Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-07NJuly 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 7, 1976, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arriving at 7:38 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert Tucker. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMP-04-76. Double C Corporation. (This public hearing was deferred from both the meetings of May 19 and June 16, 1976. Notice had been ~.advertised in The Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1976.) Mr. Fisher said the applicant was present and had requested that this public hearing be deferred. He asked Mr. Carter to make his request. Mr. Carter said he would like to have this hearing postponed in order to resolve questions of water availability for fire protectior and to make it clearer about the type of housing proposed. Mr. Fisher said he feels that once a hearing is advertised in the news media and the adjacent property owners are given notice of that meeting, same should not be deferred unless notice~is given at least a week in advance so that notices of postponement may be given. He said the hearing would proceed and if the Board wanted to defer a decision, that will be for the Board to decide later in the me.eting. Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: "Double C Corporation has applied for a rezoning of 25.91 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RPN/R-1 Residential Planned Neighborhood for a development to be known as Westmoreland Manor. The property is located between Woodbrook and Westmoreland Subdivisions at the end of Route 652 in the urban area. Character of Area Properties to the immediate south of the site are undeveloped. Other properties in the vicinity are primarily in subdivisions developed in densities as follows: Subdivision Number of Lots Woodbrook 142 Westmoreland 124 Northfields 205 Carrsbrook 150 Average Dwelling Units/Acre 2.44 du/ac 2.02 du/ac 1.32 du/ac 0.64 du/ac 1.22 du/ac Existing Zoning in the Area Properties to the south along Route 652 are zoned A-1 Agriculture. divisions cited above are zoned R-1 Residential. The sub- Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan indicates this property for low-density residential (up to 1 unit/acre) and for stream valley pa~k use. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates an Albemarle County Bikeway through this property. The Westmoreland Manor proposal indicates a residential density of 3.075 units,/ acre as compared to one unit/acre in the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed zoning for this property is R-2 Residential with a density of 2.2 units/acre, in staff opinion, the proposed site plan respects the stream valley and conservation objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Development is generally proposed on the flat hilltops maintaining the swales and stream valley in open space (65.7% of the site). Upon request of the staff, the applicant agreed to realign a portion of the proposed bikeway to the location indicated in the Comprehensive Plan and to continue the bikeway the full width of the property. In staff opinion, the Westmoreland Manor proposal: 1) Is not in compliance with the residential density of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) Is in compliance with conservation and stream valley objectives; and 3) Is in compliance with the Bikeway Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Summary Acres Percent of Site Townhouse lots 3.94 15.2% Parking Areas 1.43 5.5% Streets 0.92 3.6% Recreation Areas 2.60 10.0% Subtotal 8488 34.3% Open Space 17.03 65.7% . Total 25.91 100.0% The site plan indicates 30 two-story townhouse units with crawl space and 66 two-story units with walk-in basement. The small acreage of the townhouse lots (end units - 0.06 acres; center units - 0.03 acres) permits retention of over 75% of the site in recreation a~d open space areas, which is three times the requirement of the RPN designations. Recreation facilities include a swimming pool and bathhouse, two tennis courts,..a partial basketball court, bicycle path and two tot lots. The pool and tennis courts are proposed to be operated in club fashion with a membership of 250 people. None of the recreation facilites will be lighted as they are intended for day use. July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Comparative Impact Statistics (Estimates) Dwelling Units Population School-aged Children Vehicles Vehicle Trips/Day Impact Under Existing Impact Under Proposed Zoning (A-i) Zoning (RPN/R-1) 13 96 42 307 9 66 20 144 140 672 Impact on Schools The following is a summary of the comments made by the Albemarle County Depart- m~nt2O~l~Edu~tion concerning the impact this proposed development would have on the school system: "1) This development may cause serious overcrowding at Woodbrook even assuming inhabitation will not occur before September, 1977. 2) The middle and secondary schools will experience increased overcrowded- ness as inhabitation occurs before September, 1977." Sewer Facilities The Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that Westmoreland Manor would be permitted connection to the Woodbrook interceptor line provided "at the time of connection: 1) The capacity of the main is adequate to handle the total effluent; 2) That capacity is available to treat the total discharge at the Meadow Creek Sewage Treatment Plant; and 3) That prevailing sewer connection charges have been paid to the Al'bemarle County Service Authority." Water Facilities The Albemarle County Service Authority has stated that "connection to the existing 6" water line in Westmoreland can be permitted and should be adequate for domestic use. Should an 8" water line be required for fire protection, Rio Road would be the closest location of a line sized adequately to serve this need. There is an 18" line in Rio Road. It would be the complete responsibility of the developer to have this line installed with the exception of the actual tap made to the 18" line. This would be made by the Albemarle County Service Authority." Fire Protection The Albemarle County Fire Marshal requires a minimum flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for two hours at a pressure of 20 pounds per square inch for fire protection. This flow requirement is equivalent to service by an 8" water main. The applicant proposes to connect to the existing 6" main in Westmoreland Road. In this event~ to provide adequate fire protection, a 90,600 gallon pump storage tank would be required. This tank would be elevated so that the bottom of the effective storage area would be approximately 70 feet above ground. As an example, a cylindrical tank of 50 feet diameter would have an effective storage height of 46 feet bringing the total height of the structure to 116 feet. The Albemarle County Service Authority would not accept the storage tank and pump into its system, therefore maintenance of these facilities would be by the developer or residents of the development. The fire marshal has indicated that such a maintenance arrangement would not be acceptable. An alternative source for the required fire flow would require the extension of an 8" main from the existing 18" main in Rio Road to the site, a distance of 0.8 mile. Based on information provided by the Engineering Department, the staff estimates the cost of this alternative would be in excess of $63,000, however, in the opinion of the Engineer Department, this cost would be much less than the cost of a pump storage system. Transportation Facilities The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation reviewed the preliminary Westmoreland Manor plan and made the following comments: "It appears the developer is proposing to build a section of road between Westmoreland Road (Route 1438) and Route 652. The physical alignment which he is proposing for this section of road should be changed to provide better alignment. Route 652 has approximately ten feet of gravel surface. This existing condition of Route 652 does not lend itself to additional traffic which would be generated not only by this development, but from Westmoreland Road. