Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-07-06NJuly 6, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 6, 1977, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Board Members Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr, Uerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.;J County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr~ Agenda Item No. t. Meeting was called to order by Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman, at 7:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-77-30, Henry J. Javor. To locate a veterinary hospital on 5.03 acres zoned B-1 and M-1. Property located on north side of Route 250 West adjoining C & 0 Rai!way~~ County Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B, Samuel Miller District. (Advertised on May 31 and June 7, 1977.) Mr. Fisher said he had been given a letter from Mr. Javor requesting deferra~ No one from the public was present to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher requested the Board's action. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer public hearing on SP-77-30 until request is received fromMr. Javor to bring it back before ~he Board. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-~7-07. Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Inc. To rezone 27.893: acres from A-1 to RPN/R-I. Property on northwest side of Route 240 north of Route 250 West and one mile south of Crozet. County Tax Map 56, Parcel 14(part thereof), White Hall District. (Advertised on June 23 and June 30, 1977.) Mr. Fisher~reviewed for the public previous Board discussion on this petition. He said the question as %o whether or not a request for funding the project should go forward was proposed to the B'oard in January. He then explained the position of the County regarding this application, in the form of a review for those present at the meeting tonight. Mr. ~oudabush then read the following letters to the Board and public. July 6, 1977 Mr. John A. Dezio Commonwealth Attorney for Albemarle County Court Square Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear John, Charlottesville Housing Foundation, !nc. has applied to the Board of Supervisors requesting the rezoning of 28 acres located near Crozet from A-1 Agricultural to RPN/R-1. This request is on the agenda for the July 6, 1977 meeting of the Board. Several months ago Mr. Frank F. Smith, who is the architect preparing the site plan and building plans for a proposed housing project on the subject property, contacted our office requesting that we assist in contacting a firm who would be capable of preparing an aerial topographic map of this property. Our firm identified and contacted several firms on behalf of Mr. Smith and his client. The firm selected to prepsre the topographic mapping utilize~ the services of independent surveying firms to perform the necessary horizontal and vertical ground control r'equired for such mapping. We agreed to perform this phase of the work. The maps were prepared by the aerial mapping firm, and deliVered to our office where the property lines were superimposed on the drawing based on a boundary survey previously prepared by another local surveyor. Our office billed Mr. Smith for a sum of $1,900.00 consisting primarily of the charges m~de for the aerial photography and mapping by others. Please advise Df you feel that any conflict of interest exists which would prohibit my voting in this rezoning matter. Very truly yours, ( Signed ) William S. Roudgbush 1977 Mr. William S. Roudabush 91~ Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Bill: I am in receipt of your letter of Jdly 6, 1977. Based upon the matters set forth therein and based upon my review of the application of Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Inc., I can find no conflict of interests which would prevent you from becoming involved in the deliberation and consideration of the rezoning request and which would ~revent you from voting thereon. Ju~y 6, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) If I may be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, (Signed) John A. Dezio Mr. Tucker then read the county staff report. Character of the Area This property is open, rolling, and undeveloped. Several single-family dwellings are on the east side of Route 240. The property is bordered on the north and west by a farm. The Henley-Brownsville school complex and 2 single-family dwellings are to the south. Existing Zoning Properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned A-1. Comprehensive Plan Land use - The Plan proposed stream valley conservation and a park for this property. To date, the County has not pursued acquisition of property in this area for park usage. Staff opinion is that medium density residential use would be in keeping with the Comrpehensive Plan recommendations for surrounding areas. The Meadows plan reflects stream valley preservation. Goals and Objectives - Staff opinion is that this proposal favorably reflects County goals and objectives for (1) low/moderate income and elderly housing; (2) approaches to la~d development (page 53, pages 57-62) Applicant's Proposal The proposal is to locate 80 one-bedroom dwelling units for the elderly and elderly deaf and a community center on 27.893 acres at a density of 2.87 units/ acre. Occupancy would be restricted to persons 62 years of age or older. (See attachment: Jordan Development Corporation: Program°for Elderly Housing.) Twenty- eight units (28) would be constructed when the Crozet interceptor