Loading...
1981-10-21October 21, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 21, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arriving at 7:45 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (arriving at 7:41 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 7:33 P.M.), Layton R. McCann (arriving at 7:45 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. (arriving at 7:45 P.M.); County Attorney, George R. St. John (arriving at 7:45 P.M.); and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fis] Agenda Item No. la. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor vresented a two item consent agenda consisting of one lottery permit application for the Maple Grove Christian Church for a raffle to be held on November 7, 1981; and a copy of the "Financial Report of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for the year ended June 30, 1981." Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the consent agenda. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nasho None. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-81-46. Elaine Clark. To establish a nur'sery school (educational preschool for ages 2-5), requiring use of building, parking lot and play area outside building in accordance with Section 10.2.2#7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property is located on State Route 1204, Park Road, in Crozet, Claudius Crozet Park. Property consists 'of 13.62 acres zoned RA, current existing use - recreational facility. County Tax Map 056A(2), Parcel 01-72A White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 7 and October 14, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the staff's report as follows: Request: Nursery school (10.2.2#7) Acreage: 13.62 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 56A(2), Parcel 01-72A, is in the Claudius Crozet Park located on Park Road in Crozet. Character of the Area Claudius Crozet Park is located in a residential area of Crozet. The main building, which would house the nursery school, is centrally located on site, removed from residential uses. Staff Comment The applicant proposes to operate a nursery school for twenty children (ages 2 - 5) from 9 A.M. to 12 P.M. on two days per week. Staff would consist of a director, one paid employee and two volunteer workers. Ms. Clark has obtained State certificates in emergency medical training and as a CPR instructor. While snacks may be provided for the children, no food preparation would occur on site. The Fire Official has indicated the building to be adequate for the proposed use. The building is served by public water and septic system. The pre-school as proposed by the applicant is exempt under State licensure requirements. Approval of this petition would therefore require waiver by the Commission and Board of Section 5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires state licensure. Staff would recommend that the applicant, both for the protection of the children and the applicant, voluntarily comply with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Standards for Licensed C~i'l'd 'Care ~Centers. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1) From a planning viewpoint in regard to safety concerns, staff can determine no distinguishing characteristics between a nursery school (no licensure) and a day care center (licensure); 2) Voluntary compliance is recommended since monitoring of all aspects of the use'is beyond County manpower resources. Staff has reviewed the physical aspects of the building and site and found that indoor floor area, air space and outdoor play area per child ratios to be adequate. In past applications, staff has recommended as a condition of approval that outdoor play areas be fenced for safety reasons. Staff would make the following comments: 1) Claudius Crozet Park is on a dead-end street. The acreage around the building is open and easily supervised; 2)~ State regulations require one adult supervisor per ten children for fenced play areas. The..applicant is proposing four adult supervisors per twenty children with an unfenced play area. Staff is concerned that two of the four adults would be volunteer workers and may not be as reliable as paid employees; 3) The applicant is leasing the property. 4-22 October 21, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Enrollment shall be limited to twenty children. Four adult supervisors shall be present at all times during operations; 2) Permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferrable; 3) Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Supplementary Regulations. 5.1.6(a) is waived; 4) Staff approval of playground furniture and play area locations; 5) Fire Official and Building Official approvals; 6) Swimming pool gate shall be locked at all times when children are outdoors unless lifeguard is on duty." Mr. Tucker said that at its meeting of October 6, 1981, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-81-46, with the following conditions: 1) Enrollment shall be limited to twenty children per day; 2) Permit is issued to the applicant and is nontransferrable; 3) Compliance with 5.1.6 of the Supplementary Regulations; 5.1.6(a) is waived; 4) Staff approval of playground furniture and play area location; 5) Fire Official, Building Official and Health Department approvals; 6) Swimming pool gate shall be locked at all times when children are outdoors, unless lifeguard is on duty. One adult supervisor per five children or any part thereof to be present at all times when children are outdoors in unfenced area." The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Clark was present in support of her petition and gave for the record a petition signed by several members of the community in support of the child care center and a letter from Alvin Toms dated September 1, 1981. Mrs. Clark said she had spoken with the Claudius Crozet Park Board of Directors and they do not feel the area can be fenced and maintained because of vandalism in the area. Mr. Roy Patterson also spoke in favor of the application. With no one else present to speak either for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-81-46 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-81-25, Harold M. Hockman. Rezone 8.33 acres currently zoned RA Rural Areas to LI Light Industrial. Property located on Route 660, across from Murray Manufacturing, southwest of Earlysville. