Loading...
1977-09-21ASeptember 21, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 14, 1977) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 21, 1975, beginning at 2:00 P. M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 14, 1977. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called t© order at 2:05 P. M. by the Chairman,~ Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said before the Board started with the regular agenda, Dr. Iachetta had asked to speak about a problem in the urban area with protection of the reservoir. ~ Dr. Iachetta said in his opinion there are serious problems with the ordinance which has been ordered~advertised for September 29th regarding protection of the reservoir. The ordinance as written is intended to permit "business as usual" rather than establish as a first priority the assurance of water quality improvement and preservation. The revised Comprehensive Plan still contains a recommendation that the immediate area of the reservoir impoundment be zoned conservation. Currentfly, the zoning in this area will allow 11,363 people in 4,370 units on about 300 acres which are immediately adjacent to the reservoir. Dr. Iachetta said he feels this is idiotic. He then referred briefly to a memo written by him to the Board of Supervisors dated September 21, 1977. During the past two years, the Board has received a lot of information in addition to the Betz study, which has to do with what is going into the reservoir and what some people think about densities and the need for conservation zoning. The Board has put together an ordinance which will allow for development in the same manner as has been previously provided. He feels this is backwards, that the first priority should be water quality. The ordinance does not address the impact of population density on the reservoir and ignores recommendations in the 1971 Comprehensive Plan that these areas should have conservation densities or one unit for five acres. The Comprehensive Plan now under consideration goes one step further and recommends one unit for ten acres. Both plans recommend severe limitations on slopes from 15% to 25% and an absolute prohibition of construction on slopes greater than 25%. The proposed ordinance does not recognize any difference between lands adjacent to and away from the water. It does not establish any areas where construction should not occur. Further, it fails to recognize any difference between lands away from the water and those adjacent to the water~ and not only fails to establish rules for agricultural lands, it specifically excludes this potential pollution source. The weakest point of the ordinance is that it places all the responsibility for water quality protection in the hands of one person. Dr. Iachetta said he had begun thinking about ~his after reading the Camp, Dresser and McKee report on alternative water supplies which says the James River alternative source will cost $22,149,000 to develop initially with $20,000,000 more being spent in the future. He then listed his proposals: 1. Prohibit construction within the watershed on slopes greater than 25%. Place lands in the vicinity of impoundments, streams, and tributaries in a conservation zone of one dwelling unit for five acres from the water's edge back to the first ridge line. Limit density to a maximum of 2.5 dwelling units an acre anywhere in the watershed. Require proposed runoff control measures where development is to be permitted to be reviewed by a technical board made up of a representative each from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the City of Charlottesville, the City Department of Public Works, and Albemarle County. (This should be a review of the runoff official's recommendation and should be conducted in an open work session.) Establish financial responsibility for runoff control cost as a cost to be borne bY those who live in developments permitted, or require developers to create a trust fund to cover maintenance and operation costs. Dr. Iachetta said in addition to the above he also recormmends that: The Board request the soil conservation service to recommend revised agricultural practices to be employed in the watershed with an intent to Dhase in such practices within five years. e Adopt a resolution calling for the State Water Control Board to take immediate action to reduce the phosphorus from Morton's by 95% to 98%. 3. Adopt a resolution calling for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the State Water Control Board to build a collector from Crozet to the package plant Bt Brownsville and so remove raw sewage from the watershed. Mr. Fisher asked what the Board wanted to do with Dr. Iachetta's proposal. Mrs. David suggested that it be reviewed and discussed again at the end of the meeting tonight. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said after the public hearmng on September 8th, the Board decided they would begin their work sessions by discussing transportation and other problems in the urban area first. ~The Board has received seve'ral recommendations for the Route 29 North transportation corridor and he asked Mr. Tucker to present the different proposals. SePtember 21, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 14, 1977) Mr. Tucker said the consultants recommend that a limited access highway beginning at a new interchange (partial) north of the Route 29/Rio Road intersection, to at grade intersection with Rio Road; parallel to Route 29 to new intersection (partial) at or near existing intersection of Hydraulic Road and Route 250 East By-pass; continuing northward on the west side of Route 29 to connect with the Hollymaad community area. Location of this new limited access highway in the City is intended to'coincide