1989-05-17May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
599
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 17, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Auditorium, County Office
Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and Chief of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M., by the
Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept Item 4.1 as'iinformation and to approve Item
4.2 on the Consent Agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Item No. 4.1. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes for May 2, 1989,
was received as information.
Item No..4.2. Adoption of resolution to enable the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Clean Community Commission to obtain 1989-90 Litter Grant Funds.
The Board adopted the following resolution b~ the above recorded vote:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, recognizes the existence of litter problems within the bounda-
ries of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Waste Management Act provides, through
the Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter Control and
Recycling for the allocation of public fhnds in the form of Grants
for the purpose of enhancing local litt~ control programs; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulations and the
Application covering administration and ~se of said funds;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of S~pervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia:
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of Char-
lottesville in a mutually agreed upon an~ Cooperative Program,
contingent upon approval of the Application by the Department of
Waste Management, Division of Litter Control and Recycling and
contingent upon receipt of funds; and
Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Commission (CAC3) to apply on behalf of ~11 of the above named
localities for a Grant, and to be responsible for the administra-
lion, implementation, and completion of the Program as it is des-
cribed in the attached Application form LCG-1; and
Further accepts liability for its p~o rata share of any funds
not properly used or accounted for pursuant to the Regulations and
the Application; and .~
600
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
That said funds, when received, will be transferred immediately
to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Com]nission or if
coordinated by the Planning District Commission, said funds will be
sent directly to the Planning District Commission by the Department.
All funds will be used in the Cooperative Program to' which we give
our endorsement and support.
Hereby requests the Department of Waste Management, Division of
Litter Control and Recycling to consider and approve the Application
and Program, said Program being in accord with Regulations governing
use and expenditure of said funds.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Proclamation to Ruritan Club. Mr.
Perkins asked that the Board wait until Mr. Richard Porter arrives, so as to
make the presentation to him.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-20. John G. Hart. To locate a single-wide
mobile home on 11.41 acres. Property on the south side of Route 620 approxi-
mately one and one-half miles east of its intersection with Route 795, Tax Map
103, Parcel 31 (part of), Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 3 and May 9, 1989.)
Mrs. Cooke noted that this item is to be deferred to.June 7.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-89-02. Charles Pietsch. To rezone 1.316 acres
from LI to C-1. Property located within Airport Center. (Deferred from
April 5, 1989.)
Mrs. Cooke said this is the second time the applicant has failed to
appear and suggested that it be dropped from the agenda. Motion was offered
byMr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to delete ZMA-89~02 from the agenda.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and':Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-19. Cora Kirby. To locate a single-wide
mobile home on .540 acres. Property on the east side of Route 29 South,
approx, one-tenth of a mile south of its intersection withlInterstate 64.
Map 76, Parcel 21. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May 3 and May 9, 1989).
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Staff Comment: The proposed mobile home is to be ldcated as shown
on the attached plat. The remains of a previous store building are
to be removed from the site. Currently there is one ~obile home
within one mile of this property. For the determination of one mile
from this property, Interstate 64 was used as the no~thern boundary.
Four letters of objection to this petition have been Yeceived.
These letters state concerns of inconsistency with the Comprehensive
Plan and incompatibility with Sherwood Farms. ~
The proposed mobile home will not be visible from sherwood Farms,
adjacent dwellings or Route 1106. The mobile home will require
screening from Route 29. The applicant has stated that an existing
well and septic system will be used provided that Hea~lth Department
regulations can be met.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition staff recommends the following ~onditions of
approval:
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Albemarle County Building Official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home be be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and screening
to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Screening adjacent to Route 29 shall be the equivalent of a
double staggered row of evergreens planted 15 feet on center.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die.
Special use permit is issued for use by the applicant only;
Mobile home shall not be rented."
601
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 9, 1989,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition subject to the
conditions as recommended by the staff.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Cora Kirby, the applicant, addressed
the Board, showed photographs of her property and said the residents of
Sherwood Farms would be unable to see the mobile home from their properties.
She agreed to comply with the conditions of the Planning Commission.
In opposition to the application, Mr. T, J. Westbury, a resident of
Sherwood Farms, addressed the Board. He said a mobile home would be incompat-
ible with the character of the area and would lower the value of the property
in Sherwood Farms subdivision. If mobile homes were desirable, he asked, why
require screening? He said this mobile home would lower the value of over 35
homes in Sherwood Farms subdivision. He asked the Board to vote in a way that
would harm the least number of people and deny the request of the applicant.
Since no one else wished to speak to this request, Mrs. Cooke closed the
public hearing and placed 'the matter before ~e Board.
Mr. Bain said he understands Mr. Westbu~y's concern, but he thinks the
conditions recommended by the staff are suffil~ient.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and !§econded by Mr. Lindstrom to
approve SP-89-19 subject to the following co~itions as recommended by the
Planning Commission: ~
1. Albemarle County Building Official ~pproval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and o!{her applicable requirements
for district in which it is locatedli
3. Skirting around mobile from ground i~evel to base of the mobile
home to be completed within thirty ~ays of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy; ~
4. Provmsmon of potable water supply a~d sewerage fac~lztmes to
the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health;
Maintenance of existing vegetation,
ing to be provided to the satisfact
trator. Screening adjacent to Rout,
of a double staggered row of evergr,
center. Required screening shall b
tion and replaced if it should die;
landscaping and/or screen-
.on of the Zoning Adminis-
~nS~e29 shall be the equivalent
planted 15 feet on
maintained in good condi-
Special use permit is issued for us~ by the applicant only;
7. Mobile home shall not be rented.
602
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Way.
Mrs. Cooke then went back to Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-20. John Hart and
asked the Board for a motion to defer this application. Motion was offered by
Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to defer action on SP-89-20 to June 7,
1989.
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
At this time, noting that Mr. Porter was present, Mr. Perkins presented
proclamation to Mr. Porter commemorating Ruritan Week.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-89-21. Covesville First Baptist Church. To allow
for the construction of a new church facility, on property zoned RA. Property
on the south side of Route 805, approx. 2000 feet west of~its intersection
with Route 29 South at Covesville. Tax Map 109, Parcel 6~. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 9, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report: ~
"Character of the Area: This property is open and r~latively level
land. A one-story church and small cemetery present!~y exist. The
surrounding area is rural, with limited residential development.
Approximately six dwellings are located on Route 805~
Staff Comment: The Covesville First Baptist Church currently has
300 members with a typical Sunday attendance of 75 people. The
present church which seats 125, has been determined ~o be structur-
ally unsuitable for addition. Therefore, this proposal is for a new
7200 square foot building with a proposed seating capacity of 180.
This results in a total increase in seating capacity!i~f 55 people.
Route 805 is listed as non-tolerable, with 39 vehicle trips per day.
This property is located 123 feet from the end of state maintenance.
The private easement on which this property fronts continues west-
ward to serve one residence. Discussion of this petition will focus
on traffic and compatibility with adjacent property, il.
Traffic: Route 805 is a non-hardsurface road with a %ravelway width
from 13.5 to 16 feet. There is good sight distance at the most
narrow segment of the road, so that an approaching vehicle can
anticipate and prepare to pass another vehicle at a suitable loca-
tion. Based on previous counts, this road does not have the minimum
traffic to qualify for the paving priority list.
Staff has attempted to calculate traffic generation from this
property based on the existing and proposed buildingS!i utilizing the
County parking generation. The present building generates 63
vehicle trips per day, and the proposed building generates 90,
an
increase of 27 vehicle trips per day. ~
An emergency access road between the church and Route.~29 will be
provided across an adjacent parcel. This could provSiluseful during
peak events such as weddings and funerals. The road ipresently
exists as a farm road and is passable in its current ~ondition by
normal passenger vehicles. In addition, provision wiS1 be made for
adequate on-site parking, ' ' ~'~ '
to avozd congestzon and obs~ructzon of the
access road.
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
603
Most churches are located on an existing state road. However, in
this case staff supports approval with a private road to serve mixed
uses, the church and a dwelling. This is based on the following:
The church presently exists, therefore it is not the introduc-
tion of this situation but a moderate expansion of one use.
2. There is onlY one other user to share this road.
The segment of private road used by both is only approximately
150 feet in length.
With approval of this petition, staff recommends a private road
maintenance agreement. To be equitable,i the church will assume most
or all maintenance responsibility for the portion they use.
Compatibility: The church property is surrounded on three sides by
mature evergreen trees. The property across the road is a vacant
agricultural parcel with other points o~ access. The closest
residences 125 feet to the east and 400 feet to the west, are
partially visible. In staff's opinion, the church expansion would
not be obtrusive to the neighborhood.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with criteria for
issuance of a special use permit, and it is staff's opinion that the
expanded church in this location would not be obtrusive nor out of
character with other uses in the area. ~
Staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following:
2.
