1980-10-29 adjOctober 28, 1980 (Adjourned from October 27, 1980)
377
Agenda Item No. 3. At 9:10 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn until October 29, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Mr. McCann.
None.
Miss Nash.
~ C h&~~~n~
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held or
October 29, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 28, 1980.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 3:10 P.M.), F. Anthony
Iachetta (arrived at 3:14 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 3:10 P.M.), Layton R. McCann
and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St.John
and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:15 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fishc
Agenda Item No. 2. Continuation of Discussion on ZMA-80-i6, Thomas E. Worrell, Jr.
This item had been deferred until 3:00 P.M. on November 5, 1980 by vote of the Board taken
on October 27.M
Agenda Item No. ~4. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance and Map.
Mr. Tucker said the Board was in the process, at last night's meeting, of discussing
the strip commercial along Route 250 West between 1-64 and the caution ~light at Route 240.
The Board asked the staff to review existing uses in this area in order to make a determination
as to how much land is being utilized for commercial purposes at the present time. Tax
Map 56, Parcel 17 is the Western Albemarle Shopping Center. Tax Map 56, Parcel i?B has
500 feet of commercial depth and an approved site plan which is still valid although
approved in 1968. Tax Map 55, Parcel 103C is the Ridge Minimarket. Tax Map 55, Parcel 109A
is Greenwood Burners. Tax Map 55, Parcel 110 is the Calico Cat, an antique shop. Tax Map 55B,
Parcel 1 is the Sugar Hollow Antiques. Tax Map 55A, Parcel 15 has a site plan approved
for the Yancey Minimarket. Tax Map 55A, Parcel 16 is an engineering office. Tax Map 55A,
Parcel 16A is an automobile body shop. Tax Map 55A, Parcel 19 is the Brownsville Market.
Miss Nash asked about Go!a's Restaurant. Mr. Tucker said that Gola's, Clover Lawn
Basket Shop and the Exxon Station are already shown for a commercial designation on this
map.
Mr. Fisher said the question has come up several times about what to do with land
currently zoned B-1 that is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use.
He then wrote the following three categories on the blackboard:
1) Vacant land.
2) Lands with developed, existing uses.
3) Vacant lands which have site plan approval.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to ask the County Attorney to comment on the process
the Board is using in working on the zoning map and the implications of same. What happens
if all the land presently zoned B-1 is shown for commercial designation although not
recognized for such use in the Comprehensive Plan? What happens if only those lands with
existing uses and those lands with approved site plans are shown for commercial designation~
Mr. St. John s~id if all three categories shown above are recognized for commercial designation.
although not shown for such designation in the Comprehensive Plan, it lays the groundwork
for other lots in the area to be rezoned to business. It amounts to a turning point where
the Board has ~ade a decision that this area will remain in business usage for the indefinite
future. If th~se lands are not recognized and are downzoned to RA, then there will be a ~
bunch of nonconforming uses which indicates that sooner or later it is expected that these.
business~.WiI~ be extinguished and that business operations are alien in this area. Mr. St. Joh:
said he beliews that if the existing businesses are made nonconforming by such action,
the people own:.ng these businesses will individually apply for a rezoning to a business
category, and .f it is denied, they may then go to court. It is possible the County could
lo~..~ such a c~se and have what amounts to a court-ordered restoration of business zoning
on the map. I:' a person has a vested right to business zoning by virtue of having an
approved site t~lan and the business zoning is taken away, if that person should apply for
a building peri,it, at that point the zoning administrator, the County Attorney's Office
and the Planni~g staff would review each situation to see if that person really had a
vested right. If they did, they would be issued a building permit. Mr. St. John said he
believes it wo~ld be in order to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to protect the
integrity of the Plan~if the Board decides to put business in this area against the recommenda$~
tions in the Plan.
378
October 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
Mr. Fisher said that making existing uses nonconforming would not take away.their
right to continue the business, it would only mean that the business could not expand.
But, if the business use is recognized, it means the business could expand and most likely
the Board would be faced with rezoning applications on adjacent properties. Mr. St. John
said when a property is shown for business, the Board is saying that it has looked at the
Comprehensive Plan and used all the criteria contained therein to make this land use
decision, and that business is the best use of the land. When businesses are made nonconformin
the Board is saying that all of the criteria has been studied and this area should not be
zoned for business, and the only reason these businesses are being shown is because these
people have a vested right to be in the area even though they no longer have that right
according to the Comprehensive Plan for the County. Mr. Fisher said if the e~isting uses
are designated as commercial, there will be vacant lots around and between these uses.
What does the Board do when people apply next year for commercial zoning on the vacant
lots? Mr. St. John said this is a political decision and not a legal decision. If the
Board does not want to go back to its constituents and say that the land is being downzoned
after some people have said it will not be downzoned, that is a legitimate decision to
leave the land as presently zoned. The County Attorney's office can live with that decision.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Comprehensive Plan should be amended if this course of action
is taken. Mr. St. John said he did not want to see the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
and Zoning map out of kilter in any substantial aspect. Mr. St. John said he really could
see no value in the recent amendment to Section 6.0 on nonconformities if the Board is
going to recognize business zoning wherever there is currently a business. The purpose of
having nonconforming uses is to suppose that these uses will eventually be phased out of
the area. Mr. St. John said the new business districts have a clause in the "Application"
section of the article that says "where commercial districts have been established prior
to the enactment of this ordinance, and such districts comply with the Comprehensive Plan,
the same shall be considered to have been established under this ordinance. Such districts
shall be designated C-i, CO, HC or PD-SC districts on the Zoning Map." That is a positive
statement to the public that any existing business zoning will be continued. Mr. Lindstrom
asked Mr. St. John how he would clarify this situation. Mr. St. John said there is no
reason for the "Application" section to be in the ordinance once the ordinance is ~enacted.
He felt that some existing busi.nesses could be recognized and some made nonconforming.
Miss Nash asked if the "Application" paragraph is not in other parts of the ordinance
other than the commercial districts. Mr. St. John said yes. Miss Nash then offered
motion to delete the "Application" section in sections X.2, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2, 15.2, 16.2,
17.2, 18.2 and 21.2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. McCann said he would
not support the motion. He feels that if a business has been in operation for a long
time, the business zoning should be recognized. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if there
would be any problem with deleting these sections. Mr. St. John said he had no feelings
about the motion. Mr. Tucker said these sections were proposed by the consultants, and. he
has felt that they were intended as a guideline for the Planning Commission and staff
while working on the ordinance. He also did not see any purpose to having these sections
once the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Henley said he may not understand the language, but he
really did not see anything wrong with leaving the language as written. Roll was called
at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board return to discussion of the issue of business zoning.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was not sure what the Chairman wanted the Board to do. Mr. Fisher
said there are two areas of the County, one east and one west, where questions have been
raised about the amount of commercial zoning shown on the map, particularly the strip
commercial. The issue is whether the Board is going to downzone these areas as recommended
in the Comprehensive Plan, or argue over and take a separate vote on every parcel. Mr. McCann
said if the Board is just going to follow what is set out in the Comprehensive Plan, then
there is no need to look at anything else. If these properties are made nonconforming,
indicating that these uses should eventually be phased out, the new nonconforming section
at~le~s ~he~businesses to be rebuilt, therefore the Board is actually saying these uses
will not be phased out. Some of these businesses have been at the same location for many,
many years, and he would not like to see existing ~usinesses made nonconforming or have to
go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances. Mr. Fisher said he feels the same way,
but doubling or tripling business use on land where there are no utilities and where no
utilities are planned~ gives him serious doubts. Mr. Henley said he feels that existing
businesses should be shown for business use and he will not vote with the rest of the
Board members because he does not think that any of these property owners have any idea
that their zoning is going to be changed.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the zoning map which will be the subject of a
public hearing be shown with zoning consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations for
land use; that the Board not go into detailed or technical analysis of each parcel that
may not be consistent with the Plan; with the knowledge that this is a comprehensive
rezoning change. Mr. Fisher said the motion is general enough to include every parcel of
land in the County that does not agree with the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if it was
Mr. Lindstrom's intent to assign higher densities now in the growth areas whether or not
utilities are presently in place. Mr. Lindstrom said there is a statement i.n the Comprehensive
Plan that some of theSe areas may not be available for development until utilities are in
place. He did not think that it is contemplated that high density zoning will be uniformly
applied throughout the County at this time. For example, in the Ivy Road area there is a
severe problem with roads. He felt that such items should be a part of any consideration
of zoning density.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board go back to the issue of lands outside of the growth
areas. Mr. Lindstrom said if that is the kind of motion the Chairman wants, he can do
that too. Miss Nash asked if the motion only applied to the rural areas. Mr. Lindstrom
said if that is what Mr. Fisher wants. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Fisher if he intended to use
the Comprehensive Plan to downzone property, but would not use it to upzone properties.