with plans for Michie Drive Extended. Mr. Tucker said the City is opposed to the recommendation that this be made a limited access highway. They feel that the portion from Rio Road south to the By-pass should be left as a major collector. They are also opposed to tying this road directly into the 250 By-pass because of the impact the traffic would have on the Rugby Road neighborhood. Mr. Bruce Drenning of the firm of Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates was present. He said the extension of Michie Drive would not have to tie into Rugby Road. Rugby Road could be dead-ended or access could be restricted from the By-pass so that only traffic which is already on the By-pass, would get to enter at that point. Mr. Fisher said the City objects to dumping all the traffic at that one point. They also object to having this made a "limited access highway". He asked for a definition of that term. Mr. Tucker said this means that there'.~wo~ld~be no access along this road except at major interchanges. The 250 By-pass is presently partial access. Mr. Drenning said that was correct. The road could intersect with existing public streets but there would be no access from individual properties. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had received several letters from residents in the City; mainly from the Rugby Road area. They do not want Michie Drive extended. However, in a memo from Mayor 0'Brien, she said City Council feels this should remain a major collector. This proposition was also discussed by the Mutual Boundary Committee. Mr. Fisher asked if the primary purpose of this limited access highway is for through traffic. Mr. Tucker said yes and also so that commuter traffi from the Hollymead area will not have to get onto Route 29. It is proposed to by-pass the commercial area on 29 N~rth. Mr. Drenning said Route 29 North serves a number of functions. 1) It is the only major access route to the City of Charlottesville from the North, so it provides access into and out of the City, especially through the University area. 2) Route 29 also provides access to those wanting to get to 1-64 from the North. 3) It provides access for people going south through the City or east and west on the 250 By-pass. 4) As a lo~al function, it serves major employment, retail and residential uses. What is being proposed is another road to accommodate some of those functions, but having this route controlled as opposed to opening it up so it duplicates the present Route 29. Mr. Fisher said he had invited personnel from the Virginia Dep~rtment of Highways and Transportation, who are working with the Charlottesville/Albemarle transportation restudy group, to be present today. He asked for comments. Mr. Don Wells, Transportation and Planning Division of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, said the testing for the transportation restudy is based on year 2000 traffic projections. The initial process is to take the County's Comprehensive Plan and test rec~mmendations contained therein to see if they solve problems for the year 2000. If those recommendations do not solve the problems, additional recommendations will have to be made. Mr. Fisher asked if the transportation restudy group had any/defini- tive findings at this point. Mr. Wells said they are presently working with the County and City and hopefully will have some recommendations within six months, but it could take a year if agreements cannot be reached between the primary parties. Mr. Fisher asked if the study will make a concrete recommendation for alignment of this limited access highway. Mr. Wells said they hope to come up with a functional plan that will give the general alignment, although it could shift t00 to 200 feet when the final survey is made. Dr. Iachetta said the County's Comprehensive Plan has to be adopted in the immediate future. The Board cannot wait for six months to make a decision. Also present was Mr. Jack Page from the Virginia Department of Highways. He said that tests on the proposals contained in the revised Comprehensive Plan have not been made at this time. The Highway Department will test any alternatives proposed by the localities, but as of this time they have not received any alternative proposals. Mr. Drenning noted that part of the proposals in this new Plan is that two additional lanes be constructed in the median of Route 29 North to increase the carrying capacity from the Route 250 By-pass to the South Fork Rivanna River. He asked if this proposal had been incorporated into the model. Mr. Page said they will be doing an analysis using four and six lanes, including the tie-in to Michie Drive and also for traffic coming down Rio Road to McIntire Road Extended. Mr. Tucker said there was another alternative mentioned by Dr. Iachetta at the first public hearing in May. That is the extension of McIntire Road from the City limits across country to Rio Road at the Vocational Technical Center, then to follow roughly the align- ment ~ the Southern Railroad, crossing the South Rivanna River and going through-Hollym~ad community to Route 29 near the Airport. That alternative has not been tested. It would be constructed on the east side of Route 29, going behind Carrsbrook Subdivision. Dr. Iachetta said there was another possibility on the north end of Route 29. That would be to follow Route 649 (using the connection from the interior of Hollymead near the school) swinging back around over the railroad east of Proffit and coming back all the way along the railroad to Rio Road. The road would ba'sically end up at the South Fork Rivanna River in the same spot. It is the most logical line and at present this is all undeveloped land. Another factor is that it runs along the railroad where the