by. Kara L. Reese, Greene County Field Officer
RZ#08-001 W. Copley McLean Trust request to rezone from R-1 to B-3 approximately 16.16 acres located on Seminole Trail and Cedar Grove Rd – Deferred at Applicant’s Request
RZ#06-002 Carroll & Lynette Morris Request to rezone from A-1 to B-2 and R-2 on approximately 327.54 acres near Spotswood Trail, Dunnes Shop Rd, and M&M Rd. – Denied
I. Public Hearing -W. Copley McLean Trust request to rezone from R-1 to B-3 16.16 acres located at Seminole Trail and Cedar Grove.
Applicant requested a deferral. The Board approved the deferral by a unanimous vote.
II. Carroll & Lynnette Morris/K & B Properties request to rezone from A-1 to B-2 and R-2 approximately 327.54 acres located on Spotswood Trail, Dunnes Shop Road, and M & M Road.
Staff: This parcel does not have a specific designation in the Comprehensive Plan; however, it is included as a potential growth area. The Planning Commission previously recommended denial based on lack of a traffic study and failure to provide more details regarding the impact of the proposed project. Applicant proposes that 730 homes be built including single family homes, duplexes and townhomes. The applicant also proposes 400,000 square feet of commercial space. Applicant has not completed a traffic study, but has agreed to complete a study before submission of a final plan.
Applicant has proffered 42 acres to Greene County for construction of a water impoundment on the condition that the Greene County gains regulatory approval of the reservoir within five years. If the county constructs the water impoundment, an easement on 44 acres of shoreline will be conveyed to the county after completion of water impoundment. If the county can not gain approval within five years the land reverts back to the applicant. In its place the applicant has proffered $5,771 for each housing unit over 88.
Applicant: D. Johnson spoke on behalf of the Carroll and Lynette Morris. He made two brief points. First, that the applicant anticipated waiting until a decision regarding the water impoundment was made to develop the area. Second, since that could be 5-10 years in the future, there is no need to do a traffic study now. Traffic studies are only good for two years.
Comments from the Public:
Public comment on this project was extensive. Ten individuals spoke against the project. For the sake of expediency, their basic arguments are summarized together.
Citizens were largely concerned about the size the development and its impact on the county. They felt that Greene County does not need that much housing. Citizens were also worried about traffic and the lack of a traffic study. There was also a concern about the impact of the project on schools. Citizens felt the proffer amount was insufficient to cover the additional schools, fire and rescue, police and other services this number of people would require.
There was also some unease and confusion regarding the reservoir. At least one citizen believed that the reservoir was for the development and not the county as a whole. There was also some concern that taxpayers would have to pay for the reservoir.
P. Morris was the only member of the public to speak on behalf of the applicant. She argued that the applicant had grown up in the community. Applicant had invested his tax dollars in the county. He has proffered 40 acres for a reservoir. The land is already in a growth area. If this request is denied he will be able to build houses by right anyway and the county will not get any land for the reservoir.
Comments from the Board:
J. Allen stated “This is Greene County’s Biscuit Run.” She noted that the county has never had to deal with a development of this size. It could potentially require a new school. She felt this was “very large for Greene County. She was also worried that the reservoir may not go forward in that location. If it doesn’t she is not sure the proffers are sufficient to cover the cost of the services required for that many homes. She doesn’t “think that county can afford this development at this time.”
M. Skeens noted that this project was going to overwhelm the schools. He felt that if the applicant was not going to start this project for five years then why do we need to go forward now. He was also concerned about the lack of detail in the plans for the site.
C. Schmitt observed that we have a “long way to go” with the plans for the water impoundment. Currently, the county does not have primary site, so we don’t know if the proffer of land is worth anything or not. He also noted that this feels out of character with Quinque. This is a “beautiful piece of land” with lots of potential good uses.
S. Catalano believes that this land should be in the growth area and that some rezoning is appropriate. He commented that this does not like the proffer system. “It is arbitrary at best.” However, “this is not an auction.” The Board has to look at its ability to provide services to its citizens. He was concerned that without the water impoundment the county will not be able to provide services to the increasing population of Greene County. However, this particular site has run into issues with stream remediation and it is not clear if it will be usable. He would have preferred to defer a decision until they know more about where the reservoir can be located.
B. Peyton would also like to have seen the decision deferred. He was concerned about the adequacy of the proffers and the lack of a current traffic study.
Vote: C. Schmitt moved to deny the request to rezone the property. The motion carried four to one with S. Catalano dissenting.
III. Matters from the public – None
IV. Consent Agenda – Unanimously Approved with minor changes
a. Minutes of previous meetings.
b. Resolution to transfer sponsorship responsibilities for TEA-21 grant to Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
c. Letter of support for the Greene County Transit, Inc.
d. Resolution to accept and appropriate $29,427 to the Sheriff’s Department from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a School Resource Officer
e. Resolution of support for the Stanardsville Volunteer Fire Company.
V. Other Matters from the Board
T. Morris reported that the bulk of the $47,000 in State cuts discussed during the last meeting are to CSA and the jail. Consequently, the county can not pass the cuts on to agencies. These are two State mandated programs the county must fund even if the state does not provide funding for them. At the end of the year, the county will have to write a check to the state for approximately $107,000.
S. Catalano requested that B. Clark arrange meetings with all Constitutional Officers to warn them that more cuts from the State are likely to follow next year.
J. Allen reported that at the RSA Board meeting a rate increase was discussed.
J. Allen also informed the Board that at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission meeting discussion occurred regarding finalizing the contract with STAR. JPDC recommended that the comprehensive plan be done in phases from most important to least important to prevent going over budget.
C. Schmitt reported on the continued effort to increase cooperation between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. He distributed a report from the Hanover trip.
C. Schmitt was also interested in trying to get a park and ride lot set up in the future.
B. Peyton reported that the Town of Stanardsville had not yet approved a resolution to join the county’s water plan, but expected to do so shortly.
S. Catalano recounted his discussion with the Sheriff’s Office regarding an anti-idling policy. The Sheriff’s office was already working on an internal policy.