Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-05389 October 5~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 5, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Acting County Executive, Mr. Ray B. Jones; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:39 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. SP~83-55. Edith Batten. Request to locate mobile home on 17~76 acres zoned RA. Located on east side of Route 729 (Deferred from September 21, 1983). Mr. Tucker informed the Board that Mrs. Batten's daughter had called the previous day stating that her mother is presently hospitalized with a heart attack and she had requested a deferral. Mr. Tucker said this deferral is requested until some time in the future but given the condition of Mrs. Batten, no specific time was mentioned. There being no one present desiring to speak on this application, a motion was made by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to defer the petition until such time as the applicant requests that it be placed on the agenda Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Proposed rezoning of certain parcels in the villages of Earlysville, Ivy and Scottsville, in order to bring these properties into conformance with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 20 and September 27, 1983.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., presented the following staff reports, dated August 2 and August 30, 1983: "Background On June 8, 1983, the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing for August 3, 1983 to revise the zoning map to conform with the revised Comprehensive Plan. On July 13, 1983, staff presented draft mapping for the areas of Crozet, Ivy, Earlysville, and Scottsville reflective of the amended Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this work session was to seek guidance from the Board as to the nature and extent of potential zoning changes. Subsequent to this work session, staff sent notice to 117 property owners indicating current and proposed zoning designations for 143 properties. Of these 117 notices, two were returned as undeliverable; staff made additional attempts to notify these owners. Comprehensive Plan During development of the January, 1983 Comprehensive Plan, the growth areas of Crozet, Ivy, Earlysville and Scottsville were changed primarily as a measure of reservoir protection. Simply stated, promotion of urban growth in the Rivanna and Totier Creek reservoir watersheds through the Comprehensive Plan was deemed inappropriate. Crozet Crozet was reduced primarily to an area bordered by Route 250 West on the south and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway and Route 240 on the north. This reduced growth area would drain to a regional sedimentation basin to be located on Lickinghole Creek east and downstream of the growth area. This regional sedimentation basin is intended as a water quality protective measure in addition to the Run-off Control Ordinance and other measures. Service by gravity sewer was another consideration in reduction of the Crozet growth area. Undeveloped commercial and residential properties on the south side of Route 250 West would be zoned RA Rural Areas. Undeveloped residential and industrial properties north of the new Crozet growth area would be zoned RA. No zoning changes within the growth area are proposed. Earlysville About one-half of the prior Earlysville village area was within the Rivanna reservoir watershed. The new Comprehensive Plan shifts the village area eastward to include Earlysville Forest PUD and other .properties. Properties outside the new growth area which are currently zoned VR, Village Resi- dential, would be designated RA. Properties within the new growth area which are currently zoned RA, would be designated as VR. Ivy The Ivy village was reduced to include primarily developed/approved development areas. No zoning changes are proposed within the new growth area. Properties out- side the growth area currently zoned VR and R-1 Residential would be designated RA. 390 October 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Under the previous Comprehensive Plan, a substantial portion of the Scottsville growth area was within the Totier Creek reservoir watershed. The new plan shifts the growth area eastward ou~ of the watershed. Properties zoned VR outside the growth area would be designated RA. Commercial properties outside the growth area would remain as zoned including about one and one half acres of undeveloped HC, Highway Commercial, land. Properties within the new growth area currently zoned RA would be designated as VR or LI, Light Industrial." "Request for Additional Information During public hearing on August ~2, 1983, the Albemarle County Planning Commission received comments from property owners regarding proposed zoning changes. At the end of the hearing, the Commission requested additional information regarding properties discussed during the hearing, specifically: How individual properties would be affected by proposed zoning changes; Zoning/development history of individual properties; Reasons for zoning changes~ Effects of Zoning Changes On August 10, 1983, the Board of Supervisors amended the Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries to conform to the growth areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Most properties to be discussed in this report (copy on file in the Clerk's office) are outside of current Albemarle County Service Authority service areas; therefore, neither public water nor public sewer are available. This report assumes that properties could develop with central water systems but that no central sewer systems would be authorized due to policies of State regulatory agencies. For residentially zoned properties, comparison is provided in terms of achievable dwelling units. This comparison does not consider physical constraints of individual properties (steep slopes, floodplain, septic system setback, etc.). Development under "Standard Level - Conventional Development" is assumed." Mr. Tucker then referred to the maps outlining the proposals and the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. He indicated all the areas in question and how the maps reflect both the Comprehensive Plan before the last revision, and the Comprehensive Plan revision of January, 1983. Mr. Tucker stated that owners of property within the Earlysville growth area will still have to apply if they desire to have their properties upzoned, as this revision does not recommend any upzonings at this particular time. Mr. Henley commented that just because land lies in the growth area should not deem it fit for upzoning at this time. He pointed out that the Crozet growth area has no public sewage disposal available, so therefore it cannot be used to its ultimate density. He felt that to upzone the land will cause the owner to pay higher taxes. Mr. Jones pointed out that upgrading the zoning designation does not necessarily