· 379
~0ctober 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
Mr. Lindstrom said that in some of the growth areas, the Comprehensive Plan implies that
the densities shown cannot be achieved until utilities are in place. In some places,
water and sewer are not in place and roads are inadequate. Mr~ McCann said if the Board
is going to use the Comprehensive Plan to zone one area, it should use it to zone everything.
Mr. St. John said he would like the Board members to keep in their minds Section 15.1-490
of the State Code which states what should be considered in drawing zoning ordinances, and
districts. "... shall be drawn with rea'sonable consideration fOr the existing use and
icharacter of property, the existing land use plan, the Comprehensive Plan where adopted,~..."
He feels that is the reason the staff made certain recommendations instead of making all
of these uses nonconforming. Miss Nash asked about vacant lands. Mr. St. John said he
did not believe that vacant lands have to be shown for business usage just because they
happen to be zoned for businesS now. But it is mandatory that zoning districts be drawn
reasonable consideration for the existing use. The Comprehensive Plan is further
the list of items to be considered. Mr. Henley said he did not feel that just because
an acre of land is zoned for business, that everything around it has to be zoned for
business. There should be some way in the ordinance to allow a country store, rather than·
having it as a nonconforming use. It is ridiculous to have a bunch of country stores and
filling stations as nonconforming uses. Mr. Fisher said the motion on the floor is very
broad. Mr. Lindstrom then withdrew the motion.
Mr. Henley said he would go along with r'emoving some of the commercial zoning shown
in the area being discussed if the owners knew the Board was discussing the question. The
Crozet Committee made recommendations, but did not have a recommendation for Route 250.
Mr. Fisher suggested the Board focus on the issue by discussing the categories he had
shown on the blackboard, one at a time. The first issue is that of vacant lands presently
zoned B-1 which'have not been used for business purposes and where no site plan approval
has been sought. Mr. Lindstrom asked the area of the County in question. Mr. Fisher said
that most of the strip commercial along highways is in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Fisher was referring only to commercial zoning in the
rural areas. Mr. Fisher said yes. Mr. Henley said he did not believe the Board should
wipe off this zoning just because the land is vacant. He did not think the Board would be
able to come up with a rigid rule that could be applied uniformly throughout the county.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board go back to discussing the strip commercial on
iRoute 250 West; the area in question when this conversation began. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the industrial zoning~shown in this area is recognized in the Plan. Mr. Tucker did not
think it is. Mr. Keeler said when the Planning Commission was working on the Comprehensive
Plan, the staff had recommended that the Commission not try to deal with land on a parcel
by parcel basis, but said that was more appropriate to the zoning map. Therefore, the
Comprehensive Plan does not recognize parcel by parcel uses.
Dr. Iachetta asked the legal problem facing the Board. He said the comPrehensive
Plan obviously recommends one thing and another is recommended ox the zoning map. Mr. St. John
said he was not clear, as to whether the Comprehensive Plan states that business should, or
should not, be shown in this area. The business zoning is clearly not shown on the Plan,
but ~verything is not necessarily shown in detail on the Plan. Is there a positive statement
that business zoning is contrary to the Plan, or just that the Comprehensive Plan is not
sufficient enough in detail to reflect business zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said the Comprehensive
Plan shows commercial areas on other roads in the County. Dr. Iachetta asked the legal
situation when the Plan does not show the zoning, 'yet it exists. Mr. St. John said the
State Code gives a list of things to be considered, and "exiSting use" is the first
consideration. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. St. John felt the State Code listed items in
order'of importance. Mr. St. John said he thinks that all items are of equal importance.
Mr. Henley said he wished this matter had been discussed earlier, so the Board would have
had an opportunity to make these property owners aware of the action being contemplated.
Dr. Iachetta said he still did'not clearly see the legal implications of downzoning, and
he would hate to do something that will put these citizens in the role of having to go to
court unnecessarily. Mr. Fisher said this is not final action on the map, but some decision
is needed so the map can be taken to public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think
this area should be shown for strip commercial, but should be shown as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan. If such a change is made on the map to be presented at a public
hearing, the people will surely let the Board know if they do not like the change and any
objections can be considered after the public hearing. Mr. McCann said the Board has
already had one public hearing, and the ordinance and map have been made more restrictive
since that time. Mr. Lindstrom said the hearing last May was only on the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the Board; not the Board's recommendations. Now is the time for the
Board to make its decision.
Miss Nash asked that the Board return to discussion of the problem. Miss Nash said
she feels that if someone has had land zoned B-1 for the past eleven years and has done
inothing with that zoning, they do not have a vested right to have that property zoned
contrary to the Plan. Mr. McCann said these owners have made an investment in the land
through the taxes paid. Miss Nash disagreed. Mr. LindStrom said during that period of
time, that owner had an opportunity to take advantage of the zoning. Dr. Iachetta said
the real question is what happens to the properties presently is use. He said he oan go
along with changing the zoning on the vacant lots, but changing the zoning on the lots in
use is a different matter. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that changing the zoning
~ould be infringing on the owners rights when that owner can maintain the use, rebuild the
~se, or keep operating as at present. If the owner wanted to expand the use, he would
Need only~ app!y for a rezoning. Dr.~Iachetta said that is the part that bothers him. If
he had been operating a business as he pleased for 30 years and then wanted to add storage
room' or whatever, and had to apply for a rezoning, he would be unhappy. Miss Nash asked
why an industry should be allowed to expand at the detriment of the whole neighborhood.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County has a well thought-out Comprehensive Plan fOr land use and
if land uses set out in the Plan are not going to be shown on the map, then that should be
reflected in the Plan. Mr. Henley said he did not know of any business that stays but
changing the same for 30 years. He feels that if a business is in place and presently~has
business zoning, it should stay zoned for business. Mr. Henley said he would support
leaving existing business uses, but he will not support wiping out all the business zoning
with one sweep.
380
October 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
Mr. Keeler said the new nonconforming section has really muddied up everything. As
an example, the Brownsville Market is on a 3/4 acre lot. The lot contains the store,
paved parking area and gas pumps. The Board is determining the best use of that land and
if it is not shown for commercial use, it will probably be shown as RA. He did not think
this property would fit the statement of intent for the RA district. Mr. Fisher asked if
the Board zoned a piece of property for a use that does not conform to the Plan only
because it is an existing use, if there was any way to show that as the reason for the
zoning. Mr. St. John said if such a statement were placed in the ordinance or shown on
the map, that would be a good defense against other such zoning requests. Mr. Lindstrom
Said if the Board does not want to impede an existing business, and not because it is good
land use or in compliance with the Plan, he will vote to allow that area to retain its
zoning. Mr. St. John said he feels this could be noted on the zoning map itself, or a
resolution adopted and pasted to the map. Mr. Lindstrom asked if such action would be
persuasive. Mr. St. John said it should be. Mr. Lindstrom suggested marking properties
with an asterisk that are zoned in contradiction to the Plan. Mr. Fisher agreed. Mr. Henley
suggested that some statement_be included in the Plan to say that such uses are legal.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board does not have time to amend the Plan. He said if the County
Attorney feels comfortable with this concept, he will make a motion to that effect. Mr. St. Jo
said he is enthusiastic about the concept. Dr. Iachetta said he feels that the Board is
getting too tied up trying to make this ordinance and map absolutely legally defensible.