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the County do one of the following: (a) have Route 652 upgraded to a facility in keeping with the expected traffic which, of course, would be generated by tying Route 652 and Route 1438 together; or (b) require the development road to be cul-de-saced just short of Route 652 thereby not allowing the traffic from this development to utilize Route 652. In either case, the alignment of this develop- ment road should be in accordance with my first comment. Right of way should be dedicated along Route 652 with this property." Subsequent to these comments, the applicant had proposed not to connect Route 652 and Route 1438 (Westmoreland Road), but to extend Westmoreland Road through the site and to cul-de-sac the road short of intersection with Route 652. The Highway Department has indicated that the Westmore!and-Carrsbrook Road network can accommodate the increased traffic. The Highway Department recommends alignment of the proposed road in such fashion to provide for future connection to Route 652 without an intersection or hazardous curves. Staff Comment In staff opinion, the Westmoreland Manor proposal generally reflects the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and the Residential Planned Neighborhood provision of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of good design and orderly development. The RPN provision has afforded the applicant flexibility to design for a difficult site, which has resulted in a proposal superior to a "standard subdivision" type of approach. The staff recommends that the applicant pursue an RPN/RS-1 designation which ~ould be in compliance with the residential density indicated in the Compre- hensive Plan and would provide for a maximum of 26 dwelling units; removal of units from the steep slopes, particularly at the head of the main swale; and realignment of the road in compliance with the recommendations of the Highway ~uly 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Department. Impact statistics under the staff's recommendation would be: dwelling units, 26; population, 84; school-aged children, 18; vehicles, 39; and vehicle trips per day, 273. Following the public hearing on June 8, 1976, the Planning Commission deferred action on the proposed Westmoreland Manor RPN/R-1 rezoning, suggesting to the applicant that: 1) gross residential density be reduced to a maximum of two dwelling units per acre in compliance with other densities in the immediate area; 2) the recreation area be located in an area more agreeable to adjacent property owners; and 3) fire hydrants and 8" water mains be provided within the development. The staff was directed to provide a more detailed report concerning run-off from the site. Other main topics of discussion were impact on Woodbrook Elementary and compatibility with surrounding development. Westmoreland Manor Revised Preliminary Plan The revised plan shows 65 townhouse units at a gross density of 2.5 units per acre as compared to 3.7 units per acre in the original plan. While most of the units have been relocated, some units remain on slopes in excess of 25%. Recreation Facilities The mai~ recreation facilities have been relocated to an area removed from adjacent development because of the heavily wooded nature of the site. The staff feels these facilities will not be visible from adjacent properties. Acreage devoted to recreation has been reduced from 2.6 acres to 0.92 acres. Roads The proposed road alignment is not in compliance with Highway Department recom- mendations, however, the staff feels either general alignment method is acceptable. Fire Protection Fire hydrants and 8" water service within the development have been indicated. The Fire Marshal furnished the following memo dated July 7, 1976: "Due to a recent change in the fire grading system, I submitted the site plan for Westmoreland Manor to Insurance Services Office (formerly Virginia Fire Rating Bureau) for their comments. The attached letter states that a minimum fire flow of 2000 g.p.m, at 20 p.s.i, residual pressure is required due to the type of construction and exposures of the proposed projection. At the request of Double "C" Corporation, I conducted hydrant flow tests at Northfields, Carrsbrook and Woodbrook, using the hydrants closest to the proposed project with a possibility of connecting to the existing system for the project's water supply. Northfields-Carrsbrook: Tests indicated that the current system has 1038 g.p.m, at 20 p.s.i, residual pressure sufficient for the density and type of construction, requir- ing a minimum of 1000 g.p.m. Woodbrook: Tests indicated 550 g.p.m, at 20 p.s.i, residual pressure and is considered insufficient for the existing area due to 4" water main restricting the flow at the entrance to the subdivision. Connecting to the existing Woodbrook water lines would involve constructing a new water main under an existing creek, subjecting it to damage from a possible wash- out. Also, the interceptor sewer lines and forced main are installed parallel with the creek. Due to the lack of sufficient water from one subdivision and the danger of depleting the supply in another, it is still the recommendation of this office that Westmoreland Manor connect to the existing 18" water main on Rio Road for sufficient fire flow needed for the proposed project." "Ju~.e 22, 1976 Mr. Kelly P. Reynolds, Fire Marshal In regards to the recommended fire flow for the Westmoreland Manor development, this office recommends that no less than 2000 gallons per minute be available for fire protection in this area at a residual pressure of not less than 20 pounds per square inch. This fire flow is based upon proposed frame construction and conditions as shown on the site plan submitted to this office. Sincerely, (Signed) J. D. Smith, Jr. Engineering Representative Public Protection Insurance Services Office" Woodbrook Elementary Under the revised proposal, school enrollment impact at Woodbrook Elementary would be reduced from 30 students to 20 students. The question of collective impact on enrollment of approved developments in the Woodbrook District arose at the June-8, 1976, meeting. Projected school enrollment increases from developments approved since January, 1975, are as follows: Pine Haven, 8.64 students; Hedgerow, 1.21 students; Stonehenge II, 46.90 students; for a total July 7, 1976 (Regular -Night Meeting) 293 Storm Drainage The Engineering Department has calculated a run-off increase of 1.3% to the entire basin as compared to 1.8% in the original proposal. -~Channelization of the stream is not advised since flow is limited by the culvert under Carrsbrook Drive. Increasing the size of the culvert would increase flow to the north of Carrsbrook Drive and could flood the existing ponds in Carrsbrooko Upon consultation with the Engineering Department, the Planning Department recommends multiple outfalls terminating parallel to the stream channel. Such an arrangement would mitigate run-off impact south of Carrsbrook Drive. (See memos dated May 28 and June 22, 1976 from the Engineering Department.) Staff Comment The staff has no additional recommendations concerning this rezoning appli- cation. Staff would take this opportunity to notify the applicant of the following recommendations and areas of concern for the final site plan, if approved: 1) multiple outfalls terminating parallel to the stream channel; 2) drainage easement of 20 foot width along stream to run fUll width of property; and 3) removal of dwellings from slopes in excess of Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission by a 6/1/1 vote, at their meeting of June 22, 19767 voted to approve ZMP-04-76, with the following conditions: 1.Gross residential density be reduced to a maximum of two (2.0)-dwelling units per acre in compliance with other densities in the immediate area; 2.There be no dwelling units placed on slopes in excess of 25 percent; 3.The recreation facilities be allowed to serve only the residents of the planned develoPment; 4. The runoff be dispersed by routing to multiple outfalls parallel to the stream channel in order to mitigate the impact on the culvert under Carrsbrook Drive. 5. A drainage easement of 20-foot width along stream to run full length of property. 6. Fire hydrants and 8" water mains be provided by developer within the development, and an 8" water ma~n be constructed from Rio Road a distance of .8 mile to the development· The Planning Commission recommends that the .8 mile connecting line be funded through a cost-sharing agreement between the developer and the Albemarle County Service Authority. If the developer is unable to negotiate such financing with the Service Authority, he must determine an alternative means of constructing the connector; and this proposal must be approved in turn by the Planning Commission. 7. Road alignment to be kept as shown on the site plan marked "Received 6/16/76." Mr. Fisher asked if the original application was for 3.7 dwelling units per acres; the Comprehensive Plan and the staff recommend one dwelling unit per acre; the second application is for 2.5. dwelling units per acre; and the Planning Commission has recommended two dwelling units per acre~ but basically they are all the same plan. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Roudabush said he thought the County Engineer had worked on the water line problem and asked if there was a report on that work. Mr. Bailey was present and presented the following: "The following flows are computed for certain combinations of pipelines which are proposed for the servicing of Westmoreland Manor, based on data resulting from test flows of hydrants which were conducted by Kelly P. Reynolds, Fire Marshal, Albemarle County: Combined flow through Woodbrook system with approximately 1000 feet of 6" connecting main between Woodbrook and the high points in Westmoreland Manor: 370 g.p.m. This cal- culation is based on flow and pressure data obtained from flowing fire hydrants No. 10342 and 10343 located on Eastbrook Drive, Woodbrook. Combined flow through Carrsbrook, Northfields and West- moreland systems with approximately 500 feet of 6" connecting main between Westmoreland and the high point in Westmoreland Manor: 610 g.p.m. This calculation is based on flow and pressure data obtained from flowing fire hydrants No. 10335 and 10334 located on State Route 854 in the Northfields-Carrsbrook Subdivisions. Proposed 8" water main to connect Westmoreland Manor with existing 18" water main located in Rio Road (State Route 631): 1400 g.p.m. Based on calculation of flow from difference in elevation of the South Rivanna storage tank and the high point in Westmoreland Manor. The combined flow through No. 1 and No. 2 is 980 g.p.m, which approaches the 1000 g.p.m, recommended for residential areas. The combined Slow through No. 1 and No. 3 is 1770 g.p.m. The combined flow through No. 2 and No. 3 is 2010 g.p.m, which meets the 2000 g.p.m, recommended for apartments, etc. The estimated cost of No. 3 greatly exceeds the combined costs of No. 1 and No. 2." Mr. Tucker then handed to the Board a number of petitions presented to the Planning Commission in opposition to this request from residents of Woodbrook, Carrsbrook and Westmore- land subdivisions. At this time, the Chairman called on the applicant for comments. Mr. Ron Carter said Double C is owned by his brother Richard Carter and himself. They are general contractors. 294 July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) This is a difficult piece of land on which to build. Much of the land is not suitable to R-1 or any type of development, but is ideally suited to the RPN zone. On the original plan, an overlay of single-family residential units was made, but after the topographical survey was completed, it became obvious that this type of development was impossible on this site. The roads leading to this property are sufficient to handle the traffic that will be generated. Water seems to be the key issue and is one of the reasons why a delay was requested. There is sufficient water for domestic usage. The ordinance says the developer must provide fire protection if the water is available. Mr. Carter said he has talked with members of the Planning Commission and many agreed that water really is not available when it would cost $63,000 to run the lines to this property and absorb all of that cost in this one development Their proposal is to build Williamsburg style townhouses. By building on the economical portions of the land, and by joining the buildings together, there is an economical advant~ge~l which can be passed on to the buyer. The impact study made by the Planning Staff is~scary~ This development will probably be built over a four-year period, with no building at all during the first year. Mr. Carter said he feels the plan presented is compatible with the ~~ area. The land is in a geographic location that puts it under increasing pressure for development. The development probably will not be seen from Woodbrook, Carrsbrook or Northfi~lds Subdivisions. There are only four or five families on Berwick Court in Westmoreland who will feel any impact. At this time the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Thomas Wallace, President, Westmoreland Civic Association. He said: "We support the Comprehensive Plan developed and approved for Albemarle County in 1971. The basic purpose of this plan is to provide for the orderly develop- ment of.Albemarle County. We believe that the proposed change in zoning is in violation of the Plan both in word and in spirit. Therefore, we petition the Board to deny the request, of the Double "C" Corporation for a change in zoning. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the development of lands adjacent to established developments. It requires new development to be "compatible and in harmony with" these older communities. We believe that the erection of townhouses in the price range proposed by the developer is not "compatible and in harmony with" existing dwellings ranging in cost from $60,000 to $120,000. We believe that the Board would be in error to address itself and its attention solely to the 25.91 acres in question. Examination of the enclosed area will clearly illustrate the potential problem that will face the Board, and the taxpayers, if the rezoning of this site is permitted. This site is, in our opinion, the opening wedge for the rezoning of the entire tract of land comprising about 200 acres of undeveloped land and bounded by Rio Road, Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, Westmoreland and Northfields. Furthermore, it will set a precedent for the development of the Wetzel property (136 acres) immediately to the north of Westmoreland. Approval .of the proposed changes would leave the Board in an untenable position in the future. The Board would have no reasonable rationale for denying other applications for rezoning to a higher density once it has breached the Comprehensive Plan in this tract. The resulting effect would be to open the door to a density of 5.5 units per acre which might place as many as 1100 units in this area. The services required would have to be borne by all of the taxpayers in the County. This logically leads us to examine the Wetzel property (136A). The Board could not, in good faith, deny a zoning change to a higher density for this property once it has approved the above proposal. This could lead to the development of an additional 748 units. Where does it stop? The impact of high density housing not originally included in the Compre- hensive Plan could have a dev~st'~t~g effect on our existing services and resources. The problems in this particular area of the county will affect the taxpayers across the board. Future water supplies, sewerage disposal, increased traffic problems, additional fire protection, police protection and the possibility of a new school costing the taxpayers millions of dollars must be considered before making any deviations from the Plan. We believe that intelligent planning for the future is our only salvation if we desire orderly growth in keeping with our resources. The Comprehensive Plan is the only sound guide that we have at this time and we must use it until such time as a re-evaluation of the problems of the county indicate a change. The Westmoreland Civic Association, with the support of the residents of Carrsbrook, Northfields and Woodbrook, stands in opposition to any change in the zoning of the above noted lands which, in fact, would be contrary to the present Comprehensive Plan. Residents of the subdivisions of Westmoreland, Carrsbrook and Northfields and Woodbrook have petitions signed by over 693 residents and owners of the above areas. These petitions call upon the Board to deny the request for a change in the zoning of the 25.91 acres owned by Mr. Via from A-1 to RPN/R-1. This is to demonstrate to the Board the almost unanimous will of the residents of the adjacent properties to the proposal of the Double "C" Corporation. The petitions are broken down as follows: Subdivision Lots Signatures % of residents Westmoreland 12~ 162 95.15% Carrsbrook 150 132 85.7% Woodbrook 142 1~5 86.3% July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. William H. Muller, also representing the Westmoreland Community Association, said this would set a precedent for the way land would be zoned in the future. By putting R-1 zoning on this tract of land, it would be difficult to put more restrictive uses on the adjacent tracts. By varying from the Comprehensive Plan, the Board would put themselves into a legal box that would be difficult to extricate themselves from. There must be overriding reasons to vary from the Comprehensive Plan. This developer has no vested interest in the property. There is not adequate fire protection available. The creek under Carrsbrook Road is not-adequate to carry the additional runoff. The developer should have more than self- serving reasons to request R,1 zoning on property that is shown in the Comprehensi~e Plan with RS-1 zoning. Mr. Harold I. Taylor was present representing the Northfields Community. following statement for the residents: He read the "The Zoning Ordinance states: 'This ordinance has been designed (a)---, (b)---, (c) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community.' The Northfields Community maintains that townhouses are not attractive and/or harmonious to the community areas of