is available. Comparative Impact Statistics Dwellings Population Vehicle trips/day* Water consumption (gpd) Students Requested as % of Existing A-1 Requested RPN/R--1 Existing 12 80 + 567% 38 96-120a +153-216% 126 40- 80b - 37- 68% 3800 9600-12,000 +153-216% 8 0 a Low range estimate based on information supplied in similar application. High range assumes 1.5 persons/unit and 100% occupancy. b Low range estimate assumes 0.5 vehicle/unit; high range assumes 1 vehicle/unit. Both employ 1 vehicle trip/unit/day as used previously in a similar application. As can be seen in the table above, while the density would increase, traffic and student impacts from this development would be less under existing zoning. No students are projected from this development and traffic would be reduced by 1/3 to 2/3. Land Use Statistics Area % of Site Residential 9 acres 32.3% Qpen Space 18 acres 6~.5% TOTAL 27 acres 96.8% Gross density Net density 2.87 units/acre 8.89 units/acre STAFF COMMENT The following is staff analysis of aspects of this application which are favorable and unfavorable: Favorable 1. This project reflects goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan by providing housing f~r the elderly and elderly deaf on a low/moderate income basis; 2. The physical design reflects County objectives in terms of respecting steep slopes, stream valleys, and open space maintenance. About 2/3 of the site would remain in open space when developed. 3. Staff opinion is that ~this request substantively complies with the land ~se-recommendations of the ~omprehensive Plan; 4. Traffic and school enrollment impaat is estimated to be less than under existing A-1 zoning; 5. With respect to surrounding development, staff has no objection to the integration of housing for the elderly in a low density residential area. To the contrary, staff opinion is that such development is more appropriate in a low-densitv rural atmosphere t~an~,~in ~ro×imitv to ~i~-den~tv July 6, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) Unfavorable 1. Pedestrian access to Crozet shopping facilities is poor, both in terms of distance and safety. Pedestrian access to the Brownsville Market is poor in ~terms of safety; 2. This location is removed from hospital and medical facilities. Emergency service to this area is by the rescue squad on Mcintire Road in Charlottes- ville. Round trip with/short on-the-scene time varies greatly and could be as great as two hours; 3. Relative to the Charlottesville area, social and cultural opportunities are limited and staff is concerned about potential isolation. Staff recommends approval of this petition with the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 80 units. 2. Entrance and deceleratiOn lane constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. The developer shall be responsible for such off~site grading and other improvements required for adequate sight distance. Dedication of 25 feet fro~ the centerline along Route 240. 3. Approval is contingent upon County Engineer approval of final read, parking, drainage, and grading plans. In his review, the County Engineer shall be guided by recommendations of the Betz Study. Approval of final water and sewer lines by the Albemarle County Service Authority is required. 5. Compliance with recommendations of the Fire Marshal including provision for adequate fire flow and fire lanes. 6. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater. 7. Only those areas where a structure, street, utility, trail, or other such improvements are proposed, shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. 8. Approvals of appropriate local, state and federal agencies prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide all water and sewer facilities including such off~site improvements as may be necessitated by this development. 10. Review and approval by the County Attorney of all agreements, contracts, requirements, and other transactions among the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Jordan Corporation, Federal, State and local agencies and all others'involved in this development to insure that the County of Albemarle shall bear no responsibility for the development of future operation and maintenance of this project. 11. Parking shall compl~ with the preliminary plan, provided, however, the number of parking spaces may be reduced to any number not less than that permitted by any variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals from the provisions of Section 11-7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Or'dinance. 12. Occupancy shall be limited to persons aged 62 years or older. For the purpose of this condition, if one spouse is age 62 years or older, the other spouse shall be considered to be 62 years of age. 13. Before the plan is implemented, th~ approval of the Circuit Court Judge for the conveyance of the property to the Jordan Corporation for the purposes of the rezoning be obtained; if necessary. JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Program for Elderly Housing Intent The purpose of the project is to provide a housing alternative to older persons living in ~Albemarle and surrounding rural counties who wish a semi-rural environment. The project sponsor, the Jordan Development Corporation, is a private, not-for-profit corporation organized expressly to assist persons of low and moderate incomes to expand their housing choices by construction of housing units available for purchase or rent. The Corporation utilizes those available ~ources of financing