2010-10-13October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
13, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3a. Proclamation recognizing October 2010 as Virginia Cooperative Extension
Services Month.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Carrie Swanson, Unit Coordinator,
Extension Services. She also recognized Ms. Michelle Prisby, State Coordinator for the Master Naturalist
Program – started in Virginia five years ago, and the youth present. She thanked them for the dinner
provided earlier.
PROCLAMATION
THE VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
WHEREAS, the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (“VCE”) provides every Virginia citizen access
to research-based resources of our Commonwealth’s two land-grant universities, Virginia Tech and Virginia
State University; and
WHEREAS, VCE receives the benefit of over 30,000 volunteers representing over 1.0 million hours of
volunteer time valued at $24.6 million annually; and
WHEREAS, VCE partners with local citizen-led Extension Leadership Councils to identify local issues
and needs that their specialists, agents, support staff and volunteers can address; and
WHEREAS,
VCE’s Community Viability Program provides educational programming that enable farmers,
local small business owners, and local leaders and officials to create business-friendly places
that support healthy people, local food availability, and sustainable environments;
VCE’s Agriculture and Natural Resources Program helps sustain the profitability of
agricultural and forestry production, which protects the County’s open space, while enhancing
and protecting the quality of our land and water resources;
VCE’s Master Gardner Volunteers support the Agriculture and Natural Resources Program
by providing horticultural and residential water quality protection information to citizens
through a variety of educational programs;
VCE’s Family and Consumer Sciences Pillar Programs in human development, food, nutrition
and health, and family financial management provide educational opportunities for families to
become healthier, more productive citizens who contribute to social and economic stability;
VCE’s Family Nutrition Program helps individuals of all ages adopt positive lifestyle patterns
that reduce the risk of chronic disease and improve health literacy as a means to ensure a
healthier and more productive society; and
VCE’s 4-H Youth Development Program invests in the future by creating opportunities for
youth to develop their personal leadership skills, contribute to their communities, and
strengthen other important life skills through a strong science-based curriculum; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County contributes local match funding annually to VCE for salaries, benefits,
office space, phone service, clerical support and other operating funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, does
hereby recognize OCTOBOER 2010 as VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION VOLUNTEER MONTH;
acknowledges the value of VCE’s volunteer programs to County citizens; salutes the Extension Leadership
Councils and supports continued programs for our citizens through Albemarle County’s Cooperative Extension
office; and
FURTHER RESOLVE, that the Board of Supervisors urges all citizens to actively participate in the
scheduled activities and programs that VCE will be focusing on during October 2010: Week 1 – 4-H
Volunteers; Week 2 – Extension Leadership Council and Community Viability Volunteers; Week 3 –
Agriculture and Natural Resources Volunteers; and Week 4 – Family and Consumer Science Volunteers.
__________________
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Thomas reported that there was a blast at Rockydale Quarries on October 6th, which went
very well with decibel levels and sound well within state limits. He said that the seismograph was also well
within state limits. He was told this was nothing like the August 2nd blast that the County had received a
number of complaints. The owners said it could be expected to remain at this level because they changed
the blasting technique.
___________
Ms. Mallek reported that she attended the Small Business Development Center‘s ―Selling to the
Government Workshop” this morning. There were about 50 people from businesses in Richmond, North
Virginia, Lynchburg and the surrounding community who attended seminars with local hiring and
purchasing people from DIA and other federal partners, and state and local government representatives.
Ms. Susan Stimart, the County‘s Business Facilitator, set up this workshop in conjunction with the SBDV.
She commented that the workshop was very well-received and helpful to participants.
__________
Ms. Mallek provided Mr. Tucker with information on the National Association of Counties
Prescription Card Program to see if it is something that might be of benefit to the County. Mr. Tucker said
that although staff has already looked at it extensively he could bring something back to the Board.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek stated that for the Restore N Station item to be heard later in the meeting she would
limit the speaking time to two minutes instead of the customary three minutes if there are a lot of
speakers.
__________________
Ms. Nancy Hiles Johnson said that she was an English teacher at Western Albemarle High
School for six years, where she co-chaired that department, but left because of the four by four schedule.
She also has two children in the County school system. She said that she is worried and angry that
Western Albemarle will deteriorate because of this schedule, as many teachers have left or are actively
looking for jobs elsewhere. Ms. Johnson stated that she knows that the same issues are present at the
other two high schools. Because of the many AP and other classes on the all year schedule, teachers are
teaching 150 to 170 students total per year and the pace and the grading are relentless. She commented
that teachers who love teaching are exhausted and dejected, and students have noticed this as well. Ms.
Johnson stated that it is common talk around the area that the public schools in Albemarle County are in
crisis. She stated that enrollment at St. Anne‘s Belfield is booming. She emphasized that the cost
savings with the four by four schedule is minimal, but the difference it makes to teachers is enormous.
She said that reversing the four by four decision is just common sense and the right and decent thing to
do.
__________________
Mr. Alvin Scott Bandy said he is a resident of Cherry Avenue in the City of Charlottesville. He said
that he would like for the County to designate their completed portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway as an
emergency snow removal route. The curve at the intersection of Agnese and Rio Roads will be
treacherous as usual if there is significant snowfall this winter. He asked that it be done for purposes of
public safety. Mr. Bandy thanked the County for completing this portion, as their Charlottesville
counterparts and Save McIntire activists have willfully impeded their portion ad infinitum.
__________________
Mr. Ron Ferrin said he was present on behalf of the Speaker Education Project, a nonpartisan
education organization. Mr. Ferrin stated that the House of Representative composition will likely be the
most partisan division in history. The Speaker Education Project raises the issue of whether it is time for a
less partisan member to be a Speaker, as that person is as powerful as a President in driving and shaping
legislation. He emphasized that there is no constitutional requirement that the Speaker be an elected
member of the House of Representatives. The project is asking the nominees of all the parties to declare
their preference of a Speaker. Mr. Ferrin stated that he is proposing a resolution for the Board to consider
at their next meeting, with a request made in writing to candidates in the Fifth Congressional District to
declare who they will vote for as Speaker of the House.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Item No. 6.1. Approval of Minutes: July 7, 2010.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of July 7, 2010, pages 1-22 (end at Item #22), and found them to
be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read.
__________________
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item No. 6.2. Request to defer ZMA-2006-0008 – Berkmar Business Park to December 8, 2010.
The following letter was received from the applicant:
By the above-recorded vote, ZMA-2006-0008 were deferred to December 8, 2010 at the
applicant’s request.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: Whittington PRD Amendment - Request to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas for sewer service to the Whittington Subdivision
located on Old Lynchburg Road. Samuel Miller District. (Deferred from September 1, 2010.)
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 29 and October 6, 2010.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, summarized the following executive summary that was
forwarded to Board members:
The applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
designation for ―Water and Sewer‖ service for six parcels totaling approximately 186 acres located on the
west side of Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), south of its intersection with Interstate 64. (See
Attachments A and B-on file in Clerk‘s office) The property is located entirely within the Rural Areas in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The parcels are currently designated for ―Water Only‖ service. The
applicant is requesting this service for the Whittington Planned Residential Development (PRD) which was
originally approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1977 and amended in 2007. The properties adjacent to
the south, west and northwest of these parcels are in the Rural Areas and are not included in the
Jurisdictional Area. The properties across Old Lynchburg Road to the southeast are located within the
Development Area and are designated ―Water and Sewer.‖ The parcels immediately to the northeast in
the Mosby Mountain residential development are located within the Rural Areas and are designated for
―Water and Sewer‖ service. The Mosby Mountain ―Water and Sewer‖ service designation is the result of a
Jurisdictional Area approval made by the Board in the 1970s, prior to the establishment of the current
policies for Jurisdictional Areas designation. The ―Water Only‖ service designation on the Whittington
property was also approved in the 1970s.
The Board considered this same request from the owners of the Whittington PRD for ―Water and
Sewer‖ designation on November 1, 2006. The Board did not set a public hearing on that request, thereby
denying the request to add the sewer service designation to the development. (See Attachment C-on file
in Clerk‘s office) There has been no change in circumstance onsite or in County policies since that action.
The Board held a work session to discuss this request on July 7, 2010 and directed staff to set a
public hearing and provide additional information regarding properties that are comparable in
circumstance to the Whittington PRD (undeveloped and located in the Rural Areas, zoned for urban for
development, and located adjacent to a Development Area and public utilities).
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer
service to the Development Areas:
General Principle 2: ―Serve Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages with public water
and sewer.‖ (p. 114)
―Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA jurisdictional area.‖ (p.
128)
―Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating jurisdictional
areas.‖ (p.128)
―Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas
in cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or
safety is in danger.‖ (p. 130)
Providing public water and sewer service to the Rural Areas utilizes valuable treatment capacities
which should be reserved to support the Development Areas and will, over the long term, add to
infrastructure maintenance costs. Extending utility lines to the Rural Areas, particularly sewer lines, can
also be a catalyst for growth in those areas over the long term and can create an expectation that service
should/will be provided to the adjacent properties. For these reasons, the County has consistently
maintained the policy to limit the provision of water and sewer service to the Rural Areas since the mid-
1980s.
The reason given for this request in the applicant‘s justification (Attachment B) is to reduce the
amount of clearing required per site (approximately 10,000 sq. ft. for a typical septic system according to
the State Health Department). The parcels are currently covered by mature deciduous forest. However,
clearing for septic systems is an expected development requirement in the Rural Areas, and the provision
of public sewer service does not guarantee that clearing will not occur on these lots to accommodate
yards or property owner preferences.
The Virginia State Department of Health has indicated that the soils on these parcels are
adequate to support septic systems for the proposed ninety-six (96) 40,000 square foot lots. Because the
parcels are located in the Rural Areas and adequate soils are present for the required septic systems
connecting these lots, the provision of public sewer would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan
utility policies noted above, as there is no documented public health or safety issue on the property.
Section 4.1 of the County‘s Zoning Ordinance has also established that 40,000 square foot lots are
considered of adequate size to be served by one public and one private utility, as is the case with this
development. It should also be noted that the current policy for providing public utility service to the Rural
Areas would support extension of service to this development if a health and safety concern were to arise
in the future.
As requested by the Board, staff has evaluated the properties in the County that are similar to the
conditions present for the Whittington development (undeveloped properties in the Rural Areas zoned for
urban development and located adjacent to the Development Area and existing utility lines). (See
Attachment D-on file in Clerk‘s office) In summary, there are two other residentially zoned properties
which are similar to Whittington: 1) Clifton Lake PRD adjacent to the Rivanna Village, and 2) Ashcroft
PRD, which still has undeveloped sections and is located adjacent to the Pantops Neighborhood in the
Urban Area. There are also a number of undeveloped or further developable properties with both
residential and non-residential zoning that are in close proximity to, but not adjacent to, the Development
Area and are adjacent to public utility lines. In particular, many of these properties are located along the
250 East water line to the Rivanna Village and along 250 West, adjacent to the Crozet Interceptor.
Because public utility service to these properties would be contrary to Comprehensive Plan policies,
unless there is a demonstrable public health and/or safety problem, potential applicants have been
discouraged from applying for a Jurisdictional Area amendment. The Board has consistently denied
requests for service designations in these areas, and the Rural Areas in general, since the mid-1980s.
There would be no immediate cost to the County; the property owner would bear the costs for
sewer hook-up. However, the expansion of the ACSA Jurisdictional Boundary to include properties in the
Rural Areas will utilize the capacity necessary to serve properties in the Development Areas and may
result in the need for additional capital investment in infrastructure necessary to serve the Development
Areas.
This request is not consistent with the principles, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive
Plan for the provision of public sewer service outside of the designated Development Areas. Staff does
not recommend approval of this request.
__________
Mr. Benish concluded that staff cannot recommend approval of the jurisdictional area amendment
as there is no current health or safety issue because the subdivision is undeveloped. Based on the
current Zoning Ordinance the lot sizes are adequate for septic systems and if public water service is
provided to the site, following this policy would continue to focus existing capacities and resources to the
development area.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Clifton does not have water so it is different in that regard. Mr. Benish
agreed that is one distinction.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Rooker also said that Ashcroft is a larger-lot subdivision that does not have sewer to the other
sections. Mr. Benish confirmed that it has public water service but does not have sewer to the other
sections.
Mr. Rooker added that it is questionable as to whether it would be economical to run sewer even if
that were an option, so these two cases are not exactly comparable. Mr. Benish said while Ashcroft is
adjacent to the development area, the future phases are higher in elevation and away from the
development area.
Mr. Snow had asked if TMDL requirements had been considered, which is recommending
hooking up septic systems to a public system to help reduce the wastewater output.
Mr. Benish responded that the new regulations will need to be addressed on a number of fronts,
and long-term maintenance of septic systems is a concern. He said that for rural areas, the County‘s
preference has always been to minimize a level of development to the extent that there are septic systems
out there, and adequate maintenance will be an important component of that. Mr. Benish added that
regulations could require routine maintenance programs or other mechanisms.
Mr. Snow said that in one of the recent meetings he attended, officials said they would be
requiring a lot of the systems to be retrofitted or connected to public systems where possible.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, stated that he has attended several
meetings and brought up Albemarle‘s situation. DEQ and DCR were very clear that they did not anticipate
this applying to the County‘s circumstance, as they are more concerned with localities that have fairly
constrained lots of one acre or less that are scattered and have numerous failing septic systems and no
opportunity for replacement. He added that there are many other requirements for things such as onsite
sewage disposal systems, but extending public utilities into rural areas was not viewed as a need.
Mr. Thomas asked if the water line is already into this property. Mr. Benish replied that the line
goes thorough the Mosby Mountain Subdivision, which is immediately to the north and is adjacent to this
site.
Mr. Rooker commented that the development is in the jurisdictional area for water.
Mr. Benish noted that if it were in the designated development area it could be provided sewer as
well.
Mr. Thomas asked if there are any plans for Redfields being part of the development area in the
near future. Mr. Benish said that given the approved zoning and density of development taking place
along that corridor it would be a good candidate for consideration.
Mr. Thomas said he has been thinking about the 800 acres at Biscuit Run. He does not want to
enlarge the growth area, but would consider moving it around. Mr. Benish replied that Biscuit Run
comprises most of the development area through there. Also, there is one property within the center that
retains development potential after the state‘s purchase.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Whittington property is unique in that it was approved as a subdivision
decades ago and is now coming online to be built. Mr. Benish responded that there is other zoning of
various categories throughout the rural areas, and a number of them are along the Route 250 East and
West corridors, along with some adjacent to the Hollymead development area. He said that most of them
are developed, and it is not known if there may be smaller future lots undeveloped.
Mr. Rooker added that the examples Mr. Benish provided are probably the most analogous.
Mr. Benish pointed out that some of the older zoned properties have service to existing structures
and some are developed, but there is also by-right zoning that does not have the specific restriction like a
planned development does that limits their uses.
At this time the Chair opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Frank Stoner said he lives at 240 Chestnut Oak Lane, in Sherwood Farms, adjacent to
Neighborhood 5 and a 20-minute walk from the Whittington subdivision. Mr. Stoner thanked Board
members for allowing this item to come to public hearing and keeping an open mind. He believes this
may be a situation where the growth area boundary may have been drawn incorrectly. He is present
representing Whittington LLC, the owner of the property, and Stonehaus LLC, which is the developer of
the property. Mr. Stoner noted the location of the property, noting that it is approximately 3.5 miles from
Downtown Charlottesville and two miles from the intersection of I-64 and 5th Street Extended. He said that
it is adjacent to Mosby‘s Mountain and is across the street from the Biscuit Run property.
Mr. Stoner presented a Comp Plan map, focusing on Neighborhood 5 and showing the growth
area designated for neighborhood density in the Plan. He showed a slide of the Comp Plan boundary line
drawn over the existing zoning and land use, noting areas designated PRD, R-1, and Neighborhood Model
Planned Unit Development at Biscuit Run. Mr. Stoner said that there are areas outside of the designated
growth area that are already zoned, and have already been built, at a neighborhood or urban density. He
presented a map indicating the jurisdictional area, which conforms to the zoning map shown earlier except
that Whittington was approved for water and not for sewer. Mr. Stoner provided a topographic map of Old
Lynchburg Road, pointing out the location of the watershed, adding that there are sloping areas that are
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
not critical slopes. He said that Whittington is already in the jurisdiction for water and was approved for
residential development at an urban density of one unit per acre before the Comp Plan was adopted in
1980. Mr. Stoner reported that Whittington is approved today for development of 96 residential lots on
septic and will get built with or without sewer. He added that the two water lines are on the Whittington
property and the sewer line is immediately adjacent to it at the corner of the second entrance to Mosby‘s
Mountain. Mr. Stoner said that one water line runs through the property and another runs along Old
Lynchburg Road.
Mr. Stoner emphasized that approval of sewer will not increase the density of this project beyond
its‘ already approved zoning, and the sewer at Whittington will not take away needed capacity from the
growth area in Neighborhood 5, and several thousand units have already been lost in that area. He noted
that he has contacted the Albemarle County Service Authority and there is more than adequate capacity in
that sewer line at Old Lynchburg Road and the corner of Mosby‘s Mountain. Mr. Stoner stated that sewer
is the environmentally sound choice. W hile the County may not be subject to the most strict TMDL
regulations, the practical recommendations are that the areas that effectively have urban density should
be on sewer, not on septic. He said that sewer will save about 25 acres of clear-cutting in this project, and
the intent is to deed restrict the lots so that additional trees can only be cut with the Homeowners
Association approval. Mr. Stoner stated that the properties cited by staff as similar are not really
comparable because in those cases sewer is not feasible or not available, or financially viable for those
communities. He said that the owners of Whittington are not able to wait for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, which would be the ideal way to solve this problem. Development will occur in 2011 unless
bank funding commitments are revoked.
He concluded by stating that the growth area boundary in this part of Neighborhood 5 does not
make a lot of sense, as the boundary does not appear to be a hard line, as evidenced by the fact that
Mosby‘s Mountain and Redfields were developed and designated as growth areas outside the current
growth area boundary. Mr. Stoner said that the County policy on utilities close to the growth area
boundary should be based on common sense, not a rigid interpretation of effectively a cartoon that was
first drawn about 30 years ago. He added that failed septic systems on small lots become a burden to the
County in the future, which has happened in Westmoreland and Northfields. Approval of sewer will not set
a dangerous precedent, Mr. Stoner said, but will ensure that County dollars are not spent later in fixing a
mistake that could have been avoided. He stated that growth areas lost with the sale of Biscuit Run need
to be restored, and Whittington is an obvious choice. Mr. Stoner said that the inclusion of Whittington in
the Service Authority jurisdiction area would be an acknowledgement of an existing reality, which is – it is
already approved for growth, and has water and easy access to sewer. He noted that a request has
already been filed to have Whittington included in the growth area during the next Comprehensive Plan
review, which will take place this next year. Mr. Stoner asked the Board to vote to extend the jurisdictional
area for sewer so that they can build a more beautiful, sustainable, and environmentally friendly
community at Whittington. He said that based on staff input there are two ways this can be done, passing
a resolution of intent to include Whittington in the growth area of Neighborhood 5, and subsequently
approving the extension of sewer to Whittington; or approving sewer based on the unique circumstances
at Whittington and amending the growth area during the next Com Plan review.
The Chair then asked for other public comments.
Mr. Daniel Bowman addressed the Board, stating that he was speaking on behalf of Mr. Jack
Marshall, President of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, who was not able to attend this
meeting. Mr. Bowman said that for decades, the foundation of the County‘s Growth Management Policy,
a thoughtful strategy for protecting the character of the community, as well as its natural environment, has
been the distinction between the growth areas and the rural areas. He said that the areas are
differentiated primarily by two things, the permitted zoning densities and the availability of public-piped
water and sewer treatment. Mr. Bowman stated that ASAP supports this far-sighted, smart growth tool
and strongly opposes the Whittington developer‘s request to disregard the distinction and to reject the
important management principle that underlies it. He added that the staff report observes that granting
this request to extend the ACSA jurisdictional area sets a precedent, as there are other rural properties
adjacent or near growth area boundaries. He added if the Board allows this nose to get under the edge of
the tent, the developers of those other parcels will certainly argue that their camel should follow. It is clear
that for some, the County‘s Growth Management Policy is inconvenient. Mr. Bowman stated that the
developer knew the rules when he decided to develop the property, and he also knows that there is a
legitimate way to achieve his purpose of obtaining access to public sewer treatment. The developer can
seek a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that transparently expands the growth area boundary and
simultaneously expands the area of ACSA‘s jurisdictional authority. He said that the basis for this request
is weak, with the developer contending that homeowners will not have to cut trees for septic trees if they
have pipe sewage treatment. Mr. Bowman emphasized that there is no certainly that the homeowners
won‘t cut trees for lawn, garden or view shed. As the staff report states, this request is not consistent with
the principles, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. They urged the Board to deny the
request.
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that there is a strong case for
extending sewer lines to the parcels in this request. The question is whether to cut corners to get there or
instead adhere to the proper process, which would require that these parcels first be added to the growth
area. Mr. Butler said that SELC believes the process is critical to the County‘s rural protection efforts and
urges the Board to uphold it. He stated that the County has long recognized that growth tends to follow
public water and sewer. For that reason the County has a long-standing practice of not extending water
and sewer outside the growth areas unless public health or safety are in danger, which is not the case
here. Mr. Butler pointed out that County policy stipulates that the parcels must first be added to the growth
area before sewer lines are extended. When the request is looked at in isolation, it is tempting to allow
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
the applicant to skip to the finish line. Many factors weigh in favor of extending sewer service to these
parcels. He emphasized that this is an environmentally responsible applicant with a good track record, but
staff made the point in July that there are numerous parcels in the rural areas that could present their own
good reasons for extending public water and sewer if you look at them in isolation. As soon as you grant
one exception and extend water and sewer lines into the rural areas for one applicant you blow open a
gaping hole in your rural protection policy and, intentionally or not, you invite others to exploit it. Mr. Butler
said that no matter how harmless this one request might seem, it would have huge implications for the
County‘s rural protection efforts. He reiterated that the SELC is not opposed to extending sewer to these
parcels, but simply believes that the normal process should be followed by adding these parcels to the
growth area first. Mr. Butler added that if the request is denied this applicant might move ahead with
septic and thus more trees would be cleared on these parcels.
Mr. T. J. Aldous, a resident of the Redfields Subdivision just north of this proposed development,
said that it seems reasonable for the applicant to make this request. Approving the request protects the
environment this area is already expected to develop. He stated that it is better for the Redfields residents
to have this, in order to bring services into the area. He encouraged the Board to approve the request.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Thomas stated that he believes the applicant is trying to save 25 acres of trees. This property
is adjacent to the County‘s development area. He said that 800 acres was lost to Biscuit Run, and he
strongly feels that this property could be put into the development area and qualify for sewer.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the Health Department has already approved the water, and the road does
not appear to be a problem. He said that Biscuit Run is being removed from the development area. This
parcel qualifies as an exception. The parcel is already half zoned for growth and the applicant has already
developed the plan. He thinks it makes sense to allow it to hook up to the sewer line.
Mr. Rooker said that he has spent a lot of time thinking about this application. He emphasized
that this is not a rezoning, and he would never support a rezoning of property in the rural area without
going through a Comprehensive Plan change first if it were not designated in the growth area. Mr. Rooker
stated that this is a case of zoning that occurred before the 1980 zoning act was in place, and there is a
common sense element to this that transcends other considerations. He mentioned that there would be
96 lots of less than one acre each on this site, and if they are all using septic there are environmental
aspects. Mr. Rooker emphasized that this is not a case where additional development is being allowed to
take place by extending the sewer. It is a case where it must be judged whether it makes sense to allow
development that is going to take place, based upon old zoning, to have sewer instead of being on septic.
He added that the property is surrounded by density, and he is concerned that there will be failed septic
systems when this development goes in. Mr. Rooker stated sewer will then have to be run back there
piecemeal at the expense of the residents, as opposed to being put in place by the developer as a plan for
the development. Mr. Rooker also said that there are not a lot of comparable cases to this, and the two
examples provided are not really the same, as it is not economically feasible to run sewer to Ashcroft, and
Clifton does not have either service. He stated that it does not really set a precedent and it makes very
strong environmental sense. He would prefer to approach it through a CPA, but that would likely be a two-
year process. Mr. Rooker added that if the development goes ahead with septic, it is not to the benefit of
the County, the surrounding neighborhoods, or to the environment of the area. He will support the
request.
Mr. Snow agreed with Mr. Rooker. He has toured the property and it is full of hardwoods and
running cedar, and the thought of seeing 25 acres clear-cut to make way for something that is going to
happen anyhow leads him to support the amendment.
Mr. Boyd said that the key word here is common sense, and we live in changing times. This is a
situation that makes sense and he would not want to deny it because the Board has never approved
something like it before. He thinks it would be the wrong philosophy to take. He added that it is the most
environmentally sound approach to take and it makes sense.
Mr. Rooker said that the second approach is the better course, to extend the jurisdictional area
based on the unique circumstances of this request, and recognizing that based on all the information that
it would make sense to include this are in the growth area.
Ms. Mallek stated that the compelling reasons to her are not the common sense trap, because
every individual parcel when considered alone has benefits that could be argued. She said the most
important things here are that the existing permit was granted long ago, and that the Board is making
something that is going to happen to be better than if it were left alone, and that there will be no increase
in density. She asked Mr. Davis what limitations can be written into this to improve upon the uniqueness
description.
Mr. Davis responded that the key factor is that the Board has determined this property would be
more consistent in the growth area. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to not allow public utilities to be
extended to the rural area and it is a crucial element in the Board‘s decision to make it clear that it would
not be approved if it were not a prime candidate for growth area inclusion. He added that he thinks that
the record has to be clear that the Board is essentially directing staff to consider this area to be included in
the growth area in the next Comprehensive Plan review because they feel it has those characteristics, not
those of the rural area.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Benish stated that staff would ask that the Board cite the specific characteristics of this site,
and the intent that it functions more like a development area property. He said that the Board could either
take action next month or cite in their action the specific characteristics of this site, with staff bringing forth
a resolution of intent.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that the minutes will reflect this discussion and the uniqueness of this
situation. He suggested the Board go ahead and vote on the request tonight.
Mr. Rooker then moved to amend the ACSA jurisdictional area to extend water and sewer to this
property based upon its unique circumstances as expressed here, and to amend the growth area during
the next scheduled Comprehensive Plan review next year to include Whittington.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Mr. Benish said that the characteristics would be that the property has urban (PRD) zoning; it is
already served with one utility; it is adjacent to a development area and existing utility lines are adjacent to
the property.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that this is not a decision to allow more dense development in the rural
areas; it is a question of how its best developed.
Mr. Davis noted that the parcels to be included in the motion are Tax Map 89, Parcel 95 and Tax
Map 90, Parcels 3, 45, 47, and 48.
Mr. Rooker amended his motion to reflect inclusion of the Tax Maps and Parcels.
Mr. Dorrier agreed to the amended motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2009-00033. Coleman Morris
Development Right (Sign #51).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for one additional development right to create a minimum 2-
acre parcel.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (28) Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 5391 Morris Knoll Lane; approx 1600 feet west of the intersection of Rt 720 Harris
Creek Rd. and Rt. 20 Scottsville Rd; approx 1.5 mi. north of Rt 712 Plank Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 112 00000003200.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a proposal to create another parcel at this particular location
where a development right does not exist, to enable the applicant to have a sixth lot for related family
members that qualify for family division. He said that it is essentially a family compound in the rural area,
located off of Harris Creek Road – which intersects with Scottsville Road in the southern part of the
County.
Mr. Cilimberg presented an aerial view showing the property‘s location, and it is served now by
Morris Knoll Lane off of Harris Creek Road. He said that there are five lots adjacent to this parcel that
currently are owned and occupied by family m embers – Tax Map 112, Parcel 33D, 33D4, 33C, 33D3, and
33F – which were created over time out of the original Parcel 33D. At a certain point in time, Mr.
Cilimberg noted, there was also an area that was part of Parcel 33D that was in part of Parcel 32 that was
transferred to Parcel 32 through a boundary line adjustment but when that occurred there were no
development rights transferred. He explained that Parcel 32 only had one development right for the
existing house and did not obtain a second development right as part of that transfer of land. Mr.
Cilimberg said that this particular property owner does not have the right to develop an additional lot on
Parcel 32 and would like the special use permit in order to pursue doing that as a sixth lot for a family
member.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that last year there was a request for an additional development right
from the Mathenys for one lot to be added to an existing compound of family lots. Mr. Cilimberg said that
since 1981 there have been 21 applications for this type of request, with 10 approved, five of which for
family divisions, and 11 denied, one of which was for the Matheny‘s request. He emphasized that typically
the approvals of the Board have been based on finding a location next to the development area or existing
development or some unique circumstance, such as for a family member. Mr. Cilimberg said that the
decision last year not to approve a similar request was based on concerns with increasing development
rights in the rural area contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and the precedent it might set for considering
the numerous similar situations that may exist in the rural area.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
He stated that staff identified favorable factors as it can be accommodated without significant
health or safety impacts on the area and without changing the character of the area. The unfavorable
factor is that additional development rights are generally inconsistent with the purposes of the rural areas
zoning district and the Comp Plan. To address that staff has proposed a condition of approval to require
the subdivision to be processed only as a family division.
The Planning Commission, in its recommendation to the Board, has included a condition that the
land remains in the family for seven years rather than the required four years under the family division
policy. Mr. Cilimberg stated that on August 24, the Commission, on a vote of 6:1, recommended approval
of this special use permit with the two conditions, including the extension of family ownership. He said that
the one dissenting vote reflected concern about the precedent set for additional lots in the rural area.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Commission voted to deny the Matheny request last year and why they
changed their minds.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that perhaps the change of Commissioners played a part in that, but he
is not sure.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is anything unique about this property. Mr. Cilimberg said that there is
no real unique factor in this application, other than the fact it is a family compound area, but those could
exist everywhere.
Mr. Snow asked about the number of applications for family division. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that
there have been six family division applications since 1981, the latest of which was last year, and the most
recent one approved was in the early 1990s.
Mr. Snow commented that the fear of a stampede to get a lot of these approved has not
materialized over the years.
Ms. Mallek responded that the reason for that is because it has not been allowed, as the standing
ordinance proscribes that there are five two-acre lots plus the residue.
Mr. Rooker said that there could be thousands of lots created in the rural area this way. W hen the
County was down zoned in 1980 the whole basis for it was to assign five development rights to each
parcel in existence as of that time. He stated that everyone who has bought sold, or traded property since
that time has done so with the knowledge that the parcels have five development rights. Everybody‘s got
a good story for why they should get another one, Mr. Rooker commented that this does go to the whole
heart of protecting the rural areas, and this is also a proposal for the smallest size lot.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a particular reason for increasing the ownership provision to seven
years. Mr. Cilimberg responded that some of the Commissioners were struggling with the same concerns
the Board has expressed, and felt that the only reason they wanted to grant the right was for a family
member, so the condition was an attempt to ensure that. He said that he is not certain why the number
seven was chosen, and State law can require it be in the family ownership for up to 15 years. The
Commission even discussed going to the 15 years, but ultimately settled on seven years.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for comments.
The applicant, Mr. Coleman Morris, said that the Commission put the seven-year restriction to
make sure he wasn‘t trying to make money off of the property. He emphasized that this is for a family
member. Mr. Morris explained that the family subdivision was established by his mom and all other lots
are for brothers and sisters. He said that his siblings built their homes first, so this lot is for him and there
are no additional lots that can be built. They cannot ask for any additional lots. Mr. Morris noted that the
property has been in his family since the 1950s. They do not plan to sell the property; it will remain in their
family.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a house currently on Parcel 32. Mr. Cilimberg said that there is a
house on Parcel 32, and Mr. Morris is asking to divide off what was added to this parcel by boundary line
adjustment to create another house site.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the boundary line adjustment did not cause the loss of a lot, as they
have used all five development rights for their parcel.
Mr. Morris stated that the lot he is hoping to build on is a two-acre lot in the rural area, and would
not cause any complications to neighbors. He said that there is a right-of-way that comes through the
property known as Morris Hill.
