1995-03-15March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000198
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 15, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Mrs.
Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney Larry W. Davis; Director of Planning and Community Development, V.
Wayne Cilimberg; and Chief of Planning, Ronald S. Keeter.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:05 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. "
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, to approve items 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 and 5.5a, delete item 5.4
and accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs.
Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign Agreement to fund Industrial
Development Authority's Loan to GE Fanuc and approve appropriation of $150,000
to the Industrial Development Authority.
(It was noted in a staff report that on December 14, 1994, the Board
adopted a resolution requesting the IDA to loan $150,000 to GE Fanuc to enable
GE Fanuc to receive matching funds from the Governor's Opportunity Fund to
facilitate the expansion of its manufacturing and training facilities in the
County. On March 6, 1995, the IDA authorized the loan to GE Fanuc as request-
ed by the Board.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Board's approval, the IDA is
to refund the $150,000 and interest, if any, to the County upon its repayment
by GE Fanuc. An agreement to provide for the appropriation and repayment has
been approved by the IDA. It is anticipated that the loan will be completed
within the next two to three weeks.
Staff recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Agree-
ment providing for the appropriation of $150,000 to the IDA and adopt a
Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $150,000 to the IDA.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute
the Agreement (set out below) and adopt the following Resolution of Appro-
priation in the amount of $150,000 to the IDA:
This Agreement, made this 15th day of March, 1995, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereafter called the
County and the INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBENLARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereafter call the IDA.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, GE Fanuc Automation North America, Ind., ("GE
Fanuc") is seeking to expand its manufacturing and training
facilities in Albemarle County ("County"); and
WHEREAS, GE Fanuc has indicated this expansion is an oppor-
tunity for it to add 250 jobs to its operation in the County over
the next 24 to 48 months with wage rates exceeding $11.00 per
hour; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ("Board")
has requested a $150,000 grant from the Governor's Opportunity
Fund to be used for training facilities related to the proposed
expansion at GE Fanuc; and
WHEREAS, the Board has requested the IDA to loan GE Fanuc
$150,000 with conditions as set forth in its resolution adopted
December 14, 1994, and attached by reference hereto, to provide
the local participation required for accessing the Governor's
Opportunity Fund; and
000199
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, the County has agreed to appropriate to the IDA
$150,000 for the IDA to fund this request; and
WHEREAS, GE Fanuc seeks the assistance of the IDA in under-
taking this expansion project; and
WHEREAS, the IDA is empowered to assist the expansion of
industry, manufacturing and commercial enterprises in the County,
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
the mutual covenants set forth herein, the County and the IDA
agree as follows:
1. The County shall appropriate $150,000 to the IDA for
the purpose of funding the IDA loan in the amount of $150,000 to
GE Fanuc pursuant to the terms and conditions of the resolution
adopted December 14, 1994, by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors. Such funds shall be appropriated and available prior
to April 1, 1995.
2. Upon repayment cf the principal amount and interest,
if any, by GE Fanuc to the IDA, the IDA shall reimburse the County
$150,000 plus any accrued interest thereon. Such reimbursement
shall occur within 30 days of the receipt of such funds by the
IDA.
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
N-JMBER: 940054
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100011010940060 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Item 5.2. Authorize Chairman to sign Charlottesville-Albemarle Visi-
tor's Bureau Agreement Amendment.
(It was noted in the staff's.report that the proposed agreement for the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Visitor's Bureau was negotiated by Mr. Charles
Martin, Mr. Robert Tucker, the City of Charlottesville and the Chamber of
Commerce. The University has been added as a representative on the Bureau as
a non-voting member, changes in the formula for contribution by the Chamber
have been amended, although there are no substantive changes in the original
funding. There are other additions that relate more to the Chamber's partici-
pation in the funding of the Bureau and the establishment of an Advisory
Tourism Council Steering Committee which will be advisory to the Director of
the Bureau.
Staff recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement,
which is for a three year period, retroactive to July 1, 1994.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign
the following agreement:
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July
1994, by and among the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, a municipal
corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "City" herein),
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision in the Common-
wealth of Virginia (the "County" herein), the CHARLOTTESVILLE-
ALBEMARLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (the "Chamber" herein), and the
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (the "University"herein), for the purpose
of maintaining and operating the CharlottesvillezAlbemarle Visi-
tors and Convention Bureau (the "Bureau" herein).
The purpose of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Visitors and
Convention Bureau is to promote the Charlottesville-Albemarle area
as a desirable tourism destination; to provide information about
the area to visitors who come to the Information Bureau; and to
provide tourist information to potential visitors; to assist group
tour planners in arranging local itineraries; and to provide
meeting planners with information on meetings and conference
facilities and services within the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
WITNESSETH:
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the following mutual
covenants, promises and conditions, the City, County, Chamber and
the University (the "parties") herein agree as follows:
March 15, 1995 (Regular
(Page 3)
000200
[1] The parties shall operate the Bureau within the Char-
lottesville and Albemarle area to enhance tourism with the primary
purpose to assist the individual tourist. The Bureau shall be an
unincorporated association of the parties under the control of a
Management Committee composed of the County Executive, the City
Manager, and the President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Chamber of Commerce. The Executive Vice-President and Chief
Financial Officer of the University shall be a non-voting member.
[2] The Management Committee will supervise the activities
of the Bureau through the Bureau's director. The Management
Committee shall approve the annual budget of the Bureau before it
is transmitted to the parties for final funding and shall approve
all operation policies including other fundraising.
[3] The staff of the Bureau shall be considered City employ-
ees and operate under the City's personnel-payroll system and its
policies.
[4] The Bureau's office and operations shall be located in
the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation building located on Route
20 adjacent to Piedmont Virginia Community College.
[5] The Management Committee shall rotate the chairmanship
annually among its three voting members. The Committee shall meet
quarterly or more often if required. The Committee may, if it so
chooses, adopt by-laws not inconsistent with this agreement.
[6] The Management Committee shall provide the parties with
an annual accounting of the Bureau's funds and an annual report of
the Bureau's activities.
[7] The funding formulae for the Bureau's annual budget
shall be as follows:
(a) The City and County shall each contribute an
amount based on the formulae spelled out in (c) below which added
to the amount provided by the Chamber shall constitute the funds
necessary to meet the annual budget requirements as approved by
the City Council, the Board of Supervisors, and the Executive
Committee of the Chamber of Commerce.
(b) The Chamber shall contribute an amount equal to
(i) 100% of the membership dues (reduced by a dollar amount, per
member, equal to the Chamber's base membership fee, which is
currently $195, for basic membership services) received from its
members in the "Bed & Breakfast," "Campgrounds & RV Parks," "Ho-
tels'', and "Historical Places" categories, plus (ii) 20% of the
membership dues received from its members in the "Restaurants,"
"Restaurants & Caterers" and "Wineries" categories, plus (iii) 10%
of the membership dues received from the University of Virginia,
and, its members in the "Retail Fuel Oil," "Gift Shops" and "An-
tique Dealers" categories. For purposes of this calculation,
receipts of membership dues for each calendar year shall be
determined as of May 31 of the then current calendar year.
(c) The City and County contributions are computed as
follows: the non-chamber portion of the approved budget revenue
is divided between the City and County by computing a percentage
figure based on one-half of the ratio of the sales tax amounts
collected for the previous year plus one-half of the ratio of the
transient lodging tax collected for the previous year, based on a
two [2] percent collection rate.
CITY SALES TAX + CITY LODGING TAX
_COMBINED CITY & COUNTY SALES TAX COMBINED CITY & COUNTY
LODGING TAX
+ 2 = CITY PERCENTAGE SFUtRE
COUNTY SALES TAX + COUNTY LODGING TAX
COMBINED CITY & COUNTY SALES TAX COMBINED CITY & COUNTY LODGING
TAX
+ 2 = COUNTY PERCENTAGE SHARE
[8] The Bureau is hereby authorized to attract group meet-
ings, conventions, seminars, etc., to the community; arrange
facilities for such meetings, seminars, conventions; and provide
support services. The cost of this portion of the Bureau's
program shall be borne by funds contributed by the Chamber of
Commerce and such other private sources as may be available, and
by three-fourths of the gross revenues generated by the operation
of the Bureau.
[9] This agreement shall be for a three Year period begin-
ning July 1, 1994 and renewing each three years thereafter unless
one of the parties gives at least six months notice prior to any
July 1st that it does not wish to continue. If such notice is
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
00020'1
given, then this agreement shall expire on June 30th of the year
proceeding after the six months notice.
[10] The parties financial obligations hereunder are
subject to annual appropriations by their respective governing
bodies.
Bureau:
[tl] Additional responsibilities of the parties and/or
(a) The Bureau is hereby authorized and directed to
provide to all Chamber members, regardless of whether such members
are located in the City, the County or elsewhere, the same bene-
fits provided to all City and County businesses. Any funds
contributed by the Chamber pursuant to the funding formula may be
expended for marketing and promotional projects to increase the
number of visitors to, and extended stays in, the area.
(b) In addition to its direct financial commitment,
the Chamber agrees to provide services and coordinate projects
which will support the Bureau's goals at the request of the Bureau
but which cannot be performed by the Bureau due to staffing or
other limitations. Any Chamber staff time and out-of-pocket
expenses devoted to such services and projects shall be provided
as agreed by the Chamber.
[12] There is hereby established an Advisory Tourism Council
Steering Committee consisting of 15 people appointed by the
unanimous consent of the Management Committee. The Tourism
Council Steering Committee will be advisory to the director of the
Convention and Visitors Bureau. The Council Steering Committee
may establish as many subcommittees as it deems necessary to carry
out its mission. The Advisory Tourism Council has no authority to
make policy or financially or otherwise obligate the Bureau.
Item 5.3. Proclamation proclaiming March 30,1995, through April 1,
1995, as the first annual Virginia Festival of the Book, was approved by the
above recorded vote:
WHEREAS,
reading and writing are among the most noble pursuits
of humankind; and
WHEREAS,
people of all ages can and should participate in the
examination of the past, present and future of the
book; and
WHEREAS,
this year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the
annual Friends of the Jefferson-Madison Regional
Library Book Sale; and
WHEREAS,
the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public
Policy, the Associates of the University of Virginia
Library, Barnes & Noble Bookstore, Book Arts Press,
the Friends of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library,
Heartwood Books, the University of Virginia Division
of Continuing Education, the University of Virginia,
Williams Corner Bookstore and Virginia Power have
contributed to establish an annual celebration of book
culture;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby
proclaim Thursday, March 30, 1995 through Satur-
day, April 1, 1995 as the first annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate
fully in the wide variety of available events
and activities.
(This item was deleted from the agenda )
Item 5.5. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circ'uit Court, for the month
of February, 1995, was approved by the above recorded vote.
Item 5.5a. Proclamation proclaiming March as Mental Retardation Aware-
ness Month, was approved as follows by the above-recorded vote:
WHEREAS,
mental retardation is a condition affecting more than
180,000 Virginia children and adults'; and
MarCh(Page 5)15' 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~) .~0~
WHEREAS, 50 percent of mental retardation cases could be pre-
vented if current knowledge were fully implemented;
and
WHEREAS,
families, friends, neighbors, churches and local
community groups provide significant, and often unher-
alded support to Virginians with mental retardation;
and
WHEREAS,
all citizens with mental retardation have the capacity
to learn, develop and grow; and
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
with appropriate individual and family services and
supports, persons with mental retardation can function
with greater independent and productivity; and
over 300 citizens with mental retardation in the City
of Charlottesville and Counties of Albemarle,
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson are without neces-
sary services and supports; and
during the month of March the 3000 members from 26
local Virginia chapters of The Arc are fostering
employment, education, residential, recreational,
prevention and public awareness initiatives in the
public and private sectors;
NOW, THEREFORE,
I, Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby
recognize the month of
MARCH, 1995 as
MENTAL RETARDATION AWARENESS MONTH
and call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
Item 5.6. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 28, 1995,
was accepted as information.
Item 5.7. Superintendent's Memo No. 1, dated February 27, 1995, from
Mr. William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction, re: Aid to
Localities Appropriations, 1994-96 Biennium, was accepted for information.
Item 5.8. Copy of letter dated February 27, 1995, from Ms. Julie L.
Vosmik, Director, Division of Survey and Register, Department of Historic
Resources, to Mrs. F. Palmer Weber, providing notice that the Board of
Historic Resources will meet on April 19, 1995, to consider Malvern, Albemarle
County, for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register, was accepted for
information.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-94-12. River Heights.
indefinite deferral.)
(Applicant requests
Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer ZMA-94-12,
River Heights, until August 9, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs.
Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-94-14. Highlands West Land Trust (applicant),
Lady B. Walton (owner). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 120 ac
from RA to R-4. Located on S sd of Rt 240 approx 0.4 mi W of entrance to
Highlands at Mechums River. TM56,P93. (Deferred froTM February 8, 1995.)
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The appli-
cant proposes to develop a mix of single-family detached and single-family
attached dwelling units, with some common areas and open space primarily
around environmentally sensitive areas. A general plan of development has
been provided, with the major features of the plan beiDg proffered. The
applicant has proffered to limit the total number of units to 277. The
development would be served by public water and sewer and by public roads.
The plan provides for access from Route 250 by way of a bridge over the C & O
Railroad track to the east of the proposed alignment of the proposed Route
240/Route 250 connector shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Right-of-way for the
connector road through the parcel is being proffered. The area to the west of
the proposed connector road is not included within the development proposal.
