BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS September 27, 2017  THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WAS HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 AT 7:30 P.M.  Those present were:  Richard Herring, Chairman Frank Morris, Vice-Chairman Bob Runkle, Member Lyle Durrer, Member Bill Schmidt, Member Brent Wilson, Alternate Member Dale Herring, Ex-Officio Member Bart Svoboda, Zoning Administrator Marsha Alley, Secretary  Those absent were: Staff present were:  CALL TO ORDER  The Chairman called the meeting to order. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & PRAYER Mr. Herring lead the Pledge of Allegiance.  Mr. Morris invited Rev. David Knighting to deliver a prayer to begin the meeting.  Rev. Knighting offered a prayer. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM  The Chairman asked Mr. Svoboda to determine a quorum by roll call.  Mr. Svoboda took roll and determined a quorum.  PUBLIC HEARINGS  There were no public hearings scheduled.  OLD/NEW BUSINESS  Larry & Barbara Hall request an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination (VIO#17-020) regarding the violation of condition b of SUP#15-004 relating to the continued operation of a recycling center on a 23.08 acre tract which is zoned, A-1, Agriculture, and located on Seminole Trail and identified on  County Tax Maps as 60-(A)-20. (BZAAPp#17-001)    BZAI Minutes September 27,2017  Mr. Herring explained that tonight's discussion is a result of the postponement of the decision in July. He stated that the purpose of this meeting is to heart from Mr. Hall and then the Board can take action. He asked Mr. Svoboda to present the case. Mr. Svoboda stated that he would give a brief review and could address specific issues more in depth if there were any concerns or questions. He explained that the public hearing was held in July and the decision was deferred to a specific date which is tonight's meeting. He added that packet information was provided to the Board and the appellant and that the appellant is present for the meeting. He stated that the main objective for tonight was to hear from the appellant, adding that he would answer any  questions as well.  Mr. Durrer asked who can speak tonight since there is no public hearing. Mr. Svoboda explained that those able to speak tonight would be the applicant, their  representatives, the BZA, and staff. Mr. Herring swore in the speakers.  Brent Hall apologized for not attending the previous meeting, noting that it was not an attempt to waste the Board's time. He explained his interpretation of the issue. He stated that he met with Shawn at the site on February 13th and showed him the pile in the back adding that they were still crushing at that time and recycling the material, noting that it was the last pile to do and then they would be complete. He pointed out to Shawn the remaining piles and that they would not meet the deadline to have those removed. He confirmed that the SUP for recycling expired on February 25th and added that the crushing was completed and the recycling was done by then and they were left with gravelrock/maternal. He stated that he met with Shawn again on March gth and they looked at everything again. He added that he listened to the last meeting and that he thinks that Shawn has his dates mixed up, noting that he thinks Shawn is a pretty honest guy. He stated that he has records of Dan's inspections and that he would expect that if Shawn was present that they could really go through the timeline and that he would agree that they had finished recycling by the 25th. He explained that the issue was what to do with the material, how to remove it. He stated that he would have loved to have had it all gone and that he had done the best he could to get the material gone. He noted that they started their other place in Albemarle County and took material there. He added that they had made it happen to where they were done recycling. He stated that he had put the labor and money into creating the pile of aggregate and that ifi it were up to him, he would love to have had it gone because it would mean that he had been paid. He added that if they were not done recycling and he had set up an appointment with Shawn, wouldn'the have told his employees to stop while he was there. He noted that this is another reason that he believes that Shawn had the February 13th and March gth dates mixed up. He stated that they received a cease and desist for recycling, but  2    BZAI Minutes September 27,2017  they were not recycling. He mentioned that it said to move the equipment by April 27th or 17th or something like that, whatever the date was, they had paid for a year of keeping the equipment in Greene and that he did not see the harm in having a piece of equipment sitting there as it was no different than most farms you go to. He stated that in the appeal letter he stated that they had finished crushing the material and have a stockpile of rock to sell. He explained that then he spoke with Bart and asked that if he was in violation, how can he get out of violation. He stated that Bart said move the pile. He noted that he understands that Bart has a tough job to do in trying to please everyone and not everyone agrees on everything. He mentioned that if his only option is to move it, then he has to move as he sells it. He added that a big portion of the pile is for their personal use and that it will be used on their new crushing yard that they are putting in Albemarle County and that as soon as they are done with that, it will be used