Mr. Snow indicated that he is confused as to exactly where the lot is. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
there are five lots that are now family lots. At an earlier date there was a boundary line adjustment and
division that created a lot within that group but also added about two acres to Parcel 32 that used to be in
Parcel 33, but it was only a boundary line adjustment that carried no development rights. That property
was surveyed for the boundary line adjustment but it was not a created lot. It was just an addition of land
to Parcel 32. This adjustment resulted in a larger Parcel 32. Mr. Morris wants to have that land that was
added by boundary line adjustment divided now to create a lot for him.
Mr. Morris responded that that‘s what was initially planned by his mother in the early 1980s.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Rooker said that there were only five development lots when his mother planned this in the
1980s, and she couldn‘t have planned to have six lots.
Mr. Morris stated that she probably didn‘t know the particulars because the lots were not divided
up at that time. This is the final lot. There are no more lots that the family could make a request for.
Mr. Rooker responded that you could technically come in and ask for future division, as all of
these lots derived their development lots from a single parcel, with five development rights total.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that Parcel 32 had separate divisions that occurred over the years, so it
only had one development right with it and there was no transfer of development rights through any other
boundary adjustments.
Mr. Morris said this is a common sense issue.
Mr. Rooker said that he agrees.
Mr. Morris stated that when his mother passed away, all that was left was this two-acre lot.
There being no other public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier said that he knows the family and knows the intentions of this applicant. This entire
area is occupied by the Morris family. Although the property is located in the rural areas, the area is not
strictly rural because of all the small properties with houses.
Ms. Mallek responded that there is a cluster here, but it is definitely in the area and 70% of the
land all around it is in land use.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he disagrees with Mr. Rooker that thousands of lots could be created, as
there have only been 21 applied for since 1981.
Mr. Rooker replied that almost none have been approved in the last 15 years because the Board
held to the policy in the rural area plan. He added that he hopes the Board does not get to the point where
it is making decisions on land use based upon whether they think somebody is a good guy or not. He is
sure Mr. Morris is a good guy, but the issue here is does the Board allow the whole basis for rural area
zoning to be undermined, and that‘s what they are talking about.
Mr. Dorrier asked why then there is a family division ordinance.
Mr. Rooker responded that people exercise a family division ordinance within the development
rights they have on their property, but it does not give you the right to create lots out of thin air.
Mr. Dorrier contended that it is only two acres out of eight.
Mr. Rooker said that there is no development right there under rural area zoning. Mr. Morris
makes a good case for his particular circumstance. Mr. Rooker said he has never supported one of these
requests and he does not intend to support this because there is a policy of not allowing lots to be created
where there are no development rights. He added that if you go down that road, every piece of property
that is more than four acres can be divided because somebody comes in and they have a good story
about why they want to divide it.
Mr. Dorrier said that Mr. Morris makes a compelling argument, and wants to give it to his
grandchild in the future.
Mr. Snow stated that the Board talks about affordable housing, and this is a situation where it
seems like a logical thing to do. He will support the request.
Ms. Mallek asked how the Board determines when this is not appropriate, as there has been no
land use reason found to contradict the ordinance as it‘s written, other than personality. How is any future
decision going to be made differently? And, if the Board does not have a reason that it is granting this one
differently from others, every lot that there is in the County would be available to have a division.
Mr. Snow said that he doesn‘t think most people are going to come in and slice off a piece of
property for family and have it stay in family ownership for seven years. He believes this is a legitimate
family subdivision and they are working to keep the family together. He added that this also is an
affordable housing issue.
Mr. Rooker stated that a land use decision is not based on whether someone will make money on
their land; it is the County trying to limit development in the rural areas. The question is ―are you going to
start allowing more development rights in the rural area‖. This is the smallest size parcel; you cannot have
a lot smaller than two acres. He added that Mr. Morris has a good reason to be in here, but if the Board
goes down that road, it could literally open up the rural area for thousands of additional lots.
Ms. Mallek commented that she is aware of two families in Sugar Hollow who will be in to do the
same thing, both for very good reasons.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Dorrier then moved to approve SP-2009-00033 subject to the two conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Mr. Thomas said he would also support the request because it is all family all around that piece of
property. He does not see Mr. Morris as having any intent of doing anything with those two acres. He
suggested increasing the family ownership restriction to 10 years.
Ms. Mallek said that she would rather have it restricted to 15 years because that is the maximum
allowed by the state.
Mr. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Dorrier said that he would prefer seven.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to hear from the applicant as to whether that is acceptable.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board can make that decision.
Mr. Thomas said the applicant was shaking his head and agreeing to the suggestion.
Mr. Davis noted that with a special use permit, the Board can put whatever number of years they
wish, and are not restricted to 15 years.
Mr. Boyd asked how it would be enforced.
Mr. Davis explained that the County would require a restriction to be recorded with the subdivision
plat, so as a matter of record it cannot be transferred except in limited circumstances.
Mr. Dorrier agreed to the 15-year restriction and amended his motion. Mr. Snow agreed as
seconder.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below :)
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 112 Parcel 32 shall only be permitted as a ―family
subdivision‖ as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code; and
2. The family division period to retain the property shall be extended to fifteen (15) years.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2010-00018. Matheny Development
Right Request (Signs #44&46).
PROPOSED: Request for one additional development right for a family subdivision.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.28, Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 2839 Craigs Store Rd (Rt 635), approx 2000 feet south of the intersection with White
Mountain Road (Rt 736). Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request was before the Board last year and was denied for the
reasons just discussed. This is the same request for property located on Craig‘s Store Road near Heards
Mountain. He presented an aerial view showing the existing house. A second house would be proposed
on a lot to be cut out of the lot that house is located on. Mr. Cilimberg said that this is the remaining lot of
five that were created on a road that essentially intersects Route 635 and provides access to the existing
five lots of this family subdivision. He stated that the frontage lot is a residue lot of almost five acres, and
it would have a second lot created, taking access on an existing driveway to Route 635.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that staff has gone over the favorable and unfavorable factors for such a
request. The Planning Commission has recommended approval with a vote of 6:1 with one condition as
the motioner was not willing to put any additional years as a second condition.
Ms. Mallek said that last year when this was denied, it was determined that the property had a
rental unit and the applicant wanted to build another house for a family member. She asked if this was still
the circumstance.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the applicant could answer that, adding that the applicant has stated
the lot is only intended for family members.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
At this time the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ronnie Matheny, the applicant, stated that he has a grandson and would like to give the
property to him. He stated that his grandson is going to build next door to the house he lived in for 30
years. He added that he built a new house on one of the lots that his son gave back to him.
Ms. Mallek asked if someone in the family lives in the house where this land is divided from or is it
being rented. Mr. Matheny said he is renting it to one of his relative‘s cousins.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Matheny if he would agree to the 15-year restriction that was put on the
previous application. Mr. Matheny responded that he would.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification as to whether all of the subdivided lots are occupied by family
members.
Ms. Mallek replied that one of the lots is occupied as a rental by a kin person who is not
immediate family.
Mr. Rooker said that that‘s on the lot being divided.
Mr. Matheny stated that he owns two of the houses on the five lots. He added that he is renting
one of them out to a daughter-in-law‘s cousin. He said that he has three more grandchildren and a couple
of them would get the two houses he has now, but one grandson wants to build his house now.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he is in the same situation as with the previous application. With him it is a
matter of policy. In this case there is already a house being rented to a non-family member here, and that
is on the parcel being divided. This is a circumstance where you end up just creating more lots.
Mr. Boyd asked if this home could be rented out, as long as family members own it.
Mr. Davis responded that the units could technically all be rented out as long as family members
retain ownership.
Mr. Dorrier noted that this was approved by the Planning Commission 6:1.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Board had denied it before the Commission turned over to its
current membership.
Mr. Snow moved to approve SP-2010-00018 subject to the condition as presented and a second
condition stating that the family division period to retain the property shall be extended to 15 years. Mr.
Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 84 Parcel 14E shall only be permitted as a ―family
subdivision‖ as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code; and
2. The family division period to retain the property shall be extended to fifteen (15) years.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: CPA-2009-02. Crozet Master Plan. Amend the Land
Use Plan section of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by replacing the existing profile for the
Community of Crozet and the Crozet Master Plan with a revised Crozet Master Plan, which establishes
new land use policies, guidelines, recommendations, goals and strategies for future development within
the master plan area, which may include or exclude lands beyond those described in the existing
neighborhood and community profile and the removal of an approximately 29-acre portion of TMP 56-66
(NE of Firehouse Lane) from the Community of Crozet boundaries. The Crozet Master Plan would
establish the following for the master plan area: a vision for the area and guiding principles; a future land
use plan designating existing and proposed centers, mixed use areas, industrial areas, residential areas,
preservation areas; a plan for the transportation network, and its integration with the land uses; a plan for
providing and supporting community facilities and services; a plan for parks and green systems; and a
plan for implementing the master plan. CPA 2006-02, which is a proposal to remove the proposed road
shown in the 2004 Crozet Master Plan across TMP 56-14D, will also be considered in conjunction with the
Crozet Master Plan.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2010.)
Ms. Mallek thanked staff and the citizens of Crozet for all of their work in pulling this together.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, stated that the Board saw this as a draft at their September 1
work session, with the only change requested by the Board being to re-designate the lumber company
property from office/R&D/flex/light industrial to a mixed-use category of office/flex and commercial with
light industrial and residential uses as a secondary use. He said that this change is reflective of
recommendations from the Crozet Community Advisory Council (CCAC) and the Board‘s discussions. He
noted that a new map has been added that shows the priority areas, which reflects the text the Board saw
in September.
Mr. Benish stated that the language for the library recommendation in the Community Facilities
and Services section has been changed from until a new library is constructed, maintain the existing
library in its current location to until a new library can be constructed, and maintain a library in Crozet. He
said that this was discussed with the CCAC, and the agreement was that library services would remain in
Crozet without being specific about the location.
Mr. Benish said that the Master Plan continues to emphasize redevelopment of downtown and
changes to the plan put greater emphasis on the three centers that have emerged downtown, Clover
Lawn, the Old Trail area, and downtown. The number of centers from the prior plan has been reduced to
focus just on the priority areas. He stated that there is a continued emphasis on trail and greenway
development that connects to those centers and all other public spaces and centers. Mr. Benish said that
there is also a general reduction in overall density to provide for a form of development more consistent
with existing development and oriented to those three major centers. He noted that he has provided the
new land use map and parks and greenways system map, as well as a transportation map, which was
simplified to reflect more accurately approved roadways and to reduce some of the stylized roads in areas
that have not been approved for development. Mr. Benish stated that it retains all of the major
interconnecting roadways such as Eastern Avenue and Main Street.
Mr. Benish said, after public comment, staff supports recommendation of the draft master plan,
and notes that the Board‘s action needs to reflect the correction on Page 51.
Mr. Boyd asked about the request in the last work session from Mr. Oakley, Ms. Connelly, and
Ms. Martin regarding their particular parcels on Crozet Avenue. He said that when people have requested
that their properties be included or excluded, the County has tried to accommodate that, and these people
provided a logical reason for re-designation as mixed use as a transition between commercial and
residential, but they were not allowed.
Mr. Benish responded that those properties were subject to a great deal of discussion between
the CCAC and the Planning Commission about adding the area as mixed-use, but the consensus was that
the need for that expansion was not great for this five-year update. There was also opposition to adjacent
property owners as it began to infringe into existing residential areas. It was subject to much debate, but
the consensus from the CCAC was that on balance, for this particular five-year update, that amendment
was not necessary and the existing underlying land use designations provided, which were Neighborhood
Density Residential provided for opportunities for development of that site.
Mr. Boyd asked if there were a lot of requests from property owners that were denied. Mr. Benish
replied that the two requests that received the most discussion were the Ploumis request and these three
parcels.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board did discuss these properties at their work session, and that‘s
what the Planning Commission ultimately recommended and what the Board instructed staff to bring back
for public hearing.
Mr. Boyd said that he is not seeing the argument here, as there are three lots that abut the
commercial area.
Ms. Mallek clarified that on the other side of the stream and the greenbelt is where the
commercial area is, and this is really more in the middle of a residential area. It is surrounded on three
sides by residential area. She said that the three lots could certainly be combined and eventually has
peripheral services, but right now the people on all sides are very concerned about having commercial in
the middle of their residential neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker stated that the stream provides a boundary between these parcels and the residential,
and if mixed use is extended out then there is no end to that. He emphasized that the lines were drawn
based upon a huge amount of public input.
Ms. Mallek said that the huge majority of people who spoke about this focused on the fact that the
downtown area should develop first, before the focus moves to peripheral sites.
Mr. Boyd commented that other landowners were able to make a change with their properties.
Ms. Mallek clarified that those properties came out, not in, and there was no density increase.
Mr. Boyd stated that he has a strong feeling that people should be able to do with their property
what they want to do, providing it won‘t hurt the neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is regardless of zoning.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Mallek mentioned that the neighborhood density is six units per acre, so there could be 18
units here under the new master plan. It is not like they are being told they can only have these three
separate houses.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are similar properties that have that high-density capability.
Ms. Mallek responded that all around the fringes there is tapered-down density, and citizens have
been very concerned that the edges have a reduced density compared to the core of the growth area.
Mr. Rooker said that what Mr. Boyd may be remembering about people‘s property being taken out
is when downtown Crozet was being rezoned, there were people who did not want to be included in that.
They are not generally going down the road of rezoning people‘s property without their request, and in that
case the Board did not. That is a little different than the master planning for a community-wide
Comprehensive Plan change.
Mr. Benish noted that there was a mixed-use area added on Carter Street, and there was concern
by the community about infringement into that existing residential area but because that area was much
less developed and the lots were larger, and there was some mixed-use activity, it allowed for some mixed
use adjacent to downtown.
Mr. Boyd said that he wants to be sure that the Board is being fair to everyone in that community.
Mr. Benish replied that the area was subject to a good amount of debate back and forth with the CCAC.
Mr. Boyd stated that on pages 32-33, he takes exception to language that says the County is
against or excluding any opportunity for industrial development or changing zoning along the interchanges
to the interstates, because that is being studied and he doesn‘t want to put anything into the record that
discourages this. He said that including language such as, do not approve any rezoning for new
development along the Route 250 West corridor, seems restrictive, and is not something he really
supports.
Ms. Mallek stated that the reason for this is to concentrate development downtown and the three
centers that are already established, which are only partially done.
Mr. Boyd said that he thought the whole idea behind the rezoning of the Connelly property was to
get it away from a light-industrial use and into mixed-use business.
Ms. Mallek responded that for 25 years there has been an effort not to pile up more development
on Route 250 West, because it is an arterial and a scenic highway, and this is reaffirming that long-held
view.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is speaking specifically about the Yancey Mills project.
Ms. Mallek replied that Yancey is not in the growth area, and this plan focuses on the growth area.
Mr. Boyd said that the language speaks very specifically about business parks in the location of
the eastern quadrant of I-64 and Route 250 West interchange. The language speaks specifically about
business parks in that location. It says that after the study as well as input from residents, it was
determined that the expansion of the development area is not warranted at this time for building of office,
retail, or industrial uses.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that that was a Planning Commission directive to make it clear that the
County was not considering a boundary change for the interstate interchange area, that that was a
separate issue to be dealt with separately as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd commented that so long as that is the way staff interprets it. He has said all along that
he does not think Crozet can dictate policy for the entire County.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that what it‘s saying is that the boundary is not to be adjusted to
incorporate that area as part of the Crozet Master Plan. Mr. Boyd said he is okay with the language if that
is what it means.
Mr. Boyd said that regarding the short-term, mid-term, and long-term projects there should be
language that says subject to them being approved under the CIP.
Ms. Mallek stated that these are just items in the vision, and it is kind of a given, that they will be
subject to CIP funding and prioritization.
Mr. Rooker asked to what extent the Board has the ability to amend this tonight and still vote on it.
Mr. Davis responded that it would be better if the document were a clean document, unless the
Board can suggest language that can be captured by staff pretty easily.
Ms. Mallek added that everything the Board does is subject to the CIP process, and there is no
exception made for this or anything else.
Mr. Davis stated that the Appendix is pretty specific as to the fiscal years that are related to for
short-term, mid-term, and long-term projects, but it is simply a guide. He added that when the Board
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
adopts the CIP on an annual basis, it can use this as a guide but it doesn‘t bind them to add these projects
in the CIP as it will always be subject to available funding.
Mr. Boyd commented that all too often, staff uses that as a firm guide when dealing with
applicants on projects and bringing items back to the Board.
Mr. Tucker said that it cannot go forward without an appropriation, which would have to come
through the CIP process.
Mr. Boyd likened this to the discussion on Places 29 when there were lines on a map.
Mr. Rooker responded that this is viewed as a guideline for community priorities in Crozet for
capital projects to be built there.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board has specified that there are five priority items to be done first in
Places29, and in the same vein there are priority projects being established for Crozet. He said that there
were specific amounts for Places29 projects, which was requested by Neil Williamson‘s Free Enterprise
Forum.
Mr. Boyd stated that he does not mind including these as guidelines, but he doesn‘t want to get
into a situation where there are competing projects in different parts of the County, with preference
perhaps being given to Crozet.
Mr. Tucker said that the Board will find the same thing with Pantops and other neighborhoods, so
the Board ultimately has to choose what is prioritized in the CIP.
Mr. Boyd commented that there is currently a major issue with the Route 250 Entrance Corridor in
his district, which has much heavier traffic volume than Eastern Avenue in Crozet.
Ms. Mallek said that the building of it is probably ―a hundred years away,‖ but the idea here is to
hold onto the land where it will eventually go.
Mr. Boyd commented that he did not have a problem with the priorities, just setting them out in
timeframes.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Paul Grady said he lives just outside of Crozet. He said that there seems to have been a
genuine effort made in crafting the new Crozet Master Plan, but there are a few things that he has trouble
with. Mr. Grady said that he hasn‘t been happy with the direction the Crozet Community Advisory Council
has taken over the last few years. He stated that he originally thought the group would be an impartial
body that would listen to all opinions and then come to a consensus, but in almost every email he has
received it has focused on opposing projects. Mr. Grady said that he went to all the meetings but never
said anything. There are about 5,000 people in the Crozet area but never more than 100 people at any of
those meetings. He stated that it is highly hypocritical that anyone could make the argument that Western
Albemarle High School should not be in the growth area, and the only reason it is not is so that Mr. Yancey
cannot say that his property is adjacent to the growth area. Mr. Grady said that he supports Mr. Yancey‘s
industrial park, but the Zoning Ordinance needs to be changed as it currently allows just about anything to
be put in a light industrial zone. Tractor trailers belong out by the interstate, not in the center of Crozet.
He stated that he also supports the redevelopment plans proposed for the Barnes Lumber Company, as
he does not want to see Mr. Connelly move his business out of the County. Mr. Grady said that not long
ago an applicant asked to place a garden center on the northwest corner of Crozet Avenue and Route 250
and he would like to support that endeavor – but not the Zoning Ordinance requiring her to get a
commercial zoning, as it is an agricultural use that should be allowed by special use permit. He also
stated that the County should add to the growth area to compensate for what was lost with Biscuit Run, as
most people do not realize how much that hurt the County‘s finances. Mr. Grady said that he is also
unhappy with the new library, which will involve tearing down two historic houses, cutting down every tree
on the site, and pulling the building to the street and destroying the existing streetscape. The County
should pull the building back from the street to the existing building line, save all the trees, construct a two
story building that is expandable to four stories, which then could be called sustainable.
Ms. Celeste Ploumis said she has a valid complaint in that it is unacceptably loud in her house,
with her rurally-zoned house constantly subject to high noise levels. Ms. Ploumis said that Mr. Mark
Graham, a professional sound engineer, has recorded a sample of noise recorded in her bedroom –
which he will play at the volume, intensity, and decibel level that she has in her home.
Mr. Graham played the recording, which demonstrated loud truck traffic, music and other noise
recorded from Ms. Ploumis‘ home.
Ms. Ploumis emphasized that her property is no longer rural, it is no longer residential, it is no
longer acceptable, and environmental studies are underway to measure the particulates that the road
sends into her home. She said that more traffic makes more noise and more pollution, and she does not
find it acceptable in her home. She did not create this situation. Ms. Ploumis stated that it is no longer
possible to live in her home, and she is not the bad guy for trying to stay there and enjoying her home.
She said that sleeping in 110 decibels is impossible. The land use designation needs to be changed to
appropriately reflect the changes that have come to Crozet. If you can‘t hear what you‘re listening to, she
will keep going and find the authorities that will listen. She asked for relief and change in keeping with the
changes around her.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Dorrier asked where her property is located. Ms. Ploumis responded that it is on the
northwest corner at the intersection of Route 240 and Route 250, Crozet Avenue and Rockfish Gap
Turnpike.
Mr. Adin Ray said that he is Ms. Ploumis‘ son and grew up in this house. Mr. Ray asked the
Board once again to listen to the sound recording. This is the noise they hear daily.
The sound engineer, Mr. Graham, said that the sound level increases about tenfold for every 10
decibels. He played a 100-decibel automobile noise, and a 110-decibel truck noise.
Mr. Ray thanked the Board for listening.
Mr. Mike Marshall, Chairman of the Crozet Community Advisory Council, said that at the work
session he reviewed the process by which the master plan was revised, and there was a lot of public input
and a sufficient amount of meetings. He stated that he hopes the Board will ratify the plan. The CCAC is
aware of Ms. Ploumis‘ issues and Mr. Oakely‘s desire to be added to the downtown district. The CCAC
have heard those out and voted them down. He said that the vote for Mr. Oakley was 10-2, and in the
case of Ms. Ploumis the CCAC sees a slippery slope with commercial rezoning in a place that should not
be rezoned. Mr. Marshall said that the reason they have undertaken master planning is because of
previous mistakes made with sprawl and a two-car dependent style of development. He added that the
Crozet Master Plan tries to skip the sprawl stage of growth. Route 250 will actually function as a bypass
around the intended density downtown, provided that the road is not built up.
Mr. Marshall noted that since 2004 they identified three problems with the Master Plan. One of
them is the concept of pyramidal density which the citizens want – the highest density in the center and
declining densities towards the end. He thinks the citizens should be complimented for the thoughtful and
conscientious way in which they have planned their work. Mr. Marshall urged the Board to adopt the plan
as presented.
Mr. Tom Oakley said that he owns the house at 1278 Crozet Avenue. He asked the Board to
place the three properties owned by himself, Jenny Martin, and the Connellys to be placed in the mixed-
use categories. Mr. Oakley reported that over the past four years, he has received a total of 17 inquiries
about the property he owns to be used as some type of business. He said that he is aware of the
entrepreneur spirit and the backbone of this nation is the small business, which would be encouraged by
changing the designation of these three properties. This would avoid costly time, money and energy on
the part of the County and any individuals who may wish to purchase these properties, and use them to
their fullest potential.
Ms. Meg Holden said that she was a member of the CCAC and never saw at a single meeting she
attended the individual who had complained previously. She emphasized that the Council has brought a
plan forward that they feel very pleased with. She said that she somewhat resents Mr. Boyd‘s comment
that this group is somehow trying to dictate what is happening in the County. They are trying to protect the
community they all love; not dictate County-wide. Ms. Holden mentioned that she lives less than 100
yards from Ms. Ploumis on a little bitty horse farm, and it was common knowledge that growth was coming
to the western part of the County. She said that her home dates to the 1920s, and having a neighboring
property zoned commercial would harm her property and set off redevelopment for other houses along
that corridor. Ms. Holden encouraged the Board to adopt the plan as presented. This Board should be
blessed by the community input it has received.
Mr. Snow asked Ms. Holden to point out on a map the location of her property and Ms. Ploumis‘
property. Ms. Holden pointed out the location of both homes.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Holden if she had heard the kind of sound Ms. Ploumis has noted. Ms.
Holden replied that she has not heard that level of sound, and suggested that Ms. Ploumis try to sell her
home. She knows Ms. Ploumis is unhappy about it, but maybe there are other steps that she could take
that would give some other options.
Mr. Tom Murray addressed the Board, noting the location of Ms. Ploumis‘ property on the map
and stating that her home is about 12 yards from the intersection of the two roads. Mr. Murray stated that
there are trucks coming through there at 2:00 a.m., and there are 17,500 cars coming through there every
day. He also said that it‘s against State Code to use land use controls to enforce a scenic byway. The
Constitution of the United States defends the rights of the individual against the masses. Mr. Murray
stated that he would be coming back to apply for a rezoning, and then go through the courts. The Board
needs to do the right thing.
Mr. Katurah Roell, of Piedmont Development Group, said that he is present on behalf of the
Connelly‘s and the Barnes Lumber site. Mr. Roell said that they are very pleased with the progress
worked out with the community and the intent for the site, as the new mixed-use density will provide a
wonderful opportunity for a variety of businesses and growth for the entire part of the downtown. He
asked for some flexibility in the alignment of that roadway connection that is shown from Main Street to the
adjoining neighborhood. In the transportation plan, it is shown as a pretty distinct line and for future
planning for this area it affects rezoning and detail. They want to make sure staff understands that it is
flexible, not fixed and that some measure of movement would be permitted.
Mr. Thomas commented that the line has been there since the original plan.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Benish said that it is the Main Street that was in the original plan and is a point to point
analysis of where that roadway would ultimately be located in conjunction with development proposals in
the area that might provide an opportunity for connection.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that this is a guideline, not a specific location for a route.
Mr. Thomas said that it just needs to be ascertained that the plans are not set in stone.
Ms. Barbara Westbrook said that she recently stepped down from the CCAC after working on it
for five years. She stated that she is very happy with the Master Plan. They distributed surveys all around
Crozet and received 800 responses, which the Council used in their work. She said that she disagrees
with everything that the complaining speaker, adding that she also wouldn‘t have bought the house Ms.
Ploumis lives in to begin with, as that corner has always been the busiest intersection in Crozet. Ms.
Westbrook stated that Ms. Ploumis has stated she wants to sell the property to a garden center, but two
years down the line the garden center could sell it to a fast-food restaurant. This could set a precedent.
There are plenty of people who live near a lot of traffic and might want to do the same thing. If the Board
allows one person, then there is nothing to stop the others.
Mr. Tim Tolson, a member of the Crozet Community Advisory Council, thanked staff for their hard
work and long hours. Mr. Tolson said that he appreciates the insertion of the library recommendation and
reiterated that the CCAC worked very hard to hear from all corners and all voices in Crozet and to work for
the general well-being of everyone there. He stated that the Council does not feel that a few voices
dominated. In the cases of the few property owners who complained, there are more people who live
adjacent to them who object to the changes they want. He urged the Board to adopt the plan as
presented.
Ms. Lucy Goeke said that she serves on the CCAC and also lives along Route 250. Ms. Goeke
said that the Council had asked that only three development centers be listed for the Crozet area and if
Ms. Ploumis‘ property gets turned over that would make a fourth center. She stated that the Council
received a lot of community input, and asks now that the Board follows their recommendation for adoption.
CCAC is asking that the Board follow their recommendations; they worked very hard on the Plan and
thought about each consideration.
Ms. Jenny Martin said that she is present to request that the properties located at 1278, 1282 and
1284 Crozet Avenue, located to the north of downtown along Crozet Avenue, be placed in mixed use or at
least affords property owners the same latitude within neighborhood density that has been afforded to
western and eastern Crozet neighborhood density. Ms. Martin said that the owners of those parcels have
developed some very serious concerns in the process with the CCAC and Planning Commission,
including being treated very differently from the previous norm. She stated that the definition of
neighborhood density says, in part: ― Neighborhoods serving retail commercial areas and office uses of
less than 5,000 square feet may be allowed by exception only in Neighborhood Density Residential areas
located within half a block of downtown along Blue Ridge Avenue and East of Firehouse Lane‖. Ms.
Martin said that it says nothing about northern Crozet to provide a transition zone, or infill. She stated that
Mr. Oakley shares a southern property line with commercial property in the downtown district and the
Claytors and Connellys are within 100 feet of that commercial boundary. She said that they are excluded
from attracting neighborhoods serving retail commercial areas and office uses of less than 5,000 square
feet.
Ms. Martin added that she was unable to find a definition of a block, and they seem to vary from
city to city – but by a number of standards all of the properties would be within one-half block between the
Dairy Queen and commercial property line referred to as the stream. She asked if this language puts
them at a disadvantage from enjoying the full advantage of Neighborhood Density afforded to those to the
east and west of Crozet. Ms. Martin also said that there are concerns about conflict of interest within the
CCAC and Commission, as the Council‘s Chair owns land to the west of Crozet where the revised Master
Plan wants to grow downtown, with an assessed value of $2.397 million. He and his committee
recommend designations of land to the Albemarle Planning Commission. A member of the Commission
owns land on Blue Ridge Avenue that fronts through to Carter Street with an assessed value of $461,800.
Ms. Martin said that in all of the meetings she attended she never once heard them disclose their
holdings or remove themselves from voting regarding the designations. This seems to her to be a real
conflict of interest especially given there was no disclosure. She stated that she is here to request that the
three properties in question be included in the mixed-use designation, or at a minimum allow them the
same latitude to attract ―neighborhoods serving retail commercial areas and office uses of less than 5,000
square feet‖. She asked that they be given the opportunity to attract those 17 businesses that have shown
an interest and inquired about locating on their property, and help invigorate the downtown Crozet district.
Ms. Mary Gallo said that she is a new member of the CCAC but has been involved in Crozet
issues for over 10 years now. She said that she has never once received an email from a CCAC member
encouraging advocacy of a single position, only emails encouraging people to come out and speak. Ms.
Gallo added that she also disagrees with the contention that Council members are somehow beholden to
the will of the group‘s chairman. The CCAC were appointed by the Board, and that is what they were
charged with doing; there is always a healthy discussion, no one blindly following someone else. She
asked that the Board adopt the Master Plan as presented. She also said that while the property owners in
question feel they have rights to have their designation changed, the surrounding neighbors should have
some rights as well. Ms. Gallo stated that the intersection where Ms. Ploumis lives is terribly congested,
and if it were zoned for business it would make this worse and would create a slippery slope for other
properties, noting that this house is only about one-tenth of a mile from the school.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Richard Martin said that he was born and raised in Charlottesville and the main house at Old
Trails was owned by his grandfather. Mr. Martin said that he lives on Wayland Drive and also owns a
house on St. George Avenue. W hen he attended the meeting on November 19, most of the 120 people
there agreed that the three properties could be included as mixed use. He said that the County Planner
had actually suggested adding two other parcels to make the designation area square, but the attendees
agreed that just the three pieces of property should be included. Mr. Martin said that up until the spring,
everyone was in favor of this inclusion, but then a County Planning staff member visited the families
across from these properties and then they became objectionable to the mixed use. He also stated that
there were three banks downtown that have now moved to other locations, leaving just one bank.
Ms. Jo Higgins said that she has business interests in the County and specifically a business in
Crozet. She said that perhaps negative input drove some of the amendment language. Ms. Higgins said
that it would not surprise her, as Mr. Boyd pointed out, that the language on page 33 resurfaced in a
rezoning or special use permit application to block whatever is happening. It was specific language
geared to the Yancey application. She said that she also agrees with Mr. Grady that the Western
Albemarle is not a rural area school, and the boundary for the rural area crosses its front border. Ms.
Higgins stated that she was previously in the CCAC when it was formed, adding that there was a lot of
good input provided at meetings that got muddied with some of the other issues that were brought up.
She commented that there is never a perspective given with the neighborhood plan as to how it really fits
with the area between Crozet and the Route 29 bypass, adding that the area has become a bedroom
community. There have to be jobs in Crozet, or around Crozet. Those redistributed trips to stay in Crozet
area will relieve pressures on Route 250. Ms. Higgins said that the growth out at the interchange in
Waynesboro is what is feeding the revitalization of downtown. She added that the primary reason is
access, and she likes Mr. Marshall‘s reference to Route 250 as a bypass. She added that if wording is put
in the Master Plan now, even though it is intended to be general, it will come back and bite you. To folks
who are against it, it will become very specific.
Mr. Tom Murray re-addressed the Board, stating that he is a real estate appraiser from Richmond.