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000203
This proposal is in line with the Comprehensive Plan goal of containing
the vast majority of residential development within deSignated growth areas
and low-density residential appears to be an appropriate land use for at least
that portion of the property not designated for industrial use. It is staff's
opinion that the portion of the property designated for industrial use that
would be lost to that use is not a significant loss to the industrial land
inventory. The plan and proffers provide adequately for the proposed Route
240/Route 250 connector road. While certain features of the development
scheme, such as optimal buffering from adjoining uses and preservation of all
historic features, are not ensured, the major issues of compatibility are
addressed. Subject to the finding by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not necessary to support
this rezoning, staff recommends approval of this rezoning request subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers:
Owner will reserve a t10 foot strip of land in the approximate
location shown on the Plan as "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250
Connector", (the "Reserved Area") and will dedicate the Reserved
Area to public use without compensation at such time as the County
of Albemarle or the Virginia Department of Transportation has
acquired the balance of the right-of-way required to build the
proposed Crozet Route 240/250 Connector road utilizing the Re-
served Area. Reservation of the Reserved Area shall not be deemed
to prohibit owner, successors, and assigns from constructing a
vehicular access at grade across the Reserved Area sufficient to
permit the full development and use of the adjacent parcels
labeled "INDUSTRIAL SERVICE" on the Plan. Reservation of the
Reserved Area shall not be deemed to prohibit Owner from con-
structing a two-lane road in the Reserved Area in a manner which
would not interfere with future construction of the connector
road, or making other temporary use of the Reserved Area not
inconsistent with such construction, as determined by VDoT and
then-existing County ordinances. No residential driveways will
access directly on the 100' right-of-way.
Owner will construct a soccer field in the approximate location
shown on the Plan. Owner may provide recreational facilities in
lieu of soccer field at Owner's option subject to Administrative
approval of the County of Albemarle Planning Department.
3 o
Owner will retain the existing two-story residence building on the
property for use as a clubhouse, to be operated and maintained by
the Homeowners Association, provided that the Owners obligation
shall be satisfied upon conveyance of the residence to the Home-
owner Association. The existing two-storY building on the proper-
ty will be retained for use as a clubhouse, to be operated and
maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Owner will reserve a 50-foot wide green belt along each side of
the stream in the area identified as "GREENBELT" on the Plan, to
the extent that the greenbelt would be within the boundaries of
the property. No buildings shall be constructed or erected within
the greenbelt without the consent of Albemarle County and it shall
be preserved in its natural state except for the building of
pedestrian trails and general beautification including, but not
limited to the clearing of underbrush, removal of dead trees and
shrubs, planting of trees and shrubs, and cleanup of the stream,
and use for utilization for stream crossing for pedestrian or
vehicular access in accordance with Virginia Department of Trans-
portation standards to adjacent properties. Owner does not
proffer to maintain the greenbelt, and may convey the greenbelt to
the homeowners association subject to the reservation set forth
herein. The proffer shall not be interpreted to prohibit the
location of utilities and easements therefore in the greenbelt.
The reservation of the greenbelt will provide that at such time as
the County Albemarle commits to establish and maintain a public
area, park or pathway, and assume responsibility for maintenance
therefore, the greenbelt area, upon request of Albemarle County,
will be dedicated by Owner of its successors to the County,
subject to the right of use for pedestrian trails by residents
living on the property and subject to the right to cross the
greenbelt for vehicular access and underground utilities and
easements by Owner or its successors.
Development will be limited to a maximum of 277 single-family
attached and detached dwelling units on the property. The at-
tached and detached units will be located approximately in the
areas shown on the Plan.
Internal roads on the property will be located approximately as
shown on the Plan. Additional internal roads will be located
pursuant to normal Subdivision review.
Owner will plant at such time "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250
Connector" is built, or before, two rows of white pine trees 15
feet on center (four feet to five feet talil) along the East side
of the "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250 Connector" 110 foot "right-
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pa§e 7)
000204
of-way," which is contiguous with single-family attached or
detached as is shown on the Plan.
8 o
The proffers contained herein supersede and are offered in lieu of
all previous proffers offered by Owner with regard to the Proper-
ty. All previous proffers are withdrawn.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 7,
1995, by a vote of 4:2, recommended approval of the request subject to the
applicant amending the proffers as follows:
Collector road will be referenced in deeds to property;
50 foot greenway will be an average of 50 feet;
3. Specify a minimum of 230 units.
Mr. Cilimberg then distributed a copy of the revised proffers, submitted
by the applicant, to reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mrs. Humphris said that at the January 3, 1995 Planning Commission
meeting, there was mention of the applicant proffering' a pedestrian crossing
tunnel under the two-lane portion of the connector road. Mr. Cilimberg said
at that time the proposed connector road was located in a different alignment
and the applicant planned to provide for the connector road as part of his
access to Route 240. That is no longer necessary given the location of the
main road.
At 7:20 p.m., the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hunter Craig, representing Highlands West Limited Partnership, said
this company is responsible for developing Mill Creek,'~ Earlysville Forest and
Highlands at Mechums River. All three of these neighborhoods are in growth
areas. This proposal helps achieve the goal for the growth areas by having a
development of size and substance. The Board has been presented with a graph
showing the Crozet growth area and single-family detached dwelling units built
during the past nine years. In addition, the graph shows Rural Area III which
encompasses Covesville and Crozet to White Hall. In 1994, 19 single-family
detached units were built in the Crozet growth area, yet there were 63 single-
family detached units built in Rural Area III. He thinks something is wrong
when growth does not occur where it is supposed to occur. The growth that did
occur was because of Highlands at Mechums River. He thinks Highlands West
will have an even more dramatic effect in the growth area.
Mr. Craig said the applicant plans to build a bridge, originally
estimated to cost in excess of $1.0 million, across the railroad. The appli-
cant has the support of CSX Railroad. He then summarized the changes to the
proffers which make for a good plan. It is also the applicant's desire to
acquire additional property south of this rezoning to build a two-lane, tree-
lined road, at the developer's expense, that would provide a connection to
Park Road.which would allow the whole community to be a part of Crozet Park.
There is currently no way for someone to get from Route 240 to Crozet Park
without going through Crozet. Mr. Craig said they feel this is a good
proposal and plan and will meet the objective of the County to direct growth
into the growth areas. He is available to answer any iquestions from Board
members.
Mr. Phillip Unger, a resident of Route 250 West,~ said this is a major
change to the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal would eliminate 100 acres of
open space. He does not think that the full potential future use of this
property has been assessed. He is extremely concerned about the possible loss
of industrial potential for property adjacent to this property. Mr. Unger
also felt the Board should address the Route 240/250 connector road before
approving this request.
Ms. Ellen Waugh said she has lived in her present home since 1986 which
is bounded by Lady Walton farm. She commented particularly on the beauty of
Lady Walton farm. She asked that this property be considered in the context
of the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan. She asked why property
practically isolated from its neighbors and reached by crossing a railroad be
granted an R-4 designation. Her property is located on Route 250 West, in the
growth area, easily accessible and it is zoned R-1. She is strongly opposed
to this loss of open space. This is the wrong type of development for this
property. She has a general dislike for housing developments in rural areas
that are far removed from urban services. She feels that a slow, cautious
evaluation of this land is vital. Ms. Waugh expressed concerns about the
infringement on open space, the self-creation of housing needs and the unmet
improvements to Route 240 and Route 250 West. For those reasons this project
should be disallowed and disapproved until such time tlhat actual housing needs
are dictated and other areas evaluated for inclusion i~ the growth area.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, agreed with the two previous
speakers. He acknowledged that Mr. Craig is correct in that growth has to be
accommodated in the growth areas to preserve the rural~ environment. To him,
this is not an issue of growth versus no growth, but instead an issue of
vision and future. He thinks the County should be following a principle of
good planning and people will know when to come. He felt the ways to measure
the effects of cumulative growth were lacking. One of the problems with this
000 05
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
is that there has been no long-term planning. Traffic' at the Route 810/240
intersection has not been considered, nor the inadequacy of the elementary
school to handle approximately 130 new students. One of the benefits of the
Comprehensive Plan is that everyone knows what the expectations are. He
thinks the County would be in a better position if more time and effort were
put into planning the growth areas rather than allowing a piece-meal develop-
ment. There is no accommodation for affordable housing in this development.
He asked the Board to review this request with the community and planners and
look at this for the benefit of the community and County at-large.
Mr. Paul Burke said he lives in the Crozet area and will be affected by
the traffic from this development. He believes Mr. Craig is a quality builder
and to date has shown reasonable restraint in his developments in the Crozet
area. He asked that Mr. Craig exercise restraint in the size of this project.
He feels this project will have a profound impact on the Comprehensive Plan
and the Route 240/250 connector. Although he believes the land should remain
open space, there are several issues that should be addressed before proceed-
lng with this project, i.e., an agreement should be in hand from the railroad
company before allowing the crossing, the traffic situation on Route 240,
water, the effect on the tax rates and the Crozet Study. He asked that the
rezoning request be deferred or denied because it is Premature. He is
concerned that proffers have been submitted at the last minute and the public
has not been able to review this information or address the situation before
the meeting. He hopes the Board will at least defer this request until
further evaluation can be done and the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted.
Mr. Ed Wood, a native of Western Albemarle and currently a resident of
Greenwood, said his concern is the rezoning of this industrial land. He is
concerned about the loss of industrially zoned land because it is hard to get
that zoning back.
Ms. Cindy Brashear said she is a resident of Crozet, has three children
in public schools and was a member of the Crozet Community Study. She
believes that most of the residents of Crozet agree with the principle of
designated growth areas in order to maintain the rural character of the County
and they accept that Crozet is a growth area. She does not feel it is
necessary to destroy the small-town character of Crozet with residential
growth. In particular, residential subdivisions do not have to look like
Northern Virginia. There were many excellent recommendations pertaining to
residential subdivisions in the Crozet Community Study, a study that the Board
not only accepted, but read carefully and praised. Most of the recommenda-
tions in that study would not cost the developer any more money, but would
entail a different mode of thinking, creativity of doing things differently
than have been done in the past in other subdivisions, and integrity in doing
what the community wants, would prefer and needs. She realizes that the Board
cannot tell the developer to do the right thing, i.e., sidewalks in a subdivi-
sion, mix in prices of housing, but can delay making a decision and suggest
that Mr. Craig go to the community and try to develop a plan that meets the
needs of the community and the developer. There are a lot of wonderful and
creative things that could be done given time. Since Crozet is a growth area
and there is going to be development and growth in the area, there is a need
to support certain infrastructure. If there are going to be 277 new house-
holds using the downtown area, there have to be sidewalks and parking. It is
appalling that these things have not been funded for a growth area like
Crozet. There is a dangerous pedestrian situation and there is no place to
park. Everyone wants to go downtown, but no one can be accommodated. There
has to be some sort of plan for what to do with the children in these 277
households and it has to be done before they move in. It is irresponsible to
allow more residential growth when considering the additions onto Crozet
School and with the added number of households, those kids will not be
accommodated.
Colonel Jim Evans, of Preservation Piedmont, said his remarks concern
Jarman Cree House which is on the proposed property. This property is listed
in the registry of the Department of Historic Resources. This house and its
outbuildings are rare examples of Albemarle County's cultural and architectur-
al heritage. He wants to make sure that in considering this request, the
Board is cognizant of this loss of cultural heritage.
Ms. Karen Strickland, a resident of Earlysville representing the
Earlysville Area Residents League (EARL), said EARL supports the community of
Crozet. EARL understands that a group of citizens worked for' over a year to
develop a plan for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. Certain guidelines
were set up that they believed should be followed to create their vision of
how they wanted their community to look. In the staff report for the proposed
development there is no mention of the Crozet Community Study. As a resident
of Earlysville and as a person who wants to have Earlysville conduct a study,
she is going to watch carefully to see how the Board takes what the Crozet
community did and how it is considered. There are a g~roup of citizens trying
to be proactive about their community and trying to say that they do not want
to say "no" all of the time, but want the Board to see~! their vision. She
wonders if the Board is going to accept this and say it is good, it should be
considered, see how plans and proposals fit into thesevisions or will it make
a mockery of the study and say "no," it does not matter. When she was talking
to some people about coming to this meeting, one man asked her why she wastes
her time coming to these meetings when everyone knows that the County is
driven by money, the Board does not listen to citizens' so why bother. She
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) O00Z~
(Page 9)
bothers because she believes the Board does listen to citizens and hopes that
the Board will consider what the Crozet people have said in their study.
Ms. Strickland said the second principle at stake is the Comprehensive
Plan. She has attended work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan and discus-
sions of the industrial area. She finds it ludicrous iithat the staff report
states that the applicant contends there is plenty of industrial land. This
Board should not believe what the applicant says because he has a vested
interest in stating that there is plenty of land. She thinks the Planning
Commission needs to be given time to do their work and if they recommend this
proposal for residential growth, then so be it, but she does not think this
Board should be driven by what the developer wants the Board to do. Although
it happens continuously, building residential homes before the infrastructure
is in place does not make sense. There are a lot of homes in the community
for sale. This seems to be information the Board needs to consider before it
approves more developments.
Mr. Craig said he has approximately 45 acres of industrial land and has
probably lost more money on industrial property than everyone at this meeting
combined. Several months ago, he reduced the price of his industrial land
from $2.50 and $3.75 per square foot to $1.25 per square foot and still has
not sold any of the land. On the proposed site, 16 acres of industrial land
will remain. The existing regulations will take care of the CSX bridge and
the rezoning is unnecessary without the bridge. He is willing to proffer that
the bridge will be built and if it is not built, 277 dwelling units will not
be built. The houses will be priced from $100,000 to $200,000 initially and
usually escalate. He feels this is affordable housing for Albemarle County.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the meaning of the language in
the first proffer: "Reservation of the Reserved area shall not be deemed to
prohibit owner, successors and assigns from constructing a vehicular access at
grade across the Reserved Area sufficient to permit the full development and
use of the adjacent parcel labeled 'INDUSTRIAL SERVICE' on the Plan." Mr.
