Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-20November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) i 39 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 20, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; , Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne; and Director Planning and Community Development, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at~7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt item 4.1 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Item No. 4.1. Lease agreement with the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad for the Albemarle County Police Department to use radio tower on Fan Mountain for its communica- tion system. Memorandum was received from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated November 13, 1985, stating: "The Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad has a radio tower on Fan Mountain near Covesville in which arrangements have been made for the County Police Department to place an antenna for its communication system. This arrangement will provide better transmission of police signals to the Scottsville area." Adoption of the above motion authorized the Chairman to sign this lease on behalf of the County. THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 5th day of September 1985, at Scottsville, Virginia, by and between the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc., a corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, having a legal address at P. 0. Box 207, Scottsville, Virginia 24590 (hereinafter referred to as "Scottsville"), and the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the Police Department of the County of Albemarle, Commonwealth of Virginia, having a legal address of 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 (hereinafter referred to as "Albemarle Police"): WHEREAS, Scottsville is the owner of a radio tower, transmitter and auxiliary equipment (hereinafter referred to as the "Tower"), located on Fan Mountain near Covesville, Virginia on property owned by the University of Virginia, the Tower having been purchased by funds supplied in part by Scottsville and in part by a grant to Scottsville from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW"), United States Government, through the auspices of the Thomas Jefferson EMS Council, Inc. of 409-D East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901; and WHEREAS, Scottsville has paid the electric bills of the Appalachian Power Company for power used by the Tower, has paid for liability insurance and has maintained the grounds around the Tower since the date of its installation, but does not presently use the Tower; and WHEREAS, by agreement with the Thomas Jefferson EMS Council, Inc., Scottsville has permitted other rescue squads (including those located at Faber, Roseland and Wintergreen) to use the Tower for EMS communica- tions when travelling Route 29 between Lovingston, Virginia and Charlottesville, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Albemarle Police wishes to use the Scottsville Tower for transmission of Albemarle Police radio signals and wishes to install an additional arm on the Tower and a separate higher power transmitter for such use; and WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson EMS Council, by letter to Scottsville dated June 13, 1985 has stated that it has no objection to the Albemarle Police use of the Tower, provided there will be no interference with EMS communications: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements of Albemarle Police and Scottsville set forth below: 1. Upon receipt of written verification from a qualified electro- nics testing agency (based on tests of the Albemarle Police proposed equipment at the Tower) that the proposed equipment will not interfere with EMS communications and with the presently installed Scottsville equipment, Scottsville will permit Albemarle Police to install the proposed additional arm on the Tower and the proposed transmitter at no cost or other liability to Scottsville and will permit Albemarle Police to use this equipment for transmission of its radio signals until termination of this agreement as provided below. 140 November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 2. Albemarle Police agrees that it will assume the payment of all electrical power supplied to the Tower from the date of execution of this agreement to the date of its termination, including the cost of power used by the Scottsville equipment and presently being paid by Scottsville. (The Appalachian Power Company will be notified of this change and will be instructed to send its bills to Albemarle Police.) 3. Albemarle Police agrees to obtain and keep in force insurance in a sufficient amount to protect against personal injury and property damage at the Tower caused by the negligence of Albemarle Police's officers, agents, and employees evolving out.of the use and maintenance of the Tower from the date of execution of this agreement to the date of its termination. 4. Albemarle Police agrees to maintain the grounds around the Tower, including brush cutting, cleanup and other essential maintenance at least twice each year from the date of this agreement until its termination. 5. Albemarle Police agrees that should the installation and/or use of the additional Albemarle Police equipment interfere in any way with the EMS radio signals of the existing Scottsville equipment by Scottsville or by any of Scottsville's permitted users of the Tower, then Albemarle Police, within thirty days of the date of written notice by Scottsville of such interference, shall remove the additional Albemarle Police equipment and shall cease use of the Tower. 6. Upon default of any of the foregoing covenants and agreements by Albemarle Police, Scottsville may terminate this agreement by written notice to Albemarle Police and Albemarle Police shall remove the additional equipment within thirty days of such termination. 7. Should Scottsville cease to own the Tower or be required to remove it from its present location, this agreement shall automatically terminate and Scottsville shall have no liability to Albemarle Police. 8. Nothing in this agreement shall divest Scottsville of any rights and/or privileges with respect to the Tower which it possessed prior to the date of this agreement. 