He clarified that Ms. Ploumis has no intention in selling her property, but wants to lease her property to a
man who wants to establish a garden center. Mr. Murray said that the garden center would not impact her
neighbor and would not impact downtown.
Mr. Bill Schrader addressed the Board, stating that he is also a CCAC member and attended all of
the meetings. Mr. Schrader expressed concern about some of the comments made tonight. At the CCAC
meetings there were different people presenting at each meeting depending on the subject. He said that
there was lots of gut-wrenching discussion and arguing about what would happen to those three pieces of
property, and ultimately it was agreed upon that the homeowners of that area should be protected. They
did not take anything away from those three property owners. Mr. Schrader stated that if you go back to
the original master plan, Yancey was not on the radar, and the original plan states that in order to
maximize capacity, the County must limit the amount of development on properties adjacent to Route 250
from I-64 to Route 240 in order to protect the Entrance Corridor.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Thomas asked what the Connellys, Oakleys and Martins can do with their property if the
Board approves the Master Plan tonight.
Ms. Mallek responded that they could be combined into one large piece, and the zoning would be
neighborhood density.
Mr. Benish clarified that the zoning is neighborhood density residential, which is primarily
residential with corresponding zoning districts that have some special use permits that are non-residential
in nature. He said that the Comp Plan designation set the range of development from three to six units
per acre, which is the primary neighborhood density. It provides a guideline for the expected land uses,
with the potential for some commercial activity such as private schools, daycares, rest homes, etc.
Mr. Thomas noted that there is already a coffee shop type of business there across from the
rescue squad.
Ms. Mallek confirmed that it is on the other side of the boundary, in the growth area. She
reiterated that there is always an edge.
Mr. Boyd asked how Crozet residents might react differently if the landowner came in with a
rezoning request to provide a business that would create jobs.
Ms. Mallek responded that she thinks it would be the same scenario as someone wanting to open
up a store in the middle of the Woodbrook neighborhood; they wouldn‘t like it. She added that the
Woodbrook neighborhood did not even want a path to come nearby. She said that respecting the
surrounding neighbors for this time period is what the CCAC recommended.
Mr. Boyd asked if they could still apply for a rezoning.
Mr. Rooker replied that there is nothing to prevent that, and there are numerous places in Crozet
where a business can locate. He added that the analogy to Woodbrook is a very good one.
Mr. Dorrier emphasized that this is still just a guide, not a rezoning.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Thomas said that applying for a rezoning would cost the applicant money.
Mr. Rooker explained that the Master Plan does not change the zoning, and if it were moved into
commercial use it would need to be rezoned.
Mr. Benish said that staff cited in the plan the conversation about expansions in other mixed-use
areas, and when the CCAC and staff looked at areas to add the mixed-use, this area was one that was
targeted. He stated that a lot of consideration was given to the area between the employment center and
downtown because it was a logical extension. The neighbors saw the long term possibilities but were
concerned about their properties due to incremental changes. He added that in this plan it was
established that the timing was not right at this point for the change to the three properties. He thinks that
if a reasonable, good proposal came through, there‘s always the option to submit the rezoning and have it
evaluated.
Mr. Boyd stated that he just wants to assure that if an applicant comes in with a rezoning request
that doesn‘t fit this, it can still be pursued. He added that he appreciates all the community work that has
gone into the Plan and he intends to support it.
Mr. Benish said that the County wants the plan to be predictable to everyone who uses it, so it
needs to be made clear what the position and direction of the plan is. He stated that the procedures are
always available to an applicant, with the general direction and guideline of that area made clear.
Mr. Boyd commented that this action does not change the zoning of those properties.
Mr. Rooker said that a request that is inconsistent with the Master Plan is going to have to
overcome that, as it does with the Comprehensive Plan. He does not want to sit here and pretend that
adopting a master plan is meaningless. It is not meaningless. It is a guideline. He emphasized that this
community adopted a master plan almost seven years ago, and they were ultimately upset by what was in
that plan, so they worked toward a good compromise in terms of pulling the density back. Mr. Rooker said
that this plan seems to be a recognition that the Crozet area is going to have some growth over time, with
density designated for certain areas, and the citizens have done a good job in arriving at a plan that will
accommodate the needs of a growing community over time.
Mr. Dorrier stated that this is a community plan and the people of Crozet deserve a lot of credit for
what they have accomplished. He fully supports the citizens and the Plan.
Mr. Snow asked if Ms. Ploumis‘ lot would be a candidate for a small farm stand, based on the
action the Board took earlier this year.
Mr. Cilimberg said that farm stands and farmer‘s markets depend on the zoning designation, and
he is not sure if R-1 falls under that provision. He said that he would look into it.
Mr. Boyd asked if anyone else is interested in changing the designations for these properties.
Mr. Thomas responded that he would like to see them get the respect that everybody else got,
and get what they requested.
Ms. Mallek asked if their rights to do that are more important than those of the neighbors around
there. She said that she would not be in favor of that as it is completely contrary to what the surrounding
landowners want.
Mr. Rooker added that this is Ms. Mallek‘s district and other Supervisors might feel a little strange
if another Board member came in and moved a change in designation forward for their district. He said he
thinks they should give some deference to the person whose district this master planning has taken place
in, who has attended virtually all of the meetings out there. He said that he is not prepared to second-
guess that.
Mr. Boyd stated that that is a point well made.
Mr. Thomas agreed.
Ms. Mallek then moved to approve CPA-2009-02, Crozet Master Plan, as updated. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion.
Mr. Thomas commented that it is well-done, and is much better than the original.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that in R-1 zoning, farmer‘s markets are allowed by special use permit.
Ms. Mallek added that it is the criteria of what a farmer‘s market is, where this might run afoul.
(Note: At 9:03 p.m., the Board took a recess, and then reconvened at 9:14 p.m.)
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
(The adopted Master Plan is set out below:)
CROZET MASTER PLAN
OCTOBER 13, 2010
CROZET MASTER PLAN 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Crozet Master Plan 2010 Page
Chapter 1-Introduction 4
Purpose of Master Plan 5
Chapter 2-Vision Statement & Guiding Principles 7
Chapter 3-Existing Conditions 8
Natural, Scenic, and Historic Assets 9
Environmental Features Map 9
Demographics 12
Existing Land Use 14
Community Facilities and Services 15
Existing Transportation Network 18
Chapter 4-Future Land Use 21
Land Use Categories 21
Future Land Use Plan 22
Recommendations by Geographic Sector 24
Fringe Areas and the US 250 West Corridor 32
Relationship between Land Use Plan and Zoning 34
Chapter 5-Future Transportation 35
Vehicular Travel 35
Transportation Plan 36
Transit/Rideshare 40
Pedestrian/Bicycle 41
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Chapter 6-Parks & Green Systems Plan 42
Parks and Green Systems Plan 43
Parks 46
Greenways 47
Dark Skies 47
Chapter 7-Plan for Community Facilities and Services 49
Water/Wastewater 49
Solid Waste Management 50
Schools 50
Police 50
Fire/Rescue 51
Library 51
Old Crozet School Reuse 52
Social Services 52
Stormwater Management 52
Chapter 8-Implementation 54
Appendix – Crozet Implementation Projects 59
Chapter 1 Introduction
The Community of Crozet is located in western Albemarle
County between the City of Charlottesville and the Blue Ridge
mountains. It contains approximately 2,914 acres or 4.6
square miles. The Development Area is almost entirely within
the Lickinghole Creek watershed, with the exception of a small
northern strip containing portions of the old Downtown
commercial and residential area and the Blue Ridge Builder
Supply area south of Route 250 West.
The watershed boundary is primarily the basis on which the
Crozet Development Area boundary was established. The
southern boundary extends west from the Lickinghole Basin
dam along the south side of Lickinghole Basin and Creek,
intersecting the Rockfish Gap Turnpike east of the Clover
Lawn development, and continuing west along the north side
of the highway. The eastern boundary is the ridgeline for two
streams which flow into the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation
basin. The boundary follows this stream system north to Three
Notch‘d Road, crosses it, and, from a point opposite the Acme
property, heads north to the south side of Parrot Creek. From
there, the boundary continues west, turning north to parallel
the eastern boundary of the new Crozet Elementary School parcel to its north property line, then angling
west to the south side of Old Ballard Road. At that point it continues in a westerly direction through the
Weston subdivision across Buck Road (Route 789) to take in the water tank, then south to Railroad
Avenue. This northern boundary to the Development Area is defined as containing the area draining to a
series of proposed stormwater facilities located along Parrot Creek. T he western boundary runs along
Route 684 to its intersection with Route 691. At this point, the boundary line turns eastward and follows a
stream system until it reaches Rockfish Gap Turnpike. (See inset below.)
Crozet was designated as an
area for development in the
1971 Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan. In
1980, there were several
amendments to the
Development Area boundaries
and recommendations for
Crozet. There is a history of
major infrastructure
investments to accommodate
future growth in Crozet,
including the Beaver Creek
Reservoir, which was
constructed in 1965. Other
significant infrastructure
investments were made with
the decision to build the
Crozet Interceptor in 1979, its
completion in 1988, and
construction of the
sedimentation basin in 1993. The first master plan for future development of the community was
approved in 2004. Prior to development of the Master Plan, the neighborhood study for the Crozet
Community was completed in 1993 by the County and a Board-appointed committee. The purpose of that
Crozet
Charlottesville
COMMUNITY OF CROZET Development Area boundaries
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
study was to assist the County in establishing policy to help guide public and private activities as they
relate to land use and resource utilization within Crozet. The recommendations of the 1993 study were
considered and incorporated in the Master Plan and the carry-over of many of the original
recommendations demonstrates the residents‘ commitment to guiding principles, such as downtown
revitalization, adequate public facilities, and historic preservation.
Purpose of the Plan
This plan represents a refinement of the 2004 Crozet Master Plan and relies on the guiding principles and
recommendations in that Plan. This update of the 2004 Plan is intended to provide guidance on a form of
development that is preferable to conventional suburban development. This Plan directs where and how
new residential and nonresidential uses should develop. Further, it makes recommendations on the future
transportation improvements and capital projects. Finally, its purpose is to guide the timing of public
investments, as well as the timing of new development in the Community.
Planning in Albemarle County’s Development Areas
Albemarle County has a long-standing goal of directing development into designated development areas.
To further County growth management goals, the current development area concept remains a critical
planning tool. The Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Neighborhood Model,
presents mechanisms that provide the best opportunity for the County to achieve the goals of compact,
livable development in designated development areas and keeping the Rural Areas rural.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes three types of development areas: Urban Areas (Neighborhoods 1 –
7), Communities (Crozet, Hollymead, and Piney Mountain) and Villages (the Village of Rivanna).
Crozet is designated a Community. Communities consist of smaller urban centers that are geographically
removed from the Urban Areas around the City of Charlottesville. Communities are expected to be more
town-like than city-like in character with less density, smaller scale of development, and may still rely on
nearby urban areas for regional services. Communities are to be supported by a full range of public
utilities, facilities, services, and amenities.
Communities consist of:
A full range of residential uses and densities and the full range of non-residential uses described
in the Land Use Designations section of this plan.
A Community core of mixed service and residential uses, including community and/or regional
services.
Regional employment centers.
A network of major intra-County roadways linked to the Urban Area.
Well-defined residential areas supported by an integrated and interconnected system of streets;
pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems; neighborhood commercial, professional, business,
and public service uses; and public water and sewer.
Public facilities supporting the Community and surrounding County areas.
Communities should reflect the principles of the Neighborhood Model. The Neighborhood Model is a
County policy and a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Neighborhood Model seeks to change
the form of development from a pattern of sprawling, isolated buildings to a more compact and
interconnected design, relying on 12 principles for new development:
1. Pedestrian orientation- Sidewalks or paths that connect houses to each other and to centers and
common areas will be the norm. Walks will connect sidewalks to front doors and main entrances.
2. Neighborhood friendly streets and paths- Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public
transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited
access to automobiles.
3. Interconnected streets and transportation networks- Requires interconnected streets within
developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many
destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and length.
4. Parks and open space- Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers
can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces
5. Neighborhood centers- Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse
and continuous activity to a neighborhood.
6. Buildings and spaces of human scale-. Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street
views are attractive and pedestrian friendly.
7. Relegated parking- Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on-street parking.
8. Mixture of uses- Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have
convenient access to work, to services, and to entertainment.
9. Mixture of housing types and affordability- Mixes housing types and markets so that a full range of
housing choices is offered within the neighborhood.
10. Redevelopment- Emphasizes re-use of sites.
11. Site planning that respects terrain- Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can
be preserved
12. Clear boundaries with Rural Areas- Maintains a clear boundary between development areas and
Rural Areas.
Another key element of the Neighborhood Model is that the master planning process guides growth in the
development areas and that a Master Plan should be developed for each development area. Through the
master planning process, the Neighborhood Model principles should be adapted to meet the needs of the
particular place. This has been done through the Crozet Master Plan process.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
The Planning Process and Public Involvement
The first Crozet Master Plan was adopted in 2004 after considerable public involvement. This 2010 plan
represents the first five-year update. The update officially began in October 2009. Five community
forums were held in 2009 and early 2010 to consider changes to the 2004 plan. After the community
meetings, the Crozet Community Advisory Council provided guidance on changes to the 2004 plan. The
Planning Commission reviewed those changes and other recommendations by staff. Following several
work sessions in the spring and summer, as well as a public hearing, the Commission recommended
approval of the Master Plan on July 27, 2010.
Chapter 2 Vision Statement & Guiding Principles
The visioning process was the first step toward recognizing the community‘s desires for Crozet and setting
the direction for the Master Plan. The vision builds on existing planning work and on County policy, such
as the Neighborhood Model. Residents and property owners developed the vision as well as the seven
guiding principles, which capture what is most important for Crozet and what Crozet residents value most
about their community.
Vision
Crozet is and will continue to be a small town with a “small town feel.” It will have distinct
neighborhoods, a historic downtown area, and industries that support the County, state,
and nation. Downtown will be a vibrant place with a library, employment area, shops, and
housing. Parks and open space will be key features of the community. Trails and
greenways will link other important centers to provide ways for people to walk and bicycle
throughout the community.
Guiding Principles
1. Existing neighborhoods and the Downtown area will be preserved; new or infill development will
be appropriate in scale and type to these existing growth patterns.
2. Multiple transportation options and multimodal infrastructure will be provided to support access
throughout the community. Pedestrian and bicycle options should be provided for as alternative
transportation choices.
3. The housing stock in Crozet should continue to provide choices in affordability and building types,
as it attracts people from many social and economic backgrounds.
4. Locally grown businesses are supported for their contributions in providing both jobs and an
enhanced quality of life for residents.
5. Crozet values and will protect its natural resource assets through a variety of cultivation,
recreation, and conservation efforts.
6. Crozet will continue to encourage a sense of community through its history, diverse activities,
institutions, and interests.
7. Community facilities and services must accommodate the changing needs of the community as it
grows over time.
Chapter 3 Existing Conditions
This chapter provides a snapshot of the natural and built environment in Crozet. It examines the existing
demographics and the trends in Crozet. Existing land uses, the transportation network, and current and
planned infrastructure are discussed as well.
Natural, Scenic, and Historic Assets
Natural Resources
Located in the western part of Albemarle County, Crozet is part of the South Fork Rivanna River
watershed. The South Fork of the Rivanna River supplies the drinking water for Charlottesville and
the urban areas in the County around Charlottesville. Topographically, the Crozet area varies from
gently rolling to steeply rolling terrain. Lickinghole Creek flows through the center of Crozet and is fed
by numerous creeks and tributaries. Steep slopes line many of the creeks, and other slopes are
scattered in the southern portion of this Development Area. Wooded areas are present throughout the
Community.
The majority of the Crozet Development Area drains into Lickinghole Creek. The Lickinghole Creek
sedimentation basin was constructed to reduce nonpoint discharge from Crozet. The basin serves as
an erosion, sedimentation and runoff control device. It will also be operated as a public park in the
future.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
One-hundred year floodplain designations occur along Powell‘s Creek, Lickinghole Creek, Slabtown
Branch and the Parrot Branch drainage. In addition to the floodplain designation, all streams in Crozet
are protected by the County‘s Water Protection Ordinance because Crozet is in the drinking water
supply watershed. Other resources are protected through the County‘s floodplain, steep slopes, and
stream buffer regulations
Because of these important natural resources in Crozet and the goal of protecting them, some
properties with important environmental features have been placed in conservation easements both in
the Crozet Development Area and the immediately adjacent Rural Areas. There are two properties
under conservation easement in the Crozet Development Area, including Canary Cottage and
Eaglehurst Farm. The Environmental & Natural Resources map on the following page identifies all of
these important assets.
Parks
Parks and open space are important features of Crozet. Crozet has small neighborhood and pocket
parks that have been provided with residential development. It has community parks, district parks
and regional parks outside of Crozet that serve Crozet and the larger Western Albemarle area. The
list of larger parks by type is provided in the table on the following page.
Crozet Parks 2010
Park
Acreage
Type
Facilities
Old Crozet Elementary
School
8 acres
Neighborhood
1 60‘ baseball/softball field; 1 outdoor
basketball court
Meadows Community
Center
1 acre
Neighborhood
Community meeting space
Claudius Crozet Park
22 acres
Community
2 60‘ baseball/softball fields;1 T-ball field; 1
full size soccer field; 2 basketball courts
2 picnic shelters; 2 playgrounds; 1 outdoor
swimming pool; Planned park amenity:
Running Trail around perimeter of Crozet
Park
Brownsville Elementary
School
12.5 acres
Community
1 60‘ baseball/softball field; 1 junior multiuse
field; 1 7000 sq. ft. gymnasium; 2
playground areas; 1 outdoor basketball
court; 1 90‘ baseball field
Henley Middle School
50 acres
District
2 full size multiuse fields; 1 7,150 sq. ft.
gymnasium; 2 outdoor basketball courts
Western Albemarle High
School
75 acres
District
2 60‘ baseball/softball fields; 4 full size
multiuse fields; 2 gymnasiums totaling
24,000 sq. ft.; 6 tennis courts; 1 stadium
field with track
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Crozet Elementary School 21.1 acres
Community 1 60‘ baseball/softball field; 1 junior multiuse
field; 1 4700 sq. ft. gymnasium 2 playground
areas 1 outdoor basketball court
Western Park (Future
Park)
35.8 acres
Community
Land is dedicated to the County
Future improvements: Multi-Use Fields,
Open Space Play Areas, Trails System
through preserved natural areas, pavilion,
picnic shelters, and promenade
Source: Albemarle County Department of Community Development 2010
Crozet Development Area residents also have convenient access to recreational facilities just outside
the Development Area at Mint Springs Park, Beaver Creek Park and the Greenwood Community
Center. These nearby County park properties total 757 acres including 112 water acres.
Standards for parks are provided in the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan. According to
those standards, parks and recreational resources are sufficient to serve existing residents of Crozet
and the western part of Albemarle County. The Parks & Green Systems chapter and map show new
parks and improvements to accommodate future residents.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Crozet was named for Colonel B. Claudius Crozet (1789 -1864) who was a French-born civil engineer
and artillery officer under Napoleon. He is best remembered as the chief engineer for the 17-mile-
long railroad tunnel through the Blue Ridge Mountains near the Community of Crozet. The
Community of Crozet began as a whistle-stop on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad in 1876. The
train stop was established at the request of the Miller Manual Labor School (the Miller School), which
was founded that year. Since its inception, Crozet has functioned as a distinct settlement with a
unique agricultural history, small business enterprises, and a dynamic civic spirit. Over time, Crozet
became known for its fruit industry. In the 1930s, it led the state in the production of Albemarle Pippin
and Winesap apples. It also was known as the Peach Capital of Virginia. With the arrival of Acme
Visible Records and Morton Foods (ConAgra) in the 1950s, year-round employment was available to
balance the area‘s seasonal economy. Although these businesses closed in the 1990s, technology-
related enterprises and other small contracting firms are now occupying portions of the old plant
buildings, with space still available for future adaptive re-use.
In 2007-2008, an architectural resources study
was completed for the Community of Crozet as a
joint effort of the County of Albemarle, the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
(VDHR) and the Piedmont Environmental
Council. Survey work done as part of this study
resulted in VDHR approving part of Crozet as a
potential National Register Historic District. The
historic buildings in Downtown and the
residential areas extending from Downtown
together illustrate the history and development of
Crozet and mark it as a unique place in Virginia.
The map to the right shows the potential
National Register Historic District boundaries.
To help protect the scenic and historic resources
of the Crozet area, the Board of Supervisors
established Route 250 and Route 240 as
Entrance Corridors. Entrance Corridors are
streets that lead to and through historic areas.
Route 250 is a primary east-west road through
Albemarle County and Route 240 is a north-
south thoroughfare. The purpose of Entrance
Corridor designations is to ensure that
development and redevelopment of property is
compatible with the County‘s historic and
cultural resources.
Boundaries of potential Crozet National Register
Historic District as identified by Virginia Department
of Historic Resources (Map prepared by Albemarle
County GDS)
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Scenic Resources
The most scenic resource in Crozet is
the Blue Ridge Mountains located west
of the community. These mountains are
visible from most parts of Crozet and are
one of the reasons new residents are
attracted to Crozet. The County‘s Rural
Area policies help to preserve this scenic
resource through policies and programs
like the Mountain Protection Plan,
conservation easements and agricultural
and forestal districts.
Within and near Crozet, Route 250 West
functions as a scenic resource and has
been designated a Virginia Byway. A
Virginia Byway is an existing road with
significant aesthetic and cultural values,
leading to or lying within an area of
historic, natural, or recreational significance.
The primary purpose of this designation is to give formal recognition to deserving roads and to
further the creation of a system of roads to promote tourism and public appreciation of natural and
historic resources.
Demographics
Population
Crozet‘s population has seen steady growth since the 1990s with the number of residential units in
Crozet more than tripling from about 600 in 1990 to an estimated 2,192 units in the Development Area
today (March 2010 estimate). Based on the current number of units, the current estimated population
is between 4,723 and 5,501 residents, depending on the multiplier used to calculate the number of
people per dwelling unit. The table below shows growth in the Crozet Community over the last 20
years.
Residential Units and Population Growth 1990-2010
Year Units Population
1990 599 1733
2000 1051 2753
2010* 2192 5501
Source: US Census and Albemarle County Department of Community Development, Office of Geographic
Data Services, March 2010
*The number of units is based on parcel data in Albemarle County's CountyView Development
Tracking System. The average number of persons per household from the 2000 Census of Population
and Housing is used as the multiplier. Population in Group Quarters (dormitories, fraternities and
sororities, and elderly care facilities) is based on actual residents in these facilities at time of estimate.
The population of Crozet has grown at a higher rate than the County as a whole. While the County has
grown at a rate of approximately two percent a year over the last ten years, Crozet has experienced a
ten percent annual growth rate. The population of Crozet represents about five percent of the County‘s
overall population and about approximately ten percent of the population in the County‘s development
areas.
Housing
In March 2010, there were 2,192 dwellings in Crozet. At present there have been approvals through
rezonings for up to 2,836 more dwellings if maximum densities are achieved for approved
developments. The rezonings have included a greater number of attached housing and apartments
than in the past, which will increase housing choices and affordability in Crozet. With the existing
zoning on properties, there is the potential of between 1,368 and 1,982 additional units. If maximum
densities are achieved under developments already approved and zoned, this could result in a
potential estimated population range of 13,837-16,628.
Employment
Historically, Crozet‘s economic base was agricultural, which expanded to include food processing in
the mid-to-late Twentieth Century. Other economic activities include records storage and a lumber
company. Today, the largest business is MusicToday, an entertainment marketing company that runs
fan clubs and handles ticket sales and merchandising for clients in the entertainment industry. Music
Today, Starr Hill microbrewery, and other smaller users operate out of the old food processing facility
(Con-Agra Foods). US Joiner, a ship interiors company, also provides employment. The other major
employers in Crozet are Mountainside Senior Living Facility, the public schools, and two grocery
stores – Great Valu and Harris Teeter.
Crozet‘s surrounding rural agricultural areas also help support the community‘s economy. Vineyards
and orchards bring travelers to Crozet. Hops farming supports local breweries. The Yancey
Lumberyard processes lumber, which is used in Crozet, Albemarle County, and the region.
The County‘s source for employment data is the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC).
Employment data for Crozet is not available for just the area within the Crozet Development Area
View west of the Blue Ridge Mountains from Crozet
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
boundaries because of the way employment data is reported to the VEC. According to Crozet area
estimates, which are based on zip codes and include some employers outside the Development Area,
there are presently 1,638 employees. The 2004 Crozet Master Plan projected 5,000 jobs for a
population of 12,000, which would result in an employee-to-population ratio of nearly 0.5. A more
conventional approach and what the County typically uses, compares jobs to housing or jobs to
dwelling units.
As a whole, the County has a jobs-housing ratio of 1.22 jobs per dwelling, which represents more jobs
than houses in the County. In contrast, Crozet has more housing than jobs with a ratio of 0.74 jobs
per dwelling. This information suggests that Crozet is a bedroom community to Charlottesville and
the urban areas of Albemarle County. A goal from the 2004 Master Plan for Crozet was to have a
higher jobs housing ratio of between 0.8 and 0.9:1. If achieved, this ratio would represent a greater
number of jobs in Crozet, reduce dependency on Charlottesville for employment, and reduce
commuting traffic on Route 250 West.
Existing Land Use
Most of the 2900 acres in Crozet has been developed residentially or is undeveloped/open space.
Industrial land comprises approximately five percent of the land area and commercial or mixed use takes
up approximately three percent of the area. Over time, more commercial/mixed use growth is expected.
Residential Use
The predominant land use in Crozet is residential. Of the roughly 2200 units, 72 percent are single-
family detached; 21 percent are townhouses, single-family attached or duplexes; four percent are
multifamily; and four percent are mobile homes. Townhouses provide the majority of the newest
housing stock.
The historic or older neighborhoods of the Tabor/Hilltop area, Carter Street area, and the northern
neighborhoods on St. George Avenue and Waylands Drive surround Downtown. Mountainside Senior
Living is an assisted living facility in Downtown, which has 105 residents. The Meadows is a senior
housing complex south of Downtown with 96 units. Other older neighborhoods include the Crozet
Mobile Home Park, Brookwood, and Orchard Acres. Newer neighborhoods are Western Ridge, Cory
Farm, Grayrock Orchard, Wayland‘s Grant, Highlands at Mechums River, and Crozet Crossing.
Parkside Village, Old Trail, Westhall, Wickham Pond, Liberty Hall and Foothill Crossing are the
newest residential developments in Crozet.
Commercial and Office Use
Commercial and office uses outside of Downtown comprise less than two percent of the land area in
Crozet. Most of the older commercial buildings are located on Crozet Avenue and Three Notch‘d
Road, while newer commercial areas are located in Old Trail or on Route 250 West.
In terms of square footage, the largest commercial area is the new Blue Ridge Shopping Center,
which totals 56,267 square feet and includes a grocery store, shops and a bank . Blue Ridge Building
Supply Company, which is located adjacent to the Blue Ridge Shopping Center on Route 250 West,
has approximately 48,000 square feet. The next largest building is the Great Valu Shopping Center
with 29,502 square feet. The Crozet Commons building constructed in 2005 on Three Notch‘d Road in
Downtown provides 23,110 square feet of office space and is headquarters to US Joiner. This building
also houses physical therapy and fitness businesses and a medical office. Adjacent to that building is
an additional 19,500 square feet of approved office space and a 3,000 square foot bank in the
Birchwood Place development.
Industrial Use
Industrial buildings and associated zoned land that may be undeveloped comprise about five% of the
land area of Crozet. Included are three large industrial buildings: the former Con Agra building
(464,821 square feet), Acme Visible Records (286,187 square feet) and the J. Bruce Barnes Lumber
Company. The first two buildings are located on Route 240 (Three Notch‘d Road); the lumber yard is
located adjacent to the Square in Downtown. At present, the lumber company is the only industrially
used property.
The former Con-Agra building is part of a mixed commercial and industrial area. It is the primary
employment center for Crozet and is divided by the Route 240 Corridor and the railroad tracks.
Mixed Use
Mixed use occupies around one percent of the land area of Crozet. The largest mixed use area of
residential and nonresidential use is the Square in Downtown. The Square provides 13,427 square
feet of commercial and residential area. A newer mixed use area is Clover Lawn on Route 250 West
with 33,000 square feet of commercial uses and 29 residential units. Commercial areas in the Old
Trail development provide for approximately 25,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses with
residential units above. Old Trail is approved for up to 250,000 square feet of commercial uses,
192,000 of which may be retail uses, and 2200 potential dwellings. However, Downtown historically
has been and is intended to be Crozet‘s ―district-wide‖ focal point for cultural and commercial
activities. It is the largest and most important center in Crozet
Downtown
In addition to its function as the largest mixed use center in Crozet, Downtown is and is intended
to be the commercial core and to provide many opportunities for employment. The area is
bisected by the railroad tracks and is zoned Downtown Crozet District (DCD) and Heavy Industrial.
North of the railroad tracks, the DCD includes the Great Valu Shopping Center and the Dairy
Queen. An existing stream drainage ditch north of Downtown divides the commercial area from
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
the residential neighborhoods along St. George and Wayland Drive. This stream is protected
because it feeds into Crozet‘s drinking water supply at the Beaver Creek Reservoir and is subject
to the County‘s Water Protection Ordinance.
The Downtown Crozet District zoning was a significant recent zoning change in Crozet. The DCD
was adopted by the County with a Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendment in June 2008.
The DCD establishes zoning regulations unique to Crozet to encourage traditional downtown
development. It provides for flexibility and variety of development for retail, service, and civic uses
with light industrial and residential as secondary uses. The regulations for the DCD are intended
to promote the economic and social vitality and diversity of Downtown Crozet.
Community Facilities and Services
Existing community facilities and services are described here. More information can also be found in the
Chapter 7 of the Master Plan.
Water and Sewer
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is an independent public body, which provides impoundment,
treatment, storage, and transmission of potable water as well as transport and treatment of
wastewater for the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The Authority is the wholesale
agency with the Albemarle County Service Authority as its customer and agency that provides service
to individual retail customers in Albemarle County including Crozet.
The County‘s policy is to provide water and sewer service to properties within the development areas.
As a development area, the community of Crozet is to be provided with water and sewer. Most of the
developed portions of Crozet are currently served with these utilities. The Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) will provide service to all of Crozet as new development occurs.
Raw Water
Currently, the Beaver Creek Reservoir (BCR) serves as the sole raw water source for the Crozet
Development Area. The Beaver Creek D am(BCD) and Reservoir was constructed in 1963 by the
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). The
dam was designed with both a water storage and flood control component on the design of the
sediment storage volume, theoretical sedimentation documentation rates, and anecdotal
evidence, there does not appear to be a current problem with sediment accumulation within the
BCR drainage basin. The 2007 BCR Safe Yield Study indicated that during the drought of record
(2001-2002), the maximum constant demand that could be supplied from BCR is 1.8 million
gallons per day (mgd). Currently, the raw water pump station at BCD houses two pumps at 1.0
mgd each. Although more than one pump can be operated, the firm pumping capacity of the
pump station is 1.0 mgd. Currently a 12‖ main conveys water from the BCD to the Crozet WTP.
The raw water pipeline capacity is approximately 1.3 mgd.
Finished Water
Potable water for the Development Area is currently produced at the Crozet Water Treatment
Plant located on Rt. 240. Currently, the water treatment plant is capable and permitted to treat 1.0
mgd. When demand at the water treatment plant reaches 80% of the permitted capacity, RWSA
and ACSA will begin design of a plant and raw water conveyance expansion. The size of the
expansion will be dependent on the projected demands and uses. Current water demand for the
Crozet area is approximately 0.4 mgd.
Sewer
Wastewater treatment is provided at the Moore‘s Creek Treatment Plant, which conveys sewage
from Crozet via the Crozet interceptor line. Generally, flow passes through a series of gravity
mains. Four pumping stations are located between Crozet and the Ivy Road/Route 250 West
interchange where the flow discharges into the Morey Creek & Moore‘s Creek interceptor, which
lead to the wastewater treatment plant.