It has been his observation that man-made law is not the same as physical law and the last
judge is the one you go with. He feels the Board is getting tangled up with what might or
might not be the law instead of what common sense dictates.
Miss Nash then offered motion that the Board accept Mr. Lindstrom's idea on Categories II
and III, but rezone Category I to RA. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Tucker
said he would like to mention that there are two different types of site plan approvals.
Approvals obtained on site plans prior to adoption of the site plan section of the ordinance
1975 are good indefinitely; or so he has been advised by the County Attorney's staff.
Plans approved since 1975 have an 18-month expiration time. Mr. St. John said he never
did agree with that theory. Mr. Fisher asked how these two things could be distinguished
on the map. Mr. Tucker said he did not know. Mr. Fisher said any site plan that is more
than five years old will probably never be used. Mr. St. John said these site plans can
be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Fisher asked if it was clear that the motion includes only those properties in
the area which has been discussed (along Route 250 West from 1-64 to the blinking light at
Route 240). He said he was limiting the discussion to this locale. Miss Nash said she
meant the motion to be on a general locale. Mr. Lindstrom thought the Board was voting on
the principle involved. Mr. Fisher asked Miss Nash if her motion applied everywhere in
the County. Miss Nash said that was her thought. Mr. Fisher asked if Miss Nash meant
County-wide in the rural areas. Miss Nash said yes. Mr. Henley asked what Mr. Fisher was
calling rural areas. Mr. Fisher said any lands that lie outside of the Hollymead and
Crozet communities, the urban ring and the villages. Mr. Tucker said there are many
country stores which are not in villages, and the Planning Commission wanted to recognize
them to legitimize their existence, but not all are zoned B-1 now, some are zoned A-! and
are already nonconforming.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were any further clarifications. Mr. McCann said he would
like to know exactly what the morion states. Mr. Lindstrom said if there is a business on
the property at this time, the property will be zoned for business. Mr. Tucker said there
are many different commercial districts in the new ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if it was
the intent of the motion to designate these parcels for the most appropriate commercial
category. Miss Nash said she did not want to fly a red flag, but the motion should state
that vacant land which has been vacant and not used, which was previously zoned B-i, will
revert to an RA category. Mr. Fisher asked Miss Nash if she was amending her motion to
incorporate all three categories written on the blackboard. Miss Nash felt that is what
she said the first time. Mr. McCann said that is what Miss Nash said and the reason he
had asked for a clarification of the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if that was the intent of
the seconder. Dr. Iachetta said the lands should be shown according to recommendations in
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St, John suggested that the Board take separate votes on the
different categories. Mr. McCann said he can support part of the motion, but not all of
it so he would appreciate it if the motion could be broken down somewhat. Miss Nash said
she would just as soon have a separate motion. Dr. Iachetta said as he interprets what
has been written on the blackboard, the first category (vacant lands) would be shown in
conformance with the Plan. Miss Nash then offered a substitute motion to make the change
on Categories II and III. Dr. Iachetta seconded the substitute motion. (Motion is:
County-wide on all business lands within the rural areas, change the proposed zoning map
to reflect the appropriate business category for lands in Category II. For lands in
Category III, where a site plan has been approved in the last 18 months, show land for
apPropriate business category. For lands in Category III, where a site plan was approved
more than 18 months ago, show land as RA or appropriate category if land is in a village.
A note is to be put on zoning map that lands not in conformity with Comprehensive Plan
recommendations are so designated because of existing uses.)
Mr. Tucker said there was one more thing to discuss. The property called HUnter's Hall
keeps popping up. There has been only one site plan approved for this commercial subdivision
which is presently zoned for commercial and is proposed by the Planning Commission for
Highway Commercial. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board take Hunter's Hall as a separate
issue. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher,~I~chetta, 'Lindstrom, MoCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
.n
October 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28' 1980)
Miss Nash then offered motion that vacant lands that are now zoned B-1 be designated
~in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, RA. Mr. Fisher suggested the motion state that
~the properties would be placed in whatever category is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan. Miss Nash said she did not realize the Board was going to discuss the urban area
too. Dr. Iachetta said there are some areas in the rural areas where there are designations
other than RA in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley said the Board is still discussing
only existing B-1 lands. The motion was seconded by Drl Iachetta.
Mr. McCann asked what the Board was going to do with industrial properties. Mr. Fisher
said he would prefer to keep the conversation only on B-1 properties at this time. Mr. Henley
said he will support the motion until the public hearing, but was not sure he will support
it after the hearing. Roll was called and the motion (Motion is: Business lands shown on
the current zoning map (Category I) which are vacant, and where that business zoning has
been carried forward to the new zoning map, and that business zoning is not in conformity
to the Comprehensive Plan, are to be changed and shown on the proposed map in accordance
with Comprehensive Plan recommendations.) carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, LindstrOm and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. McCann.
Mr. Fisher asked if these motions clarified what to do with areas that have been
troublesome. Mr. Tucker said all except Hunter's Hall. Mr. Fisher said he recalled that
this .land lies on Route 250 East and makes a semi-circle around an existing B-1 operation,
iHunter's Hall is also zoned B-I, a road has already been built, the land has been subdivided
into commercial lots, and a site plan has been approved for one lot. Mr. Tucker said that
was correct and noted that the road which has been built, was built to the highest highway
category for commercial usage. Dr. Iachetta said this is the kind of use that should be
encouraged since a whole lot of uses can come off of that loop road. Mr. Fisher asked the
recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Mr. Tucker said the Plan does not
recognize this use. Mr. St. John said he feels the owners have a vested right where the
road has already been installed and the land designed for commercial use. Mr. Henley said
that is the reason he would not support Mr. Lindstrom's first motion.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was a motion to retain this property in HC on the basis
of existing use determined by the road that has been built. Dr. Iachetta offered motion
to this effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked about industrial uses on the map that are not recognized in the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said there is Yancey's Mill and the Northside Industrial
Park. Mr. Henley said he felt the industrial lands should be treated the same as the B-1
lands. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted to use the same criteria for industrial lands
that was used for commercial lands. Miss Nash asked if this still applied only in the
rural areas. Mr. Fisher said yes. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to designate industrial
lands the same way business lands were designated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
Mr. Tucker, said there are going to be some lands in the South Fork Rivanna watershed that
are presently zoned for industrial use. Mr. Fisher said if there are existing uses, then
they will stay industrial. Mr.~ McCann asked if the motion covered all three categories.
Mr. Fisher said all three categories will be shown the ~same as was done with the B-1 lands.
Mr. McCann said his "no" vote will then count as much on the vacant lands here as it did
on the other vote. He felt there were some individual cases that should be looked at more
closely. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher was surprised at Mr. McCann's yes vote. Mr. McCann said the Chairman had
said the Board was going to do the same thing that was done on the B-1 lands and the Board
took separate votes on the B-1 lands. Mr. Fisher said he was sorry, but he had lumped all
three categories together into one vote. Mr. McCann said as long as the record is clear
that he does not support the part of the motion on the vacant lands. Mr. Fisher then
suggested that the Board separate the motion into two parts and said that on the vote just
taken, Mr. McCann's vote would stand.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to do the same with the vacant (Category I) industria1
lands as was done with the vacant B-1 lands. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann.
Mr. Fisher asked about other issues~ on the Rap. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board
start where it had left off last night. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board still had not dealt
with the same kinds of problems in the non-rural areas. Mr. Fisher suggested Mr. Tucker
present his list of areas shown for a zoning that is in conflict with Comprehensive Plan
recommendations. Mr. Tucker said he would present the items by neighborhoods.