Northfields, Westmoreland, Carrsbrook and Woodbrook. These subdivisions are composed exclusively of detached single unit dwellings on comparatively large individual lots. Approval of the Double C Corporation's request will increase congestion in the public streets and will tend to diminish or impair established property values in these surrounding areas. In view of the foregoing, I hereby respectfully submit a copy of a petition, requesting denial of this proposed rezoning, that was presented to the Planning Commission from the Northfields Community. This petition bears 250 signatures representing 139 families out of a potential total of 171. The large majority of the difference of 32 is attributable to vacations and vacant houses that are for sale. In fact, I have personally talked with a great many of the families in Northfields and not a single family concurred with rezoning to permit townhouses in the area." Mr. Taylor then'read the following personal statement: "It is requested that the proposed rezoning of the 25.91 acres on County Tax Map 46, Parcel 20, Charlottesville Magisterial District from A-1 (Agricultural) to RPN/R-1 (Residential Planned Neighborhood) for proposed townhouse use be denied. The Zoning Ordinance Article 19 Residential Planned Neighborhood, RPN* states, under Section 19-1 Purpose and Intent: 'The Residential Planned Neighborhood District is intended to encourage and provide for a variety and flexibility in land development for resi- dential purposes, and uses ancillary thereto, that are necessary to meet changes in technology and demands which will be consistent with the best interest of the county and the area in which it is located. It is also the intent of this district to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, creative design and a better environment.' Double C Corporation's request fails to meet this purpose and intent in the following specifics: ' ~ There has been no demonstration of a~necessity2'for an RPN designation to meet changes in technology and demand. It has not been established that the rezoning will be consistent with the best interest of the county and the area. To the contrary, in no way will it be consistent with the best interest of the Woodbrook-Carrsbrook- Westmoreland-Northfields area. It will increase congestion on public streets and will diminish or impair property values in the established area. The requested rezoning will not improve the level of amenities in the area. There is nothing pleasant about or agreeable to townhouses in this area nor is there a feature of such development that is conducive to pleasantness or smoothness of social intercourse. These are elements of 'amenities' as defined in Webster's Dictionary. Townhouses are not appropriate and harmonious physical developments in this area of single unit detached dwellings. There has been no demonstration that townhouses will promote a better environment in this area. Therefore this request for rezoning fails tO'meet' the Purpose and Intent, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, and there is no justification for approving same. To the contrary, approval of this request for rezoning will make the existing communities less attractive thereby devaluing the property and will negate the desires of any future development of adjacent property, zoned Agricultural (A-I), for detached single family dwellings in keeping with the established subdivision. It is again respectfully requested that the requested rezoning be denied." Mr. Charles Dunkl said he lives on Berwick Court in Westmoreland. There is no sewerage available at this time, and if this application is approved, it will be in competition with residents of Westmoreland who are now awaiting sewerage facilities. There is no water available for fire protection. The creek mentioned earlier does flood each time there is a downpour. The development would not be in harmony with the adjacent properties. Mr. Dunki 296 July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) An unidentified gentlemen said the development would be visible to surrounding propertie~ It would not in harmony with the area as it is now. It might be hard for the Board to turn down similar proposals on adjacent lands if this request were approved. The people in Westmoreland who are in need of sewerage facilities might never get them since any available capacity might be taken by this development. If the Comprehensive Plan is to have any meaning, he would request that this rezoning be denied. Mr. Michael Ryan, a resident of Berwick Court, said the 2.5 dwelling units per acre is geographical fiction. The development will be placed on only 10 or 12 acres of the 25+ acres. This will actually be 5+ dwelling units per acre and the remainder of the area will remain in its present state. He did not feel that the land that is not used should be considered as part of the application. Ms. Emily Goodwin, 503 Berwick Court, said she is concerned about runoff on her side of Berwick Court. (She showed a number of pictures to the Board which were taken after a heavy rain in March, 1976.) Ms. Goodwin said after this particular flooding spell, she had contact John Humphrey, then Director of Planning, who had advised her to contact an expert in grading She consulted with both the Health Department and Soil Conservation Service. The repre- sentative from Soil Conservation Service, after viewing the site, said if the Via property was ever developed, a culvert should be installed from 503 Berwick Court to Nottingham Road to act as a buffer between the Via property and the Westmoreland properties. Ms. Goodwin said she had listened to the Planning Commission hearing and feels strongly that the Planning Commission has passed the buck to the Board. If they had heeded the advice of their own staff, the Fire Marshal and the County Engineer, they would have denied this application and would not have put the burden on the Board. Mr. Bill Tilman, 5.08 Berwick Court, said he is opposed to any development at that end of Westmoreland. Mr. William Blucher, a resident of Berwick Court, said the Westmoreland Community Association opposes this rezoning and firmly supports the Comprehensive Plan. If the Board should approve this change from A-1 to R-I, what rationale would they use to deny a similar request on adjacent properties. The residents of Westmoreland believe in planning and orderly growth and feel the plan should be followed unless there is a real hardship. They are concerned about flooding. The only way to correct this problem would be to fix the culvert under Carrsbrook Road and this would then become the responsibility of all of the citizens of the County. There is also the question of water availability. If the developer does not have $63,000 to put in water lines, how will he support a $5,000,000 project? Serious planning should be done on Route 652 which comes out opposite Squire Hill on Rio Road. There are already traffic problems at this exit. Mr. Blucher made the following points: l) 2) 3) 4) Has Double C proposed a logical form of development? No. They are asking for a zoning change that will lead to a lot of trouble. It is not logical to develop property from'the back to the front. Is the proposed change a test case for future rezonings? He did not see how the Board could legally defend themselves if-they break the pattern. Can the Board defend agair~st future rezonings? He felt that spot zoning and irrational planning will get the Board into trouble. Do we need this development? Mr. Blucher said there are now between 2,000 and 10,000 registered lots in Albemarle County that are not developed. Mr. Blucher said there are 693 persons in the general neighborhood who signed petitions in opposition to the request. They know that someday the vacant lands in the area will be developed, but this proposed development is not compatible. If the Comprehensive Plan is not binding, and if it is not to be used as a guideline, what will be used. The residents of Westmoreland do not have fire protection or sewerage facilities. Water resources are also a concern of County residents in general. Mr. Blucher said he has found that -'~-_ this board has not voted in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan since taking office, and he asked that they follow the recommendations in the Plan in this instance and deny the request. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he knows about the problems with septic systems in Westmoreland and has also seen the problems with water run-off. He said it would be difficult for him to support a rezoning to a higher density than what is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He realizes that the Comprehensive Plan now in effect is designed for the year 2000 and for a population of 250,000, however the questions of fire protection and layout of the houses is secondary to the question of density. Dr. Iachetta said the Board should have an overall plan for the total vacant acreages in this area before attempting to place an RPN in the area. He said Route 652 will not be improved except by the efforts of the residents. Westmoreland has had a problem with waste- water disposal since the day it was built even though built to the best standards of the Health Department at that time. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to go on record as being against any development getting a sewer connection until the existing problems are solved. McNair and Associate~ is working on a design to solve the Westmoreland problem. This design work should be completed by September and Hessian Hills will be included. Dr. Iachetta said the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, incompatible with the area, pre- mature, inappropriate and not in harmony with the surrounding properties. Mr. Dorrier said one of his main concerns is the sewer problem. Until there is better evidence of how this will be handled, it would be a mistake to approve the petition at this time. The single road leading into the development causes problems. He is in favor of low- cost housing, but does not think $50,000 townhouses will satisfy that need. He does not oppose the townhouse concept, but with the sewer and road problems and the overwhelming opposition of the residents, he could not support the request at this time. July- 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Henley said in order to be fair to every applicant, he felt the developer should have a chance to check his information and not have the discussion cut off this short. Mrs. David said she was concerned about the potential density. The R-1 zoning will mean five dwelling units per acre even though the application is for 2 du/acre. If a precedent is set, there is a whole area that could develop at that density. She was willing to let the applicant withdraw his petition rather than denying same, so he could bring the application back sooner than~a year, if he so desires. She agreed with Mr. Henley that this was being cut off rather short. Mr. Roudabush said he had heard no one say tonight that this property will not be develop residentially. He is not too concerned with the density, feeling that it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. The various subdivisions adjoining this property contain many different lot sizes. He said the applicant must realize that most people feel townhouses are a different type of housing and it is hard to break that thought. Mr. Roudabush said he would be willing to let the applicant have time to consider the comments made tonight and to allow the applicant time to reconsider his potential use of the property. His main concern is not with the sewer or road problems, but with the type of development being proposed. Mr. Fisher said the applicant has already submitted an original request and a revised request and if deferred further this gives the applicant an opportunity to make a third request under the same permit procedure. He did not want to give the applicant the idea that if certain changes are made that the Board will approve the request. There is a significant question of density and land planning. If this application is denied, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from filing a substantially different plan immediately. Mr. Roudabush said the Board had passed a resolution of intent to the Planning Commission to consider clustering of single-family homes in all residential districts of the County. Under such a regulation, the applicant could change h~s plan from townhouses to some type of clustered houses that would be more compatible. Mrs. David said the Board should not tell the applicant what type of plan to come back with. She was in favor of denying the application as being premature and not in accord with density requirements. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should deal with the application they have before them at this time. Mr. Carter said if he were going to build on the property next month, he would ask for a decision tonight. However, he is more interested in trying to work out a plan that will satisfy the surrounding property owners. After further study, he may decide that the present proposed plan cannot be accomplished. He feels that his plan is in compliance with the "proposed" zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher noted that the "proposed" zoning ordinance has not yet been adopted. Dr. Iachetta said he does not feel every area in the County should have attached housing, but there should be some single-family detached homes. However, he could not support the rezoning at this time and offered motion to deny ZMP-76r04 for the following reasons: 1) it is not consistent with the present Comprehensive Plan; ~) it is not compatible with the area in which the development is proposed; and 3) there are too many technical problems with trying to put this subdivision down at this time in this place. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Carter what he wanted the Board to do. Mr. Carter said he would prefer that the matter be deferred. Mr. Fisher asked how long a deferral would be needed. Mr. Carter said about four weeks. Mr. Roudabush said the Planning Commission had deferred this question two or three times and felt if the applicant needed additional time, the Board should defer action with no promises being made as to what type of action will be taken on the question. Mr. Dorrier said the Board should either defer the matter or allow the applican to withdraw the petition. Mr. St. John said if the applican~ comes back at the next meeting with a substantially different plan that has not been to the Planning Commission, or subject to a public hearing, he did not feel the Board would be able to take any action. Mr. Fisher said he would suggest that it be referred to the Planning Commission. At this time, roll was called on the motion to deny ZMP-76-04, and the vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Dr. Iachetta. Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to defer this matter to August 4, 1976; making it ~tear that there are no commitments from the Board and that the deferral is at the applicant's request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. At 9:53 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing. SP-3!-76. Patricia Ann's Country Store. (Deferred from June 16, 1976). Mr. Tucker began by reviewing the staff's report and -- recommendedf~lanning Commission conditions as set out on Page 279, Minute Book 14. The applicant, Ms. Doris Shumaker, was present. She said she had presented her case three weeks ago. For the success of the business, a location sign is needed on Route 250 West. They will keep the sign within the regulations of the scenic highway designation for Route 250. She proposed a sign to be erected on each side of a wagon that would be elevated about 10 feet in order~to be seen over the banks on each side of the entrance road. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Peggy Hancher, represent~ the Scenic Roads Committee of Citizens for Albemarle. She said they support the Planning Commission's recommendation that the sign be limited to 12 square feet and be on a traditional July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) people~ and therefore constitutes part of the sign area. They feel any other interpretation could have repercussions for future signs in Albemarle County. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr.~.Fisher~.said he feels that~if the wagon is.legitimate as a sign post, almoSt anything else that would attract attention would be allowed. The question before the Board is whether or not to let the sign be enlarged as requested by the applicant. Mr. Henley said he would support the request because it will meet scenic highway standards. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-31-76 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and-Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Designation of Route 250 West from the corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville to the Nelson County line as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. Provided for by Article 18-1-1(B) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in The Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said on April 21, 1976, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution of intent to designate U.S. Route 250 West as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. This action resulted from years of dedication by many Albemarle County residents. Article 18 of the Albemar~le County Zoning Ordinance states that the "Board of Supervisors may designate as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway, any public road in the County which meets state scenic de'sign~a.tion standards except with regard to signs." In correspondence addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors (April 19, 1976), Rob R. Blackmore, Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation, states that Route 250 West from the By-pass to the County line "would qualify for a Virginia Byway if it were not for the large number of outdoor advertising signs along the corridor." Mr. Derral Jones of COR provided the staff with his field notes evaluating the highway under the seven criteria for scenic byway designation. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels the land use plan of the Comprehensive Plan is basically supportive of scenic highway designation for Route 250 West. Designated land'uses along Route 250 West are primarily agriculture and conservation. Proposed land uses in the Crozet and Ivy community clusters could prove detrimental to the scenic quality of Route 250 West. If the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors designate Route 250 West as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway, the staff recommends reevaluation of proposed uses along the highway in the Ivy and Crozet clusters in the pending Comprehensive Plan review. In the Transportation Objectives, the Comprehensive Plan states that "the County should establish a system of 'Scenic Roads' under the provisions and proposals of the 1966 Acts of the Virginia Assembly. Such a scenic highway should be designed to give access to historic sites in the County." U.S. Route 250 West is an east/west arterial providing access to the Shenandoah National Park, Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive from Charlottesville. Combined with the other points of interest outlined, staff is of the opinion that U.S. Route 250 West satisfies the scenic highway criteria of the Comprehensive Plan which indicates six scenic vistas along Route 250 West. The plan identifies the following historic landmarks and historic landmarks in the vicinity of Route 250 West: Bloomfield, Farmington, Spring Hill, Temple Hill, The Cedars, Long House, Seven Oaks and Mirador. The following historic areas are also indicated: Wood's Crossing, Ednam, Black Tavern and Scott's Castle. In addition, the following historic landmarks and historic areas are easily accessible from Route 250 West: Old Tilman Road, Malvern, Old Buffalo Trail, Miller School of Albemarle, Crozet Railroad Station, Claudius Crozet.-Railroad Tunnel, Westbury, Mt. Ed Church, Lebanon Church and Mountain View. Zoning along Route 250 West is basically supportive of scenic highway protection as the majority of the properties are zoned A-1 Agricultural or low~dens~y~'resldential. Potential detractive zoning exists in the vicinity of Farmington (B-1 and M-i) and in the Yancey's Mill area (B-1 and M-I). B-1 and M-! zoning also exists along Route 250 between the By-pass and the City limits of Charlottesville~ The properties on the north side of the highway will develop toward Route 754 (Old Ivy Road) due to the railroad as a barrier from Route 250. The staff recommends designation of U.S. Route 250 West from the City Limits of Charlottesvil to the Nelson County line as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. As a continued planning effort in this respect, the staff also recommends, subsequent to scenic highway designation: This scenic highway designation be considered in the revision of the Comprehensive Plan and particularly that potential detractive uses currently proposed in the Ivy and Crozet Community Clusters be evaluated in terms of their impact on the highway. Future rezoning requests along Route 250 West be evaluated in the context of scenic highway protection. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of this ges~ignat~ with the two conditions listed by the staff. Mr. Fisher asked if all of the property owners along this entire stretch of road were notified of this hearing by mail. Mr. Tucker said no, this was advertised in the newspaper. Mr. Henley asked what effect adoption of this ordinance will have on present uses and present zoning. Mr. Tucker said it will not affect anything that is existing. If a new sign is required, etc., it will have to meet these new requirements. Dr. Iachetta asked if a sign is destroyed, if the new sign would have to conform to these regulations. Mr. Tucker said if this ordinance is adopted, the sign will become nonconforming and any new sign will have to meet the requirements of the ordinance or a variance will have to be obtained. Mr. Roudabush asked ~if expansion of an existing business or industry will have to meet scenic highway requirements. Mr. Tucker said if it is expanded within the limits of the parcel, it will be a nonconforming-use and can be expanded as long as setbacks are observed. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Ms. Martha Selden, Citizens for Albemarle. She asked for approval of the designation, of Route 250 West as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. She gave the following two reasons: Those who live on or near Route 250 West feel designation as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway will protect the scenic qualities and prevent Route 250 West from deteriorating into another Route 29 North, n July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) 2E)9 also in this age of environmental concern, more careful development practices in the County will have lasting, economic benefits for all of its citizens. Route 250 West has just been turned back into a primary federally aided route and therefore will be a part of the Federal Highway Beautification Act and will be eligible for some sort of purchase of billboards as was Route 29 North. Ms. Beth Ogilvie handed to the Board a list of persons in support of this designation. (Not signatures, but only a listing.) Mr. W. J. Kirtley said he owns property on Route 250 West and wished to speak in oppositi There is very little M-1 zoning in the County. His property has a building on the rear premises which is served by a railroad. It occupies 300 feet of a 600 foot siding. He understands this ordinance would require that any building built on the front part of the property would have to be setback 150 feet from Route 250 and that employees would not be allowed-to park in front of the building. This would render part of his property useless because part of the property also contains a 12-15% grade. He bought the property because it was zoned M-1 and he felt it is confiscatory to deny him the reasonable use of his property on the front of the parcel. He asked that the Board exclude the B~i and M-1 zoned lands in this area from designation as a scenic highway. Ms. Monica Fox, Greenwood Citizens Council, said this group supports scenic designation of Route 250 West. Ms. Helen Mi!ius, a property owner on Route 250 West, said her property would be subject to the same question of confiscatory effect, however she welcomes this designation for residental purposes. She felt variance procedures were set up for this type of problem. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Board of Zoning Appeals can grant variances to the terms of this section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. Joh said simple economic hardship is not grounds for a variance. Mr. Henley said he felt this piece of property is unusual and if a variance would apply anywhere it would apply here. He said he would rather see the Board include the whole route, rather than leave that area out of the ordinance~ After a short discussion about the question of variances, motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Henley to designate Route 250 West from the corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville to the Nelson County line as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway. The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: NAYS-: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution: Waiver of public hearing on inclusion of Route 20 and Route 6 into the Virginia Scenic Highway System. Mr. St. John said the County's ZOning Ordinance requires that the Board of Supervisors enact a resolution to waive the requirement that the Virginia State Highway Commission hold public hearings on establishment of scenic byways. He understands the Board did not think it is necessary to hold public hearings on these roads since they had adopted a resolution on November 20, 1975, endorsing Route 20 and Route 6 as Albemarle County Scenic Byways. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Virginia Highway Commission is presently considering the inclusion of a portion of State Route 20 and State Route 6 in Albemarle County into the Virginia Scenic Highway System; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has heretofore determined that such inclusion is in the interest of the people of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, it appears to the Board that public interest would best be served by such inclusion at the earliest possible opportunity; and WHEREAS, it further appears to the Board that the holding of public hearings by the State Highway Commission will tend to delay such inclusion; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the right of the Board to request a public hearing as to the advisability of the inclusion of portions of State Route 20 and State Route 6 in Albemarle County into the Virginia Scenic Highway System be, and it hereby is, waived in accordance with Section 18-2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board be, and she hereby is, instructed to send a certified copy hereof to the Virginia Highway Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Resolution of Intent: To amend Section 18-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. following resolution was offered for adoption: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the Board intends to amend Section 18-2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows: Section 18-2: Public Hearings by State Highway Commission The Board of Supervisors may, from time toftime, request that the Virginia State Highway Commission hold public 300' July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) prior to the designation of any scenic highway or Virginia Byway in the County, whether or not such designation be at the request of the Board of Supervisors. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk be, and she hereby is, instructed to forward a copy hereof to the Albemarle County Planning Commission for its recommendation in accordance with law. Mr. Fisher asked the meaning of the words "whether or not such designation be at the request of the Board of Supervisors.~ Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, said the State statute which allows the State Highway Commission to designate a scenic highway requires no County input. The County's ordinance provides that if the Board requests a scenic highway, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing. However, if the State Highway Commission wanted to make such a designation and the County did not want the designation, holding such public hearings by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors would not be available. With this change in the ordinance, the Board would request a public hearing to be held by the State Highway Commission. Motion was then offered by Mrs, Dawid.~ seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the resolution of intent as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. To amend Section 8-1-25 of the Zoning Ordinance to repeal that section which provides for veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels, as a use by right in the M-1 Industrial Limited Zone. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on May 4., 1976, upon staff recommendation, adopted a resolution of intent to review, with the intent of repealer, Section 8-1-25, which p~ovides for veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels as a use by right in the M-1 Industrial Limited zone. The staff feels that Section 8-1-25 is not in keeping with the "Statement of Intent" of the M-1 zone "to permit certain industries, which do nov in any way detract from residential desirability, to locate in any area adjacent to residential uses." The staff recognizes that veterinary or dog or cat hospitals for reasons of convenience may desire to locate near areas of intense residential development~,and the staff feels this is adequately provided for by inclusion of these uses in the B-1 Business zone by special permit. Furthermore, kennels are appropriate only in the A-1 zone as they are operations of breeding, boarding and selling animals. Kennels are permitted in the A-1 Agricultural zone by special permit. In summary, the staff finds the uses under consideratior to be inappropriate to the intent of the M-1 zone and to be provided for adequately in other zones; therefore, the staff recommends that the ~Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors repeal Section 8-1-25 from the M-1 zone. ~'~-~. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends, by a 5/3 vote, to amend the A!bemarlc CounTy Zoning Ordinance to provide for veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels as a use by special permit in the M-1 zone, to be known as Section 8-1-27(14). At this point, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Ed McDonald owner of the property on Berkmar Drive where the Pampered Pet Motel is located. He said he had bought this property because it was zoned M-1 and commercial kennels were a permitted use in that zone. He asked that the Board not pass the recommended amendment as this would make this operation non-conforming and there are plans for expansion. Ms. Sally Conte said she lives on Williamsburg Road adjacent to Berkmar Drive. She cannot live with the noise. She must keep the windows closed and run the air-conditioner in order to alleviate some of the nuisance. She has a neighbor who has a special bed for a back condition and she cannot use the bedroom because of the noise and has been sleeping on the couch in the living room. Ms. Conte said she has lived in Berkeley for three years. The Pampered Pet Motel began operations about one year ago and the situation has been getting worse. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he has heard a number of complaints about the operation of Pampered Pet from its neighbors. If it is intruding, as has been indicated, the Zoning Administrator should take some steps to resolve the matter. Dr. Iachetta said he had received letters and telephone calls about Pampered Pet and had asked Mr. Agnor to check and see what can be done to resolve the situatic Mr. Agnor said the operator of Pampered Pet has offered to make some improvements of the sound situation. The Zoning Administrator is dubious that they will be effective, but has granted a test period of about 30 days. Dr. Iachetta said it is unfortunate that this situation exists. If this kind of an operation is to be compatible to a residential neighborhood, the owner must ~eep the operatio~ from being a nuisance. Mr. McDonald said he and the operator have worked closely with the Zoning Administrator for the past two months on the problem. There was a condition on the Certificate of Occupancy that between the hours of 6 P.M. and 8 A.M. the noise would be kept down to a non-nuisance level for a maximum of 153 feet which is the nearest residence. Steps have been taken to close in some areas of the building. With M-1 zoning backing up to residential zoning, an error might have been made originally. Mr. Roudabush said he feels the Board is trying to address a specific problem by changin~ general regulations. He feels the "M" zones in the County were generally set up to take care of most nuisance operations. It may be the wrong approach to say it is more acceptable in A-i when A-1 contains the most intensive residential areas in the County. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission was concerned with general problems or a specific problem. Mr. Tucker said there was another request for a kennel operation on M-1 zoned lands which was near a residential area but that request was withdrawn before it got to the Planning Commissi¢ They knew of this problem which exists in Berkeley. The staff felt that to allow kennels by right in the M-1 zone was not proper because they are not alloWed by right in any other zone. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to repeal Section 8-1-25 of the Zoning Ordinance and to adopt Section 8-1-27(14)~ Veterinar~ or do~ or cat hosDitals~ kennels, as a use by special J~ly 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) 30! Agenda Item No. 8. ZMP-178. Wendell W. Wood. To rezone 1.5 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business and 9.25 acres from R-2 Residential to R-3 Residential. Property located on south side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) near its intersection with Route 631. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 12, Charlottesville Magisterial District. This public hearing is held by order of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County remanding this rezoning for reconsideration. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1976.