9. Albemarle Police may terminate this agreement at any time upon thirty days' notice to Scottsville and removal of said additional equipment. Upon removal of the additional equipment and termination of the agreement, Albemarle Police shall no longer have any interest in the Tower and payment of any electrical bills shall revert to Scottsville. Item No. 4.2. Monthly Building Activity Report for October, 1985 as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development was received. Item No. 4.3. Abstract of votes cast in the County of Albemarle at 'the General Election held on November 5, 1985 was received. Item No. 4.4. Letter dated November 14, 19.85 from H. Benson Dendy, III, Special Assistant, Office of the Governor, stating that Governor Rob has received a response to his letter of October 4 requesting that Albemarle and Frederick Counties be determined as natural disaster areas (re: January freeze). Mr. Dendy said "We are disappointed with the decision." Attached to Mr. Dendy's letter was a copy of a letter dated addressed to Governor Robb November 8, 1985, from Mr. Frank W. Naylor, Jr., Under Secretary for Small Community and Rural Development, U. S. Department of Agriculture, reading: "This is in further response to your letter of October 4, 1985, requesting that Albemarle and Frederick Counties be determined as natural disaster areas where eligible farmers may qualify for Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) emergency (EM) loan assistance. Your request was based on severe freeze and frost damage which occurred on January 20 and 21, 1985; and frost damage on April 9, 1985. Our regulations require that a Governor's request for a disaster designation must be received by the Secretary of Agriculture within three (3) months of the last day of the occurrence of the disaster. Therefore, since the 3-month period has elapsed, we are unable to honor~ your request. We regret a more favorable decision could not be rendered." (Note: This letter will be discussed later in the meeting under Agenda Item #15.) Item No. 4.5. Letter dated November 15, 1985 from H. Benson Dendy, III, Special Assistant, Office of the Governor, re: declaring Albemarle County disaster area for recent flood conditions. "Governor Robb has asked me to thank you for your letter of November 14 and the copy of a Resolution adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors seeking assistance because of the recent flood conditions. November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) For your information, Albemarle County has been approved for individual and public assistance by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. You should keep in contact with your local office of emergency services for up-to-date information. The Department of Emergency Services is working with the Federal Government to obtain the necessary disaster aid." Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-25. Hydraulic Road Associates. To rezone 5.5 acres from R-10 to R-15. Property located on the northwest side of Commonwealth Drive at its intersection with Northwest Drive. Tax Map 61W, Parcel 03-22. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1985.) Mr. Horne said the applicant has requested deferral of this petition. Mr. Fisher read the following letter dated November 15, 1985, from Mr. Thomas R. Wyant, Jr., to the Board: "On behalf of the above-noted property owners, I request a deferral of Board action on this matter to a later date. The purpose of this request is that the petitioner plans to offer certain proffers to the rezoning request. We would like some additional time to confer with staff on the proffers to be offered, and the form in which they will be offered." Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wyant, who was present, when he would like to have this petition heard. Mr. Wyant said January 15, 1986 is satisfactory with him. No one from the public was present to speak for or against this application. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to defer ZMA-85-25 until January 15, 1986. Roll was called and the motion to defer passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-26. Mary Doggett. To rezone 11.86 acres of a vacant parcel from R-1 to LI. Located off east side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended), north of entrance to Lake Reynovia. Tax Map 91, Parcels 1, lA, lB, 1E. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1985.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Location: Property, described as Tax Map 91, parcels 1 (9.59 acres), iA (1.05 acres), lB (0.89 acres), and 1E (0.33 acres), is located on the east side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) south and adjacent to the proposed Hillcrest PUD. Character of the Area: This property is undeveloped. Hillcrest PUD is proposed to the north and Reynovia PUD is proposed to the west across Rt. 742. One property adjacent to the south is zoned LI, Light Industrial, while other surrounding properties are zoned R-l, Residential. Public water is available about 1,200 feet to the north, however, fire flow is currently limited to about 500 GPM. Public sewer is currently remote from the site. Comprehensive Plan: Historically, staff has favored a flexible reading as opposed to literal translation of the land use plans contained in the Comprehen- sive Plan. In this particular review, due to other pending rezonings, a literal discussion is provided: This property is in an area recommended for medium density resi- dential usage while the rezoning request is for light industrial. Land adjacent to the north in the pending Hillcrest PUD is shown for commercial usage while the rezoning request proposes condomi- nium residential development. Commercial usage is requested on Rt. 20S where low-density residential uses are proposed by the Comprehensive Plan. In the pending Reynovia PUD, commercial development is requested adjacent to Avon Street Extended where the Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density residential usage. Since all of these rezoning requests are pending and physically adjacent lands, simultaneous review would appear prudent. Such an approach would provide opportunity to discuss redistribution/new land uses in the area. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to develop the property using an internal road system to serve multiple uses (staff opinion is that all uses should have access only to the proposed internal road). Initial development 142 November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) would be an office for a home builder and future development may include mini-warehouses (special use permit required. Please see letters from the contract purchaser of the property - on file). About 1,300 dwellings are proposed on adjoining properties, therefore, some retail/service/office uses in the area would be appropriate. (Uses proposed by the applicant are also provided in the HC, Highway Commer- cial, zone. Staff would note that mini-warehouses were recently approved to the north on Avon Street Extended). Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has stated that traffic volumes from light industrial uses would be comparable to medium-density residential generation. At this time, staff cannot recommend favorably on any zoning other than residential, based on the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 7, 1985, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition. Mr-. Lindstrom asked the rationale for the staff's recommendation. Mr. Horne said the staff recommended denial of the application because it is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the staff does not feel there are any overriding reasons for industrial development in this partic- ular location at this time. In addition, inadequate public utilities serve the site. Mr. Lindstrom said it is noted in the staff report that since there are a number of rezoning requests for this area pending, review of all of them at one time would be better. Mr. Horne said that is really not pertinent to this case. It is a statement of how the staff sees the area. There are very complex requests for PUD-type developments around this property, some of which are in compliance with the plan and some which are not. None have been approved at this time. There are a number of players in the development game in this area whose plans potentially impact the entire Comprehensive Plan for the southern neighborhoods. When the Comprehensive Plan is updated next year, there will be some significant changes made, but the staff does not feel those changes should be anticipated on a particular rezoning case for light industrial in an area that is clearly not shown for light industrial growth. Mr. Way asked if there is a small piece of property near this location zoned light industrial. Mr. Horne said there is some light industrial zoning that was placed in recognition of the existing use on the property. Mr. Way said he did not think there was anything on that piece of property zoned light industrial. Mr. Horne said, as he under- stands, there was a proposal for use there, but the use did not go forward, and it is correct that it is vacant. Mr. Way commented that the property is still zoned light industrial. Mrs. Cooke asked when all this took place. Mr. Horne said he did not know. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Buck, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board. He said Mrs. Doggett is the owner of this property which consists of 11+ acres. The property has been in her family for 15 to 20 years. Mrs. Doggett has a contract for sale of this property to Mr. Frank Hereford, who in turn has contracts for sale of a couple of acres to several different people who want to acquire lots within the eleven acres. There is no major industrial use planned for this property. The use would be for small business people interested in having office space, warehouse space, distrib- utors that need office/warehouse space, and service companies that need office/warehouse space. This is not a major project. It is to serve a number of small businesses that exist in the community that have outgrown their quarters and want to consolidate and get closer to the urban area. The Comprehensive Plan shows this property for medium density residential. The types of uses, the contracts that exist, and the people who have expressed interest if the property is rezoned as light industrial are uses that would make less demand on water and sewer than residential zoning. The property adjacent to this property is a three acre parcel which was zoned manufacturing in 1970. As the Comprehen- sive Plan and zoning were changed, the property was carried over into light industrial. The property has not been used in the past for any particular use and is not being used for light industrial use at this time. On the issue of there being an overriding need, there is a need by those businesses to haVe space suitable for light industrial, commercial-type activities close to the urban area. If-the property in the area that is zoned light industrial were examined you would find that approximately 70 acres is land- locked and because of the slopes much of the other property is undevelopable. There are probably 30 to 50 acres of the area that can be developed for light industrial, commercial uses. The proposed schematic zoning in the Comprehensive Plan really changes as one progresses along Avon Street Extended. In the space of one and one-quarter mile the zoning changes from light industrial to commercial to medium density and back to commercial. There really does not seem to be a lot of logic as to why light industry is any place and medium density is somewhere else. This just proves the point that the Comprehensive Plan is schematic and is not supposed to be site specific, and he feels the staff is looking at the Comprehensive Plan in this case as site specific. Stretching the full length of a mile on Rt. 742 there are approximately 24 different structures that are used for commercial or light industrial uses. Some of them have about eight to ten separate businesses in one building. There are the institutiOnal uses of the National Guard Armory and Joint Security Complex (Jail). Mr. Buck presented photographs to the Board of the uses along Avon Street Extended. Mr. Buck said because of the accessibility of this area to the urban area, generally a straight flat road with good access to the commercial area, the proposal by Mr. Hereford that the development be oriented internally, (one access into the property with an internal road system), seems to him to be suitable to this area, and it would be suitable for the uses that are proposed. Some of the uses along this road are attractive and some are unattractive. This area is essentially a place where someone brought out warehouse supplies and sat them along the road. This 11 acre site is large enough tat'allow ~£~r~..~ an internal road system with proper site control thrOugh the Planning staff, and the rOad can be essentially buffered so~ that there will not be any unsightly things facing people traveling the road. It is an almost ideally-sized property because it is large enough to do all of this and not so large that it will create an overwhelming impact on that road. Last year when there was discussion of a new road in this area and the possi- bility of constructing an interchange with 1-64, there was recognition by the Board that this area is going to become one of the major commercial, industrial areas in the southern part of the County. November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 143 Mr. Buck said the staff has recommended denial of this petition on the grounds of other pending applications. He was tempted to suggest that the petition be generally deferred, but because of Mrs. Doggett's personal situation they decided to come and ask for the rezoning. Mrs. Doggett is recently divorced, medically unable to work, and essentially this property is her basic asset and if she can sell, it will be the source of her support. Mr. Fisher said the financial rewards of zoning are not appropriate questions before the Board. The Board reviews land use, the Comprehensive Plan, and the needs of the public, and he requested that Mr. Buck limit his comments to those items. Mr. Buck said he understands that and mentioned this only as a reason for not deferring the petition. Mr. Buck said if the Board were to decide to defer because of these other matters pending, that is understandable. The thing that bothered him in the staff's report is the suggestion that because there are these other proposals pending that this one application should be denied while the others are considered. If there is concern about those other matters and how this street should be developed, then it would be appropriate to defer the petition to see how the whole situation will be approached. There was no one at the Planning Commission meeting, nor ~s~ there anyone at this meeting to object to this petition. Mr. Fisher asked if the photographs shown are all of surrounding properties immedi- ately adjacent to the property in this petition. Mr. Buck said the properties in the photographs run from Maury Creek all the way out Avon Street Extended, a little bit more than a mile. Some of the uses are north and some south of 1-64. The properties are not just those adjacent to this property. Mr. Fisher said it is not uncommon in transitional areas, to have varying land uses for this distance. East Market Street in the City has a very similar zoning pattern. Mr. Buck said that can certainly happen. His point is that where it is shown for residential versus light industrial versus commercial, if you look at the topography, it is really hard to understand why the property which is immediately adjacent to this is shown as residential in the Comprehensive Plan, but is actually being used as commercial. Across the street from the applicant's property and going north, the property is light industrial. With no one else from the public to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom noted that he had received a letter from Mr. William Rice who indicated he had visited the Planning Department to look at the Comprehensive Plan, and found that this area is indicated to be primarily commercial and light industrial. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there have been any changes made in the Comprehensive Plan in this area. Mr. Horne said there have been no changes. The majority of the industrial zoning in the area and the designation in the plan was madeto recognize existing uses that were in place prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning ordinance. He is not aware that any zoning has taken place in the area since that time which could be treated as a precedent for current planning logic of the area. That is the reason the staff treated this application at this time somewhat differently and did not look at the zoning in place now as setting some type of precedent that this property should be rezoned. This piece of property is not shown for industrial use in the Comprehensive Plan and the staff felt that approval could set a precedent for virtually any industrial rezoning in that area because there is virtually no difference between this property and the adjacent property. Mr. Fisher asked about water or sewer. Mr. Horne said public water is 1200 feet to the north but public sewer is extremely remote. Mr. Fisher said the applicant's proposal for multiple small uses would not control this zoning request. He asked if the request is to rezone the entire property LI with no limitations or proffers. Mr. Horne said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said he spoke with Mr. Buck about this request previously before reading the staff report. As he read the staff's recommendation in the report, he felt that with the number of pending requests in the area, simultaneous review would be prudent. He would, at least, favor a deferral to a time when the other applications could be heard. He now understands from staff, and agrees that it would seem to be inappropriate unless there is a massive change in the plan. If the Board is inclined to approve this request, (he feels the Board would be setting a precedent that would govern other land use requests in this area), he would prefer that this petition be deferred until a Comprehensive Plan amendment could be reviewed that would cover the area. If the Board is going to deny the petition, that is another point. Rather than approve the petition and de facto institute a significant change that he thinks would set a precedent and trigger other rezoning applications which could be difficult to resist, the Board should look at this area in a comprehensive fashion. Mr. Lindstrom said in the past some Board members have felt he was trying to stall, but he is concerned about approving this request which would set a significant precedent for the area. Mr. Way said he is inclined to agree with Mr. Lindstrom. He passes by this property every day and just in the past couple of weeks he has been informed of the astounding amount of development that is being proposed in the area. Tremendous housing is proposed which will also have an effect on Lake Reynovia. Other large developments right next door to this property are proposed. The whole area is so mixed in terms of uses. He thinks that before these applications come in one at a time the Board should look at the areas. He supports that concept. He thinks that there is going to be tremendous development and the Board has an opportunity to look at the whole area. Mr. Henley said he agrees with what has been said. He thinks that a precedent has already been set on that road. He is going to be pretty liberal with light industrial on it, but he is willing to go along with Mr. Lindstrom's recommendation. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Henley. The road has developed a character of an industrial nature, but she thinks that before the Board starts doing any more to it, Mr. Lindstrom's proposal is a proper way to go. She said she is going to be very favorable to light industrial uses out there, but the Board should take a look at the area and control it now. November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Way said the other problem is that there apparently are real problems with the water pressure. He does not know what impact water service will have. Mr. Fisher said the Board does not want to create another site like the one requested in the original Unogen petition in Ivy, and that is what worries him about creating zoning in the absence of water and sewer service. The Zoning Ordinance says this type of zoning is only appro- priate where both public water and public sewer are available. He would have a very difficult time supporting this petition now or in the future with both water and sewer absent. It could create serious problems for some future purchaser or even present owners. Mr. Bowie said he would not support denial tonight, but he will support taking a look at this property in the light of other development, When one or the other comes back to the Board, he would like to see a total picture as opposed to just another application coming in by itself. Mr. Fisher asked what timeframe would be involved for a review. Mr. Horne said it depends on the directions the Board would give. In terms of an overall appraisal of the southern neighborhoods, which he thinks needs to take place, realistically the staff is thinking of a year to eighteen months. That would take place along with the overall review of the Comprehensive Plan which begins soon. Mr. Fisher commented that that is a very long time for deferral. Mr. Horne said in terms of the pending developments, the Lake Reynovia proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In terms of delaying the Lake Reynovia proposal, it would be difficult to do. Mr. Lindstrom asked when other applications are likely to come before the Board. Mr. Horne saidthe Lake Reynovia PUD should be ready in January. The Hillcrest PUD proposal, basically a residential development, started through the process about a year ago and has stopped pending some changes, but could come back at any time. Its development plan has been designed and is ready to be submitted. Mr. Lindstrom said with a substantial resi- dential proposal pending for the area, to extend and establish light industrial and commercial-type uses in there must be done carefully so the Board does not end up with a hodge-podge of residential and light industrial uses. The staff should try to bring back a presentation as soon as it can. He does not think that deferring this application for a year or even six months is going to be very helpful. Mr. Horne said in order to do justice to a review of the southern neighborhoods, the staff needs to analyze them in relationship to the entire Comprehensive Plan. It would be very difficult to now just analyze this area and not be prepared to analyze the entire urban area, because all the urban areas are interrelated. He would feel uncOmfortable analyzing a small urban area in order to expedite a particular application. Although he sympathizes with Mrs. Doggett, he thinks the urban area has to be looked at as a package and to realistically do that, it will take more than a year. Mr. Horne said this came up at the Planning Commission meeting and the Commission chose not to defer the application because review will be such a long term process. Mr. Henley said he has no problem with the staff's recommendation, but he has to look at it with regard to the way things have happened in that area. He is willing to wait awhile and see what comes up. A year or longer is a little bit longer than he had in mind. Mr. Lindstrom said if the petition is denied outright, and a change were made in the Comprehensive Plan after the review, then the applicant is not put in a position of not being able to reapply to get the benefits of the change. Deferring this application for a year is meaningless to the applicant because it could be denied and reapplied for in a year's time if changed circumstances are established. Mr. Henley said he thinks it is fine that all of this area is being slated for residential, but it is not residential now. It started out as light industrial and he does not know if the Board needs to sit around for a year or so to decide what it will be. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about deferring this petition for a long period of time. He is also concerned about approving the petition which is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, without water and sewer service, and against the recommendation of both the staff and Planning Commission. It seems to him there is a whole body of "stuff" going on here that should be considered carefully. He then asked Mr. Payne for his views on deferring this petition for one to two years while the Comprehensive Plan review goes o~. Mr, Payne said he does not understand the staff to be saying they are going to review an application that will decide this one. He thinks the staff wants an opportunity to review the entire situation. Obviously because there are two major applications presently pending, those two applications will impact the area significantly. Those applications may not even be reviewed within this timeframe. The Lake Reynovia PUD plan will probably be reviewed. The Hillcrest PUD has a major highway problem which may result in its not being reviewed for a very long time. The Board should review this application in terms of a comprehensive review of this .area and in terms of general planning rather than just as a particular parcel. The statute does entitle the applicant to have the Board act on the petition after it has been applied for. If the applicant agrees to the deferral, it would not pose a major problem. Deferral for a year' is a long deferral. It is worth noting that the Board did specifically deal with the issue of industrial zoning with respect to sewer and water fairly recently. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board dealt with existing zonings that do not have water and sewer by adding specific requirements. Mr. Payne said that is correct. The Board expressed its concern about having industrial zoning which did not have sewer and water. He thinks in a sense to put a substantial amount of industrial zoning that does not have a fully adequate water supply and no sewer service available is a step backWard from the policy that the Board adopted earlier. Mr. Henley said he supported a special permit for Certified Welding and he does not think it has been a problem. He would not have any problem with a special permit for some use on this property in the future if he knew what the use would be. He thinks it will be a mistake to defer this application for a year. The Board should either deny or approve November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 145 it. Maybe the applicant can come back with a special use permit request. The Board could also give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application. With what has been said tonight, the applicant may wish to withdraw and reapply for some other use. A lot of uses in light industrial do not require sewer Mr. Lindstrom said his inclination initially was to deny this petition because it is incompatible with the plan and utilities. The pictures shown give the perception that this is a very heavily involved strip of land. There are significant undeveloped areas on that road and this is in the middle of one of those areas and would be sufficiently large to permit the kind of residential development the Board thought was appropriate when the Plan was drawn. There would be room to buffer this property from the other uses that may be inconsistent and which are established historically. His concern is that if the area is rezoned for unlimited light industrial, there might be the same problem the Board had with Unogen. Even if a warehouse use was put in, the Board would have established a land use that is incompatible with residential uses right in the middle of a chunk of undeveloped land that is shown for residential use. He thinks the Board would have rendered the rest of the surrounding land unsuitable for residential use without having really decided in an overall planning session that that is what the Board wanted to do. He would feel better denying this application rather than deferring it for a year or encouraging the applicant to come back with a proffer that would still establish a light industrial type use that is not consistent with residential zoning. The Board should not lose sight of the fact that substantial land surrounding this property is undeveloped and is shown for residential and this would put the end to planning possibilities. Mr. Henley said he agrees with most of Mr. Lindstrom's statements. He thinks that the precedent for industrial zoning has already been set along the road. He asked the Deputy County Attorney if the Board denied this application, if the applicant can come back with another application with a proffer and how long before that could come back before the Board? Mr. Payne said the rule speaks in terms of the application being substantially similar. If the application is substantially similar, it cannot be brought back for a year. If the Board determined that a proffer made the application substan- tially different, then the rule would not apply. Mr. Henley said he will support a motion for denial, but a precedent has been set and he is going to be pretty liberal. He is only going to support applications that do not require water and sewer. It does not bother him that residential may develop around the area because the stage has been set. Mr. Bowie said he does not think a motion to approve this petition would pass and he does not think it is fair to say wait a year or two. He is a little disturbed about this coming up and in two months the Board will have some larger applications coming in. There is light industry in this area. In the best interest of the applicant he cannot support a year's delay, but he will support denial. He can be pretty liberal on what he will approve. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Henley, to deny ZMA-85-26. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-85-27. S. L. Williamson Co., Inc. Rezone about five acres of 352.05 acres from R-4 Residential, to R-4 Residential with NR, Natural Resources Overlay, an extension of existing 20 acre Natural Resources Overlay. Located on east side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road), part of the Dunlora Estate, opposite VO-TEC Center. Tax Map 62, Parcel 16 (part of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1985.