Solid Waste Management
The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) is a regional authority established to manage solid waste
disposal originating in the City of Charlottesville and the County. Solid waste collection service to all
County residents and businesses, including Crozet, is provided by private haulers. The RSWA
operates the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (at the old Ivy Landfill), the McIntire Recycling Center in
the Charlottesville, a paper sorting facility (as a result of a public-private partnership), and the Zions
Crossroads transfer and disposal facility (in partnership with Allied Waste). The McIntire Road
Recycling Center in Charlottesville provides primary recycling services to the Crozet Area. There is
also a drop-off center located in the Pantops Shopping Center.
The RSWA is currently developing a new strategic plan for solid waste management. The plan is still
under development as of the writing of this Master Plan.
Schools
There are four public schools located in, or adjacent to, and serve Crozet: Crozet Elementary,
Brownsville Elementary, Henley Middle, and Western Albemarle High School. There are numerous
private schools in Crozet and the surrounding area, including the Field School and the Miller School.
Albemarle County School‘s Long Range Planning Committee is responsible for monitoring residential
development in the area and, either through redistricting or by providing additional facilities, ensuring
that the capital needs of the school children will be met. At present, school facilities and teacher-to-
student ratios are met.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Police
The Albemarle County Office Building on Fifth Street contains the Albemarle County Police
Department (ACPD), although police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy for police services
recommends a response time of five minutes or less 85 percent of the time in the development areas.
On average, ACPD has one officer working the West End (including the Crozet area) per shift. ACPD
allocates shift resources throughout the County based on crime, traffic, and special problem patterns.
A satellite office is located at the Meadows. (A satellite office is used by officers to perform
administrative tasks and keep them in their assigned areas of patrol. It is not a ―manned‖ office.)
ACPD current data reflects that ACDP is not meeting the standard of a five-minute response 85
percent of the time. Instead, ACPD is meeting this standard 65 percent of the time.
Fire Rescue
Albemarle County has a unique emergency services system. Volunteer and career personnel
cooperatively provide fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to the community while partnering
with other local and regional emergency services. Albemarle County maintains a centralized
headquarters to coordinate the provision of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services. Commonly
referred to as ACFR, these staff members handle administrative task s, training, volunteer programs,
fire prevention and life safety programs, and provide career operations staffing to supplement
volunteer staffing. However, in Crozet, fire suppression services, are provided by the all-volunteer
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. This station serves an 184-square mile area of Western
Albemarle County, which includes the Ivy area, Afton Mountain, and areas that extend north of
Whitehall to south of Batesville. Ambulance/rescue service is provided by the Western Albemarle
Rescue Squad, which is also all-volunteer and covers most of the same areas of Western Albemarle
as the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department.
Library
Public library service is provided through the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL) system.
Crozet currently has one branch library of 1,864 square feet. The facility is already inadequate to
serve the community‘s needs based on the County standards and State Standards (Library of
Virginia).
Property has been purchased in Downtown Crozet for a new 20,000 square foot library to serve
Crozet and Western Albemarle. The new library will be built within the heart of Downtown on Crozet
Avenue and is a high priority of the Master Plan. The library will provide an anchor and focal point for
community activity and serve as an economic catalyst in Downtown. Locating the library in Downtown
is expected to result in fewer car trips, more opportunity for community interaction, promotion of
pedestrian safety and access, and additional Downtown parking. As part of the project, the County
will build a portion of the new ―Main Street‖, which was identified in the 2004 Plan. The new space will
also have public meeting rooms and community space. However, due to current funding constraints,
this project has been pushed back several years in the County‘s Capital Improvements Program.
Social Services
Social service programs are provided in Crozet to low-to-moderate income families and also to senior
citizens. Mountainside Senior Living and the Meadows are housing for low-to-moderate income older
adults. Reduced-cost lunch and other programs are provided through the County schools.
Stormwater Management
The County implements a number of programs to protect water resources of the County. These programs
include education, ensuring proper maintenance of stormwater management facilities, enforcing the
prohibition of illicit discharges, responding to citizen inquiries regarding drainage issues, and designing
and building capital projects. The initiatives are especially important in Crozet as it is part of the drinking
water supply watershed.
The Lickinghole basin is a large sediment control facility that helps to protect the watershed by detaining
sediment from new construction before runoff makes its way downstream into the Mechums River and
ultimately the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. In addition to its functional role, this protective environmental
measure is a public amenity.
Existing Transportation Network
US250 West (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) and US240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch‘d Road) are the
primary roads serving the Development Area and are part of the County‘s Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Other major streets and roads are Jarman‘s Gap Road and Old Trail Drive. The table on the next
page provides information on daily vehicle traffic on these main streets and roads based on VDOT‘s 2008
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Volume Estimates.
Route 250 West (Rockfish Gap Turnpike)
This street, referred to by the public as ―Route 250‖ or ―250 West,‖ is a rural section road forming the
southern Development Area boundary except for the portion across from the Clover Lawn
development. Portions of the new commercial area on Route 250 West, east of Crozet Avenue, have
curb and gutter. The remainder of the road is a wide two-lane road with a center turn lane.
Route 250 West is also a state designated Scenic Byway. This program identifies road corridors
containing aesthetic or cultural value near areas of historical, natural or recreational significance. By
designating certain roads as Virginia Byways, the program encourages travel to interesting
destinations and away from high-traffic corridors.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Three Notch’d Road (Route 240)
Three Notch‘d Road extends from the northern part of the V-intersection with Route 250 West (east of
Crozet) to its intersection with Crozet Avenue. It is a rural section road until it reaches the Music
Today/Starr Hill area. From there it is an urban two-lane street with narrow sidewalks on the northern
side into Downtown. At the railroad overpass, it becomes Crozet Avenue.
Crozet Avenue (also Route 240)
Crozet Avenue, which is Route 240, connects the northern part of Crozet with Route 250 West. The
northernmost section has curb or curb/gutter and sidewalks. The central section is undergoing a
streetscape improvement program to widen sidewalks and place utilities underground.
Annual Average Daily Trips on Streets and Roads in Crozet in 2008
Street/Road From To AADT
US 250 I-64 near Yancey Mills Rt. 240/Crozet Ave. 10,000
US 250 Rt. 240/Three Notch‘d Rd. Rt. 240/Crozet Ave. 7,100
US 250 Rt. 240/Three Notch‘d Rd. Dick Woods Road 13,000
Rt. 240/Crozet Ave. US 250/Rockfish Gap Turnpike Rt. 810/Three Notch‘d Rd. 7500
Route 240/Three Notch’d Rt. 810/Crozet Avenue Rt. 802/Old Three Notch‘d Rd 6700
Route 240/Three Notch’d Rt. 802/Old Three Notch‘d US 250/Ivy Rd. 6700
Rt. 810/Crozet Ave. Rt. 240/Three Notch‘d Rt. 811/N. Jones Mill Rd. 2500
Rt. 691/Jarman’s Gap Rt. 611/Greenwood Rd Rt. 1215/Killdeer Lane 1100
Rt. 691/Jarman’s Gap Rt. 1215/Killdeer Lane Rt. 240/Crozet Ave. 2800
Source: VDOT’s 2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Volume Estimates.
Jarman’s Gap Road
Route 684 (Jarman‘s Gap Road) is a substandard design to support proposed development, and is
scheduled for upgrading including widening, alignment improvements, bike lanes, and a sidewalk on
the north side by VDOT. It connects Crozet Avenue with Half Mile Branch Road in western Crozet. It
is a narrow, two-lane rural road, will be improved to an urban road with sidewalk on one side over the
next few years. It is the major street carrying traffic from western Crozet to Downtown. Its
intersection with Crozet Avenue is offset from Tabor Street; however, this offset is not expected to be
corrected and provides for traffic calming near Downtown.
Old Trail Drive (previously referred to as Western Avenue)
Old Trail Drive connects Jarman‘s Gap Road with Route 250 West through the Old Trail development.
It is a two-lane urban street with an asphalt trail on one-side, which functions as a multi-use path.
Sidewalks will be constructed on the other side of Old Trail Drive as development occurs. The multi-
use path will transition to a wide sidewalk in the higher density and commercial center of the Old Trail
development. Street trees will separate the pavement from the sidewalks and path.
Other Accessibility
Accessibility to portions of the Development Area south of Three Notch‘d Road and east of Crozet
Avenue is restricted due to lack of public roads in these areas. In the central portion of the
Development Area, alignment and sight distance pose problems along both Three Notch‘d Road and
Crozet Avenue, especially in the Downtown area.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways exist in some neighborhoods in Crozet such as St. George
Avenue, Three-Notch‘d Road from the former ConAgra building to Downtown, and Downtown along
Crozet Avenue to Field School/Old Crozet School of the Arts. The existing Downtown sidewalk system
is not interconnected and some portions are in need of maintenance. Implementation of the
Downtown streetscape project will address this need and provide additional parking for Downtown
revitalization.
Bicycle facilities are inadequate within the community; however, construction of these facilities is
anticipated with road and new development projects. Greenway development is underway from
Lickinghole basin and Western Ridge to Claudius Crozet Park as well as in the area west of Crozet
Avenue in conjunction with the Old Trail development.
Transit
Jaunt
JAUNT, Inc. is a regional transportation system that was organized in 1975 and provides service
to the citizens of Charlottesville and the nearby Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson,
Buckingham, and Amherst. This public transportation system makes over 270,000 trips each
year, carrying riders to work, doctor‘s appointments, shopping, and leisure activities. JAUNT is
owned by the local governments it serves and uses federal, state, and local funding to supplement
fares and agency payments. JAUNT on-demand transit service is currently available in the
Crozet area.
Chapter 4 Future Land Use
Centers
The Crozet Master Plan Future Land Use Plan is organized around centers—distinctive places in Crozet
that are oriented toward the pedestrian. Pedestrian-oriented place-making involves a combination of focal
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
points and boundaries in which the ideal distance from focal point to boundary is approximately a 1/4 mile
radius (i.e., a five minute walk). The center is the most intensely developed, while the middle and edge
bands around the center become progressively more residential, less mixed use, and less dense.
The primary and most important center in Crozet is the Downtown area. There is one major employment
center in the Crozet Development Area: Music Today (the former Con Agra facility).Other important mixed
use centers include Old Trail/Western Park and the Clover Lawn commercial and residential area.
Schools also serve as important focal points in Crozet. In addition to the centers noted above, Claudius
Crozet Park, Western Park, and the future Eastern Park are also centers.
Economic Development Policy and the Master Plan
The County‘s Economic Development Policy, updated in March 2009, recommends that the County
maintain a strong and sustainable economy. Economic growth and vitality are required to sustain and
enhance the human, economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of any community. An economic
development policy should be based on planning efforts which support and enhance the strengths of the
County. This policy has also been incorporated into recommendations throughout the Master Plan,
including the Future Land Use Plan, which identifies where new economic growth should occur in Crozet.
The Master Plan puts a strong emphasis on maintaining a jobs-housing balance to help Crozet become
less of a ―bedroom community‖ to Charlottesville.
Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use Plan is provided on the following page. This plan shows areas designated for
development, the type of development desired, and what should be preserved as important natural
features in Crozet. A major premise of the Master Plan is the protection of the Rural Areas and Route 250
West surrounding Crozet. The desired future uses are shown in colors on this plan. The non-park centers
are represented by the darkest colors on the map. The most intensively developed area is and will
continue to be Downtown. Lighter colored shades radiate out from the darker colors to illustrate where
lower intensity development is expected.
Land Use Designations (Refer to Crozet Master Plan Land Use Plan on next page)
Greenspace
This designation refers to all existing and proposed public parks, public open space,
environmental features and active park areas. It includes public greenways and park-related
institutional uses. It also contains important environmental features and privately owned park and
recreational areas which may be active or passive. The Parks & Green Systems map and Chapter
5 of the Master Plan further define expectations for the Greenspace shown on the Land Use Plan.
Sensitive environmental features including stream buffers, flood plains, and adjacent slopes are
included in this category. Typically, only passive recreation and greenway trails will occur in the
sensitive environmental areas, while active recreation is planned for other areas.
Institutional
This designation represents areas for civic use such as schools, libraries, parks, recreational
facilities, water treatment facilities, and other similar uses on County or publicly-owned property. It
may also include facilities such as community centers, clubs, lodges, and civic and fraternal
facilities.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Neighborhood Density-Low
This designation represents residential areas where a density of 2 residential units per acre or
less is expected. Housing is expected to be single-family detached. Non-residential neighborhood
uses, such as places of worship, public and private schools, religious institutions, daycare
facilities, parks, and private schools, may also be present in these areas.
Neighborhood Density
This designation represents residential areas with a desired density of 3 – 6 residential units per
acre. It also represents existing residential areas within or below this range. Housing in this area is
primarily single-family detached with some single-family attached/townhouses. Non-residential
uses include institutional uses, such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early
childhood education centers (daycare centers and preschools). Neighborhood-serving
retail/commercial areas and office uses of less than 5,000 square feet may be allowed by
exception only in Neighborhood Density Residential areas located within half a block of Downtown
along Blue Ridge Avenue and east of Firehouse Lane.
Urban Density
This designation represents primarily residential areas with a density of 6 – 12 residential units per
acre. All housing types are found in this category, including single-family detached, townhouses,
and apartments. Urban Density residential areas include places of worship, public and private
schools, and early childhood education centers (daycare centers and preschools). Urban Density
residential areas also accommodate small scale office and commercial uses. Neighborhood-
serving commercial buildings of less than 5,000 square feet and office uses of less than 20,000
square feet per site may be allowed by exception only.
Mixed Use
This designation represents areas with a mixture of residential, commercial, and office uses.
Residential density does not exceed 18 dwelling units per acre, mostly as apartments or
townhouses. This designation is used inside mixed use centers -- such as Old Trail and Clover
Lawn and as transition areas around Downtown. In centers, it includes a balanced mix of retail,
housing, commercial, employment, and office uses along with some institutional uses. The types
of retail and services, as well as dwelling unit types, vary depending upon the nature of the center.
Specific recommendations for the Mixed Use (Transition) areas surrounding Downtown are
provided in the Mixed Use Areas near Downtown section of this chapter starting on Page 24.
Downtown
This designation is applied to the most intensely developed area in Crozet. It is a m ixed use area,
which promotes commercial, employment, and office uses and allows up to 36 residential units
per acre in the form of multifamily/mixed use buildings. Institutional uses, such as libraries and
County offices, as well as limited amounts of office, research, and development (R&D) uses are
present in this area.
Mixed Office/Research & Development (R & D)/Flex and Commercial
This designation, which is a subcategory of Downtown, represents a mixture of
employment, retail, and service uses. Retail and service uses that would occur in
Downtown are expected in this category of use as well as office, research and
development (R&D), and flex uses. Examples of office/R&D uses include research and
development of computer software, information system s, communication systems,
geographic information systems, and multi-media and video technology. Development,
construction, and testing of prototypes may be associated with this use. Such a business
does not involve the mass manufacture, fabrication, processing, or sale of products.
Flex describes businesses that may include several uses such as a manufacturing facility
with warehouse space for components and completed products, a showroom for sale of
the products, and office space where administrative duties for the business take place.
Light industrial uses are secondary. They are expected to have limited impacts on
surrounding uses (e.g., noise, vibrations, odors), although a use may have a greater
traffic impact due to the number of employees.
Residential uses are also secondary uses, up to 36 units per acre in the form of upper
story apartments. Open space and institutional uses constitute additional secondary
uses.
Light Industrial
This designation represents uses that involve manufacturing, predominantly from previously
prepared materials, of products or parts. It may include processing, fabrication, assembly,
treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of these products. It does not
include basic industrial processing. Light Industrial areas provide a place for employment and
commercial uses that need to be segregated from residential uses and other commercial uses
because of their impacts. Primary uses are light manufacturing, storage, and distribution.
Secondary uses include related office and retail activities (particularly wholesale), research and
development (R&D), flex, other commercial uses that are associated with the primary uses in the
area, larger auto commercial service uses, open space, and institutional uses.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
Land Use Plan - Downtown area
Recommendations by Geographic Sector
For this section of the Master Plan, the Community of Crozet has been divided into six geographic sectors
in which future development and redevelopment projects or preservation efforts are focused. The areas
are Downtown, the Route 240 Corridor (Downtown to Music Today), the Music Today (formerly ConAgra)
area, Western Crozet, the Crozet Avenue Corridor, and Eastern Crozet. Each area has unique
characteristics and challenges. This section identifies land use recommendations and priority
implementation strategies for each area.
Downtown Area
The Downtown Area contains five different land use designations and this Master Plan recommends
that the area continue to serve as the focal point for cultural and commercial activities in Crozet. It
designates the existing commercial core of Downtown for infill and redevelopment for commercial and
mixed uses. The Downtown Crozet Zoning District (DCD) has been placed on properties designated
for the Downtown use. This zoning district provides for flexibility and variety of development for retail,
service, office/R&D/flex/light industrial, and civic uses. Within the zoning district, light industrial and
residential uses are secondary uses. New buildings are expected to be two to three stories in height,
although the zoning regulations allow up to four stories by-right and up to six stories by special use
permit. Shared parking that is on-street or in parking lots is expected. Redevelopment of existing
viable structures is encouraged.
Locations for office/R&D/flex/ provide primary employment uses in Downtown and are considered
necessary and are a high priority in addition to
retail, residential, and service uses. Flexibility
exists in where and how these uses are
provided in Downtown. While
office/R&D/flex/light industrial uses could be
provided in one or more different locations in
the Downtown, the location of the current J.
Bruce Barnes Lumber Company has particular
opportunities due to its historic industrial use
and its location adjacent to the rail line. Care
should be taken in redevelopment of Downtown
so that access to the rail line is not precluded.
Some County projects to improve the
Downtown are in process and others are
proposed. A new library site and right-of-way
for a portion of the new ―Main Street‖ have
been secured. Construction will occur when
funding is available. Additional temporary
parking to serve Downtown will be provided on
the library site that will be supplanted by permanent parking after the library is constructed.
Recommendations for Downtown
Direct new commercial and employment growth to Downtown.
Complete Downtown infrastructure projects, which have a major implementation priority:
o Construct the new Western Albemarle/Crozet Library when funding is available.
o Complete Downtown stormwater project in south Downtown and develop it as a
community greenspace amenity.
o Complete Crozet Avenue streetscape improvements.
o Complete construction of the first segment of ―Main Street‖ from Crozet Avenue to High
Street.
o Continue construction of ―Main Street‖ east from Crozet Avenue through public and
private development activities.
o Provide additional public parking in Downtown.
Include a mixture of office, research and development (R&D), flex uses, retail, and service
uses in redevelopment of the lumber yard property. Residential and light industrial uses are
secondary uses for this area.
Reuse viable buildings within the Downtown. Where buildings cannot be preserved, new
construction should reflect the vernacular architecture in Crozet.
Consider recommendations from the Community of Crozet Architectural Resources Study and
Strategies Report for properties located within the potential Crozet Historic District.
Encourage a ―block‖ form of development in undeveloped areas of the Downtown.
Create a Downtown community green.
Include pocket parks in block development and redevelopment.
Continue business development and marketing programs for the Downtown such as:
o Public private partnerships/dialogue.
o Expansion of existing and development of new businesses.
o Community led fairs, festivals, and celebrations.
Continue programs to support the business community, which include the work of the
County‘s Business Development Facilitator in business development and growth.
Consider creating a Downtown redevelopment website.
Develop guidelines for renovating historic structures and for new buildings (scale, materials,
and setbacks).
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Look for new opportunities to promote or take advantage of agritourism, heritage tourism, and
other tourism initiatives in Western Albemarle such as the Artisan Trail, Monticello Wine Trail,
and Brew Ridge Trail.
Create destinations in the Downtown that support tourism initiatives.
Mixed Use Areas Near Downtown
The area west of Carter Street is designated Mixed Use. This area provides a transition between
Downtown and existing residential neighborhoods near Downtown. The role of this mixed use area is
to support Downtown and provide opportunities for less intensive commercial and residential uses.
Redevelopment of existing viable structures is encouraged.
Recommendations for Mixed Use Areas Near Downtown
Uses in this category include low-impact neighborhood-scale uses like office with limited
service and retail uses that would not have adverse impacts to adjoining neighbors, e.g., 24-
hour convenience store commercial, office, townhouses and multifamily buildings, and mixed
use buildings with residential on upper floors.
Residential density in these areas should not exceed Neighborhood Density.
Smaller scale commercial and office activities should be directed to these areas. Total square
footage per building for commercial uses should not exceed 5,000 square feet, and office
uses should not exceed 10,000 square feet total building square footage per site.
A mix of uses is encouraged in these areas that results in about 50 percent residential uses
and 50 percent non-residential uses by each block area.
Reuse of existing viable structures for commercial and service activities should be
encouraged. Recommendations of the ―Community of Crozet Architectural Resources Study
and Strategies Report‖ should be considered for properties located within the potential Crozet
Historic District.
Uses should generate significantly less traffic than uses allowed in Downtown.
New buildings should be compatible in scale and massing with surrounding residential
structures. There should be consistent building heights and setbacks. Features of existing
streetscapes should be retained or incorporated into new development projects.
Generally, buildings should not be taller than three (3) stories; they may be taller by exception.
Signage and lighting should be unobtrusive to surrounding residences.
Hours of operation should be compatible with surrounding residences.
Small parking areas (less than 5 spaces) and shared parking and access is encouraged.
Parking areas must be landscaped and screened.
Allowance for limited stream buffer reductions on already developed properties where no
buffer exists can be made. (See hatching on Land Use Plan). These reductions shall be
limited and only in exchange for reclamation/additional plantings or other measures to
mitigate runoff and improve watershed protection.
Residential Properties North of Downtown
The residential area north of Downtown is separated from the Downtown Crozet Zoning District by a
stream and associated stream buffer. Closest to Downtown, redevelopment of existing residential
uses may occur at higher densities than in neighborhoods further away from the Downtown. All
residential areas north of Downtown are shown for Neighborhood Density Residential development.
The hatched pattern over the Neighborhood Density designation indicates the presence of a stream
and its associated stream buffer. (See Future Land Use Plan.) Over time, the stream closest to Three
Notch‘d Road and west of Crozet Avenue north of Downtown has been impacted by development
such that a true stream no longer exists. In places the stream is piped; in other places, the streambed
is just a swale. The County‘s requirement for a 100-foot stream buffer limits some use of this area. To
allow for reuse and redevelopment in the area where a true stream does not exist, consideration
should be given to a reduction in the stream buffer. However, should be mitigated with additional
plantings onsite which will help improve water quality as runoff occurs and help protect the Beaver
Creek Reservoir.
Route 240 Corridor (Downtown to Music Today)
The corridor between Downtown (Firehouse Lane) and Music Today is currently a residential area with
small houses on deep lots. Its location provides an area for future redevelopment and opportunities for
uses that support both the Downtown and the employment uses to the east. In the near term,
redevelopment and new development are encouraged within the existing Downtown before expansion
into this adjacent area.
Land Use Plan - Route 240 Corridor (Downtown to Music Today) Area
Route 240
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
As with the Neighborhood Density area north of Downtown, there is a stream and associated buffer across
many of the lots in this corridor shown as green on the above Land Use Plan. In some places the buffer is
wooded and should continue to be protected. A portion of the property previously designated
Neighborhood Density Residential is recommended for removal from the Development Area. An
alternative development concept for the property is to permit the total number of units allowed under the
current RA zoning to be clustered in a more dense form and served by utilities (water and sewer) if the
remainder of the property is left in greenspace. The purpose of this adjustment is to reduce the amount of
new development in the Beaver Creek watershed.
While not reflected by land use designations at this time, this area is anticipated to transition to Mixed Use
in the future. It should be studied with the next update of the Master Plan to see if it is ready for a Mixed
Use designation. If an opportunity for redevelopment occurs before the 5-year update, Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (CPA) requests could be considered in advance of the update. When it is time for
redevelopment of this area, consideration should be given to reducing the stream buffer closest to Three
Notch‘d Road, where a wooded buffer currently does not exist. Any reductions should be mitigated with
additional plantings.
Recommendations for Route 240 Corridor (Downtown to Music Today):
Retain existing residential uses until the area is ripe for redevelopment.
When ready for redevelopment, designate the properties adjacent to Firehouse Lane and
along the Three Notch‘d Road Corridor for mixed use or other designations which will provide
effective transition from the Downtown to the employment center.
Redevelopment of this area should provide for stream and water supply protection. Existing
wooded stream buffers and vegetation should remain undisturbed.
Allow for limited stream buffer reductions on already developed properties where no buffer
exists. (Refer to Land Use Plan). These reductions shall be limited and only in exchange for
reclamation/additional plantings or other measures to mitigate runoff and improve watershed
protection.
Music Today (formerly Con Agra) Area
This area represents the primary employment center for Crozet and a small residential area north of
Three Notch‘d Road. Over the past five years, existing manufacturing buildings have undergone some
renovation in support of the microbrewery and music merchandising center.
It is anticipated that the buildings will continue to be used by a combination of employers. Light
industrial uses and other employment generators are expected with new development. Existing and
new retail, office, and service uses are expected to serve this employment center.
Residential uses are suggested adjoining this employment area on several sides. In the northeast
corner of Parkview Lane and Three Notch‘d Road, the Master Plan designates residential uses on
currently undeveloped land in support of the employment center, and a residential development is
approved along Parkview Lane.
Recommendations for Music Today (formerly Con Agra) Area:
Support existing industries to retain existing employers.
Attract new employers to the undeveloped areas.
Support residential developments that create a live/work neighborhood. Encourage only
office, retail, and services that directly support industry in this area.
Land Use Plan - Music Today (formerly Con Agra) Area
Replace Map
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Land Use Plan - Western area of Crozet
Land Use Plan - Crozet Avenue Corridor
Western Crozet
This sector of Crozet is located west of
Crozet Avenue and north of Route 250
West. It includes the existing
neighborhoods of Jarmans Gap
Estates, Orchard Acres, Gray Rock,
Waylands Grant, Bargamin Park,
Haden/Killdeer, and Old Trail. A mixed
use development center in Old Trail
under development will include retail
uses and offices. Other focal points in
this part of Crozet include Western Park
and the school complex located on the
southern boundary of the Development
Area (Route 250 West).
The emphasis for this part of Crozet is
on preservation of existing
neighborhoods, preservation of Route
250 West, development of Western
Park, and transportation improvements.
Development of Western Park will
occur as funds are available.
Transportation improvements include
widening Jarman‘s Gap Road, including
sidewalks on one side. The street that
will connect the Old Trail development
to the school complex should be built
to help provide other options for cars and school busses. Greenway paths are needed to provide easy
access to natural areas and to Downtown. No commercial use is recommended on Route 250 West in
order to retain Route 250 West as a Scenic Byway. Additional commercial uses will add traffic to this
road, which would damage the rural character of Route 250 West.
Recommendations for Western Crozet:
Start and complete improvements to Jarman‘s Gap Road. No additional developments in this
area of Crozet should be approved by rezoning or special use permit until the Jarman‘s Gap
Road improvement project is completed.
New residential development adjacent to existing neighborhoods should be compatible with
housing types and have comparable densities.
Build greenway paths to provide pedestrian and bike linkages from the Western area to
Downtown and the schools. Construction of these paths is a high priority, and portions can be
constructed by volunteers.
Limit new development on Route 250 West.
Protect Route 250 West as a Scenic Byway.
Build Western Park improvements according to the park Master Plan and look for ways to
complete the park with public/private collaboration.
In addition to building the street from Old Trail Drive to the school complex, find methods to
improve traffic flow to the school complex from Route 250 West.
Limit other improvements on Jarman‘s Gap Road to Half Mile Branch Road to site distance
and safety improvements. Encourage use of Western Avenue for access from Jarman‘s Gap
Road to Route 250 West.
Explore opportunities to connect greenway trails for pedestrian
and bike linkages to Mint Springs.
Crozet Avenue Corridor
Crozet Avenue is a winding rural scenic road providing access from the
interstate to Downtown Crozet. It includes properties from Dunvegan Lane
south of Downtown to the intersection with Route 250 West. A wide
vegetated buffer on a majority of the corridor is present on both sides of
the street. It includes land preserved in conservation easements, the
cemetery, streams and floodplains. The land use goals for this corridor
are to maintain the rural character of this entry into Downtown Crozet.
Because of safety concerns and limitations on widening Crozet Avenue,
Neighborhood Density development is shown outside of the buffer area.
Neighborhood Density is also shown south of Downtown. A key
recommendation for this corridor is to provide a multipurpose path along
the western side of the road within the existing road right-of-way, to the
greatest extent possible.
Existing zoning along the corridor is not totally consistent with the Land
Use Plan for this area. The Land Use Plan recommends that wide swaths
of rural land continue to exist as Greenspace. However, some properties
in the corridor are zoned R1 and R2 Residential which allows one and two
dwellings per acre, respectively. There is also existing Highway
Crozet
Avenue
Route 250
Crozet
Avenue
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Land Use Plan – Eastern Crozet
Commercial zoning at the northeast corner of Crozet Avenue and Route 250 West. Because of this
zoning and because a redevelopment plan is approved at this location, the Land Use Plan shows the
corner as available for com mercial development. However, no further commercial development is
recommended at this intersection.
Recommendations for the Crozet Avenue Corridor:
Preserve environmental features and the rural scenic qualities of the corridor.
Encourage conservation easements on properties designated as Greenspace, if they meet
the qualifications for conservation easements.
To the greatest extent possible, provide a multipurpose path along the western side of the
road or where feasible, within the existing road right-of-way.
A trailhead park is recommended at a central location along the Crozet Avenue corridor.
Further development along this corridor is discouraged. No additional development above
what can occur under existing ―by-right‖ zoning should be approved unless environmental
protection and transportation safety priorities are addressed.
Eastern Crozet
Eastern Crozet is the area east of Crozet Avenue and includes the neighborhoods of Hilltop/Myrtle,
Parkside Village, Westhall, Western Ridge, Wickham Pond, The Highlands, Clover Lawn, Cory
Farms, and the future developments Liberty Hall and Foothill Crossing. There are also undeveloped
properties in this portion of Crozet. The future Eastern Avenue is intended to provide key linkages
between neighborhoods and centers.
The Lickinghole Creek sedimentation
basin not only provides water quality
protection, but also offers future
passive recreational opportunities.
Existing focal points within this area
include Crozet Park, the Clover
Lawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center,
and the future Eastern Park.
Development for the area east of
Crozet Avenue should focus on
greenway development, key
pedestrian/bike linkages, the
construction of public amenities such
as schools and parks, and creation of
roads and bridges.
Specific recommendations and tasks for Eastern Crozet include the following:
Construct Eastern Avenue, ―Main Street‖, and primary neighborhood streets within the two or
three major properties available for new development.
Construct a crossing of the CSX tracks between the Acme and Con Agra buildings (below or
above-grade options).
Construct Lickinghole bridge on a timeline appropriate to demand.
Establish a multipurpose path in the right-of-way that has been reserved for the future Eastern
Avenue to provide bike and pedestrian connectivity.
Aside from construction traffic, truck traffic should not be allowed on Eastern Avenue.
Establish a greenway trail (for pedestrians and bikes) from Lickinghole Creek basin to Crozet
Park and Downtown.
If needed, construct a new neighborhood elementary school on a timeline appropriate to
demand in the general location shown on the Plan.
Explore and develop potential access points to Lickinghole Creek basin.
Establish Eastern Park with public/private collaboration.
Fringe Areas and the Route 250 West Corridor
Crozet has notable agricultural history and was once known as the Peach Capital of the state. Today,
the Development Area, which includes areas historically farmed, is designated for future growth, but
orchards and other agricultural activities continue in the surrounding Rural Area. During the
development of this Master Plan update, a review took place of the fringe areas to determine whether
any conditions had changed since adoption of the prior Master Plan. Specifically, the eastern quadrant
of the I-64 and Route 250 West interchange was studied to consider whether the boundary of the
Crozet Development Area should be expanded to allow for a business and industrial park. After study,
as well as input from residents, it was determined that an expansion of the Development Area is not
warranted at this time and that all new buildings for office, retail, and industrial uses should be located
within the existing Community of Crozet. This Master Plan update recommends that the Rural Areas
outside of the Community of Crozet remain rural, including the stretch of Route 250 West between the
Development Area boundary and the interstate interchange.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
The edges of the Crozet Development Area are surrounded with important Rural Area and scenic
resources, including Route 250 West a designated Byway, and properties under easement or used for
agricultural activities. In keeping with the County‘s policies to have commercial and industrial
development occur only within the designated development areas, additional commercial or industrial
development of the fringe areas is not recommended.
