Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-03!05 January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 3, 1979, in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, j. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive; George R;~. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. At 7:35 P.M., the meeting was called to order by County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, who requested a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. Election of a Chairman. Nomination of Mr. Gerald E. Fisher was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 3. Election of a Vice-Chairman. The name of J. T. Henley was placed in nomination for Vice-Chairman by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Roll was called~ and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4. Appoint Clerk and Deputy Clerks. Mr. Agnor recommended the names of Miss Lettie E. Neher as Clerk, and Mrs. Linda W. Leake and Mrs. Barbara J. Flammia as Deputy Clerks. Motion to appoint was offered by Dr. Iachetta, aeconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Set meeting times, dates and places for the calendar year 1979. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, ~to continue the same schedule as that used in 1978. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Rules of Procedure. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, to readopt the Rules and Procedure presently in use. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Central Well Permit: Rivanwood Subdivision. Request was received (letter from George H. Gilliam dated December 13, 1978) for a central well permit from Rivanwood Subdivision on Route 676. (Tax Map 45, ParCels 5D and SE.) Motion to approve this well permit in concept was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Central Well Permit: Franklin Subdivision. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated 12-1'5-78 from Mr. James M. Hill, Jr., agent for Dr. C. W. Hurt requesting a central well permit to serve 44 lots in Franklin Subdivision off of Route 20 North. Motion ~Q approve this well in concept was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-78-21. Luvania Spears. Public hearing on request to rezone 0.69 acres from R-2 to M-1. Property on north side of Route 240, about 1.2 miles east of Route 810. County Tax Map 56A (3), Parcel 4, White Hall District. (Advertised on December 2 and December 27, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning staff's report: Requested Zoning: M-1 Industrial Limited Acreage: 0.69 acres Existing Zoning: R-2 Residential Limited Location: Property, described as Tax Map 56A(3), Parcel 4, is located on the northside of Route 240 adjacent to Morton's Frozen Foods in Crozet. Januar 2 197~ Re 1 - ' ' - Character of the Area This property is developed with a single-family dwelling. Morton Frozen Foods is across Route 240 as well as to the west and north. Properties to the east are developed in single-family dwellings. Comprehensive Plan 'The Comprehensive Plan recommends industrial-use in this area. Staff C onune~t Morton Frozen Foods has contracted to purchase this property subject to approval of this rezoning petition. From the letter of justification accompanying this request: "One of the alternative short term uses of this property~.~by the buyer would be to construct an entrance roadway from the employee parking lot. Current access and exit to the parking lot, located north of the subject property, is available only through a 20 foot right-of-way approximately 220 feet east of this property. During inclement weather, the limited access poses a potential pedestrian and vehicular safety problem. This use alternate would greatly reduce the safety problem." Both the staff and Highway Department agree that use of this property for vehicular access to the employee parking area would be a great improvement over the current access. This would require site plan approval and staff would recommend at that time that the existing ac,ess be abandoned except for pedestrian usage. Staff recommends approval for the following reasons: 1. The request complies with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Use of this property as an access would be an improvement over existing conditions. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission on December 12, 1978, recommended unanimously approval of this petition. Mr. Wayland said the application was under the name of the present owner, but he represented Morton Frozen Foods who is under contract to purchase the land. He said Morton wished the rezoning so the land would be the same zone as all the land they presently own, but they wish to use the land only for the construction of a circular driveway to facilitate entrance and exit from the plant and create a safer atmosphere for pedestrians. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion for approval as recommended by the Planning Commission was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10~ SP-78-74. Jeff Schmick. Public hearing on request for boating, canoe livery, recreational activity and dock area for portage on 14.5 acres zoned A-1. Property on north side of James River and on the weSt'~ide of Route 625 at Hatton. County Tax Map 136, Parcel 12. Seottsville District. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to abstain from di~s~ussion and vote on this item, as his firm represented Mr. Schmick. Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report: Character of the Area The Hatton Ferry and C S 0 Railroad are in this area. The standard~ flood level is about 14 feet aboVe ground level at the existing structures under ¢ons~demation. Staff Comments The Engineering Department has made field inspection of this property and has stated opinion that the existing structures are in the flood fringe. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Site plan approval including among other requirements: a) Statement from County Engineer that the applicant's proposals for securing and anchoring all structures and portable items related to the use are reasonably adequate to insure that the same will not be carried off-site in the case of flooding. b) Signed statement by the applicant and property owner that they have read and are in full understanding and agreement with Section 9A-5-7 and Section 9A-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, to be submitted with site plan. No canoe is to be rented without an adequate number of flotation devices for the occupants. Should any structure be damaged beyond limits of restoration as provided in Section 9A-9, the Zoning Administrat~ may require immediate removal of the damaged structur , if in the opinmon of the Zoning Administrator the same may be hazardous to property owners or the public zn general. January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on December 12, 1978, unanimously recommended approval with the staff's conditions, deleting the words "to be submitted with site plan" from the end of #1(b) and adding #i(c) to read;[ "The site plan may include a dock." Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant wished to use the existing buildings or put up new structures on the site. Mr. Tucker said it was the understanding of the Planning Commission that no new structures were to be built. An unidentified person, apparently representing the applicant, said no new structures were planned, that existing structures were to be converted for the use. Me noted that the use would be good for the public of the area, and would be ecologically sound. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request. No one wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. St. John, said condition two was not something the Zoning Administrator is respon- sible for, and that if left in, would be setting a precedent. Mr. Fisher suggested it be stricken, and Mr. Roudabush suggested the following wor~ihg:' -.UUSe'~ermi~ted~"dnder this permit shall be limited to existing structures on the 'site 'and any proposed' docks may be approved under item "l(c)";". Mr. Roudabush then offered motion for approval with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, with the amendment of #2. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-78-75. Thomas G. Clarkson. Public hearing on request for a Home Occupation-Class B on 2.867 acres zoned A-1. Property is on the east side of Route 708, about one mile north of the intersection of Routes 708 and 710. County Tax Map 73, Parcel 41A(~). Samuel Miller District. Mr. Tucker read the planning staff's report: Request: Home Occupation-Class B Acreage: 2.367 acres Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 41A6, is located at the northeast corner of Route 708 and Stockton Road in Rush Estates. Character of the Area This is a lot in a partially developed single-family subdivision. is from Stockton Road. Staff Comment Access to the propert Building and Fire Official approvals of studio and kiln installation,s. Compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home 0ceupation - Class B. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on December 12, 1978, by a vote of 2~-1, recommended approval with the staff's conditions. Mr. Clarkson was present and said this would be an artist's studio only. of his sales would be at art g~t~e~i:e:-~ or fairs. At least 90% No one else from the public wishes to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. A brief discussion involving the use of a sign developed, but Mr. Clarkson assured the Board he had no intention of putting up a large smgn of any kind. Motion for approval was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the request with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: M~ssrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachett% and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ' :~-' : _' ~ .'., ~.m. Agenda Item No. Rescue Squad site plan. ~eminoI~Trail Volunteer Fire Department/Charlottesville-Albemarle Mr. Tucker read the planning staff's report: Location: On the west side of Berkmar Drive northwest of Charlottesville. Acreage: 3~'7+ acres Zoning: B-1 Business History: SP-78-70 was approved by the Board of Supervisor~ on December 13, 1978 with conditions. Proposal: Building sites of Charlottesvil!eYAlbemarle Rescue Squad and Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department. Staff COmments: Staff has received one letter of opposition to this proposal. The · etter deals primarily with the proximity of these uses (mainly bingo parking) to residential areas. The applicant has agreed to shift the large parking lot approximately 20 feet away from lot 9 in Berkeley and delete a few parking spaces bomdering lot 19 in Berkeley. The future extension of Commonwealth Drive through the fire station ~ ~ .... ~ ........... ~__ The applicant pm~poses to operate a pottery studio in a 30 x 40 foot accessory structure with a gas~fired kiln located separately. Staff opinion is that this use would not be detrimental to the area. Staff recommends approval subject to: January 3, 1979 (R~gular-Night Meeting) Recommended Conditions of Approval: A building permit will be issued when the following Conditions have been met: !. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. 2. Landscape plan is subject to staff approval; including a buffer between residential areas; note on plan: "Landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy condition, to be replaced if it should die." 3. Fire Official approval of location of hydrants and handicapped facilities, the minimum number as required. 4. Gradi~!p~mmi±"i~ 5. County Engineering Department approval of drainage system and curbing. 6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances. 7. Note zoning of adjacent tracts. 8. Only those'areas wh~e a, structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, parking areas, and other physical improvements are to be located as shown on the plan shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. 9. During construction, reasonable action should be taken to protect and maintain specified2 trees with stakes and ropes, particularly near existing residential areas. ~A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: lB. Compliance with SP-78-70. 11. Signs must comply with requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. 12. Alignment of future extension of Commonwealth Drive for public access to be approve, by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Tucker noted the Planning Commission[recommended approval with~the staff's conditio~ but deleting the words "of entrances" from #6 and adding the words "of drainage system and curbing" and also adding condition #10 reading: "Parking lot be adjusted to provide 20 foot buffer from residential areas'~; and the renumbering #10, #11, and #12 as #11, #12 and #13. Dr. Iachetta questioned condition #15 saying it was misleading, and was not the.%mne intention. He suggested the worRing of #13 be changed to read as follows: "Alignment of future road from Commonwealth Drive to Berkmar Drive for' phblic access ~D be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation." Mr. Agnor proceeded to describe the topography of the land, and the reason the building was sited as shown. Dr. Iachetta said he met with the Berkeley Homeowners Association along with the architect, Sam Darnell, and explained to the residents the reasons for the change in the building layout, noting that the new plan would require no bulldozing of the land, and would allow existing trees and land slope to remain. Mr. Sam Darnell sta%ed that he designed the fire house to conform with setback require- ments even if Co~nonwealth Drive is extended. He th~n presented a model of the planned fire house for the Board to observe. Motion was made by Dr. Iachetta to approve this site plan with conditions recommended by the Planning> Commission with the rewording of condition #13 as stated above. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and earrled by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: M~ssrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iach~tta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-78-11. Pied Mont Vineyards Co{, Inc. and Fidelity Corporation Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for "country inn" by special use permit in the A-1 Agricultural District; and to provide a definition under Section 16 of "country inn". (Advertised in the Daily Progress o~ December 20 andDecember 27, 1978.) Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: "Pied Mont Vineyards Co., Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend the A-1 Agricultural zone to provide for "country inns" (Section 2-1-25(10..1)) by special use permit and has proposed the following definition: Section 16-22.1 Country Inn: An inn, used in conjunction with 15 or'~ore~ acres of-land, which may include as accessory uses, dining facilities, guest rooms, swimming pool or pools, tennis courts, and riding stables or a riding school, all of whidh may be open to the public. Staff recommends approval of'this petition for the following reasons: 1) Uses similar to those cited in the proposed definition are currently provided by special use permit in the A-1 Agricultural zone, namely: 2-1-25(3) Athletic fields 2-1-25(10) Country clubs, community centers, swimming, tennis, fishing, gun and yacht clubs and similar uses 2-1-25(21) Motels and inns 2-1-2S(25) Public riding stables 2-1-25(28)(A) Restaurants located on or adjacent to motel premises St~[ff-~ecommends approval of %he site plan with conditions. January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) 2) By expanding certain of the current provisions from "club" to public use, the County may reduce the demand on governmental provision of such uses (tennis, swimming, and horseback riding). Staff recommends the following amendments: Section 2-1-25(10.1) Country inn Section 16-22.1 Country Inn: An inn which may include as accessory uses: guest rooms, dining ~acitities, swimming pools, riding stables and schools, and tennis courts, all of which may be open to the public." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on December 12, 1978, recommend approval of ZTA-78-11, with the following wording which is somewhat different from the staff's recommendation: Section 2-1-25(10.1) Country inn Section 16-22.1 Country Inn: An inn which may include as accessory uses: swimming pools, riding stables, riding schools, and tennis courts, all of which may be open to the public. Mr. Tucker said the words "guest rooms" and "dining facilities" were deleted because Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, said he felt the standard definition of an "inn" which is in the zoning Ordinance already includes such facilities. The acreage limitation recommended by the staff was felt to be arbitrary and also was deleted. (Many of the applicant's remarks through the' meeting referred to a justification prepared for this application, therefore same is set out below:-) "Memorandum in Support. of Applications for a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA-78-11) and 'for 'a Spe'ci'al Use Permit (SP-78-76) - "Keswick Country Inn" A) Introduction: The 618-'acre Keswick property is located approximately six miles easm of Charlottesville. There are several private residences located on the property, their location is indicated by the shaded areas on the diagram of the property which is attached as Appendix A. The remainder of the property includes a public golf course, a main building and dining facilities, swimming pools, tennis courts, and a large amount of open space and woods. The applications for a zoning text amendment (ZTA-78-11) and a special use permit (SP-78-76) involve less than 3% of the property--they involve only approximately 18 acres which surround the main building at the entrance to Keswick and which front Route 731, including the main structure itself, the adjacent outbuildings, the swimmzng pools and the tennis courts. The Keswick property currently is owned by the Fidelity Corporation, a major insurance corporation which has its home offices in Omaha, Nebraska. The property currently is occupied and operated by Pied Mont Vineyards Company, Inc., a Virginia corporation which has contracted to purchase the property. The two applications are being submitted by Pied Mont Vineyards and Fidelity Corporation (hereinafter "the applicants") in an effort to clarify the land use situation at Keswick and to recognize formally what in fact has been the use of the property for a substantial portion of at least the past 30 years. To this end, the two applications request that the Albemarle County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors: Add "Country Inn" to the Special Uses AlloWed in the Agricultural District, A-I: Amen~'<?~S. sc~on 2-1 of the Albemarle County~Zoning 0rdinanee by adding a new section, Section 2-1-25(10.1), to allow property in the Agricultural District, A-I, to be used as a "Country Inn" with a special use permit. 2. Add a Definition of "Country Inn" to the ZOning Ordinance: AmeRdkArticte 16 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by adding a new section, Section 16-22.1, to define a "Country Inn" as follows: "Country Inn": An inn used in conjunction with 15 or more acres of land, which may include as accessory uses dining facilities, guest rooms, swimmzng pool or pools~, tennis courts, and riding stables or a riding school, all of which may be open to the public." Similar uses are now permitted at the Boar's Head Inn. Issue a Special Use Permit to Fidelity Corporation and Pied Mont Vineyar'ds' Company, Inc., to Operate a Portion of the Keswick Property as "Country Inn": The applicants request a special use permit allowing approximately-18 acres surrounding the main structure at Keswick to be operated as a "Counmry Inn." B) Background: At the present time, the overwhelming majority o'f the Keswick property, which has been deVeloped and which surrounds the private residences on the property, already is open to the public as a golf cours,e, Furthermore, that portion of the main building which faces the golf course and the private residences also is open to the public. The only portions of the property i10 January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) Since at least the mid-1940's, that portion of the Keswick property which is not occupied by private residents has been operated as a golf course with accessory dining facilities. For a substantial period~of that 30 years, certain other accessory uses such as swimming pools and tennis courts also have been available. There have been a number of individuals who have attempted to operate the Keswick facilities during this 30-year period. None of the ventures experienced any long-term success. There is considerable evidence that some of the ~roprietors have operated the Keswick property as, in effect, a public facility, either by expressly opening the property to public use or, by making membership in a semi-private club available at such a nominal fee that it has in effect been open to the public. That is, even when the property was operated as a semi-private club, any member of the public could become a "member" of the club merely by paying a nominal "membership fee.'