Cilimberg said the proffer is intended to established the reservation. The
developer is indicating that it would not prohibit him from building the type
of access to cross that area that may be used for further development of
property in connection with Park Street. In a sense, the developer would be
building the first part of what would ultimately be the connector road. The
developer wants to reserve the option to be able to use the reserved area in
his road development that would subsequently serve other areas that may be
brought into the development. Mr. Cilimberg added that the assumption is the
Route 240/250 connector, at its full length, would connect to Park Street.
Mrs. Humphris asked what information has been received from CSX Railroad
about allowing the construction of an overpass. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has
not received anything in writing from CSX Railroad.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is a possible conflict in the first proffer
and what VDoT might want to do with the road in terms of the width. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff's understanding of the proffer was that the applicant
wanted to insure that he could build within the right-of-way to make the
connection south if he obtained additional property, iThese roads will be
approved by VDoT for inclusion in the public road system.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the relationship between the Crozet Community
Plan, the Comprehensive Plan and this application plan. Mr. Cilimberg said
the Crozet Community Plan and the Comprehensive Plan do not necessarily "mesh"
in this area. The Board accepted the Crozet Community Plan as a guide and it
was noted by the Planning Commission that there were some inconsistencies that
needed to be addressed during the Comprehensive Plan process. There is more
open space designated in this area in the Crozet Community Plan. Ideally,
staff would like to be able to have this type of develOpment after completion
of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Craig chose to move forward, so staff evaluat-
ed the application based on what is currently in the Comprehensive Plan, the
intent of Crozet and what it felt would be trends of change that may occur in
the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission has not addressed any of the land use
in Crozet. How this particular application fits into the ultimate Comprehen-
sive Plan that may come from the Commission is unknown:. The Commission's
support of this rezoning will set a new land use for some of this area. This
rezoning changes open space to residential and pushes the industrial area
west. Staff did not feel the loss of industrial property was critical as a
single determinate. Staff felt that the proposal did "mesh" with the general
trend of what would be happening in the Comprehensive Plan for Crozet, but
that is not a result of any final decisions in the planning process. That is
why staff stated the most critical decision is whether or not this is prema-
ture in terms of the Comprehensive Plan review. Staff' did feel it could work
with this request and move forward with the Comprehensive Plan review.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr..Craig if he owns the property. Mr. Craig said
"yes." Mr. Marshall asked who would be expected to maintain the historical
home and open space, and would the County plan to purchase the property, if
the property is not developed. Mr. Cilimberg said staff requested an opinion
from the Director of Parks and Recreation whether theY' saw a public necessity
or need in the future for the open space area. Mrs. Humphris asked if the
Parks and Recreation Department was asked to seek input or just give their
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000 ,07
opinion. Mr. Cilimberg said staff requested the ParkS! and Recreation Depart-
ment's assessment of the open space property.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Craig stated, as part of the proffers that he would
maintain the home in a historic nature. He asked Mr. Craig to speak to the
outbuildings that were referred to by Mr. Evans. Mr. Craig said he would like
to save as many of the outbuildings as possible. He will save the western
most outbuilding which appears to be the oldest on the property which will be
part of the pool area. He would be happy to donate any outbuildings that have
to be torn down for someone to come and pick up, free of charge, in a timely
manner to reassemble, save or store. At least two of the old outbuildings
will be saved. Mr. Marshall asked if the building will be saved and main-
tained on the property. Mr. Craig said "yes."
Mr. Perkins asked about the issue of water. The first time this Board
knew about the water problem was when it received the ~minutes of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) which stated that ConAgra has continued to
increase its consumption of water. He understands that this need could be met
with an increase in the water plants capacity, but there is no problem with
'the water source itself. Mr. Cilimberg said RWSA did not see this development
creating a public water problem. Mr. Tucker said he does not feel there is a
problem and the issue has not been discussed by the RWSA Board of Directors.
He knew about the problem at ConAgra and RWSA is working with them to solve
that problem, but in terms of actual supply, he does not believe that is an
issue.
Mrs. Thomas said a memorandum received by the Board states that these
projections (ConAgra's) coupled with the planned residential growth will
probably exceed the water treatment plants production Capacity of 1.0 million
gallons per day. The report goes on to say that they have engineering plans
whereby they can increase the water capacity to 1.3 million gallons per day.
Although this has not been done in the past, increases in plant capacity does
cost the users. Mr. Tucker said he does not think the memorandum was speaking
directly about this development. Mr. Cilimberg commented that RWSA normally
does its overall water and sewer projections based on a build-out scenario.
Mr. Perkins said this is not an easy decision. He has resided in Crozet
since 1968. When he first moved there, the issue was the sewer interceptor
line. The 1977 Comprehensive Plan talked about Crozet having 13,000 people by
this time; that has not occurred. The Comprehensive Plan also spoke about
this connector road. The Highway Department does not have the money to build
the road and he thinks this Board is looking at a developer or industry to do
the work. He thinks this proposal does some of the things that the County,
through the Comprehensive Plan, stated should be done and built in the area.
He agrees that there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the
Crozet Study. He thinks it is important that there be'another access to Park
Street. The present homes have only one access. He thinks this Board is
getting its "cake" with this proposal. The railroad bridge is something that
this Board has looked at for a long time. He also thinks this plan addresses
the importance of putting as many people as possible in the growth areas,
rather than the rural areas. There are some bad things about this proposal,
but it seems that the good outweighs the bad.
Mrs. Thomas said she agrees that there are some good things about this
proposal. She thinks the proposal has improved since the Commission's
recommendation, but there are many more improvements that could be made
wOrking with the realizatiOn that this is going tO be a grOwth area in the new
Comprehensive Plan. There are many questions as to whether this proposal is
appropriate with the present designations in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, at
issue is whether this use is appropriate given what the community has put
together as a thoughtful design plan for the community. She thinks approval
of this proposal is premature. Many of the residen~$~recognize that this is
an area that needs careful development. Staff ha~vinced her that this is
an appropriate plan for this section of Crozet given that there are going to
be other developments near it that have not been reviewed in the context of
the Comprehensive Plan. She thinks the Board should defer this request to
allow further work by staff and Commission as it develops the Comprehensive
Plan. This will improve the proposal so that it is something that the
developer, community and this Board can be proud. She thinks this is a
crucial decision for how Crozet will develop the eastern edge of its growth
area.
Mr. Marshall asked if a decision is deferred, how could it be different.
Mrs. Thomas said the community speaks in terms of streets instead of roads
that are straight and intersecting, so that there is a town feeling rather
than a feeling of one more subdivision, mixed use so that they can be devel-
oped with commercial use, residential use of various types and various housing
costs so that more affordable housing is actually incl%ded, rather than houses
in a narrow price range. There are a number of interesting elements in the
Crozet Community Plan that this Board approved to pass on to the Commission.
She feels there are better ways for a town to develop. This is what the
Commission, the staff and the developer can work through to bring something
better forward, if given the time.
Mrs. Humphris said what Mrs. Thomas and the residents are saying is that
there may be a better way for this development to be done that would be more
pleasing to more people and make it a better place to live. This Board is
being asked to change what the Comprehensive Plan recommends and leap frog
000208
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
over the planning process which should not be done. ~henever this Board leap
frogs over that process, it messes up. The proposal Should die because it has
potential, but is not there yet. Staff, the develope~ and residents should be
given time to get together and come up with something that is not the same
plan, but goes off into a new idea that may come forth in the Comprehensive
Plan of mixed uses within growth area development so that little cul-de-sacs
with little houses are not built and cut-off from everyone else. The resi-
dents are asking that all the work they put into the Crozet Study be given
some consideration and she agrees with them. If this Board does not give this
Study some consideration, it is telling the residents that what they say does
not matter and that this Board is just going to do what the developer wants.
This Board has to pay attention to people and give them living space that they
feel comfortable with and not just make them accept what it says. She agrees
with Mrs. Thomas' idea of deferring this request to give the residents, staff
and the developer time to get together and come up with something that looks
more like the Crozet Plan. ·
Mr. Bowerman said he can argue for and against the proposal. On one
hand, the statistics that the Board received on the development of rural areas
was something the Commission and Board looked at throughout the 1980's. In
terms of residential growth, 70 to 75 percent was occulrring in the rural areas
and 25 to 30 percent was in the urban areas or communities which was the
opposite of what the plan called for and what this Board was looking to in
order to preserve the rural area. Crozet was designed in the Plan as a major
community with a sizable population served by public water and public sewer.
Lickinghole Creek Reservoir was put in because Crozet ~was recognized to be in
the watershed and a designated growth area. A detention facility was built in
that area to protect the watershed. He does not think that building houses
causes people to come to this community. He thinks the houses sold are sold
to people who come to this community. He thinks the proposal before the Board
is something that will address where people live and where this Board wants
people to live which is in communities and places where services can be
provided. The proposal is basically in accord with the Plan that currently
exists, but on the other hand, the Crozet community has developed a plan that
they put together. He feels the people do have a large say in what goes on in
their community. He also thinks that the public is ultimately the one that
decides whether the developer builds the proposal in the proposed configura-
tion or another configuration because if it is built and no one purchases what
is built, it is the developer's problem. If the developer builds something
that people do not want, then the Board dictates. He does not feel this Board
should get into the position of dictating what people build. The Board can
have community meetings, discuss the way the communities should be conceived
to make the amenities more suitable to live there and be more friendly. The
streets mentioned cost a lot more money to build because there are a lot more
of them and he is not sure what factor that plays against the cost of the
housing. He thinks the proposal can be better with more work and Mr. Craig is
willing to do this, but is mindful of the fact that when people in this
community come and speak to the Board about something, their comments are
considered.
Mr. Bowerman said he disagrees with some of the [speakers who stated that
this Board does not generally listen. The Board looks for ways to accommodate
what the public says that they want to have happen to their community.
Sometimes the Board weighs the issues and decide that 'it does not agree with
them in certain cases for facts that can be articulate'd. He asked what is the
cost to the development company to delay this request for awhile. He asked if
it is possible to give more time, to try and accommodate more wishes of the
community in the proposal. Mr. Craig urged the Board not to do that and said
it costs in excess of $10,000 a month, plus interest, every month the project
is delayed. A preliminary plat, road plans, water and sewer plans and soil
erosion plans still have to be done and will come before the Board and
Commission. A lot of money will have to be spent in addition to this before
the preliminary plat is approved. He assures the Board that if people want
square roads, curb and gutter, then he will build them. Whatever is done,
economics cannot be transcended. He also promises that he will fly to Buford,
South Carolina, to look at a development that has buil't square roads with curb
and gutter. He met with the Planning Director from Buford, South Carolina,
who stated that the roads looked nice, but was not sellable. From his
experience and information, people want rural sections, want to live in the
country and want cul-de-sacs. The number one selling iiot of any subdivision
is on the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Martin said the bottom line is that people s~rrounding a subdivision
or neighborhood would like roads to go through, but PeOple living within the
subdivision do not want those roads to go through, but~ instead want cul-de-
sacs. This is a difficult decision, because everyone iknows that if this is
allowed, the Board will be channeling growth into the growth area and away
from the rural area. Allowing this proposal will helpl the Board achieve its
primary objective which is to protect the rural areas.~~ He is concerned that
the newly proposed Comprehensive Plan has provided for increased growth in
only the Mill Creek and Forest Lakes areas. Those two areas have been "hot
spots" for the last five or six years. The people in those two communities
are now stating that they need a rest. If the Board is going to continue to
channel growth into the growth areas, this is the way to do it, but the Board
should not be naive enough to say that it will only be' done in two areas-of
the County because those two areas will run out of space as well.
OO0209
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mrs. Humphris said the discussion shows that the Board's problem is that
it leap frogs over the process and all this discussion should be taking place
within the Comprehensive Plan review process. Mr. Martin said the Crozet area
is not even being discussed because they have all of the increased growth
areas in Mill Creek, Forest Lakes and Route 29 North. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Commission is also looking at Crozet to the west of Lickinghole Creek.
Mr. Perkins said there is a lot of room for growth in the Crozet area.
The real problem is that even though there is a lot of property in the growth
area, it is not for sale. There are individuals who Will not sell their
property until it is not their decision.
Mr. Martin said there is also the issue of schools. Hollymead now has
over 700 students attending it and is still growing. Redistricting is sort of
a way of life now because the area is growing.
Mr. Marshall asked what range is considered as affordable housing. Mr.
Martin said $90,000 to $120,000. Mr. Bowerman asked what are the prices at
Crozet Crossing. Mrs. Humphris said approximately $80,000. Mr. Perkins said
the houses at Crozet Crossing actually cost over $90,000.
Mrs. Thomas said she gets the feeling that words are being "put in her
mouth." She is not suggesting that this area not be developed as part of the
growth area; she thinks it should be. The Lickinghole Creek detention basin
is a public investment in this area as a growth area. She dislikes the idea
of this development being approved at this stage of the Comprehensive Plan
review. There is no way for the Board to guess whether this is the appropri-
ate use that the new Comprehensive Plan would designate for this area.
Mr. Marshall said the bottom line is that the applicant has requested
the Board vote on the proposal tonight. Mrs. Thomas said she suspects that
the applicant would rather have the request deferred than voted down. Mr.