The fringe areas of Crozet are designated as Rural Areas in the County Land Use Plan and changes
to County policy to allow for further commercial and industrial development are not supported by this
plan. Commercial and industrial development in these areas are discouraged for several reasons,
most importantly water supply watershed protection. Commercial and industrial users can be large
water users and potentially impact groundwater supplies. Similarly, they can require larger septic
systems, which are not appropriate in the County‘s Rural Area. Commercial and industrial uses bring
traffic to the Route 250 West corridor. In addition, commercial uses draw users away from Downtown
and can negatively affect efforts to revitalize Downtown. Additional recommendations for the land use
in these areas are found in the Rural Areas Plan.
While the policy goals are to protect the Route 250 West corridor and Rural Area from further
development, the existing zoning in these areas permits commercial and other uses ―by-right.‖ By-
right uses do not require approval by the Board of Supervisors. By-right uses are approved
administratively by the staff because the zoning ordinance allows them. Special uses, on the other
hand, require Board of Supervisors‘ approval because they represent a potentially more intensive
development that can have negative impacts on an area. When requested for approval, the only
special uses that should be approved are those that have minimal impacts on the Rural Areas,
environmental resources, and transportation systems; improve the form of development in the fringe
area; or better achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan than uses which are allowed by right.
In addition to transportation and potential environmental impacts, preservation of the rural scenic
character of Route 250 West is important to retain its status as a Virginia Byway. Preservation of the
rural scenic character of this area is important because it contributes to the quality and physical
character of the Crozet community. Byways are also important tourist routes, drawing visitors to
destinations and stimulating the local economy. For these reasons, inside the Development Area,
most properties along the corridor are shown as Greenspace or with a vegetated buffer.
As previously mentioned Route 250 West is an Entrance Corridor. Throughout the County, Entrance
Corridor design guidelines are not corridor-specific and more work is needed to develop corridor-
specific guidelines. Corridor-specific guidelines will help the County achieve unity and coherence,
while recognizing the uniqueness of Crozet.
Specific Recommendations for Route 250 West:
Do not approve any rezoning for new development along the Route 250 West Corridor.
Preserve the rural scenic character of Route 250 West.
Develop corridor-specific design guidelines for Route 250 West in and near Crozet.
Where special use permits or waivers to requirements are allowed, only approve uses
which have the least impact on the Rural Areas, environmental resources, and
transportation systems.
Northern Boundary of Crozet
Development Area
The 2010 Master Plan reflects the removal
of a portion of a property located to the
north of the Route 240 corridor, which was
added to the Development Area in 2004
(see hatched pattern on map to the right).
The goal for the remainder of the property,
which is shown as Neighborhood Density, is
to permit the total number of units allowed
under the current RA zoning to be clustered
and served by public utilities (water and
sewer). The purpose of this adjustment is
to reduce the amount of new development
in the Beaver Creek watershed.
Historic Districts
The Community of Crozet Architectural Resources Study and Strategies Report made recommendations
for designation of a historic district within Crozet. Other initiatives are underway to establish a rural historic
district west of Crozet in the Greenwood, Afton, and Yancey Mills area. To preserve the historic fabric of
the Crozet Development Area, the Master Plan recommends that community residents begin the process
of applying for historic landmark status for Downtown by listing it with the National Register for Historic
Places. Though mostly honorary in nature, the status of listing in the National Register encourages and
requires local, state and federal government staff to consider the historic nature of Crozet‘s historic
resources when weighing options for publicly-funded improvements. Listing on the National Register
allows for economic incentives for preservation in the form of significant state and federal tax credits. The
Master Plan recommends:
Support a community-led National Register nomination for Downtown Crozet and the potential
Greenwood-Afton Historic District.
Remainder of
Property
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
Encourage protection of buildings and sites that are contributing structures to potential and listed
National Register Historic Districts.
Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Architectural Resources Strategies Report for
projects in the report study area.
Relationship Between the Land Use Plan and Zoning
The Future Land Use Plan shows the community‘s desired future uses by location. As mentioned
previously, the Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Plan are not identical. In some cases, the existing
zoning represents a lower density or different use than the Future Land Use Plan recommends. This is
deliberate. If a property owner wishes to have a more compact development, greater density, or a more
intense use than the current zoning allows, the owner is expected to mitigate the impacts of the
development in return for the greater density or intensity. Generally during a rezoning, the owner makes a
commitment to mitigate impacts of the development using proffers.
There are times that owners desire to develop their property as it is currently zoned rather than asking for
a rezoning. Most of these instances involve property shown for Greenspace that has underlying low-
density residential zoning. In one instance, land shown as Downtown on the Future Land Use Plan is
zoned industrially. While it is hoped that the future land use will be in accordance with the Master Plan,
the future land use use may not be the same as what is shown on the Future Land Use Plan.
Chapter 5 Future Transportation
The Future Land Use Plan identifies the desired land use designations. The land uses desired for Crozet
depend, in large part, on the success of the transportation system, which is described in this chapter.
Recommended transportation improvements are shown on the Transportation Plan on the following page
and also described in this chapter. Strategies for implementation and details regarding transportation
priorities can be found in Chapter 8-Implementation. This chapter divides the transportation network into
three sections: vehicular, transit, and pedestrian/bicycle.
Vehicular Travel
Vehicular travel is and will likely continue to be the major mode of transportation in Crozet. The 2004
Crozet Master Plan included a detailed traffic study which was not updated with this Master Plan. The
traffic modeling and the assumptions from the 2004 plan are still valid and no new road recommendations
are part of the 2010 update. Detailed information regarding the traffic study that was part of the 2004
Master Plan is contained in the Appendix of the 2004 Master Plan.
The increased employment opportunities recommended in an earlier chapter of this Master Plan and the
added roadway network of the Master Plan can combine to minimize congestion in and around the Crozet
Development Area. With these two changes, moderate congestion levels are anticipated only on Route
240, east of Downtown Crozet and on Route 250 West, east of the Development Area. If development
occurs under current zoning and no additional roadway improvements are made in the area except for
Eastern Avenue, significant congestion is expected on Route 240, Route 250 West, and on Crozet
Avenue.
In order to support the vision for Crozet, transportation should:
Better integrate new and existing residential areas located east of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue).
Improve connections to Downtown from new and existing neighborhoods east of Crozet Avenue.
Better distribute traffic to all roads, thereby reducing the ultimate design of any one road;
Provide an alternative route to relieve traffic on Route 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch‘d
Road), particularly to Downtown.
Provide better access, particularly emergency access, to those residents living east and south of
Route 240 (Crozet Avenue).
Emphasize improvements to roads that provide for pedestrian and bike facilities.
As indicated in Chapter 3, the existing major streets in Crozet are Route 250 West (Rockfish Gap
Turnpike), Crozet Avenue (US 240), Three Notch‘d Road (also US 240), Jarman‘s Gap Road, and Old
Trail Drive. The location of these streets is shown on the Transportation Plan. The Transportation Plan
also shows two new major streets. One of the streets is a ―Main Street‖ for Crozet, which is expected to
help provide access to Downtown from the eastern part of Crozet and which does not require a railroad
crossing. The other new major street is ―Eastern Avenue‖, which will connect Three Notch‘d Road to
Route 250 West.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
Route 250 West (Rockfish Gap Turnpike)
The existing traffic volume of Route 250 West is around 13,000 vehicles trips per day (VPD) in the
most heavily traveled road segment of the road way between Crozet and Ivy. Because of its scenic
and historic character and its location primarily in the Rural Areas, the County‘s policy is to maintain
the existing cross-section of the roadway from the US 29 Bypass at Bellaire to the I-64 interchange at
Yancey Mills. The County opposes recommendations in the Virginia Department of Transportation‘s
(VDOT) Route 250 West Corridor Study, which included recommendations for widening Route 250
West. Route 250 West is expected to retain its state designation as a Scenic Byway and to continue
as a rural road section. Except where turn lanes/passing lanes are provided, it will have two travel
lanes and a walking or bike path on the northern side for portions of Route 250 West that run parallel
to the Crozet Development Area boundaries. No medians are planned.
Typical Section for a Rural Road
To maximize capacity and retain its rural appearance, the County must limit the amount of
development on properties adjacent to Route 250 West from I-64 to US 240 as shown on the Land
Use Plan. This strategy will keep the number of entrances to a minimum and reduce pressure for
traffic signals (and slowdowns) beyond those which exist at Crozet Avenue, Three Notch‘d Road, and
Old Trail Drive.
Recommendations for Route 250 West:
Limit widening of Route 250 West and maintain it as a rural road.
Provide a walking/biking path on the north side of Route 250 West within the Crozet
Development Area.
Future signalization is recommended for the intersection of Route 250 West with ―Eastern
Avenue‖.
Crozet Avenue (US 240/Route 810)
Crozet Avenue, which is US 240, is a two-lane street that connects the northern part of Crozet with
Route 250 West. North of Downtown, Route 810 is also named Crozet Avenue. It is an urban section
street with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on two of its three sections. Where designated on the
Transportation Plan, it is expected to have an improved streetscape with wider sidewalks and street
trees. Although it is narrow and winding, the rural section between Dunvegan Lane and Route 250
West is not recommended for widening. A m ulti-use path is recommended for this street on one side
where right-of-way is available or can be obtained.
Recommendations for Crozet Avenue:
A two-lane urban street section is recommended for portions of Route 240 in Downtown and
Route 810 north of Downtown.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
sidewalk, curb curb
bike lane travel lanes bike lane
A two-lane rural street section is recommended for portions of Route 240 south of Dunvegan
Lane with a multipurpose path on one side.
Three Notch’d Road (also US 240)
Three Notch‘d Road is a two-lane road that extends from the V-intersection with Route 250 West, east of
Crozet, to its intersection with Crozet Avenue at the four-way stop sign in Downtown. In places it is and will
continue to be an urban section road as illustrated below. An urban section with curb, gutter, sidewalks,
and street trees is expected with redevelopment between Park Ridge Drive and Downtown inside the
Development Area. Turn lanes are not expected on this street.
Typical Section for an Urban Street
On the north side of Three Notch‘d Road, an urban section is expected from the Development Area
boundary to Downtown. Where indicated on the plan, the street is recommended to continue as a rural
section Road. A multi-use path is recommended on both sides of the street in the Development Area to
Park View Lane.
Recommendations for Three Notch‘d Road:
A rural section is recommended for the portions of Three Notch‘d Road in the Development
Area from the eastern boundary to Parkview Drive across from Acme.
The segment of Three Notch‘d Road from Parkview Drive to its intersection with Crozet
Avenue should be an urban street.
Jarman’s Gap Road
Jarman‘s Gap Road connects Crozet Avenue with Half
Mile Branch Road. It has both urban and rural
sections. There is a VDOT project underway that will
make upgrades to the existing road. From Half Mile
Branch to Jarman‘s Lane, it is expected to be a two-
lane rural section with shoulder widening to five- feet.
From Old Trail Drive to Crozet Avenue, it will be an
urban section with two travel lanes and some turn
lanes, including shared bicycle lanes, curb and gutter
and a five - foot sidewalk on the north side.
Recommendations for Jarman‘s Gap Road:
Ensure that the Jarman‘s Gap Road project remains a high priority road project for completion
in Crozet.
Old Trail Drive
Old Trail Drive connects Jarman‘s Gap Road with Route 250 West. It has been constructed as a two-
lane urban section street with an asphalt trail on one side where sidewalks have yet to be constructed.
The expected improvements to Old Trail are sidewalks with street trees on both sides of the street.
Sidewalks will be wider in the higher density area and commercial center of the Old Trail development.
Recommendations for Old Trail Drive:
Require completion of Old Trail Drive to an urban section street with street trees and
sidewalks.
“Main Street”
―Main Street‖ is a new two-lane urban avenue expected in Crozet. It will connect Park Ridge Road with
Crozet Avenue. (See Avenue illustration below.) In some portions of the road, where right-of-way or
other constraints limit the ability to achieve a typical Avenue section, the road may transition from an
avenue to a street section. Construction phasing should begin from the west (Crozet Avenue)
eastward. A portion of the street will be constructed with the new library project. This will ensure
critical linkages between Downtown and new development to the south and east.
Recommendations for ―Main Street‖:
Plan and initiate the first stages of a new ―Main Street‖ parallel to and south of the CSX tracks
running from Crozet Avenue eastward.
Require construction of ―Main Street‖ with redevelopment of the J. Bruce Barnes Lumber
Company parcels.
“Eastern Avenue”
―Eastern Avenue‖ is also a new street expected in Crozet. ―Eastern Avenue‖ will extend from Three
Notch‘d Road to Route 250 West through the existing Cory Farm development and will involve a
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
bridge over Lickinghole Creek, a bridge or underpass to cross the CSX tracks to the north, and
numerous connections to neighborhood streets. ―Eastern Avenue‖ has been recommended in County
plans for over 30 years, and right-of-way for this street has been dedicated or reserved in some
places. It is expected to be built by developers during construction of their projects, except for the
bridge over Lickinghole Creek. Aside from construction, truck traffic should not be allowed on this
road which will function as an avenue. Construction phasing is prioritized to begin at the northern end
of the project, connecting to the new ―Main Street‖.
Typical Section for an Avenue
Recommendations for ―Eastern Avenue‖:
Plan and initiate the first stages of a new ―Eastern Avenue‖.
Truck traffic should not be permitted on ―Eastern Avenue‖.
Other streets
New Streets
There are several areas on the Transportation Plan where a proposed gridded neighborhood street
pattern is shown for future new streets in Crozet. This pattern is intended to emphasize the
expectation that interconnections will be a part of future neighborhood block and street design. New
streets should have two lanes and be built with the features of an urban street.
Existing Streets
There are many existing streets in Crozet that are not specifically addressed with recommendations
on the Transportation Plan. Future improvements to existing streets in Crozet connecting to
Downtown should provide features of a two-lane urban street, such as Carter Street and Blue Ridge
Avenue. Streets that are located on the edge of the Development Area, such as Lanetown Road, or
Parkview Drive, may continue as rural section roadways.
Potential Connections
―Potential Connections‖ is an additional category shown on the Transportation Plan. This category
depicts possible locations for a future pedestrian, bicycle, and possibly vehicular connections. Where
shown on the Transportation Plan, this term does not indicate a desired public street connection.
Instead, the Plan shows connections between public streets which should be made to support the
existing and proposed uses for that area. Connections might be a walking path, bike path, or drive.
Because they are not proposed as a public street connection or public greenway trail, construction is
expected to be provided by developers when property is developed or redeveloped.
Transit/Rideshare
As indicated earlier in this Master Plan, the only transit system operating in Crozet is JAUNT, which
provides transportation to area elderly and disabled residents who request and qualify for this service.
Future transit opportunities include light rail and Bus Rapid Transit.
Light rail is often considered the preferable form of transit for commuters. Funding and sufficient density of
ridership make it impractical for Crozet in the planning horizon of this Master Plan. Such a system could
be part of a larger system that begins west of the Blue Ridge and ends in eastern Charlottesville. It is not
recommended with this plan because of the cost. While it is possible to reduce construction costs by
using the freight rail tracks from Crozet to Charlottesville, it has proven extremely difficult to reach
agreements with private railroad companies for the use of their tracks because of safety and other
concerns. Furthermore, operating costs, borne mostly by state and local government, are high in relation
to the anticipated ridership. Ridership would have to be a minimum of 10,000 riders per day in order for
this type of system to be economically feasible.
The other potential transit service is Bus Rapid Transit. Travel via Interstate 64 appears to be the most
economically viable service given the ridership potential. The route could begin in Downtown Crozet and
provide service to the University of Virginia, Downtown Charlottesville and other strategic bus transfer
locations including strategic park-and-ride locations along the way. With the rising cost of gasoline and
increasing travel demands, this service should be considered by the County. It is recognized as a longer-
term goal for Crozet.
In the shorter term, ridesharing would be the most cost-effective means of reducing vehicle trips on Route
250 West to Charlottesville. Ridesharing usually takes place from a park -and-ride parking lot. There is a
10-space park-and-ride lot located at Mountainside Senior Living in Downtown Crozet. Constructing
additional park-and-ride facilities to serve the community and surrounding areas would enhance the
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
opportunities for ridesharing.
Recommendations for Transit and Rideshare::
Maintain and upgrade the existing Downtown park-and-ride lot.
Establish a park and-ride lot on Route 250 West, preferably near the I-64 interchange.
Establish a park-and-ride lot on Three Notch‘d Road in or near the old Con-Agra/Music Today
site.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Transportation
The centers designated on the Land Use Plan are destinations for many residents. Both walking and
bicycling are modes of transportation that are supported by the Master Plan. This Master Plan
incorporates recommendations for Crozet included in the Jefferson Area Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Plan. This publication provides recommendations for a coordinated and safe multimodal
system to serve citizens and visitors in the region with access to most common destinations, services
within communities, and links between towns, villages, and the Charlottesville urban area.
All new urban streets in Crozet will have curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street trees. ―Eastern
Avenue‖ and Jarman‘s Gap Road are expected to have designated bike lanes. For existing
neighborhoods, which have rural section roads, paths are needed to connect neighborhoods to Downtown
and to each other. Planned bikeway/walkways are shown on the Parks and Green Systems Map and are
described in that chapter. Pedestrian and bike linkages to Downtown are especially important, and the
Master Plan makes recommendations for specific improvements to enhance mobility.
Recommendations for Pedestrian/Bicycle Transportation:
Create pedestrian connections and bike lanes to and within Downtown.
Create pedestrian connections and bike lanes to schools.
Provide bike lanes or bike facilities/multipurpose paths on the following roads to provide key
linkages in Crozet:
o ―Eastern Avenue‖
o Jarman‘s Gap Road
o ―Main Street‖
o Crozet Avenue
o Route 810
o Route 684/Mint Springs Road
o Three Notch‘d Road
Explore alternatives to the current underpass at Crozet Avenue. (long-term)
Create a pedestrian railroad crossing in the Downtown core (below or above grade). (long-
term)
Chapter 6-Parks & Green Systems Plan
Retaining green systems and building new parks and greenways are essential to the quality of life
expected for Crozet. Green systems refer to undeveloped land or open space with important
environmental features such as lakes, streams, floodplains, and adjacent slopes, and active and passive
recreational areas. Green system areas are shown on the Land Use Plan as Greenspace. On the Parks
and Green Systems map, they are identified by type of open space.
Residents expect the green systems to provide for key linkages, such as a greenway from Lickinghole
basin to Crozet Park, neighborhoods to Downtown and neighborhoods to schools. These systems also
help residents enjoy the natural features of the area. However, the strategy in the Master Plan is to
preserve and nourish a system integral to the community rather than account for minimum standards for
parks and associated facilities. The existing and proposed open space system can mitigate stormwater
runoff, nourish the plant and animal communities of Crozet, create new pedestrian and bike routes, and
attract tourism.
For Parks and Green Systems, the goals of the community are to:
Protect sensitive natural systems (centered on the Lickinghole Creek drainage system).
Reserve public areas of topographic, historic, or cultural interest that contribute to the character of
Crozet.
Create areas for structured and unstructured
recreation.
Link neighborhoods to Downtown, schools, parks,
squares, greens, and the larger region.
Protect and preserve Crozet‘s exceptional mountain
views from light pollution.
Link rural area trails to Downtown destinations.
Protect areas shown, as well as identify the location of
existing/new parks and greenways on the Parks &
Green Systems Plan.
The Parks and Green Systems Plan is shown on the following
page. The categories are described as follows.
Environmental Features
Due to the rolling terrain and dendritic stream patterns of
Crozet, a large portion of the Development Area is floodplain
Lickinghole Sedimentation Basin
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
with steep slopes proposed to be preserved or used as potential greenways. Areas intended for
environmental preservation are shown as Environmental Features on the Parks and Green Systems Plan.
Existing County regulations provide many protections for these critical environmental features. The Water
Protection Ordinance requires a 100-foot stream buffer on all streams in Crozet. Steep slopes and
wetlands are adjacent to many of those streams. Little disturbance is allowed where an overlap of a
stream buffer and steep slopes exists. Disturbance of steep slopes (slopes in excess of 25%) requires
consideration by the County prior to approval. Slopes designated for preservation on County plans are
given the most protection.
While the Water Protection Ordinance is intended to protect streams feeding into the water supply, it is
sometimes applied to swales or where there is no daylighted stream. A daylighted stream is one that is
exposed, not piped. Sometimes, stream buffer protection requirements on swales or non-daylighted
streams conflict with recommendations for redevelopment in Crozet. Such is the case in an area north of
Downtown and another area east of Downtown between the Fire Station and the old Con Agra/Music
Today area. These areas are identified on the Future Land Use Plan with the hatched patterns shown
below:
Land Use Plan Land Use Plan
Stream Buffer North of Downtown Stream Buffer Between Fire Station and Music Today Area
In order to allow for redevelopment of properties in these areas affected by the stream buffer requirement,
modifications to the stream buffer requirements are proposed. These modifications would allow
encroachment in the buffer with mitigation/additional plantings. The modifications should only be allowed
in these areas where there is no existing vegetated buffer.
Slopes and stream buffers are not the only features protected by existing regulations. Disturbance of
wetlands requires permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Floodplain regulations in the County
zoning ordinance also help protect these important environmental resources.
Tree preservation and planting is also important in Crozet. Trees help protect streams as well as mitigate
air and water pollution, reduce glare, reduce energy costs, absorb noise, create microclimates, increase
property values, create character, and help attract new businesses. It is recognized that an urban forestry
plan is a long term goal and that it might be developed in the context of an urban forestry plan for the
County‘s development areas.
Open Space
Privately Owned Open Space
Some environmental features in Crozet are already preserved in properties owned by homeowner
associations and civic groups. Land, which is not shown with the environmental features and is
owned privately by an organization is designated on the Parks and Green Systems Plan as Privately
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
Owned Open Space. This designation includes Crozet Park and properties, which are in conservation
easements.
Other Open Space
Other Open Space is shown on the Parks and Green Systems Plan in the lightest color of green. The
designation represents properties that are to be preserved in the future that are not part of
environmental systems. These properties meet other goals of the Master Plan as further described
on the following page.
Recommendations for Other Open Space
Vegetated buffers along Crozet Avenue south of Downtown are intended to help retain a rural
appearance along these corridors.
Property east of Park Ridge Drive (Tax Map 56 Parcel 91A) is intended to remain rural and
undeveloped to help break up the appearance of continuous development along Three
Notch‘d Road.
Properties east of Eastern Avenue and north of Lickinghole Creek have a system of slopes
that fall off towards Lickinghole Creek. This area is intended to provide for private open space
for new development on Tax Map 56 Parcels 95A.
Properties along Route 250 West that are west of Crozet Avenue and east of the School
complex are intended to retain their rural character and agricultural activities and reinforce the
goal for no new commercial activities in this corridor.
Community Facilities
Existing and proposed schools, libraries, fire stations, rescue squad stations, and future civic spaces are
shown on the Parks and Green Systems Plan. Future civic spaces are not identified in an exact location.
They are shown in the general location where a park or open space should be, with one exception. The old
Crozet Elementary School is currently leased to a private middle school for boys. In the future, it is expected
to function as a community building for civic activities.
Route 250 West
Crozet Ave.
Park
Ridge
Drive
Three Notch’d Road
Tax Map
55-91A
Lickinghole
Creek
Future
Eastern
Ave.
Route 250 West Route 250 West
Parks and Green Systems Plan
Crozet Corridor
Parks and Green Systems Plan
East of Park Ridge Drive
Parks and Green Systems Plan
East of Eastern Ave., North of Lickinghole Creek
Parks and Green Systems Plan
Properties along Route 250 West
Tax Map
56-91A
Park Ridge
Drive
Tabor
Street
Crozet Ave.
Crozet Ave.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
Parks and Public Open Space
Existing and proposed areas for parks and public open space are shown on the Parks and
Green Systems Plan in an olive color. This designation includes school grounds, the
Lickinghole basin, the future Eastern Park, and other publicly owned lands. The color on
the plan does not separate out environmental features from the designation as public open
space. It should be noted that some of the publicly owned lands include important
environmental features such as steep slopes, streams, stream buffers, and floodplain.
The parks are further described in the section below.
Parks
Western Park
Western Park (in Old Trail) is a new 35.8 acre County park. Land for the park was given in
conjunction with the adjacent Old Trail development. The County has developed a plan for this
park that has recreational facilities of multi use field, pavilion, playground, small amphitheatre,
open space play areas, and natural areas with trails. The park will be developed in phases as
funding allows. Construction funding has been delayed in the most recently approved Capital
Improvements Program.
Eastern Park
Eastern Park is located on a high point on the eastern side of the Development Area. When
established, this park will provide views of the Blue Ridge Mountains and Downtown Crozet and
will have multiple trail access points. The expectation for the park is that it will be similar in size to
Western Park and have a similar relationship to surrounding neighborhoods. It should have a mix
of recreational uses including sports fields, trails, picnicking, and preserved areas.
Other Parks
Other parks are expected with new development and some redevelopment. The addition of a new
elementary school on the eastern side of the Development Area will bring additional field space if
the school site is acquired and developed. A three-acre trailhead park centrally located on Crozet
Avenue is recommended to provide parking and access to the greenway system although its
exact location is not yet determined. Other small pocket parks and greens, averaging one acre in
size, will serve new and old neighborhoods. These neighborhood parks would be created through
private funding or by developers fulfilling their open space requirements.
Greenway Trails
The greenway system, a linear network of open space and streams shown on the Parks and Green
Systems Plan, offers an opportunity to connect neighborhoods with each other and Downtown. Public
paths in greenways are identified separately from expected privately owned pathways. The
Greenways follow the stream corridors within the 100-foot wide stream buffer through both public and
private land. In situations where the Greenways access urban areas, they connect with the urban
infrastructure of sidewalks and bike lanes. Bike facilities, as described in Chapter 5-Transportation,
are also shown on the Parks and Green Systems Plan. The plan identifies priority segments for
completion based on providing key linkages to Downtown, schools, parks, and centers.
Implementing and maintaining a greenway system will require a public/private partnership involving
many different people, volunteer groups, and possibly businesses. Access to and use of these areas
would have to be negotiated. It is expected that large sections of the greenway system would be built,
as opportunities arise, by civic groups and/or members of the development community. There is an
active group of citizens in Crozet who have organized to help construct trails, plan for future trails, and
conduct other trail-related activities. Where parks are public, the County is primarily responsible for
maintenance of the system. However, to minimize cost, portions of the system could be adopted by
volunteer groups under an Adopt-A-Trail program. Greenway trail construction standards are identified
in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
Not only do trails connect to important centers in Crozet, but there are also opportunities to connect to
nearby parks outside the Development Area, such as Mint Springs and Beaver Creek. There is also
an initiative underway, spearheaded by the Three Notched Trail Foundation, to create a scenic and
safe walking and biking route from the Rivanna River near Monticello to the Blue Ridge Mountains
along the historic Three-Notched Road.
Parks and Greenways Recommendations:
Create a multipurpose path along the west side of Crozet Avenue or where feasible along the
corridor.
Create a multipurpose path in right-of-way acquired for Eastern Avenue to provide pedestrian
and bike connections before the road is completed.
Construct key trail linkages as public trails:
o Crozet Connector Trail (Lickinghole basin to Crozet Park).
o Trails to Downtown, schools, and other centers.
Establish a not-for-profit Crozet Trails Foundation (like the Rivanna Trails Foundation) for
design, construction, and maintenance.
Create an Adopt-a-Trail program.
Gather and distribute information on tax incentives for landowners to donate easements for
greenways (floodplains).
Develop signage for greenways trails.
Complete Western Park according to the park plan as funding is available.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
Create a Downtown community green.
Build a trailhead park at a central location along the Crozet Avenue corridor.
Establish Eastern Park with public/private collaboration.
Explore potential access points to Lickinghole Creek basin.
Organize the gathering of GPS data for mapping these routes. by groups such as students,
Boy Scouts and other volunteers.
Dark Skies
Protection from light pollution is recommended in this Master Plan. Outdoor lighting should be minimized
in areas that are widely visible from other parts of the community, such as upland areas or flat expanses
that do not have the benefit of a visual buffer created by topography, vegetation, or existing structures.
Where used, street lights should be chosen, which avoid lighting up the sky.
Chapter 7 Plan for Community Facilities & Services
Crozet is served by numerous County facilities and services, some of which are located within the
Development Area. These facilities and services are described in detail in Chapter 3 -- Existing
Conditions. During development of the Master Plan, residents of the area identified the need to maintain
or improve the provision of services, especially for library, police, schools, and passive and active
recreational space. Location of existing and proposed facilities is shown on the Parks and Green Systems
Plan, as indicated in the previous chapter. The provision of facilities and services is the responsibility of
several different entities depending on the service or facility. The Albemarle County Community Facilities
Plan is the primary component of the Comprehensive Plan that governs planning for community facilities
and services and includes the following goals:
• Community facilities should be equitably provided for all County residents based on cost-
effectiveness.
• Development areas should receive higher levels of service.
• The location of new public facilities should be within the County‘s development areas.
This chapter of the Master Plan identifies the specific future community facilities or services needed for
Crozet.
Water and Sewer
Water
Water supply is adequate for the existing and future population of Crozet. At present, usage is
approximately 0.4 million gallons day (mgd) while the maximum constant demand that could be
supplied from Beaver Creek Reservoir is 1.8 mgd. The water treatment plant can process 1.0 mgd.
Recommendations for future water service provision are below.
Water Recommendations:
Continue to monitor water usage in Crozet to ensure that capacity is adequate for the
future population.
When demand at the water treatment plant reaches 80 percent of the permitted capacity,
begin design for expansion of the plant and raw water conveyance system. The size of
the expansion will be dependent on the projected demands and uses.
Wastewater
Wastewater is processed at the Moore‘s Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, which is planned for
expansion to serve all of the development areas except the Village of Rivanna, which is served by a
separate plant. Planning and modeling information has shown that the need to expand/upgrade the
Crozet sewer lines is highly dependent on the development of the Old Trail project. In order to provide
service for the full buildout of Old Trail, construction of replacement mains on the Lickinghole Creek
and Slabtown Branch lines will be needed. At this time, the Old Trail developer has committed to the
design and construction of the southern (Slabtown) branch. The Old Trail developer also has an
agreement with ACSA for future construction of the northern branch of Lickinghole Creek.
The construction of a flow equalization tank, pump station and odor control facility downstream of Old
Trail but upstream of pump station number 4 will also be needed. This project may also be completed
with private developer contributions. Improvements are needed to the sewer interceptor line through
Ivy. Within the 60-year planning horizon of the sewer analysis, all gravity lines and pump station will
require upgrading. In the near term the following projects are anticipated.
Wastewater Recommendations:
Construct replacement mains on the Lickinghole and Slabtown Branch sewer lines (by
developer).
Construct a flow equalization tank, pump station, and odor control facility downstream of Old
Trail and upstream from pump station 4 (m ay be by developer).
Upgrade a section of gravity sewer near the Boars Head Inn.
Continue long-term planning for sewer improvements based upon sewer system studies currently
being conducted by the ACSA and the RWSA. New sewer connections would be based on the
ACSA‘s first-come first-served basis policy.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
Solid Waste Management
As indicated in Chapter 3, solid waste management and recycling takes place on a countywide basis.
Needs for Crozet are considered as part of the overall program. The growth of the Crozet area is not
expected to significantly change the overall needs for solid waste and recycling with the County, unless a
large industrial user locates in Crozet. The desire for greater recycling opportunities in Crozet is
recognized in the recommendations below.
Solid Waste Management Recommendations:
Monitor Crozet solid waste management needs in conjunction with countywide solid waste
management.