1) Neighborhood No. 1. Plan shows CO: Commission recommended HC. The area is in
the vicinity of Jim Price Chevrolet on Route 29 North. In drafting the Comprehensive
Plan, strips of alternating CO and regular commercial uses were shown along Route 29.
This particular area is shown for CO in the plan, but the Planning~Commission recommended
HC based on its existing use. Mr. Fisher said that according to the votes just taken,
this land would be designated HC because of its existing use. Dr. Iachetta said that
possibly the Plan should be amended since the Board would certainly not want to change the
zoning.' Mr. Fisher said this is clearly a case where the zoning has been placed in order
to let the property conform to its existing use. If the Board is going to do this in one
case, it should be done throughout and marked on the zoning map.
382
October ~ourned from October 2 ~1980~
2) Neighborhood No. 1. Plan shows medium density; Commission recommended HC. Mr. Tucker~
said this area is near Better Living, The Hub Furniture Store and the veterinary offices
on Route 29 North. He said that the property behind the veterinary offices is the area in
question. Although there is some commercial depth shown along Route 29, the Plan reCommends
medium-density residential on the back of the property. A 1977 rezoning request (Coggins)
was approved by the Planning Commission and the Board to extend the commercial zoning over
the entire parcel. The Planning Commission has recommended that this commercial zoning be
carried forward to the new map. Dr. Iachetta said that since the property has had the
commercial zoning for three years, he did not feel the Board lcou!d change it at this time.
Mr. Henley agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing tO leave the property zoned for
commercial because the maps in the Comprehensive Plan are ge~erat and he did not feel the
zoning is that far out of line with what is recommended in the Plan.
3) Neighborhood No. 1. Plan shows commercial; Commission recommended R-10 Current
Zoning is R-2 and is in reSidnetial usage. Mr. Tucker said tihis is a small area about
1,000 feet back from Route 29 North in the northwest quadranti of Rio Road between WWW
Electronics and Mel Dixon's office. There are some small residences in the area. The
Plan shows this area for commercial, but the Planning Commission has recommended R-10
zoning to tie this property into the land behind it which is la!so shown for R-10. Mr. Lindstro~
said he had no problem with leaving the property as shown by Ithe Planning Commission.
Miss Nash felt this is an unlikely place to have residential uses.
Mr. Fisher said he just looked at the Comprehensive Pla~
medium-denSity which is five to ten dwelling units per acre.
acre. If a person used the bonus provisions in the ordinance
could be obtained. He felt the whole area might be mislabell
shown for R-6. Mr. McCann said the Planning Commission reco~
because they had lowered the density on the opposite side of
, and it shows this area for
R-10 is ten to 15 units per
, an even higher density
ed and should probably be
mended R-10 for this property
Rio Road which lies in the
South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Tucker said that densities were not placed on the map
projecting the maximum that could be obtained with use of bonus provisions. This is shown
as medium-density by right without bonuses.
Mr. Fisher asked the pleasure of the Board. Mr. McCann offered motion that the
property remain as shown on the map for R-10. Miss Nash asked why the property should not
be shown as recommended by the Plan. There was no second to Mr. McCann's motion.
Miss Nash then offered motion that the property be shownlaccording to its designation
in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said the motion would hake this property commercial
and there are houses on the property which is part of the original problem. Miss Nash
said she was not talking about the entire area. Mr. Fisher a~ked if she meant that the
residential density should be R-6 instead of R-10 as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Miss Nash said whatever is shown in the Plan The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
Dr. Iachetta asked if R-6 is the appropriate designation~ Mr. Tucker said that the
staff, in working With the ranges of densities, looked at a broader area where there is
already existing development. In the vicinity, Four Seasons ~s developed at seven units
per acre; Wynridge is zoned for R-3, but is developing at only four units per acre. When
the Planning Commission originally studied this area, it was ~ecommended for R-6. But,
the Planning Commission then lowered the denisty on the otheriside of the road in the
watershed to one unit per acre, and decided to shift some of ~hat density to this side of
the road. Miss Nash asked if the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan were not
ignored. Mr. Keeler said no; the staff and Commission were l~oking at it from a different
point of view. Mr. Fisher said it is clear that this is a question of judgment and it is
now up to the Board to decide whether R-6 is appropriate. Mri Lindstrom said R-10 would
be fine if there were no bonuses. Mr. Fisher asked if it waslthe intent of the motion
that the area back from Rio Road be designated as R-6. Miss Nash agreed. Mr. Lindstrom
'called and the motion carried
said that is the motion be thought he had seconded. Roll wasi
by the following recorded vote: ,
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash,
Mr. McCann.
Mr. Fisher asked if the motion just voted on included th~ piece of land that presently
contains hoUses. Mr. Lindstrom said that is another issue. Mr. Fisher asked that the
Board discuss the small pieces of property on Rio Road that a~e shown in the Comprehensive
Plan for commercial use, but designated by the Planning CommiSsion as R-10. Mr. McCann
said if the Board does as was done on the last motion, the prgperty will be shoWn for
commercial as called for in the Plan. Mr. Fisher said there ~re seven or eight narrow
little lots on Rio Road that the Plan shows for commercial use. He asked if showing these
parcels for commercial will influence the way that these people use their homes at this
time. Mr. Tucker said he did not believe it would. Even if a house burns down, it can be
rebuilt. Mr. Henley asked if there was any way this area cou].d be developed as residential.
Mr. Keeler said it is residential now, but it is clearly in t~
Mr. Henley and Miss Nash both agreed. Mr. Henley felt the ar~
use now. Dr. Iachetta felt it should be shown in compliance ~
and offered motion to show these lots for C-1. Miss Nash sec¢
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
'ansition to commercial use.
,a should be shown for commercial
~ith the Comprehensive Plan
,nded the motion which carried
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss N~h.
None.
Mr. McCann.
October 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
383
4) Neighborhood No. 1. Plan shows high density; Commission recommended R-4 and R-6
(Minor Tract off Whitewood Road). Currently being developed at lower densities. Mr. Tucker
said this area is Wynridge Subdivision, presently being developed across from the Division
of Motor Vehicles. The property is shown for high density residential in the Plan, but it
is already subdivided and is developing at four and six units per acre. The Planning
Commission went ahead and recognized the property according to the way it is developing
instead of as shown in the Plan. Mr. Fisher said that seems to be consistent. Mr. McCann
said he wonders if the Board is really being consistent, or is it being consistently
inconsistent.
5) Neighborhood NO. 1. Plan shows CO in Westfield area; Commission recommended C-1.
Staff recommended a mix of CO, C-i, and LI~ internal street system. Mr. Tucker said this
area is generally bounded by Greenbrier Drive, Westfield Road and Commonwealth Drive. It
is all commercial area where Barnaby's, the Shell Station, the old ice skating ring and
the Greenbrier Theatres are located. The Plan calls for CO in this area. The Planning
Commission recommended a mixture of C-I, CO and LI based on existing uses. Mr. Fisher
said he would suggest marking these parcels that they have been zoned according to existing
use. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Na~.
NAYS: None.
iABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
6) Neighborhood No. 1. Plan shows CO along Commonwealth Extended; subject to County
agreements for Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Tucker said this is the area along Commonwealth
tlDrive Extended on which a road agreement was signed several months ago, .,The Plan shows CO
llin this area, but because of the road agreement, the area is shown on the map for medium-
t!density residential, or R-10 and C-1. The agreement will regulate the intenSity of use
llbased on traffic coUnts. Mr. Tucker said the majority of the property is already being
l~eveloped and there is another site plan pending approval. The property is actually
developing at a lesser intensity than is allowed under existing zonmng. Mr. Fisher asked
if there was a motion to make a change or just to make a note that the area is being shown
in conformity with existing uses. Motion to this effect was offered by Miss Nash, seconded
by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom~ McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
7) Neighborhood No. 1.. Plan shows low-density; Planning Commission recommended R-4
and C-1. Mr. Tucker said this area is directly across from the end of Georgetown Road at
its intersection with Hydraulic Road. The Plan shows this area generally for low density
residential. The present zoning is high density with some commercial. The Planning
Commission had originally recognized this area for high density and commercial because of
a plan that had been submitted. This is one of the areas where people had requested that
the Plan recognize commercial zoning, but the staff recommended against it because an acre
or a half acre parcel was too small to show in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said a
site plan was submitted and approved for a housing project for the elderly on the residential
part of this property, but nothing has been submitted for the commercial part. Mr. Fisher
asked if the property is vacant and has no site plan approval. Mr. Tucker said that was
correct. Miss Nash offered motion to zone the area which has site plan or subdivision
approval according to its existing use, but to change the commercial area to low-density
residential to conform with the Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann.