mean the land is subject to higher taxes based on zoning alone, there are other factors taken into consideration by the assessor. Mr. Lindstrom wondered to what extent a rezoning would effect the taxpayer whose land is subject to a designation for which the land is not being used. Mr. St. John commented that if the zoning is created by the Board and not the applicant, the applicant's land can still qualify under the land use ordinance. Mr. Fisher suggested that the public hearing be opened at this time, and comments be taken on the Earlysville Village first. Mrs. L. L. Ayers stated her opposition to having her three acres rezoned from Rural Areas to Village Residential. She continued that she has no intention of developing the land, this rezoning was not requested by herself, and will result in higher taxes. Mrs. Ayres said she is the sole support of her family; her husband is disabled. She wondered how this rezoning would effect her adjoining property which is now in land use. Mrs. Ayres asked the Board why there is a need for her property to be rezoned and wondered if next year the adjoining property will be rezoned to Village Residential, thus raising taxes piece by piece on her property. Mr. Fisher'asked Mrs. Ayers for the description of her property. Mrs. Ayers replied that it is identified as Parcel 45A on Tax Map 31. Mr. Fisher, after checking the map, told Mrs. Ayers that the Planning Commission agreed with her and recommended leaving the parcel as Rural Areas. Mr. Fisher then asked for comments regarding Scottsville and Ivy Villages. With no. one present to speak about these two areas, Mr. Fisher then asked for general statements regarding the proposals for Earlysville, Scottsville and Ivy. Mrs. Carol Jackson, League of Women Voters, read the following letter dated September 13, 1983: "For years the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County has urged comprehensive planning for Albemarle County, supporting a blueprint to allow the county to grow in a rational way and in the best interests of all county residents. This Comprehensive Plan calls for growth to take place in certain designated communities and villages. Restrictions on growth in nearby areas were designed to help protect watersheds of drinking water sources, and we favor this. We think that zoning should follow the Comprehensive Plan in order that the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan be achieved. October 5~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) In Crozet the Comprehensive Plan calls for maintaining the central business area. We are told that under the Comprehensive Plan, 32 acres within the Crozet community have been recommended for development. If more commercial land is needed, such land should properly be designated within these growth areas shown in the plan. When and if the land recommended for growth within the Crozet community is exhausted, the Comprehensive Plan can be altered to include other areas. To alter the plan now seems premature. We believe that location of commercial development adjacent to a school complex is inappropriate zoning. Apparently there is movement of students between the schools on one side of Route 250 and the schools on the other side. Increased traffic drawn to a shopping center could endanger those children. Conversely, students and staff would adversely impact on shoppers. Development should take place only where utilities are available, but this area is no~ in the service area where public sewer is available. Nearly everyone deplores the traffic density and lack of beauty on Route 29 North, where strip development has taken place. They ask how such a situation was allowed to come about. The answer is "one project at a time." As each project is built, it becomes more and more impossible to withhold permission for further development. We ask you not to lay the groundwork for the stripping of Route 250 West. In considering the other communities and villages being revised, we think changes should be made to bring the zoning in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Development should be restricted to protect county watersheds. Additional land need not be rezoned up to Village Residential density in advance, however, especially where public water and sewer will not be available for the next few years." With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr. Fisher discussed the matter of watershed protection. He pointed out that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area is an area where water is scarce. There are no large rivers or great lakes, either natural or man-made and groundwater is very limited. The Charlottesville/Albemarle area, Mr. Fisher continued, has only the water that can be captured between the Skyline Drive and the South Fork Rivanna reservoir, or in the case of Totier, that small basin, in which to provide all the public water for the present population and the people expected in the next two to four decades. Mr. Fisher stated that the provision of water will limit growth in this community. He concluded that all proposed changes are an attempt to accommodate as much growth as can be reasonably predicted over a twenty year period, but to save as much of the watersheds as possible. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recom- mendation for Earlysville, to change current zoning from Village Residential to Rural Areas on that designated land contained within Route 660 and 743, with the exception of a small portion already zoned commercial, and to not change any existing Rural Areas zoning to Village Residen- tial. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. In reference to the recommendations for the Scottsville Village, Mr. Lindstrom commented that the area shown for Light Industrial is a little bit different from the area shown in Earlysville for Village Residential (currently zoned Rural Areas) because this is the only reasonable site in the Scottsville Village which could be used for Light Industrial purposes. Miss Nash asked what effect this proposed zoning would have on the landowner's taxes. Mr. Tucker noted the area proposed for recognition is only one portion of a larger tract. Mr. Jones said that when upzoning takes place taxes do tend to go up as land sales occur in the area. He added that historically when zoning in an area goes from Rural Areas to Industrial, sales have increased on that type of property, therefore, taxes increase. He continued that sales is only one of many items considered when reassessing property. Mr. Lindstrom felt that as long as property is otherwise qualified for land use, the land may continue to qualify and as property is divided and the use changes, the parcels divided off would cease to be qualified for land use. Mr. Tucker stated that his office maintains a list of parcels which have been recognized for a particular zoning which is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan because the use existed and the Board felt