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 10B, White Hall Magisteria District. (Advertised in-the Daily Progress on October 7 and October 14, 1981.) Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter: "October 20, 1981 Miss Lettie E. Neher Clerk, Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Re: ZMA-81-25 Harold M. Hochman Dear Miss Neher: As I told you by phone today I spoke to Mr. Harold Hochman this morning. Mr. Hochman is the owner of a 8.33 acre tract which the County rezoned from light industrial to rural area. At a meeting of the Planning Commission on October 6th his petition to rezone was denied. Mr. Hochman has decided he would like to appear when the Board of Supervisors discusses this matter. Mr. Hochman is a professor of economics at the City University of New York and it is difficult for him to get to Charlottesville during the week. Next semester, however, Mr. Hochman will be on leave and will be free to come to Charlottes- ville most any time. Mr. Hochman has asked that I request that the decisions on this rezoning be deferred until the January meeting of the Board of Supervisors which considers such matters. I will appreciate your presenting this request to the Board. Sincerely, (Signed) Fred N. Colmer" There being no one present to speak either for or against this petition, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer any action of public hearing on ZMA-81-25 until January 20, 1982. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. October 21, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 423 Agenda Item No. 4. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include land use guidelines for property located at interstate interchanges. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 7 and October 14, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report as follows: The Board of Supervisors directed the staff to present proposals to the Planning Commissi¢ for possible Comprehensive Plan amendments in regard to land uses in the vicinity of 1-64 interchanges. Background Under previous zoning and prior to comprehensive planning, development zoning (i.e. commercial, industrial and higher density residential) was established at most 1-64 interchanges. In ensuing years, several rezoning and special permit requests for development uses (mostly commercial) near interchanges were reviewed. As stated by the staff ±n the past, the Comprehensive Plan is virtually silent on the issue of land uses at interstate interchanges. Lands in the vicinity of interstate interchanges will generally have superior access- ibility both in terms of access to a major transportation facility and access to a traveling market. Proximity to an interstate interchange is a consideration in appraisal of property for purposes of taxation.~ Properties in proximity to interchanges generally demonstrate higher market values than comparable properties not situated near an inter- change. As a result of these factors~ the expectations of property owners for land utilization are generally high. Staff Rec'ommendation The staff has prepared proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which would be incorporated at the end of the "Development" section following the discussion of "Rural Areas." Land use mapping is not proposed; the issue would be addressed textually through a "policy and standards" approach. The policy would provide a general statement while the standards would more definitively outline, define or quantify key phrases from the policy statement. DEVELOPMENT AT INTERSTATE-64 INTERCHANGES In addition to matters of national defense, the interstate highway system serves as the highest class facility for movement of people and goods and functions in this regard at a local, regional and national level. The aesthetic design of Interstate 64 throught the Piedmont of Virginia has received international acclaim. Given this background, the following policy statement and standards are recommended: POLICY To accommodate appropriate land uses in the vicinity of interstate interchanges while maintaining the safety and functional and aesthetic integrity of such interchanges. STANDARDS Permitted land uses should be related to-and supportive of the Interstate highway function. More specifically, two categories of land uses are recommended: RegionaI Uses which rely on a regional or larger scale market (Sales, labor, service) and consequently would depend on the interstate highway's function as a non local mover of people and goods. This category would include such uses as: regional shopping centers; major office/buSiness/industrial employ~a~i~ centers; regional governmental/instituti6nal centers; convention centers; and large-scale recreational facilities. Light industrial, warehousing and wholesaling businesses dependent on trucking of goods also favor such locations Provided the interstate is not intended as a major local-traffic carrier, high-density residential development maybe appropriate. Regional uses should be restricted to interchange areas near designated growth areas. 