which can produce safe, economical, and adequate housing. Its affairs are governed by a ten member Board of Directors, including two representatives of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation,--:two members of the Jefferson Area Boarc ville and Albemarle residents. Need Approximately, seventy-five p age 60 and over (17,900) are home that most elderly home owners pref However, many face complicated prol when ability to do repairs is decl: housekeeping in spaces frequently are considering a move to rental he competing w~th a University and Hn~ for new one-bedroom apartments witk Older renval units, not as costly, rundown neighborhoods or isolated rural rental apartments. Thus ~n elderly renters have few choices i The major concerns of older p health care accessibility; transpoz physical-and psychological safety. peace and quiet, opportunities for hills, streams, and woods which ar~ &or Aging, and individual Charlottes- rcent of the district's population ~wners. The Corporation believes ~r to remain where they now reside. ~lems of continued and costly~"maintenance ning; higher taxes; problems of oo large for their needs. Those who using face a market where they are versity-service rel'ated population rentals beginning at $175 per month. are frequently poorly situated in ural areas. There are very few he region both elderly homeowners and they wish to move. rsons in deciding to: m~e will be tation availability to other services; Some older persons wishing to move want gardening or for enjoying views of a part of rural life but they want to avoid isolation and extreme inconvenience. Zt is expected that the new Therefore, the housing is designed for elderly persons who wish a semi- rural environment; safe from crime, but with access to basic life support services; such as medical care, shopping, fire and police protection. Oppor- tunities will be provided for friendly visiting as well a privacy. Resource Consolidation The proposed project will combine funds from three federal sources to assist in alleviating elderly housing needs. 1) a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Albemarle County will provide funds for land acquisition, site preparation and the construction of a senior community center to be used both by residents of the housing complex and the surrounding community. The HUD Section 8 rent assistance program will be incorporated into the management agreement, so that low to moderate income persons, age 62 and over, will be able to lease the proposed residential units. 2) a loan from the Farmers Home Administration will allow construction of twenty-eight (28) one bedroom one-story residential units. 3) the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (the area agency on aging, supported in part by all local governments in Planning District Ten) will be actively involved in the on-going management and operations of the program. With Older Americans Act funds from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (ad- ministered by the Virginia Office on Aging), group activities will be provided at the senior community center for residents and older persons in the community at large. A preventive health screening clinic will be established. Mental health counseling will be available. Recreation and education programs are planned. Daily transportation, in 12 and 15 passenger vans, will be available week days to residents at low cost. It is expected that a hot lunch program, to which p~rsons contribute, will be organized, and oth. er services added as requested by the residents and the community. Characteristics of the Project and Tenants The complex will have self-contained housekeeping units with a community center for joint activities. Emphasis will be on independent living with privacy, and the opportunity provided for individual and group activities, such as gardening and crafts. The residential units must be occupied by persons age 62 and over. These persons must be physically and psychologically self-sufficient. No dependents, other than spouse, will be accepted. Four of the twenty-eight units will be especially equipped for elderly deaf persons. Management policies will be developed for tenant selection which will protect the Corporation from liability or insolvency, but will not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, or national origin'. Mr. Tucker also noted receipt of public letters both for and against the petition which had already been distributed to Board members. He noted that the Planning Commission on June 21, by a vote of 5 - 2, recommended denial of the petition. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Tucker if there was any area of the County which would be more suitable for the location of an elderly housing project that~the one proposed. Mr. Tucker saJ he could think of none better or worse. Mr. Henley asked if it was at all possible to keep County responsibility out of the pr6ject. Mr. St. John said in order for the project to receive H.U~D. funding, the county has to temporarily hold title to the property, and administer distribution of the funds. The county will then convey the property back to the Jordan Corporation. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, requesting those in favor of the project to speak first, and those opposed to speak last. First to speak was Mr. David Kudravetz, member of the Board of Directors of the Jordan Development Corporation. Mr. Kudravetz said there is a statistically proven need for housing for the elderly in Albemarle County. He noted that approximately 30% of those elderly presently living in nursing homes shouldn't be there, and they are there because there is no other housing for them. He said the H.U.D. grant would go toward acquisition of the site, on-site improvements and construction of a community center. He noted the County must receive the funds from H.U.D., and handle those funds until the community center is completed. He noted also that the Jordan Development Corporation has held open two seats on the Board of Directors with hopes that two members of. the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors might sit in and observe how the project is being handled. The remainder of the project is to be financed by the Farmers Home Administration, and the deed of trust will be made out in the name of the Jordan Development Corporation. Nowhere will the County of Albemarle be involved financially with this project. Mr. Fisher asked why the proposed rents to be charged (approximately $225.00/month) would so high when so much of the project was being subsidized. Mr. Kudravetz said some of the ~nt would also go toward the upkeep and utilities of the community center. Regarding the [ay-to-day operation of the project, he noted that the Corporation would hire management to ~upervise rental, leasing, maintenance, etc. He said an Advisory Committee would also be f ~f residents of the center and homeowners in the Crozet area to keep the Jordan ~Development ~orporation informed of problems o~ ~deas regarding the project. Mr. Kmdr~et-z!~said.~th~ ~efferson Area Board on Aging plans to be involved in providing day-to-day services to resident ~f the project such as transportation to and from Charlottesville. He said.the site for the project was chosen because it has public water and sewer available (which is required by t~e ?.H.A.). Next to speak was Mr. Frank Smith, architect of the project. He said the lot is 28 acres, ~aving an entrance road built to State standards. He noted that the housing units would be ~uilt on a circular la.yout usin~ the community a~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ July 6, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) four units, built to Federal housing standards for a minimum usage of 50 years (the length of time of the mortgage on the project). He noted that the project was not designed as a nursing home, but for those elderly who still have their heal.th and enjoy rural living. Mr. J. Tayl.or Beard, Treasurer-of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, and Board member of the Jordan Development Corporation summarized the following letter. Robert E. Stroud Post Office Box 1191 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 July 6, 1977 Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is written in support of the request ~y the Charlottesville Housing Foundation for rezoning of a parcel of land associated with The Meadows project. For at least the past decade I have been actively interested in the housing d~lemma faced by a significant number of residents in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area. Motivated by this interest, i united with a number of other persons sharing the same interest and concern, to form the Charlottesville Housing Foundation in 1968. Some of you may recall those beginnings of what has been a successful organizat~ion, so it i~ not necessary to recount them here. From the outset, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation has repeatedly faced the almost inevitable tension between the ideal of providing housing relief f~r persons who are not able on their own to obtain safe, decent and sanitary housing, and the practical and political opposition to meeting that ideal. Suffice it to say that over the years, those interested in the Charlottesville Housing Foundation have retained sufficient allegiance to the ideal to permit success in the intervening years since 1968. Working directly or through affiliate corporations, Charlottesville Housing Foundation has successfully conceived and constructed almost 50 dwelling units, comprising two separate projects, both of which have been located in the city. A third project, to contain an additional 42 dwelling units, was well into the planning and architectural design stage when funds under the appropirate provisian of the National Housing Act were withdrawn across the country, thereby terminating this project and others ~lsewhere. Although these previous projects are located in the city, some four or five other projects at varying sites in Albemarle County have been seriously considered and planned on possible sites in varying locations throughout the county, both near and far from the city limits. In all cases, the projects ultimately had to be abandoned because the costs of providing adequate water and sewer utilities made them economically unfeasi'ble for those sought to be helped by Charlottesville Housing Foundation. Through pers±stence and help from those persons who have an interest in such housing, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation has planned yet another project in Albemarle County, represented by the Meadows and the application for rezoning whihh you are now~considering. It has been the experience of Charlottesville Housing Foundation that meeting the need for housing for those who are unable to obtain safe, decent and sanitary housing on thier own, is principally a problem of financing. Of all the ways in which the monthly living cost for a unit can be reduced, whether the cost be