the zoning should remain on those few parcels. Mr. Tucker clarified that these parcels were recognized only because they contained existing commercial uses at the time the map was adopted in 1980. Mr. Tucker commented that the Comprehensive Plan recommends the land west of Route 20 and east of Route 726 as commercial land, however, the Planning Commission did not follow this recommendation at this time. Miss Nash thought the original plan showed everything west of Route 20 as commercial. Miss Nash then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to change the current zoning on land deleted from the village plan of Scottsville from Village Residential to Rural Areas; to leave land within the growth area which is currently zoned Rural Areas as Rural Areas with the exception being one large parcel within the village boundaries which is to be shown as Light Industrial; and also to add to the list of commercial parcels which have been zoned according to existing use those commercial parcels which now lie outside of the village boundaries, specifically the Scottsville Shopping Center, the property across from the Shopping Center, and the Spang!er property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Henley said he would not support adding the Light Industrial area because it might be twenty years before the property is ever developed. He continued that if someone wished to purchase the land adjacent to this property he doubted that the property could ever be brought under the land use ordinance since the adjoining property would be zoned LI. Mr. Henley said he would support LI if the designation had been requested by the owner. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the property is not presently in land use, and the governing body changes the zoning to something other than Rural Areas, if the property owner can still apply for land use. Mr. St. John replied that if the property owner does nothing to change the use of the property and if the property otherwise qualifies, the property owner can still apply for land use taxation. 3-9 2 October 5, 1985 (Regular Night MeetinK) Mr. Fisher said he is concerned with the lack of public utilities to the property and does not want to encourage people to use a piece of property in an intense manner when the property, cannot be served by public utilities. He added he would not support the inclusion of the one parcel as Light Industrial. Mrs. Cooke asked if rezoning this area, and yet there being no utilities would effect the tax structure on this piece of property over the years. Mr. St. John said that whenever property is upzoned, there is always an increase in the fair market value of the property. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the property in question is the only reasonably suited property in Scottsville for industrial use. He added that the property owner had been given notice (by letter) of this hearing, had not objected, and the property cam remain in land use taxation. Should the property owner decide to develop the property, then Mr. Lindstrom feels it is only fair that he pay the larger rate back on the property because he is getting the advantage of the zoning classification. Mr. Lindstrom concluded that to pre- serve that unique piece of property in the small Scottsville village for industrial use is legitimate. At this point, roll was called on the foregoing motion and same passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Ivy Village to change the zoning on those lands removed from the village boundaries to Rural Areas. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Proposed rezoning of certain parcels in the community of Crozet in order to bring these properties into conformance with the County's adopted Compre- hensive~Plan (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 20 and September 27, 1983). (Staff report on changes to the Crozet Community are set out in report under Agenda Item. ..No. 3). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 13, 1983, voted 4/3 that current zoning be left in place and further study be made of the Albemarle County Service Authority service areas pertaining to water and sewer service, and that additional study be conducted on o~her alternative methods of protecting the Beaver Creek impoundment in particular but including the Rivanna watershed, as well as any necessary improvements to the Lickinghole Creek impoundment basin. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present and read the following report dated October 5, 1983, in reply to an earlier request by the Board: Status of the Lickinghole Creek Runoff Control Basin. Detailed topographic maps of the proposed area have been obtained and various alternate designs are being studied. The available literature on the subject of -nutrient removals in ponds, sedimentation basins, and wetlands is increasing rapidly, and we want to have the benefit of the best data when making a decision. Current research indicates that wet ponds do have a beneficial chemical and biglogical effect on phosphorus removal, however, we do not have any method of estimating the quantity of phosphorus removed by these processes. The results of st-udies conducted in northern Virginia are currently being published and we hope to obtain some useful data from that source. 'The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority plans to start Phase III of the Crozet · interceptor sewer in the spring or summer of 1984 with a possible completion date in late 1985 or early 1986~ Since this sewer project is likely to spur development that we hope will finance the runoff control project, we intend to have our plans complete by February or March of 1984 so that any public hearings necessary can be held next spring. Discussion of the possibility of providing a regional basin(s) for the Stockton Creek Watershed (south of Route 250). There are five tributary streams that flow away from Route 250 in a southwardly direction to Stockton Creek. Should any development occur along Route 250, each development should be required to meet the Runoff Control Ordinance rather than contributing to a regional basin because the topography of the multiple tributary streams does not provide a logical site for a basin similar to the site on Lickinghole Creek. Stockton Creek itself has a drainage area considerably larger than Lickinghole Creek at this location and is just too large for a detention facility. In fact, Lickinghole is the largest watershed for which such a facility is proposed." 