for their parking lot. He stated that there is also an issue with agriculture land and how much material of anything can be kept there. He asked if he could have a pile of gravel, one ton, ten tons, one hundred tons, one thousand tons, wondering what the limit would be. He stated that he has looked at ordinance and tried to find different ways of how to become legal. He asked how Luckstone operates and understands that they are zoned inA-1 with a special use permit for a quarry. He asked about S.L. (inaudible) recycling asphalt and Allied's operation, noting that the response was that they are associated uses. He pointed out that they are still in A-1. He stated that in looking through the ordinance, there is nowhere in the current ordinance for him to become legal. He added that he had asked about changing ordinance to allow selling gravel in A-1 even by special use permit. He noted that he could see Bart's point because it could open a can of worms because every farmer may want to sell stone. He stated that he understands his point but he feels that if there is no rule that says you cannot sell gravel in A-1 and it does not fall in any category, then how can it be illegal. He pointed out this is a new thing that has never been addressed and that it is the first time it has ever been done in Greene. He noted that it is new to him and that it is new to everybody. He mentioned that he had even asked about paying the maximum fine and was told that the Commonwealth's Attorney would need to be contacted to see what the fine would be and that the. Attorney would then ask the judge to hold him in in contempt until the pile was moved. He stated that it was not an option that he would want, noting that it would then be a legal battle between him and the county. He pointed out that he just wants to sell the material and have it gone as fast as everybody else. He added that the other uses that are going on there are agricultural as they are filling and doing dirt work which is all permitted noting that it is only gravel that is being discussed. He stated that he needs the BZA's help which is why he appealed the decision and that he does not feel as if he is in violation for selling it. He read the definition of recycling and noted that Mr. Svoboda stated that he does not change the ordinance as it is decided by the Board of Supervisors (BOS). He noted that ift the request is made, it would be processed and reviewed against the Comprehensive Plan to see if and where the use would be  there is no separating and that it is a finished product.  3    BZAI Minutes September: 27,2017  appropriate. He pointed out that that BOS did add that use as a use allowed by special use permit in 2014 which is when the site became active. He noted that the BOS did amend the ordinance at that time and whether or not they would amend it again would be a BOS question. He restated that he does not have the authority to add a use and that the BZA does not have the authority to add a use. He explained that the county ordinance is an inclusive ordinance, meaning that if a use is not listed, then you cannot do it. He gave examples of listed and unlisted uses and how that applies in an inclusive ordinance. He stated that the use must be listed or a part of an associated activity that is permitted such as a convenience store selling gasoline. He noted that the industry term would be "customarily incidental". He stated that other quarries may have asphalt plants or concrete plants as those are customarily incidental to the quarry. just like the selling of gravel is customarily incidental to the processing of the product on site. He gave other examples of these types of uses. He added that the agricultural exemptions that exist there are not for the special use permit area as they are for other areas on the property which is not in question. He stated that the information ini the packet included minutes from previous Planning Commission (PC) meetings which show that it was clearly stated and discussed that the pile will be gone by both the Commissioners and Mr. Hall. He noted that it was alluded to at the BOS level although it was not mentioned int the minutes. He stated that it is specifically mentioned in the 2015 PC minutes in Mr. Hall's words that he would be cited in violation if the pile is still there. He pointed out that Mr. Hall was aware of what was going on and what the stipulations were. He stated that whether or not Mr. Hall can attain that goal, unfortunately, he does not have the authority to extend the deadline. He noted that he can sympathize with him, but that it is not in his purview to extend it. He added that he does not have the authority to change that nor does he have the authority under the Code of Virginia to alter the BOS conditions. He pointed out that the goal is to look at the words on the page and that the deadline is February 25, 2017. He agreed that it is unfortunate that we are here, but noted again that he does not have the authority to change the conditions and that he  would challenge the BZA that they do not have that authority either. Mr. Morris asked if a farm can have a pile of gravel or rock on it.  