grades are not too bad and usually land next to railroads is not attractive for house building. september 21, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 14, 1977) Mr. Tucker said included on the proposed transportation improvements map (Number 21), is a recommendation that Commonwealth Drive be extended from Hydraulic Road behind Stromberg Carlson and Sperry'Marine, tieing into the existing Commonwealth Drive and extending Commonwealth out to Rio Road. This would serve as a parallel road system, with Michie Drive being the p. arallel road on the east sideipf Route 29 North. There is quite a bit of opposition to connecting this portion of Commonwealth to Rio Road and having this as a through street from Rio Road to Hydraulic Road. The purpose in recommending this was to provide alternate access for the residents who live in Berkeley and Four Seasons. Mr. Tucker said he recommends an additional road, which was not recommended by ~he consultants, that being an extension of Greenbrier Drive out to Hydraulic Road, (Route 743) at the Rock Store. This proposal is shown in the existing Comprehensive Plan, however the Planning Commission did not recommend this Change. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should make a decision at this time on the recommended limited access highway. City Council agrees with the need for extension of Michie Drive but recommends that this be a residential collector type of street and not a limited access highway. They feel a limited access highway will bring unnecessary traffic to the already congested Hydraulic Road and will also have a detrimental effect on neighborhoods to the south and east. Mr. Roudabush said if City Coluncil's suggestion is followed, he wonders if the road from Rio Road to the 250 By-pass along Michie Drive will serve the function that is being discussed. He asked if a loop from Hollymead to Rio Road and.then following Rio Road into McIntire through the City to 1-64 would not serve a better function with the road~ from Rio through Branchlands property to Michie Drive being built as development takes place. Michie Drive is already in place in the City and there will be development on the newly rezoned business property in the City. City Council evidently wants.this to be more of a residential street with no controls on development. Mr. Tucker said the Mutual Boundary Committee discussed this proposal and they feel access should only be allowed at inter- Sections, without curb cuts every one-hundred to two-hundred feet. It should be a major collector. Mr. Drenning said it appears that City Council's only concern is bringing this road out opposite Rugby Road. Mr. Fisher said the City's and County's goals are not parallel. Also there is a question as to whether this proposal will be adequate to handle traffic for the year 2000. Apparently, with proposed population projections, it will not be adequate. Mr. Roudabush said the extension of Rio Road from the Voc-Tech Center into McIntire Drive is already in the planning process. It has been reviewed by the City and encouraged by the County. If this ties into the portion of Rio Road which has already been upgraded, and which eventually is planned for four lanes, then traffic into the City would still arrive at the 250 By-pass and would not have to go through a residential neighborhood. It would bring the citizen's closer to the downtown area and there would be direct access to Route 1-64. It would also serve the City's needs as well. The prospect of having hhis route constructed in the foreseeable future is probably better than any of the other alternatives. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Roudabush was proposing to eliminate the alignment shown south of Rio Road going through Branchlands to Michie Drive. Mr. Roudabush said he did not think that proposal should have' the same emphasis as the route down Rio to McIntire. It could be part of the transportation network which should be encouraged but not necessarily be a primary goal of the transportation plan. Dr. Iachetta said it would be impossible to go back and make a controlled access high~ay on the part of Rio Road which has already been upgraded. Mr. Roudabush said there are few road intersections on that stretch of highway and the. right-of-way from the Voc-Tech Center out to Rou~ 29 has already been acquired. Mr. Tucker said he did not have any major problems with this proposal but he did have some concerns about the stretch of road going throngh B~anchlands. Mr. Drenning said the proposed road does have the potential of dividing the Branchlands community and this would not be desirable. But, the Branchlands plan does call for a significant north/south corridor through the development. He had no problems with the Rio Road proposal as a supplementary route, but did not feel people coming into town will use this route because of problems with the existing alignment. Dr. Iachetta noted that the extension of McIntire Road would be along a completely new alignment and there should not be any problems with alignment. Mr. Roudabush said since part of Michie Drive is already in place, and it is the only way to get t© the newly zoned lands in the City, and it will be needed as an alternate route for the Branchlands property, he does not propose abandoning that proposal. Mr. Fisher said he .felt the Michie Drive proposal should stay on the map, but if the County can get McIntire extended to Rio Road, this new road would provide relief for people from the downtown area, for the part of the County east of the river, and would be a much better way to go noDth on Route 29 than presently exists. Mr. ~ucker said he feels the Board needs to recognize Michie Drive, but include it as a different classification. Mrs. David suggested that it be indicated in the plan that the CATS study is presently underway and there may be some' differences in priorities. Mr. Fisher said the biggest job o£ the Board in the next few years will be to protect the right-of-way along this ~imited access highway. At this time, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to delete Michie~Drive as a major ~thoroughfare; leaving it as a residential collector. In its place, begin the proposed by-pass at the City limits at McIntire Road, extend McIntire Road' out to RiO Road and show Rio Road as the major thoroughfare to its connection near Route 29 North. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. September 21, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 14, 1977] Mr. Wells asked about the proposal for the six-laning of Route 29. Mr. Drenning said this would basically be the same kind of facility that is presently in place, Ideally two lanes should be developed in the median Mr. Fisher asked where this six-laning would take place. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission originally talked about providing two additional lanes in ~the median, however, they did not want to lose the median entirely, so they came up with a compromise. Because the right-of-way on the west side of Route 29 is greater than on the east side, they recommend that a lane be constructed in the median on the northbound side and then a third lane be added on the south side within the right-of-way but outside of the southbound lane. The six-laning would be basically from the City limits to Woodbrook Subdivision. Mr. Drenning said for the year 2000, there may be a demand for 60,000 to 70,000 vehicles per day on Route 29 North. From experience, peak hour conditions are used for design purposes, and 10% of the daily volume is the figure sometimes used for a maximum hour traffic flow. The present four lanes can carry 900 vehicles in each lane for a total of 3,600. In order to meet the additional demand, capacity is needed for another 3,000 vehicles. If two additional lanes are added, they would probably not carry more than 900 additional vehicles, but with one additional four-lane facility, in a satisfactory location, the two facilities would about meet the peak hour demand. Mr. Roudabush said he understands that Rio Road is the second most highly travelled road in the County, and is receiving additional traffic every day. A lot of the traffic that would move in that direction is now coming down Route 29 to the interchange at the Mount Vernon Motel and coming back into town on the 250 By-pass because of the condition of Rio Road. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board discuss other roads. Dr. Iachetta said he has been hearing comments from citizens in neighborhood Number 1, (Berkeley 5ommunity) and they are opposed to connecting Commonwealth Drive to Rio Road. Mr. Tucker said he also has heard this opposition, however, these citizens are not opposed to the completion of Commonwealth Drive out to Hydraulic Road. The best connection for Commonwealth Drive to Rio would be if the SPCA Road were realigned and a "T" connection made at that point. Mr. Fisher said he can understand the concern of the residents when ~ a neighborhood already has a developed character. However, he felt that in planning for twenty years into the future and seeing the road on the map, it is hard to ignore that the road exists and that if it is not connected, there will be problems in the future. Dr. Iachetta said he did not agree with that assumption. That portion of ~ommonwealth Drive toward Rio Road does not exist at present, and the SPCA Road is not a major collector. If Mr. Tucker's recommendation of extending Greenbrier Drive out to the Rock Store on Hydraulic is followed, a loop could be closed by going down Rio Road to the SPCA Road and not having open access so as to change the character of Berkeley Subdivision. This would accomplish the aim of getting better circulation without spli~ting an existing residential area in a manner that could be detrimental. After a short discussion of this proposal, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to remove the connection of Commonwealth Drive to Rio Road from the plan. He did not feel that construction of this street would serve the purpose of a major thoroughfare. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David. Mr. Henley asked if this motion passed if it would eliminate the possibility of extending COmmonwealth Drive as a residential street in the future. Mr. Tucker said that possibility is always available. However, if the proposal is not shown on the plan and that property develops, the Planning Commission would not be able to require that the road be built to a higher standard than a residential street. Mr. Henley did not feel it should be included as a major thoroughfare, but he felt it should be left on the map as a resi- dential street, but he did not feel it should line up with the SPCA Road. Dr. Iachetta said he was of the opinion that if there is ~lready a well developed neighborhood, people living there should have something to say about'what will be done that will affect them in the long run. He did not feel that this road is necessary. Mr. Henley said there were a lot of homes in that area that must all exit one way. He did not like to do away~ with an option of going in two directions. Dr. Iachetta said the homes are already there. The people that live there are now coming out o~ly one way, an~ they do not want the road improved. Mr. Roudabush then amended his motion to state that the portion of Commonwealth Drive between Greenbrier Drive, extending through Berkeley, and connecting to Rio Road, be removed from the major thoroughfare portion