Provide greater opportunities for recycling in Crozet in conjunction with countywide planning
efforts.
Schools
Facility planning for schools is done by the Albemarle County School‘s Long Range Planning Committee.
As identified in Chapter 3, school standards are presently being met in the Crozet schools. Ongoing
capital improvements at the schools ensure that the facilities are adequate for students. A new
elementary school may be needed in the County within the next ten years. The site for this school will be
one of three locations in the County based on need/demand: Crozet, the southern urban area, or the
Northern Development Areas. In keeping with future school needs, the following recommendations are
made.
Schools Recommendations:
Monitor the annual Albemarle County Schools Long Range Planning Process to assess the
need for additional school facilities in Crozet.
If an additional elementary school is needed for Crozet, it should be located in the eastern
portion of Crozet as generally shown on the Parks and Green Systems Plan.
Continue with planned expansions and upgrades identified in the Capital Improvements
Program for existing schools.
Emergency Services
Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD)
As indicated in Chapter 3, police service is provided through the sector/beat system. Service does not
meet County standards of a five-minute response time 85 percent of the time. Instead, police
response in Crozet is within five minutes 65 percent of the time. Officers also provide assistance to
the community for crime prevention programs.
Police Service Recommendations:
Relocate the police satellite office from The Meadows to a more central location in Crozet,
such as in Downtown.
Continue community crime prevention programs, such as Neighborhood Watch.
Work to achieve a five-minute response 85% percent of the time.
Fire Rescue Services
Fire Rescue service provided by volunteers is important to Crozet. However, the County‘s financial
contribution for equipment purchase is essential to the service. Because of the County‘s role in
providing funding for capital expenditures, the following recommendations are made.
Fire Rescue Recommendations:
Continue to provide County funding for capital purchases for Fire Rescue.
Continue to support volunteer programs.
Library
As indicated in Chapter 3, the need for a new library has been well established. A plan has been
developed and property has been purchased in Downtown Crozet for the new facility. When funding is
available, construction of a 20,000 square foot library building will begin. Construction will include the first
block of the new ―Main Street.‖ The facility will include space for complementary uses such as public
meeting rooms and community space. The building will be constructed to LEED specifications. (LEED
stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and is a nationally accepted rating system for
designing and building green buildings.) The new Western Albemarle/Crozet Library will be the County‘s
first new building designed to be LEED certified. The most recent schematic design of the facility is shown
below:
Schematic Design Approved by the Board of Supervisors July 3, 2009
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
Library Recommendations:
Until a new library can be constructed, maintain the existing Crozet Library in its current
location.
Construct the new library when funding is available.
Old Crozet School Reuse
Crozet residents have expressed a strong desire that the County continue stewardship and reuse of the
former elementary school on Crozet Avenue across the street from the current Crozet Elementary School.
This facility is commonly known as the Old Crozet School building. A valued institution in the Crozet
community since 1924, the Old Crozet School served as a combined elementary and high school until the
completion of Albemarle High School in 1954. After the high school students were moved, the school was
renamed Crozet Elementary and used by the County for another 35+ years, until studies finally determined
that a new school building was needed and completed in 1990 across the street. The school is a
contributing building and is included in the boundaries of the potential Crozet Historic District. The Virginia
Department of Historic Resources considers this area as eligible for nomination as a historic district on the
Virginia Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places.
In 2008, the County contracted with a planning consultant to study acceptable and
productive alternative uses for the school. The Old School Reuse Study Final Report
summarizes the public participation process, community comments and preferences, history and condition
of the building, consultants' recommendations for next steps, and estimated costs for renovation of the
building. Residents clearly expressed a preference for a community center to provide performance and
assembly space in the old auditorium. In addition, residents supported using the former classrooms for
satellite county offices, dance classes, arts spaces, community movies, and programs for youth and the
elderly.
In the fall of 2008, the Board of Supervisors sought tenants for the Old School until a decision on the
permanent use of the building could be made. Currently, the building is leased to two tenants, the Field
School, a private middle school for boys, and Old Crozet School Arts (OCSA). OCSA is a non-profit school for
arts instruction.
Social Services
Social service providers and programs are important to the community. At a County level, services are
provided through schools, in conjunction with countywide assistance programs, and to seniors at
Mountainside Senior Living and the Meadows. Although no specific separate recommendations are
made, the County needs to keep a watch on Crozet‘s social service needs. As growth occurs, the County
will need to consider augmenting the services it provides and, perhaps, creating a central location within
Crozet where these services can be accessed.
Social Service Recommendations
Continue to monitor social service needs in Crozet.
Consider providing services at a County facility to be located in Crozet.
Stormwater Management
As indicated in Chapter 3, controlling the quantity and quality of runoff is essential to maintaining a safe
and adequate drinking water supply. Redevelopment of Downtown is tied to a County stormwater project,
which has been engineered but not yet built. Development of the area north of Downtown and north of
Three Notch‘d Road has the potential to affect the Beaver Creek Reservoir, so more intensive stormwater
management is needed.
The County should also look for opportunities to further protect the drinking water reservoirs by promoting
innovative stormwater management. Stormwater management should be emphasized in areas adjacent
to impervious surfaces such as roofs, parking lots and paved roads. Permeable paving, porous asphalt
and modular pavers allow increased water infiltration and should be considered for any impervious
surface. Use of native grasses, shrubs and trees in retention ponds and swales can help provide excellent
holding areas for water quality improvement while providing diverse wildlife habitats.
Stormwater Recommendations:
Construct the Downtown stormwater project improvements.
Look for opportunities to further protect the Beaver Creek Reservoir through innovative
stormwater management techniques.
Chapter 8 Implementation
Introduction
The implementation projects of the Crozet Master Plan are found in the tables in the Appendix. They have
been prioritized based on needs identified by residents and stakeholders during the Master Plan process.
Implementation of these initiatives will take place in several different forms: with private sector investment,
as part of land use decisions, through programs and services provided by the County, through County
capital expenditures, and by community initiatives.
County capital expenditures are identified in the County‘s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) which is
based on a two-year financial cycle. The CIP represents the County‘s funding policy, including funding
level, timing, and sources of money associated with specific improvements. As occurs throughout the
County, the actual programming of Crozet projects in the CIP will be based on priority needs of the County
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
and the availability of funding. Capital costs and funding sources are also identified in the table at the end
of this chapter.
Community facilities and service standards have been established in the County‘s Community Facilities
Plan for many of the public services/facilities. With rezonings for new development, community services
and facilities are evaluated to determine the adequacy of services and impacts of the proposed
development in relation to the service standards.
Population Capacity and Future Rezonings
The Crozet Land Use Plan provides for a long-term population capacity of approximately 18,000. Based
on actual growth trends in Crozet, it is estimated that the population of Crozet will be approximately 12,000
in 2030. It could go lower or higher depending on the actual rate of growth. This implementation chapter
describes the improvements needed in order to support the long-term population capacity of Crozet. The
timing of improvements to support new development is discussed in the section below.
Priority Areas
The Crozet Development Area has received steady and consistent growth over the past ten years. To
focus improvements in the areas of Crozet where they are most needed, priority areas have been
established to guide public efforts and resources over the next five to ten years. The priority areas are
Downtown including the surrounding Mixed Use areas, ―Main‖ Street and the new library and the Music
Today/Starr Hill area. In the long term, redevelopment of the area between these Downtown and the
Music Today/Starr Hill area hubs will be needed to better support both areas. The Priority Areas are
shown on the map on the following page. Other areas of Crozet will not be the primary focus of public
capital investment or resource allocation during in next ten years.
Priority areas and improvement projects have been established to guide decisions in the near future. The
boundaries of these areas will be reevaluated with the next five-year review of the plan. While decisions
regarding private development proposals/investments should not be based solely on these priority areas,
decisions on development proposals should be made with an understanding of where public investments
are being focused. Land use decisions should be consistent with the priority areas established in the
Master Plan. New proposals outside of the priority areas should not be approved if planned facilities are
not in place to support the project and the existing neighborhood. Projects outside the priority areas will
need to provide more significant levels of improvements to ensure adequate infrastructure and services
are available to the area.
The implementation projects are grouped into six categories: (1) Community Life, (2) Transportation, (3)
Land Use, (4) Community Facilities and Services, (5) Parks and Green Systems, and (6) Business
Development. The Neighborhood Planner for Crozet, as recommended in the 2004 Plan, will continue to
assist with Plan implementation.
Community Life
Civic participation and dialogue between the County and the Crozet community on Master Plan and Crozet
issues should be an on-going process. The Crozet Community Advisory Council (CCAC), which is
appointed by the Board of Supervisors, should be continued to the extent that County resources can
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
provide support to all advisory councils formed for the Development Areas. It is anticipated that the CCAC
may meet on a less frequent basis in the future. Other community-led initiatives that create a sense of
unique community identity should be continued, such as the current local fairs and celebrations.
Community Life Priorities:
Continue the Crozet Community Advisory Council in the role determined by the Board of
Supervisors.
Support community efforts to continue with community fairs, festivals, and events.
Transportation
Transportation improvements in the plan focus on making important road connections and improvements.
These include bike and pedestrian improvements on existing collector or main routes in Crozet, such as
Jarman‘s Gap Road, Crozet Avenue, and Three Notch‘d Road. Completion of the future east-west road
referred to as ―Main‖ Street in the plan and other new roads will provide for bike/pedestrian improvements
along with key vehicular linkages in Crozet. ―Main Street‖ will provide an alternate route to the four-way
stop sign and underpass in Downtown Crozet. Construction of ―Eastern‖ Avenue will provide an important
north-south alternative route to Crozet Avenue.
Transportation Priorities:
Complete Jarman‘s Gap Road improvements.
Complete Downtown streetscape project.
Complete first segment of ―Main Street‖ from Crozet Avenue to High Street, then continue
eastward.
Establish the ―Eastern‖ Avenue road alignment and adopt an official map designating the road
and right-of-way location.
Land Use
The Land Use recommendations of the plan will be implemented in several ways, including rezonings,
zoning text amendments, and by-right development. For many years, Albemarle County has implemented
its Land Use Plan through developer initiated rezonings. If this practice continues on a site-by-site basis,
properties would be rezoned consistent with the Master Plan and with increased opportunities for design
flexibility offered by the Neighborhood Model.
The Future Land Use Plan in Chapter 4 governs land use and development decision-making for new
development in Crozet. As each zoning map amendment and special use permit is reviewed for approval,
the recommendations in this Master Plan will be applied. As such, there are fewer individual projects listed
in the Land Use & Development Projects sections of the Implementation Table than there are, for
example, under Transportation. Instead, as developers bring forward new proposals, the proposed
developments will be evaluated according to the Future Land Use Map and Tables, Parks & Green
Systems Map, the principles of the Neighborhood Model, and other parts of the Comprehensive Plan. The
County‘s Zoning Ordinance may need to be amended to designate a transitional zoning district near
Downtown. Another ordinance amendment, which may be needed, would allow for reductions of the
stream buffer in support of redevelopment north of Downtown.
The Entrance Corridor ordinance is significant because it is an existing tool that can assist in
implementing the types of design regulations set forth in the Crozet Master Plan. For the existing
corridors, corridor-specific design guidelines should be created in compliance with the Crozet Master Plan
for each Entrance Corridor.
As assets to the County, historic resources in and near Crozet should be protected and preserved. To
educate residents and visitors on these historic assets, interpretive areas could be designed and put in
place. New development and redevelopment in the potential Crozet Historic District should be designed in
a manner that is sensitive to its historic significance. Community residents are encouraged to pursue
inclusion of the historic district on the state and national register. This will allow property owners to take
advantage of significant state and federal tax credits.
The Crozet Master Plan includes a network of public parks and greenways structured around the streams
within the Lickinghole Creek watershed. Portions of the open space system within the Lickinghole Creek
floodplain are already owned by the County; others will be acquired or donated for community parks.
Some portions of the greenway system that are integrated into development projects may remain in
private ownership. These areas could be designated voluntarily as conservation easements.
Land Use Priorities:
Ensure implementation of the Master Plan through review of development projects, especially
in priority areas.
Monitor capacity of infrastructure to support new development.
Consider ordinance amendments to support recommendations in the Master Plan, such as a
transitional zoning district, revised industrial standards, and modifications of the water
protection ordinance.
Support a community-led National Register nomination for Downtown Crozet and the potential
Greenwood-
Encourage protection of buildings and sites that are contributing structures to potential and
listed National Register Historic Districts.
Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Architectural Resources Strategies Report for
projects in the report study area.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
Encourage easements on properties to protect important environmental, scenic, or other
resources and to allow rights of access for greenways.
Develop corridor-specific design guidelines for Entrance Corridors in Crozet.
Parks & Green Systems
Crozet‘s existing and proposed parks, trails, greenways, and open spaces are shown on the Parks &
Green Systems Plan in Chapter 6. In some cases, the proposed open space needs will be addressed as
new developments are planned and constructed. In others, the County will provide open spaces as the
need for them arises and funds are available.
Parks & Green Systems Priorities:
Preserve environmental systems in new development projects.
Complete the Crozet connector trail system between Downtown and Eastern Crozet as a
public trail.
Complete trails that lead to schools and parks and other centers as public trails.
Complete Western Park Improvements.
Incorporate the Downtown stormwater wetland into the parks/greenway system as a passive
park and trail hub.
Business Development and Support
Successful redevelopment of Downtown and provision of job opportunities in Crozet requires
public/private collaboration. Expansion of existing and development of new small businesses in Crozet is
essential to increase the vitality of the downtown. Jobs in Crozet help to reduce traffic impacts to Routes
240 and 250 and help Crozet to be more than a ―bedroom community‖ to the City of Charlottesville.
After adoption of the 2004 Master Plan, the County hired a Business Development Facilitator to assist with
economic development in Crozet as well as other parts of the County. The Business Development Facilitator
is responsible for coordinating and responding to business inquiries and assessing options and incentives.
This position can be critical to achieving the desired vision for Downtown. Adaptive reuse of the Acme property
is another area where the Business Development Facilitator‘s role will be critical to success.
Business and Development Support Priorities:
Continue dialogue with and support of the business community through involvement of the
Business Development Facilitator.
Collect and monitor employment and economic data for Crozet.
Promote infill development in the Downtown and employment opportunities in Crozet that are
consistent with the Master Plan.
Plan Monitoring and Master Plan Review
Good planning practice includes the periodic review and update of plans after they are adopted. An
important part of this review is an ongoing monitoring program that keeps tabs on how well
implementation is proceeding and what additional issues or information have arisen since the plan was
prepared.
This Plan should be reviewed and updated as necessary every five years. Five-year reviews are
envisioned as the time to adjust the plan, based on any changes in conditions or new information.
The Implementation Table in the Appendix lists the various projects necessary to achieve the vision for
Crozet. It categorizes the projects by type, provides cost estimates for each project and expected sources
of funding. The table identifies the individual, department, or agency which will take the lead in
implementation. Where necessary, it identifies where the County will be a liaison if it is not the lead agency
on the project. The Implementation Table should be used as a guide and is a general reference tool to
help direct the allocation of available resources to implement the Master Plan.
Crozet Implementation Projects
Implementation
Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/
Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to
FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to
FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and
out)
COMMUNITY LIFE
Crozet Community
Advisory Council
Included in
Community
Relations/CDD
budget for staff
time
Crozet
Planner/Commu
nity Relations
Continue community-County
dialogue and community
involvement in master plan
implementation
Periodic
meetings of
CCAC
Ongoing
Crozet
Neighborhood
Planner
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
CDD
Monitor plan implementation
Staff facilitates plan
implementation initiatives
(ZTAs, studies, capital project
planning, etc.), as necessary
Staff pursues new federal,
state, and other funding
sources for transportation
projects and other projects, as
Administration/
management
begins when
Master Plan is
adopted
Periodic written
reports on
progress will be
prepared for the
Ongoing
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
Implementation
Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/
Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to
FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to
FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and
out)
needed
Staff conducts five-year plan
review and update, in
conjunction with the Planning
Commission and the CCAC.
Staff monitors development
review projects for conformity
with the Plan.
Planning
Commission
Planning for
five-year review
will begin in year
4 of each five-
year cycle
Fairs/Festivals/
Events
Community
initiative
Community
Continue community tradition of
events
Celebrate Crozet history
Ongoing
Ongoing
Historic/Cultural
Resources
programs
Interpretation
Opportunities
not known at this
time
Community/Hist
oric Pres
Committee
Evaluate opportunities for
interpretation of area history
Investigate
support to
provide locate
history
interpretation at
local institutions
Short to mid-term
TRANSPORTATION
Jarman’s Gap Road
$16 million
VDOT and
County-OFD
Provide a safer & efficient
vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian
corridor between Crozet
Avenue and Old Trail Drive
Improvements include curb,
gutter, bike lanes, and
sidewalks on north side only
Design/ROW
complete
Utility relocation
Bid
Construct
UNDERWAY
Short-term-
Advertisement date
January 2011
Crozet Streetscape
Enhancement
Project-Phase 2
Includes Main
Street at Crozet
Avenue
$3. million
($550,000 VDOT
grants)
$ 760,000
County-OFD
Relocation of overhead utilities
New Stormwater drainage
system
A portion of New Main Street to
library entrance, design to High
Street
Pedestrian/Vehicular
improvements to Crozet
Avenue from the Square to
Tabor Street
This project will include alley
improvements between Main
Street and The Square.
Design
Bid
Construct
UNDERWAY
Short-term
Construction – mid to
long term; construction
prior to improvement to
US 250 in Pantops
Crozet North
Sidewalk
$610,000
($190,000 grant)
County-OFD and
VDOT
Pedestrian safety and drainage
improvements on west side of
Crozet Avenue from St. George
Avenue to Crozet Elementary
School and continue to Ballard
Drive (crosswalks at school)
Safe Routes to School grant
received to extend to Ballard
Drive ($190,000)
Final Design
plans uder
review
Design
completion
Construct
Expect to Fall
2010
UNDERWAY
Short -term
Eastern Avenue-
Alignment
Currently
unfunded
County-OFD
Location and cross-section
concept completed
Refine the alignment and cross-
section for the north-south
connector road ―Eastern
Avenue‖
Explore funding opportunities
for the road, including proffer
funds
Hire surveyor to
provide
boundary and
topographic
survey as basis
for official map of
road alignment
Short-mid-term
Eastern Avenue-
Alignment
Currently
unfunded
County-OFD
Location and cross-section
concept completed
Refine the alignment and
cross-section for the north-
south connector road ―Eastern
Avenue‖
Explore funding opportunities
for the road, including proffer
funds
Hire surveyor to
provide
boundary and
topographic
survey as basis
for official map of
road alignment
Short-mid-term
Eastern Avenue
Construction
$9.5million (‘04)
Private
Development/
County-OFD
Evaluate function/capacity
benefit of roundabout over
signal
Periodic
monitoring and
evaluation of
intersection
Long - term
Crozet Plaza
Streetscape Study
Provides for
recommended
Downtown
Community Green
$350,000
(design and
construct)
Private
Development/
County-OFD
Provides Downtown community
green/plaza
Location
Design study
Construct
Improvements
Short-term-mid-term
Main Street
Extensions
$2.5 million (‘04
estimate)
County/Private
development
Determine alignment from
library site/alley to connect to
Park Ridge Drive (Foothill
Crossing Roads)
Provide additional east-west
access in Downtown area as an
Design for road
sections
Construct
Design – mid-term
Construction – mid to
long term; depends on
pace of new
development
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
Implementation
Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/
Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to
FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to
FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and
out)
alternative to Three Notch‘d
Road
Crozet Avenue
walkway/bikeways
Unfunded
OFD/Private
Development
Improve pedestrian and bicycle
safety
Design
Obtain any
needed
easements
Construct
Long-term
Bike Network
All new streets
include bike
facilities or
accommodate bike
travel
Priority upgrades to
existing streets:
-Crozet Avenue
-Railroad Avenue
-Route 810/Crozet
Avenue
-Three Notch’d
Road
-Route 684/Mint
Springs
Variable
Private
development/VD
OT/ OFD
Add/upgrade bike lanes and
sidewalks as components of all
new and expanded public road
projects.
Correct existing gaps in bicycle
and pedestrian facilities and
improve existing crosswalks
Require construction of bike
and pedestrian connections
with development projects
Completed
segments of bike
improvements
Ongoing
Park and Ride Lots
-Upgrade
Downtown lot
-Route 250
West/near I-64
-Three Notch’d
Road near
employment area
Variable
depending on
location, property
ownership, etc.
RideShare/TJPD
C/
County-Crozet
Planner
Lots provide an option for
single occupant vehicle
travel/commuting
Reduces demand on existing
road networks
Identify new
locations
Establish as
designated
park/ride lot
Short to mid-term-
Provide additional park
and ride lots
Ongoing-Rideshare
“Regional” Transit-
Express Bus (to
CTS) - Regional –
but includes Village
Capital:
$305,000 to
$575,000
Operation:
$200,000 to
$400,000/yr
County/CTS/pos
sibly JAUNT or
future
Transit Authority
or equivalent
organization
Provide alternatives to auto
travel, reduce future auto trips
on Rt 250
Establish RTA
or an equivalent
planning/manag
ement
organization
Implement
service
Pursue
commuter
service through
JAUNT when
viable
Short term – establish
regional planning/
management process
(RTA)
Short to Mid-term
priority (w/in next 5-10
years), next regional
transit plan update.
Long-term
Implementation (after
2017) depending on
study results.
PARKS AND GREEN SYSTEMS
Greenway
completion
-Connections to
Downtown
-Connections to
Schools
-Connections to
Parks
Variable
Private
developer
contributions
with
rezonings
Parks & Rec/
Planning/Crozet
volunteer
trailbuilders/
neighborhood
assoc.‘s
Provide passive recreation
opportunity & alternate
pedestrian-bike route.
Interpret cultural and natural
sites
Identify more
precise location
for trail
connections
Design and
consider with
development
proposals.
Easements/prop
erty obtained
Complete Trail
Construction
Complete
Connections
made between
neighborhoods
and to
greenway/public
lands
Short and mid-term
timeframe.
Ongoing planning/
acquisition/construction
throughout length of
corridor in strategic
locations
Western Park
$4.1 million total
(construction will
be phased;
$50,000 proffered
for park
improvements)
County/private
developer
contributions
Provide community park
consistent with Western Park
Master Plan
Acquire
additional land or
easements
Construction
Western Park
according to
master plan for
park
Mid-term
Neighborhood
Parks
Unfunded Private
Development
Provide amenities and
greenspace within new
developments in Crozet
Ongoing Ongoing
Trailhead Park Unfunded County Parks &
Rec/Private
Development.
Provide access point to
greenways network
Determine
location
Design
Construct
Long-term
Neighborhood
Trails
Not known at this
time/variable
Private
developer
contributions
with rezonings
P&R/Planning/
neighborhood
assoc.‘s
P & R/ Crozet planner to
coordinate assistance to
neighborhoods to construct
trails
Connections
made between
neighborhoods
and to
greenway/public
lands
Ongoing, initiative; trails
may be public or private
Eastern Park
$4 million
Private
Provide additional public
Acquire property
Mid-term to Long-term
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 55)
Implementation
Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/
Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to
FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to
FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and
out)
development/
Planning/Parks
& Rec.
community park to serve
eastern Crozet
Design
Construct
LAND USE & DESIGN
Master Plan
Implementation
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
County
Implements land use
recommendations of master
plan
Ongoing
Ongoing
New Development
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
Private
Developments/C
rozet
Planner/PC/BOS
Monitor capacity of infrastructure
to support new development
No additional
residential units
until
transportation
improvements
are made
Short and mid-term
“Transition” Zoning
District for Mixed
Use Areas
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
Crozet Planner
Consider creating new zoning
district to allow for transitional
mixed use areas around
Downtown Crozet
Resolution of
Intent
Amend Zoning
Ordinance
Long-term
Water Protection
Ordinance
Amendment
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
County
Engineer/Water
Resources/Croz
et Planner
WPO amendment to allow for
stream buffer modifications in
certain areas identified on land
use map only
Allows redevelopment and
reclamation/replanting of
buffers
Resolution of
Intent
Amendment
process
WPO Amended
Short-term
LI Zoning Text
Amendments
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
BDF/County
Supports Crozet LI
uses/employers
Resolution of
Intent
Amend
Ordinance
Underway/Short-term
Crozet Historic
District
Community
initiative
Community Listing potential Crozet Historic
District on the State and
National Register
Submit for listing
Listing approved
Short-term
ARB Corridor
Specific Design
Guidelines
Design
Planner/ARB
Provide design guidelines
specific to Crozet‘s uniqueness
for Route 250 and Route 240
Study
Design
Guidelines
developed
Adopted
Mid-term
Easements
Crozet Planner
Monitor protection of
environmental, scenic, and
historic resources in Crozet
ID easements
Develop
monitoring
program
Ongoing/Long-term
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Business
Development
Facilitator (BDF)
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
BDF
Continue dialogue with
business community in Crozet,
including CBNG and DCA,
Nelson and Charlottesville-
Albemarle Chambers of
Commerce
Ongoing
Ongoing
Employment/
Business
Tracking
Attract new
employers to areas
designated on master
plan
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
BDF
Maintain data that is updated
annually to determine business
employment trends and needs
in County, including Crozet
Ensures jobs/housing balance
and economic vitality in Crozet
Ongoing
Ongoing
Downtown/Priority
Areas:
Infill/New Business
Downtown
(including adjacent
Mixed Use Area)
Evaluate need to
designate Three
Notch’d Corridor
Mixed Use
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
Private
developers/BDF
Crozet
Planner/County
Improve Downtown economic
vitality
Allows for future additional
area to provide for new
business development in
support of Downtown and
employment area
Economic
measures
Vacancy
rate/etc.
Increased
revenue
Consider with
update of master
plan in 5 years
Short-term
Mid-term
Tourism/Agri-
business
Included in CDD
budget for staff
time
BDF/Private
Developers/CBN
G/
DCA/Convention
-Visitors Bureau
Expansion and promotion of
tourism in Crozet and Western
Albemarle
Identify new
products, such,
emphasis on
Crozet history,
destinations/tour
s (Current Ex.
Brew Ridge and
Artisan Trails)
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 56)
Implementation
Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/
Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to
FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to
FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and
out)
Marketing Plan for
targeting areas:
Downtown
Employment
Tourism
Adjacent Rural
Areas
Development of
Crozet Website
Consider programs
such as:
Virginia Main
Street Program
Seek Grants
CDGB
Other
Variable
depending on
scope of project
and grant funding
BDF/DCA/CBN
G
BDF/DCA/
CBNG
Improve Crozet‘s economic
vitality
Complete
marketing plan
ID specific
strategies for
each targeted
area
Implement plan
Seek funding
sources/grants
for promotional
activities/
products
Short-term to Mid-term
Ongoing
COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES
Existing Library
Service
JMRL Board,
Facilities staff
Continue to consider facility
needs w/ long range planning
process of the JMRL Board.
Evaluate facility
needs
Short-term
New Library site
parking lot
$750,000
(construction)
OFD
Provide parking for Downtown,
in advance of library building
construction
Site
Development
Plan Approval
Bid
Construct
Underway/Short-term
Existing Crozet
Library building
Continue use as
Crozet library until
library relocates
Reuse for when
library moves
JMRL/County
Ensure continued use and
reuse of train depot
Library relocates
Determine future
use(s)
Remodel/Adapt
depot
Continue use-Short-
term
Re-use of depot- Mid-
term-long-term
Old Crozet School
Continue to lease
to tenants for the
Old School until a
decision on the
permanent use of
the building is
made.
Fully renovate
building for
community
preferred uses
No cost
Estimate
$6-8.3 million
dollars (‘08)
depending on
various factors
and project
conditions
General
Services
Ensure continued use and
reuse of Old Crozet School
consistent with Old Crozet
School Reuse Study
Meet long-term community
needs (preferred concept for
community center type uses)
Lease
agreements with
tenants
approved by
Board of
Supervisors
Future uses
identified
Design
Bid
Construct
Short-term
Long-term
Schools -- monitor
needs
Additional
elementary school
Undetermined
Crozet
Planner/Dept of
Ed., Facilities
staff
Continue to consider facility
needs w/ long range Planning
Committee.
Evaluate facility
needs
Site Acquisition
Design
Construct
Ongoing yearly
evaluation of school
growth and facility
needs with long range
Planning Committee.
Long-term/when
needed
Downtown
Stormwater Project
$1.2 million
OFD/Water
Resources
Provide stormwater
management/water quality
measures for water protection
to serve the Downtown
drainage area
Facility will also serve as
possible greenspace amenity.
Property
Acquisition
(completed)
Easements
Design
(completed)
Establish
service district
Construct
Short-term
Water and
Wastewater
Expansion of water
treatment plant
Need estimate
from RWSA
ACSA/RWSA
Monitor water usage in Crozet
to ensure capacity is adequate
for future population
When demand reaches 80% of
capacity, begin design for
expansion; size of the WTP
expansion will be dependent on
the projected demands and
uses.
Ensure adequate water supply
for Crozet
Capacity of
existing water
treatment plant
reaches 80%
Design
Bid
Construct
Long-term
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 57)
Implementation
Strategy
Estimated
Cost/Funding
Responsible
Department/
Division
Issues to Be Addressed
Actions Required
Milestones Timing
Short-term (FY11 to
FY14)
Mid-term (FY15 to
FY19)
Long-term (FY19 and
out)
Wastewater
Need estimate
from RWSA
ACSA/RWSA
Ensures adequate waste water
capacity to serve Crozet.
Continue long-term planning
for sewer improvements based
upon sewer system studies
currently being conducted by
the ACSA and the RWSA. New
sewer connections would be
based on the ACSA‘s first come
first served basis policy.
Study/Monitor
Design
Construction
Mid-term-long term
Mid-term
Eastern Crozet
Elementary School
site
Construction
$12.3 million (‘04)
Crozet
Planner/Dept of
Ed., Facilities
staff
To address future school
capacity needs in Crozet
Acquire site
through proffers
Determine need
Design
Build
Long-term
Fire/Rescue Service
Region is served
by Crozet
Volunteer Fire
Department and
Western
Albemarle
Rescue Squad
Crozet
Planner/Fire
Rescue/
Facilities staff
Monitor any needs/support
from County
Ongoing
Ongoing
Police Service
Police Office in
Downtown Area
Undetermined
Crozet
Planner/Police/O
FD
Provides improved work space
for beat officer
Improve response times to
meet Development Area
standards
Provides for improved police
service to Crozet/Western
Albemarle
Identify office
space
Locate police in
satellite office
Ongoing yearly
evaluation of population
growth and facility
needs.
Recycling
Programs
$250,000-
$500,000 – to be
determined on
revised regional
solid waste plan
RSWA/County
(General
Services,
Planning)
Provide convenient drop
center. RSWA Solid Waste
Mgt Plan
Review may indicate different
approach to recycle (curbside
may be considered)
Review w/
RSWA during
update of Solid
W aste Plan.
Funding
requested in
CIP.
Construction
Dependent on
implementation
recommendations of
Solid Waste plan as
recommended in
adopted plan
ACSA – Albemarle County Service Authority
ARB – Architectural Review Board
BDF – Business Development Facilitator
BOS – Board of Supervisors
CBNG – Crozet Business Networking Group
CCAC – Crozet Community Advisory Council
CDD – Community Development Department
CTS – Charlottesville Transit Service
DCA – Downtown Crozet Association
JMRL- Jefferson Madison Regional Library
OFD – Office of Facilities Development
P&R – Parks and Recreations
PC – Planning Commission
RTA – Regional Transit Authority
RWSA – Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
TJPDC – Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
VDOT – Virginia Department of Transportation
WPO – Water Protection Ordinance
WTP – Water Treatment Plant
WWTP – Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZTA – Zoning Text Amendment
__________________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2009-00034. RE-STORE'N STATION
(Signs #33&36).
PROPOSED: Use of more than 400 gallons of groundwater per site-acre per day for convenience
store.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: HC, Highway Commercial - retail sales and service
uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to
protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 24.2.2.13, Uses permitted by right, not
served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site
acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge
of sewage other than domestic wastes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: US 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) approximately 1,600 feet (0.3 miles) west of
Western Albemarle High School.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 58)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 55B Parcel 1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2010.)