Mr. Svoboda stated that he would not go down that road because we are not talking about a farm. He explained that he would limit his argument to the scope of the appeal which is about a special use permit use and those conditions not about a farm. He stated that he was willing to hold a specific discussion about farming some other time but noted that at this time the discussion is in regard to a special use permit use specifically issued for these five acres for this specific use that was supposed to cease. He noted that the specific use includes all of the accessory uses also, including the use Mr. Morris stated that there was a lot of discussion at the PC and the BOS, noting that the final decision is in the motion and the conditions. He noted that the discussion does  and operation of equipment, selling of the gravel, etc.  4    BZA Minutes September 27, 2017  not matter but the motion and the conditions are what is binding.  Mr. Svoboda agreed and stated that the condition being discussed is the expiration of  the recycling use by February 25,2 2017.  Mr. Herring pointed out that it would include the storage and removal.  Mr. Svoboda stated that it would include the storage and removal because they are the associated uses. He offered several examples to make the point. He stated that the discussion started in 2013 and the ordinance was amended to allow for the use (inaudible) permit again for additional time and here we are. He stated that he sympathizes with them but that he is unable to change what its stipulated by the Mr. Morris referred to the special use permit condition that required the piles to be immediately removed from the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA) easement and asked Mr. Svoboda explained that it is a separate condition that was specific to the particular piles on the RSA easement which was blocking the easement for maintenance on the line. He added that the condition is not general to the permit, but that the condition is part oft the permit but is specific to the piles of gravel on that easement, similar to the Mr. Schmidt referred to the definition of recycling center and the parts of the definition such as separation, process, and for shipment, noting that it seems that the dispute is about whether they were all processed by end of February. He noted that the pictures Mr. Svoboda gave an example of even if processing was completed, then the accessory uses would still be in place and the product would still be there. He stated that he would Mr. Schmidt referred to the separation, processing, and shipment and noted that all that Mr. Svoboda stated that they have separated, processed, and are now left with  regulation as he does not have the authority.  why they were not required to be removed from the site.  way it would apply for noise.  suggest that equipment was there.  not speak for Mr. Leake as he is not here.  is left is shipment. shipment.  Mr. Schmidt asked if the PC minutes were sent in the July packet.  Mr. Svoboda stated that they were provided separately in this month's packet.  5    BZAI Minutes September 27, 2017  Mr. Morris asked if the selling of the gravel is the violation noting that it could be used for Mr. Svoboda explained that it is because it is associated with the use of the special use permit. He noted that the use has not ceased because trucks are going in and trucks Mr. Schmidt stated for clarity that remediation would be moving the pile off site. Mr. Svoboda stated that the intent is compliance not penalty. He added that the impression was that the BOS found staff to be overly friendly in not finding a violation in 2015. He stated that the goal is to gain compliance and to do that there is a plan to put inp place to set milestones to work towards. He added that iti is the county's concern, it's responsibility to the citizens, is not about money being made or lost, noting that it is about compliance. He stated that what the timetable would be and if an agreement is made is not something to be discussed here. He restated that he would rather have resources spent on gaining compliance than having resources spent on fines, penalties, etc. He stated that if the county wants the use to continue and allow it to take place, Mr. Hall rebutted that it is different from 7-11 selling snack cakes because ifi it expires at that point, what does it turn into at 12:01. He stated that it is a big piece of agricultural land that has 5 acres of land in the middle with a special use permit. He wondered what that land turned into at 12:01 when the special use permit expired, noting that is goes back to agricultural land. He stated that if Bart's argument is correct, then he should be able to move it fifteen feet over the line of the special use permit area ifit is for his use. He added that he should not have to move it over the line because once it expires it becomes agricultural land. He noted that it is a little bit different than as simple as Bart was making it out to be. He stated that he would gladly go through process to change something, noting that he thinks it opens up a whole lot more of what can you keep on agricultural land. He asked if it can be kept on agricultural land or not if he is not selling it. He stated that the recycling was done and then referred to the definition of recycling and noted that an accessory use does not say selling stuff. He added that it was processed for shipment and that recycling ends with the material sitting there and that at 12:01 it expired. He asked what happens then and answered that it goes back into agricultural land. He asked if the pile can be kept on agricultural land. He asked if you can have more of an item than you need noting that every farm has stuff on it. He noted that it might be more than the normal person would keep but that he does not have to be normal. He stated that if there is no cutoff listed, then where does it stop and whose discretion would that be, Bart's or Shawn's. He offered an example of limiting the number of chairs and noted that if it is in the rules, then it is fine. He stated that Bart had mentioned that trucks were coming in and out, and he referred to a permit from Albemarle dated January 2015. He noted that trucks were not coming in and dropping  fill for roads, etc. on site or is the violation the pile itself.  