3.
4.
Seating capacity to be determined dY adequate septic system
area, not to exceed a maximum fixed seating of 180 persons.
Sanctuary or classroom expansion, or daycare and other non-
worship uses, will require amendment to this petition;
Administrative approval of the site plan after review by the
Site Review Committee;
County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agree-
ment." ~
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission,' at its meeting on May 2, 1989,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition subject to the
four conditions of the staff, amending #4 to read: "County Attorney approval
of private road maintenance agreement (or RoUte 805 extension and emergency
access road)".
Mr. Lindstrom said the meaning of the parenthetical statement in Condi-
tion #4 is unclear, and he asked Mr. Keeler to reword this part of the condi-
tion.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Rauzelle J. Smith, Trustee of the
Covesville First Baptist Church, addressed the Board. He said several build-
ers have said the original church building is unsuitable for remodeling. He
thanked the Planning staff for their help.
Since no one else wished to speak to thiA request, Mrs. Cooke closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the parenthetical phrase questioned by Mr.
Lindstrom be deleted. Mr. Keeler said extending the public road would make
Condition #4 moot, because there would then b~ no need for a private road
maintenance agreement. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Condition #4 state:
"County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement, if neces-
sary'' ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, sec6nded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
SP-89-21 subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission as amended:
1. Seating capacity to be determined b~ adequate septic system
area, not to exceed a maximum fixed~gseating of 180 persons;
604
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Sanctuary or classroom expansion, or daycare and other non-
worship uses, will require amendment to this petition;
Administrative approval of the site plan after review by the
Site Review Committee;
County Attorney approval of private road maintenance agreement
if necessary.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-89-23. Mothers Care of Virglinia, Inc. To amend
Condition #5 of SP-412 as it relates to signs. Property in southern portion
of the intersection of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive in the Four
Seasons PUD. Tax Map 61X1, Parcel 5. Charlottesville District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 9, 1989.) i
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Staff Comment: Under SP-412, in 1974, this site was approved for
either a day care center or office use. In either case, signage was
limited to one sign on the property with a maximum a~ea of four
square feet.
Justification for request: The applicant has stated'~that 'a parent
made the 14 square foot sign in appreciation for thei~quality care
that her child received at the day care center. A four square foot
sign is inadequate for our type of business.'
Current sign regulations: Under current zoning regu.tation, a
variety of signs are permitted within the PUD designation. Direc-
tional signs and home occupation signs are limited t~ four square
feet and identification signs are limited to two square feet. Staff
opinion is that business signs are inappropriate at this location
since the use was established in a residential area. (This lot was
never used for residential purposes, however).
Sign variances in Four Seasons PUD: In addition to several sign
variances in the commercial area of Four Seasons PUD~i the Board of
Zoning Appeals authorized the following variances:
VA-85-55: to increase the area of an identification sign from
two square feet to 18 square feet and reduce setback from 50
feet to 25 feet. Sign was for Four Seasons Apartments.
¥A-87-33: to increase the area of an identification sign from
two square feet to eight square feet. Sign was~for Four
Seasons Condominiums.
VA-88-95: to increase the area of an identification sign from
two square feet to 40 square feet and reduce setback from 30
feet to one foot. Sign was for Atlantic Coast ~thletic Club, a
commercial recreational use.
Therefore, the 'Board of Zoning Appeals determined in i~achof these
cases that compliance with ordinance regulation as toi!size and/or
location of signs caused some type of hardship to thei.~applicant to
adequately identify the use (all variances were for i~entification
signs). "
Staff Recommendation: Based on the history of sign variance approv-
als by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the adequacy of t~e existing
sign for identification purposes should be considered~
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
605
This use is located in a residential area and should be consis-
tent with the character of the area. To this end, it appears
that signage was deemed to be an important consideration since
the Board imposed a specific condition limiting the size of the
sign when this use was approved in 1974.
The current sign size of four square feet is larger than
identification signs permitted in the PUD zone (two square
feet). It is consistent, however, with home occupation signs
permitted in the PUD zone (four square feet). Therefore, staff
opinion is that the current sign area of four square feet is
appropriate to this site and that the requested 14 square foot
sign is inappropriate and larger than necessary for identifica-
tion purposes. Therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-89-23
Mothers Care of Virginia as it relates to sign area.
As stated previously, two approved variances have included both
an increase in sign area and a reduction in sign setback. The
previous sign on this site was one'faced and located on the
fence. A reduction of sign setback to five feet from the
right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive!in this case would place the
sign at about 20-25 feet from the roadway (The right-of-way of
Four Seasons Drive is 60 feet). Staff opinion is that such
location would clearly overcome any. problems of property
identification and with a free standing sign would allow a
two-faced sign (The definition of ~area of sign' states that
'in the case of a sign where lettering appears on the opposite
sides of the sign, the area shall ~e considered to be that of
only one face'). I~!
Section 8.0 Planned Development Districts - Generally autho-
rizes the Board of SuperviSors to ~odify planned development or
general regulations in a particulaf~ case where among other
things, that 'the actions, design o~r solutions proposed by the
applicant, although not literally ih accord with these special
or general regulations, satisfy pu~lich purposes to at least an
equivalent degree' (Section 8.2). ?Should a reduction in
setback be authorized, special design measures should be
imposed to ensure consistency with ~the residential area.
Staff recommends approval of SP-89-23 M6!{hers Care of Virginia as it
relates to sign setback. This can be a~complished by adding another
condition to SP-412 '(As recommended this~ condition would be applica-
ble only to day care usage and not office usage):
6. Sign setback may be reduced to not ~less than five feet from the
right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive Ko be located as generally
depicted in Attachment D of SP-89-2~ Mothers Care of Virginia,
Inc. Such sign may be free-standin~ and two-faced as permitted
by the definition of 'area of sign'~ilof the Zoning Ordinance.
Such sign shall be of materials, coi~or,'~ and lettering compati-
ble to the Four Seasons Patio Homes~!i sign, as approved by the
Zoning Administrator."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission,iat its meeting on May 2, 1989,
unanimously recommended denial of the above-n~ted petition. He said the
following letter dated May 3, 1989, was received from the applicant, Mother'
Care of Virginia:
"To whom it may concern:
We are requesting a compromise to the ex~sting size of our sign
(4'x 3' 4"); to a reduction of a 2' x 4' isign all on one side as
recommended by the Planning Commission during their meeting May 2,
1989. This would still meet the eight-f~ot requirement of a two-
sided sign.
In response to the setback, we respectfully request that we be
allowed to keep the existing site, which "is a five foot setback.
606
May 17 1989 (RegUlar Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
We feel that the existing site of the setback, and the requested
size of the sign would allow for our sign to be viewed by emergency
vehicles (without any hesitation), as well as a reminder on this
busy thoroughfare, that there are children in the area."
Mr. Keeler said the Board received a letter dated May 10, 1989, from Ms.
Janice D. Sprinkle, Vice-President of the Four Seasons Patio House Associa-
tion. Ms. Sprinkle wrote that the Patio House Association supported the
compromise described in the above letter from Mother's Care of Virginia. In
light of this compromise, Mr. Keeler said, the staff recommends that conditi~
#6 be revised to read: "Sign setback may be reduced to not less than five
feet from the right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive to be located as generally
depicted in Attachment D of SP-89-23, Mother's Care of Virginia, Inc. Such
sign shall be single-faced and not exceed eight square feet and shall be
consistent with the sign in the photograph in file SP-89u23, initialed RSK,
May 17, 1989. Any replacement sign shall be of materials, color, and letter-
ing compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes sign, as approved by the Zonin
Administrator".
Mrs. Cooke opened the public hearing.
Mr. Larry McElwain, legal counsel for the applicant, addressed the Board.
He said the applicant is concerned about the safety of the children enrolled
at Mother's Care and requests a waiver of the setback requirement so that
emergency vehicles can see the sign from the road. He said the two-by-four
foot sign now proposed by the applicant is consistent with other signs in th
area. --.
Ms. Mary Jane Coster, an owner of Mother's Care, Inc:, addressed the
Board. She said there are infants enrolled at the cente~i so just a few
seconds more or less in the length of time it takes an ambulance to reach the
center could make quite a difference.
Mr. Gordon McKeeman addressed the Board and said he .~is representing the
Four Seasons Patio House Association. He said the AssociStion supports the
amended request of Mother's Care, Inc.