8) Neighborhood No. 2. Plan shows a commercial/commercial office mix from Albemarle
Square to South Rivanna; Commission recommended CO at entrance to Carrsbrook and Real Estate II!
isite; recognized approved plans; property owners requests. Mr. Tucker said the Planning
!Commission recommended that the area on both sides of the Carrsbrook entrance be shown for
CO so that it would not be developed as intensively as if it were HC. The Planning Commission
recognized approved plans along Route 29. Dr. Iachetta said he could see no problem with
the Planning Commission recommendation.
9) Neighborhood No. 2. Plan shows medium-density; Commission recommended R-10 and HC:
recognized existing uses and zoning (Area of Tax Map 61, Parcels 124, 124A, i24B, 124C,
124D, 124E, t24F, 128, all on Rio Road). Mr. Tucker said this area is directly behind
Albemarle Square Shopping Center in the vicinity of the Bonanza Restaurant and the Putt-Putt.
The property is shown in the. Plan for medium-density residential and the Planning Commission
recommended R-10 and HC based on existing uses and zoning. Mr. Fisher said he did not
understand the Planning Commission's recommendation. According to the last decision of
the Board, R-10 is not.medium-density residential, so R-6 would be a closer designation.
Mr. Keeler said there was a plan submitted for Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E (presently zoned R-3)
some time ago, but the plan was withdrawn because of entrance problems~encountered during
construction of Fashion Square Mall. Mr. Lindstrom said since surrounding properties are
shown for low-density residential use, he would move to show this property for R-6. Dr. Iachetl
said he felt R-10 is a more appropriate designation since the property already has public
utilities available and is on a major access route. Mr. McCann said the Planning Commission
had made its decision based on the presence of utilities. Mr. Lindstrom said there is a
possibility of obtaining a 50% increase in density through use of bonus factors. If the
property is zoned R-6, nine units can be achieved with bonuses. Dr. Iachetta 'said Parcel 124E
is presently zoned R-3. Mr. Lindstrom said that parcel is right next to low density
residential and he cannot support R-10 which would have the potential of achieving R-15
density through use of bonus factors. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to show Parcel
124E for medium-density of R-6.
384
October 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
Mr. Fisher noted that Parcel 124F is the site of the existing Bonanza Restaurant. The
balance of the property is not being used. Dr. Iachetta said the Putt-Putt is located on
Parcel 124E. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion was to recognize Parcel i24F only for HC
based on its existing use. Mr. Lindstrom said that is the only existing use. Miss Nash
noted that the Putt-Putt is an existing use. Mr. Tucker said the Putt-Putt is on the
separate, larger parcel 124E. All of the property is at present shown for B-1. Mr. Lindstrom
did not think that the Putt-Putt is a permanent use, so could be made a nonconforming use.
Mr. Fisher asked if the motion is to exclude Parcel 124F which would remain HC and incorporate
the rest of the area into R-6. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not include the Carter property
(Parcels 124C and 124D) which the Board rezoned a couple of years ago. Mr. Fisher then
asked if the motion was to exclude Parcels 124A, 124B, 124C, 124F and 128 which would
remain as R-10. There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Henley said he felt the Board should recognize the Putt-Putt as an existing use.
Mr. Tucker said he did not know how that would be done, since it is located on the larger
parcel and there is no property line to follow to show just the area being used. Dr. Iachetta
said he really did not think the Putt-Putt is a permanent use. At this time, Mr. McCann
offered motion to leave these properties as shown on the map for R-10, with the one parcel
being designated as HC. Mr. Lindstrom said that the motion is contrary to the recommendations
in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley said the Comprehensive Plan does not recognize all
the commercial on the existing map, so he thinks the area should be designated for R-10
with the exception of the one small piece of HC. There was no second to the motion.
Miss Nash then offered motion that the zoning be whatever category is shown in the
Comprehensive Plan, except Parcel 124F where the Bonanza is located should be HC. Mr. Lindstro:
gave second to the motion. Dr. Iachetta said he remembered that the neighborhood committee
recommended this property be R-10. Mr. Lindstrom said the density can go as high as R-15
with bonuses. Mr. Fisher said he heard the motion, but did not understand same. The
controversy is whether R-6 or R-10 is what conforms to Comprehensive Plan recommendations.
Miss Nash felt it should be R-10. Mr. Henley agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said R-6 can go to
nine units per acre using bonuses, so R-6 is right in the range of medium density. That
was decided on an earlier motion. Miss Nash said she would change her motion to make the
area R-10 because she does not believe in the bonus provisions. Dr. Iachetta felt the
bonus provisions should be deleted if they are going to cause problems. Mr. Lindstrom
said he does not have a problem with the bonuses, but is just anticipating what can happen.
As far as he is concerned, R-10 is high density. Mr. Fisher then rephrased the motion to
say, the entire area shown as parcels 124, and all of the sub-parts of 124, except F and
Parcel 128, would be shown on the map for R-10, while Parcel 124F will stay as shown for
HC. Miss Nash said that was her motion. Mr. Henley then gave second to this substitute
motion. Miss Nash noted that the Board had received a letter from George McCallum on
behalf of Lloyd F. and Patricia Wood, owners of Parcels 124E, requesting that R-15 designation
be placed on this property. Mr. McCann said he felt the commercial area toward Albemarle
Square Shopping Center should remain commercial. Roll was called at this time, and the
motion was defeated by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and McCann.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was any other motion since he would prefer not to discuss
this property when the Board returns from supper. After a short discussion of what density
range R-10 really is, Mr. Henley offered motion to reconsider the previous motion. The
motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Roll was called on the previous motion which stated that the area would be designated
R-10 except for Parcel 124F which will remain HC. The vote was as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 3. At 5:45 P.M., the Board recessed for supper and reconvened at
7:38 P.M. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 7:40 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance and Map. Mr. Tucker returned to
discussion of areas not shown in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
10) Neighborhood No. 2. Plan shows high density near Wakefield Subdivision; Planning
Commission recommended R-2 and R-6. The Board may wish to consider proposed zoning on Tax
Map 61, Parcel 140. Mr. Tucker said this property is off of Rio Road adjacent to Fountain
Court Apartments. Although the Plan notes this area for high density residential, a site
plan was approved last night for townhouses which would actually make the density more
like R-6. Mr. McCann asked if the area is shown on the proposed map for high density.
Mr. Tucker said no; it is shown for R-1 which is two units per acre. Miss Nash then
offered motion to change this to R-6 to be consistent with the approved site plan. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Oct~ber 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
385
11) Neighborhood No. 2. Plan shows open space between City limits and proposed
McIntire Road Extended; Commission recommended R-4 and R-15. They recognized existing
zoning with less intensive districts. Mr. Tucker said this property is off of Melbourne
Road and will be affected by the McIntire Road extension. The property is adjacent to the
Corporate limits and the railroad and is currently zoned R-3 with some commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan basically does not recognize the land to the west of Rio Road as anything
other than open space. It was difficult for the Planning Commission to decide, so they
idid not recognize any of the commercial, but did show the property for the highest density
of R-15. Mr. Keeter said a lot of this property is in the flood plain. Mr. Fisher asked
if the property should be shown for high density in the flood plain. Mr. Tucker said any
developer would get a density credit for that part of the property in the flood plain.