of the Comprehens±ve Plan; instead, add as a portion of the major thoroughfare plan an extension on Greenbrier Drive out to the Rock Store, then follow along Rio Road from Hydraulic Road to the SPCA Road. This motion was then seconded by Mrs. David. Mr. Fisher said he felt that at sometime in the future the connection from Commonwealth to Rio Road would be needed and he would not support anything that would close that possibility. Mr. Henley did not feel the Board should close the possibility of using that connection, but he did not feel it should be a major thoroughfare. Mr. Tucker said if no improvements are proposed to Commonwealth, it will stay as it is. The recommendation is that a connection be shown between Commonwealth and Rio Road. Mr. St. John said the motion is to leave Commonwealth Drive as it presently exists and not declare it as a major thoroughfare. This motion will not do anything to reserve right-of-way where none presently exists. Mr. Roudabush said he would suggest that if this connection to Rio Road is eliminated, that Commonwealth Drive then be connected to Berkmar. Mrs. David said if the amended motion will foreclose the possibility of ever opening up Commonwealth 'Drive to Rio Road, she would withdraw her second. At this time Dr. Zachetta seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel that isolating an area is in the best interest of the public. He was worried that if the Board forecloses this option there may be real problems in the future, and he could not support the motion. Mr. Roudabush said it was his idea that it would be more appropriate for a residential street to connect to Berkmar Drive than it would be to connect to Route 631 (Rio Road). At this time Mr. Roudabush further amended the motion to include the addition of a connection from Commonwealth Drive to Berkmar Drive from the existing end of CommOnwealth Drive in Berkeley. (The total motion September 21, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 14, 1977) is set out in full here. Remove Commonwealth Drive from GreEnbrier Drive extending through Berkeley to Rio Road as a major thoroughfare~ instead connect end of Commonwealth Drive to Berkmar Drive at an unspecified location; show an extension of Greenbrier Drive to tie into Routes 743 and 631 at the Rock Store; extend along Rio Road to the SPCA Road and show this portion on the major thoroughfare plan.) The motion was then seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends that the Meadowbrook connector be removed from the Plan. The City has already taken this off of their highway p~n and most of this road lies within the City limits. Motion to remove the Meadowbrook connector between Route 29 North and McIntire Road Extended was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Tucker said at the public hearing there was a question raised about the Montague Miller tract on Route 29 North. The Plan shows this as high-density residential. However, the present zoning on the property is business. The Planning Commission was made aware of this question by the owners, but did not recommend any change. Mr. Fisher said he would like for the map to show existing zoning in this area, but he would not vote to enlarge the business area. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to change the zoning on the Montague Miller property on the corner of Route 29 North and Rio Road to reflect its current zoning. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended removing an area shown as medium-density residential on the northwest side of Montvue Subdivision. It is felt that this was an error made by the consuitants since they have no explanation as to why it was included on the map. Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to remove the medium-density residential zoning on the northwest of Montvue Subdivision and replace same with low-density residential. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends that the high-density residential area shown for Old Salem Apartments, on the north side of Barracks Road, be shifted in an easterly direction on the map so it will be closer to George~own Road. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher asked if the industrial areas shown in the Plan are already zoned for industrial use~. Mr. Drenning~said they are not. Mr. Fisher said he wo~ld like to discuss this matter further. The industrial goals on page 21, the industrial objectives on page 22, and the evaluation of impact on page 42, seem to be consistent. However, if you look at table 25 on page 24, (industrial land demand projections, 1974 through 1995) it does not seem to be consistent with the goals set out in the Plan, since it calls for almost 400 acres of land to be zoned for industrial expansion in the next two years. Mr. Drenning said they were indicating that only 98 acres of industrially zoned land are likely to be used, but on the other hand, in order to accommodate the demand, the County should have 400 acres available to allow for a choice of locations~ Mr. Fisher said in the existing Comprehensive Plan the County was overzoned commercially and that is part of what is creating the problems on Route 29 North and 250 East. It is also the reason that Fashion Square Mall was conceded by the City as being an inevitable part of expansion of~the community. In that instance, the City and County lost control of what could happen to the community. Since this County is the third or fourth fastest growing County in the State~ the Board must be careful not to rezone large ~M.