Ms. Summer Frederick, Senior Planner, said that the site of the proposed special use permit is
located in the White Hall Magisterial District, on Rockfish Gap Turnpike or Route 250 West, approximately
one-quarter west of Western Albemarle High School. She said that it is zoned highway commercial with a
rural area Comprehensive Plan designation and is located within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Ms. Frederick stated that the application of the special use permit was made in accord with provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance, requiring by-right uses in the Highway Commercial district not served by public
water, to obtain a special use permit if they are to use more than 400 gallons per site acre per day. She
said that the proposed convenience store with gas pumps is a by-right use in the Highway Commercial
zoning district. The applicant‘s request is to permit the consumption of 400.25 of gallons per site acre per
day, for a total of 1,625 gallons per day for this sit, exceeding the allowable by one gallon.
Ms. Frederick emphasized that staff‘s consideration for this application is limited only to those
impacts associated with water consumption, as the site plan is otherwise a by-right use of the property.
She said that staff has reviewed the application in accord with the Code. Staff believes there is not
sufficient data to guarantee that groundwater failure will not occur; however, conditions recommended by
staff, should the special use permit be approved, would restrict water to a point that, as viewed from an
engineering standpoint, has no greater impact on adjacent properties than the water consumption
permitted by-right. Ms. Frederick stated that the applicant has supplied a Tier Three groundwater study
conducted and compiled by a State-certified geologist that indicates adequate water supply is available
onsite. She said that in staff‘s opinion, the processes used to prepare the groundwater study are sound.
A study was subsequently submitted by a member of the public which raises questions about the
adequacy of that water supply. Ms. Frederick noted that this conflicting data provides a point of concern
regarding the general welfare of adjacent landowners.
She said that the site is a bit unusual in that it is zoned Highway Commercial but carries a Rural
Areas Comprehensive Plan designation. In this case the Board should consider if the special use permit
allowing for the consumption of more than 400 gallons per site acre per day with reasonable conditions is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Frederick said that staff believes this use, with a condition
restricting water consumption to 1,625 gallons per day, is consistent with water consumption expected in
the rural areas. Ms. Frederick stated that a site plan will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable
ordinance requirements should this special use perm it request be approved. A preliminary site plan has
been submitted for this site, and the Planning Commission is required to review it in accordance with Code
requirements, as an abutting owner has requested this. Based on analysis as required by the Code, she
said, staff recommends approval of SP-2009-00034 with conditions to include:
1) The applicant shall install a meter on the well-head to monitor water consumption. Prior to
installation, the model of said meter will be approved by the Zoning Adm inister, in consultation
with the County Engineer. Results of daily water consumption monitoring results will be made
available within forty-eight (48) hours of a request from the Zoning Administrator; and
2) Water consumption shall be restricted to no more than 1,625 gallons per day.
Ms. Frederick said, at its June 8, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed this
application and recommended denial in a vote of 4:2 due to their finding that the use will be a substantial
detriment to adjacent property because there was insufficient information to determine the amount of
water the proposal will use, and the water use may adversely affect neighboring properties.
Mr. Boyd asked if the information from the water study done by a hydrologist was available to the
Planning Commission. Ms. Frederick responded that it was.
Ms. Mallek asked what a Tier Three groundwater study is. Ms. Frederick replied that it is a study
done by a State-certified geologist that examines the soils and the recharge rate, as well as general
rainfall calculations. She said that it takes the proposed water withdrawal and compares it to the recharge
rate and makes a determination whether or not that geologist believes there is adequate water supply to
support the proposed development. Ms. Frederick confirmed that an analysis of the impact of that well on
neighboring wells would be covered under a Tier Four.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that another geologist took issue with the results found by the first
geologist. Ms. Frederick replied that he took issue with the processes that the first geologist went through
to get to their assumption.
Mr. Thomas asked if this request has always been a special use permit. Ms. Frederick said that
the special use permit application was made after it was determined by the Deputy Zoning Administrator
that a special use permit was required.
Mr. Thomas asked how many gas pump nozzles will be on this property. Ms. Frederick
responded that 16 nozzles are planned.
Ms. Boyd asked if the Board can restrict the size of the building as part of this approval. Mr. Davis
replied that the Board can apply conditions that reasonably relate to the water usage, and if scale and
intensity of the use generates additional water usage the Board can certainly restrict those.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 59)
Ms. Mallek said that some of the concern relates to the lack of information on what is going to
happen on the other one-half of the building, as there is another 6,000 square feet.
Mr. Boyd said that is the reason for his question and whether the Board can control that.
Ms. Frederick pointed out that any future development that happens beyond what is tied to this
special use permit would need to be reviewed in terms of the approval of this special use permit.
Mr. Thomas said that another additional outparcel would not be part of the plan at all.
Mr. Rooker said that it is a single parcel with single zoning. He asked if this were approved for the
4,750 square foot building only, and it is clear that they have other plans for the rest of the parcel, would f
the water usage apply to the additional building be judged separately.
Ms. Frederick responded that the applicant would need to come in with another site plan or site
plan amendment for that, and at that point it would need to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, who
would make a determination as to whether the special use permit needs to be expanded.
Mr. Davis pointed out that unless the special use permit restricts the use to a certain site plan or
certain parameter, it is quite possible that as long as it is the same use it could be expanded without a new
special use permit. He said that if the Board‘s intention is to restrict it that should be specifically
addressed in a condition, as long as it is reasonably related to water usage.
Mr. Snow asked if the 1,625 gallons applies to all of the parcels total, or just for the service station
itself. Ms. Frederick replied that it is just this one parcel, which is four acres. Per site acre refers to the
entire parcel.
Mr. Snow commented that if the service station were to use 1,625 gallons per day it would not
leave any water for the additional development. Ms. Frederick agreed.
Mr. Rooker asked how that is practical. W hen that amount is exceeded it puts an application in a
special use permit category, and the Board goes through its usual thorough analysis in evaluating that. It
is his understanding that the Tier Three water study in no way determines the well impact on surrounding
properties. He then asked if it considers the impact of impervious surface that might result from additional
development on the parcel, and the potential for contamination of wells in the area that can result from
gas tanks being in close proximity.
Ms. Frederick stated that it does mention that potential, but the study does not really reach any
kind of conclusion.
Mr. Rooker commented that he would have some significant concern if he had a well 100 feet
away from gas tanks.
Ms. Mallek asked what decisions the Planning Commission would have when the site plan is
presented to them. Ms. Frederick responded that if the site plan meets the ordinance requirements and
the conditions set forth in the special use permit, then it is a public hearing to review it.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the Planning Commission review of the site plan is a ministerial review,
and if the zoning requirements are met they are obligated to approve the site plan. He said that the zoning
requirements would be whatever HC requirements apply to this particular use, as well as any conditions
that are added by special use permit. The Planning Commission would have to determine that all those
requirements have been met before approving the site plan.
Mr. Boyd said that if the Board can address the water usage through conditions, then any
expansion would trigger another special use permit, as adding buildings and increasing usage would be a
violation of those conditions. Mr. Davis responded that as long as the conditions are related to water
usage.
Ms. Mallek commented that the hours of operation would also be related to water usage. Mr.
Davis said it could be.
Ms. Mallek stated that there needs to be more certainty presented as to what the effect will be on
the neighbors, as they are in a high-risk situation and should have the right to live in their homes for as
long as possible.
Mr. Rooker asked what would happen if the site exceeds the 1,625 gallon per day limit. Ms.
Frederick responded that it would be a zoning violation.
Mr. Rooker said that it really doesn‘t seem very practical that some staff person is going to go out
and check it regularly. Ms. Frederick stated that the condition is written so that the applicant must provide
data to the Zoning Administrator within 48 hours of the County‘s request.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that he questions how practical this is, and asked if the station would
essentially have to shut down their operation the next day. Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development,
replied that potentially they would have to reevaluate how their operation occurs. They may have to
change their business model.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Rooker asked if they harvest rainwater to use to water plants if it counts against the 1,625.
Ms. Frederick responded that there was a determination made by the Deputy Zoning Administrator that it
could be counted.
Mr. Rooker said that it would need to be ascertained as to whether it would be counted, and
asked if the rainwater barrels would also be monitored. He just does not see this limitation approach as
being real practical, but then he also does not know what the alternatives are.
Ms. Mallek commented that accurate numbers of how many people actually visit the site would
ultimately determine the water usage. She knows there has been some discussion in materials that the
site is not required to comply with Board of Health regulations regarding numbers of gallons used per
vehicle trip. She explained that a waiver is only allowed for non-franchise business owners, and there is
information from the applicants that indicates that they expect this to be sold to a national chain. If that is
a possibility, before any shovels go in the ground, the Board needs to make sure that there is enough
water capability using the Board of Health regulations in order for the property to be able to succeed. Ms.
Mallek added that the last thing she wants to see is a situation where the plan fails, as customers will not
return. People will not come back if they cannot use the bathrooms. She thinks that the traffic study for
the site plan is needed before the Board votes on the request.
Mr. Boyd said that a traffic study will not show how many people are stopping there, only how
many are passing by.
Ms. Mallek said it is the use in this circumstance by businesses under Board of Health regulations
which requires how much water they are planning for. She added that she would ask for more detail from
someone who knows more about the traffic study for the site plan.
Mr. Rooker commented that he understands that the study does not take into account I-64 traffic.
He added that VDoT is looking at it relating to what kind of entrance would be required from Route 250,
but he is not certain if they are taking I-64 traffic into consideration.
Ms. Frederick stated that the traffic study required at final site plan stage would be required by
VDOT, and that is strictly a traffic study to determine the type of entrance and location of the entrance for
the site, not the Department of Health standards. She added that it would provide vehicle trips to the site.
Mr. Rooker said that he questions whether this is based on trips on Route 250, and not
necessarily traffic on I-64. Ms. Frederick confirmed that the traffic study uses the trip generation
information from Route 250 and not I-64.
At this time, the Chair asked the applicant for comments.
Ms. Jo Higgins, representing the applicant, said that this is not a rezoning. This site is not going to
be a truck stop. The property has been zoned for 30 years and is located outside of the designated
growth area. She emphasized that the area is not rural in nature, as it has Yancey, F&R, the Moose
Lodge, and the strip up the road has a very commercial nature, and there is a lot of other Highway
Commercial buildings. Ms. Higgins stated that the only other similar special use permit that has been
approved is the Shadwell Convenience Market which was for 1,000 gallons on just over an acre, and was
equivalent to granting 847 gallons per acre and did not have restrictions to monitor usage. She said that
the applicant for Restore N Station wanted to be treated similarly. They have provided water data on nine
other locations, and all of them operate under 1,600 gallons, with the highest one being 1,366. Ms.
Higgins noted that all of these are successful convenience stores with fuel pumps, with interstate signs
and proximity to the interstate, and are on roads with more traffic than what is on Route 250.
Mr. Rooker asked if any of the examples she mentioned have neighborhoods around them, noting
that there are not a number of residential properties around the Shadwell Market.
Ms. Higgins responded that if the issue is what the water usage can withstand, the Shadwell
property got more usage.
Mr. Rooker stated that the difference here is there are neighbors who might feel the pull from
water usage around it.
Ms. Higgins said that the other stations referenced here are on public water, so their usage is
actually metered. She added that the Tier Three study is required for wells under 2,000 gallons a day, and
if it is over 2,000 the Tier Four is required. Ms. Higgins stated that the Wawa on Broad Street in Western
Henrico is a booming store, and uses 1,351 gallons per day and its‘ exact prototype on Merrimack Trail in
Williamsburg uses 1,000 gallons per day. The applicant has no issues with being restricted to this amount
of water. She said that there is really no relationship to the Health Department‘s chart that says 10 gallons
per vehicle, as that study was done in the 80s when people pulled in and had a service station attendant.
She added convenience store service station is not a provision in the chart for the Health Department.
Mr. Rooker asked what difference having an attendant would make in water usage. Ms. Higgins
said that the point she is trying to make is that the 10-gallons per vehicle figure used is not a convenience
store service station as defined by the Health Department. If the water usage is restricted it would not
matter what the traffic study says.
Ms. Higgins stated that the applicant has the septic permit from the Health Department for 1,600
gallons, and it does include potential future uses. The service station could operate with a restricted
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 61)
system with a flow control valve that would be plumbed into the water line and calibrated by a PE. They
could not pump more than the by-right out of the ground on any day. She emphasized that it is a low-flow
control designed to protect low-flow wells so it will protect the groundwater surface under the ground. She
also noted that there is no proof that it won‘t impact anybody. Ms. Higgins reported that the water data is
to verify the facilities that are already operating, noting that the Bellair Market has fewer pumps, but also
has catering and a kitchen using a dishwasher and icemaker; the Wawa has eight pumps. She
mentioned that Restore N Station will have 14 nozzles because the other pump is for off-road diesel, not
for motor vehicle, and is restricted by VDoT. It is just like LP gas and kerosene.
Ms. Higgins emphasized that the store will use conservation fixtures, with toilets using one gallon
per flush and urinals using a tenth of a gallon. The County just demonstrated they can save about
$20,000 on their water bill with these measures and fixtures. She said that the Tier Three groundwater
study was submitted. The County‘s W ater Resources Manager, Josh Rubinstein, reviewed it and
commented on it, stating excellent. Ms. Higgins stated that the criticism is that it was a Tier T hree study
and not a Tier Four, but that was a decision the Board made for less than 2,000 gallons per day. She
pointed out that the 400 gallon limit per acre was intended to be more consistent with rural areas, and that
is why it is in all of the commercial districts when they are outside the growth area. Ms. Higgins said that
the claim is there was no staff to do it, but there was a Water Resources Manager on County staff at the
time. There are no guarantees for anyone regardless of the study. She stated that the applicant is
essentially asking for one gallon. The flow control valve does benefit by drawing slowly and consistently,
which will offer a measure of protection for all the wells.
She stated that the applicant has received nine additional letters of support which she will provide
to the Clerk. The applicant has met with neighbors several times and did a complete redesign to reduce
the store from 6,000 down to 4,750. The final footprint will be 4,500 square feet only 500 square feet
more than what is allowed in the RA district for a country store. Ms. Higgins emphasized that the store is
only going to use about 1,100 gallons. The applicant has operated a store for 18 years so he has
knowledge and experience in this arena. She added that the newly designed version has 110 feet of
green space set back off the road. The applicant is aware that any further development of the site will be
restricted. Ms. Higgins pointed out that a traffic study must consider it is a level of service analysis of
certain intersections, including I-64, and will analyze where the traffic source is and apply level of service
calculations to the intersections at Route 240/250 and I-64 and that entire strip. She said that regardless
of what the traffic prediction is, it is not related to the amount of water that would be used.
Mr. Rooker said that the primary purpose of the traffic study is to determine what kind of entrance
will be required for the business, so there must be some assumptions made as to how many people would
be entering the business.
Ms. Higgins responded that it is already known that there will be a right-turn lane and left-turn lane
into the site to remove traffic from the through-lanes, which does not happen out there now. She noted
that this would also tell the length of the turn lanes and the impacts on the level of service on intersections
that have been identified for analysis. Ms. Higgins mentioned that she has data from a service station –
Star Express in New Kent County, off of I-64 – that illustrates how calculations can be extrapolated and
used.
Mr. Rooker said there would be information in the report then that would help determine the
expected number of visitors to the site per day. Ms. Higgins responded that the improvements have
already been dictated to VDoT and the applicant is doing what they ask regardless, and because this
property is already zoned, it is for information purposes only.
Mr. Rooker said that information could perhaps tell something about potential water usage based
upon the number of visitors. Ms. Higgins stated that there is an assumption that some correlation can be
drawn between the number of cars and the number of gallons, and it does not exist. Ms. Higgins
emphasized that the water usage data from other sites that are actually in operation is the only way to
make that prediction. They already have that data but they had to find meter sites because well sites do
not have meters.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any information about the number of visitors to those stores per day.
Ms. Higgins responded that there is information on the vehicle trip days on those roads for the Broad
Street Wawa. There are 35,000 trips per day on that road. At the other Wawa in Williamsburg there are
15,000 trips. For Route 250, the level is 9,800. These are all higher traffic loaded roads to begin with.
Mr. Rooker added that there are also a lot more gas stations within a reasonable radius, and the
applicable traffic comparison here would be I-64 and Route 250, because you‘re going to be pulling from
both roads. He said he wasn‘t sure what the traffic count is on I-64. Ms. Higgins responded that the count
for that part of I-64 is 34,000 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Rooker commented that the station‘s market will be that traffic. Ms. Higgins mentioned that
there is a Super-Test on the other side, an Exxon directly across the street, Brownsville Market, and
Gateway within a mile.
Mr. Rooker said that all of those things go into determining how many visitors will come into a
given station which provides a correlation between how much water is used. Ms. Higgins responded that
it is more about what goes on inside the station, such as having a dishwasher or icemaker, or public
restrooms. They are not required to have public restrooms; only hand wash sinks. They are also only
required to have certain fixtures at CO. The County does not even require them to be open to the public;
it is a convenience draw for the customers. They do plan to have restrooms. They just want to make sure
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 62)
they can operate. The applicant operated a booming store business at Brownsville where he used 600
gallons a day. In the same location, same distance to the interstate, and same proximity, all the factors
are the same.
Ms. Higgins said that this property has been zoned Highway Commercial for the 30 years. The
development will create jobs during construction and 15-18 permanent jobs once opened, generating
about $10,000 per year now in real estate taxes along with business tax revenue. Ms. Higgins said that
this station will provide fuel, off road fuel, convenience items and safe access off of Route 250. They have
been in the process for two years and have done two site plan layouts. This application has been to the
ARB three times. She stated that moving this forward is critical to opening in January 2012. There is no
risk for the County. The conditions can be modified; the orifice is going to be calibrated by an engineer,
reports submitted to the County and it will be a permanent fixture on the site. If the pump runs 24 hours all
day every day, they cannot pull more than the allowed amount of water out of the ground. The only way to
prove the water is to operate. Ms. Higgins stated that the applicant is willing to accept a voluntary
condition that two fuel pumps will not be installed for a period of 12 months, and after that time provided
the water volume of 1,625 is not exceeded these two fuel pumps may be installed but are not required.
There is no circumstance where the store would shut its doors because it runs out of water; that just does
not happen suddenly. At any time public restroom use is optional. Cooking methods and operation
methods can be changed. She also mentioned that she had sent an email to the Planning Commission to
ask for a provision to allow harvesting of rainwater only to water plant material, and suggested that it not
be counted toward the water consumption total. Ms. Higgins also said that the applicant asks that no
restriction on operating hours be imposed, because the water would not be used at night. The applicant
has no problem with staff recommendations. Mr. Nat Perkins, the site design engineer, is also present
and can answer any questions. She also stated that federal and state regulations overrule anything on
underground storage tanks; they must be double-walled, monitored and have alarms, etc. She stated you
have a tank within a tank, and nobody‘s grandfathered. She will be happy to respond to any questions
from Board members. She reiterated that the applicant is only asking for the one gallon to enable this
permit to exist, and the Board can add whatever conditions that make it comfortable to allow the business
to operate.
Mr. Snow asked Ms. Higgins to clarify what the one gallon differential means. Ms. Higgins
explained that the current maximum allowable limit is 400 gallons per acre by right, and when the site
acreage of 4.06 is multiplied, it totals 1,624; the applicant is asking for the permit to be 1,625.
Mr. Snow said that he does not understand how that gallon would make a difference. Ms. Higgins
responded that the applicant has never agreed that the store would use that amount, but if that gallon
were not requested there would be no basis to ask for a permit. The Zoning Administrator gave a
determination, after trying and trying, to prove they would not exceed. They are required to ask and are
just trying to cooperate. They do not want a special use permit, but it is the right thing to do to put the
limitations on it and enable the County to enforce this. She said that the by-right amount is satisfactory to
the applicant. If the Board denies the permit, she does not know where the application stands. They are
asking for this because they have consistently been told that people think it will be more which no one can
prove until it is opened, except for the nine stores that are already existing and never exceed 1,600
gallons.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that he didn‘t hear any hours of operation mentioned. Ms. Higgins replied
that there wouldn‘t be, noting that Mr. Sprouse stayed open for 24 hours for a short tim e when he operated
Brownsville, but customers could always buy gas at the pum ps. He would only stay open if he had
customers. If the Board imposes a restriction, this applicant would be the only one with that condition.
There is no intent to stay open 24 hours, but if you restricted him, 10 years from now, he‘s the only one
that has to close.
Mr. Thomas asked where the assumption originated that this was going to be a planned truck
stop.
Ms. Higgins explained that there are three lanes coming out of it just like Harris Teeter
and in order to make the turning radius in the back to get around the diesel pump, there is 60 feet on
each side to get a truck to come in. A tractor trailer delivering fuel to the site has to be able to turn around.
She said that if you pull into Brownsville now in a tractor trailer, you have to back up onto Route 250 to get
out which VDoT no longer allows. Ms. Higgins said that if one truck is parked there you cannot make the
turning radius, and there is no intention of making this a truck stop.
Mr. Thomas also mentioned information circulating that Mr. Sprouse would sell it to a national firm
once he got it up and running.
Ms. Higgins replied that he has honored a non-compete clause to not open until January 2012.
She reported that the competition, Mr. Suh, has hired attorneys and consultants to stop this development.
Mr. Sprouse has had a for sale sign on this property since he bought it. She said that this property is in
ACSA jurisdiction for water only. If the real issue is about protecting people‘s wells the County could let
him have a water tap, or let them have taps. Ms. Higgins stated that the jurisdictional area said water only
for existing building, but Mr. Sprouse had torn that old building down because vagrants ended up
occupying it.
Mr. Snow asked if there is a restaurant inside the building. Ms. Higgins replied that this is not a
restaurant that is under Health Department jurisdiction, as there is an exception if there are less than 15
seats so by law it would fall under agricultural services inspection. It is similar to Bellair or Brownsville.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 63)
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jane Henley said she is the President of Scenic Virginia, the only scenic protection
organization in the state, headquartered in Richmond. Ms. Henley said that she has come all this way
because the Board‘s responsibility matched their organization‘s mission. She noted that Section 18-31.6.1
of the Albemarle County Code says, in part, that ―special use permits may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that the character of the district will not be changed‖. Ms. Henley emphasized that
the ARB found that the scale of the development remains excessive and is inappropriate for the Entrance
Corridor adjacent to an historic area. She said that Scenic Virginia, along with Scenic America, does
foster new development that respects this character as defined by the distinctive features and cultures of
the surrounding community. Ms. Henley stated that this stretch of Route 250 West, which is a scenic
byway, has just the right character for a road leading to the old, long-established community of Crozet.
She added that its low-key establishments do not attract any heavy traffic to mix with the traffic created by
the elementary, middle and high schools beside it, and its‘ low-key uses also do not harm historic
Freetown, which abuts the applicant‘s property. Ms. Henley said that this proposal is for an establishment
that will be brightly lit all night, with a footprint that is twice as large as any other service station on that
road. It is out of character. She stated that she hopes the Board will not permit this and make a brightly
lit, ticky tacky entrance to Crozet.
Mr. Duane Zobrist said that he takes issue with the assumption that this is a by-right use because
using the definitions for Highway Commercial zoning they only provide for convenience stores and
automobile service stations. Mr. Zobrist said that it is up to the Board to decide what those definitions are,
and how the application plan fits into that. He noted that the National Association of Convenience Stores
defines a traditional convenience store as a store of 2,400 to 2,500 square feet offering a product mix of
dairy, bakery, snack foods, beverages, tobacco and some grocery, food –to-go, and gasoline. Mr. Zobrist
said that the definition also stipulates that most have six to 12 parking spaces and extended hours with
most open 24 hours. He added that that is not what the applicant is saying here; the applicant is
attempting to put in more of a hyper-store, which that same Association defines as a very large store,
4,000 to 5,000 square feet and an array of products organized in departments; many sell gasoline, a
substantial number of parking spaces; open generally 24 hours; and most are mini truck-stops. Mr.
Zobrist emphasized that this is a mini truck -stop, and big trucks can get in and out of it. He also said that
the Zoning Administrator has determined that this requires a special use permit, which means a special
use permit takes it out of the Highway Commercial designation. This does not sound like a convenience
store. In order to approve this, he said, the Board must find that there is no substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and it will be in harmony with public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Zobrist added that
the Zoning Administrator has determined that all water consumed must be considered including surface
water and ground water, and that was not appealed by the applicant. He also said that when the Board
adopted this statute, they stated that all water had to be considered. He does not think this applicant
should be able to suck into the water table and not put anything back in, and take away everything from
the neighbors. Mr. Zobrist emphasized that this record is void of any facts that support a finding that there
won‘t be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties. He asked the Board to define a convenience
store and then deny this application.
Mr. Tom Goeke said that he lives on Hillsboro Lane, approximately 500 feet from the site of this
proposed station. Mr. Goeke said that he is mostly concerned about water usage, with eight pumps and a
future addition of 6,600 square feet. He stated that the Institute of Transportation Engineers used trip
generation to decide traffic as discussed and noted, and used trips per day, 136 per filling location, with 16
vehicle filling locations. Mr. Goeke said that in the submission water was described as a factor of square
feet, but it is not a factor of square feet, it is a factor of the number of visitors. He stated that the traffic
count on that stretch of Route 250 was 10,000 in 2007 but it is now about 14,000 from what he has found.
Mr. Goeke added that Brownsville Store averaged 1.24 gallons of water per fueling transaction; Tiger Fuel
uses 1.2 gallons of water per fueling transaction at all of their site; Bellair uses 1,400 gallons with just
three pumps, six nozzles, and is 2,650 square feet with a 16-hour operation. He said that 16 filling
positions times 136 vehicles per day per station times 1.2 gallons equals a total of 2,800 gallons per day
including the 200 scheduled for the next part of their development. Mr. Goeke stated that appropriate
scale to fit within the water supply is four to five pumps with the size of store their talking about, operating
16 hours a day. He said that he is also concerned with the Freetown neighborhood. If the concession is
to start small, then the applicant should start with four or five pumps, prove it, and go from there.
Mr. Mike Marshall said that the CCAC sent the Board a few resolutions passed pertaining to this
project including a statement that indicates they do not know how a reasonable projection can be obtained
without a reasonably well done traffic study. He also said that the water studies done so far do not really
calculate the affect of the water use on the neighbors, and they deserve equal consideration. Mr. Marshall
said that the whole reason there is a special use perm it is because it is so hard to pin down the likely
water use from this station. He then asked those in attendance who oppose the special permit to stand
(about 30 people stood). Mr. Marshall also asked what recourse Freetown residents have if their wells go
dry, as all he has been able to establish is that they could sue Mr. Sprouse. He stated the real thing is to
not put those Freetown people in this position in the first place.
Mr. Daniel Bowman addressed the Board, stating that he is speaking for Advocates for a
Sustainable Albemarle Population, which urges the Board to follow the Commission‘s recommendation to
deny the special use permit. Mr. Bowman said that the applicant has not provided adequate information
to reduce uncertainty about groundwater supplies and the potential impact on those water supplies for
their own property or neighboring properties. He stated that while the recent rainfall replenished water
supplies and surface reservoirs, it is unlikely that it did much to replenish groundwater supplies. Even with
that rainfall the monthly total for September was below normal, with the County nearly 15 inches below
normal for the year and on track to have the fifth consecutive year of below-normal rainfall.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr. Bowman said that ASAP contractors have completed five reports on environmental issues
and the relationships to a sustainable population. One of those reports is entitled Underground Albemarle
Revisited by Nick Evans and Michael Collins of Virginia Groundwater, LLC. He noted that among their
conclusions are that overall average daily groundwater recharge in the County is about 1,079 gallons per
acre and under sustainable groundwater management, about 80-95% of that is required to support and
sustain groundwater supplies. Mr. Bowman said that a maximum of 20% of that amount, or approximately
216 gallons per acre per day is available for extractive uses, far less than even the 400 gallons per day
that is the existing threshold for the County review. He also stated that degradation of aquatic
ecosystems, both groundwater and surface waters, occur with increasing percentage of impervious land
cover in a groundwater recharge area. Depending again on specific circumstances, he said, degradation
occurs when impervious cover reaches 5-20% of the surface areas.
Mr. Bowman stated that another piece missing from this application is a thorough economic
impact analysis, what are the potential impacts of the proposed new gas station/convenience store on
similar nearby existing facilities. Mr. Bowman said new jobs should not be at the cost of existing jobs.
New revenue streams should not be at the expense of existing revenue streams. He said that another
question to be answered is what the potential economic impacts are of infrastructure needs for the
proposed new facility. The proposed special permit deals only with the water consumption issue, but it is
important for the Board to consider economic impacts as well.
Ms. Gardy Bloemers said that she is speaking as a resident of Yancey Mills and as a member of
the Scenic 250 Steering Committee. Ms. Bloomers said that Scenic 250 is not opposed to and would
welcome on this site a smaller, scaled-down four-pump gas station and convenience store something akin
to a Bellair Market. She added that the group has consistently opposed and continue to oppose the
issuance of a special use permit for the huge and water-intensive Restore N Station proposal. Ms.
Bloemers said that on multiple occasions, the Zoning Administrator has determined that the proposed
project would use more water than allowed by-right. She stated that Mr. Goeke has clarified the reason
for this: because water usage is driven by the number of pumps and the number of restaurant seats, and
this proposal has too many of each, resulting in water usage far in excess of the by-right allowance of
1,624 gallons per day. Ms. Bloomers said that simply solving this by metering this and controlling flows is
not a viable solution. She wondered how the short-staffed County would police this.
She added that there is still an undefined, mysterious Phase II footprint on the site plan of
approximately 7,000 square feet which will almost certainly require more water. Ms. Bloemers
emphasized that staff, the public and the Board cannot reasonably estimate the impacts of this proposal
without a definitive understanding of what Phase II entails. She added that County staff has made clear
that they cannot determine that this project will not be detrimental to adjacent property owners. The
Committee supports the completion of a Tier Four groundwater study as well as a traffic study prior to any
decisions being made by the Supervisors. Traffic is already a major problem in this area. Both will help
provide much needed information about true impacts. She added that Route 250 West is a major
entrance and exit corridor into the County as well as the Shenandoah Park and Blue Ridge Parkway. The
residents live here because the area is beautiful and visitors come here for the same reason. Ms.
Bloemers said that the long-term economic downside of the is proposal will be far greater than any
economic benefit gained from this gas station, which would become the second largest in the County after
the Liberty at Pantops.
Mr. Nick Duke said that he is a resident of Hillsboro Lane in Yancey Mills. He suggested that the
Restore N Station applicant is forgetting and ignoring all of the stakeholders in the community who will not
stand by and be steamrolled just because the owner has a right to develop his property in a commercial
zone. As proposed, Mr. Duke said, Restore N Station is oversized, disrespectful of the neighbors and
surrounding community in which it is proposed; it is environmentally unsound with the possibility of
draining and polluting nearby wells of precious residential water; it will attract undesired volumes of traffic
including semi tractor-trailers into what should be considered a school zone; and it will create light and
noise pollution if allowed to operate 24/7. Mr. Duke said that the neighbors in this area have been meeting
for over two years to learn about the issues and regulations that apply to this site. They need the elected
officials to do the same regarding scale, water and traffic. The neighbors, not the County, had to
commission a water study that concluded that the proposed project was wrong for this site, along with the
development that might follow it. He stated that if the applicant would downsize the scale of his project,
add chargers for electric vehicles, and sell bio-diesel, he thinks the broader community might be willing to
accept it. The citizens in this neighborhood and Crozet oppose this proposed station. He urged the Board
to deny the special use permit and not allow it to drag on any longer.
Mr. Richard Brown said that he is a resident of Freetown and has been living there for many,
many years. Everybody has already said everything he wanted to say. Mr. Brown said that the residents
there would like to keep it quiet. These tractor trailer trucks, grocery trucks, beer trucks, etc., coming to
the store are going to disrupt them considerably. He hopes Board members will consider not going
through with this because it is going to hurt a lot of people.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. Brown if he had any trouble with his well in 2002 during the drought.