Mr. Fisher asked if public utilities are available to the property. Mr. Tucker said yes.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway) goes through the
property. Mr. Tucker said it will go through part of the property. The only access to
the property will be from Melbourne Road. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any way to show
some density for the part of the property that is not in the roadway or the flood plain,
llbut not designate the remainder of the property for high density use. Mr. Tucker said
Ithat would be difficult since the actual location of the roadway is not known. Mr. Fisher said
~it ~di~:inot seem righ~ to mislead the property owner and the public into believing that
this tract of land can be Used for high density residential when it is hoped that someday
there will be a four-lane road across the property. Mr. Keeler said that the way the
Flood Plain Ordinance is written, the property owner can obtain a special permit to fill
and remove the property from the floodway, so it will then no longer be in the flood
plain. Mr. Fisher then asked the recommendation of the staff. Mr. Tucker said the staff
does not feel that high density is unreasonable for this property. It was agreed that
there would be no change in the Planning Commission's recommendation.
12) Neighborhood 4. Plan shows medium density residential and commercial along Avon
Street Extended; Commission recommended R-1. The medium density and commercial areas
could not be located; a rezoning would be required to establish same on specific parcels.
(Also, application for the Hillcrest PUD is still pending before the Board.) Mr. Tucker
isaid this area is on Avon Street between the City Limits and Lake Reynovia. The Plans
calls for high density, but the owner of that tract would have to apply and actually
establish the boundaries of that commercial area. Because of this problem, the Commission
recommended R-1 as a type of holding zone. It was agreed that there would be no change
from the Planning Commission's recommendation.
13) Neighborhood No. 5. Plan shows low-density between Routes 780, 631 and 1-64;
the Commission recommended R-4, R-15 and C-1 at the property owner's request in order to
recognize some of the existing zoning. The commercial acreage was reduced and the residential
density was reduced. Mr. Tucker said the property is presently zoned B-1 and R-3. The
reason R-15 is shown in conflict with the Plan is basically because of utilities. The
advanced wastewater treatment plant is on this side of town and the sewer line will run
along Moore's Creek just under the Interstate. Part of this property is where the rehabilitati~
center, just approved by the Board, will be built. Mr. Fisher said this is probab!y~the
biggest disparity from the Plan that the Board has seen thus far. Mr. Lindstrom asked the
reasoning behind the reoommendation in the Plan. Mr. Tucker said it came from the committee
that worked on Neighborhoods 4 and 5 and he did not recall the reason they recommended low
density. When the Planning Commission reviewed this property, considering densities
around the property and the prospect for utilities; they did not feel that low density was
the best density due to the proximity of the interstate, accessibility, road noises, etc.
Miss Nash asked what will happen if Route 631 is ever straightened. Mr. Keeler said it
would come through this property. Miss Nash did not feel there was much point in allowing
people to build apartments on this property if the road will go through the property. Mr. Fish~
said this might be a good ultimate density for the property, but at this time, the roads
in the area are so bad he coutd see no reason to put the zoning on the property now. Mr. Keele~
said a provision has been added to the ordinanoe to require an applicant to dedicate
appropriate right-of-way when a road is shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fisher said as he reads the Comprehensive Plan, the commercial area shown on the
map where the Oak Hill Grocery Store is located, is correct. Dr. Iachetta said this area
is at least one and one-half years away from obtaining sewer service. Miss Nash asked the
recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said the area is recommended for low
density of one to four dwelling units per acre. Mr. Lindstrom felt the area should be
shown as recommended in the Plan. Miss Nash then offered motion that the area be left as
shown in the Comprehensive Plan in view of the uncertainty of road improvements in the
area. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that designation would be R-I, R-2 or R-4. Dr. Iachetta
said that sewer service will be available in this area before the next revision of the
~Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion was to designate this area for R-2
except where there are existing uses. Miss Nash said this area would come under the
~eneral rule just enunciated by the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
said he feels that where water and sewer are available, high density should be allowed
regardless of road conditions.
recorded vote:
Mr. McCa~
The roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann.
Mr. Fisher asked about Tax Map 76, Parcel 52. Mr. Tucker said that property was
rezoned several years ago at the request of Dickie Debutts to R-2 Which would presently
allow eight and one-half units per acre. Mr. Fisher asked the recommended density. Mr. Tucker
said the proposed zoning would allow about four units per acre or 60 homes. Mr. Lindstrom
Said that zoning is not inconsistent with the Plan, although it is in the upper range.
386
October 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
14) Neighborhood No. 5. Plan shows property on north side of Old Ivy Road for high-
density residential and commercial. Mr. Tucker said the Commission recommended low density
because of recent rezoning pe~titions for high-density and commercial uses which were
denied by the Board, and because of the road. The property is presentl~y zoned A-1. Mr. LindSt~
said this area is one of the reasons the notation was included in the Comprehensive Plan
that certain densities cannot be obtained without public utilities.
Mr. Fisher asked about other areas in the urban ring that are shown for high-density
use, but water, sewer and roads are not in place now. Mr. Tucker said there is a property
north of the Interstate where high-density is shown because Moore's Creek runs adjacent to
the property, but it is served by Route 780 and Sunset Avenue which are not good roads.
Hydraulic Road has not yet been improved and is listed as nontoterable. The SPCA road is
now listed as nontolerable and quite a few site plans have been approved for the area.
Then, there is Georgetown Road. Mr. Lindstrom said that Ivy Road is nontolerable in a way
that Hydraulic Road is not. If a lot of traffic were put on Ivy Road there would be
serious problems. He also could not see wiping out all the medium-density on Rio Road
because of the road problems. Dr. Iachetta said that both Hydraulic and Rio Roads are a
part of the Six-Year Highway Plan, so the Board knows that these problems will be addressed
if the highway improvement schedule can be maintained. There is a different problem with
Route 631 South which is not a part of the Highway Plan, but is a part of Alternative #4
of the CATS study. Mr. McCann said that both Hydraulic and Rio Roads are included in the
Six-Year Plan because they have become so bad. Maybe that is the only way to get a road
into that plan. Mr. McCann also felt that people will have to learn to live with poor
roads or be willing to be taxed to make the roads better. He said when the Board talks
about nontolerable roads, it makes the citizens think that the roads are unsafe and actually
the word "nontolerable" has nothing to do with safety. It only means that it costs too
much money to maintain the roads.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board to return to discussion of the issue of whether the Board
is going to review any other areas on the urban map with respect to water, roads and
sewer. Mr. Lindstrom said Dr. Iachetta has a point in that there is some basis for at
least distinguishing roads which are in the planning stage for improvement. Dr. Iachetta
said where higher densities are being projected, the Board will have to realize that money
will be needed for roads. Mr. McCann said he did not think anybody will vote to raise
taxes so that somebody else can have a better road. He said that so far tonight, the
Board has refused to go along with recommendations of the Planning Commission because the
Comprehensive Plan did not call for a certain density. Now, the Board is saying that it
will not go along with the recommendations in the Plan because a proposed road shown in
the Plan has not been constructed. Mr. McCann said he feels the other Board members are
switching and playing both sides. He, personally, votes the same way all the time. Mr. Lindst
said he did not see any way that there can be high density development on Old Ivy Road,
and Route 631 is about as sensitive to development. Mr. McCann said if the Board is going
to act on this one area on the basis of roads, sewer, etc., it should go back and have a
complete study made on every high density area taking into consideration roads, sewer and
water and then come back at a later date and lower the density on all such areas. Mr. Lindstro~
said he feels that a road is as much of a utility as the other things. Dr. Iachetta said
that Route 631 South and 01d Ivy Road are probably the wors~ roads in the urban ring. If
the Board is going to keep the densities down in the rural areas, those densities have got
to happen somewhere in the County. Mr. Fisher asked if Dr. Iachetta had any specific ~
parcels in mind that should be changed. Dr. Iachetta said he was inclined to go along
with what the Board has worked out, and find some other way to solve the problems. Mr. McCann
said he would just like to make the point that the Board is being completely inconsistent
in its recommendations.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board finish work on letters received objecting to
certain zoning categories. Letter from Mrs. Leslie Walton concerning Tax Map 56, Parcels 88,
88A, 89, 90 and 90A. These parcels are currently zoned M-1. The property is in Crozet.