393 October 5~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher mentioned that it has been known for years that there is a conflict between the ![ development proposed for Crozet and protection of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. He pointed out that development of Crozet has been a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan since 1971. In 1972 the State Water Control Board decided that a sewer interceptor would be built to take care of Crozet's sewage problems. Mr. Fisher stated that many people feel eliminating existing sewage problems could potentially create more sewage problems by stimulating higher density development. He added that the funding for this interceptor has finally been achieved and the interceptor will be built. A single detention basin on Lickinghole Creek located downstream from the growth area will hopefully protect the drinking water not only for Crozet but for everyone else. The sewer line itself will help by removing the phosphorus loading from the Del Monte plant and other sources. The run-off from future development must be treated or the Rivanna Reservoir will become worse. In conclusion Mr. Fisher said, this is why the staff' proposal (Note: not the Planning Commission recommendation) is to limit the growth area to just that area which can be drained to one large regional basin. At this time the public hearing was opened on the proposed rezoning of certain parcels in Crozet. Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, spoke in behalf of the zoning as proposed by the staff and not the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He quoted from the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "The main thrust of land use planning for commercial uses is to strengthen the downtown area of Crozet as a shopping center." Mr. Patterson noted that an area has already been designated to enable the business area to increase in size and be the center for shopping in Crozet. He stated that unless this commercial expansion is encouraged, the downtown Crozet area will be supplanted by a suburban type shopping center located outside of the community. Mr. Patterson felt many problems would arise if commercialization were permitted to occur along Route 250 West near the school complex. He mentioned increased traffic as well as the potential trend for commercialization which would reduce Route 250 West to a commercial strip resembling Route 29 North. Mr. Patterson also mentioned that Route 250 West is a State Scenic Highway. In conclusion, Mr. Patterson said, Citizens for Albemarle support the zoning as proposed by the staff. Mr. William Lynch, owner of three acres located on the east side of Route 250 West at its intersection with Route 240 (on th~ Route 635 side; Miller School Road), was next to speak. Mr. Lynch said he bought the property in 1972 and at present has fifty thousand dollars investe¢ in the property. In 1980 the property was downzoned from business to R-4 which decreased the assessed value from thirty five thousand to fifteen thousand dollars. The zoning now proposed is for Rural Areas. He commented that since there is an automotive service station and country store across the street from his property, the three acres proposed for RA zoning are not appropriate for any type of single-family dwellings. It is not, added Mr. Lynch, a residential lot. He told the Board that this downzoning would make it impossible to ever recover his financial loss. Mr. David Pettit, the attorney representing Mr. Lynch, reiterated the inappropriateness of these three-plus acres being used for either agricultural or single-family residential uses. Mr. Pettit continues that this site is far more suitable for commercial use considering its location at an intersection of highways and its close proximity to the Crozet community. Mr. Pettit mentioned that Mr. Lynch had made application for rezoning to C-1 Commercial, with a very restrictive proffer, but his application was deferred by the Planning Commission due to concerns over the availability of water. He commented that Mr. Lynch had suffered substantial harm due to the previous downzoning and Mr. Pettit feels that further downzoning cannot be justified on the basis of the desire to protect the Crozet business community. Mr. Pettit added that a desire to protect one economic entity at the expense of another cannot be furtherec by the use of a zoning ordinance and stated that the law is very clear on this point. He also stated that further downzoning cannot be justified based on traffic considerations because the Highway Department has reviewed an approximately fifteen thousand square foot shopping center in the general vicinity and determined that the highways in that area are more than ample to accommodate the additional traffic. Mr. Pettit suggested that there are mechanisms to protect the reservoir other than prohibiting the development of Mr. Lynch's property. He referred to the proffer included in Mr. Lynch's application to the Planning Commission which contains measures designed to comply with the Run-off Control Ordinance, such as on-site stormwater and other detention facilities. Mr. Pettit feels this is a reasonable way to protect the public interest and at the same time protect Mr. Lynch from further harm. Mr. Pettit said Mr. Lynch is conerned that the proposed rezoning will leave him with a piece of property for which there is essentially no use. Both Mr. Lynch and Mr. Pettit expressed a belief that the property can be developed either under the existing R-4 designation, or under a commercial designation with an appropriate proffer, in a manner which will not endanger the watershed. Mr. William Washington, a property owner in Crozet, was the next person to speak. Mr. Washington stated he did not want to see Route 250 West become another Route 29 North. He pointed out that Route 250 West from its intersection with Route 240 to Afton Mountain is relatively undeveloped. Mr. Washington said that the residents of Crozet have free and open access to the use of that arterial highway now and he believes it would be in the County's interest to assure such use for the future. To build "a parallel secondary by-pass (referred to in the Comprehensive Plan as a connector road from Route 250 to Route 240 at Del Monte) is not prudent." He stated that sanitary sewers installed in Crozet can make it possible to control human waste, but this may be only the "tip of the iceberg." Storm run-off from devel- oped areas can be a major source of pollution, as there are no storm sewers planned for Crozet north and east of the C & 0 Railway. Stormwater run-off may be accommodated in an impoundment on Lickingho!e Creek, but it remains to be seen whether this will be effective. Mr. Washington feels it is logical to restrict further growth in the Beaver Creek watershed, and to encourage growth within the Lickinghoie Creek basin. In addition, said Mr. Washington, this same ration- ale would restrict growth within the Stockton Creek watershed because of the Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Washington said that as a member of the Planning Commission he had fought for compatibility between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. He urged the Board to establish the zoning in the Crozet area that is compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan, which neces- sarily means downzoning certain undeveloped