Marshall asked if the applicant would like to take that chance. Mr. Craig
said he would be willing to defer the request for one Or two weeks. In the
meantime, he will fly to Buford, South Carolina, and pay for any of the staff
to go and look at the development there. Many of the people that have spoken
tonight are not so concerned with the details of this development, but would
rather have the land remain open space. He does not ~hink the details will
necessarily answer a lot of questions, but he will be happy to do this if the
Board wishes. The Comprehensive Plan states that the property shall be open
space until such time as a recreational use is determined which has been
determined to be zero. Clearly, if there was no intent for recreational use,
the property would be zoned low density residential with one to four dwelling
units per acre. He does not think waiting will accomplish anything, but if
the Board so desires, this could be an avenue to pursue. He feels this would
be a mistake. The cost of this subdivision will prohibit affordable housing.
Someone may say that $10,000 per month is not much money, but if you look at
the future value calculation, the compound effect adds up.
Mr. Marshall then made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
ZMA-94-14 subject to the ten proffers set out in a letter dated March 15,
1995, addressed to Mr. Ron A. Lilley, Senior Planner, County of Albemarle,
from Hunter E. Craig, Vice-President, Highlands West, L.P., by Craig Builders
of Albemarle, Inc., General Partner.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not believe that people are trying to keep
this development from being built. She believes the people are talking about
planning comprehensively so the Board knows how the prOposed development fits
in with everything else that is being needed for the Comprehensive Plan
review. When the Board "leap frogs" like this, it usually ends up making a
mistake because things that come up have not been antiCipated. She has not
had a chance to read the proffers and had to request them yesterday. She
received them as she arrived at the meeting tonight, iShe feels the applicant
had two weeks to form the proffers. She asked Mr. DaVis if he has reviewed
them carefully. Mr. Davis said he reviewed them this afternoon when he
received them. Mrs. Humphris said she feels this is a mistake and cannot
support the motion. She feels the Board needs to listen to the people and
feels they have put in a lot of work, had ~xcellent ideas and does not believe
they are trying to keep the development from occurring. She feels the people
are simply trying to have a better community and she feels the Board should
support them.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks this proposal does comply with the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He thinks the benefits of this project outWeigh the negatives and
he will support the motion.
There being no further discussion, the roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bowerman.
Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris.
(Note: ZMA-94-14 is approved with the following proffers:)
1. Owner will reserve a 110 foot strip of land in the approxi-
mate location shown on the Plan as "Proposed Crozet Route
240/250 Connector," (the "Reserved Area") and will dedicate
the Reserved Area to public use without compensation at such
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
,O00E O
time as the County of Albemarle or the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDoT) has acquired the 'balance of the
right-of-way required to build the proposed Crozet Route
240/250 connector road utilizing the Reserved Area. Reser-
vation of the Reserved Area shall not be deemed to prohibit
owner, successors, and assigns from constructing a vehicular
access at grade across the Reserved Area sufficient to
permit the full development and use of the adjacent parcel
labeled "INDUSTRIAL SERVICE" on the Plan. Reservation of
the Reserved Area shall not be deemed to prohibit owner from
constructing a two-lane road in the Reserved Area in a
manner which would not interfere with futUre construction of
the connector road, or making other temporary use of the
Reserved Area not inconsistent with such COnstruction, as
determined by V DoT and then-existing County ordinances. No
residential driveways will access directly onto the 110 foot
right-of-way.
2 0
4 o
Owner will construct a soccer field in the approximate loca-
tion shown on the Plan. Owner may provide recreational
facilities in lieu of soccer field at owner's option, sub-
ject to administrative approval of the County of Albemarle
Planning Department.
Owner will clean and repaint (interior and! exterior, exclud-
ing attic) the existing two-story residenc~e building on the
property, place all heating, electrical and plumbing systems
therein in good working order, trim shrubbery and clean up
the yard, and convey such building to the Homeowners Associ-
ation for use as a clubhouse, to be operated and maintained
by the Homeowners Association. The two-story house may be
used as a sales center/clubhouse until all lots are sold.
Owner will reserve an average of a 50-foot wide greenbelt
along each side of the stream in the area identified as
"GREENBELT" on the Plan, to the extent that the greenbelt
would be within the boundaries of the property. No build-
ings shall be constructed or erected within the greenbelt
without the consent of Albemarle County and it shall be
preserved in its natural state except for the building of
pedestrian trails and general beautification including, but
not limited to, the clearing of underbrush~ removal of dead
trees and shrubs, planting of trees and shrubs, cleanup of
the stream and use for utilization for stream crossing for
pedestrian or vehicular access in accordance with VDoT
standards to adjacent properties. Owner does not proffer to
maintain the greenbelt, and may convey the greenbelt to the
Homeowners Association subject to the reservation set forth
herein. The proffer shall not be interpreted to prohibit
the location of utilities and easements therefore in the
greenbelt. The reservation of the greenbelt will provide
that at such time as the County of Albemar%e commits to
establish and maintain a public area, park or pathway, and
assumes responsibility for maintenance thereof, the green-
belt area, upon request of Albemarle CountY, will be dedi-
cated by owner or its successors to the County, subject to
the right of use for pedestrian trails by residents living
on the property and subject to the right to cross the green-
belt for vehicular access and underground utilities and
easements by owner or its successors.
Development will be limited to a maximum of 277 single-
family attached and detached dwelling units on the property.
The attached and detached units will be located approximate-
ly in the areas shown on the Plan.
Internal roads on the property will be located approximately
as shown on the Plan. Additional internal roads will be
located pursuant to normal subdivision review.
Owner will plant at such time "Proposed CrOzet Route 240/250
Connector" is built, or before, two rows of white pine trees
15 feet on center (four feet to five feet tall) along the
east side of the "Proposed Crozet Route 240/250 Connector"
110 foot "right-of-way," which is contiguous with single-
family attached or detached as is shown on the Plan.
The reservation set forth in paragraph one above and the
possibility that a four-lane road will be ~onstructed within
the Reserved Area shall be clearly disclosed in the subdivi-
sion covenants and restrictions and on the"subdivision plat
for all lots adjacent to the Reserved Area.
Owner will develop the property to accommodate a minimum of
230 units.
O002X
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
10.
The proffers contained herein supersede a~d are offered in
lieu of all previous proffers offered by ~wner with regard
to the property. All previous proffers are withdrawn.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request to set a public hearing to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries to include water
and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcels 88, 88A, 89, 90, 90A and 93 located
on the southside of Route 240.
Mr. Cilimberg said in connection with ZMA-94-14,~ Highland West, the
Highlands West Limited Partnership is requesting an amendment to the Albemarle
County Service Authority jurisdictional areas to include water and sewer
service to all of the parcel requested for the rezoning (Tax Map 56, Parcel
93) and five small parcels immediately north (Parcels 88, 88A, 89, 90 and 90A)
in the Crozet growth area. The Comprehensive Plan states that an objective
and overriding policy guiding the planning and provision of utilities is that
public water and sewer services be provided to the urban areas and communities
as an incentive to growth.
Presently, the western portion of Parcel 93 is located within the water
and sewer service area and all the parcels are generally surrounded by parcels
within the jurisdictional area, though mostly just for water only to existing
structures. All of these parcels are within the Crozet growth area boundary,
which is the major criterion for inclusion in the jurisdiction area. It is
staff's understanding that these parcels were excluded from the jurisdictional
area at the request of the former owner, Lady Walton, due to some concern over
the implications for development of the property if included in the jurisdic-
tional area. A large portion of Parcel 93 is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan as Open Space until its recreation potential can be assessed, which is
discussed in the Highlands West rezoning staff report. It is not clear why
the parcels west and east of Parcels 88 through 90 are designated for water
only to existing structures, but that may have resulted from some uncertainty
about what areas would drain naturally to the Lickinghole Creek Regional
Sedimentation Basin. The ACSA indicates that water and sewer lines are
reasonably accessible to all of these parcels and that sufficient capacity
exists to serve reasonable development of them.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff finds this request meets the Comprehensive Plan
criteria for jurisdictional area designation, at least for Parcels 88, 88A,
89, 90 and 90A, and, if the Board accepts the argument made in the Highlands
West rezoning staff report against keeping the Open Space designation north of
Lickinghole Creek, then all of Parcel 93 would also meet the criteria. Staff
recommends the Board adopt a resolution of intent to forward this request to
public hearing based on these findings.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a public
hearing for April 5, 1995, to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
service area boundaries to include water and sewer service to Tax Map 56,
Parcels 88, 88A, 89, 90, 90A and 93 located on the southside of Route 240.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris. J
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-94-41. Virginia Land Trust. Public Hearing on a
request for a stream crossing of the flood plain on approx 522.1 ac zoned RA
on W sd of Rt 743 approx 0.2 mi W of Rt 641. TM20,P6A. White Hall Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent records of the Board.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Albemarle County Engineering approval of final design sketch of
the stream crossing;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydraulic
computations;
3. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion Control Plan;
4 o
Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with
Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wet-
lands and watercourses;
Virginia Department of Transportation apprOval of entrance loca-
tion;
This stream crossing will provide exclusive access for the 430.005
(TM 20, P6A1) acre parcel and will provide'access for the 116.889
acre parcel (TM20, P6A) as shown on attachment B, page 3 (on
file).
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~2
(Page 15)
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 28,
1995, recommended approval of SP-94-41 subject to the conditions recommended
by staff, amending condition one as follows:
1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a final design sketch of
the stream crossing, in accordance with memo dated January 30,
1995, from Glen Brooks, County Engineering Department, with
particular attention to items A through D;
At 9:01 p.m., the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Katurah Roell, representing the applicant, presented aerial photo-
graphs showing an overview of the property and the topography. The applicant
is requesting a stream crossing at the tip end of the flood plain. He has met
with the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality
regarding this proposal and obtained the necessary permits for this activity.
He has also submitted plans to the Engineering Department for their review.
VDoT has indicated that this is the best location given the limited amount of
frontage and the required sight distance. He is available to answer any
questions.
Ms. Margaret Hann said the issue is not the stream crossing. The
residents feel the purpose of this request is to get an entrance for a
subdivision and the applicant is not being upfront. The residents strongly
urge each Board member to visit the area where the entrance is being devel-
oped. This is the most unsafe place along Route 743 that could have been
chosen for this entrance. If Board members have not had an opportunity to
look at the property, they should defer the request.
Ms. Ann Novak said she owns the property that is contiguous to the
entrance. The current road which serves the property has done so adequately
for 50 years. Logging trucks and other heavy equipment have used that road
with no problems. She strongly recommends this Board give the Army Corps of
Engineers an opportunity to reevaluate that stream. She is fairly new to
Albemarle County. She does not have a problem with the applicant's right to
develop the land, but she does have a problem with the location of this en-
trance. The entrance is on a curb. She urged Board members to visit the
site. There is an alternative.
Mr. Bob Lodi, a resident of Advance Mill, said his property is across
from the proposed entrance to the farm road. His concerns are essentially the
same as those expressed by Ms. Novak. There are a number of issues related to
safety, curves and hills° Some years back a car hit a young child riding a
bicycle because they could not see the child. The child was killed. His
property is adjacent to the river and is in the flood Plain. He would like to
know more about the impact of putting a crossing there and what the effect of
flooding in that area could be. He thinks this is worth studying before
making a final decision.
Mr. Greg Newman, a resident of Advance Mills Village~ said he is rela-
tively new to the area, but immediately noticed the narrow twisting roads that
leads through Advance Mill Village where this access road is planned to be
built. That road is very dangerous even under the best of conditions. He
often hears brakes and tires squealing as cars come racing down the hill and
go around the curve. He asked Board members to imagine additional cars on
this road if a subdivision is built. He thinks this issue needs further
review and discussion from a public safety perspective. There have been
numerous accidents on Route 743. People drive fast on the road and accidents
and/or near accidents are fairly common. Before the Board approves a plan
that leads to adding a huge amount of traffic on that road, the safety of that
intersection needs to be looked at.
Mr. Warren Russ said he and his wife have been residents of Advance
Mills Village for six years. He also talked about the safety hazard of
putting the proposed entrance at this location. He urged the Board to deny
the request. Advance Mills is not a designated growth~area, therefore any
development that is contemplated would be well-served by only one road. He
again urged the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Katurah Roell again addressed the Board. He said the access road
and proposed entrance were determined with great care through VDoT. Speed
studies were done to determine the speed that the cars were travelling. A
traffic count was also conducted. It was determined that there was 500 feet
of sight distance in each direction which is greater than the distance at the
other location. The County Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed road
profile down the 50 foot stretch and it requires 125 foot wide fill to cross
the same stream further up where it comes out of the sPring. He feels this
location serves the purpose. Different versions of a Subdivision have been
drawn for this property, but nothing has been submitted. This road is the
only way into the property which is why they are requesting the access. He
does not want to impact the stream twice, but wanted t6 construct a road that
is acceptable to engineering standards.
Mrs. Thomas asked why the current access is not feasible. Mr. Roell
said the current access does not have adequate commercial sight distance. It
only has 150 feet of sight distance before it disappears over the hill just
past Ms. Novak's driveway. He lives at the farm and has had a number of close
calls trying to turn into the driveway.
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
0002:/.3
Mrs. Humphris asked why the farm needs a commercial entrance. Mr. Roell
said the applicant does not feel the existing entrance! currently serves the
farm adequately. Mrs. Humphris asked what is different about the farm now
than in the last number of years when it was farmed. Mr. Roell said they are
trying to improve the entrance and quality of the approach to the farmhouse
and barn area. Mrs. Humphris asked if there was any difference in the
activity on the farm now from what it has been in the past. Mr. Roell said
"no," the activities are still the same.
Mr. Marshall asked how many acres are there on the farm. Mr. Roell said
there are 439 plus 116 acres on the base farm tract. Mr. Marshall asked how
many cows are currently on the farm. Mr. Roelt said approximately 40.
Mr. Perkins asked if they currently have VDoT approval of the entrance.