Mr. Tucker said that as best as the staff could determine, the Comprehensive Plan stops
the industrial zoning in a location near Irv's Trucking on the south side of Route 240.
Mrs. Walton has requested that her property retain its industrial zoning. Mr. Henley said
he felt the LI zoning should be extended to the property line at the railroad. Mrs. Walton's
road is right at her property line. Extending the line would not add a lot of additional
LI land, but would straighten out the zone. Mrs. Walton bought the land and paid quite a
large sum so she could have some say about the way it was developed since it was zoned for
M-1. Miss Nash then offered motion to follow Mr. Henley's suggestion to follow to the end
of the property line. Mr. Fisher said the LI zone would then go as far east as Parcels 90
and 90A. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, M¢Cann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Tucker then noted a request from Bruce Dotson on property between Albemarle
Square and Woodbrook Shopping Center on Route 29 North. There are a few parcels in the
area presently shown on the map for HC. The Comprehensive Plan recommends CO, but a site
plan was approved last summer for part of this area for Greene Gardens, a nursery, and C-1
would make that a conforming use. It also is a less intensive use than HC. Dr. Iachetta
said the owner of Greene Gardens had bought the whole tract so there is no office use
intended. He then offered motion to show the property for C-!. Mr. McCann said he did
not have any problem with showing this for C-1 since there is already a use on the property,
but the intent of the HC district is that it be on a major highway. CO is intended to be
a buffer between residential uses not on a major highway and he wondered why the two uses
are mixed together. Dr. Iachetta said his motion is intended only to match what the owner
of this property is doing. 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.
om
~m
October 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
Mr. Tucker said the next letter is about property on Georgetown Road (Georgetown
Veterinary) presently zoned R-3. The owner is requesting comparable zoning, or R-15.
Under either zone, the use would still be nonconforming. Georgetown Veterinary lies
outside of the urban ring in the South Fork Rivanna watershed so the use would not be
recognized, but the nonconformity section would allow for rebuilding if the use were
destroyed. There was no motion for a change. ·
Mr. Tucker said the next letter is'a request for HC on property owned by Mary Patricia
Brown on Route 29 North. This property was discussed last night and changes were made in
the text of the ordinance about motels and hotels. Mr. Fisher said the Board has discussed
this property at least twice. Mr. McCann said he was not present last night, but he feels
that HC is the proper designation g~r property right on Route 29 or anywhere on a major
ihighway. There was no motion for change.
Mr. Tucker waid the Board had received a letter back in July about the Lake Reynovia
property which was designated "conservation". A few days ago~ the Board eliminated the
Conservation District from the proposed ordinance. At the time this area was shown for
conservation, it was very vague because of the lack of distinguishable property lines.
The owners have now had the property surveyed, so the area will be shown for RA using the
plat prepared by the owners. Mr. Fisher said he did not see anything wrong with Mr. Tucker's
suggestion.
Mr. Tucker noted a letter from Central Fidelity Properties about property where the
Gazebo Shopping Center is to be located. He said the Comprehensive Plan shows the area
for low density residential, but the property is presently zoned B-1. A site plan has
been approved for the shopping center. Mr. Tucker said that the property probably should
be shown for ?D-SC. ~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.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to discuss the Pantops area again in view of the
site plan just approved for the Gazebo shopping Center and the difficulties with language
in proposed ordinance Section 25A. This whole area was shown for PD-MC with the thought
~that the Board would be able to come up with a manageable district. There is a tremendous
iamount of commercial zoning shown in this area and unless there is some way to control
access to this whole area, he is opposed to leaving all of this commercial on the map.
Mr. Henley said he did not have a lot of problems with the commercial shown because it is
logical for this area to develop that way. Mr. Fisher said when the Board designated this
area for PD-MC, it was done with the understanding that some way would be worked out to
lcontrol access so this area would not become another Route 29 North. If no way can be
found to do that, he is nervous about leaving this much commercial area on the map. Mr. McCann
said he does not think a lot of people realize the amount of business zoning taken off the
map in this area by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said it is still about ten times
more than needed. Mr. Fisher asked if there were some way to write in the text that there
would be no further subdivision of parcels designated for PD-MC until there is an approved
transportation plan for the area. Mr. Tucker said that would solve the problem, but he
did not know if it was legal. Mr. St. John said he did not know of any way to do that.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the ordinance could be adopted to state that any parcel in this
district which came in for a subdivision would be limited to one access point on a state
road. Mr. St. John said that would work but he felt it should be a requirement of the
Subdivision Ordinance and not the Zoning Ordinance. If a new system of public roads were
to be created, it would have to be done in accordance with Code Section 15.1-456, but the
Board is discussing public access onto Route 250. Mr. Fisher said the Board had hoped
that this 200+ acres could be developed with one major internal road that would be the
transportation corridor for the whole area before the area is subdivided or developed.
Mr. St. John said his office has not found a final solution to this type of problem. If
the Board is going to try such an approach, it must be done county-wide as a general
regulation and not just on this area. Mr. Fisher said this would be a regulation which
applied to any parcels designated PD-MC. Mr. McCann said this area is being singled out
by the zoning designation. Mr. Fisher said that was the intent of the amendment made to
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said any site plan or subdivision in PD-MC would
trigger access locations and limitations. Mr. St. John said something of this type could
be written into the ordinance. Mr. McCann said he would hate to see anybody put in the
position of having to get the County to approve road plans everytime two or three acres
are to be sold. Mr. Fisher said he views this as a compromise to doing away completely
with the commercial zoning. If a way can be found to limit accesses to the public road,
he is willing to leave this area on the map for commercial designation. Mr. McCann did
not agree and said the Board is not capable of sitting here and planning everything that
is going to happen in the County. Mr. Fisher asked if he could have a motion to go with
Section 25A, with an amendment such as that one suggested by the County Attorney limiting
subdivision and site plans until there is an internal road plan to minimize accesses onto
Route 250. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to this effect. Dr. Iachetta gave second and
iasked if the motion intended only that the County Attorney draft such language. Mr. Fisher
,said no; go to public hearing with the language redrafted. Mr. Henley said it is not
often that this much land will be under just a couple of ownerships and he feels that this
will be for the good of everybody. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann.
388
October 2~~urned from October 28_~_~]~%~_
Mr. Tucker said the Board had discussed removing two-family dwellings or duplexes
from the R-1 (13.3.1(2)) and R-2 (14.3.12(2)) districts and no action was ever taken. Dr. Iac?
said the proposed R-1 District is the same as the current RS-1 zone, so there would actually
be no change in that district if these are removed. Since ±t seems that deletion of these
provisions would simply be preserving what is in the current ordinance, Dr. Iachetta
offered motion to limit the R-1 and R-2 Districts to single-family detached dwellings.
The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Tucker said the Board had asked the staff to look at the perfOrmance standards
for noise. These standards are fairly technical and the staff does not have time to
redraft them at this time. The standards in the ordinance at this time are taken directly
from some used in Northern Virginia.
Mr. Keeler said the Staff had recommended that "temporary events" be dropped out of
the ordinance at this time. This was discussed, but was not finalized. The Board members
agreed to dropping these provisions wherever they show in the ordinance.