rental or mortgage payments, the most significant impact is through lowering the interest rate on the permanent financing mortgage. That is to say, it requires an extraordinary reduction in construction costs to have as much impact on monthly rental or mortgage payments as the reduction of a single percentage point in the interest rate on the permanent financing mortgage. By and large, the experience throughout the country has been that neither type of cost reduction, either construction costs or permanent financing interest charges, can be accomplished through local community efforts alone or by the generosity of commercial lenders and con~r~cto~ Althoug~ it may be unfortunate, ~t is neverthe less true that relief has had to come through the efforts of the Federal government. I am sure that you do not need to be reminded that the earliest of these efforts, datin~ back to about 1936, included the provision for FHA- insured mortgages, whereby commercial lenders were induced to offer residential mortgages at reasonably low interest rates in exchange for government assurance that the mortgages would be paid and the l~nder would not ~suffer a loss. This program, along with special veterans' mortgage programs through the Veterans Administration a~d the G.~I. Bill, most frequantly benefited those families i~ the so-called middle income ranges. Other programs during the 1940's and 1950~s were aimed at the construction of large apartment projects in the nation's renewal of slum areas, with ~unds available to provide for the construction of housing for those families living on income less than established p~verty levels. Zt was not until about 1961 that federal legislation offered programs specifically for those families whose income were above the established poverty levels, but below the middle ranges of income necessary to permit families to find suitable housing in the commercial market. Although local governments or governmental unitls were selected to administer the programs for below-poverty level families!, non-profit organizations or limited- in 1962. These programs ~ypical~y followed' ~her or both o£ two patterns: providing low interest rate loans, or offering subsidy payments.. In both cases, the effort has been to reduce the monthly living cost for rental or mortgage payments on the part of families not otherwise able to obtain on their own safe, decent and sanitary housing. It was to take advantage of these programs that the Charlottesville Housing Foundation was organized. I will not detail here the need for housing for the elderly that exists both within the city and the county, but leave that to others. Nor do I want to comment on whether the proposal will be well done or poorly done, for that is always a risk in any undertaking by any person or organization, and can be estimated by looking at previous activities of the organization or regulated through an adequate planning process. Rather, I do want to comment on the sufficiency of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and its affiliate corporations. It has been in existence for over nine years, and it has successfully completed two previous projects. It is composed of individuals who are responsible citizens of bot~ the city and the county, and who have sufficient roots in and commitments to this area to be responsible in what they do. In the final analysis, that is an important and significant attribute for any organization. Although this does not guarantee perpetual existence for the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, neither can any other organization or institution guarantee its existence. In this regard, however, there should be no greater obligation imposed on the Charlottesville Housing Foundation than is imposed on any other organization, many of which engage frequently in vransactions involving long- term financial arrangements extending beyond the lives of those associated with such organizations. I have been a resident of Albemarle County for 15 years. I urge you to recognize the need in the county for a housing project such as The Meadows; to take into account the complexity and difficulty in planning and developing such a project; the integrity of the persons involved in this venture and in supporting the Charlottesville Housing Foundation; and b~tancing these factors against the seemingly ever present opposition, to approve the zoning request. Sincerely, (Signed) Robert E. Stroud Mr. Dorrier asked if there would be an income limit on the residents. Mr. Jane Saunier of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission said housing would not be restricted to any income o~ Only to those people who are presently residents of Albemarle County, it would be filled on a first-come first-served basis. Mr. Fred Yates, who was deaf, said the Jordan Development Corporation was one of the first groups to try and help deaf people. He said the community center will be a good place for him to meet other deaf people, talk with them and learn to talk with his hands, and when he gets old, a place where he will be able to communicate with others. Mr. Roy Patterson said he lived near the proposed project and felt it would be an asset to the community, and supported the project and urged the Board to grant the rezoning. Mr. Gene Baldwin, who lives near the proposed project, related the results of a survey taken by WELK's Scott Goodman on June 25th. Of the 50 people surveyed, 21 were for the project, 16 against and 13 had no comment. Mr. Bill Tompkins, a Crozet resident, said