Since no one else wished to speak to the applicationi~ Mrs. Cooke closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Boardi~
Mrs. Cooke commended the applicant and members of the Patio House Associ
ation for reaching a compromise and said she supports thO':request for a sign
measuring two by four feet.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the regulations governing signs are unen-
forceable due to the many variances granted by the Board ~f Zoning Appeals
(BZA). He thinks many of the waivers granted 'are contrar~ to the spirit of
the Zoning Ordinance. He said he will not support the mo~ion, because he
believes approving this request will indicate to the BZA ~hat it is all right
to ignore the ordinance.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Per~:ins, to approve
SP-89-23 subject to the addition of condition No. 6 to SP~412 as follows:
6. Sign setback may be reduced to not less than fi~ feet from the
right-of-way of Four Seasons Drive to be locate~i as generally
depicted in Attachment D of SP-89-23 Mothers Car~ of Virginia,
Inc. Such sign shall be single faced and not e~:ceed eight
square feet and shall be consistent with the phq~ograph ini-
tialed RSK and dated May 17, 1989, in the file ~ SP-89-23.
Any replacement sign shall be of materials, col~, and letter-
ing compatible to the Four Seasons Patio Homes ~.~gn, as ap-
proved by the Zoning Administrator.
Roll was called and the mo~ion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
607
Mr. Bain said he concurs with Mr. Lindstrom's comments about the County's
regulations governing the use of signs. He believes these regulations must be
reviewed. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the sign ordinance be discussed on an
upcoming agenda after staff has time to review the history of variances and
administration of ordinances.
(Note: The following two agenda items were considered together.)
Agenda No. 11. SP-89-25. Crozet Church of God. To allow for a church
and parsonage, zoned RA. Property in the southwest quadrant at the intersec-
tion of Route 250 West and Interstate 64; accessed on the southwest side of
Route 824. Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 9, 1989.)
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-89-26. Crozet Church of God. To allow for day
care facilities in proposed church facility. Property in the southwest
quadrant at the intersection of Route 250 West and Interstate 64; accessed on
the southwest side of Route 824. Tax Map 55, Parcel 96A. Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 3 and May 9, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff reports on SP-89-25 and
SP-89-26, respectively:
"Character of the Area: This site consists of a prominent knoll
with a Virginia Power transmission line.crossing to the rear. Other
properties in the area are rural in character with the closest
dwelling over 1000 feet away. The property is outside the Albemarle
County Service Authority service area at Yancey Mills. The property
is located on an improved section of RoUte 824 about 600 feet from
Route 250 West.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a church with a seating
capacity of 200 to 250 persons and a parsonage on this property.
Church usage would involve regular worship services, revivals, and
business meetings about two days per we~k (See SP-86-27). Staff
opinion is that a church would not be o~jectionable to nor substan-
tially change the character of the area.~ Staff recommends approval
subject to the following conditions: i
1. Site plan approval. Prior to Plan~'ing Cormnission review of
site plan the applicant shall obtain Health Department and
Virginia Department of Transportation approvals;
2. Seating capacity to be determined b~ adequacy of septic system,
not to exceed a maximum seating of ~50 persons."
"Note: This staff report assumes approval of SP-86-26. The day
care center is to be housed in the propoBed church building.
Staf~ Cormn~n~l The Crozet Church of Godilproposes operation of a day
care center for 60 children to be operated five days per week. Hot
meals would be served. The applicant wo~ld seek state licensure.
Staff opinion is that a day care center ~perated in the proposed
church would not be objectionable to norlSubstantially change the
character of the area. Staff recommends~approval subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Site plan approval. Prior to PlannJ
site plan the applicant shall obtai~
Virginia Department of Highways and
Enrollment to be determined by adeq%
regulations of Virginia Department
maximum enrollment of 60 children;
Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the
This special use permit is issued tE
non-transferrable."
.ng Commission review of the
~ Health Department and
Transportation approvals;
~acy of septic system and
,f Welfare, not to exceed a
Zoning Ordinance;
the applicant and is
608
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 9, 1989,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petitions. The Commission
recommended approval of SP-89-25 subject to the following conditions:
Administrative approval of site plan.
Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system,
not to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons.
The Commission recommended approval of SP-89-26 subject to the following
conditions:
Administrative approval of site plan;
Enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system and
regulations of Virginia Department of Welfare, not to exceed a
maximum enrollment of 60 children;
Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is
non-transferrable.
Mr. Keeler said he received two letters of objection from adjoining
landowners, one of whom expressed concern about the traffic the new church
could bring to the neighborhood. Mr. Keeler said he discussed the possibilit
of additional traffic with Mr. Jeff Echols of VDoT. Ther~ is a deceleration
lane for west bound traffic turning left at the intersect!on onto Route 824.
Mr. Keeler said that the staff believes most of the traffic caused by the
church will arrive from the east and can use the deceleration lane. Because
the intersection is located at the point where Route 250 Nest becomes four
lanes, there is no need for a right-turn lane.
Mrs. Cooke opened the public hearing.
Mr. Curtis Morris, a member of the Crozet Church of :God, addressed the
Board and offered to answer any questions.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning either a~pplication, Mrs.
Cooke closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lind~trom, to approve
SP-89-25 subject to the following conditions:
1. Administrative approval of the site plan;
2. Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy o~ septic system, not
to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the followihg recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and:Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
SP-89-26 subject to the following conditions:
1. Administrative approval of site plan;
2. Enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system and regula-
tions of Virginia Department of Welfare, not to'exceed a maximum
enrollment of 60 children;
3. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
4. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is
non-transferrable.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
609
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-89-03. Preston Stallings. To rezone approxi-
mately two acres from RA to HC. Property on the south side of Route 250 West,
approx, one mile east of its intersection with Routes 240 and 635. Tax Map
56, Parcels 109B and ll0A. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 3 and may 9, 1989.)
Mrs. Cooke noted a letter received from Mr. George H. Gilliam, on behalf
of the applicant, requesting indefinite deferral of ZMA-89-03.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to defer
action on ZMA-89-03 until July 19, 1989.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Mrs. Cooke gave ground rules for the next agenda item. She said each
side would have 45 minutes to make its presentation. There would be time for
neutral speakers as well. The Board recessed at 8:38 P.M. and reconvened at
8:53 P.~M.
Agenda Item No. 14. ZMA-88-22. Great Eastern Management Company. To
rezone, with proffers, 1.8 acres from RA to HC; 1.6 acres from RA to PD-SC;
6.137 acres from HC to PD-SC; and 2.7 acres from HC to RA. Property on the
south side of Route 250 West, approx, one mile east of its intersection with
Routes 240 and 635. Tax Map 56, Parcels 109B, 110, ll0A and ll0C. White Hall
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progresson May 3 and May 9, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Great Eastern Management ComPany petitions the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 1.6 acres from RA~i Rural Areas, to PD-SC,
Planned Development-Shopping Center; 1.8! acres from JlA, Rural Areas,
to }lC, Highway Commercial; 6.137 acres f~om HC, Highway Commercial,
to PD-SC, Planned Development-Shopping C~Anter; and, 2.7 acres from
HC, Highway Commercial, to RA, Rural Areas, to permit establishment
of a 60,500 square foot shopping centeri:j~ Property, described as Tax
Map 56, Parcels 109B, 110, llOA, and 110~ is located on the south
side of U. S. Rt. 250 West approximatelY~i one mile east of the Rt.
250 West/Rt.240/ Rt.635 intersection at i~rownsville in the White
Hall Magisterial District.
Current uses of the property is as follows:
7.730 acres Parcel 109B is currently occupied by a motel
converted to apartments; J~!
1.837 acres parcel 110 is curren6~y occupied by a single
family dwelling and a restaurant d~troyed by fire in 1987
and a storage area for building supplies;
13.520 acres - Parcel ll0A is currently occupied by Blue Ridge
Building Supply and a storage area;!
3.0 acres Parcel llOC is currently undeveloped.
Applicant's Proposal - Application Plan: The applicant proposes to
construct a 60,500 square foot shopping center which will'include
three separate buildings. The main structure will include a food
store (27,000 square feet) and drug store (8,500 square feet) as
well as smaller stores (18,600 square fe~t). Two separate build-
ings, a fast food restaurant (4,000 square feet), a bank (2,400
square feet) are proposed each with a drlve thrQugh window. In
addition, future storage areas are proposed.
610
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
The Blue Ridge Shopping Center compares to other County shopping
centers as follows:
Building Area Site Area Building/Acreage
Fashion Square
Jefferson Square
Pantops
Albemarle Square
Shoppers World
Blue Ridge
Crozet (IGA)
578,456 sq feet
274,986 sq feet
177,762 sq feet~
168,695 sq feet
140,842 sq feet
60,500 sq feet
27,882 sq feet
57.0 ac
34.6 ac
17.6 ac
22.8 ac
12.6 ac
7.7 ac
3.0 ac
10,148 sq ft/ac
7,948 sq ft/ac
10,100 sq ft/ac
7,399 sq ft/ac
11,178 sq ft/ac
7,857 sq ft/ac
9,294 sq ft/ac
Blue Ridge Shopping Center would be small compared to other develop-
ments in the County, however, building coverage wou%d be greater
than for some other developments.