are coming out.  then an ordinance revision would be in order.  6    BZAI Minutes September 27, 2017  off material on site. He stated that he had spoken with Bart about it and noted that you could drive by Sunbelt and see a pile sitting there adding that he would not drive past that to go to Ruckersville. He stated that he thinks it comes down to what happens at 12:01 on that piece of property. He stated that according to what he thinks, it turns back into agricultural land and asked if it is agricultural land, can gravel be kept there or not. He wondered ifi it could not be sold, could it be kept for use for another project. Mr. Schmidt asked Mr. Hall ifi it is his intention to sell the material if he can.  Mr. Hall stated that his intention is to sell it.  Mr. Schmidt asked Mr. Hall to comment on the discussion with the PC noting that it seems pretty clear from the minutes that everyone seemed to understand that the intent Mr. Hall stated that the pile that was being discussed was a pile of unprocessed concrete. He agreed that they wanted it all gone. He stated that, getting technical about it, the wording was for the pile unprocessed and now it is all split up and separated. He stated that he wants to sell it and get it all gone. He explained that he would like to sell part of it, noting that he would have to look at it again, and estimated that there are about 300 truck loads that he would like to sell and the rest is theirs to keep.  was that the materials would be removed before the expiration.  Mr. Schmidt asked how much he would want to keep.  Mr. Hall estimated that he would like to keep a couple hundred truck loads.  Mr. Morris referred to Mr. Hall's intent to sell the gravel and asked if he had a buyer for it. He asked if there was a possibility of not being able to sell it and having to use it on Mr. Hall stated that they do have buyers and that it is steadily going away from the site. He stated that they also have property and projects of their own that it can be used for. He noted that he would prefer to get rid of it, clean up the site, finish the dirt work, put it Mr. Morris asked Mr. Svoboda if the special use permit was for the 5 acres only. Mr. Svoboda stated that the special use permit applied to the 5 acres.  his farm or any farm.  in grass, and move on.  Mr. Durrer asked Mr. Hall why he has not moved the 200 truck loads that belongs to him Mr. Hall stated that they are not done with it yet, noting that when they are done they will  to other properties.  7    BZA Minutes September 27, 2017  use it for the parking lot.  Mr. Schmidt asked Mr. Hall what he meant by not done with it yet.  Mr. Hall explained that the grading work is not completed at the site that it will go to and sO iti is not ready for it yet. He added that when he got to the point of moving their Mr. Schmidt clarified that the grading is in reference to the property in Albemarle. Mr. Hall stated that Mr. Schmidt was correct. He wondered if the discussion would be taking place if this was back in the woods somewhere, noting that just because there is Mr. Durrer stated that the problem is that it was manufactured on site under a special use permit which has ceased and that material is a part of that special use permit. He pointed out that it is not about how much gravel you can have, it is about how the gravel Mr. Hall asked if he had a special use permit to make mulch and he made a lot ofit, Mr. Durrer stated that if the special use permit expired, then it must be moved to another Mr. Hall suggested that if he moved it the fifteen feet across the line, then it would be Mr. Durrer stated that he would not know the answer to that question. He stated that the BZA has to look at the issue that is being dealt with here. He noted that he was not aware of an ordinance that referred to how much gravel you could have on your farm and stated that the difference is did you manufacture it or did you buyi it.  portion out, then he will.  no farm building does not mean that it is not a farm.  was processed under the special use permit for that piece of property.  would he have to get rid ofi it instead of keeping it.  property. okay.  Mr. Morris asked how deep the site would be filled.  Mr. Hall estimated about six feet.  Mr. Morris asked if the material would be suitable to be used for fill. Mr. Hall stated that it could be used but it would be an expensive fill.  Mr. Morris stated that he could see both sides of the special use permit but that he does not see the sense of having it moved and then having it located near Route 29. He  8    BZA Minutes September 27, 2017  asked if there is a reasonable timeline to haul the stuff away.  Mr. Svoboda explained that ify you are creating fill, there is an agricultural exemption available which is good for about a year and a half under the Code of Virginia. He challenged the BZA to find a farmer that has 500 dump truck loads of gravel sitting around waiting to be put on their farm road. He stated that there is likely to be some storage of materials available but that in talking about the volume, having 500 dump Mr. Hall asked how much can be kept and wondered ifi it mattered if it were 500 bales of  truck loads of gravel is not customarily incidental on a farm.  hay for only one COW.  