~ In addition, all of the owners or operators have operated a catering service for private functions which were held in the main building, and large private groups frequently attended those catered functions. In 1974, the nature of the Keswick facilities became the subject of a lawsuit brought by the then lessee of the Keswick property, Charlottesville Country Club at Keswick, Inc., against the Albemarle County ZOning Administrator, the County Attorney, the Commonwealth's Attorney, and the Members of the Board of Supervisors. In that lawsuit, the plaintiff sought to establish its right (1) to operate the Keswick property under the 1968 Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as a pubtie golf course, with a public restaurant as a permissible accessory use, and (2) to continue to operate semi-public tennis courts and swimming pools and a catering service as valid non-conforming uses which antedated the 1968 zoning ordinance. The County took the position that~the plaintiff's operation of the dining facilities in the main building at Keswick as a public restaurant violated the 1968 zoning ordinance. The lawsuit never reached trial; it was settled by the parties. The terms of that settlement are contained in a Consent Order which was entered by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County on January 21, 19'75. Pursuant to that Consent Order, Charlottesville Country Club at Keswick, Inc. was permitted to operate the golf course as a public facility. The main building at Keswick was divided roughly in half. Half the main building, including the pro shop, the men's and women's golf locker rooms, the toilet facilities, and three of the rooms which had been used as restaurant facilities, were recognized as valid accessory uses to a public golf course and therefore were permitted to be used as public facilities. The remainder of the main building as well as the tennis courts, swimming pools and related buildings were to be operated on a private basls. Finally, the hours of service in the public areas were designated as "8:g0 a.m. or later, depending on season, until two hours after sunset." To the applicants' knowledge, no other pubtie facility in Albemarle County is restricted to such narrow hours of operation. Furthermome, ~it is not clear to what extend the owner of the property, Fidelity Corporation, and its present contract purchaser, Pied Mont Vineyards, are bound by the Consent Order. Fidelity was not a party to the 1974 suit and had no notice of the 1975 Consent Order until considerably after that order had been entered by the court. Had it been a party to the 1975 suit, Fidelity would not have agreed either to the division of the property into public and private areas or to the limitation on the hours of operation of the public areas because of the adverse impact such a division and limitation were bound to have on possibilities for financing or selling the property in the future. However, it is important to remember that even under the 1975 Consent Order, all of the Keswick property which surrounds or faces the private residences on the property already may be used by the public. The only portion of the property which is restricted to private use is that portion which faces away from the private residences and fronts Route 73t-~the half of the main building which faces the main entrance, the swimming pools, tennis courts, and related buildings. This area currently restricted to private use represents only a small portion of the property subject to this application. Pied-Mont Vineyards has been operating the golf course and the designated dining areas as pubtie facilities for the past year. This past August, Pied Mont Vineyards obtained Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses for the sale of beer, wine and mixed beverages in the public facilities at Keswick. Pied Mont Vineyards also has been operating a private catering service for private groups wishing to use the private facilities. C) Comparison of "Country Inn" Concept with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use of the 18 acres surrounding the main structure at Keswick as a "Country Inn" is entirely consistent with the recently adopted Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. The main Challenge facing the County has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as "... the CountY's ability to preserve and enhance the positive aspects of its resources." Among the resources identified are the following: "A sound ~and stable economic base; a variety of occupational opportunities; a significant level'of cultural and recreational opportunities; physically attractive rural landscape made of both farm and wooded mountainous terrain, a sense of history embodied in historic places and people's pride in the events and persons associated with them." In its Plan, the County has set certain planning goals and objectives, a number of which are relevant to these two applications. With regard to conservation of natural resources, the County has indicated that it wishes to "conserve the County's environment and the balance of its natural ecology by identifying critical conservation areas, developing standards and methods for controlling development within these areas, and~.developing and applying... !11 January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) has indicated that it wishes to "respect historic values, including preservation of historic sites and buildings representing period architecture" while at the same time improving "...accessibility and levels of use of historic places." The best agricultural lands are to be conserved and their agricultural uses to be promoted. In particular, standards are to be developed "...for location of development within agricultural areas which encourage development of wooded areas and minimize interference with agricultural operations." With regard to commercial and industrial goals, commerce and industry are to be encouraged in the County. "Conveniently accessible and attractive commercial concentrations (are to be established) in a variety of locations where the use of the County's highways is not impaired nor safety hazards created." And existing industries are to be permitted to expand and new industries are to be permitted to locate in the County...in keeping with the County's desire to provide jobs for residents entering the labor force, to maintain a balanced employment mix, and to avoid stimulating rapid population growth." The operation of a "Country Inn" on a small portion of the Keswick property is entirely consistent with these goals and objectives. Furthermore, the proposed distribution of new population set forth in the Plan would not be affected by the operation of a "Country Inn" at Keswiek since the inn would not involve the construction of new residences. In addition, the operation of a "Country Inn" at Keswick is consistent with both the proposed plan for the Village of Keswick and with the general land use plan for the County. D) ~.otential ImR~qt of the Proposed "Keswick Country Inn": As mentioned above, all the property which currently surrounds or faces the private residences on the Keswiek property is now open to the public under the existing zoning, The golf course is a public facility; slightly less than half of the dining facility space in the maz~ building, all of which faces the private residences on the property, also is open to the public. There are no limits at-the present time on the number of membersLof