Planned Development - Introduction: Of the 12.237 acres proposed
for rezoning, 8.837 acres are currently zoned HC, Highway Commer-
cial. Benefits to the applicant in asking for PD-SC zoning include
a more favorable floor area-to-parking standard and ~ broader range
of commercial uses.
Benefits to the general public derive from the opportunity to
address the proposed development in broader terms than under conven-
tional zoning and site plan reviews.
Staff comment will focus on two main issues: site suitability and
the Comprehensive Plan recom~nendations for Crozet.
Site Suitability and Characteristics: The site under review is
approximately 1,000 feet deep and has a frontage of over 1,600 feet.
However, frontage improvements are proposed for onl~ 650 feet. The
site is divided by a stream which has created a valley parallel to
Route 250 West and 45 feet lower than the front and ~ear of the
site. Slopes on the southern side of the stream are~ natural slopes
of 25 percent or greater. Slopes north of the stre ~a~ appear to be
man-made either during construction of the structure~now on the site
or during the construction of Route 250. Staff suppbrts a waiver to
allow construction on the man-made slopes due to their nature and
limited area.
Soils on this site consist of Hayesville loam, Hayes~ille clay loam,
Meadowville loam and Udorthents. Hayesville clay lo~m, Hayesville
loam, and Meadowville loam are deep well drained to m~oderately well
drained with depth to bedrock in excess of five feeti~i Both soils
have a moderate erosion hazard. The Hayesville loam~and clay loam
soil has limitations for nonfarm use due to slope, m~derate permea-
bility and clayey subsoil. Slope, low strength and ~xcess. fines
limit its use as a source of roadfill. The Meadowvi~le soil has
limitation for nonfarm use due to seasonal high wate~I table, moder-
ate shrink-sWell potential, and moderate to moderately rapid permea-
bility of the subsoil. The low strength and excess f~ines limit use
of the Soil as a source of roadfill. The Udorthents~is made up on
areas that have been used for cutting or filling duri~hg grading for
roads, housing developments, recreational areas, quarries and other
similar uses. On-site investigations are needed to determine the
character and management of these soils. Surface rU~gff~ is medium
to very rapid and the hazard of erosion is moderate ~O very severe.
The Soil Conservation Services Soil Survey of Albema~.~e County~
Virginia provided comments for building site development.
Areas of critical slopes are present on this site. ~e proposed
development will involve grading and construction on !~hose slopes as
well as approximately 30 feet of fill in the stream q~lley to
construct the shopping center. As stated above, somefof the soils
in this area have a moderate to severe hazard of eroS~ion. Approval
of this plan will require a waiver of Sections 4.2.1,!4.2.3.1 and
4.2.3.2.
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
611
Development of this site utilizing present zoning may not require
waivers. Granting of these waivers facilitates the development of
the site. Past development of this site has occurred without the
need for waivers. In the opinion of staff the applicant enjoys a
reasonable use of the property under its current zoning. Approval
of this plan constitutes overdevelopment of the site, due to the
wholesale waiver of the building site provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
It is intended that development be adapted to the topography and
natural setting of the County rather than modifying the topography
and natural setting to accommodate development. Excessive grading,
cutting and filling should be discouraged while imaginative and
sensitive design, should be encouraged.
The proposed development includes the piping, rechanneling, and
filling over an unnamed stream. This stream flows directly to the
Mechums River. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new growth in
Crozet to be located in the areas drained by Lickinghole and Powell
Creeks. A regional sedimentation and sedimentation control device
for development in Crozet is being designed on Lickinghole Creek.
This basin is to be constructed and maintained by the government.
The only lands outside the Lickinghole Greek basin area recognized
in the Comprehensive Plan as part of th~ Crozet Community are the
front portions of the Stallings properties, and property adjacent to
this site north of Route 250 West. The~e areas, (Stallings proper-
ties) are recognized for commercial usage mn the Comprehensmve Plan.
The frontages of these properties are a~so eligible for public water
and sewer service. Approval of this plan will require extension of
the jurisdictional area to the portions~of the building proposed
beyond the stream which is the current ~oundary of the jurisdic-
tional area.
The development is located in the South Pork Rivanna Watershed.
Development in the watershed should be ~articularly sensitive to the
environment according to the Comprehensive Plan.
Watershed Management areas should ~e established along each
water supply impoundment and its associated tributaries. These
management areas should extend a minimum of 100 feet horizon-
tally from the edge of an impoundment and its tributaries.
These areas will serve as a filter ~hich, if properly main-
tained, should filter sediment from~ overland flow and maintain
the inherent temperature norms in ~he. adjacent streams and
other bodies of water. The following guidelines should apply
in these areas:
The management areas should remain ~n natural vegetation where
possible and should not be used fori dumping, storage, parking
of equipment and automobiles or any: activity which will disturb
the vegetation, compact the soil so: as to lower infiltration or
allow material to be unnecessarily 9roded into the stream or
surface impoundment.
Any soil disturbing activities should be particularly discour-
aged within 50 horizontal feet of a.~y tributary stream or
impoundment. Soil disturbances in ~he remainder of the area
should be limited to the smallest surface area and volume of
soil practical and for the shortest~possible length of time.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations for C~ozet: The main thrust of
land use planning for commercial uses isi~to strengthen the downtown
area of Crozet as a shopping area. An a.~ea has been designated
(almost all of the historic center and a i~substantial portion of the
expanded town center) to enable the central business area of down-
town Crozet to increase in size and, therefore, be the shopping
center for Crozet. Unless such commercial expansion is encouraged,
the downtown function will be supplanted';by a suburban type shopping
center located somewhere outside of the qommunity. The area
612
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
designated in the downtown for commercial use is intended to include
commercial office uses as well as the traditional retail and service
uses characteristic of a CBA. This should help complement the
historical and cox~ercial area of the downtown. An additional
ingredient to the future success of strengthening the downtown will
be the County's position with regard to commercial zoning on Route
250 West outside the community: it will be necessary to limit such
development to commercial functions that are solely oriented to the
highway and not local and convenience shopping and services or
offices. New commercial development in the downtown area will be a
combination of filling in between existing buildings, conversion of
buildings for other uses to commercial and development of new
building complexes.
During the comprehensive countywide rezoning in 1980., several
parcels on both sides of U. S. Route 250 .West in the Crozet area had
commercial zoning removed. The properties now under review retained
commercial zoning on the portion with existing commercial develop-
ment. At this time, the stream running across the site was used as
the boundary for the commercial zoning. The remainder of the
properties was zoned RA, Rural Areas. A memorandum~from Wayne
Cilimberg dated April 26, 1989, states that 'in considering rezoning
requests as they relate to Comprehensive Plan area d~signations,
staff has consistently and strongly recommended tha~!. Comprehensive
Plan areas be strongly adhered to along water suppl~! watershed
boundaries of growth areas. If, in fact, the adjaceht area shown in
the Plan had not already been commercially zoned it~!would not have
been included in the Crozet Growth Area.'
Water and Sewer~ Fire Protection: Currently only t~g front portion
of the proposed development is within the Albemarle ilCounty Service
Authority jurisdictional area. The stream which se~ges as the
zoning boundary also serves as the jurisdictional s~tvice boundary
for water and sewer. Approval of this plan will re~ire the exten-
sion of water and sewer into an area currently zoned' RA, Rural
Areas.
In order to serve the proposed development, sewer ti~es must be
extended 2000 feet. Water must be extended 4500 fee~. At this time
it is difficult to determine fire flow due to the distance from
existing lines. Reco~nended fireflow is 2000 gpm @ ~0 psi, or to
the demand of the sprinkler system.
Stormwater: A detention basin is proposed by the applicant. This
site lies within runoff control area and will require a Runoff
Control Permit. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance does not apply
to this site. This site does not drain to the Licki~ghole Creek
basins. The regional sedimentation basin on Lickinghole Creek was
proposed to replace multiple on-site basins in Croze'g in order among
other things to avoid maintenance problems and/or ma~function of
individual basins.
Transportation: Route 250 between Route 240 east ofiiCrozet and
Route 240 west of Crozet has 5,005 vehicle trips periday. The
applicant has submitted a traffic study that estimates 8,762 vehicle
trips per day will be generated by this site. S~taffi feels that this
estimate of vehicle trips is accurate. The Virginia~Department of
Transportation has commented that the level of service of Route 250
will continue to be acceptable with this number of v~hicle trips.