he was a physician and has many patients who are elderly. He said some fears voiced by residents were groundless in his opinion, one being the lack of medical care. He said there are three physicians practicing in the Crozet area. Mrs. Victor Fisher, who works for the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, said she brought two elderly people with her who are presently in need of housing. Mrs. Mabel Smith who lives in North Garden said she presently spends 60% of her income for rent, which leaves little income for food and medical bills. She hoped to see such a project built in Albemarle County. Mrs. Renee Barnett, presently lives in Ivy, and presented a petition to the Board of those elderly people in favor of the housing project. (Petitions contained 114 names and is in permanent records of the BOard.) Mr. Paul Stacy, President of Citizens for Albemarle, Inc. read the following statement. Citizens for Albemarle, Inc. Box 3751 University Station Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: Paul Stacy, President, Citizens for Albemarle DATE: July 6, 1977 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: My name is Paul Stacy and I am President of Citizens for Albemarle Inc. On behalf of our organization I would like to make the f~llowing statement concerning the Meadows pro- posal before you tonight. _Ju ~!~,~~ar - '-.ht Meet~n~L~ For the past several months now, the Meadows proposal has generated a great deal of debate, argumemt, bitterness and rancor within~th~ community of Crozet. Friends and neighbors have divided themselves into opposing factions over where the most appropriate location for the Meadows should be. Rumors, half-truths and some outright lies have flown fast and furious in western Albemarle. Numerous arguments, with var~±ng degrees of validity, have been articulated in favor of, and in opposition to, its approval. And, as in most cases requiring legislative review, there is merit to both sides of the issue. Z am quite sincere in stating that those who oppose this issue must be accorded those in favor of it. in my judgement, for you to perceive this issue in terms of "the good guys versus the bad guys" would not be constructive ox productive. I say this because you are not here tonight to make any moral judgements about the residents of Crozet. What you are here for tonight is to make a decision with regard to a very specific and very compelling need that currently exists in our county, and over which adequate housing for elderly, low-income elderly and the hearing impaired elderly. That this problem ~xists will not be denied by anyone here tonight. However, what is being contested is where such facilities should be located. My best reading of the legitimate opposition to its proposed location is that the Meadows would not be harmonious with the "character of Crozet". Not knowing exactly what the "character of Crozet" really is, Z must conclude that the phrase refers to a relatively low housing development pattern. More specifically, it probably refers to a 1 housing unit per 2 acre pattern. But herein lies the ultimate ir. ony for those who oppose higher density development. According to the recently revised Comprehensive Plan's population p~ojections, the Crozet area will need to absorb about 8,000 more residents over the next twenty years. By using a 2.5 persons per household factor, 8,000 more residents translates into about 3,~00 two acre homesites or 7,000 acres of additional residential property that will be needed to absorb this population projection. Now, 7,000 acres is a lot of land by anyone's measure. My point is, that to accommodate 8,000 people with no less than 1 unit ~er 2 acres would result in such a high degree of residential sprawl that would effectively destroy whatever the character of Crozet is today. And therein lies the irony. Obviously, the only effective way to avoid such a probability is to establish a desirable balance of low and moderately higher density patterns that will preclude such an undesirab~result. And it is on this narrow focus that I, on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle, respectfully request that you approve the Meadows proposal as submitted. In closing, I would like to say to those who oppose the Meadows site that your concerns about how we accommodate growth in Albemarle ~ounty without sacrificing our enviable natural assets are shared by everyone in this room and by virtually all of our county's permanent residents. ~ut we must be realistic with regard to the subject of growth. We cannot, an'd should not try, to oppose growth in our county. As a matter of fact, a reasonable rate of growth is even desirable if the economic well being of our county is to remain healthy. And as far as I can tell, our projected rate of growth is certainly reasonable enough to be adequately accommodated. It is my opinion that we must shift the focus of our energies from opposing ~rowth ~o~p~nn~ng h~w ~ can best accomodate the inevitable. And it is here that I ~nc~re~y~believe that the residents of Crozet have a golden opportunity to lead the way and demonstrate ithat growth can be accomodated for everyone's mutual benefit. Thank you. Respectfully sumbitted, (Signed) Paul Stacy, President Citizens For Albemarle, Inc. Mrs. R~th'W'adlington,'TPreSident' Mr. William Woodworth, resident and felt more projects of this kind recom~ended that the ~ommunity cente~ limited shopping facilities, thereby Crozet area. Mrs. Verland Funkhouser of Croz~ attend, are in favor of the project. of the Leagme o'f~Wo~ns'.YoZe~s~-_urged· ~he.