the public who may use the golf course or the dining facilities. Thus, it is highly likely that opening the remaining Keswick facilities to the public and operating a public riding school there will not have a substantially increased impact .over what ms possible under the present use. It should also be noted that the proposed use would not involve any more public access to the golf facilities or other areas surrounding the private residences on the property than is permissible under the present use. For example, no greater public use of the interior roads on the property is anticipated. The public merely would need to have access -- as it does now -- from Routes 22 and 731 to the main building on the property. Furthermore, no new structures are being proposed. Only remodelling of the main building currently is contemplated. At various times during the past years of operation when the Keswick property attracted a greater .number of individuals more frequently than it does now, the impact on the residents living both on and around the property was not substantial. The proposed "Country Inn" should not have any greater impact. E) Financial and Operational Vitality of the Keswick Property: During its ownership of the property, Fidelity has had several different individuals and corporations operate the property. None have had long-term Success. It is the opinion of both applicants that public access to Keswiek is critical to such success under the property's present use. Unless public use of all the dining facilities and guest rooms in the main building, as well as the tennis courts and swimming pools, is permitted through a clear-cut and valid zoning enactment, the applicants do not believe that the necessary permanent financing will be forthcoming from any bank or other lending institution to allow the present operation to continue. ~ Thus, after trying to assist several prior operations in establishing a viable operation under the present use, Fidelity has made the financial decision that if it cannot obtain the necessary authorization to permit public access to the portions of the Keswick property in question so that an arrangement can be worked out with Pied Mont Vineyards to finance and purchase the property, it will have no choice but to try to sell the property by subdividing~it for residential use. The applicants had some doubt whether this business decision should be mentioned, since they did not want it to be misunderstood as a threat. However, they finally decided that since the decision already had been made, it should be communicated to the Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors for what it is worth as a planning and land use factor. Obviously, any such subdivision would have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the County Code. But to the extent it was consistent with those documents, and to the extent necessary approvals were obtained, the subdivision would be undertaken. Both Fidelity and Pied Mont Vineyards would prefer to use the 18 acres surrounding the main building at Keswick as a "Country Inn" so the property could remain under its present use and the golf course, open space and woods could be maintained. However, if that is not possible, sound business judgment dictates that Fidelity subdivide the land. ¥) ComParison of Uses Permitted Under Exi'Stlng Zoning Ordinance and the Propos'ed "Country Inn": There were at least three legislative alternatives available for requesting formal authorization to operate the Keswick facilities as a "Country Inn" as defined above. One was to ask for an interpretation Of "Accessory Uses" to public golf courses under the current zoning ordinance. A second was to try to piece together certain "uses of right" and other uses which are authorized with a special use permit. The third was to request that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit a new special use of a "Country Inn" as defined above. January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) (1) Under the current Zoning Ordinance, certain "uses of right" and accessory uses are permitted in an ~A-1 district. A public golf course is one such use permitted "as of right." According to the 1.975 Consent Order, the parties to that suit were willing to agree that certain public dining facilities were a permissible accessory use to the Keswick golf course. Arguably, the remaining dining facilities in the main building, as well as the swi~ing pools and tennis courts, also are reasonable accessory uses to a public golf course. Albemarle County currently has existiDg facilities as precedent for such an argument. For example, the Boar's Head Inn now has tennis courts and previously had a small golf course as accessory uses to a Public restauraht~ and public lodging facility. In addition, most private golf courses and many Public courses in and outside the Albemarle-Charlottesville area have swimming pools and tennis courts adjacent to them as accessory uses. (2) The requested "Country Inn" definition could also be pieced together from current uses which are permitted ih an A-1 district with a special use permit. Sections 2-1-25(10) country clubs, swimming and tennis clubs;~ 2-1-25(21) motels and inn; 2-1-25(28)(A) restaurants located on or adjacent to motel premises. (3) Of these alternatives, however, the applicants decided that the clearest and most direct approach would be to request that the special use of a "Country Inn," as defined above, be added to the uses permitted with a special use permit in an A-1 d~strict. G) Conclusion: For the reasons indicated above, the applicants respectfully request that the Albemarle County Planning Commission and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (1) amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to add "Country Inn" to the uses which are permitted with a special use permit in the Agricultural District, A-I, and (2) issue a special use permit to the applicants to operate the designated portion of the Keswick property as a "Country Inn" so as to clarify the existing land use situation with regard to that property and to recognize formally the actual use which has in fact been made of the property for various periods of time over the past thirty years." At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. J. W~ Lane, Presiden' of Pied Mont Vineyards, Inc. Mr. Lane said he came to this area because he is interested in vineyards and a winery. Although this property is not the best suited for his long-range plans, it has excellent marketing facilities, such as the restaurants and sports and recrea- tional facilities. After he signed a contract for purchase of the property, he found there were certain restrictions On the property which are not a part of the title or a part of the County's zoning restrictions. The most sensible use of the facility was to extend its use to the public. They did this by requesting that the "Country Inn" be made a part of the County's zoning ordinance.. At the hearing before the Planning Commission, certain restrictions were recommended to be placed on the special permit which he agrees with, but the recommended hours of operation are not the same as those put on other operations of this type nor do they conform to ABC laws. Mr. Lane said the Keswick Club has been at this location for a long time and has had a varied history, of operations. It will not be easy to put it back mn shape. However.