Summary:
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The proposed plan is the type
of suburban type of shopping center discouraged in the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed development does not provide for~.~ensitivity to
the environment and protection of the watershed reco~ended by the
Comprehensive Plan.
Characteristics of the Site: In order to al!low the
Physical
pro-
po~ed development a wholesale waiver of the building~ite
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
613
requirements must be granted. The proposed development plan consti-
tutes over development of the site due to excessive grading, cutting
and filling and the number of waivers that must be granted in order
for development to occur.
Relation to Surrounding Area: Several properties on the south side
of Route 250 had commercial zoning removed during comprehensive
rezonings by the Board of Supervisors. ~The property now before the
Commission and Board retained commercial zoning due to the existing
uses. Approval of this rezoning request may set a precedent allow-
ing for the reestablishment of the commercial zoning that existed
prior to the Board of Supervisors' comprehensive rezoning.
Ma3or Roads: This site is located on Ut S. Route 250 West which is
a scenic highway. The proposed development will increase traffic on
Route 250 which is capable of handling the increased traffic.
Relationship to Public Facilities and Services: Approval of this
plan will require the extension of both Water and sewer. In addi-
tion the Albemarle COunty Service Authority jurisdictional area must
be amended in order to include areas currently zoned RA, Rural
Areas. It is the staff's opinion that it would be unwise for the
County to build the Lickinghole Creek B~sin while approving
increased development which does not drain to the proposed basin.
Recommendations:
Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance r~quires the Commission to
make certain findings. Staff cannot make a positive recommendation
based on Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends
disapproval of the rezoning request.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, that approval should acknowledge existing and
historical uses of the site and not represent a change in policy
toward future development in Crozet. Ia a change in policy is
intended, staff recommends an amendment~to the proposed Comprehen-
sive Plan to reflect the change in poli~y.
The applicant made the following proffers in the application for rezoning
dated November 21, 1988:
"This report is provided in accordance ~ith the requirements of
Albemarle Counting Zoning Ordinance, 8.2.1. i. and is submitted as a
part of the PD-SC zoning request.
The proposed PD-SC is made up of parcel 110 and parts of parcels ll0A
and 109B, County tax map 56. There parcels are owned by Preston 0.
Stallings who hereby agrees to:
(1) Make a diligent effort to proCieed with the proposed develop-
ment agreeing that such developmenti~shall be according to regu-
lations existing when the map amendments creating the PD-SC
district are approved, with such m~ifications as are set by the
Board of Supervisors and agreed to ~y the applicant at the time
of amendment;
(2) Provide bonds, dedications, guarantees, agreements, con-
tracts and deed restrictions acceptable to the Board of Super-
for completion of such development according to approved
visors
plans, and for continuing operationiand maintenance of such
areas, facilities and functions as ~re not to be provided,
operated or maintained at general p~blic expense and such dedi-
cations, contributions or guaranteeM as are required for pro-
visions of needed public facilities~'or services; and
(3) Bind successors in title to an~ commitments made under 1
and 2 above.
614
May 17 1989 (RegUlar Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Proffer Rezoning Request, Blue Ridge Center, U. S. 250 West, Tax Map
56, Parcels ll0C, ll0A, 110, AND 109B
Request:
Rezone approximately 1.0 acres TM 56 parcel ll0A from RA to HC.
Rezone approximately 0.7 acres TM 56 parcel ll0A from RA to PD-SC.
Rezone approximately 1.0 acres TM 56 parcel ll0A from HC to PD-SC.
Rezone approximately 0.8 acres TM 56 parcel 109B from RA to HC.
Rezone approximately 0.9 acres TM 56 parcel 109B from RA to PD-SC.
Rezone approximately 3.3 acres TM 56 parcel 109B from HC to PD-SC.
Rezone TM 56, parcel 110 (1.837 acres) from HC to PD'SC.
Albemarle County to agree to approve a site plan for a shopping center
including free standing buildings with drive thru lanes in the PD-SC
substantiallY in accordance with or smaller than the plan provided
with this application, including but not limited to.!enlarging the
existing borrow pit on the property, relocating the existing stream or
piping it under the proposed buildings, serving the '~PD-SC and adjacent
property with a storm water detention pond in the lq~ation shown,
parking within 20' of the right of way of U. S. Rou~e 250 and grading
to the property line and/or zoning line subject to the requirements of
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance para 21.7.3. It i~ understood that
the storm water detention pond shall be sized in ace0rdance with the
requirements of the applicable Albemarle County Ordinance and may
cover a greater or lesser area than currently shown i'?n the plan. It
is also understood that the PD-SC development may p~6ceed in phases,
provided sufficient parking is provided for the uses~ in the phases.
Albemarle County to agree to approve a site plan amendment for the
existing Blue Ridge Building Supply to allow a storage area sub-
stantially in accordance with the plan provided withi!this application
including at owner's option a storage building or buildings.
PROFFER: ~iI
Rezone approximately 0.3 acres TM 56 parcel ll0E fr~ HC to RA.
Rezone approximately 2.4 acres TM 56 parcel ll0A fr~M HC to RA.
Area of parcels 56-110A and 56-109B rezoned to HC t~'ilbe used only as a
storage area for the building supply business on parcel 56-110A.
The area zoned PD-SC to be used only for a shopping ~enter substan-
tially in accordance with or smaller than the plan p~ovided with this
application, including free standing buildings with ~rive thru lanes.
Prior to securing certificates of occupancy for PD-S~ space on what is
now tax parcel 56-110 or 56-110A, owner will demolish or remove the
existing restaurant and house located on parcel 110 approximately 50
feet and 125 feet respectively from the right of way!'of U. S. Route
250.
Prior to securing certificates of occupancy for PD-SC space on what is
now tax parcel 56-109B, owner will demolish or remov~~ the existing
motel/apartments located on parcel 109B approximatel~ 95 feet from the
right of way of U. S. Route 250.
Prior to securing certificates of occupancy for PD-S~ space on what is
now tax parcel 56-110 or 56-110A, owner will abandon~the 2 entrances
from U. S. 250 currently serving parcel 56-110, using~thereafter only
the PD-SC entrances shown on the attached plan and w~il abandon the
parking lot now on parcel 56-110 using thereafter only PD-SC parking
shown on the attached plan.
Prior to securing certificates of occupancy for PD-SC~ space on what is
now tax parcel 56-109B, owner will abandon the 2 entCances from U. S.
250 currently serving parcel 56-109B, using thereafte~ only the PD-SC
entrances shown on the attached plan and will abando~~ the parking lot
now on parcel 56-109B using thereafter only PD-SC pa~king shown on the
attached plan.
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
615
Prior to securing certificates of occupancy for initial phases of
development, up until such time as 25,000 sq.ft, of the PD-SC is
developed, applicant agrees to provide parking in the amount that
would be required by the zoning ordinance if the businesses being
operated (e.g., barber shop, restaurant, retail sales) were not in a
PD-SC.
Justification for Request: As a part of the development of the
proposed PD-SC, applicant will demolish or remove three buildings, a
restaurant, motel/apartments and house, approximately 50, 95, and 125
feet respectively from U. S. 250, will demolish existing signs on
parcels 110 and 109B which are within approximately sixteen (16) and
twenty-four (24) feet respectively of U. S. 250, abandon existing
parking lots on parcels 110 and 109B which are within approximately
five (5) and fifty (50) feet respectively of U. S. 250 and will
abandon the four (4) entrances to these lparking lots. The proposed
shopping center as shown on the attached plan will have a total of two
entrances and a uniform twenty (20) foo( setback to the parking lot.
All shopping center buildings will observe the 150 foot scenic highway
setback requirement. The overall result will be a significant im-
provement in the appearance of the property."
Mr. Keeler said the applicant has made three additional proffers in a
letter dated May 10, 1989, from Mr. Donald 3.'~ Wagner, Great Eastern Management
Company, Inc. An excerpt from this letter follows:
" . we have been authorized by Preston Stallings, owner of the
property, to make the proffer that if our requested rezoning is
approved as applied for, he will donate 'to the county the land for the
basin described in the report. In addition, we would, of course, pay~
our pro-rata share of the cost of construction of the Stallings Basin,
just as developers in the Lickinghole Creek drainage area will pay
their pro-rata share of the cost of that~basin.