~i~fYndustrial ~and and thus lose control of what will happen. Rezoning of four-hundred aC~es of industrial land over a~five year period, would open up the possibility of enormous industrial expansion that the County could not control. Mr. Fisher said he feels this is~inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in not stimulating rapid population growth. Mr. Drenning said the consultants are not recommending that 400 additional a~es be rezoned, but by virtue of the text and map contained on pages 26 and 27, are stating that these are the best places for industry to locate. Mr. Fisher said he was not concerned that the~e locations are shown on the map as long as the plan carries a budget for such use~ and the land is only rezoned as the need is shown to be apparent. Dr. Iachetta said he felt if a plan is being drawn to show what should happen, it must be put on the map in such a way that it can happe~, instead of letting it happen at random. Mrs. David interpreted the chart to say there are approximately 400 acres of land suitable for industrial use in the County, but Bhe budget for the next five year period would only be 100 acres. The Board can September 21, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 14, 1977) recognize premature zoning and there have been times when the Board refused to rezone land because they felt it was premature. Mr. Fisher said this presents legal problems. Mr. Drenning said even if speculators took over all of the land shown in the Comprehensive Plan already zoned for industry, and the Board did not rezone anything else, he did not think that would affect how fast industry moves to Albemarle County. This is a function of how the system works in terms of economics, what kind of products are being demanded, what locational advantage Albemarle County has, and what labor force advantages the County offers. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney if such a use is shown on the map, and the Board decides there is already an adequate amount of similarly zoned land in that category, and denies an application, if that creates a problem in court. Mr. St. John said the County is in a weak position if the zoning map does not coincide with the Comprehensive Plan, or if the Board denies an application for zoning that is shoWn in the Plan. There have been opinions from the Attorney General and Court saying that zoning is a law and the Compre- hensive Plan is just a guide, so therefore the zoning law prevails. Ail this means is that a person cannot build something in violation of the zoning ordinance simply because it is shown in the Comprehensive Plan; he must first have the zoning ordinance changed. But, if the zoning ordinance is not in conformity with the plan, the court is likely to say that is arbitrary and capricious and go ahead and change the zoning ordinance judicially. This is l~kely to happen when there is an economically productive use shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and the Board tries to hold the land to a low-density or agricultural use in the zoning ordinance. The Supreme Court overturned such a decision in the Williams versus Fairfax County case. Mr. Roudabush said when the County adopts a twenty-~r Comprehensive Plan, and tries to project the growth of the County for that period of time, and then adopts a zoning map which shows ongoing changes, there has to be a discrepancy. Mr. St. John said he feels the Board should be prepared to allow people to do what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and, insofar as possible, to implement it with the zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John said he feels Mr. Roudabush is correct but that argument will not prevail in court. Mr. Drenning said that philosophically zoning was created to separate one use from another. It was not originally created to control the rate of growth for a jurisdiction. The State enabling legislation enforces that thought. You cannot control growth through zoning. Mr. St. John said zoning creates an absolute right to an immediate use and there is no t,~me frame tied to that use. If someone wanted to put an industry in the County in a place that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for industry, and no one has utilized the areas shown on the zoning map for industry, and the two do not coincide, the Board would be hard-pressed to show why they were unwilling to rezone the land. Mr. Fisher said he was only concerned about the multiplier used for industry. Mr. St. John said if increments are spelled out and followed, it would not mean the Board will have to rezone all of this industrial land immediately. _ Mr. Hen-ley said in the Crozet area, industrial zoning is shown along Route 240 in front of Morton Frozen Foods to the intersection of Route 810. This zoning wo~ld take in almost all of the black community, and these people are working hard to improve their homes. He felt Morton's would be the natural boundary for the industrial area on the western side of Route 240. He then offered motion that on Route 240 in Crozet, the industrial area be stopped at Morton Frozen Foods, and replaced with residential zoning as shown in the current plan. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley said the commercial area at the corner of Routes 691 and 240 appears to be sizeable. Presently there is only one gas station in that area. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has recommended that the portion on the south side of Tabor Street be eliminated. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to remove the commercial area shown on the southeast quadrant of Route 240 and Tabor Street, and replace same with low-density residential. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 5:45 P. M., Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board continue work on the Comprehensive Plan at 1:30 P. M. on September 28~h in the Board Room. The meeting was immediately adjourned. C~a~rman