parcels outside of the Lickinghole Creek basin. October 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mst Patty Saul spoke next and stated she favored downzoning certain areas presently zoned commercial in outlying areas of Crozet in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that a great deal of time and effort had been consumed in creating a plan to protect the downtown area of Crozet. Ms. Saul commented that if commercial growth is permitted in areas ou~ide of downtown Crozet, then the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will not be met, and growth Of downtown Crozet will be stymied. Ms. Saul indicated that the issue is not one busines.s against another, but rather the protection of a small community, with small businesses which already has water and sewage disposal problems. Mr~ Alan Benn, the owner of commercially zoned property adjacent to Western Albemarle ~igh School was the next person to speak. Mr. Benn said he appreciates the Board's wanting to eliminate intense development in the watershed. He pointed out, however, that the Planning Commission's approval last night of a site plan for his property, gives testimony to the practical advantage of pursuing alternative solutions to control runoff, at least with respect to his property. Mr. Benn briefly reviewed the conditions pertaining to water quality which were'~placed on the site plan. Mr. Benn said he agreed to construct a stormwater detention impoundment on his property, which will result in an improved quality of water leaving the site after full development of the shopping center when compared to the situation before development He added that sediments and water flow, two of the three criteria of water quality will be virtually eliminated as negative factors in this sub-basin since at this time most of the run- off'from Western Albemarle High School, as well as some of the water running across Route 250 from both Henley and Brownsville schools is uncontrolled. Mr. Benn noted that the third criteria, phosphorus, will be no worse after development than what occurs today. He continued that the drainfields for this property have been overdesigned in size, there are well-drained soi.ls on the property, and these plans meet the approval of the Health Department, although both the Health Department and the County Engineer recommend that sewage disposal be through the interceptor when it becomes available, rather than using the drainfields. Mr. Benn stated that there is no expectation that these properly engineered fields will ever fail. Even so, continued Mr. Benn, he is on record in the presence of the Board and the Planning Commission as recommending usage of the interceptor rather than the septic drainfields. Mr. Berm concluded by saying that given the approved site plan and the proven potential for significant improve- ment of water quality, he requests not only that the approved site plan be respected as is customary in Albemarle County, but that the existing zoning be preserved and the property be included again in the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Jim Duffey from Greenwood stated that the development of a commercial area along Route 250 West is inconsistent with both the existing community and the Comprehensive Plan. He remarked that the approval of the site plan at the Planning Commission meeting the previous evening was a travesty and makes a mockery of representative government, since it took place before the public hearing scheduled for tonight. Mr. Duffey concluded that he lends his support to the people of Crozet who wish to maintain Route 250 West as a scenic highway and to strengthen downtown Crozet as a commercial center. Mr. Duffey requested the Board to reverse the decision made by the Planning Commission at its meeting the previous evening. Mrs. Joan Graves discussed possible uses of RA zoning besides agricultural or residential uses. She indicated the Board's awareness of the zoning ordinance and the uses permitted in the RA zone which could be accomplished by special use permit on Mr. Benn's property. Mrs. Graves commented that she felt the properties being considered for downzoning should in fact be downzoned in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, however, she wished for the Board to realize that Mr. Benn and Mr. Lynch do have alternative uses for their property. Mrs. Martha Selden spoke next saying the people of Crozet like the roads the way they'are, and they wish to maintain them. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. was immediately recessed (9:30 P.M.) and the Board reconvened at 9:35 P.M. The meeting Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker about the uses permitted by right and by special use permit in the RA zone. Mr. Tucker read the uses allowed. Mr. Henley commented that most of the discussion thus far has concerned the shopping center ~ite plan which was approved by the Planning Commission last night. He asked Mr. St. John what the standing of the site plan will be if the Board accepts the staff's proposal and deletes the commercial zoning. Mr. St. John replied that since the site plan has been approved by the Planning Commission, the Board would have to view the site plan in line with the zoning in effect at the time the site was before the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John said site Plan approval applies for eighteen months and if within that time, nothing is done on the property according to the approved site plan, the approval lapses and whatever zoning is in existence at that-time would apply. Mr. St. John said the approved site plan gives Mr. Benn a vested right which will exist as a non-conforming use. Mr. Fisher recalled that in 1980 when the Board was in the process of revising the zoning map for the entire county, certain parcels of land on~ Route 250 further to the south of Mr. Benn's property were proposed for downzoning. However, Mr. Fisher continued, many of the parcels had site plan approval at the time and the Board~was persuaded not to change the zoning. He feels that what has happened since 1980 is that approva has lapsed on some or all of the site plans but because the zoning remained, the issue has been brought up again. Mr Fisher suggested the public interest might be better served by taking zoning action to conform the zoning on this land to the Comprehensive Plan recommendations rega.rdless of the presence of an approved site plan. Mr. Henley then offered motion to adopt the recommendations for the Crozet Community as drafted by the Planning Staff. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John to explain the site plan approval given by the Planning Commission last night for the Benn property. Mr. St. John explained that the site plan approved by the Planning Commission the previous night was approved under the zoning classification in effect last night. The owner has an approved site plan and can use that plan to begin construction on the property according to that plan regardless of whether the zoning on the property is changed or not. The property then becomes "grandfathered" and a change in zoning does not obviate the owner's right to obtain a building permit under the approved site plan. Mr. St. John further explained that should someone appeal approval of the site plan to the Board, the Board must view the appeal in light of the zoning on the property at the time the site plan was before the Planning Commissio The Board cannot deny the appeal based on noncompliance with a zoning ordinance which came about subsequent to original approval. October 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom expressed some annoyance at the Planning Commission which, in effect, had deprived the Board of Supervisors from effecting the~Comprehensive Plan adopted some months ago with respect to a significant sized parcel of property. Mr. Lindstrom added his hope that in the future the Board would not be placed in this "bind" again where the Planning Commission is effectively able to freeze a use beyond the control of the Board or the parameters of the Comprehensive Plan. He feels this is an unfortunate situation which could have been avoided. Mr. Fisher repeated the motion made by Mr. Henley and added that the several parcels shown on the map drafted by the staff, which are zoned for intensive use, which lie outside of the growth area, will be indicated on the zoning map as being zoned according to existing use. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels there may be some residual confusion concerning parcels of land denoted on the zoning map with an "asterisk". He said he thought these parcels had been given a commercial designation because there was an existing commercial use on the parcel at the time the zoning map was adopted in 1980. He asked Mr. Tucker if this designation gave that parcel the right to any use permitted in that commercial district, or only the right to expand that existing use. Mr. Tucker said that in order not to place the Board of Supervisors in a position of arbitrarily recognizing zoning designations not recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, certain commercial properties were shown for the commercial designation that fit the existing use so that the existing use could be expanded on that parcel. Although the non-conforming section adopted in the new zoning ordinance text allows the reconstruction of a structure even if same is completely destroyed, the use could not be expanded on the parcel, and some of the Board members did not think that was sufficient. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that was the intent. He felt the "asterisk" was to denote a property given a commercial designation so that the use could be expanded on that property. Mr. Tucker said if that was the Board's intent, the policy should probably be discussed again and written down. Agenda Item No. 5. Authorize Chairman to accept deed of gift from the Perry Foundation for C & 0 Railway property. Mr. Jones noted that the Perry Foundation had purchased this property to be used for the Crozet Branch Library and the Foundation is also renovating same. This gift had been agreed to by the Board earlier in the year. Mr. St. John informed the Board that when the County acquires land by gift or otherwise, State Statute requires that the Deed be accepted by the County before it is recorded. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized to affix his signature to the deed dated June 23, 1983, by and between the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and the County of Albemarle, for two parcels of land situated east of State Route 810 in Crozet, Albemarle County, Virginia, and more particularly described in said deed as containing two parcels, being the old Crozet station on the C & O Railway Road. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (Note: The deed signed is set out in full below:) THIS DEED, made dune 23, 1983, by and between the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, a corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, whose post office address is 100 North' Charles Sreet, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, hereinafter called Grantor, and County of Albemarle, Virginia, a body corporate and politic, whose post office address is 401Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, hereinafter called Grantee, witnesseth: That, for and in consideration of payment of the sum of forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000.00), which is the full monetary consideration for this conveyance, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby demise, release and forever quitclaim unto Grantee, Grantee's successors and assigns, all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to two (2) parcels of land situated east of State Route 810 in Crozet, Albemarle County, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows: PARCEL A Beginning at a point at the intersection of State Routes 810 and 240 being an iron set 25 feet S.E. of the centerline of State Route 810 and 25 feet S.W. of the centerline of. State Route 240; thence S64°24'07"E, 68~85 feet to an iron set; thence S61°lO'21"E, 47.36 feet to an iron set; thence S.52°I0'52"E, 46.39 feet to an iron set; thence ~S45°lO'O6"E, 48.68 feet to an iron set; thence S63°ll'15"E, 24.17 feet to an iron set; thence S00°28'18"E, 14.92 feet to an ~ron set; thence S41°44'58"E, 11.26 feet to an iron set; thence with a curve to the left having a radius of 342.91 feet for an arc distance of 35.84 feet, the chord of which bears S46°O8'45"E, 35.82 feet to~,an..i.~on.~set being the point of intersection of Route 240 and the new right-of-way boundary line for The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company; thence with the new right-of-way line N70o~6'lg"W, 46.02 feet to an iron set; thence with a curve to the right having a radius of 2,657.71 feet and an arc distance of 243.00 feet, the chord of which bears N61°38'20"W, 242.