In addition to the proffer of land for the proposed run-off control
basin, we have been authorized to increase the acreage on parcels
56-110A and 110C to be rezoned from HC t6 RA from approximately 2.7
acres to approximately 3.4 acres so that%the net change in zoning
between RA and commercial is zero acres.. Enclosed is a copy of the
drawing furnished with the original rez~,ning request, revised to show
in more detail the additional area to b~i rezoned RA. The proffer for
rezoning to RA is made with the conditio~ that the setback line for
any development of the remaining HC land!!on parcels ll0A and 110C are
to be the same as the setback lines for
i~he present limits of HC
zoning.
Our final proffer concerns screening. I~ addition to screening
required by ordinance, we proffer additi6nal screening across the rear
property line of parcels ll0A and 109B t? further screen the dwelling
on the property to the south from the rear of the shopping center and
the building materials storage yard. Specifically, we proffer 25
white pines 5' to 6' tall planted 10 fee~ apart and 48 Russian olives
18" to 24" tall, to be planted in pairs ~etween the white pines. The
exact location of this planting will be ~etermined by consultation
with the property owner of the property ~o the south."
Subj: Proffer rezoning ~
Blue Ridge Shopping Center ~i
Dear Ron:
Confirming our conversation earlier today, we hereby agree to amend
our proffer concerning the proposed Run-~ff Control Basin on the
"Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
616
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Stallings property so that either Albemarle County or the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority shall have the option to accept our proposal
at some future time.
If the option is exercised at the site plan approval stage, the land
will be provided at no charge and we will pay our pro rata share of
construction of the run-off control basin as stated in our proffer of
May 10. If the option is exercised later, after the site plan has
been approved and after we have constructed run-off control measures
for Blue Ridge Shopping Center, we would only provide the land.
I trust this meets the concerns you expressed concerning the Board
making an implied commitment for capital expenditures. If not, please
let us know.
Very-truly yours,
(Unsigned) Mr. Donald J. Wagner"
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its 'meeting on May 2, 1989,
unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. George Gilliam, representing Preston Stallings and Great Eastern
Management Company, addressed the Board. He said the time limit of 45 minute:
placed upon the applicant by the Chairman would not give ii~veryone who is
present on behalf of this application a chance to speak, ii He suggested that
everyone who is here to speak concerning this request leave their names with
the Clerk and state whether they support or oppose the application.
Mr. Gilliam then presented a slide show. He said t~s shopping center
will be only 60,000 square feet, one of the smallest in t~e County. He said
the site will be less densely developed than what would b~ permitted by right
If the property is developed without the requested rezoni~g, he said, the
shopping center may be bigger than the current proposal. ~According to the
staff, only 36,000 square feet of commercial buildings could be built by-ri
on the property zoned Highway Commercial, due to the setbacks required from
the stream and scenic highway. But, Mr. Gilliam said, that analysis is based
on the assumption that only one-story buildings will be e~ected upon this
site. Erecting two-story buildings on the site could yield at least 55,000
square feet of commercial space, he said. Unless the fez ~ning is granted, he
said, the burned-out restaurant will probably be rebuilt ~here it is, 50 feet
from Route 250 West. Under the existing zoning, one of t~e largest buildings
proposed for the shopping center would have to have one s6~lid-faced side
toward Route 250 and be as close to Route 250 as allowed.~.i If the Board grant~
this request for rezoning, Mr. Gilliam continued, the bur~ed down restaurant
can be razed and a smaller, more attractive restaurant built further back fr
Route 250 West. The entire shopping center can also be b~ilt further from
highway, in excess of the setback requirements for scenic i~highways.
In order for the proposed shopping center to be buil~, Mr. Gilliam said,
the small stream must be relocated. He said the Board allbwed streams to be
piped in different locations in The Gardens development ah~ the Branchlands
PUD along Route 29 North. He said the stream in dispute ~S only a
stream.
Mr. Gilliam said the proposed shopping center, its sike and the busi-
nesses to be housed there, complies with the Comprehensive~Plan's guidelines
for a neighborhood shopping center. He said the ComprehenSive Plan also
directs the County to establish "convenient, accessible an~ attractive commer-
cial concentrations in a variety of locations in the Coun~ . He said the
existing shopping area in downtown Crozet is the only shopping area of any
size between Waynesboro and Charlottesville, which are abo~t 13 miles away
from Crozet. He said the County is losing approximately $~90,000 a year in
tax revenues because residents of Crozet and western Albemarle must shop in
other counties. He said there is little land in downtown Crozet suitable for
commercial development. He said the roads in downtown Crozet cannot serve
even existing traffic, yet there are no funds in the Six Year Road Plan
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
617
for improvements to these roads. He said he does not think that downtown
Crozet can support the commercial development necessary to serve the growing
populations of Crozet and Western Albemarle County.
Mr. Gilliam said opponents of the shopping center have questioned the
motives for the applicant's request for PD-SC zoning. In this case, Mr.
Gilliam said, the applicant is giving up more than he is gaining. He said the
applicant is required to set aside more land for parking under PD-SC zoning
than HC zoning. Mr. Gilliam said there is almost no use envisioned for this
shopping center that is permitted under PD-SC, but not under HC. He said the
applicant requests PD-SC zoning because he knows the County prefers this type
of zoning.
Mr. Gilliam said the applicant also proposed to tear down the buildings
currently on the property that violate the setback requirements for scenic
highways: Joe-Bob's restaurant, the motel and the house. He said the new
restaurant and bank would be built 150 feet from Route 250 West and the main
commercial buildings would be 300 feet from the highway.
Mr. Gilliam then began to describe the measures the applicant planned to
take to protect the reservoir. Currently, M~. Gilliam said, 44.85 pounds of
phosphorus per year are draining from this 9~-acre drainage area into the
reservoir. He said the proposed run-off control basin would reduce the
phosphorus reaching the reservoir to 20.69 pounds per year. If the entire
area which drains through the site is fully ~ieveloped in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan, the amount of phosphoruses!reaching the reservoir will be
41.14 pounds per year, still ten percent les~ than the current 44.85 pounds.
Mr. Gilliam said 10,002 pounds of sediment fr~om this drainage basin reach the
reservoir every year. With the run-off basi~ proposed by the applicant, only
1727 pounds of sediment will reach the reservoir per year after the shoppimg
center has been built, a reduction of 82 perqent.
Mr. Gilliam said opponents are also concerned about grading on critical
slopes, which the Board may permit if the grading is in accordance with sound
engineering practices and benefits the publlc~. He said the Board has granted
these waivers frequently for commercial devel~Dpment along major highways and
cited Rio Hills Center and The Gardens project.
Mr. Gilliam urged the Board to consider ~khe consequences of denying this
application. He said the Board has designate~ Crozet a growth area; unless
the land is available for commercial businesses to serve this growth, the
goals of the Board will be frustrated. He sa~d this developer wants to build
a project that will do more than meet the minimum standards. He said the
County cannot afford to lose more revenue to ~eighboring jurisdictions. Mr.
Gilliam asked all those present who supportedi~the request for rezoning to
stand. About 250 people stood, i:
Mr. George Bailey addressed the Board an~ said the shopping center will
not harm the environment as long as the developer adheres to the County's
regulations. He said the existing buildings ~n the property under discussion
do not add to the beauty of Western Albemarle~i He said the shopping center
would offer residents of Crozet and Western A%bemarle a pleasant place to shop
without the danger of driving on Route 29 Nort~h.
Ms. Susan Kappas addressed the Board and'ilsaid she thinks the shopping
center meets the requirements established for i!iscenic highways. She said
growth should occur near existing sewer and w~ter lines, rather than in other
places in the County. As a former biology te~icher and member of the Sierra
Club, she said, she ms very concerned about t~e ~mpact of th~s shopping center
upon the environment. She thmnks there are b~tter places on Route 250 to
build if protecting the environment is to be ~he County's chief concern, but
this is the only place zoned highway commercial along this segment of Route
250 West. She said the residents of Crozet r~ally need some of the services
that could be housed in the shopping center, an eye doctor or office space,
for example. She said people live in rural ar~eas because they are poor, and
they need services within a reasonable distande from their homes. She asked
that the Board approve the applicant's reques~ for rezoning.
618
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Gene Baldwin addressed the Board and said he was a part of the group
that succeeded in having Route 250 West designated as a scenic highway. He
said this proposal is in keeping with that designation.
Mr. Robert Kirchman addressed the Board and said the proposal before the
Board is a good plan, with well-designed and attractive buildings. He asked
the Board to support the applicant's request for rezoning.
Mr. Joseph Harding addressed the Board and said his property adjoins that
of the applicant. He said there is no buffer proposed by the applicant to
protect his property from the proposed shopping center. 'He said he supports
the shopping center but asked that the Board refer this application back to
the Planning staff until he and the applicant can plan a:buffer.