~ if he can get a broader market, there is a possibility of bringing in vineyards and a winery. In fact, he will be bringing in about 70,000 plants sometime during the next two weeks. Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Lane objected to the removal of "guest rooms" and "dining facilities" from the Planning Commission's recommended wording. Mr. Lane said he did not as long as it is understood that they are included under other ordinance definitions. Mr. Fisher said the applicant had mentioned the special permit which is to follow vote on this request and asked Mr. Tucker to present the staff's report at this time. Rggnda Item No. 13. SPL78-76. Pied Mont Yineyards Co., Inc. Petition for a "country inn'~ ~n~approximately 19 acres zoned A-1 agricultUral. Property located on the south side of Route 731 and was formerly known as the Keswick Country Club. County Tax Map 80, Parcels 9, 8 (part thereof~, and 8Z (part theresa). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 20 and December 2g, 1978.) Request: Country Inn (Section 2-1-25(10.1)) Approximately 18 acres A-1 Agricultural Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 8 (part), 8z (part), and 9, is located on the east side of Route 731 at Keswick. Acreage: Zoning: Location: Character of the Area: This property is a portion of the Keswick Country Club containing the main building, swimming pools and tennis courts. January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) Staff Comment: The golf course and about one-half of the dining facilities are currently open to the public. Staff opinion is that openzng the remaining existing facilities to the public would not appreciably impact the area. Any proposal for expansion would require reevaluation of impact in the area, including public roads. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval is for existing facilities and uses only. 2) Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. for swimming pools, tennis courts, and all other outdoor recreational activity. No seating after 11:30 p.m. in dining facilities. 3) No off-premises license for sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted. 4) Building and fire inspections approval. 5) No outdoor public address system including amplified phonographs, radios, and the like, and including musical groups employing amplified instruments." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on December 12, 1978, recommend approval of this special permit by a vote of 8-1, with the following conditions which are somewhat different from the staff's recommendations: 1) Approval is for existing facilities and uses only; including riding stables/schools. 2) Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until 11:00 p.m. for swimming pools, tennis courts, and all other outdoor recreational activity. No seating after 11:30 p.m. in dining facilities, with all activities to end at 1:00 a.m. 3) Building and fire inspection approval. 4) No outdoor public address system including amplified phonographs, radios, and the like and including musical groups employing amplified instruments shall exceed 40 decibels at the nearest property line. 5) Site plan approval ~f all new facilities and any other facilities as required by Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the Zoning Administrator had determined today that there is adequate parking for the inn itself so no site plan will be required for that, but a site plan will still be required for the riding facilities. Mr. Tucker also noted that several letters from adjoining property owners had been received. Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing on the special permit request. Mr. Gordon Wheeler asked Mr. St. John to explain the Consent Order on this property. Mr. St. John said the country club was in existence before the county had a zoning ordinance, therefore it was a pre-existing, non-conforming use. The litigation was an interpretation of what had gone on at the country club, whether those uses were public or private and if they had the right to continue those uses if they had not been discontinued for as long as two years. Counsel stipulated and the. Court..~gre~to the Consent 0rder~ Some uses which had been open to the public had been ~[~c?p~/~z~ were approved by the Consent Order as being p~blic. A sketch was drawn of the building that shows which areas are public and which are private. That sketch is a part of the court record. The Court ordered that the dining room, swimming pool and the coffee shop that was part of the pro shop were public and the rest of the club was private. The Court Order, when it made part of the club public, enlarged the ~ights of the owners because if it had not been for the pre-existing uses, nothing at the club except the golf course could have been public. Mr. St. John said, in his judgment, the Court O~der does not affect the legislative discretion of the Board in any way. The Board can proceed with the applications as if there were no Court Order, but if the applications are denied, the Court Order zs still in effect and the owners can continue to operate under that Order. Mr. Wheeler said he was one of the intervenors in that court order and would have to rely on Mr. St. John's interpretation. He asked if Mr. Lane has' standing to make this application. Mr. Lane Kneedler, attorney for Mr. Lane, said applications were submitted by both the current owner (Fidelity Corporation) and Mr. Lane, who is the contract purchaser. Present to verify that Fidelity Corporation had entered into the applications was Mr. Steven P. Settlage, attorney with the firm of Hirschler, Fieischer, Weinberg, Cox and Allen of Richmond, Virginia, who verified that the senior partner in that law firm had signed the application form. Mr. Wheeler said he had lived within 1000 feet of the main club house for 25 years. The club has been operated by several people during the last 30 years and has had a very liberal guest policy. Mr. Wheeler said although he feels that a restaurant, a riding stable and a golf eoumse are compatible in A-1 areas, to have a re~staurant, a hotel, riding, golf courses, swimming and a winery as public uses all in one area puts too much activity in one area. He felt this would be detrimental to the 15 homeowners who live on the country club grounds. He said there would have been additional homes built on these grounds, but water and sewer problems had deueloped. He said if the zoning text amendment is adopted, then he woul~ suggest the following conditions be attached to the special permit: 1) 2) 3) 4) S) 6) Approval for existing facilities only. Any new facilities or additions to present facilities be subject to amendment of the special use permit. Hours of operation be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for swimming pools, tennis courts, and all other outdoor recreational activity. Ail indoor activities,' dining, special parties, etc. to end at 12:30 a.m. No off-premises license sale of alcoholic beverages to be permitted. Ail buildings to be subject t6 Building Code and Fire Code Inspections. No outdoor public address systems including amplified phonographs, radios, and the like including musical groups employing amplified instruments. The permit be applicable to 18 acres and that 18 acres be designated by current survey and boundaries marked. Mr. Jack Dillard said he owns properzy only 900 feet from the club house. He asked that the Board be cautious because once the zoning text amendment is adooted it lasv~ *~ ~a~ January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Worth MeAllister said he lives within the Keswick Club grounds about one mile from the club. He asked where the riding school would be located and where in what area the riding would take place. He objected to the public riding past his house ~and also mentioned that the homeowners must pay to keep the roads repaired. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Lane where the riding facilities would be located and where the people would ride. Mr. Lane said this would take place on the 18 acres which he owns, but the people would have permission to ride on the additional acres which he owns. If they should ride on property outside of his property, they would incur the same liability that they do today. Mr. Ed Williams said his property is closer to the club house than is the property of any other person speaking. He said he has seen no problems with the recent change in ownershi in fact, there have been many improvements in the way the club is run. Mr. Clover asked that the Board approve the applications since he feels the club is a valuable part of the community. Mrs. Margaret Melcher, League of Women Voters, said the League asks that the Board consider setting a minimum acreage for country inns, both to maintain the rural attributes of the agricultural areas and to protect the surrounding residents from disturbance. Mrs. Arthur said she lives on the club grounds and helped to start' the Keswick Club. .She did not feel a club as proposed by the applicant would help the community. Mrs. Ellie Robinson said she helped take the original petition around to make the Keswick Club public and most property owners were in favor at that time. She saw no reason to deny this request and felt it would create more jobs for the people in the area. Mr. Ronnie Hancock said he ran the Keswick Club for three and one-half years. this would not be a cheap operation and would serve quality food. He felt Mr. Glenn Reynolds said he lives one and one-half miles from the club. He just received his reassessment notice this day and noted that his property has increased $40,000 in value during the past 12 years. Therefore, he did not think the operation of the club has effected property values in the area. Mr. Wheeler said that with the limited usership of the club as in the past, the operation has not effected property values, but his concern ms that it might at some time in the future. He then asked if this special permit request includes the making of wine or a winery. Mr. Fisher said there has been no request for a winery and that ms not included at this time under current ordinance definitions. Mr. Lindstrom said he was curious because Mr. Lane had mentioned receiving 70,000 plants and asked for an explanation. Mr. Lane said for seven years he has been in the area studying the question of where in Central Virginia vine grapes-could be grown with some possibility of commercial success. Soil samples were taken from Ash Lawn and Keswiek and sent to the University of Montpelier in France and the conclusion was reached that the possibility for growzng a quality grape in the thermal belt between Charlottesville and Lynchburg is as good as any place in France. In fact, the best location in Virginia for a winery is as close as possible to Monticello. Mr. Lane said the Keswick property does not ~aveL~h~ ~a~d but ~t has the wine-tasting rooms in place and he wants to use those rooms. Mm. Lane said the State Commissioner of Agriculture, Mr. Carbaugh, has worked with him on this project for six years. It is recognized that this might be a new agricultural industry for the central portion of Virginia. The wine industry is a capital intensive business. Once there is a success, or even a failure, there is the possibility of drawing in the kind of money that will eventually develop a wine industry in Central Virginia. Mr. Lane noted that he will never be able to do this, but in a small venture such as this he can give it a commercial viability test. He said he is only asking that the County let him use Keswick the way people have been using it for the past 30 or 40 years. Mr. Kneedler referred the Boamd to the justification filed with this request. He said they are requesting that the facility be opened to the public and that is all. This could have been done by trying to question in court the validity of the Consent Order. The appliean decided not to do that, nor to try and piece togetheD definitions from the existing zonzng ordinance, but instead to try a more direct approach by defining what Mr. Lane wants to do by adding a definition of a "country inn." Mr. Ed Williams said from what he has seen the last three years, the appearance of the club has improved and added to the value of the area. Mr. Fisher said from what he has heard, it leads him to believe that things are going well and no abrupt changes should be made. At 9:53 P.M. the Board took a recess and reconvened at 10:02 P.M. Mr. Lane said he accidentiy discovered the Consent Order about six or seven months after he began the Keswick operation. It was not a part of the title, nor of record in the Zoning Office. He had already begun to invest capital in the club and has continued to do so thinkin the problem could be resolved. Mr. Lane said no one can operate or finance the operation of the club under this restriction. A debt of such magnitude Cannot be amortized with a limited membership and limited facilities. In reference to-the discussion of off-premises sale of beer and wine, he does not want this and is not applying for a license for sale of wine, but in terms of long-term goals for a winery, to close off the long-term prospect of off-premises wine sales would end the operation. With no one else present to speak for or against this application, the public hearings were closed. Mr. Fisher requested the Board to discuss the zoning text amendment first. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Lane if he objected to the staff's recommended condition #3 . Mr. Lane said the application to the ABC Board is a single license application. He felt prohibiting beer would create a problem for their staff. IlI January 3, 1979 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. RoUdabush said he did not feel it was appropriate to adopt such a definition without including minimum acreage requirementscsince t~ese facilities would then be permitted on any two-acre parcel in the A-1 zone. Dr. Iachetta said in addition to putting in a minimum acreage requirement, the Board needs to decide if a riding stable should be a part of the definition. The other requested items seem to be adjunct to the use, but riding stables do not. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board should be careful not to create something that will not be consistent in the new revised zoning ordinance. Mr. Roudabush wanted to be sure that this use did not become a new nonconforming use under the new ordinance. Mr. Dorrier felt 15 acres was a reasonable requirement, but was not sure the riding school and stables should be deleted since they could be controlled through site plan review. Mr..Henley said a separate special permit could be obtained for the riding stables and school and this would cut down on the amount of acreage required. Mr. St. John said if the riding school and stables are deleted from the requested amendment, then the amendment is not needed since swimming pools and tennis courts are accessory uses for the guests staying at the inn. Mr. Lindstrom said he was reluctant to adopt a new amendment if the proposal can be accommodated under existing legislation. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about accessory uses becoming public operations. He did not think a compelling case has been made for the special permit. Dr. Iachetta asked if the applicant can accomplish what he wants to do within the present zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John said the amendment the applicant has requested calls these additional uses "accessory to the inn. If that is the case, they are already allowed under the present ordinance. Mr. Kneedter said they had ehoosen a "county inn" so all of these uses would be allowed under one permit. They were afraid that the swimming pools and tennis courts could not be open to the general public. They did use the words "accessory use", but did say "all of which may be open to the public" in order to make it clear that the persons using these facilities would not have to be guests at the inn. Mr. St. John said the Board could approve a special permit allowing him the uses he is asking for without amending %he ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not see anything in the present ordinance that would preclude the applicant from making application for the requested facilities, nor any reason why the applicant could not request that the part of the property that is now limited to private use, be made public. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to deny the requested amendment based on the County Attorney's opinion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said thre Board must now decide whether the applicant will be allowed to amend his permit request. Mr. St. John said the applicant can simply read into the record his request. Mr. Fisher suggested deferring action until the applicant had time to confer with his attorney. Mr.~Kneedler asked that the special permit request be amended to allow-for a motel under Section 2-1-25(21), a public riding stable under Section 2-1-25(25), and a public restaurant under Section 2-1-25(28), with the facilities being open to the public.whether or not the users are guests of the inn. Mr. Wheeler requested that the 'matter be deferred so he people he is representing can confer with their attorney. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to defer action on this request until January 17 in order to allow the applicant to amend his application in writing; to allow the staff time to review the amendment; and to allow any members of the public who are interested in this application, time to review the amended application before that date. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Approval~of Minutes: August 9, t978. Mr. Roudabush reported he had read the minutes as presented and found only one error. On page 389 change name "Howland" to "Heilman". Motion was then offered for approval with the noted correction by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher reported that the dates formerly suggested by City Council for a joint meeting with the Board are not acceptable and they now suggest that the meeting be held on January 15, 1979 at $:00 P.M. M6tion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to appoint Mrs.. Treva Cromwell to replace Dr. Lawrence Quarles as Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board; term to expire on May 1, 1980. This appointment has already been confirmed by City Council. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. January?3, 1979 (Regular-~ight Meeting) Motion was offered by Dr. Iaehetta,~' seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to confirm City Council's appointees to the Joint Services Committee, those being Mr. John Knapp and Mr. Frank Sherwood Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher,.Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to confirm the City's appointment of Mrs. Sally Thomas as Chairman of the JOint Services Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr. Roy Patterson and Mrs. Elizabeth P. Rosenblum as the County's representatives to the Joint Servic Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Thomas J. Miehie, Jr., dated December 20~ 1978: "The other day I attended a meeting of the subcommittee working on House Bill 63 which is concerned with the organization of local government. As you know that Bill, as presently drafted, eliminates all of the old forms of County government by name and creates three basic forms of government and allows localities to choose any variation they want as to matters such as Director of Finance and direct choice of school board. Two counties that have special forms of government have objected strenuously to those forms being abolished. These two counties are Arlington and Henrico. We have received no particular objection from Fairfax, Prince William or Albemarle and I see no reason that Albemarle is affected by the abolition of the county executive form of government. Nevertheless, at the last meeting of the subcommittee it was decided that we would not abolish the forms for Arlington and Henrico and that if there were good reasons to preserve them for the other three counties we would do so. I would appreciate your advising me as to Albemarle County's position on this matter. Needless to say, time is short and it would be helpful to have your advice by about January 10, 1979. I will be happy to consult with George St. John or anyone you wish concerning this' matter." It was the consensus of the Board to send a letter to Mr. Michie stating that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County strenuously objects to any change in the present county executive form of government for Albemarle County. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier~ to formally send such a letter. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier said he had received a call from a lady whO lives in Howardsville concerning a petition about hunting. She asked why the County had not appointed another game warden and he felt the Board should discuss this matter at a regular meeting. Mr. Agnor said he had met with County Game Warden, Ray Walker, and he has also ~alked to the Game and Inland Fisheries Office in Richmond. This matter is scheduled for the Board's meeting on January 10th. At 11:15 P.M., the meeting adjourned.