Mr. Brown responded that he has had two wells that have run dry since 2000, adding that the
wells are not that good. In fact one well went dry back in September. His well is 110 feet. He said that
his neighbor recently had to go down 240 feet to get 10 gallons per minute. It is a possibility that if the
applicant hits a vein below these wells it could drain the smaller wells. Mr. Brown stated that the runoff will
likely go down the hill toward Freetown, which is only about 30 feet below this station.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 65)
Ms. Sandra Mears said that she was born and raised in Freetown and much of her family still lives
there. It is beautiful, it is quiet, and it is peaceful. There is even talk about taking away the right-of-way
out and saying they can drive through the gas station to get out. She agrees with all the other statements
made about the scenic and water issues. She just has a major issue with being told that they would have
to use the gas station for access to and from her property.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification on the access issue.
Ms. Frederick responded that she does not know of any proposal that would bring neighboring
traffic through this site.
Ms. Mary Rice said that she has written to the Board previously about this project and also spoke
to the Planning Commission. Ms. Rice said that she likes the common sense approach. If there is a gas
station that has 16 fueling positions, and a restaurant or a deli/serving location with 14 seats, for women‘s
bathrooms only, that could create about 30 flushes per hour. She stated that operating 14 hours a day
would generate 420 gallons of water, which does not include women washing their hands, men using the
bathroom, men washing their hands, staff washing pots and pans, etc. In her opinion, it just does not
make sense. Ms. Rice also encouraged the Board not to get involved in any last-minute deals, as this has
been a very public process spanning the last several years.
Mr. Fred Williamson said that he is very puzzled as to the real reason for the special use permit
as it looks like a toe in the door to get something else larger down the line. Mr. Williamson said that there
is not a great track record as to the applicant‘s trustworthiness, with the non-compete situation, damage to
Mr. Brown‘s pond, etc. What is the real thing that is going to happen with that 6,000 or so square feet,
why not make it smaller. With 4,000 square feet, the applicant would not need a special use permit.
Ms. Mary Buford Hitz said that she and her husband own a house on the extreme western edge of
Albemarle. Ms. Hitz emphasized that Route 250 West beyond the intersection of I-64 and Route 250 is
some of the most beautiful country in Albemarle; a county that is so beautiful that tourism contributes
enormously to its economy. She said that to allow this mega-gas station at this location is to begin killing
the goose that laid the golden egg. Ms. Hitz reported that for the last three years the Western Albemarle
Association has been working to establish the Greenwood/Afton Rural Historic District, and $60,000
towards this effort has been raised, with the research already completed. She said that the public hearing
to be held by the State Historic Resources Department will occur next month. The group has followed
their guidelines fully expecting the designation of Rural Historic District to be forthcoming. Following this
designation, Ms. Hitz said, they will apply for federal designation and expect to receive that as well. All of
this effort was made to keep that golden goose alive. She added that the boundary of the district includes
the land that Restore N Station would be on because it projects eastward at that point to include both
Freetown and the historic graveyard next to Western Albemarle High School. A gas station of this size is
inappropriate at this location for all of the reasons stated above and so many others that the Board has
heard patiently this evening. They urge the Board not to grant this special use permit.
Mr. Bruce Kirtley, an adjacent property, addressed the Board. He stated that Mr. Goeke has done
a lot of research on the technical side of this issue and he is using an ITE report, which VDOT relies on,
that indicates each pump that is used averages 136 trips per day. Mr. Kirtley said that they were further
told as an industry standard that each fueling trip would use 1.24 gallons of water, adding that they went
back to Brownsville Market with Chris Suh and Mr. Goeke took a month‘s worth of data that usage worked
out to be 1.2 gallons. He stated that by extrapolating that out, they reasoned this station would use a little
over 2,100 gallons per day. Mr. Kirtley said that Bellair‘s water usage is in the 1,325 gallons per day with
only six pumps. He also stated that if the BP or Liberty at Pantops had four of the surrounding gas
stations and some of the competing fast food chains removed, their water usage would go up
considerably. Mr. Kirtley said that shutting the meter off at 1,625 gallons is unrealistic; as the County is
not really going to be able to reasonably enforce it. They think the data indicates that probably a store
about half the size with half as many pumps and 16 hours instead of 24 would probably be appropriate.
Ms. Barbara Westbrook said that she has done an unofficial traffic study of all the traffic that
passes in front of the Restore N Station site and has found that from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. there are a
total of 8,692 cars including 77 tractor-trailers. She said that she is not opposed to the gas station, just to
the size of it, primarily the additional traffic it would bring. Ms. Westbrook added that she saw a lot of
trucks when she was doing her count that were coming eastbound from the lumber yard and pulling over
in front of the Restore N Station site then making a U-turn on Route 250. She is also concerned with the
number of teenage drivers in this area, given its proximity to Western Albemarle High School. She
reiterated that her main concern is with traffic.
Mr. Frank Calhoun said that he moved with his horses to Crozet from Augusta County looking for
a more beautiful and scenic place than he was leaving. Mr. Calhoun said that he is very concerned about
character of neighborhood. The reason why property here tends to be expensive is because everyone
likes that character. He encouraged the Board to think not only about the water availability but also about
the character of a neighborhood. He added to Stockton Creek runs through the farm he is leasing and
there has not even been a trickle through the Creek flowing in one direction.
Ms. Lillian Mezey said that she lives in western Albemarle and has two children who attend the
high school. Ms. Mezey said that she is here tonight to encourage the Board to deny the special use
permit for Restore N Station, as common sense tells us that such an oversized gas station would
absolutely adversely alter the character of the neighborhood. She added that Route 250 is a scenic
byway, and this project is designed to pull traffic, and especially trucks off of I-64 onto the byway. Ms.
Mezey said that adverse impacts to neighbors and on natural, historic, and scenic resources would include
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 66)
concerns about water use and the risk of groundwater failure, bright lights shining onto neighbors‘
properties, large areas of impervious paved surfaces, oil and gas runoff into groundwater, increased
vehicular traffic including big trucks, probably tractor-trailers, and associated diesel fumes and noise
pollution. She stated that this is in addition to traffic hazards for student drivers around Western, and
there has also been a significant increase in this stretch of Route 250 already due to the tremendous
residential and commercial growth in Crozet. Ms. Mezey said that a huge gas station would be a step in
industrializing and commercializing western Albemarle County, as there will surely be more requests for
special use permits and other highway rest area type of businesses such as Applebee‘s or Pizza Hut. She
asked the Board to deny the special use permit and protect the neighbors.
Ms. Mary Gallo urged the Board to deny the request. She said that a traffic study and an
independent water analysis should be the minimum requirements prior to consideration of the special use
permit. If there is not enough data to determine if there is an adequate water supply for this project, then
the Board must deny the application. The County has an obligation to the community to verify the
information provided by the applicant, and anything less would be irresponsible. Ms. Gallo said that the
applicant is clearly looking after his own interests, but citizens rely on the Board to look after theirs. The
repercussions of getting it wrong are just too serious and potentially long-lasting and devastating on the
school communities, Crozet overall, and especially on the community of Freetown. She reiterated that a
project here is something that the community could embrace. It does not seem right to play dice with
people‘s rights to enjoy their own homes. She added that this site is so close to the high school, and the
traffic is bad enough as it is for those young drivers, and that mixing traffic off the interstate with young,
inexperienced drivers is just a really, really bad idea. She again asked the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Ralph Wilson said that he is a direct descendant of Freetown although he grew up in
Charlottesville. He presented photos from his Uncle, Richard Brown, showing the damage that has been
done to Mr. Brown‘s pond, with oxygenation levels that have essentially killed off the fish.
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, stated that this proposal seems to
come down to two key questions, how much water would this project use, and what impacts would that
water use have. Mr. Butler said that the applicant is asserting that this project would only use one gallon
more of water than allowed by-right and has submitted information suggesting that the impacts from its
water usage would be small. He stated that on the other side, a large group of concerned neighbors have
hired their own experts and have done their own work, suggesting that the water use could be a great deal
more than what the applicant suggests and that the impacts to adjacent properties could be severe. Mr.
Butler said that staff has found that there is a significant likelihood that water usage will not stay below the
by-right limit. Then that is the end of the matter. This is not the venue for contesting that finding, but
rather a matter for appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated that even if the use were to match
the applicant‘s estimate, staff still cannot determine that the existing groundwater supply is adequate to
support it or that nearby wells would not fail. Mr. Butler commented that the outstanding questions about
impacts to nearby properties cast doubt over whether this Board can even make all the findings that are
legally required in order to grant this special use permit. He noted that at the very least, staff‘s inability to
determine that there is enough water to support this use, without impacting adjacent parcels, gives the
Board ample legal grounds to deny it and enforce the community‘s desire for a scaled-back proposal that
would use less water, have less impact on adjacent properties, and be m ore in line with the size of other
commercial uses along Route 250 in this part of the County. Mr. Butler pointed out that staff only
recommends approval with the 1,625 gallons per day, and the community is understandably skeptical of
the idea that a condition limiting usage to 1,625 gallons would or could be meaningfully enforced once this
project is built and operating. He asked the Board to consider whether this project at its current scale is in
the best interest of County residents. The SELC does not think so.
Mr. Tim Tolson said that the County‘s mission is to enhance the well-being and quality of life for all
citizens. This proposal will not do that. Mr. Tolson also said that like a similar site at Zion‘s Crossroads,
this applicant has enough space to make room for trucks to park but has insisted that he ―wouldn‘t do
this.‖ He added that common sense dictates that ―if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like
a duck, it‘s a duck.‖
There being no other public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing.
The applicant‘s representative, Ms. Higgins, addressed the Board again. Ms. Higgins mentioned
that the matter with Mr. Brown‘s pond was settled in court; he received a settlement from Mr. Sprouse to
clean his pond up, as the silt controls put in place behind Brownsville Market got blown away in a storm.
That is something that can happen during construction, but there will be an E&S plan put in during
construction activity. She then pointed out on the map Restore N Station, noting the location of the pond
and the Brownsville Market. She added that there are better regulations for stormwater quality and
quantity controls that this project will be subjected to.
Mr. Rooker asked what is in place now that was not in place then regarding that pond. Ms.
Higgins responded that Brownsville has no stormwater controls, as it is grandfathered. She added that
grading was done in 2001 and the silt controls in place blew out, so the silt went down in the pond.
Mr. Rooker added that that could happen at this site. Ms. Higgins responded that it could happen
at any construction site.
Ms. Higgins said that the Tier Three review done for this site was performed by Nick Evans and
did consider the site, but it did not give credit to recharge. Ms. Higgins said that the review done by Evans
and Collins for ASAP states that daily recharge per acre is 1,779 gallons, and on this site 1.4 acres is
impervious with the rest of the site being non-impervious. She stated that there is more recharge per acre
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 67)
on just that area than normal withdrawal would allow. Ms. Higgins noted that if it were two acres, it would
be 2,000 gallons of recharge and this applicant is talking about 1,624 gallons.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that the article also stated that only 20% of the recharge value should be
removed. Ms. Higgins responded that it was based on 33% going to groundwater recharge, but it was
calculated for well replacement in Albemarle County, which is where the daily recharge per acre figure
comes from.
Ms. Higgins stated that the manual traffic count done is not far off of what VDoT has said as 9,800
trips; in 2001 it was approximately 6,400 trips in a 24-hour period. Ms. Higgins stated that the driveway on
the edge will not be touched and will be integrated right into the taper, adding that the applicant can‘t get
within 20 feet of the property line along that edge. She said that the applicant intends to do a privacy
fence along there, rather than trees, in order to protect that driveway. Ms. Higgins commented that Mr.
Goeke‘s figure of 1.2 gallons of water used per vehicle is a theoretical application, but she used a 4,800
square foot building with a 16-nozzle station right off of I-64 in New Kent County and factored in Mr.
Goeke‘s numbers, and she predicted 2,436 gallons. She said that if the stations she already compared
are used, however, such as the Shell station with 14 fuel stations and 127 vehicle trips, the extrapolated
number is 2,133 gallons per day, but the store actually uses 700 gallons per day. Ms. Higgins stated that
she did the same thing for the BP at Pantops, and that station uses 824 gallons per day. The 1.2 gallons
per vehicle is not what the actual for stations that they have metered and done the same ITE calculation
would dictate. She said that you have to take a theory and apply it to an actual. She added that the site
plan is only 500 square feet more than country store designation, and if hours have to be a condition
they‘d like it to be 4:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Ms. Higgins reiterated that all of this is about one gallon. The well protection is just as important
to Mr. Sprouse, but most importantly they did an engineered restriction system that was submitted to
Zoning. A Zoning determination was actually issued but was withdrawn because there was a technicality;
it had conditions on it, which was not appropriate. The same conditions from that Zoning determination
can be put on the permit. She added that a fixture can be installed so that the water does not exceed the
limit, but it is already clear mathematically that it would not exceed that limit. The applicant is requesting
the Board to move this forward. They have been through two site plans and two years of work. They are
willing to talk through some satisfactory conditions that would satisfy both sides. They have already
suggested deleting two pumps, allow a condition that would say the two pumps may be installed but are
not required, but for twelve months cannot be installed until the data is collected. They would then know
who is right. That means five pumps, four under the large canopy in the front, one in the back and does
not include the off road diesel because that is not a fueling station. She asked that the Board consider all
the information that has been provided.
Mr. Boyd asked why the applicant just couldn‘t be allowed to connect to the County‘s water
system, as they had that option before but lost it because of a technicality. He stated that wipes out some
of the biggest objections that he has heard regarding impacts to neighbors‘ wells.
Mr. Davis responded that if it is connected to public water and is zoned Highway Commercial, and
an automobile service station and convenience store are by-right uses, the only review of that would be a
site plan and certificate of appropriateness by the ARB. He said that would be the consequence of
granting it water usage.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board could put restrictions on the granting of the water usage. Mr. Davis
explained that what would be required to allow it to hook up would be an amendment to the ACSA
jurisdictional area. That was another application that was reviewed and rejected previously by the Board
because the proposed site is located in the rural area of the Comprehensive Plan and thus would not be
consistent to extend utility designation unless it was designated as a development area.
Mr. Boyd commented that this was discussed earlier and just because it is not in the Comp Plan
does not mean the Board cannot do it. Mr. Davis responded that the Board can do what it wants to do, but
it would be inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek said that that would be sending it in the wrong direction. After many months of making
suggestions there have been some questions today that have brought it much more into reason with what
the neighbors want.
Mr. Boyd suggested that the project be allowed to hook up to water, enforce adequate erosion and
sediment control, limit the building to 4,500 square feet, and prohibit overnight parking of trucks on the
site. He believes those would protect the neighbors‘ water supply and would restrict what they can build
without having to come back and ask for more if they want to build a second building.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the ruling is on the requirement for a special use permit. Mr. Davis
explained that the requirement in this case is that if a use that is otherwise permitted by right that is not
served by public water, consumes more than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day, then a special
use permit is required. He said that the Zoning Administrator looked at what was proposed, which was a
certain number of gas pumps and certain amount of square footage for a convenience store, and made a
determination that the uses as proposed would require more than 400 gallons of water to be consumed
per site acre per day. That was a determination that is within the purview of the Zoning Administrator to
make, and an appeal of that determination would have to be made to the Board of Zoning Appeals which
is why it requires a special use permit. Mr. Davis added that if the applicant submitted a different proposal
of a smaller scale and the Zoning Administrator determined that it did not consume more than 400 gallons
of water per site acre per day, it would be a by-right use and it would not require a special use permit; it
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 68)
would simply require a site plan approval and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural
Review Board, but the applicant chose not to do that, and instead requested a special use permit. There
is all this argument about whether it is going to actually use that much water. That is irrelevant because
the Zoning Administrator has already determined that this is a ‗water-intensive use,‘ and that is why it
requires a special use permit.
Mr. Thomas said that Ms. Higgins has stated that staff told her to go with a special use permit.
Mr. Rooker explained that the reason for that is because the use would likely require more than 1,600
gallons per day.
Mr. Davis reiterated that the use as proposed cannot be done unless there is a special use permit.
He stated that he does not know if staff told her to do it or not, but they probably explained that that was
what would be required.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that the larger size presented to the Planning Commission is much different
than what is being talked about today, which troubles her some.
Mr. Thomas asked if Ms. Higgins could come up and provide some explanation.
Ms. Higgins said that the applicant tried three times, submitting the 6,000 square foot store, the
4,750 square foot store, and met with the Zoning Administrator, but no one could tell her this square foot
would be by-right. She added that there is not data available for daily use; it is all monthly. She stated
that the third time the applicant submitted a water restriction engineered system by a PE that said they
could not withdraw more from the well, and that is the one that got a letter stating a special use permit
would not be required. It was withdrawn because it had the condition to install that system. The Board
can make that same condition, so that they won‘t exceed the 400 gallons per day, the standard for the
rural areas. Ms. Higgins said that there was no way to guess what square footage would be permitted.
Mr. Snow stated that he has several issues with this application: the water usage, the additional
7,000 square feet to be built, the potential damage to Freetown, and the scale of the project to the historic
neighborhood and byway. Mr. Snow added that he does not think there is any way they cannot use more
water, if they are developing this and then have another 7,000 square feet. He thinks it would be wishful
thinking.
Mr. Thomas emphasized that the 7,000 is not part of the equation right now.
Mr. Snow responded that it is not now, but it is part of the property and is not going to sit idle.
Someone will come back with a plan for the property.
Mr. Rooker said that this is a Highway Commercial zoned property in the rural area and it is not
appropriate to completely deny that use, but the Board can put conditions on that use that assure that the
water usage would be less likely to damage the usage rights of adjacent neighbors, that it would have less
of an impact on the character of the neighborhood, et cetera. In his mind, a station more like 2,500
square feet with four pumps, which would be eight nozzles, would more meet that requirement. That
would actually put it of a scale which is more comparable to what is in the area. He thinks an hours of
operation limitation to something like 16 hours a day would assure that water usage is likely to be less
intense there, and would also cause other potential negative impacts to be a lot less, lighting impacts, et
cetera on the neighborhood. The Board could also include the conditions recommended by staff. He
added that those kinds of requirements would resolve most of the objections of the neighbors and the
people in Crozet while allowing for Highway Commercial use.
He added that ultimately the applicant has to put in place runoff protection measures as they
grade there. With the elevation differential between that property and the Freetown properties, he can
understand why the Browns are very concerned about what is going to happen when they start grading on
that property. A smaller footprint will result in less grading on the property and less runoff impacts. He
thinks that all of these things could fit together to not give the applicant everything he‘s asking for but to
result in something that the neighborhood could accept. He added that the Scenic Virginia concerns with
a smaller footprint and review by the Architectural Review Board for approval of the ultimate landscaping
and appearance of the building could make this work reasonably well.
Mr. Boyd said that it may work for Mr. Rooker, but maybe not the applicant and his business plan.
Mr. Rooker responded that if the applicant‘s plan is to build the largest station possible and flip it
to a chain for the largest profit possible it may not fit. It was not a secret that there was a for sale sign on
the property. Nobody has proven that you cannot make a 2,500 square foot station/convenience store, et
cetera, work because many of them do work, and make plenty of money.
Mr. Boyd said that allowing the applicant to hook up to public water resolves the impact issues.
Mr. Rooker replied that that is not before the Board tonight. When it was before the Board, Mr. Boyd
actually voted against it.
Mr. Boyd responded that that was a long time ago. Mr. Rooker said that it wasn‘t that long ago.
He added that it was only a year ago, and everybody that was on the Board at that time voted against it.
Mr. Boyd commented that Mr. Rooker did not want to listen. Mr. Boyd added that this was denied
because of a technicality. If the applicant had not torn down the building onsite then he would have water.
He could have built around the building without having to come back to the Board.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 69)
Ms. Mallek explained to Mr. Boyd that that was for existing building only and any renovation would
not allow for that connection automatically.
Mr. Davis confirmed that that‘s been the consistent determination that any expansion to the
existing building would require jurisdictional area approval beyond what was already granted.
Mr. Rooker clarified that one of the reasons that request was denied is because it would have set
a precedent in the rural area, and the Board agreed that they did not want to open the door for this type of
application.
Mr. Boyd commented that the consensus seems to be that this is an inappropriate thing for this
location.
Mr. Rooker responded that there are many reasons in the record to support the denial of what is
applied for today, but the Board can approve a Highway Commercial use with conditions, and he is
suggesting doing that. He suggested that the Board impose the requirements they think would be
appropriate, and make a decision and get this behind the people in Crozet and the applicant. Dragging it
out for another year is not going to benefit anybody.
Mr. Boyd said he is not supportive of dragging this out for another year. It is a problem to restrict
this to a place where it doesn‘t make sense for the applicant to do it, and doing away with the 15 to 18
jobs, and doing away with the economic vitality that is bringing business to the County.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is not convinced that all of these will be new jobs, as they may just
take business away from the business across the street.
Mr. Boyd also stated that Mr. Rooker is never convinced of any of those things
Mr. Thomas asked if Ms. Higgins could respond to the suggested changes.
Ms. Mallek said that the problem with bringing changes in at the last minute is that it completely
disrupts the public process, which is what gives the applicants and the citizen‘s confidence.
Mr. Boyd added that the public wants to scale it back, to make it half the size, cut out half the jobs,
and cut out half the revenue for it.
Mr. Rooker responded that it is not clear that half the jobs would be lost just because the station is
smaller.
Ms. Higgins noted that in 2008 the County amended the RA district to allow for a country store
with a building size limit of 4,000 square feet. She said that the applicant would be able to live with that
size limitation, no overnight parking, and four plus one pumps in addition to restrictions on operating
hours. They have already downsized the site plan on three occasions. She stated if the Board can find a
way to do that, they are supportive. They were also thinking 500 square feet was a reasonable jump from
RA to HC, but if 4,000 is a compromise and they can get the support for that, ―yes‖, they would like to
move it forward.
Mr. Thomas asked if the 4,500 square feet relates to a two story building.
Ms. Higgins clarified that the size discussed has always been around footprint. The building has a
dormered roof with 1,000 square feet of family offices located overhead. It is a partial second floor. They
already have an architect designing the interior space to make it work. Ms. Higgins stated that the
applicant would prefer that if the water usage turns out to be 1,100 after a year, he would like to put two
more pumps in.
Mr. Boyd asked if the 2,500 square foot limit as mentioned by Mr. Rooker would be acceptable.
Ms. Higgins responded that the existing Brownsville Market is 2,600 square feet. She added that
most new sites are about 4,500 or so, and she thought the country store reference might be acceptable if
the Board agrees. There is a still a lot of things that will need to be done on the site.
Ms. Mallek asked about the grading being pushed far toward the neighborhoods and the steep
slope that would be created in the back of the site.
Ms. Higgins responded that the pump island would be removed and cut off. Mr. Nat Perkins has
worked on a plan for re-grading the site, which would actually result in matched grade for the center and
back of the site. She added that they will minimize that, but 50 feet at least will be cut off the back. She
added that the canopy would also be reduced from 45 feet down to about 30 feet, going from two islands
to one island. Ms. Higgins reiterated that there would be four pump stations in the front and one in the
rear, for diesel. She said that the off-road fuel would be right next to the diesel.
Mr. Fritz mentioned that there is a Class A and a Class B permit for country stores. The Class A
is for an historic structure, with no new construction. A Class B is limited to 4,000 square feet gross floor
area. He also said that recently adopted country store regulations have a limitation on sale of gasoline
and other fuels: ―If the special use permit is granted for the sale of gasoline and other fuels, the sale of
gasoline from dispensers shall be limited to one multiple-product dispenser or one dispenser containing
no more than six nozzles, not including nozzles for diesel fuel‖.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 70)
Mr. Rooker noted that using country store as a comparable would usher in different conditions that
go along with that.
Mr. Davis added that it would also limit size to 4,000 square foot gross floor area, not footprint.
Mr. Rooker said that he would support a 2,500 square foot footprint and five total pumps, including
the diesel, with 16 hours of operations per day and the other conditions that staff had originally
recommended.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board is still not meeting the statutory requirements about the data to
ensure that it is protecting its neighborhood from the future. She asked if Mr. Rooker feels that scaling it
back would ensure that nothing would happen that is caused by this well, further down the hill.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a size at which the footprint would provide some assurance
that the use is much less likely to im pact surrounding water users. Mr. Rooker stated there is no way of
proving that that he is aware of. He thinks that all the Board can do is try to approve something. He does
not think it is appropriate to completely deny the use of property, so the question is can it approve
something that is more in keeping with what seems to be acceptable to the community and less likely to
impact surrounding water users. He added that based upon the size of other convenience stores like
Bellair, et cetera, that would meet those general requirements.
Mr. Snow agreed that if it is scaled back and satisfies the community‘s needs, while still ensuring
the applicant‘s rights with Highway Commercial, then it should move forward.
Mr. Dorrier also agreed.
Mr. Thomas said that it sounds good, but he is concerned about the applicant, even making a
penny, as the applicant needs to be able to pay for it. He added that he would want to increase the size to
4,000. The applicant has invested in a big piece of property and he needs to pay for it.
Ms. Mallek responded that that was his choice.
Mr. Boyd said he would support the 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Rooker then moved to approve SP-2010-00034 with the conditions as stated previously.
Mr. Davis said that these conditions need to be well-drafted by staff, as they are going to be
controversial in the future. The certainty of the wording is going to be very important to the enforcement of
the special use permit. He suggested that the Board reach consensus on the general terms of the
conditions and then staff be given the opportunity to more carefully draft the conditions and then bring
them back to the Board at its next meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that he is agreeable to that suggestion.
Mr. Dorrier said that he would support 3,000 square feet.
Mr. Thomas said that he would support 4,000.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that Ms. Higgins said they would agree to 2,500.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not know why a store the size of Bellair would not work at this
location, adding that the second floor square footage would not count against the footprint.
Mr. Tucker said staff needs to know the consensus of the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he would make a motion, not for approval, but to see if the Board can reach a
consensus to instruct staff to move forward with conditions, in addition to staff‘s technical
recommendations, stipulating a 2,500 square foot footprint on the property, with no more than ten nozzles
or five pumps, and hours of operation limited to 16 hours a day.
Mr. Boyd said that he will not vote in this straw poll because he would prefer the 4,000 square feet
because he thinks it is more reasonable and he does not like the limitation on hours.
Ms. Mallek responded that that is the only way to get the water to work.
Mr. Boyd said if that is the only way to get enough votes to allow the request to move forward, he
will vote for it, but he is arguing against it as the right way to go.
Ms. Mallek added that limiting the pumps and limiting the hours are the only valid ways to get the
numbers down.
Mr. Boyd added that limiting the hours puts this applicant at a competitive disadvantage. Limiting
the pumps is not the issue.
Mr. Snow suggested 3,300 as a compromise square footage.
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 71)
Mr. Rooker said that he came up with 2,500 based upon the size of Bellair and some of the other
stations that seem to operate reasonably successfully, and the scale, and where this is located, and the
likely impact on water usage.
At the request of an individual from the public, Ms. Mallek allowed him to come forward and
speak.
Mr. Bob Gilges said that it is clear the Board should not be making the decision tonight. The
Board is ―horse-trading‖ with the applicant; it does not know about the water or the design of the building.
Ms. Higgins has changed the specs three times today. The Board does not have the traffic study, the
water study, the design of the building, and they are sitting up here horse-trading. That is not the way to
do business. He asked that the Board put off voting on this request tonight. He reiterated that the Board is
not ready to make a decision.
Mr. Rooker clarified that the design of the building is not something the Board will decide anyway.
Mr. Dorrier commented that a compromise is going to be controversial either way. Between Mr.
Rooker‘s and Mr. Snow‘s suggestions, the Board should be able to come up with a common ground and
some guidelines for staff.
Mr. Rooker moved to move forward with a consensus to have staff bring something back to the
Board, based on his previous conditions. They are trying to develop a consensus on how to instruct staff
to come back with well-worded conditions for approval.
Mr. Boyd asked that they do a straw poll.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Thomas said that they don‘t support Mr. Rooker‘s proposal. Mr. Boyd said that
it is more reasonable to go with 4,000 square feet and not restrict the hours.
Mr. Dorrier said that the applicant can live with 16 hours.
Mr. Rooker asked if he was supportive with the consensus of 2,500 square feet, with an office on
top of that.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he supports 3,300.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the Board just go ahead and deny this application since no consensus
seems likely here.
Ms. Mallek commented that that would actually be the best approach from many people‘s
perspective, because a reduced plan could be brought back to the Planning Commission where it would
probably sail through. She added that if these things had been suggested a year ago, they probably would
not be here today. Ms. Mallek said that one of the benefits of the public process is finding a useful middle,
a place where people can be protected on both sides.
Mr. Snow agreed.
Mr. Boyd said that if this is redesigned, he wonders how long it will take.
Mr. Rooker noted that it is ultimately going to come back to the Board for a decision with the same
kind of considerations as tonight, and he feels it would be better to come to a consensus now. He stated
that they are going to be right back where they are today, a year from now.
Mr. Thomas asked the applicant how the 2,500 square feet fits into the business plan.
Ms. Higgins responded that it is a little more half of the 4,000. The applicant would be willing to
restrict operating hours if the store is allowed to go to 3,000 square feet. That would cut down on two
areas of freezer space and two counters interior to the building. They would like to get a consensus and
carry it forward. Again, it would include a total of five pumps, ground square foot of 3,000, operating hours
to be 4:30 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.
Board members agreed to support the plan.
Ms. Mallek said that she would prefer to go back through the process properly.
Mr. Rooker said that if they went back through the process, the Board would likely end up right
where they are tonight.
Mr. Davis clarified that the consensus here is for 3,000 square feet with five pumps or 10 nozzles.
Mr. Boyd commented that the 10 nozzles did not include the off-road stuff.
Mr. Rooker commented that the diesel was the fifth pump.
Ms. Higgins said the off-road and diesel pump is not a vehicular filling, neither is kerosene. Those
two have never been included. The off-road and diesel might be next to each other on the same island,
October 13, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 72)
but that island will be cut off. She clarified that it is five pumps, four gas, one diesel, total of 10 filling
stations.
Ms. Mallek said that it would be good to have a restriction on overnight parking.
Mr. Boyd said that he wouldn‘t want to restrict it in case the refueling truck needs to stay
overnight.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it would not be advertised as a truck stop, and does not see why this
needs to be mandated.
Mr. Tucker stated that these conditions could still be discussed on November 3 or whenever this
comes back to the Board.
Mr. Davis asked about the hours of operation.
Mr. Rooker said he would rather just say 16 hours per day and let the applicant decide within that.
Mr. Davis asked if the Board wants to have the condition which requires the proposed valve
system that would limit the amount of draw to the 1,625 gallons per day.
Board members responded ―yes‖.
Ms. Mallek asked Ms. Higgins to explain how this valve control will work.
Ms. Higgins explained that it is a dole control valve, which is an orifice line in the ground that only
allows a gallon per minute to flow all day long. She stated that‘s just a maximum, you could never
withdraw that much. The same wording provided by the Zoning Administrator could be used. She also
asked that the use of stormwater to water plants onsite be allowed and not reflected in the totals for
consumption.
Mr. Rooker responded that he supports that.
Mr. Davis said that the other condition staff had worked with was to try to tie it to the site plan with
modifications which would be substantial now. He asked if the Board wants to tie the conditions to a
specific site plan, as the one staff has seen would be substantially revised.
Ms. Higgins responded that the building footprint would remain in the same location, with the
reduction in the back still being made and the same islands being there. That would virtually be the same
site plan; the only thing that might be reduced is they would take off a few more parking spaces.
Mr. Davis said that it would have to be addressed with general accord. He added that the Board
does not want the conditions to be too restrictive as the ARB may want to approach the site differently.
Mr. Dorrier asked her about the restrictions on overnight parking. Ms. Higgins responded that the
condition is fine, as there is no plan for loitering or overnight parking on this site as it would be a detriment
to the business. They plan to put signage on the site.
Mr. Rooker then moved to defer SP-2010-00034 until November 3, 2010. Mr. Thomas
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other matters from the Board.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:58 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 03/02/2011
Initials: EWJ