~1 feet to an iron set 25 feet from the centerline of State Route 810, thence N32 07'31"E, 51.33 feet to the point of beginning, a tract of land containing 0.283 of an acre, more or less. 396 October 5, 1982 (Regular Night Meet~nq) PARCEL B Beginning at a point at the intersection of State Routes 810 and 240 being an iron set 25 feet S.E. of the centerline of State Route 810 and 25 feet S.W. of the centerline of State Route 240; thence N32°O7'31"E, 1.45 feet to a point on the edge of the pavement on State Route 240 and then with the edge of pavement the following courses; thence with a curve to the right having a radius of 35 feet and an arc distance of 7.12 feet, the chord of which bears S87°10'37"E, 7.11 feet to a point; thence with another curve to the right having a radius of 325. l0 feet and an arc distance of 161.63 feet, the chord of which bears S62°44'18''E, 159.97 feet to a point; thence S45~.10'06"E, 55.39 feet to a point, thence S41o44'58"E, 37.82 feet to a point, thence with a curve to the left having a radius of 328.41 feet and an arc distance of 80.30 feet, the chord of which bears S50°Og'22"E, 80.10 feet to a point; thence leaving the edge of pavement N70°16'lg"w, 49.13 feet to an iron set; thence with a curve to the right having a radius of 342.91 feet and an arc distance of 35.84 feet, the chord of which bears N46oo8'45"W, 35.82 feet to an 'iron set; thence N41°44'58"W, 11.26 feet to an iron set; thence NOO~28'18"W, 14.92 feet to an iron set; thence N63Oll'15"W, 24.17 feet to an iron set; thence N45°lO'O6"W, 48.68 feet to an iron set; thence N52°lO'52"W, 46'.39 feet to an iron set; thence N61°lO'21"W, 47.36 feet to an iron set; thence N64°24'O7"W, 68.85 feet to the point of beginning, a tract of land containing 0.086 acre, more or less. BEING a portion of the property acquired by Blue Ridge Railroad Company (predecessor of The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company) from William Rothwell, by Condemnation dated November 2, 1857, Confirmed Court Min. Bk. 16, pg. 193. NOTE: By deed dated June 29, 1870, Blue Ridge Railway Company conveyed its holdings to The Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company, which through mesne conveyances and consolidations became The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company. BEING ALSO a portion of the property acquired by The Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company from Newton V. White, et ux, by deed dated May 16, 1877, and recorded among the Land Records of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 72, page 21. BEING ALSO a portion of the property acquired by The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company from J. T. O'Neil, et ux, by deed dated June 15, 1916, recorded as aforesaid in Deed Book 163, page 80.' TOGETHER with the buildings and improvements thereupon erected, made or being, and all and every of the rights, alleys, ways, waters, privileges, appurtenances and advantages to the same belonging, or in anyway appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises aforesaid, with the privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, to Grantee, Grantee's successors and assigns forever. SUBJECT, however, to: reservations, exceptions and restrictions of record; zoning ordinances and to subdivision regulations and laws, if any; taxes and assessments both general and special which · become due and payable after the date of this instrument and which Grantee assumes and agrees to pay; all encroachments which might be revealed from an inspection of the premises, aforesaid; and all existing ways and servitudes, howsoever created. AND GRANTEE, on behalf of Grantee, Grantee's successors and assigns, by the acceptance hereof, hereby covenants and agrees with Grantor, Grantor's successors and assigns, that: (a) Neither Grantor nor its successors or assigns shall be required to erect or maintain any fences, railings, or guard rails along any boundary lines between the land described herein and the adjacent land(s) of Grantor or of any company affiliated with Grantor; nor be liable for or required to pay any part of the cost or expense of erecting or maintaining such fences, railings, or guard rails or any part thereof; nor be liable for any damage, loss or injury that may result by reason of the nonexistence of the condition of any fences, railings, or guard rails. (b) Grantee, for Grantee, Grantee's successors and assigns, assumes all liability and responsibility respecting fences, railings, or guard rails, or the absence thereof; and (c) Grantee, at its sole cost and expense, shall erect and forever maintain a chain link fence, of a minimum height of six (6) feet, along the southerly and westerly sale lines between the land described herein and the adjacent land(s) of Grantor or any affiliated company. Said provisions shall "be covenants running with the land, and binding upon Grantee, Grantees successors and assigns. AND THIS DEED FURTHER WITNESSETH that Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, as Corporate and Remaining Trustee under the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company's General Mortgage to Central Trust Company of New York (now Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, successor by merger), and Henry T. Wickham (deceased), Trustees, dated February 23, 1892, as amended, modified and supplemented, has executed this deed for the sole purpose of releasi.ng and does hereby, pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in said mortgage, release from the lien and operation of said mortgage, including any and all mortgages or deeds of trust supplemental thereto, all the right., title and interest which the said Trustee may have acquired in and to the property herein conveyed; but this release is subject to any and all of the same rights, reservations, exceptions, limita'tions and .agreements herein specified on behalf of the Grantor, and is without covenant or warranty, express or implied, of the Trustee, and without recourse against said Trustee in any event, and without affecting or in any way impairing the lien and operation of said mortgage and supplements thereto on and in respect of any other property now or hereafter subject thereto. October 1 8~ Re ular Ni t M erin AND THIS DEED FURTHER WITNESSETH that Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York (formerly Guaranty Trust Company of New York), as CorpOrate and Remaining Trustee under the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company's Refundi.n§ and Improvement Mortgage to Guaranty Trust Company of New York, Corporate Trustee, and Herbert Fitzpatrick (deceased), Individual Trustee, dated April 1, 1928, as amended, modified and supplemented, has executed this deed for the sole purpose of releasing and does hereby, pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in said mortgage, release from the lien and operation of said mortg.age, includi.ng any and all mortg.ages or deeds of trust supplemental thereto, all the right, title, and interest which the~said Trustee may have acquired in and to the ii property herein conveyed; but this release is subject to any and all of the same rights, reservations, exceptions, limitations and agreements herein specified on behalf of the Grantor, and is without covenant or warranty, express or implied, of the Trustee, and without recourse against said Trustee in any event, and without affecting or in any way impairing, the lien and operation of said mortgage and supplements thereto on and in repsect of any other proprty now or hereafter subject thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST COMPANY (as one of the aforesaid Trustees), MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, (as another of the aforesaid trustees), pursuant to due corporate authority, have caused their names to be signed hereto by their officers hereunto duly authorized and their corporate seals, duly attested, to