity scene on the lawn of the County OffiCe Building. Mr. Way said the Jaycees would like to begin setting up the nativity scene on Sunday, if this request is granted. Because time was short, he said, he allowed the request to be on the agenda tonight. He asked if there were anyone present in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. Mr. Schmidt, vice-president of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Jaycees, addressed the Board. He asked that the Board grant the Jaycees permission to locate their nativity scene, a part of the Charlottesville community for 35 years, on the corner of the County Office Building lawn at Preston Avenue and McIntire Road. He said such a display would add to the Christmas spirit in the area. The lawn of the County Office Building is a very visible area in town, he said, many residents pass it at least once a week. He added that this location is also desirable because it provides access to the 110 volt socket necessary for floodlights. There are.a number of open lots, he said, that may be less political or controversial places for a nativity scene. But, he said, these other places do not provide the exposure or the access to electricity. Mr. Way asked if there would be any live animals in this nativity scene. Mr. Schmidt answered that the Jaycees stopped using live animals in nativity scenes a few years ago. Mr. B~wie asked how long the nativity sdene would stand. Mr. Agnor said from December 6, 1987, to January 10, 1988. Mr. Lindstrom asked it it really took only three holes in the ground to secure the three Wisemen. Mr. Schmidt said ~!yes" As a lifelong resident of the County, Mrs. Cooke said, she has always enjoyed the nativity scene and appreciated what the Jaycees do to bring this to the community. She supports approving the request. Mr. Henley said he had a problem with the Jaycees putting the nativity scene in front of the County Office Building,~. He said he felt there may be problems for the Board in the future to decide who can use this property and who cannot. Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John if he had any advice for the Board. Mr. St. John replied that Mr. Henley's reservation concerning the precedent this will set for the future decisions is really the o~ly legal concern the Board faces. In other words, he said, he does not think it is a legal problem that the Board is accommodating a religious symbol on public property. Since the Jaycees are setting up the scene and paying for any costs involved, they, and not the Board, are sponsoring the nativity scene. He added that the Board already had a policy of accommodating religio~s organizations on public property when that property is not needed for something else. If the Board allows the Jaycees to use this property for the nativity scene, Mr. St. John continued, the Board will!have "dedicated as a public forum" this property. Permission would become a precedent: the Board will have allowed this place to be used by membersiof the public for religious or other purposes, and could not exclude someoneiwho wanted to display some other religious symbol there. Even political or other symbols may be allowed there, he said, unless the Board bases its denial on. some factual distinction. Mr. Henley said that churches have been ~sing County buildings for services, but nothing like this has ever been!done in front of the County Office Building. It is the location requested which troubles him. Mr. Way said he will support the motion for many of the same reasons that Mrs. Cooke mentioned. He said he thinks establishing the nativity scene in front of the County Office Building will be a very positive thing for the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the lawn is paid for by all the people in this community. It is the taxpayers, he said, who maintain the lawn. He said he does not want to be vulnerable if an outlandish organization that called itself religious group or political group demanded that the Board allow it to display something there because the nativity Scene was approved. More impor- tantly, he continued, the nativity scene is a ireligious symbol to him and 407 December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) he takes it seriously. To a number of people in 'this community who are -Christians, he said, the nativity scene is a religious symbol. And, he added, to a number of people in this communitY who are not Christians, it is a religious symbol and one they might not agree with. Since the Board repre- sents all the people in this community rather than just o~e particular persua- sion, he said, he believes Board members must be sensitiv~ to those people who look upon the nativity scene as a religious symbol they cannot share. He said he cannot support the motion. .~ Mr. Bowie said every town he has lived in in this country has had a nativity scene set up somewhere during Christmas, usuallylat the court house or the City hall. If some outlandish group wants to display something on this property, he said, he'll vote no when they make their request. He said he supports this request. Mr. Bain said he would also vote to grant permission~to the Jaycess. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to approve the request of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees to erect the nativity scene on the lawn of the Albemarle County Office Building as requested in their letter of Novem- ber 27, 1987. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Mr. Way said it is understood that the Jaycees will return the grounds to the same condition in which they were found. Mrs. Cooke Said all of that is a part of the letter. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way. Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: July 2 and July 9, 1986; January 7, February 11, March 18 (Night), April 8 and July 8, 1987. Mrs. Cooke had read July 9, 1986, pages 25, beginning with Item #12, to the end and found them acceptable. ~ Mr. Bowie had read July 9, 1987, pages 1 through 13, iending at Item #7, and found only two typographical errors. Mr. Way had read July 2, 1986, and found them satisfactory. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Codke, to approve those minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not listed on the agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie said there is an article in this month's i8sue of the County Employee Magazine "Bits and Pieces" that IBM Corporation is offering a consid- erable discount to school employees who purchase computer iequipment. Con- sidering the amount of money the General Government spends with IBM, he said, he thinks a letter should be written to IBM objecting to Chis procedure. Mr. Agnor said he believes it is a policy of IBM nationally. Mr. Bowie suggested that a letter be written anyway asking that all County employees receive a discount on computer equipment. ~ Mr. Bowie said this afternoon, both handicapped parkihg places at the front door of this building were occupied by nonhandicappe~. When he arrived at the meeting tonight, the same thing was true, and some one had even parked in the loading zone which is the only place large enough to discharge a person in a wheelchair. He went around to the County Police Department and was told that they could do nothing since the building is located in the City. Mr. December 2, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) z~O8 (Page 24) Bowie said he knows that the police officers are cross-sworn in the City, so there should be some arrangement to allow a police officer only 20 feet away to do something about violators of handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Bowie said he would like to have an answer on this question next week. Mrs. Cooke said she received a survey from residents in Hessian Hills concerning leaf burning. She would forward it to staff to review, and then the Board will need to set a public hearing on including this area under the provisions of the leaf burning ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned a citizens' informational meeting to be held on December 14 and 15, 1987, at the University Hilton concerning the Route 29 C6rridor Study. He suggested that the staff prepare some statement for the Board to make on this study, and that the language be reviewed at next week's meeting. At 11:15 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:25 P.M. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:26 P.M. Chairman 409 ?