Mr. Svoboda stated that a farmer would make hay as it is a farm use.  Mr. Durrer stated that a special use permit is not needed for a farm and that it boils Mr. Hall supposed that he cut down trees and made 2 X 4s and stacked them up and asked how many 2 X 4s he could have. He added that there are farms that have quite a bit of material sitting around, noting that it is not just gravel. He stated that if it applies to Mr. Morris addressed the Board and stated that the problem that he sees is that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors did not provide clear definitions and clear understandings within the motions as to what happens at 12:01 midnight. He  down to the special use permit.  gravel, then it must apply to everything.  noted that he had a problem with that. Mr. Herring deferred to Mr. Svoboda.  Mr. Svoboda stated that it is pretty clear. He read the condition word for word..."the special use permit shall expire..", noting that "shall" is a definite word and "expire" means finish, "on February 25, 2017". He stated that his interpretation as Zoning Administrator, which is why the letter was issued, is that it is pretty clear. He compared itt to the speed limit. He restated that the permit shall expire on February 25, 2017 and that it is staffs charge to figure out how to try to gain compliance from that point. Mr. Herring stated that there had been information that noted that when the special use permit ended, then everything had to be cleaned up according to the interpretation of the Mr. Svoboda stated that Mr. Herring was correct and added that under Code of Virginia, the Zoning Administrator is also charged with interpreting ordinances and special use permit conditions, noting that it is a specific power assigned to the Zoning Administrator  definition that was used for the special use permit.  9    BZAI Minutes September 27,2017  under the Code of Virginia whether he agrees with the condition or the ordinance or not. Mr. Herring explained to Mr. Hall that personal feelings should not be involved in this process and that the purpose for tonight is to determine whether Mr. Svoboda acted within the bounds of the BZA obligation. He pointed out to Mr. Hall that if the decision is found against him that his next option would be to appeal it to the court. Mr. Hall stated that he understood that. He added that he knows that the BZA has a tough job to do and that everyone interprets things differently. He asked that if that is the case and he moves the pile fifteen feet over, would he be in compliance. Mr. Herring informed Mr. Hall that he would need to work with Mr. Svoboda on that. Mr. Hall brought up the possibility of choosing the route of paying the fines and stated that he wants to be incompliance whether he agrees with it or not. He added that he does not enjoy coming up here or taking up everyone's time. He noted that he and Mr. Svoboda have had discussions and that some are not bad but some he did not like. He stated that he does not take things personally and hopes that everyone feels the same way, noting that it is about interpretation. He asked how the agricultural land would be interpreted wondering that the business is owned by Greenestone and that if he moved itover, it would fall into property owned by Larry Hall. He explained that in moving it over, it falls across the imaginary line but reminded that at 12:01 that land disappeared. He offered the example of Greenestone leaving at 12:01 and leaving the pile on the property which is owned by Larry Hall and asked what would happen in that situation. He informed the BZA that this type of thing happens, that a crusher goes in and crushes and then moves to another project leaving the material behind. He asked if that leaves Mr. Herring asked if there was any other discussion or questions from the BZA.  that property owner in violation.  There were inaudible comments.  Mr. Schmidt asked Mr. Svoboda if he understood the Code of Virginia statute correctly in that the BZA is obligated to defer to the findings of the Zoning Administrator and to Mr. Svoboda stated that the statute says that the Zoning Administrator's determination Mr. Schmidt stated that in referring to the definition of recycling this is a close situation because it is not clear ini the actions. He noted that the discussion at the PC suggests that there was an understanding among the PC members and the Zoning Office was that the pile would be gone at the expiration of the special use permit.  presume that those findings are correct. has a presumption of correctness.  10    BZA Minutes September 27, 2017  Mr. Morris pointed out that the PC is a recommending body and the BOS has the final Mr. Schmidt agreed that the BOS has the final say and was responsible for the decision. Mr. Herring pointed out that the discussions before the motion are null and void.  say.  Mr. Morris agreed with that point.  Mr. Schmidt was not convinced that the point was correct because the discussion is There was a brief discussion regarding the discussion during the process of making Mr. Runkle shared his opinion that the discussion and debate is unnecessary as this is the plainest case that the BZA has ever had. He asked, 'are the piles of gravel there and is the calendar date after February 25th', noting that both answers are 'yes' and that the applicant is obviously in violation and for these reasons, he made a motion to uphold  used in the process of making the decision.  decisions.  