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-77. S. L. Williamson. To allow for the removal of sand and gravel from Rivanna River. Located on east side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) Dunlora Estate, opposite VO-TEC Center. Tax Map 62, Parcel 16 (part). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1985.) Mr. Horne said these petitions were deferred at the Planning Commission meeting until January 21, 1986. Mr. Agnor suggested that the Board defer these petitions until February 5, 1986. No one from the public was present to speak about these petitions. Mrs. Cooke offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer ZMA-85-27 and SP-85-77 until February 5, 1986. Mr. Bowie said on page one of the staff report reference is made to a complaint and to his personal knowledge there has been a second complaint that was investigated by staff and verified. He would like the information on the complaint included with the petition when it comes back before the Board. He additionally would like to know what ability the Board has to influence the hours of operation. Roll was called and the motion to defer carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-85-28. W. S. Figgatt. To rezone about 50 acres of a 541.448 acre parcel from RA to RA with NR, Natural Resource Overlay. Located on east side of St. Rt. 53, about one mile from intersection of Rt. 729. Tax Map 94, Parcel 17 (part Of). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1985). November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Agenda 'Item No. 10. SP-85-78. W. S. Figgatt. to allow sand removal within the floodway of Rivanna River. Located on east side of St. Rt. 53, about one mile from intersection of Rt. 729. Tax Map 94, Parcel 17 (part of). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1985). Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Request: To rezone ~50 acres from RA, Rural Areas to RA, Rural Areas with NR, Natural Resource Overlay District; and to obtain special use permit approval in accordance with Section 30.3.5~2.1(3) to allow a sand and gravel removal operation in the floodway of the Rivanna River. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 94, parcel 17 (part), is located to the east of Rt. 53 about one mile east of Rt. 729. Scottsville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: The fall of the Rivanna River in this area, which is just north of the Buck Island Creek confluence, is gradual and the floodplain is compara- tively wide. The closest dwelling (on property of others) to the proposed extraction area is about one-quarter mile away. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Rivanna River be given consideration for scenic river designation. This task was accomplished by the County's Scenic River Committee. While the Committee did not recommend scenic designation for the Rivanna River, it was the consensus of the Committee that some protection should be afforded all rivers and streams in the County, particularly those of recreational value. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for natural resource extraction and recommends that ordinances and standards to control the environmental and economic costs of such ~activity should be developed. Staff Comment: Mr. Figgatt has operated a sand removal operation along the Rivanna in both the City and County in areas adjacent to the City since 1974. This is a 'father and son' operation involving no employees. Mr. Figgatt has contracted with Mrs. Elizabeth Sweeney to extract sand along about 6,000 feet of the Rivanna River (due to equipment limita- tions, extraction would be a strip about 10-15 feet wide). In turn, the material would be sold to the S. L. Williamson Company. Extraction would be by crane and dragline bucket which generally causes less turbidity than hydraulic dredging. Other major equipment would include: a hopper, two conveyors, and a loader. The sand material is coarse and 'clean' and therefore only screening is necessary as opposed to screening and washing. About five to seven loads of material (i.e. - 100-115 tons) would be hauled from the site per day during a standard work week by S. L. Williamson (Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation will require a commercial entrance for this use and has stated that the existing access to the Sweeney property has inadequate sight distance). In addition to Natural Resource Overlay zoning, the applicant needs special use permit approval under the Flood Hazard Overlay zoning in order to operate within the floodway of the Rivanna. Both the Natural Resource and Flood Hazard Overlay district regulations require additional review and/or approval from various State and Federal agencies prior to issuance of a permit by the Zoning Administrator for the activity. Among agencies which would be notified, either directly or by referral, are: Federal Emergency Management Agency_ United States Army Corps of Engineers Virginia Department of Conservation & Economic Department Virginia State Water Control Board Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences Virginia State Health Department Virginia Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries Virginia Commission of OUtdoor Recreation Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission City of Charlottesville National Marine. Fisheries Service Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish & Wildlife Service In regard to special use permit review, the Flood Hazard regulations emphasize review to insure that the flood carrying capacity of the watercourse is maintained. The ordinance requires the County Engineer not to authorize the issuance of a development permit, should he determine that the activity would cause any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a one-hundred year flood discharge. Given the involvement of the previously-listed State and Federal agencies; the permitting requirements of the Flood Hazard and Natural Resource districts; the requirement of County Engineer review and November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) approval; and the stringent requirements and prohibitions of the Flood Hazard and Natural Resource districts, the Planning staff has primarily limited its review to questions of compatibility and public welfare. As stated earlier, the applicant has operated on portions of the Rivanna River for several years. Staff is unaware of any history of complaints in regard to noise or other aspects of the operation, nor is staff aware of any inconvenience to canoeists or sportsmen. This proposed location does however raise one concern. Historically, sand removal operations have been concentrated adjacent to Charlottesville in areas subject to urban stormwater runoff and other degrading activities. In this regard, sand removal could be viewed as a part of the urban 'slug' to the Rivanna. Staff is concerned as to the effects of separating such activities along the river and has through the Watershed Management Official requested comment from appropriate agencies. Recommended conditions of approval are therefore subject to change. The sand removal activity shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to impede canoe and boat passage; No tree removal shall be permitted, except as is necessary to provide access to sand deposits. The sand removal activity shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to expose the root system of shoreline trees by river bank excavation nor shall equipment travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on tree root systems; On-site processing shall be limited to screening of excavated material. No Washing of excavated material shall be permitted; Use and maintenance of sediment curtains shall be required during dredging operations; if recommended as being effective and purposeful by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission; County Engineer approval of entrance road specifications in accordance with 30.4.11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. In review of plans, the Soil Erosion Committee should be mindful of the conditions of approval of this special use permit; The County Engineer shall make periodic inspection of the sites to insure compliance with conditions 1 through 6 of this special use permit. The County Engineer may require such corrective measures as deemed necessary to insure compliance with these conditions; Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 1, 1985, recommended approval by a vote of 3-1 of the petition subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff and amending 97 to read: "The County Engineer shall make semi-annual inspection..." and the following additional conditions: 11. 12. No operation shall occur between March 1 and June 30; Compliance with Section 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance as outlined in County Engineer's memo of November 7, 1985; The extraction operation is limited to crane and dragline bucket operation. Not more than one crane and dragline bucket assembly shall be located on the property at any given time; Special use permit shall expire at the end of five years. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this will be conducted in the river as well as on the shore. Mr. Horne said he understands it will essentially be operated from the shore. Mr. Figgatt will operate his crane and drive the dragline bucket out into the river. The actual extraction will come from the river bottom, but the equipment is not located in the river. The equipment will be on the shoreline. Access to this site is very limited. It is essentially over a farm road, and the applicant has to go through three or four pastures and three gates to get to the site of the actual extraction. This is an item the staff thinks will tend to limit the size of the operation. The Planning Commission was concerned about how large this operation could become. He thinks that physically it will be very difficult to expand this operation much above Mr. Figgatt's proposal. Mr. Fisher said the limitation of one bucket is pretty limiting. Mr. Horne said Mr. Figgatt's intention is for a limited operation. Mr. Lindstrom said a substantial amount of the river bottom must be stirred up through this operation and then flow on down the river. He asked if most of that settles in a fairly short distance. Mr. Figgatt said it is mostly coarse material and the bottom of the river is solid rock. When the sand is removed, there is hardly any movement. Mr. Horne said the damage that takes place from this type of operation in the opinion of Virginia Commission of Game & Inland Fisheries would occur when the fish are spawning. That is the reason for the condition that there be no operation between March 1 and June 30. If that time period is set aside, then whatever sediment control is needed in the normal course of operations would be adequate for the remainder of the year. Mr. Lindstrom said he noticed in the Planning Commission minutes, a suggestion from the Planning Commis- sion that sedimentation ponds might be appropriate with this kind of operation. He asked if that was considered by the staff. Mr. Horne said it was discussed, but due to the limited nature of this operation and the nature of the equipment, it really was not felt to be necessary in this case. There will be heavy reliance on the permit submitted to the State when the application is submitted to the County Engineer. The applicant will have to submit a plan to show precisely how the operation will be controlled. Mr. Lindstrom noted there is nothing in the staff report about reclamation of the river bank. Mr. Horne said in terms of the effects on the river bank, there is a condition limiting tree removal. 148 November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) He understands from the applicant, this can be done without any tree removal. Mr. Horne said. the staff is going to rely heavily on the County Engineer and his periodic review of the site. If damage to the river bank becomes a problem, particularly as it effects sedimentation in the river, the County Engineer has the ability to require the applicant to make plans to restore the river bank and stop the sedimentation. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County Engineer has that authority without spelling it out in conditions at this point. Mr. Horne said yes. The public hearing was opened. Mr. W. S. Figgatt, the applicant, said one of the permits they have now is a State Environmental Reclamation Permit and one of the require- ments is that they furnish a bond which is carried for four years. Mr. Henley asked what is done with the material that is removed. Mr. Figgatt said S. L. Williamson Company purchases it and uses it in asphalt. With no one else from the public to speak for or against this application, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said he sometimes wonders how so many things can go wrong when there are so many federal and state agencies controlling everything. He said he intends to support this application. Mr. Way said he agrees. He thinks that all of the safeguards are present. Mr. Lindstrom said his experience has been that when all of the agencies sign off, they all feel like that one has been taken care of. It really boils down to Mr. Figgatt's conscientiousness in doing these things. He understands from the staff report that the Board has no reason to question Mr. Figgatt's ability to do the job. The Board can always try to rectify things once it is too late, but it is really up .to Mr. Figgatt. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve ZMA-85-28 as recommended by the Planning Commission and to approve SP-85-78 subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and set out below: 9. 10. 11. 12. The sand removal activity shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to impede canoe and boat passage; No tree removal shall be permitted, except as is necessary to provide access to sand deposits. The sand removal activity shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to expose the root system of shoreline trees by river bank excavation nor shall equipment travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on tree root systems; On-site processing shall be limited to screening of excavated material. No washing of excavated material shall be permitted; Use and maintenance of sediment curtains shall be required during dredging operations, if recommended as being effective and purposeful by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission; County Engineer approval of entrance road specifications in accordance with 30.4.11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. In review of plans, the Soil Erosion Committee should be mindful of the conditions of approval of this special use permit; The County Engineer shall make semi-annual inspection of the sites to insure compIiance with conditions 1 through 6 of this special use permit. The County Engineer may require such corrective measures as deemed necessary to insure compliance with these conditions: Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance; No operation shall occur between March 1 and June 30; Compliance with Section 5.1.28 of the Zoning Ordinance as outlined in County Engineer's memo of November 7, 1985; The extraction operation is limited to crane and dragline bucket operation. Not more than one crane and dragline bucket assembly shall be located on the property at any given time; Special use permit shall expire at the end of five years. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: September 12, 1984, April 3 and July 17, 1985. Mr. Fisher said he has not read the minutes assigned to him. Mr. Way said he read the minutes of July 17, 1985 and found them to be satisfactory. Mr. Lindstrom said he read the minutes of April 3, 1985 and found them to be satisfactory. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes of April 3 and July 17, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments. There were no names offered for appointment. November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 14'9 Agenda Item No. 13. Cancel January 29, 1986 meeting- Mr. Way offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to cancel the extra meeting scheduled for January 29, 1986. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Authorize Chairman to sign McIntire Deed. Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated November 19, 1985, from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, to the Board: "Attached is a copy of the deed, note, and deed of trust conveying the McIntire School property to the McIntire Village Associates pursuant to the prior sales agreement. It is the intent of the purchaser to close on Monday, December 2, 1985. All of the legal papers have been reviewed by the County Attorney. It appears to meet all of the conditions of the sale agreement such as: Sale price of $650,000 $100,000 payable on closing $550,000 payable at the rate of $55,000 per year beginning in the third year after closing The last paragraph of the deed authorizes the chairman to sign the deed pursuant to a resolution of the Board. Staff recommendation is that the Board take official action authorizing the chairman to sign the deed in order to close on December 2." Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, RESOLVED that the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign the McIntire Deed as outlined below: THIS DEED, made this 8th day of November, 1985, by and between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, of the first part, and MCINTIRE VILLAGE ASSOCIATES LTD., a Virginia corporation, Grantee, of the second part, whose address is: W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the sum of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($650,000.00), of which $100,000.00 is cash in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the balance of $550,000.00 is evidenced by a deferred purchase money note signed by the Grantee, and secured by a first lien deed of trust conveying the property hereby conveyed and to be recorded simultaneously herewith, the Grantor hereby GRANTS, BARGAINS, SELLS and CONVEYS with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto McIntire Village Associates Ltd., the following described real property: 1. All those certain lots or parcels of land situated in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia on the southwestern side of U.S. Route 250 Bypass and designated as "Tract 91" and "Tract 92" on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, in Deed Book 88, page 42; and 2. All those certain lots of land situated in the City of Charlottes- ville, Virginia adjoining or near the land in paragraph 1, and shown as Lots 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, in Block B, Colonial Heights, and a small triangular strip of land just north of said Lot 29 and bounded by Lot 29, Tract 91 above and Hillcrest Road, on a plat recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 88, page 42; and 3. All those two certain lots of land fronting on Birdwood Road and Edge Hill Road in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and shown as Lots 22 and 23, Block B, Colonial Heights, on a plat recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 111, page 381. The above described property is in all respects the same as was conveyed to the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by deed of gift dated September 7, 1983, from The County School Board of Albemarle County, Virginia, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 442, page 611. This conveyance is exempt from Grantors tax pursuant to Section 58.1-811 of the Code of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this deed to be signed by Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to a resolution by such Board at a meeting held on November 20, 1985. Roll was called and the foregoing motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. 150 November 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted Item 4.4 on tonight's agenda in which the Board was advised by the Governor's office that Albemarle County's request for disaster assistance for the freezing of the fruit crop has been denied by the United States Department of Agriculture because the request for assistance was not made within 90 days of the freeze. The staff has talked with people from two different state agencies to see if there is any appeal process available. They have received conflicting recommendations. Essentially the staff was informed that since the Governor made the request, the Governor must also make the appeal. The State Office of Emergency Services suggested that the County request the Governor to make the appeal. The second suggestion by the State Agriculture Department is that the County ask its Federal Congressmen to examine the reason for denial. It is very obvious that a 90-day limitation for making an assessment of damage from a freeze on fruit crops is not very realistic. The freeze occurred in January and an assessment could not be made until the trees bloomed in April. Mr. Agnor asked if the Board wantsto get the congres- sional delegation involved. Mr. Fisher felt they would not become too involved until all appeals have been exhausted. Mr. Henley suggested making a request to the Governor and sending a copy to the congressmen. Mr. Henley then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to request an appeal through the Governor, and that a copy of the letter be sent to Senators Warner and Trible and Congressman Slaughter. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. At 8:50 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom requested an executive session on property acquisition. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to this effect. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:15 P.M. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 9:15 P~.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn until Thursday, November 21, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. at the Scottsville Elementary School, Scottsville, Virginia. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None.