'Hi'gh'way' S'er¥ice Businesses which primarily rely on the interstate traveler as a market, including: hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, truck stops, convenience stores, and gift/craft/antique shops. Certain highway Service businesses, which do not generate or support residential development, may be appropriate at any interstate interchange. Areas suitable for regional uses or highway service businesSes Should not be developed in inappropriate uses which are locally oriented (i.e., neighborhood shopping centers, automobile sales, theaters~, low-density residential development). In addition to preempting more appropriate uses, such development would generate unnecessary local traffic on the interstate highway. Site area requirements for a regional use will generally be determined by the specific needs of the use. A regional use need not be located adjacent to an interchange but should have direct access to an interchange over a road segment of adequate capacity and non local function. Orientation of such uses to the inter- state system provides access appropriate to the needs of the use while minimizing non local traffic on local roads. The random, individual location of highway service businesses should be discouraged. Such uses should be located exclusively in clusters with common access points on sites ~ranging from three to five acres in area. Where the cluster approach is not practical, businesses should utilize service road or reverse frontage access shared by three or more establishments to minimize the number of accesses in the area of the interchange. October 21, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Maintenance of functional and aesthetic integrity should be emphasized in review of applications for development. Such review should occur in the early stages of the development process (i.e., rezoning petition, special use permit application) and should address such matters as: control of access, use of service road or reverse frontage development, separation of access from interchange ramps and other trans- portation planning concerns; landscaping/buffering, setback, signage, and building mass, height, and orientation in, regard to aesthetic concerns. Subdivision of land within one-fourth of a mile of an interstate ramp should not be permitted unless access is provided by a single entrance and the entrance location complies with the following standards: The following distances are recommended as the minimum separation from interstate ramps to commercial entrances on the road crossing the interstate; ROUTE MINIMUM DISTANCE TO-ENTRANCE 616 250 East (Shadweil) 20 South 631 (Fifth Street) 29 South 637 250 West (Yancey'~i~iil) 800 feet 1,000 feet 1,000 feet 800 feet 1,000 feet 800 feet 1,000 feet RESIDENTIAL Mobile Homes Single Family 1 du/acre Single Family 2 du/acre Multi-family 4,6,10,15 du/acre PROPER USES OF LAND NEAR INTERCHANGES Generally Appropriate Under Appropriate Certain Circumstances X X Generally Not Appropriate COMMERCIAL Neighborhood shopping Individual Business Community Shopping Center Regional Shopping Center Highway Service Business Office X X X X INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Research Warehouse Heavy Industrial X X RURAL Agriculture Open Space-Interim Use X x RECREATIONAL/RESORT FACILITY October 21, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6, 1981, voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendments as proposed to act as an interim guideline until the 1982 review of the entire Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker also said the amendments are recommended to the text of the Plan rather than recommending various types of zoning categories for these interchanges. The staff feels that with the guidance furnished by the Plan, it would be better to wait for actual applications for rezonings, where entrances may be controlled through proffers. Mr. Tucker said the staff has made a land use study of lands which are developable around these interchanges and given this information to the Highway Department which in turn is working on a more definitive plan for the interchanges. It is hoPed that the Highway Department will have its work completed in time to incorporate the recommendations into the five-year revision of the Comprehensive ?l'an next year. Mr. Fisher said that over the last several years, there have been many applications for commercial development around the interchanges; some of these applications were no~ approved. From reading the amendment proposed, it appears that any application in any of the listed categories would have to be approved if that property matched the 800 or 1000 foot clearance from a ramp. This amendment does not recommend how much speculative zoning should be approved. Mr. Fisher gave as an example Black Cat Road (Route 616) where there have been a number of undeveloped parcels with commercial zoning, for a number of years and yet the Board still receives requests for more commercial zoning. Mr. Tucker said that in the past the Planning Staff has recommended denial of rezonings on Black Cat Road because nothing has developed in this area. Mr. Tucker said he feels that the Board has discretion to review each application as it is filed and is not obligated by this policy to simply rezone a property because a request is made. He suggested that this amendment be limited to Just the urban interchanges, those interchanges where public water and sewage disposal are available. Mr. McCann asked if public utilities are absolutely necessary for development. Tucker said utilities would be necessary for any of the regional type land uses. Mr o The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Joe Gieck was present in favor of the amendment. With no one else present to speak either for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta said he felt that the sites that will not have utilities are self-limiting for many of the uses set forth in the two sections under standards and he offered motion to adopt this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission for the interim period until the five-year review of the entire Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. Mr. Lindstrom again asked Mr. Tucker if he felt the Board would be able to evaluate each petition on a case by case basis and not be locked into approving rezonings on every interchan~ in the County. Mr. Tucker said he felt the Board had such discretion. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this recommendation reflects both the thinking of the Staff and the Planning Commission that agricultural is not an appropriate use at an interchange. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said that two of the interchanges listed are in the Samuel Miller District. He has never thought that Route 637 in the Ivy Creek Valley is an appropriate place for filling stations or that kind of development. He also felt citizens would be unhappy with that kind of development in the watershed and with no public water or sewage disposal being available in the foreseeable future. Mr. Fisher said that in some court cases the judges have considered the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan, and he does not see that this amendment gives the Board any discretion to deny applications. Mr. Tucker said if the interchange at Ivy is deleted, the status quo would be maintained. At this time, the Comprehensive Plan is silent on recommendations for areas at interchanges. Mr. Tucker agreed that if the amendment is adopted as recommended, the Board might be hard-pressed not to approve zoning changes around interchanges, but the Board can delete those interchanges where it is felt that the time is not right for development. Mr. McCann said he feels that the areas around an interchange are a good place for com- mercial development. Black Cat Road has had B-1 zoning for many years and nothing has developed, so regardless of what is recommended in the Plan, there will not be any development until there is a real need for same. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have any problem with including Route 250 East at Shadwell, Route 20 South, Route 631 and Route 29 South, but would be reluctant to include all of the interchanges. Miss Nash said that Route 20 is not rural and has a very complicated ramp. Mr. Tucker said that interchange is really unique because three quadrants are owned by public entities so it will probably never be developed in any other way. This is one of the interchanges where the Highway Department wanted to make a further study as to access from the ramps. Mr. Fisher said he can remember that the Board had many battles about a gift/craft shop in Yancey's Mill. It was an almost unanimous decision of the Board not to approve that rezoning because of terrain, etc. It would seem from this policy that if a "highway service business" met setback requirements, that the Board would have to approve that zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board spent a long time working on zoning around the ShadweI1 exit because it was felt that there was too much commercial zoning shown in the area. He said he does not feel that every interchange in the county should be developed commercially. Mr. McCann said he can understand the fear, but the Comprehensive Plan is strictly a guide and he does not see these places developing commercially until there is a real need for it. Mr. Henley said he did not think there is any urgent need at Yancey's Mill, but he feels that someday that land will be developed. Miss Nash then offered motion to approve only the urban interchanges according to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said there was already a motion on the floor. Mr. McCann said he thought the Board should vote on what the Planning Staff and Planning Commission had recommended to the Board. Mr. Henley said he had no problem with including all of the interchanges under this amendment. Mr. McCann said he had never seen anything written into an ordinance that could not be interpreted three different ways. Mr. Fisher said if someone wanted to build a hotel at the Ivy interchange, he would be in trouble and he will not support the motion. Dr. Iachett said a couple of questions'had been raised that he had not thought off,hen he made the motion, so he might have to vote against his own motion. Roll was called at this point, and the motion failed by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. October 21~ 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Dr. Iachetta said when he made the foregoing motion, he did it under the assumption that the Board would retain a fair amount of discretion, but when Mr. Tucker clarified his presentation to state that that might not be true, Dr. Iachetta had changed his view of the whole issue. He then offered motion to adopt the amendment as presented and set out above, but including only Route 250 East, Route 20 South, Route 631 and Route 29 South. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-81-20. Sallie and Joe Gieck (Deferred from July 15, 1981). Mr. Fisher asked if this application had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission before the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan just adopted was reviewed by that body. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said that the Planning Commission's basis for denial was based on the way the Comprehensive Plan was interpreted at that time. Mr. Tucker said that was correct and proceeded with the Staff's report: "Requested Zoning: Acreage: Existing Zoning Location: HC Highway Commercial 13.33 acres (Lot 1, 2.356 acres; Lot 2, 10.871 acres) RA Rural Areas Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 33A, is located in the southwest quadrant of the Route 250 East/I-64 Interchange across from the Sheraton Inn. Character of the Area A portion of this property adjacent to Route 250 East has been graded in anticipation of development. The rear of the property, which abuts the C & 0 Railway, remains wooded. The Sheraton Inn, Moore's Well Drilling, single-family dwellings and a mobile home park are across Route 250 East. Properties on the south side of Route 250 East are undeveloped. This property is not located within an Albemarle County Service Authority project area. Therefore, public water and sewer are not available. Comprehensive Plan This property is recommended as rural land in the Comprehensive Plan. boundary of the Urban Area." 1-64 is the Mr. Tucker said, with the amendment just adopted to the Comprehensive Plan, there are provisions for the types of uses contained in the HC District. The applicant submitted a letter today, which Mr. Tucker said he takes to be a proffer, although it does not specifical] state that it is a proffer: "October 21, 1981 Amendment to Rezoning Request; Parcel 78 - 33, 13.33 Acres "We are willing to accept the standards as proposed as amendments to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as related to the development of Interstate 64 interchanges that would be related to and supportive of the interstate highway function. More specifically, the categories of land uses recommended in the proposed amendment under Regional Uses and Highway Service Businesses would be acceptable to us." Respectfully submitted, (Signed) Joe H. Gieck Sally G. Gieck" Mr. Tucker said the Board may wish to ask the County Attorney his opinion of the letter. Mr. Tucker said that under "service business", which is probably the way this property would be developed because of the size of the parcel, there are hotels, motels, restaurants, service stations, convenience stores and gift/antique/craft shops. Access to any development would be controlled by the Highway Department, but there is nearly 1000 feet of road frontage from the ramp. Mr. Lindstrom asked the topography of the property. Mr. Tucker said there has been some filling and grading since last November. Mr. Fisher asked what the Board would do if the parcel immediately west of this parcel wanted the same rights. How would that parcel get access to the highway. Mr. Tucker said, because the parcel is already in existence, the Highway Department could not deny that person access. Staff would probably recommend during site plan stage that that parcel be granted an easement across the front of the Gieck's property. Mr. Hisher said if this property is rezoned and the properties to the east and west were to be requested for the same zoning, he felt they would have to be treated equally. Mr. Fisher said the Board argued for many hours about where the Urban Area boundary should stop and the interchange was chosen because there were many acres of commercial zoning to the west. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Gieck was present in support of his petition. He noted that he had owned the property before 1-64 was constructed and had spent time and money to develop the property. Now that the property has been zoned RA, there is no use to which the land can be put because of the railroad on the back of the property and Route 250 East along the front. Mr. Gieck said he has applied for HC and is willing to accept the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much land area the construction of 1-64 took from Mr. Gieck's parcel. Mr. Gieck said he had owned about 16 acre~ at that time. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Gieck were granted anything for damages to his property. Mr. Gieck said restitution for damages was offered, but he had accepted landscapinl and grading work by the State instead of money. October 21, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) There was no one else to speak for or against the petition. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney his interpretion of Mr. Gieck's letter and whether it was a proffer. Mr. St. John asked if there had been a public hearing on this petition at the July 15 meeting. Mr. Fisher said yes, the petition was deferred after the public hearing. Mr. Sto John said it would be best not to call the letter a proffer; the letter is like a promise, but is not a binding contract. Mr. Fisher said the Board has before it a rezoning which the Planning Staff and Planning Commission both recommended against, but the Planning Commission did not review the rezoning under the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan just adopted. He asked Mr. Tucker if the recommendation would have been different if such a review had taken place. Mr. Tucker said he felt it would even though he, personally, would have preferred to have had a proffer along with the rezoning request. Without a proffer, it is really up to the Board to trust that Mr. Gieck will put one of these types of uses on his property. Mr. MCCann asked about the uses listed in this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the uses in the HC District. Mr. Tucker said all of the uses provided in this policy for the interchanges are from the HC District, but there are other uses in HC which are not considered appropriate for interchanges Mr. St. John said the Board could treat the letter as a proffer and see what happens, but he was not sure Mr. Gieck intended to be bound by that letter. Mr. St. John said the statute requires that the a proffer be made before a public hearing is held. Mr. McCann said he had no problem with the request and offered motion to approve ZMA- 81-20 and to accept Mr. Gieck's letter as a proffer. Mr. Henley offered second to the motion saying that he had supported the rezoning all the time. Mr. Lindstrom said he would support the motion since he