Mr. Roell said "yes." In addition, when the subdivision is developed a plan
will be submitted to the County for consideration. The Board will then have
to address the criteria that will take place at that time. The existing road
also winds around a steep, rocky portion of the property where there is a 50
foot drop-off over a 200 foot stretch of the road. That road is one lane and
cannot be widened because it is on the steep edge of a hill. The applicants
have improved the road as best they can, but with the boulders and rocks on
it, it is impractical to do much more to it.
Mr. Marshall asked if the entire length of the road will be paved. Mr.
Roell said "yes."
Mr. Perkins asked if the Novaks live in the house closest to the bridge.
Mr. Roell said "yes."
Mr. Marshall asked if the development would be an estate or subdivision.
Mr. Roell said it is being marketed as an estate.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Thomas referred to the Planning Commission discussion regarding
whether the road is a farm road or a subdivision road. If this is a subdivi-
sion road and the Board allows the applicant to build it in a bad location,
then VDoT has taken the position that they do not have the authority to
require an improvement of that road and the Board's only position would be to
deny the subdivision. She asked if her interpretation was correct. Mr.
Keeler said if someone has a large tract of land and to get to a majority of
the land they needed to cross a stream, staff would recommend that the
entrance be put in the best location for commercial sight distance, in the
event the property was subdivided in the future. If this entrance is situated
in a location where at the time a subdivision plat is submitted and VDoT says
that there is not sufficient sight distance, staff would not recommend
approval of the subdivision. Staff has never recommended waiver of commercial
entrance sight distance standards because it is a safety factor. The existing
entrance at this property has 150 feet of sight distance in one direction
which does not meet the minimum requirement for a single-family dwelling.
Mr. Bowerman said a special permit for a stream Crossing which allows
the ultimate development of property in the rural area is not a by-right
development. He does not support approval of a special permit for a stream
crossing in the flood plain, in the rural area, which enables the development
of a 600 acre tract of land unless it was allowed by-right.
Mr. Marshall said he could support the request if the development was to
be an estate. He asked if the Board approves this as an entrance to an
estate, does it automatically give the applicant the right to develop the
property as a subdivision. Mr. Tucker said there is no distinction.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not see any justification to grant the
permit since there is already an access to the property and it is being
farmed.
Mrs. Humphris then made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to deny
SP-94-41.
Mr. Marshall said he has not been to the site. He asked if the current
entrance was sufficient to get tractors in and out on the road. Mrs. Thomas
said "yes." Mr. Bowerman commented that this area is served on either end
by a one-lane bridge.
Mr. Perkins said one of the issues that bothers him is that at one time,
this property fronted Route 743, Route 664 and Route 604. To say that this is
the only spot for the road to be constructed is incorrect. This is poor
planning. He does not think it makes sense to choose khe one spot where there
has to be a stream crossing. ~
Mr. Roell again addressed the Board and said VDoT has issued an entrance
permit. He is before the Board requesting a special ui~e permit for the stream
crossing. If he were to go 50 to 100 feet further up stream, he is out of the
flood plain area and can built the road by-right. The object of obtaining the
special use permit was to put it in the most feasible Crossing. The entrance
is permitted and granted and that is not a decision of"the Board. The
question is whether the road crosses the stream in this location or 100 feet
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
0002t4
further upstream where it is out of the flood plain. !iThis location seemed to
be a better approach.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the road could be veered to the left of where it is
currently cut. Mr. Roell said "yes," it requires more cut and fill and he
would still cross the stream 100 feet further up.
Mr. Martin said he would like to hear more from other Board members
based on what Mr. Roell has stated. He wonders if the Board is making a
mistake by saying no to something because it realizes ~a request for a subdivi-
sion may come at a later date. He also wonders if this would require more
destruction of the property and trees. He asked if Mr. Roell can keep the
entrance the same, just go forward 100 feet to cross the stream. Mr. Keeler
said "yes." Originally the flood plain was not identified and they were
constructing and grading the entrance. This is the uPper end of the flood
plain and all they would have to do is go around the radius and curvature of
the road.
Mr. Bowerman said the design of the road that would ultimately serve
some future development would be predicated on the scale of the development
and the developer can put the road wherever he wants as long as he does not
cross the flood plain.
Mr. Martin said it seems that what is being stated is that the road will
remain in the same location. The only thing that will change is that the road
cannot cross the stream where the applicant wants to cross it, but can cross
it further up. If this is done, it will probably desffroy more trees. He
asked Mrs. Harm how she feels about that. Mrs. Hann said her biggest problem
is that the location of the entrance is in the most dangerous spot on Route
743. Mr. Martin said the Board does not have any say concerning that. Mrs.
Hann asked if the Board has any say over whether a subdivision entrance is
safe or unsafe. Mr. Martin said it could be an issue 'at the time that the
subdivision is brought to the Board, but at this time the only thing the Board
can act on is the stream crossing. Mrs. Hann said the residents have no
problem with the stream crossing, but feel the entrance is at the most
dangerous place possible. The residents also do not have a problem with the
subdivision, but they want the entrance to be located in a safe place.
Mr. Martin said it seems that the Board has no say about where the road
goes. Mr. Keeler said it is his understanding that VD6T has said that this
entrance has the commercial sight distance. The sight, distance does not
change with the intensity of the use.
Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Novak if she had anything ito add. Ms. Novak said
Virginia Land Trust owns a 55-foot easement further up on Route 743 which has
great site distance. She did not mean to propose that they should be using
the current farm road which is clearly inadequate and has bad sight distance.
She was suggesting that the 55-foot easement with good sight distance might be
a much better place to put a development entrance than on a dangerous curve.
Ms. Harm said all the earlier plats of the proposed subdivision showed
the entrance Mrs. Hann just referred. The latest plan shows the entrance
before the Board tonight.
Mrs. Thomas said she does not believe the Board has to approve a stream
crossing when adequate access already exists. Mr. Martin said he knows that
the Board does not have to approve the access and realized that this is not a
situation where legally it has to be done. He likes to be pragmatic and is
not inclined to vote if it does not accomplish the objective. The objective
of these people is to prevent the entrance from locating where it has been
proposed. For this Board to deny the stream crossing does not accomplish the
objective the residents intent, but may actually do more damage.
Mr. Roell said VDoT determined that there is only 450 feet of sight
distance at the easement access versus 500 feet of sight distance in both
directions at the proposed entrance.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
The Board recessed at 9:42 p.m. and reconvened at 9:59 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-94-42. Steven Leavell. Public Hearing on a
request for a stream crossing of the flood plain on approx 91 ac zoned RA
located on N sd of Rt 648 approx 1.4 mi W of Rt 22. TM81,P56B. Rivanna Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27 and Mhrch 6, 1995.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is On file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent records of the Board.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000'*~1'~
(Page 18)
1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance loca-
tion;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of the final bridge plans
and details. The plans should include grading plans for the road
and abutments in the flood plain with details for culverts through
the embankment to lower the backwater. Bridge plans must be
sealed and signed by a professional engineer;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic, hydraulic and
structural computations;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion Control Plan
if the disturbance is more than 10,000 sqUare feet;
Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proo'f of compliance with
Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wet-
lands and watercourses;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of a water quality impact
assessment.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 28,
1995, recommended approval subject to the six conditions recommended by staff
and set out above.
At 9:56 p.m., the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steven Leavell, the applicant, said the best alternative seemed to
be a small 100-foot right-of-way with less than 10,000 square feet that would
impact the flood plain.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 9:57
p.m.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-94-42,
subject to six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission (set out
below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
(Note: Conditions of approval are set out below:)
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance
location;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of the final bridge
plans and details. The plans should include grading plans
for the road and abutments in the flood plain with details
for culverts through the embankment to lower the backwater.
Bridge plans must be sealed and signed by ~ professional
engineer;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of hYdrologic, hydrau-
lic and structural computations;
Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion Control
Plan if the disturbance is more than 10,000 square feet;
Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance
with Federal and State agencies regulatingactivities af-
fecting wetlands and watercourses;
6 o
Albemarle County Engineering approval of a water quality
impact assessment.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-94-45. Silvia D. Mills. Public hearing on a
request to establish day care on 4.0 ac zoned RA located on S sd of Rt 53
approx 0.7 mi E of Rt 795. TM-92,P54E. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of ~he Board.
Staff recommends approval subject to the followihg conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Enrollment shall not exceed nine (9) children;
3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance including minimum 550 ~eet of sight distance.
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
0002:L6
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February
7, 1995, recommended approval of SP-94-25 subject to the three conditions
recommended by staff and set out above.
At 9:59 p.m., the public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Silvia Mills said the Department of Social Services and State
Licensing Department should get together on licensing and requirements for a
day care center because anyone can have more children voluntarily registered
than she currently cares for and they do not have to have a license. She was
told that if someone is watching five children, it is considered baby sitting
and more than five children is considered a day care center and requires
business licensing, entrance, etc. She is in this business for the community,
to serve siblings and is willing to care for children With special needs. She
feels she does a good job, she loves children and has been doing this for a
number of years. She does not understand how people who-are not qualified can
be allowed to do what she is doing. She is certified, licensed and was a
psychology major.
Mr. John Vermillion said Mrs. Mills has been his day care provider for
approximately one year. She is very enthusiastic about what she does and is
involved with the children. Mrs. Mills does an excellent job with the chil-
dren.
Mr. Fritz Franke said Mrs. Mills is a rare breed and there are not many
people who care as much as she does. His one and one-half year old child is
bilingual in Spanish and English because Mrs. Mills speaks Spanish to them.
He is concerned about the cost that Mrs. Mills will have to incur to clear the
curb around there, when it seems that the Highway Department could have
finished the job when they were there working.
Mrs. Mills asked if when she retires from providing day care services,
would she be required to continue to get rid of the vegetation and maintain
the area. Mr. Tucker said "no."
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve SP-94-45,
subject to three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission (set out
below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs, Humphris.
None.
(Note:
1.
2.
3.
Approval of SP-94-45 is subject to the following conditions:)
Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Enrollment shall not exceed nine (9) children;
Virginia Department of Highways and TranspOrtation approval
of commercial entrance including minimum 550 feet of sight
distance.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-94-04. Forest Lakes AsSociates. Public
Hearing on a request to rezone 12.08 ac from R-1 & R-4 to R-10 {9.73 ac) & C-1
(2.35 ac) proffered, located on S sd of Rt 649 at N end of Timberwood Parkway.
TM46B3,Pl&TM32,P29F. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Mr. Bowerman said the last time this was heard, he disqualified himself
because of a conflict of interest and will do so again for the same reason.
He left the meeting at 10:09 p.m.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board.
Staff recommends approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's
proffers:
Provide access from Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-01, to the west to align
with access as shown on the rezoning for Tax Map 32, parcel 29N
(ZMA-91-08).
3 o
Designate a 2.35 acre parcel of land for n~ighborhood service.
The gross floor area will not exceed 40,00D square feet, and no
single use will exceed 4,000 square feet. !!Access for the neigh-.
borhood service area will be provided fromProffit Road (if
adequate sight distance can be obtained) add Timberwood Parkway,
but no through access will be provided except for emergency access
which shall be provided.
Dedicate at the time of subdivision plat approval a thirty (30)
foot strip across the State Route 649 frontage for future road
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
improvements by the County of Albemarle od Virginia Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 16,
1994, recommended approval of ZMA-94-04, subject to acceptance of applicant's
proffers, and an additional proffer offered by the applicant to provide a type
of fence on the western property line acceptable to both the developer and the
adjacent property owner.
Mr. Cilimberg said the project was originally heard by the Planning
Commission on August 16, 1994 and the Board of SuperviSors on September 21,
1994. During the review of (SUB-094-143) Forest Lakes North Section P
Preliminary Plat, staff was notified by an adjacent property owner that he was
not notified of the rezoning which staff verified. As a result, the County
Attorney has advised that this zoning map amendment should be reprocessed with
correct notification to the adjacent property owners. '; Other than the letter
(on file), staff has not received any additional written comments on this
application.
Staff's opinion is that there has been no change in circumstance since
the Board's approval that warrants change in the considerations and decisions
made previously on this petition. Therefore, staff recommends approval as
originally granted by the Board of Supervisors and reflected in the action
letter of October 14, 1994 (on file).
The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m.
Representing the applicant, Mr. Steve Runkle said he is present to
answer any questions the Board may have. He distributed photographs of the
pond mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg. The applicant did not construct the pond.
He believes it is an old stormwater detention device related to the con-
struction of the road that is currently there, which Will be taken out. A
stormwater basin will be constructed essentially in the same area.
Mr. Bob Watson, President of the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association,
said at its Board of Directors meeting held last Thursday evening, the members
voted to support this project. The project is a natural extension of Forest
Lakes North into the existing growth area. It is contiguous to the existing
development and, therefore, there is no leap-frogging involved. The Homeown-
ers Association supports the County's goals of increased density by filling in
the established growth areas. In this particular segment of the subdivision
there will be dwellings per acre in excess of five units. The Association
also feels that this project addresses the affordable housing issue.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson, a resident of Meadowfields, an adjacent subdivi-
sion, said he is opposed to construction on the property. He has no problems
with the development as single-family dwellings, but feels there are too many
houses in this small area. The lots in Meadowfields are one acre and most
people purchased the property because of large lots. These congested houses
will be in the back yard of property owners of Meadowflelds Subdivision. He
is opposed to the development and thinks the noise and congestion will
increase. He does not feel that this development fits in with the area that
has already been constructed. If the rezoning is approved, he would like to
see something done to protect the Meadowfields through screening or some other
means.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed at 10:16 p.m.