~Boa~d~to~ of White Hall District, said he supported this project, hould receive consideration in the county. He also proposed fsr the project be expanded tm~--include eliminating the problem of access to shopping in the ~t, said she and a neighbor of hers, who was unable to Mr. William E. Young, Minister ~f the Olive~ Presbyterian Church, asked the Board's approval, as it would prevent elderl~ people from being totally alone. Mrs. Florence Skove, Director o~ the Senior Center in Charlottesville, said that just because people are over 62 doesn't mqan they are totally dependent. She said by observing them at the Senior Center ~he feels they could offer Crozet and the people of that community many services and ben~fits from having such a housing project there. Mrs. Kat~ Sandusky, Citizens fo~ Albemarle, said she has tried to work privately for low-cost housing for the elderly, and if this is turned down, it will further discourage future attempts. July 6, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) No one else wished to speak in favor of the project, and Mr. Fisher called for a recess at 9:20 P.M. Meeting was reconvened at 9:27 P.M. He then asked for those concerned about or opposed to the proje~ct to speak at this time. Mr. V. Schackelford, attorney, was present to represent adjoining landowners. He said the property owners were nov opposed to the elderly or deaf~ locating in Crozet. He said the main concern concerning this site is in relation to sewage disposal problems. He also noted the concern of people presently living on Houte 240 who feel that this type of project will drastically change the character of the community. He suggested that there are other sites more suitable to the purpose of housing project for the elderly and deaf. Mr. Carl Van Fossen said there were a number of people who were opposed to the project, but did not wish to speak; about thirty persons stood to-0e counted. He said the proposed rezoning is a drastic change from the Comprehensive Plan, which indicates this parcel should be used for agricultural or recreational purposes. Mr. Van Fossen said the medical facilitie spoken of previously are n'ot available, as those doctors located in Crozet already have an overload of patients. He further said he thought the County has not fulfilled its oblication~ to the people of Crozet in allowing the excess capacity for the sewage treatment plant to a developer, when there is a raw sewage being dumped from Crozet into Lickinghole Creek. Mrs~ Ann Frank, adjacent property owner said a group of adjacent property owners canvassed the community and obtained the following results: 232 were opposed to the project locating on the subject site, and 5 were in favor of the project. A total of 97.8% were opposed. Mr. Lou Eaton presented photographs of the subject site (turned in for the record) which indicated that the site contained steep slopes, cliffs, and granite with very little surface soil which would make it difficult to build. He further noted that the steep slopes woUld create erosion problems. Mr. Richard Moyer said a full time social worker would be required on the premises and that it would be the County's responsibility to pay for such services. Mr. Alan Rosenkrans, an elderly resident of Crozet, suggested a "cooling off" period for the developer and the residents of Crozet so as to h~pefully see things in a clearer light, rather than spreading rumors and misinformation. Mrs. Adelaide Spainhour, representing the Women's Club of Crozet, said a poll of members showed only one approved of the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Joanne Moyer questioned the quality of the housing proposed for the low income residents and how well the project would be maintained. She presented a letter from a builde~ who viewed the subject site and another site located next to Henley School. The builder, Mr. F. Warren Martin, president of Edward Van Lear Inc., stated that the Yancey site would be far superior to the selected site, because of additional sewer service available, better accessibility to roads, shopping, churches, etc. She concluded by suggesting the Board deny the site presented by Jordan Development Corporation, and suggested further investigation of other sites avaitalbe. Mr. Conway Stanley, a pharmacist, said a survey was conducted and a petition collected containing 500 signatures of concerned Crozet citizens who request the deniali~of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Fisher read the wording of the petition. Mr. Staley said his main objection is that the site is not centrally located. Zf the project was located nearer to Charlottes- ville, necessary services would be more available. Mr. Norman Gillum of Crozet said he has been a member of the Virginia Veterans Home BQard of Trustees for 14 years, and has built homes for the elderly in Newport News and Richmond. He said the Henley School site previously mentioned would be much more suitable, and suggested the Board of Supervisors appoint a committee of Crozet residents and employees of the Jordan Development Corporation to locate a more suitable site. Mr. Kenneth Frank, adjacent property owner, said the citizens of Crozet should have priority for the sewer hookups over a new development to the area. Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority said service is given on a first-come, first-served basis, but no earlier than when the plumbing in the 'building is ready for testing and not later than the issuance of an occupancy permit, as long as the Service Authority has the permission of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to accept additional loading. He further stated that ther~ is ~200 gallons of capacity available in the plant, which would cover the proposed 28 units to be built on this rezoning site. He then read a letter written from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District ~ommission dated January 3. Zn summary, the letter requested confirmation of sewage ~apacity a~d water availability for the proposed site, for submittal with the F.H.A. loan application. Mr. Thompson said his reply did confirm the availability of these facilities. Mr. Norman Gillum said he served on the Albemarle County Service Authority Board for e~ght years, and understood the reason those 28 connections were never used was because it would delay getting a sewer collection line to Crozet. He added that if these connections are going to be used, they should be given to established residents, not new property owners. Ms. Sally Thomas said many of the statements made tonight were contradictory and that she felt the proposed ~lan for housing for the elderly was a good one and badly needed~ Mr. Frank Smith said all the buildings will have to be built to Albemarle County Buildin~ an~ Fire Codes. He added that no homes would be built on steep slopes (25% or more), and that the population density would be low. Mrs. Joanne Moyer said the sewage connections on the Yancey site are already obligated tc that tract of land, thus freeing the 28 Crozet connections for Crozet residents. July 6, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) 25! At 11:00 P.M., M~. Fisher declared the public hearing closed~ saying people representin both sides of the issue have had ample time to speak and express their points. Mr. Henley asked if it would effect the application to H.U.D. if the Board approved a rezoning for RS-1 rather'than R-1. Mr. Kudravetz said he did not believe it would effect the application. Mr. Fisher said he could not support the application since the site does not have utilities for the proposed number of units. Mr. St. John said he had the H.U.D. application papers with him, and noted that they state in paragraph C-5 that the housing project will be expanded from phase one (28 units) to phase two (52 units). He continued by reading that "100 units or more" will allow economics to scale. Mr. Peter Daly said he thought Mr. St. John had the pre-application and not the final one which read differently. Mr. St. John said he felt that by approving only 28 units on this rezoning, the H.U.D. grant would be rejected. Dr. Zachetta said he planned to support ~he rez0ning, and felt housing for the elderly had to get a beginning somewhere. Mr. Dorrier said he also was going to support the rezonin as the site was acceptable to the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Planning Department and H.U.D., and that the situation was critical in housing for the elderly. Mrs. David said after reviewing the situation and hearing from many of her constituents, she intended to support the rezoning. Mr. Roudabush said there were many questions which had to be answered yet, one was regarding default of the mortgage; who would ~et control of the property if there is a default. At what point does the County's input stop? He is also concerned about rezoning for a density greater than the sewer capacity allows. Mr. Henley said he must remain consistent with his record of not supporting rezonings which do not have adequate sewage capacity. Mr. St. John said he wished to suggest another condition to be added to those suggested by the Planning Commission, that being if the County takes title to the property, first they cannot borrow money on it. He then explained that someone eZse musv take title to the property in order to obtain the mortgage. He said the transfer of title will require the approval of the Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Henlsy then offered motion to approve ZMP-77-07 for an RPN/RS-I zone with the 13 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mrs. David. It was stressed by Mr. Fisher and other Board members that if the Jordan Development Corporation wishes to expand the development to more than 28 units up for approval tonight, they must bring the request back to the Board in the form of another rezoning. Mr. St. John said there was an inconsistancy in that the motion was to approve 28 units and RS-1 zoning requires one unit per acre; there are only 27.9 acres. Mr. Henley amended his motion to approve to state approval is for 27 units. Mrs. David said she preferred not to second the motion as restate~ by Mr. Henley. Mr. Roudabush then seconded Mr. Henley's motion. At this point, role was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Messrs. Dorrier and Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta said he felt this was the wrong motion; and in all probability had "shot down" the funding request to H.U~D.. Mr. Dorrier Said he supports the project, but felt this was not the correct motion. At 11:50 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a five minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 12:00~P Mr. Fisher noted that since there were seven more items to be discussed on the~agenda, it would do well to adjourn to tomorrow. Motion to adjourn to 7:30 F.M. on July 7, 1977, in the Courthouse, was offered by ~r. Iachetta, seconde~ by Mrs. David, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabush. None.