feels comfortable approving the request subsequent to the amendment to the Plan. He did not feel that what the Board is doing will be construed as Being an~extension of the Urban Area because it is based upon the interchange plan. Dr. Iachetta said this site is outside of the project areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority, so will be'limited by an absence of public utilities. With that limitation, and with Mr. Gieck's letter as to the uses he would want to see on the property, he will support the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. of the Zoning~Ordinance. Amend the definition of "Natural Resource Extraction" in Section 3.0 (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 7 and October 14, 1981. Mr. Fisher asked if this item was to be deferred. Mr. Tucker said yes. The Planning Commission deferred action on this amendment until they are able to obtain some further information from State people on mining and natural resource extraction. It would be best to just drop this amendment from the agenda and readvertise when the Planning Commission has finished its work. Mr. Fisher asked if that were acceptable to the Board; there being no comment, this item was dropped from the Board's agenda. Agenda Item No. 8. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to add the definition of church in Article 3, to add supplementary regulations for churches in Article 5, and to include churches by right in the RA Rural Areas District in Article 10. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 7 and October 14, 1981.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not acted on this amendment and he recommended that the public hearing be deferred to November 18. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 9:04 P.M. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:13 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. Scottsville Elderly Housing Project. was given by Mr. Russell Otis, Housing .Coordinator: The following staff report "In the spring of 1977, the County submitted a pre-application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Community Development Bloc Grant. The County submitted this application at the request of two different local organizations. One organization was the University of Virginia's Medical Center, which was interested in establishing a health clinic in the Esmont area. The second organization was the Jordan Development Corporation which was soliciting funds for the construction of an elderly rental housing complex near Crozet. The application process for these Bloc Grant funds required that the County develop a Housing Assistance Plan to reflect the housing and community development needs of the County as well as providing tentative plans for addressing those needs. This Housing Assistance Plan was developed jointly by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and Peter Daly, who was Housing Coordinator at that time. The final application to HUD, including the Housing Assistance Plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors and submitted during the summer of 1977. The Housing Assistance Plan stated that the County would encourage the development of three elderly rental housing complexes to be located in Crozet, Scottsville, and in the Urban Area surrounding the City of Charlottesville. The plan does not indicate any preference by the County for the order in which this development would occur, however the Scottsville area has evolved informally as "next on the list" A concerted effort to begin an elderly project in Scottsville was postponed until the fall of 1980. Activity related to the Community Development Bloc Grants in years 1977 and 1978 precluded the initiation of a new project until that time. 4-28 October 21, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) In August of 1980, the Board of Directors of the Jordan Development Corporation was asked if they would consider participating in the construction of an elderly complex in the Scottsville area. They tentatively agreed that they would be interested in such a venture. Conversation with the Mayor of Scottsville indicated that community support of such a project existed. Ail efforts in this direction halted, however, when the County was notified by HUD that it was not eligible for Community Development Bloc Grant funding for that year. During the spring of 1981, planning for an elderly project in Scottsville began again in preparation for this years round of HUD applications. The Jordan Board established a committee of three members and the County Housing Coordinator to begin investigating specific possibilities for sites and to make other preliminary arrangements necessary to get the project started. Mr. Claude Stowers of the State Office of the Farmers Home Administration was consulted regarding the availability of financing necessary to pay for the construction of the residential units (the HUD funds may only be used for site acquisition and development). He stated that since The Meadows was built in Crozet, the competitive rating system used in awarding 515 Mortgage Loans had changed. It was his opinion that any application for these funds, for the purpose of constructing rental property exclusively for low to moderate income elderly would be rejected. He stressed that to be a recipient of these funds, a rental project would have to include low to moderate income families of all ages and compositions. On June 25, 1981, Jane Saunier from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and the County Housing Coordinator, attended a meeting of the Scottsville Homemakers Club, at their invitation. This meeting, which was attended by various community members, was called so that they might be informed of the activities and intentions of the County Housing Office and the