Mr. Fisher said the only unfinished business on the o~dinance is solving the problem
with the RA District. He then presented the following revised chart:
X.5
REQUIREMENTS
GROSS DENSITY
Category I
Category II
Category III
AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS
Divisions by Right
CONVENTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Divisions by Special Use Permit
1 du/21 acres
! du/6 acres
1 du/2 acres
1 du/2 acres
1 du/2 acres
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
Category I 21.0 acres 2.0 acres
Category II 6.0 acres 2.0 acres
Category III 2.0 acres ---
MINIMUM FRONTAGE
Existing Public .~
Roads
Category I 500 feet 175 feet
Category II 250 feet 175 feet
Category III 175 feet ---
MINIMUM FRONTAGE
Internal Public or
Private Roads
Category I 350 feet 140 feet
Category II 175 feet 140 feet
Category III 140 feet ---
MINIlggM YARD
REQUIREMENTS
Front 75 feet 75 feet
Side 25 feet 25 feet
Rear 35 feet 35 feet
MAXIMUM
STRUCTURE
HEIGHT 35 feet 35 feet
Mr. Fisher said he had tried to solve the issue on divisions by special use permit by
doing away with the distinction between cluster and conventional development. Also the
density by special permit was increased to one dwelling unit per two acres in all categories
on the assumption that although actual agricultural and forestry districts cannot be
identified at this time, if the whole area is designated for low denisty, an owner could
apply for a special use permit and after review using the criteria for suitability of
soils for agricultural/forestal production, size, shape and topography, etc., if it were
determined that the land was not "best agricultural soils" it could be approved for the
density shown for that area in the Comprehensive Plan. This would really be a temporary
provision until the soil studies are completed. Dr. Iachetta asked why not just let an
owner apply for a rezoning. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Dr. Iachetta was saying to use the
draft presented at last night's meeting and not do anything with it because an owner
cannot be precluded from applying for a rezoning. Dr. Iachetta said that was correct. If
someone wants a residential use for land in a rural area, why not just let that person
apply for a residential category. Mr. Fisher said this newest proposal is a considerable
increase in density for Category I lands. Mr. St. John said standards would have to be
written out beforehand for a special use permit. If the application met those standards~
it would be hard for the Board to deny the permit. Miss Nash asked what guidelines would
be used to approve or deny a rezoning. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher
said that the whole of Sections 1.4.1 through 1.4.8 taken from the State Code are items
tta
October 29, 1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
389
Dr. Ia~hetta said it is the intent of the RA that it be for low intensity use,
~predominant~Y! nonresidential. If the Board is going to approve special use permits, and
~has criteria to help it decide, the density should be such that the County will at least
end up with good land use. Mr. Henley said he cannot support this suggested change and if
it is included in the Zoning Ordinance, he will not support the Zoning Ordinance. When
someone with 22 acres has to apply for a special permit to subdivide off one lot, and the
fellow with 21 acres can subdivide off three lots without doing anything, it is ridiculous.
Special provisions might be included for family divisions, but he did not think anyone
wants to give away 21 acres when all that is needed for a house is two acres. Mr. McCann
said he does not support the RA District in the ordinance now, and he certainly will not
support this proposal. Mr. Henley said he felt there should be something a person can do
by right without applying for a special use permit. Mr. Tucker said the way this section
is now written, family divisions would not have to meet the criteria.
Mr. Fisher said going back to setting a certain number of lots by right, the way this
section first began several months ago, is a mess. The only other proposal is something
based on density. When this proposal was first discussed, Dr. Iachetta did not like the
one dwelling unit per six acres under Category II, so a change was made that after the
six-acre parcels were divided off, the residue could be divided into two-acre parcels.
Mr. Fisher said it had occurred to him that a change should be made in Category I so if
someone had 28 acres, 21 acres could be divided off and that person would still be able to
iqualify for tax exemption. Mr. Henley said that under this proposal presented today,
there is no way to have a two-acre lot without obtaining a special permit, unless you own
six acres. Mr. Fisher said that is not true; someone with 15 acres could divide off lots
of six acres, seven acres and two acres, all by right. Mr. McCann said this proposal will
essentially only allow subdivisions on large tracts of land; the person with just a few
acres is held down to almost nothing. Mr. Fisher said he did not know of any way to give
everybody maximum development rights and still preserve farm lands. Mr. McCann felt that
if someone can make a living on the land, it will be preserved. -~
Mr. Fisher said the September 8, 1980, draft was the version agreed to by the Board
before last night. He asked the Board's decision. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to
substitute what had been handed out during the last three meetings for the RA District,
making changes presented tonight in Section X.5, adding the amended "Intent" Section, and
the change in Category II, and the changes by cluster and special use permit. The motion
was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher said there were some additional changes. Under X.2
insert "and conservation"; in the new description of Category II, change same to read
"parcels of six acres or more, but less than 21 acres"
Dr. Iachetta said he has trouble considering parcels smaller than 21 acres as being
large enough for a viable agricultural operation, even on a part-time basis. He is of the
opinion that just because the State law is of itself ridiculous, there is no reason for
the Board to follow suit.
Roll was called at this point, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta and McCann.
Mr. Fisher said the draft of September 8 still contains a provision for clusters of a
one-acre minimum lot size. That provision concerns him. Dr. Iachetta said he did not
feel that clusters should be allowed in the RA district. He then offered motion to drop
ithe cluster provision in the RA District. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Tucker.said that the Board earlier today discussed the question of B-1 and industrial
lands which are in use or vacant, but have site plan approval, but did not discuss residential
lands. There is a similar sort of problem with some high density residential areas which
are not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan, but are in existence. Mr. Fisher asked if
these high density areas are shown on the map which will be the subject of public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said they are not shown on the map. He gave as an example areas which are ~ ~/~-~
in the South Fork Rivanna watershed such as 01d Salem Apartments and the apartments on
Georgetown Road which are shown as RA. He said that there will be industrial or. business
areas presently in use which will be shown, and he said he can see no difference with
residential areas. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Henley both agreed. Mr. Tucker said there is
Huntwood, part of the Garlick tract, where 38 units were approved earlier. Mr. Henley
asked if that site plan had expired. Mr. Tucker said that plan was approved prior to
1975, so it did not fall under the eighteen month expiration time period. Mr. Fisher said
that raises a concern he had on the first vote on the B-1 properties. If somebody had a
site plan approved in 1970 and it is considered as still current, and then somebody had a
site plan approved in 1978 and did not use the plan and it has expired, giving rights
based on the 1970 approval is weird. Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney disagrees that
site plans approved to 1975 are still valid, but that is the advice given the staff and
the advice which has been followed to date. Mr. Fisher said he is willing to go along
with site plans newly approved, but recognizing zoning on a large piece of land because of
a 1969 site plan approved seems to be stretching things a bit. He felt the Board should
give some further instructions to the staff on this matter. Mr. St. John said he never
did believe that site plans approved prior to 1975 had a perpetual life. His opinion is
that the Board can give those site plans a life to end eighteen months from the enactment
of that approval. Mr. Fisher said if that were done for all business, industrial and
residential uses not in conformance with the Plan, there would not be a lot of them left.
390
October 29,]1980 (Adjourned from October 28, 1980)
Miss Nash offered motion to make that change. Mr. Henley asked that the motion be
restated. Mr. Fisher said the motion is to amend the previous action to include properties
with approved site plans approved in the last 18 months. Mr. Tucker asked if that applied
to all three land uses; business, industrial and residential. Mr. Lindstrom gave second
to the motion.
Dr. Iachetta asked what this change will involve. Mr. McCann said he was not sure
what was being discussed. Mr. Fisher said if there is a property currently zoned B-1
which had a site plan approved prior to 1975, but the Comprehensive Plan does not recognize
business zoning on that property, then it will not be recognized on the map. A site plan
approved that long ago is pretty old and for the last five years site plans have had a
life of only 18 months. Mr. McCann said he would support the motion if an extension of
time were given to these site plans; a lot of people think they have an approved site
plan. Dr. Iachetta said he is inclined to feel that if the site plan has been approved
for this length of time and has not been used, it will never be used in that form. Roll
was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta~, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board still must deal with the definition of "subdivision".
At the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nashl
to set a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map for November 19, 1980, at
7:30 P.M. in the cafetorium of Jack Jouett Middle School. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. At 10:15 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. McCann, to adjourn this meeting until November 5 at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the
County Office Building to continue work on the Worrell application for an RPN. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None. ~ Y~ ~~ha~