Mr. Walter Young addressed the Board and said he is dismayed by the
amount of revenue the County loses because the~residents~of western Albemarle
go to Waynesboro to dine and shop. He said there is no place to expand
commercial development in downtown Crozet. He asked that the Board approve
the applicant's request for rezoning.
Mr. Peter East addressed the Board and said he is an environmentalist.
He said the sediment control basins proposed by the applicant will protect
enhance the environment. He asked the Board to approve the request for
rezoning. ~
Mr. Ron Wiley addressed the Board and said he is representing 25 resi-
dents of Crozet and business people who oppose the propop~.ed shopping center.
He said the shopping center would clearly contravene the.iComprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for the downtown area of Craig. et to be strength-
ened as a center of commercial development. The Comprehg~sive Plan also
states that commercial uses on Route 250 West should ser~ only travelers
along the highway, and not the local community. Mr. Wil~z said the revisions
to the Comprehensive Plan currently under review are eve~.~: more strongly
concerning commercial development in this area. The draft of the revised
Comprehensive Plan states: "there shall be no additional commercial zoning
Route 250 West". Mr. Wiley said the applicant proposes ~o go from a 36,000
square foot shopping center to a 60,000 square foot shop~ing center.
Mr. Wiley said the applicant threatens to build some'thing less suitable
~to the area if the request for rezoning is denied. He asked the Board not to
give in to these threats. He said the applicant claims %~ere is no land in
downtown Crozet for commercial development, but the Comp~hensive Plan states
that there are at least 12 acres available for commercial~ development in
downtown Crozet. He said this shopping center is agains~the Comprehensive
Plan and he urged the Board to deny the request for rezo~ng on these grounds.
Ms. Helen Milius addressed the Board and asked that :~he application be
denied. She fears that approving the request will set a ~,precedent and encour
age other commercial development along Route 250 West. She said she and
property owners volunteered to restrict the use of their !property in order to
have Route 250 West declared a scenic highway and she woUi!d appreciate it if
the Board would honor their commitment.
Mr. Brian Williamson addressed the Board and said he, lives near the
proposed shopping center. He urged the Board not to chan~e the zoning and
said the current zoning of Highway Commercial allows the ~roperty owner to
develop his property. He said he is also concerned about~i.~the safety of the
children attending schools nearby. He said the shopping ~enter would
over 8000 vehicle trips per day, an increase in traffic which would endanger
school children getting on and off school buses. ~,
Mr. Bill Sublett addressed the Board and said he lives on Route 250 West
about one-half mile from the proposed development. He said he thinks preserv.
lng the scenery along Route 250 West is worth driving 20 ~inutes for grocer-
ies. He asked the Board to make sure that any developmen~ on this property
remains within the confines of the current zoning.
Mr. Robert Sabel addressed the Board and said he lives on Blue Ridge
in Greenwood. He said he moved here to escape over-develOpment in the north-
eastern United States. He said he selected the County fo~ his home because o~
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
619
its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the reputation the Board has
for adhering to these documents. He urged the Board to continue its rigid
enforcement of the Comprehensive Plan. He has heard that a fast-food restau-
rant is being contemplated in this shopping center. He does not think this
area needs another center for littering, loitering and drugs.
Mr. Tony Baglioni addressed the Board and said he lives about one and
one-half miles from the proposed site. He said there are about 13 parcels
zoned Highway Commercial in this area and he is worried that their owners may
take advantage of the precedent set by approving this request.
Ms. Janet Hall, a resident of Yancey's Mill, addressed the Board. She is
concerned about the effect of the traffic generated by the shopping center
upon the school buses carrying children to and from Brownsville Elementary
School, Henley Middle School and Western Albemarle High School. She said
approving this request would signal to the d,evelopers in this community that
zoning regulations are flexible along Route ~50 West.
Mr. William Wirling addressed the Board! and said he lives within sight
and sound of the proposed shopping center. He said Mr. Stallings' business
has already affected his enjoyment of his property and urged the Board not to
approve the applicant's request.
Mr. Bruce Hayden addressed the Board. ~e said this shopping center would
increase run-off and erosion in this watershed. He said this site is not
suited for such a large development.
Mr. Kenneth Thompson, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Board.
He said the roads in downtown Grozet are adequate; he shops in downtown Crozet
and has never had a problem. He said Crozet~ is a community inhabited by
people with values, and if this sense of community is lost, it can never he
regained. He is also concerned about the availability of water and said that
several wells to the east of the proposed development have gone dry already.
For the people opposed to this shopping cent:er, he said, the issue is one of
survival, survival of their businesses, thei~ enjoyment of their property,
their water and the intangible values that m~ke Crozet a community. For the
proponents of the shopping center, he said, ~he issue is one of profit and
self-interest. He urged the Board to deny t~e request for rezoning.
Ms. Ellen Waff, owner of a small farm o Route 250 West, addressed the
Board. She said noise from Blue Ridge Build, rs' Supply is already a nuisance
and she does not want the commercial use of ~hese parcels or this business
expanded. She is proud to live on a scenic ~ighway and will do anything to
protect this designation. She supports the ~omprehensive Plan s recommenda-
tion for viable, commercial growth in downto~n Crozet. She urged the Board to
deny the request for rezoning.
Mr. Sanford Wilcox, a resident of the C~ozet area for 30 years, addressed
the Board. He said there is developable lan~ within downtown Crozet, land
that has been designated for commercial zoning by the Comprehensive Plan. He
~xmst~ng commercial businesses
said it may be more difficult to rejuvenate
buildings and property than to lay waste to ~ndeveloped land in rural areas.
Nevertheless, he said, this rejuvenation has'iibegun in downtown Crozet.
Approving this shopping center would violate~i~the Comprehensive Plan and
undermine the viability of downtown Crozet aS a commercial area. He asked
that the Board deny the application for rezoqmng.
Mr. Scott Peyton, Chairman of the Green~
the Board. He said one of the vital interes~
and preserving the rural nature of western A~
ing this request will set a precedent for de~
cited the shopping centers and commercial de~
farms along Route 250 between Waynesboro and
~ood Citizens' Council, addressed
s of the Council is maintaining
bemarle County. He said approv-
elopment along Route 250 West and
elopment that has replaced the
Staunton. He asked that the
Board honor the Comprehensive Plan and deny he applicant's request for
rezoning.
Ms. Gertrude Peyton, a resident of Greenwood and former president of the
Albemarle Garden Club, addressed the Board. ~She said the gardens clubs of
Albemarle County and Charlottesville just participated in Historic Garden
Week, which brought $30,000 into the County ~n admissions fees alone.
620
May 17 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Visitors to the County during the Historic Garden Week also ate, shopped and
lodged in the County, generating even more revenue. She said these visitors
came to the County because of its beauty. If this beauty is ruined, she said
these visitors will go somewhere else. She presented petitions from the
Albemarle, Charlottesville and Rivanna Garden Clubs, requesting the Board to
refuse any waivers to the scenic highway regulations and'deny this request.
Mr. William Colony, President of Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the
Board. He said he would not want to see all the hours of work that went into
drafting and revising the Comprehensive Plan wasted because the Board could
not resist pressure from special-interest groups.
Ms. Sally Thomas, President of the Charlottesville Chapter of the League
of Women Voters, addressed the Board. She said the League supports the
Comprehensive Plan, the decisions by the Board of Zoning~Appeals, and the
recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission. If the Board approves
this request, she said, it will be more difficult to say~"no" to future
commercial development along Route 250 West.
Mr. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
addressed the Board. When the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the
Planning staff and the Planning Commission speak with one voice in defense of
the Comprehensive Plan, she said, that voice should be heeded.
An unidentified gentlemen handed the Board a list of~services available
in Crozet. He said the property under discussion need not be rezoned to allo%
a restaurant, bank and grocery store to be built there. ~He asked that the
Board protect the South Fork Rivanna watershed, the sceni~ highway and down-
town Crozet. He said approving this request could set p~ecedents for rezonin~
agricultural land within a watershed and diverting streams within a watershed.