be hereunto affixed; each as of the day and year first above written. r Agenda Item No. 6. Budget Amendments and Transfers - Education Department. Mr. Jones informed the Board that approval ~f three items has been requested by the School Board. "Community Education: The offering of an after-school program at Greer Elementary School necessitates an increase in allocated funds. Notification has been received from the State that funding has been reduced from $20,000 to $14,900. A net increase of $25,000 is required to balance the entire program with $30,600 coming from increased tuition, less a $5,10( reduction in State funds. This program will continue to be self-sustaining. Textbook Fund: The Textbook budget needs to be reduced by $60,215 to reflect a proper carry-over balance from 1982-1983 in anticipation of 1983-1984 requests thus reducing the level of unspent funds. Miscellaneous: $2,000 needs to be transferred from unailocated classified reserve to Janitoria~ Services for expenses encountered during facilities rental. $4,300 needs to be transferred fro Albemarle High School Instructional Supplies to Albemarle High School Capital Equipment for the purchase of media equipment." Mr. Fisher spoke to Mr. David Papenfuse, who was present, noting it seemed unusual to have so many changes requested in the accounts this early in the fiscal year. Mr. Papenfuse re- sponded that some of the changes requested are to sustain operations, and briefly explained the reasons for the requests. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be a net increase in the appropri- ations to the School Board and Mr. Papenfuse replied that for the Community Education program ms a net increase of $25,500. Mr. Fisher wondered if these requests required the holding of a public hearing. Mr. Jones replied that since no additional local funds are required, there is no need to hold a ,public hearing. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the request outlined in the memorandum from Mr. Melvin Breeden dated September 21, 1983. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash to approve the following transfers: Community Education Program - increased by $25,500.00 Textbook Program - decreased by $60,215.00 Miscellaneous Account Transfers: From unallocated reserve to Janitorial Services From Albemarle High School Instructional Supplies to Albemarle High School Capital Equipment. $ 2,000.00 $ 4,300.00 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7. certain Public Work. Resolution: regarding House Joint Resolution 7 - Restriction of Mr. Jones summarized his memorandum of September 30, 1983 as follows: "The 1983 General Assembly created a subcommittee under House Joint Resolution 7 to study the restriction on public bodies of doing certain construction work. The issue is whether there should be enacted into law restriction on the use by public bodies of their own forces and equipment for non- highway construction projects, unless it can be shown that such practice is not less reliable and less expensive. As you know, this would prevent the County from doing small jobs with its own forces which has been the case with Staff Services, Parks and Recreation, and Education. Also, you must be aware of cases where the County has called surety bonds to do required work it certain development. In some of these cases, the County more or less became the general con- tractor and gets the work done through several subcontractors. The Albemarle County Service Authority does considerable work with its maintenance forces. Several recent cases of in-house work by Staff Services has to do with Phase II (Gym area) of the County Office Building. There was an allocation in the contract for signs in the amount of $8,000. The signs were only several outside directional signs and some in-house office location signs. Bill Sullivan has sign making equipment and can do the work for approximately $4,000. Another recent case occurred in Phase II of the County Office Building. The creation of a Personnel Department took up the space used for the Fuel Assistance Program in Phase I of the Building. It was decided to move Fuel Assistance into an unallocated space in Phase II. The contractor estimated the price for petitioning of this area at over $10,000. The installa- tion will be done by Staff Services for one-half of the contractor's estimated cost. Normally an equally as good job can be done at a much less cost on the smaller jobs. "398 October 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) There will be a public hearing in Roanoke on Thursday, October 6 at 10:00 A.M. to solicit input. I believe it would be in the best interest of the County to pass a resolution opposing any state law that would restrict the County's autonomy and independence in making sound business decisions in the management of its governmental affairs." Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the 1982 House Joint Resolution 36 created, and the 1983 House Joint Resolution 7 continued, a Joint Subcommittee to study the question of restricting public bodies from using their own forces and equipment in non- highway construction projects; and WHEREAS, the Board was informed on or about October 3, 1983, that this subcommittee will hold a public hearing in Roanoke at 10:00 a.m., October 6, 1983, on this question: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby express its opposition to adopt a law which would diminish the authority, autonomy and independence of local government in making sound business decisions in the management of its governmental affairs; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board feels the legislation under considera- tion by this subcommittee would in fact diminish the autonomy and independence of local government, as well as local and regional water and sewer authorities and other authorities, to the serious detriment of the public; AND FURTHER, the Board feels that local governments and local authorities should be given a more thorough opportunity to study the ramifications and implications of this proposal, and make comment thereon to the subcommittee before it makes its report to the General Assembly. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No 8. Approval of Minutes: July 6, (afternoon) and July 13, 1983. Mr. Fisher said he had read the minutes of July 6, 1983 (afternoon) and found all to be ir order. Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of July 13, 1983, pages nine through eighteen and found all to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes of July 6, 1-983 (afternoon) and July 13, 1983 (pages nine through eighteen) as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (Pages one through nine of the July 13, 1983 minutes had not been read at this time.) Agenda Item No. 9. before the Board. Other Items Not Listed on the Agenda. No other matters were brought Agenda Item No. 10. adjourned at 10:15 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was