Mr. Martin said he understands Mr. Robinson's comments regarding high
density zoning. He has spent a lot of time in Meadowfields and Jefferson
Village. In these areas, there is a growth area where high density adjoins
low density. He feels this is something that the Board needs to make sure
that when the two types of densities come together, it is done correctly and
done well. He asked Mr. Runkle to speak to some type ~f screening or the
possibility of a buffer between the proposed development and Meadowfields
Subdivision.
Mr. Runkle said he mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting that he
would be happy to consider some type of landscape buffer. This is typically
an issue for site plan review. The Board is reviewing[the subdivision plan
and he is not sure that a landscape plan is technically part of that require-
ment. He does not mind agreeing to provide screening by use of landscaping.
Since he does not know how the properties lie relative to each other, it is
not possible to say that he can absolutely screen each one of them, but he is
willing to do something to minimize the impact. There will be a sewer line
coming on the Meadowfields Subdivision side of the property behind the lots
and hopefully the vegetation that currently exists will remain. Some of the
vegetation will have to be eliminated as part of the s~wer line construction.
Mr. Martin then made motion, seconded by Mrs. HumPhris, to approve
ZMA-49-04 to rezone 12.08 acres from R-1 and R-4 to R-10, subject to four
proffers as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote: '~
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
(Note: The proffers of ZMA-94-04 are as followS:)
Provide access from Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-01, to the west to
align with access as shown on the rezoning for Tax Map 32,
Parcel 29N (ZMA-91-08) .
3 o
Dedicate, at the time of subdivision plat approval, a thirty
(30) foot strip across the State Route 649 frontage for
future road improvements by the County of albemarle or the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Reserve for dedication up to nine (9) feet beyond the thirty
foot dedication aforementioned for construction of a bike
path. The applicant will not be responsible for the con-
struction of the bike path.
Install a chain link fence approximately four (4) feet in
height along the applicants' western boundary, or the east-
ern boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 29N2.
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-94-21. Joseph Wright, Jr. Public Hearing on a
request to amend the previous proffers of ZMA-89-08 tO allow all uses permit-
ted by right in the C-1 Commercial Dist. Property, described as TM32,P41D, is
located on W sd of Rt 29 opposite Timberwood Blvd. Site recommended for
Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is ~°n file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent records of the Board.
Staff prepared a report for this request which recommended denial of the
application. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided
amended proffers to address the concerns of staff. Therefore, staff was able
to recommend approval to the Planning Commission.
The new proffers provide for an internal road allowing connection of
Route 29 and Route 649 and allow for the provision of access to adjacent
properties. These proffers allow for a physical connection of the commercial
area with areas recommended for Industrial Service and Office Service. With
this physical connection of the various areas the commercial area will be able
to provide support services to these industrial and office service areas as
well as desirable internal circulation and access to Route 29 at a signalized
crossover. Therefore, the negative issues identified by staff in the report
have been addressed.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-94-21, subject to the acceptance of the
applicants revised proffers.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 28,
1995, recommended approval of ZMA-94-21, subject to the following proffers:
Proffer to maintain Route 29 entrance at present Forest Lakes
crossover;
Proffer that a minimum 50 foot right-of-way shall be reserved for
dedication upon request of Albemarle County. Such right-of-way
shall allow for connection of Route 29 and'Route 649. Access to
adjoining parcels may be required at time of site plan or subdivi-
sion review.
The public hearing was opened at 10:22 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Wright said the applicant would like to remove the proffers
relating to the special use permit which expired. He has agreed to retain the
proffers to address issues staff was concerned about. He would be happy to
answer any questions the Board may have.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed at 10:23 p.m.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve ZNIA-94-21
with the revised proffers recommended by the Planning Commission and set out
below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
(Note: Following are the proffers for ZMA-94-21i)
1. Proffer to maintain Route 29 entrance at present Forest
Lakes crossover.
Proffer that a minimum 50 foot right-of-way shall be re-
served for dedication upon request of Albemarle County.
Such right-of-way shall allow for connection of Route 29 and
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Route 649. Access to adjoining parcels m~y be required at
time of site plan or subdivision review.
The following agenda items were discussed concurrently:
Agenda Item No. 14. ZMA-94-24. C. Todd Shields. Public Hearing to
rezone approx 5.0 ac from R-6 to C-1. Property, described as TM45, Pll2(pt),
located on E sd of proposed Berkmar Dr Extended adjacent to existing Kegler's
bowling center. Site recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. Rio
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-94-44. C. Todd Shields. Public Hearing on a
request to establish commercial recreation establishment on approx 5.0 ac znd
C-i, Commercial [22.2.2(1)]. Property, described as TM45,Pl12(pt), located on
E sd of proposed Berkmar Dr Extended adjacent to existing Kegler's bowling
center. Site recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. Rio Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff reports which are on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The applicant
proposes to rezone approximately five acres from R-6 to C-1 and to have a
special use permit approved for a commercial recreation center consisting of
areas for bumper boats, a childrens' area, go-kart track, miniature golf
course, batting cages and a building. Access to the site is proposed from the
existing Keglers access road and the proposed Berkmar Drive Extended.
The applicant has provided the following justification for this request:
"The proposed request is consistent with the existing uses in this zoning
district which allows for commercial uses as a matter of right. The proposed
family recreation facility is both consistent and compatible with the nearby
retail and commercial establishments and will not change the character of the
adjacent properties. In fact, many of the customers of these establishments
are anticipated to be customers of this facility. This type of use will not
be a detriment but should be complementary to the adjaCent property owners.
The planned use as a recreational facility is also consistent with the intent
of C-1 zoning district as a service and a public use establishment and is
therefore in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed
use as a family recreational facility helps fulfill a need in this area for
additional good, clean family recreation activities."
Mr. Keeler said staff has reviewed ZMA-94-24 for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and has reviewed SP-94-44 for
compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends
approval of both applications. Staff recommends approval of SP-94-44 subject
to the following conditions:
1. No alcohol sales;
The bumper boat pool shall not be constructed until a method of
handling the waste water has been approved by the Department of
Environmental Quality;
Fencing on the east, north and south side of the recreation area
shall not be bonded and shall be installed prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy;
Compliance with Section 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Uses shall be limited to go-cart track, batting cages, miniature
golf, arcade bumper boats, snack bar and children's play area.
Hours of operation limited to 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., except for
Fridays and Saturdays when the facility may be operated from 9:00
a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 28,
1995, recommended approval of ZMA-94-24 and SP-94-44, Subject to conditions
recommended by staff and set out above.
The public hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m.
Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, presented a rendering of
the project. The rendering is not a site plan, although it should be fairly
close to what the project will look like. This is the best site when consid-
ering the other sites that were looked at for this project. Regarding the
rezoning staff states: "the only negative factor staff has identified is the
lack of sewer to the site." The applicant is agreeabl~ to the condition that
at such time as a sewer line is in place within 200 feet of the building, the
applicant shall connect to public sewer. Staff has not identified any factors
which are unfavorable to this request. Mr· Carter pointed out some of the
differences in this proposal from the one made to the Board 18 months ago:
Bi) Berkmar Drive Extended is currently under construction and it is hoped it
can be used to access this site; 2) C-1 zoning is being requested instead of
HC; C-1 is less intense zoning; 3) does not impact the~residential areas; 4)
the R-6 land across Berkmar Drive from this property iS now in the middle of
the Western Bypass Alternative 10 alignment and staff is currently re-evaluat-
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000220
(Page 23) ~ ~,
ing the R-6 designation for that property; and 5) there are no negative
comments from Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. Mr. Carter said this request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the surrounding areas east of Berkmar
Drive is zoned for commercial use or recommended for regional service and the
applicant has agreed to accept all of the conditions.
Mr. Carter said the applicant is taking steps to alleviate the concerns
regarding security on the site. The applicant plans to build a five foot
wrought iron fence to separate this project from Kegler's so that if anyone
wanted to come to this establishment from Kegler's, they would have to scale
the fence. During peak hours, particularly Friday andSaturday nights and
holidays, security guards (either off-duty police officers or a private
security guard) will be present. All of the employees will be trained by a
management company that deals in this type of project. In addition, all of
the employees will be CPR trained and there will be at"least one employee who
is an EMT present at all times. He emphasized that the applicant is doing
everything he can to address concerns that have been raised. Mr. Carter said
there is evidence that a lot of people want this type Of establishment. The
applicant feels this is the best site and he has done everything possible to
make it palatable and asks the Board to support the request.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this request should be reviewed with the
knowledge that at some point Berkmar Drive will be connected to Route 29 near
this location.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant has a problem with adding a condi-
tion to address security during the nighttime. When the project was proposed
for Proffit Road, there was a recommended condition concerning security after
dark until closing. Mr. Carter said the applicant does not have a problem
with that for Friday nights, Saturday nights and holidays. Cost-effectiveness
could be an issue during other week nights. Mr. Shields said the employees at
the establishment will be trained to handle crowd control.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant would agree to a condition that
spoke to having adequate security, as necessary, if a problem arose. Mr.
Davis said he thinks "as necessary" would be difficult to define. Mr. Martin
said there could be a reasonable number of people added to define a peak hour
in the condition. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant stated that he would
provide uniformed security when he felt it was necessary. He was trying to
think of a condition that could be added to the approval which was flexible to
allow the applicant the discretion to provide security when it was needed, but
yet have something that this Board could look to, in the event that problems
did arise, that could be enforced. Mr. Martin said there could be a specific
number of people tied to the condition. Mr. Bowerman Said he thinks it would
be in the best interest of this activity that there not be any problems. He
hopes that the applicant will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure
that there are not any problems.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant is willing to fence the establish-
ment so that people from Kegler's, etc., could not get to this facility. Mr.
Shields said there will be permanent fencing around the entire site with this
use. It is in his best interest to provide adequate security, otherwise~
problems would be a detriment to his business. There ~s only one entryway to
the establishment.
Mr. Bowerman said he is satisfied with the proposal and that the issues
that faced the Board 18 months ago are no longer relevant.
Mr. Bowerman then made motion, seconded by Mr. M~rtin, to approve
ZMA-94-24.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the condition relating to security on weekends
and holidays. Mr. Bowerman said in this case, he is willing to depend upon
the applicant to provide the security, as needed, because he is aware of the
burden this Board is placing upon him (the applicant). He thinks this gives
the applicant the flexibility to have security when it is needed~ but it is
not required when not needed. Also, he is not sure how security could be
required other than requiring it all of the time and ehforcing it. He thinks
the applicant has demonstrated that he will do what hehas stated. He is
willing to take his word on that.
Mr. Martin said he had no problem with this site when the request was
before the Board the first time. His problems with that request was that he
did not want to lose the high density residential which had become an issue.
The other issue was the proximity to Agnor-Hurt. Since those are no longer
issues, he will support the request.
Mrs. Humphris said she will not support the motion. She feels Mr.
Shields has a clear understanding of why she will not ~%pport the motion. She
has every confidence that Mr. Shields will handle the ~roject in the best way
and she feels the request will be approved. She has dilscussed with Mr.
Shields her concern that this is not the kind of activi~ty she had envisioned
for Berkmar Drive. She would rather see this use on thee site that she voted
for when the project was proposed on Route 649. She continues to feels that
particular site was the better site and the project would fit in with the
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
area. She will not support the request, but will rely on Mr. Shield's
assurance that the project will be attractive, safe and something the communi-
ty can be proud of.
Mrs. Thomas said she can support the request. This proposal seems to be
an appropriate zoning decision and land use.
Mrs. Humphris said she still has a question that she does not under-
stand. She asked how there can be septic fields under a paved parking lot.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Health Department has an approval process. He cannot
explain the technicalities of it, but there is a proceSs for approval. Mr.
Perkins said most water drains downward and does not come to the top surface.
When water comes to the top, there are problems. Water filtrates and goes
through the soil.
There being no further discussion~ roll~'was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Bowerman then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve
SP-94-44, subject to six conditions, as recommended bY the Planning Commission
and set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Marshall and Mrs. Humphris.
(Approval of SP-94-44, subject to the following six conditions:)
1. No alcohol sales;
The bumper boat pool shall not be constructed until a method
of handling the waste water has been approved by the Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality;
Fencing on the east, north and south side of the recreation
area shall not be bonded and shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
Compliance with Section 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Uses shall be limited to go-cart track, batting cages,
miniature golf, arcade, bumper boats, snack bar and
children's play area; and
Hours of operation limited to 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (mid-
night), except for Fridays and Saturdays When the facility
may be operated from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.~'.
Agenda Item 16. SP-95-03. Oakwood Foundation Charitable Trust. Public
Hearing on a request to construct baseball fields on 109.0 ac zoned RA & EC
located on E sd of Rt 29S approx 0.34 mi N of Nelson County line. Access
proposed off of Rt 632. TMll7,P5F. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. Staff recommends
approval subject to the following conditions:
The use is approved for organized Little League baseball only and
no other activity shall be permitted. Annual activities shall be
limited to the months of March through October. Daily baseball
activities during these months shall be limited to the following
hours:
Weekdays 4 PM-9 PM with park closure at 9:30 PM
Saturdays 9 AM-9 PM with park closure at 9:30 PM
Sundays 12 noon-5 PM with park closure at 5:30 PM
Games shall be scheduled to start no later that 6:30 PM. The park
shall close at times setforth above except due to circumstances
beyond the applicant's control such as, but not limited to, extra
innings, rain, lightening or power failure'. Maintenance activi-
ties are not restricted to the hours and months setforth in this
condition;
2 o
Development shall be limited to four regulation fields and two
practice fields together with parking, concession stand, mainte-
nance buildings and the like which the Zoning Administrator deems
directly related to and supportive of baseball activities.