Jordan Development Corporation. This group was assured that all plans for an elderly rental complex were, at best, tentative, and would be subject to significant community comment and review by the Board of Supervisors. The consensus of those present indicated that an appropriately designed and located facility, limited to the elderly, would be welcomed by the community, but projects for mixed use or use by low income families would meet with resistance. At this same time, inquiries were made relative to the availability of necessary public utilities (i.e. water and sewer). Findings indicated that in all likelihood, extensions of waterlines and sewer lines and an upgrading of current waste treatment facilities would be required in order to build a rental complex of any kind. Coupled with the apparent resistance to the construction of a multi-family rental complex not exclusively for use by the elderly, the cost of the work dampened the enthusiasm of the Jordan Board of this project. In a conversation with Miss Nash, she confirmed that the community seemed to favor an elderly complex but opposed a multi-family complex. She further indicated that the inquiries about possible sites in Scottsville were generating concerns in the community about the plans of the Jordan Development Corporation and the County. When the information about community attitudes and utility development costs were relayed to the Board of Directors of the Jordan Development Corporation, speculation on a site in the Urban Area surrounding the City began. The Board of Directors has created a committee to investigate that possiblity. A general examination of site acquisition costs and availability is ongoing, but the availability of funds for such a project is at present still unclear. In conclusion, the possibility of providing a rental complex for the elderly, similar to The Meadows, is at present very doubtful. The financial resources necessary to accomplish this specific task are not available. The Jordan Development Corporation continues in its interest to pursue this idea and would be the central facet of any such plans given their demonstrated capacity to accomplish the tasks associated with such a project." Mr. Forrest Kerns, President of the Jordan Development Corporation, was present, He said that Jordan is interested in carrying out the County's plan when and if funds become available. Mr. Lindstrom said he had asked that this item be placed on the agenda because he felt there was some misinformation floating around. From the raport, it sounds like the project is financially at a standstill and there does not seem to be any other alternative at this time. Discussion ended at this point. Agend~aN Item No. 9. Aproval of Minutes: June 18, July 16 (Af~ternoon), August 13, September 10, September 17, October 15 (Night), October 22, November 5 (Afternoon), November (Night), December 18, 1980, and January 21, 1981. Miss Nash had read the minutes of July 16 (Afternoon) and found no errors. Mr. McCann had read the minutes of October 15 (Night) and November 5 (Night) and had found no errors. Dr. Iachetta had read the minutes of June 18 and found only a couple of typographical errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes of June 18, July 16 (Afternoon), October 15 (Night) and November 5, 1980 (Night). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. October 21, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a notice from the Division of Legislative Services that the Oil and Gas Subcommittee of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has announced a series of public hearings to be held in Southwest Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley for the purpose of receiving comments from interested persons with regard to a proposed oil and gas conservation statute for Virginia. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to protect the rights of landowners by requiring that all persons owning an interest in an oil or gas pool under production will receive a proportionate share of the net proceeds of production. The legislation will also maximaze recovery of oil and ~as resources by dis- comraging the introduction of more wells in a given pool than are needed efficiently to drain the pool. Mr. Fisher next noted memo regarding a meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee for the 208 South Rivanna Reservoir Study Program for October 17, 1981, at 2:00 P.M. Dr. F. X. Browne will be present to give preliminary findings for the 208 Study which include 1) the development of a watershed management plan; 2) reevaluation of the annual nutrient budget; 3) evaluation of the methodology of the Runoff Control Ordinance; and 4) evaluation of Best Management Practices Implementation. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board had been invited to attend the dedication and open house of the new Court Square in Stanardsville, Greene County, on October 24 at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Fisher noted that a notice was received saying that the State Water Control Board's Division of Construction Grants, which administers Federal Grant funds for financial assis- tance in the construction of municipal wastewater treatment works, has developed a project priority list of proposed wastewater treatment projects to receive funds in Fiscal Year 1982 and an extended Fiscal Year 1983~91future planning list. The SWCB will hold a public hearing on December 8, 1981, at 9:00 A.M. in Richmond for the purpose of receiving public testimony regarding the proposed 1982~91Grant Priority List. Agenda Item No. 10. At 9:40 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn until October 30, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, Fourth Floor, County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None.