the zoning administrator's determination. Mr. Durrer seconded the motion. The vote was taken. AYE Mr. Schmidt Mr. Durrer Mr. Runkle Mr. Herring Morris abstaining.  NAY  ABSTAIN Mr. Morris  The motion to uphold the zoning administrator's decision carried by a 4-0 vote with Mr.  There was no additional old business for discussion.  Mr. Svoboda informed the BZA that there will be a meeting in October as an application  was received.  Mr. Svoboda reviewed the holiday schedule for November.  11    BZAI Minutes September 27,2017  MINUTES  Mr. Morris made a motion to approve the minutes of July 26, 2017 as presented.  Mr. Durrer seconded the motion.  The vote was taken and the minutes of July 26, 2017 were approved by a 5-0 vote.  OTHER MATTERS  Mr. Svoboda stated that he had no other Old Business to discuss. Mr. Morris asked if there was an update on training.  Mr. Svoboda stated that there is no update at this time. He noted that staff is attending the VAZO conference and that Mr. Leake is going to try to speak with someone while there in regard to getting training on their schedule. He stated that it would likely be after the holidays at this point. He reminded the BZA of the holiday schedule for Mr. Morris asked if the BOS had given any consideration for an attorney for the BZA. Mr. Svoboda stated that he would bring that up during the budget discussions with the Mr. Morris clarified for those in attendance that the BZA is not allowed to use the County Mr. Svoboda explained that in making these types of decisions, the BZA acts as a group ofj judges, a quasi-judicial board. He stated that if someone was to appeal a decision of the BZA, as a group ofj judges, the BZA would not go to court just as judges do not go to Mr. Morris stated that if you do get called to court, it is quite funny, noting that he has Mr. Herring asked if any movement has been made on getting a copy of the transcript of Mr. Svoboda stated that it had not been received but that he would follow up on that. He clarified that the court case in question was the case regarding Rummage 33. There was discussion as to what may be available and when a copy could be obtained.  November and December meetings.  BOS.  Attorney for representation.  court when cases are appealed to higher courts.  been called to court. the court case.  12    BZAI Minutes September 27,2017  Itwas determined that once the information is received, it will be forwarded to the BZA  members, likely in their next packet.  Mr. Herring asked if Mr. Vanderveer had appealed at this time. time limit that applies and the judge would rule on it.  Mr. Svoboda informed the BZA that it is still in the filing stages and that there is a certain Mr. Morris stated that the BZA upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision in that case and that was the problem that he wanted to ask legal counsel about when he was joking about legal counsel. He noted that when the BZA upholds the decision, there is no time Mr. Svoboda explained the process of filing appeals and briefs, noting that the first filing must take place within thirty days of the decision. He added that once the first filing Mr. Herring stated that as long as the applicant is filing the appeals, he can continue to Mr. Svoboda stated that there is a process that addresses that. He explained how the  limit sO the applicant still has two years to file an appeal.  occurs, a different set of time tables that apply.  operate the rental.  enforcement process occurs during an appeal.  Mr. Morris stated that this case has been a good while back. Mr. Svoboda stated that it has been about a year.  Mr. Morris stated that it is still on the computer as he checks once in a while.  Mr. Svoboda stated that he would check on it, noting that there is an active violation and that the last time it was addressed, he did remove the tree house from the internet. He noted that the other items are in compliance with the exception of one violation on site. Mr. Morris asked, for the benefit of the BZA, ifit is better to include clearer definitions Mr. Svoboda stated that it is better to be clear, which has improved from some older special use permits, but he noted that there is always room for improvement. He pointed out that when there is a large number of conditions on similar approvals, then it may be time to review the ordinance to see if revisions are needed. Mr. Morris noted that the last several cases have gone to court which makes it hard on  and conditions for approval.  the BZA.  13    BZAI Minutes September 27, 2017  Mr. Svoboda stated that it is part of the county's growing pains. He added that various things within the county have changed and reviewed the growth in recent years. He encouraged everyone to come to Ruckersville Area Plan meetings to assist in providing Mr. Herring stated that he has heard that there is a movement to designate Route 810 Mr. Svoboda stated that he was not aware of anything like that. He recalled that it may have been mentioned in the last couple of years. He added that it is actually a designation for tourism purposes, noting that Greene County does not have a road long enough to qualify for the mileage requirement of a scenic highway. There was discussion as to the possibility of a scenic highway and how it could affect Mr. Svoboda restated that he was not aware of it at this time. He stated that the BOS  feedback.  as a scenic highway.  property along the designation. would have to decide on that issue.  ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.  Respectfully submitted, Mansha alley Marsha Alley, Secretary  Bakig BZA Chamanvice-Chaman  Date  14