Ballfields shall be located no closer to Property line than shown
on Attachment N. ShoUld the applicant determine additional
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
000222
security is necessary, not more than one dwelling may be located
on the property for such purpose together with one security light
which shall be down-directed and shielded from other properties
and roads;
3 o
Lighting, including parking area lighting, shall be employed only
during operational hours. Ballfield lighting shall be identical
or equivalent to that employed at the Cart's Hill athletic field
at the University of Virginia. ExcePt as otherwise permitted in
Condition two, no security lighting shall be permitted;
Prior to usage of the public address system, maximum volume
control adjustment shall be field verified in a manner prescribed
by the Zoning Administrator. Sound measured at any property line
shall not exceed 60 dbA;
Access shall be limited to Route 632 and no direct access to U.S.
Route 29 South shall be permitted. The applicant shall construct
a 100 foot taper and 100 foot right turn ~Ane on Route 632 at the
entrance to the site;
6 o
The site shall not be subdivided or otherWise diminished in land
area except by exercise of eminent domain. The foregoing notwith-
standing, the Department of Planning and Community Development may
authorize sale/or exchange of land with an adjoining property
provided that such transaction does not increase the residential
potential of such adjoining property.
Mr. Keeler said the Architectural Review Board (ARB) met with the
applicant on March 6 and March 10, 1995. After those .meetings, the ARB
recommended to the Board that the project be approved without outdoor light-
ing. On Tuesday morning, March 14, 1995, prior to the Planning Commission
meeting, staff received a fax from Mr. Carter (the applicant's attorney)
indicating that the applicant was deleting all plans for outdoor lighting at
the site, but would want to have a ceiling light in the concession stand and
restrooms.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 14,
1995, recommended approval by a vote of 4-2, subject to the following condi-
tions:
The use is approved for organized Little League baseball
only and no other activity shall be permitted. (For the
purposes of this petition, the terms "Little League Base-
ball" and "baseball" shall be deemed to include Little
League, Junior League, girl's softball and T-ball activi-
ties.) Annual activities shall be limited to the months of
March through October. Daily baseball activities during
these months shall be limited to the following hours:
Weekdays 4 PM-9 PM with park closure at dusk
Saturdays 9 AM-9 PM with park closure at dusk
Sundays 12 noon-5 PM with park closure at 5:30 PM
Games shall be scheduled to start no later that 6:30 PM.
The park shall close at times setforth above except due to
circumstances beyond the applicant's control such as, but
not limited to, extra innings, rain, lightening or power
failure. Maintenance activities are not restricted to the
hours and months setforth in this condition;
Development shall be limited to four (4) regulation fields
and two (2) practice fields together with parking, conces-
sion stand, maintenance buildings and the like which the
Zoning Administrator deems directly related to and support-
ive of baseball activities. Ballfields shall be located no
closer to property line than shown on Attachment N;
There shall be no lighting on the site except ceiling light-
ing in the concession stand and restrooms;
6 o
Prior to usage of the public address system, maximum volume
control adjustment shall be field verified in a manner pre-
scribed by the Zoning Administrator. Sound measured at any
property line shall not exceed 60 dbA. Public address
system shall be used for emergency services only;
Access shall be limited to Route 632 and no direct access to
U.S. Route 29 South shall be permitted. The applicant shall
construct a 100 foot taper and 100 foot right turn lane on
Route 632 at the entrance to the site; ~
The site shall not be subdivided or otherwise diminished in
land area except by exercise of eminent domain. The forego-
ing notwithstanding, the Department of Planning and Communi-
ty Development may authorize sale/or exchange of land with
000223
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26) i
an adjoining property provided that such tkansaction does
not increase the residential development (lots or houses) of
such adjoining property.
Mr. Keeler said the site plan is scheduled for review by the Site Review
Committee March 16, 1995, and then another meeting is Scheduled with the ARB
on Monday for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would make more sense tO state the hours of
condition number one as "park closure no later than duSk". Mr. Keeler said he
has not had an opportunity to talk with the applicant,~but he spoke with the
Zoning Administrator and she has a problem with the te~m "dusk" which he had
anticipated. Ms. McCulley would prefer a specific clo§ure time. The
applicant's original proposal had the hours as from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on
weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. on
Sundays. Since those were the original proposed hours, he assumes they are
still acceptable to the applicant and Mr. Carter has indicated that they are.
He recommends the condition be reworded as originally proposed by the appli-
cant.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not understand how the times specified fit
together with the statement "except due to circumstances beyond the
applicant's control". Mr. Keeler said the Board may want to delete that
wording. He thinks the number of days where the hours~are set for 9:00 p.m.
and the players can still hit balls are so limited tha~ it would not affect
this permit. The conditions were written when lights were included in the
proposal. He feels the last sentence regarding maintenance activities should
remain.
Mr. Perkins said he would like to see the time on Sunday moved to 1:00
p.m. because most church services last until noon and he thinks it would be
better to make the starting time later and extend the ending time to 6:00 p.m.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the 60 decibel noise limit for sound was
determined. Mr. Keeler said this was recommended by the Zoning Administrator
based on the current pending Noise Ordinance.
The public hearing was opened at 11:02 p.m.
Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, said Oakwood Foundation
Charitable Trust is operated by Mr. and Mrs. John Grisham and that they are
the trustees. He intends to approach this request based on three points: (1)
reason/need, (2) location and (3) decision. This project is purely benevolent
in nature. There is no financial gain to the applicant or ulterior motive.
There will be no cost to the County and the applicant Plans to work the
procedures out so that he remains in control of the project and if the County
is ever dissatisfied with the way the project is being~run, the applicant will
take down the fields and let it go back to hay. There'is no reason for the
development of this project except that Mr. Grisham wants to be good to the
County.
There is a need for more little league fields, e~pecially in the North
Garden and Covesville areas. The Piedmont Little League plays its games in
Charlottesville at Forest Hills Park, and the children'have quite a distance
to travel. While it is more convenient for some City children to play at
Forest Hills Park, it is less convenient for some of the County children to
have to travel from the County to the City to play their games. He wished
everyone could have heard Mrs. Vaughan (Commissioner) at the Planning commis-
sion meeting last night when there was some opposition voiced about hurting
the pastoral quality of the area. Mrs. Vaughan said there will be children
who will come to the ballfield who are not exposed to the pastoral Albemarle
County and will get a chance to see the mountains and the beauty that will
still be there after this facility is built. The City sites will still be
used. The Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation, in a letter on
file, states that 58 percent of the children in the Piedmont Little League are
from the County, this location is convenient to the majority of the County
residents and less than a 20 minute drive from the Ivy exit to the Route 250
bypass. The Parks Department supports this proposal for several reasons. The
Department received a request from the Piedmont LittleLeague for improvements
to the Red Hill School property which would cost approximately $63,000. These
improvements will not need to be funded by the County, ~if the new complex is
developed. Also, the Red Hill site would be far inferior to the proposed
facility. All of the current athletic fields in the City and County are used
to their maximum. Construction of these new fields would allow usage at the
current fields to be redistributed to other leagues and programs. This is a
private sector individual trying to meet a public need and is truly an example
of cooperation.
Mr. Carter said the second point is location. He first referenced a
letter attached to the staff report from the realtor regarding the criteria
for a site. He does not think the realtor realized what he was getting into
when he was told that a flat piece of property was needed to build a baseball
field in Albemarle County. The realtor soon found tha~' this was impossible
and decided maybe rolling terrain would be the next be~ thing. The realtor
then began looking in the North Garden area. The propO!sed site has a gentle
roll, no flooding or drainage problems and proximity to neighbors is minimal.
There will be no construction along Route 29. The adjOining property owners
support this petition. The applicant has agreed not to build on the two open
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
fields that adjoin the property owners. The open fields will act as a buffer.
Of the 109 acres, approximately 30 acres will be used. The only trees that
will be cut is the line of trees in the center of the property. The natural
barriers on Route 632 to the south and along Route 29 ~will remain. Travel
time to the site is favorable due to the non-stop access provided by Route 29
South. As to noise, the public address system was planned originally to be
used for tournament games which would have been six per year and for emergency
paging. The applicant felt that if the public address system was used for
tournament games it would give the players a feeling of accomplishment, but
the Planning Commission had a problem with this and the applicant is willing
to only use it for emergency paging. Lighting is no longer an issue. As to
traffic, the road is straight with good sight distance from Route 29 to the
proposed entrance. He believes that 99.5 percent of the players will travel
from the north and would generally come down Route 29 and turn left onto Route
632 to get to the site. VDoT states that the greatest stress to the roadway
is in the winter and with heavy truck traffic. The site will not be used in
the winter and no heavy truck traffic is expected. The turn lanes on Route 29
seem to be sufficient and VDoT recommends a minimum 100 foot turn lane with a
100 foot taper at the proposed entrance site for safety purposes with which
the applicant is in agreement. VDoT has stated that the proposed entrance is
safe. The applicant is willing to do anything within reason to make the
entrance safe. The applicant would like to keep the entrance where it is, but
he understands that conversations with VDoT have discouraged any flashing
signs. Mr. Carter said he has talked with two astronomers from the Observato-
ry at the University of Virginia and they have no objection to an entrance
sign with some type of lighting to identify the park. That light would come
on when the games were over. The light would have a timer and probably cut
itself off automatically after 30 minutes. That is one idea and the applicant
is amenable to whatever it takes.
Mr. Carter said the recommended conditions are acceptable. There are no
games scheduled for Sundays; it is practice only. The applicant does not have
a problem with amending the condition so that the games do not begin until
1:00 p.m. and ending no later than 6:00 p.m. The applicant and County staff
have worked hard on this plan. The plan has been reviewed by the ARB and he
anticipates receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness because their only
concern was lights. He feels that on balance this is the best site. He
provided Board members with a colored rendering of the proposed site. The
applicant has a petition signed by approximately 170 persons, 90 percent from
the North Garden/Covesville area, in support of the application. The area
wants the park and the applicant is willing to provide it. Mr. Carter asked
the Board to look favorably on the request.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the applicant intends to gate the entrance to
prevent after hours use by people who should not be on the property. Mr.
Carter said "yes", the entrance will be gated; the fields will all be sur-
rounded by fence and the concession stand will be secUred. No one will be
able to drive onto the property after hours. Mrs. Humphris asked about the
problem she had with the exit. Mr. Carter said the applicant will do what he
can. He originally considered putting some type of caution sign or flashing
sign when games are being played. VDoT is not agreeable to that even though
the applicant agreed to pay for the sign.
Mrs. Thomas said she had a long conversation with VDoT. Her feeling was
that VDoT will not allow the speed to be lowered or allow flashing signs be
installed. VDoT has no objection to the owners putting up signs in their own
right-of-way. She was concerned about this because she did not view either of
the entrances as being particularly desirable. Mr. Carter said the applicant
does own right-of-way on both sides of Route 632. He does not know VDoT's
position on how wide the owner's right-of-way is, but he (the owner) will put
signage where he is allowed on his property to try to Warn people, whatever is
appropriate. He has no problem with the Board adding that as a condition.
Mr. Bowerman said the County Attorney just pointed out to him that the
Sign Ordinance does not allow any sign that moves, flashes, blinks or changes
colors.
Mr. John Woods said he is President of the Piedmont Little League, a
resident and registered voter of Albemarle County and a Little League parent.
Little League baseball teaches honesty, values, sportsmanship, the meaning of
team, courage, self-reliance and judgement. The art of being a gracious loser
is learned in Little League baseball, but most importantly of all, Little
League baseball teaches its players and its volunteers the invaluable life's
lesson of how to help others and how to help your fellQw man. Little League
baseball was founded in 1939 in Williams Port Pennsylvania. The Piedmont
Little League was formed in 1954 and became chartered in 1974. Their regis-
tration is up 24 percent this year. They have the first Challenger Division
in which they have children who are mentally and physically challenged and it
is unbelievable to see these kids for the first time playing an organized
sport. Their boundaries include the southwestern quadrant of the City of
Charlottesville and the County. He asked the Board for its approval of the
request. He then introduced Danny, a Little League catcher, who will tell the
Board what Little League means to him.
Danny said baseball is a game where kids, players and little league can
play a game and get the skills to grow up and be a real player. Little leagUe
really makes the kids excited, because they look up to the older people. That
is what every baseball player wants.
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
0002.25
Ms. Jenny Sonne-Peterson said she lives on a farm on Route 632. Her
property straddles the County line between Nelson and Albemarle Counties; they
also own an office building in Charlottesville. They live about a mile down
the road from the proposed baseball complex. She and her husband are not
happy about the project. They moved out into the county in a designated rural
area and that is the way they want it to stay. This complex seems to be a
little bit out of size for the area. They are concerned about noise, trash,
traffic and a change to the land use. The area is not just Route 29 and Route
632 and now a baseball park and farms. The area is also a bowl. There is a
ridge of mountains on the other side of Route 29 and a ridge of mountains on
the other side of the railroad track. This ridge of mountains works down.
Part of the reason Covesville got its name was that it was a cove surrounded
by mountains. It was a protected cove, weather-wise. This is a continuation
of that protected cove. Any noise that takes place in any part of that bowl
is shared throughout that bowl. She can look down into this baseball park
area standing on the ridge behind her house, so everything that happens there,
they hear. This is the same thing for the rest of the neighbors down the
road. Many of them live out there because they enjoy the rural, quiet area.
The hours that baseball are going to be played is just the hours when the
people get home from work and sit on their porch. There are a lot of ques-
tions about traffic. Route 632 is narrow and winding. There is not a lot of
sight distances in many places. The petition that the Board has is signed by
a lot of the neighbors on Route 632. Most of them had no idea the baseball
park was coming until last week. This is not a nice little park; it is a
large baseball complex. The neighbors had no idea what was coming in here.
They would like more time to think about what the implications are for this
area. This is a remote location. The closest gas station is six miles away.