He asked everyone who supported the Comprehensive Plan's~ecommendation for
these parcels to rise. ~
Mr. Rob Langdon addressed the Board and showed the Hoard pictures of
where the building debris was buried after the constructi~n of Blue Ridge
Builders' Supply. He said this area is now eroding and ~known contaminants
are leaching into the water supply. He said razing the existing buildings
without properly disposing of the debris will further contaminate the water-
shed. ~
Mr. Gilliam asked the Chairman for an additional fi~ minutes to respond
to the arguments of the opposition. His request was refU§ed. For the record
he said, he asked for this period of rebuttal at the begigning of the public
hearing. Mrs. Cooke agreed to let a proponent of the shopping center speak
for an additional two and one-half minutes since the opposition had exceeded
its time limit by that amount, i~
Mr. Chuck Rotgin addressed the Board and said the residents of Crozet an
western Albemarle County are entitled to the same convenient and attractive
shopping alternatives as residents in more populated areas of the County. He
handed members of the Board petitions with over. 1400 sigsa~tures supporting th~
proposed shopping center. He is disappointed that the Chairman has limited
the amount of time the applicant had to present its case !~nd respond to the
arguments raised against the proposal. He urged the Boar~ to ask Mr. Keeler
just how many square feet of commercial buildings the applicant could con-
struct on these parcels and iterated that 55,000 square f~et of commercial
buildings could be erected. He said the applicant will remove a long-standin
eyesore along the scenic highway, reduce the amount of phosphorus and sedimen
flowing into the reservoir, pay almost $200,000 in tax revenues and create
almost 200 full- and part-time jobs. He said the community of Crozet and
western Albemarle supports this proposal. He said the Gr~at Eastern Manage-
ment Company cannot afford to build an unattractive, stri~-style, commercial
development and that is why this proposal is before the B~ard. What is built
on these parcels will set the tone for future development!~in Crozet, he said,
so the shopping center must be built the right way. i~
Mrs. Cooke closed the public hearing and placed the ~atter before the
Board.
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
621
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Keeler what can be built on these parcels by right.
Mr. Keeler said the PD-SC designation allows about 10,000 square feet of
commercial buildings per acre. He said there are about 3.6 acres zoned
highway commercial, which would yield about 36,000 square feet of commercial,
one-story buildings. He said this square footage could accommodate the
grocery and drug store and several smaller uses; it could not accommodate the
proposed drive-in bank or restaurant. He said Mr. Rotgin is correct in
stating that the square footage can be increased by building two-story build-
ings and incorporating some uses that require fewer parking spaces. He said
it may be possible to design a shopping center by right on this property that
would measure 55,000 square feet.
Mr. Keeler responded to an earlier question by Mr. Lindstrom concerning
what would happen if this plan were amended~'at the time of site review. Mr.
Keeler said if the Board approves the application and accepts the applicant's
proffers, the shopping center must match the description set out above in the
proffer dated November 11, 1988, and amended by later prOffers.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is any difference between the uses allowed
under Highway Commercial and those allowed under PD-SC. Mr. Keeler said the
PD~SC designation allows by right all the uses under Highway Cox~ercial,
Commercial Office and C-1 zoning. Uses all6wed in PD-SC zones by special use
permit are more limited than in the other c~mmercially zoned districts. Under
PD-SC zoning, the number of parking spaces ~equired depends solely upon the
square footage of the project; while under ~ther types of commercial zoning,
the number of parking spaces required also ~epends on the type of business.
Mr. Keeler said the parking space requirements under HC and CO zoning make it
difficult to change businesses once they hake been established, since changing
the business also changes the number of pa~ing spaces required.
Mr. Lindstrom said questions have been~' raised concerning the possibility
that he may become an employee of the Piedm~bnt Environmental Council. He said
he has searched both the law and his conscience and he does not feel he faces
a conflict of interest, either legally or mOrally, in participating in the
decision before the Board. In light of the' votes he has cast during his
eleven and one-half years on the Board, he !~said, there can be little doubt
among members of the Board and the public concerning how he will vote on this
application. He said it is inconceivable tO him that he would ever disagree
with the unanimous recommendations by the ~oard of Zoningi Appeals, the Plan-
ning staff and the Planning Commission to ~dhere to the ordinances of this
County.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this appiication is not simply a matter of a
minor extension of commercial zoning, judgSng from the number of developers in
the audience tonight. He does not think t~e aesthetic issues are that impor-
tant in this case; the setback required along scenic highways will be met
whatever is built on this property. He thinks the main issue of this applica-
tion is whether the Board will adhere to m~ny of the regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance and the fundamental land-use policies recommended in the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He thinks the Board should con~ider the number of waivers that
must be granted if this request for rezoni~g is approved. Granting these
waivers, he said, will make hundreds of ac~es in the watershed much more
susceptible to development. He said the Bbard is being asked to waive at
least five sections of the Zoning Ordinanc~ dealing with environmental issues,
setbacks and critical slopes, for a develo~ment~ outside ~he growth area. He
said the waivers requested do not relate t~ the uniqueness of this property;
therefore, he thinks granting these waive~$ will set a precedent.
Mr. Lindstrom said downtown Crozet no~ has the public sewer system
necessary to support commercial growth. ~ it becomes clear that there is not
enough land in downtown Crozet for the commercial growth planned for that
area, then he thinks the Board should con~ider revising the Comprehensive
Plan, rather than approving individual requests that are contrary to the Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is also concer~ed about the applicant's proffer of
a sediment basin, which would be built using mostly County funds. }Ie said
this basin would be built outside the growth area and is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The basin would facilitate further development which
would also be contrary to the ComprehensiVe Plan.
622
May 17 1989 (RegUlar Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Finally, Mr. Lindstrom said, the applicant seams to be offering the
following trade: the applicant will build the shopping center further back
from Route 250 West than required by scenic highway requiraments; in return,
the County is asked to allow the applicant to carry out fill and borrow
activity within 300 feet of a stream in the watershed, build over a stream in
the watershed, and disturb critical, natural slopes in the watershed. Mr.
Lindstrom said he thinks waiving these requirements will set a precedent and
tell everyone in the County just how the County's ordinances will be adminis-
tered.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. St. John whether approving this request for rezon-
lng would set a precedent. Mr. St. John said the reasons the Board chooses
for its decision in this case will determine whether a precedent is set. He
thinks it would be difficult to find another site in the same circumstances
this one. He said the Board must decide whether the benefit to the public
would outweigh any detriment caused by waiving the regulations. Mr. St. John
said this decision is a legislative, rather than legal, decision.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the Board can waive a provision of
the Zoning Ordinance, a precise regulation with a specific purpose, on the
grounds that the Board may feel there is a need for more~iand zoned commerci~
in the Crozet area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the reasons for granting a waiver
must at least address the purpose of the ordinance waived, Mr. St. John
agreed and said that granting the waivers will sega pre~dent. He added
approving this request would commit the Board to granting! the waivers before
seeing a site plan. ~'i
Mr. Lindstrom said he also has a problem with granting the waivers
because the applicant has demonstrated no hardship and h~can enjoy a reason-
able use of his property without the waivers. If the Board grants these
waivers because members feel there is a need for more co,m~ercially zoned
property in Crozet, Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks other d~velopers could
attempt to justify other requests for the same reason. ~
Mr. Perkins said he has visited the site and he bela'eves that what the
applicant proposed could be an over-use of the site. He i%hinks building the
shopping center proposed by the applicant would cause prqblams for the water-
shed. He said the applicant can build a shopping center IOn the property as
is currently zoned, and provide the residents of the Croz~et area with a place
to shop. i
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr'.i~ Lindstrom to deny
ZMA-88-22.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the project, but he feels~he must support the
motion because of the many waivers requested.
Mr. Bain said he could not support the number of waivers to which the
Board would commit itself if it approved the request.
Mrs. Cooke said she recognizes the need for a shopping center in this
area. She is concerned about the number of residents of Western Albemarle
shop in Waynesboro. She said she will support the motion~i because there can
be a shopping center on this property, regardless of whether the request for
rezoning is approved.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and!~r. Perkins.
None. ~
Mr. Way. ~i
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments.
Mr. Agnor recommended that Ms. Amelia Patterson be appointed Zoning
Administrator, effective May 18, 1989, and that she receive a salary commensu-
rate with the A step of Range 27. He said Ms. Patterson,'ia Senior Planner,
has been employed by the County for six years.
May 17, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
623
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to appoint
Ms. Patterson to the position of Zoning Administrator, effective May 18, 1989.
There was no discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes:
July 20, 1988; March 27, 1989.
There were none read.
July 6 (N), July 13 and
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Bain asked members of the Board to consider setting a meeting to
discuss hiring a legislative liaison.
Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission has finished its recommendations
for the Capital Improvements Plan, so the Board will have to begin its work
sessions on the Plan soon in order to hold a?public hearing.
Mr. Agnor asked if members of the Boardi'could provide him with agenda.
items, either tonight or tomorrow, for the meeting with the School on May i22,
1989.
Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Personnel.
Due to the lateness of the hoUr, Mr. Agn~or said this item could be moved
to the Monday, May 22 agenda. Board membersi~concurred with the suggestion.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn to May 22, 1989, 8:00 A.M. At 12:05 A.M.,
there being no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered
by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to May 22, 1989, 8:00 A.M.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the' following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
CHAIRMAN