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission heard this petition to rezone 1.5 acres from R-2 Ho B-1 and 9.25 acres from R-2 to R-3 on September 13, 1971, and recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors. On September 16, ~1971, the Board of Supervisors denied this petition. This de~eision was litigated and remanded to the Board by Circuit Court decision of April 11, 1972. The applicant recently resubmitted this remanded petition and at the same time, applied for rezoning of an adjacent tract of 8.74 acres from R-2 to R-3 Residential. Approxi- mately five years have passed since the original petition was heard by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Some of the conditions under which the original staff report was developed have changed since that time. Due to the time span, change of conditions, and application for rezoning of additional acreage, the staff recommends that the Board of Supervi refer this matter to the Planning Commission so they can review this application simultaneousl with the recent application~and make recommendations in terms of current conditions. However, if the Board of Supervisors chooses to act on ZMP-178, the staff recommends denial based on existing zoning in the area. Currently there exists approximately 129 undeveloped acres of R-3 Residential and approximately 93 undeveloped acres of R-2 Residential (excluding the applicant's property) in the area bounded by U.S Route 29 North, Rio Road and Hydraulic Road. If developed, this area would provide over 4,400 dwelling units and house over 11,900 persons. Mr~ Tucker said the matter was really on the Board's agenda for a decision as to whether or not to refer this to the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush asked if the public hearing must be held tonight since it has been advertised. Mr. Payne said if the Board desires to have the Planning Commission consider this petition, it is proper to send this to the Planning Commission with the petition being readvertised for a public hearing before both the Planning Commission and the Board. Anyone who-has an interest in the matter would have been present tonight and be aware of the Board's action. Mr. Fisher said he would permit the applicant to make his presentation, but feels the Board will take no action without the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wood said he did not disagree with the matter being sent to the Planning Commission. He said after he won the Court decision, he was requested by the County Attorney not to have the case reheard because the land was to be rezoned in accordance with the Court's decision. That did not happen. The seller died and the heirs decided not to sell. He had to litigate th~s and just won that decision two weeks ago. This is the reason for the reapplication at this time. He has ~ilyd~a~py~ication on the piece of property in the Court case, but has also filed a separate application for another piece of land in the same area. Mr. St. John asked that the record show that he was not the County Attorney at that time. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush,~ to refer this petition to the Planning Commission for recommendation and public hearing. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. July 14. Revisions: County Pay/Classification Plan. Ordered carried over to Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation: Fire Damage at McIntire School. Memorandum was received from Clarence McClure, stating that the insurance company has agreed on a settlement for fire damage at McIntire School in the amount of $28,610.68. He requested that this amount be appropriated to Code 17K-603 in the School budget. The contract for repairs has been awarded to the low bidder and in the interest of getting the project completed so the building can be used this fall, the contractor has been permitted to proceed with the work. Mr. Fisher asked who had given permission for the contractor to proceed with the work. Mr. Agnor said he had. The contractor said he could, not get the building ready by this fall dnless he started immediately. Since the insurance company had paid, he had told Mr. McClure he did not feel there would be any problems. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution: ~BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $28,$10.~8 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Operating Fund and coded to 17K-603 for repairs to McIntire School occasioned by fire damage. The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roduabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Monticello Area Community Action Agency. Mr. Agnor said a request was received at the Revenue Sharing Hearing for funds to operate a summer food and recreation program. There was a question as to whether this ~rogram qualifed for use of Revenue Sharing funds. An opinion was obtained from Mr. Fred Williams, Regional Coordinator, saying that the use "represents a supplement to a federally funded program and not a payment of the local share of a federal grant." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: ~/BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,324.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue Sharing Funds and coded to 47-18B.11 for a summer food service program for children and summer youth recreation program administered through the Monticello Area Community Action Agency. 302 July 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) AYES: NAYS: The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. c? Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation: Ordered carried over to July 14. Shop & Office Building, Sanitary Landfill #!. Agenda. Item No. 13. Hessian Hills: Lift Building Permit Moratorium. Motion was offerec by Mrs. David., seconded by Dr. Iachetta to lift the building permit moratoriums~i~mposed on March 20, 1975, and August 21, 1975, ~n~.l~ts in Hessian Hills. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. .. 'Agenda Item No. 14. Authorize reply to united States Postal Service re: purchase of Downtown Post office Building. Mr. Agnor said the CountY had 30 days in which to reply to the letter offering saleof the Downtown Post Office Building to the County. The City has agreed to participate in a feasibility Study of the building. The letter will sta~e that Albemarle County is' interested in obtaining access to the property ,in order to conduct a feasibility study of potential use of the building as a library. The study will be made by an architectural_firm and will involve investigation of structural aspects of the building, plans and an estimate for remodeling. An important Oonsiderion will be the availability of the entire building and flexibility, if any, of GSA relocating in less than the three years stated in the letter. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta~ .... authorizing the County Executive to send such a letter. An appropriation for the study will be made at a later date. The motion then carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. · Agenda ~tem No. 15. Revisions: Central Shenandoah Criminal Justi-ce Training Center By- Laws~ .:Ordered Carried over to July 14. Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. Carried over to July 14. Agenda Item No. 17. Contract: Consultant for review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher sa~ he had asked that each member of the Planning Commission and Board be furnished with a copy of the contract before it is signed so that everyone will know what is being required of the consultants. Mrs. David said there are still some ,minor suggestions which the Planning CommiSsion made last night to be incorporated into the contract. If the Board endorses the contract in general terms, it can be completed by Mr. Agnor. There is also another meeting of the Steering Committee tomorrow. Mr. Dorrier asked the total cost to the County for the revised Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said it is~$47,000;~with $2.3,000 coming from a HUD grant. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to endorse the dOcument presented and to authorize the County Executive to sign same when completed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabush. Nane. Agenda Item No. 18 Other m~tters not on the agenda from Board members. Mr. Agn0r.~said Mr. Hartwell Clarke submitted his resignation as Zoning Administrator effective July 1, 1976 and Mr. Benjamin Dick was appointed to that position. In order to make t~e record clear he would like for the Board to accept Mr. Clarke's. resignation effectiv July ~, 1976. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the following~recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation stating their willingness to hold a public hearing for scheduled improveme] on Mint Spring Road (Route 684) if the Board so requests. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. I~chetta, to send a letter to the Highway Department stating that the Board does not feel a public hearing is necessary in this instance. The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier,~Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 11:38 P.M.s, the meeting was adjourned. ts