This distance is a long way from a lot of communities and it is almost just as
easy to travel to Charlottesville. This will require car travel for every
person to go here except for the next door neighbors. It is a dangerous
driveway, curvy road and its development is outside of the Comprehensive Plan.
She asked what other development is going to go along with this baseball park.
She asked if they are going to start having fastfood joints and more gas
stations just because there are people at the baseball park. This is an
intensive urban recreational activity. She asked if it would not be better to
put this use in a high density area. She asked what effect this would have on
the Comprehensive Plan to put the park out here. She thinks the noise issue
has not been resolved. She wonders about what protection there is for Cove
Creek. She asked if there will be runoff from the baseball drains. She asked
if the parking lot will be impervious. She is uncomfortable about this. So
much has happened so quickly. She asked the Board to put off a decision until
they can get some more information.
Mr. Raymond Cook, a resident of Route 632, said he supports the project.
He thinks this project would be a tremendous benefit to the children in the
County and he thinks it would be a waste to let it slip away. The project is
badly needed because there are not adequate baseball fields. He thinks this
is a good project and a good site. He thinks the road will handle the traffic
and he thinks there are more dangerous roads in the area than Route 632. He
lives south of the proposed project.
Ms. Roberta Woods said she has two sons who play Little League baseball,
she is a member of the Piedmont Little League Board and a property owner on
Route 632. She is the largest property owner in the area. She owns more than
600 acres directly across from the proposed baseball site. Her property is
mountainous and she can literally look down on this baseball park from her
land. She thinks it is important to understand the geographic features of the
area to fully realize the unreasonable objections some people have publicized.
If you continue down Route 632, the road takes a sharp left, crosses the
railroad track, curves, climbs up, over and around hills, bends around, it is
quite crooked, and then you enter into Nelson County. Oddly enough those
people who live in Nelson County pass the curves and hills that shield them
are the vocal minority who are opposed to the park and just about everything
else. She is in favor of the baseball park. The Piedmont Little League Board
is working on plans for transportation to and from Cove Creek Park for
children who want to play baseball and do not have transportation. It is not
unusual for the managers and coaches to take players tQ and from practices and
games. She thinks this is a terrific opportunity for the children. The
children are under 12 years of age and she cannot understand why anyone would
be opposed to anything as needed and nonobtrusive in the community. The
proposed baseball facility is in an idyllic setting in the country; one that
many children do not get the opportunity to enjoy. It is surrounded by
beautiful mountains and trees. A baseball team has nine players. In the past
they have had 12 children to a team in Piedmont Little League. If they have
six parents from each side that is a packed house for them. At tournaments
she has seen about 20 parents. She asked where are the crowds of 100 people.
It is not reality. She supports the park. Mrs. Peterson lives about two
miles away in Nelson County. She lives down the windy part of the road and
she is shielded from the park. This is not a quick thing. There have been
lots of opportunities to look at the proposal. This i's no surprise. The gas
station is four miles away, not six. The real people who live close to the
area are in favor of the project for the children and i~ommunity.
Ms. Susan Hitchcock said she has lived in the area for about 20 years
and has owned property on Fan Mountain in Covesville for 14 years. She has
two children, one who just this year became interested in baseball. The
possibility of them playing ball at a close park will be a benefit. She looks
forward to the possibility.
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Harvey Morris, a resident of North Garden a~d Chief of the North
Garden Fire Company, said the Fire Department has no problem with the proposed
park. He encouraged the Board to support the project..
Ms. Carol Rorick said she is a neighbor of the property and one of the
ex-owners of the proposed field. She grew up on this farm. She is sorry to
say that it could not remain a farm. A baseball field is preferable to having
a subdivision and having the property cut up. Her property backs up to the
park. She has no objection to the proposal and thinks it is a lot better than
anything else that could be done with the land.
Ms. Becky Campbell said she use to live in Covesville. She has a nephew
who plays Little League ball and it will be wonderful to not have to drive all
the way to Crozet or Charlottesville to go to ball practice. She knows people
who could not play baseball because of the traveling distance. She supports
the proposed project for the children.
Ms. Debbie Swanson said she is a Piedmont Little League Board member and
parent of two children, one of whom plays T-ball. She thinks it is an honor
the owners want to put this park in their back yard. She thinks it would be a
shame not to have the park and she cannot imagine a better noise than the
sound of laughter of children enjoying what they do mOSt which is playing
ball. She asked the Board to support the project.
Ms. Ann Denard said she lives on the land that is about to be surrounded
by this park. She thinks it is a terrific idea and hopes the Board will
approve the request.
Mr. Gordon Fields, a Piedmont Little League Board member, coach and
resident of Charlottesville, said they shuttle players back and forth to the
City and he does not think a 15 to 18 minute drive would be any problem. He
supports the park. He thinks this is a great opportunity and the County
should not let it get by. Somebody is willing to do this once in a life time.
His son plays baseball and he supports the petition.
Ms. Mary Ann Glynn said she is a Nelson County resident and she owns
property about one-quarter mile from the County line. The people who live in
Nelson County on this road feel they are being directly impacted by this
proposal and they do have a right to speak out. They did not know anything
about this proposal until less than a week ago. She feels they have not had
time to find out how much local opposition there is to the project. She knows
there is opposition. There are a lot of concerns about traffic, noise and
trash. She thinks a more appropriate site needs to be researched. This is a
109-acre site and only 30 acres is being used, so maybe a smaller site can be
found. A suggestion has been made to use either Walnut Creek Park or some
other County-owned land, something that is more centrally located and would
better serve the people. She asked the Board to consider postponing a
decision until alternatives can be examined. She never heard any discussion
about entrance to this project from Route 29. She thinks that would be a more
appropriate entrance if there had to be one. The entrance that was chosen is
on a dangerous curve. She again asked why Route 29 was not considered for an
entrance.
Mr. Keeler said staff would not recommend access to Route 29. No where
along the frontage can they get access to a crossover. Route 29 would be
generating U-turns.
Ms. Glynn suggested that Route 29 be considered because that would
resolve a lot of the worries about increased traffic. Not all traffic will be
coming from the north. She thinks there will be a considerable increase in
traffic. She thinks the Board should give the proposal a little more thought
and study, and postpone taking action. It seems that this proposal has gone
through at a rapid rate. Most of the people in Faber did not know about the
magnitude of the project. She does not object to the project, but thinks the
location is inappropriate.
Mr. Andrew Woods and Mr. John Watkins said they are two Little League
players and they would be happy if the park was approved because it will be
beautiful. They are in total support. It will be closer to a lot of people
and they would not have to waste a lot of time driving. It would save a lot
of time. They are really in favor of the project.
Mr. Dan Swanson said he is a 30-year resident of Covesville and he
talked to about 300 people about this project. He received only three
negative opinions. He thinks it is a great opportunity for the community and
the people in the community.
At 11:54 p.m., the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Marshall said this property is located in his district. He has
spent a lot of time walking it. He attended the Planning Commission meeting
and listened to the comments from the residents. As for the residents of
Nelson County, Albemarle does not normally send notification letters to
residents in adjacent counties. When he first heard of the request he
contacted Percy Clark, a Supervisor on the Nelson County Board of Supervisors
and asked his opinion. Mr. Clark was in support of the request. Mr. Clark
has known about the project for a couple of months. He has visited the site
four times. What impresses him most is that the owner wants to do something
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
00022?
for children; he (the owner) does not want anything for himself. He knows of
a lot of children in his district who will benefit from this park. The
traffic is going to come from Route 29, will travel one-half mile to this park
and exit the other way. He is convinced that the majority of the traffic will
come and go in that direction and not go in the direction of Nelson County.
He was concerned about the lighting. He wanted the lighting because he
thought it would be beneficial to the children in the long run. He is still
concerned about safety. He wants to support the proposal because it is in a
location that will benefit a great deal of people with a minimum amount of
impact to people who are opposed. He also lives on a farm and values his
privacy. He thinks a lot of the concerns will be alleviated. If he lived
near this, he would not oppose the park because he thinks the children needs
role models and guidance. He hopes other Board members will also the project.
Mrs. Thomas suggested that one of the proposed conditions be amended.
The concern about cars exiting onto the road and making a left turn at dusk
when games are over led her on a long futile trip to see if VDoT would allow
the Board to require some kind of light. Condition #3 reads: "There shall be
no lighting on the site except ceiling lighting in the concession stand and
restrooms." She would like to add the words "and possibly internally lit
location or notice signs." Having checked with the astronomers "internally
lit signs" are ones that have all white letters on them and the light is
actually inside the sign. The light is allowed by the Sign Ordinance and
there is no external light bouncing off the signs. Mr. Davis suggested adding
the following language: "and lighting necessary for a traffic regulation sign
required at site plan approval".
Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to
approve SP-95-03 subject to the six conditions, with the proposed amendments.
Mr. Perkins asked who will own the park and provide maintenance. Mr.
Carter said the applicant purchased the property and plans to form a non-
profit organization and will deed the land to that organization. That non-
profit organization, which will be controlled by the applicant, will then
lease the property to the Piedmont Little League for a nominal fee. The
applicant wants to maintain control so that if he finds the facility is not
being used properly or if another sports take over, he can reclaim the
property. The applicant intends to build the facility to 100 percent comple-
tion. The Little League will maintain it through concession sales and fund-
raisers. There are farmers in the area who have volunteered to continue to
hay the fields and give the income from the hay to the Little League. An
adjoining landowner has expressed an interest in purchasing some of the
property to the south of Cove Creek. That money would go into a fund for
maintenance.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks everyone will be pleased with this
project. This is something wholesome for children to do.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
The use is approved for organized Little League base-
ball only and no other activity shall be permitted.
(For the purposes of this petition, the terms "Little
League baseball" and "baseball" shall be deemed to
include Little League, Junior League, girl's softball
and T-ball activities.) Annual activities shall be
limited to the months of March through October. Daily
baseball activities during these months shall be
limited to the following hours:
Weekdays 4:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Saturdays 9:00 AM - 9:00 PM
Sundays 1:00 PM - 6:00 PM
2 o
Games shall be scheduled to start no later than 6:30
PM. Maintenance activities are not restricted to the
hours and months set forth in this condition;
Development shall be limited to four (4) regulation
fields and two (2) practice fields together with
parking, concession stand, maintenance buildings and
the like which the Zoning Administrator deems directly
related to and supportive of basebal~ activities.
Ball-fields shall be located no closer to property
line than shown on Attachment N (on file);
There shall be no lighting on the site except ceiling
lighting in the concession stand and restrooms, and
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
lighting necessary for a traffic regulation sign
required at site plan approval;
Prior to usage of the public address system, maximum
volume control adjustment shall be field verified in a
manner prescribed by the Zoning Administrator. Sound
measured at any property line shall not exceed 60
decibels (dbA). Public address system shall be used
for emergency services only;
5o
Access shall be limited to Route 632 and no direct
access to U.S· Route 29 South shall be permitted. The
applicant shall construct a 100 foot taper and 100
foot right turn lane on Route 632 at the entrance to
the site; and
The site shall not be subdivided or otherwise dimin-
ished in land area except by exercise of eminent
domain. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Department
of Planning and Community Development may authorize
sale/or exchange of land with an adjoining property
provided that such transaction does not increase the
residential development (lots or houses) of such
adjoining property.
Agenda Item No. 17. ZMA-95-1. Emergency Operations Center Site Analy-
sis. The Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to rezone
approximately 1.0 ac from HC & EC to R-1 for construction of a City/County/
University Emergency Operations Center, in the SE quadrant of Rt 250W & Rt 250
bypass interchange. This property, located in Urban Neighborhood 6, is
recommended for public use in the Comprehensive Plan. TM60,P30F. Jack Jouett
Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1995.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The Board of
Supervisors, by resolution, initiated this rezoning petition to allow location
of a City/County/University Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The rezoning
is necessary to avoid constraint to design due to setback requirements.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-95-01 in order to provide for increased
utilization of public property. Staff also recommends that:
the Planning Commission find that the EOC at this location is con-
sistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
the Planning Commission find that a fire/rescue squad facility at
this location is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 28,
1995, recommended approval of ZMA-95-01.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
approve ZMA-95-01. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. ZTA-94-1. Right to Farm. Public Hearing on
request to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 10.0, Rural
Areas District, to remove hog farms as a use by special use permit and to add
hog farms as a by-right use as required by Virginia Code Sections 3.1-22.28
and 15.1-491. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6,
1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. Mr. Keeler
said it is not necessary to add hog farms as a by-right use, because they will
now be permitted under "Agriculture, forestry and fishing uses except as
otherwise expressly provided."
The General Assembly, during the 1994 Session, enacted two separate
bills to amend sections of the Code of Virginia; the first relating to right-
to-farm legislation (§§ 3.1-22.28 and 3.1-22.29) and the second relating to
permitted provisions in zoning ordinances (§§ 15.1-491). Together, the
amendments are generally referred to as the new "rightzto-farm" legislation.
Staff recommends approval of this zoning text amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 14,
1995, recommended approval.
March 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
000229
The public hearing was opened. No one came forWard to speak, so the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 20, Zoning, Article III, District
Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to remove hog
farms as a use by special use permit. Roll was then called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Bowerman.
None.
(The adopted Ordinance is set out Below:)
ORDINANCE NO 95-20 (1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE
III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article III, Dis-
trict Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained by amending
Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, by repealing Section
10.2.2(11) as follows:
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS
10.0 Rural Areas District, RA
10.2.2
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
11. Hog farms. (Repealed 3-15-95).
Agenda Item No. 19. Approval of Minutes: December 7, 1994.
No minutes were read.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
There were no other matters.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to March 20, 1995, 1:00 p.m.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn
until March 20, 1995, 1:00 p.m. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
CHAIRMAN