HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 31 78 PC Minutes322.
January 31, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
January 31, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman;
Col. William Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner; Mr. Layton McCann;
Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Charles Vest; Dr. James W. Moore; Mr. James Huffman; and
Mrs. Joan Graves. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of
Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro,
Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Minutes of November 1, 1977, and December 20, 1977, were approved by the
chairman as presented. Minutes of December 13, 1977, were approved subject to
the corrections and additions of Col. Washington and Mr. Payne.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Article 17-SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE - to provide for preliminary
site plans.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that in cases where a runoff
control permit is required, the applicant would be required to submit a preliminary
site plan. In other cases that do not involve development of property within a
watershed, it is merely suggested by this amendment that the applicant should
submit a preliminary plan and that an informal meeting and discussion between the
applicant and county staff should take place. The purpose of the preliminary in
both cases is so that all parties involved will be aware of the facts and the requirements.
At this point Mrs. Graves suggested that it would be helpful if all new
Commission members were in receipt of a runoff control ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors
that Section 17-3-1 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
An informal meeting and discussion between the applicant and the County Planning
staff should be held prior to the submission of a site plan. The applicant should
present a preliminary schematic master plan showing: (b) boundary lines of subject
property; (b) existing land conditions and existing topography at a maximum of
ten (10) foot contour intervals; (c) general layout design of what is proposed on
a scale of not smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet; (d) building
setback lines; and (e) zoning of subject property and adjacent parcels. This is not
to be considered binding by the county or the owner of the property, but serves simply
as a guide toward future development as each section of development is submitted for
final approval.
a
�?..3
In the case of any development proposed to be located within the watershed of any
public water supply impoundment, the applicant shall submit a preliminary site
development plan in accordance with this Section prior to the submission of a
final site development plan to insure that the proposed development will be
feasible in light of all applicable law. Any recommendations or comments during
review of any preliminary site development plan shall not be considered binding
by the County or the applicant, but shall serve as a guide to future planning and
development. Except as the Director of Planning may otherwise specify in a particular
case, the applicnat shall submit four (4) copies of the preliminary site development
plan showing:
(a) General information including: the name and address of the property owner;
the name of the individual who prepared the plan; the date of the drawing; north
point; scale ( not smaller than 1" = 100' ); tax map and parcel number of the property;
vicinity map at a scale of 1" = two miles;
(b) Existing conditions including: boundary lines of property and department lot
lines of adjoining parcels; zoning of subject property and adjacent parcels; building
and setback lines; street names and state route numbers; topography at a maximum of ten
foot contour intervals; natural drainage channels and easements, water courses or bodies
including name and location; 100-year flood plain limits; existing wooded areas and
areas of vegetative cover;
(c) General layout of what is proposed including: location of structures; summary of
total number of dwelling units by type and area; gross and net residential areas;
floor area of commercial and industrial uses and number of employees; off-street parking
and loading areas; proposed streets, access easements and aisles; location of active
and passive recreation spaces, commonly -owned open space, parks, schools or other
public uses if applicable; areas to be cleared of vegetative cover; general
limits of grading; proposed water and sewerage facilities; conceptual scheme of
drainage facilities; acreage in impervious lot coverage.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
The Albemarl.eCounty Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Section 19-3 USES PERMITTED in Article 19 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
NEIGHBORHOOD of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The Planning
Commission will also discuss policy related to increasing density through
RPN petition.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Easter prefaced the discussion by stating that the County has employeed
KDA, the consultants who assisted in the preparation of the County's updated
Comprehensive Plan, to rework the County Zoning Ordinance. He stated that though
he feels this amendment to be very important, the County might further complicate
the task of this reworking if it adopts a series of amendments to the ordinance
during the preparation of the new ordinance.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that the timetable with KDA is approximately
6 months, which he himself feels is rather optimistic.
Once again Mr. Easter urged the Commission to go slowly in any initiated
amendments to the ordinance during this period.
Mrs. Diehl asked if other communities' rules for RPN's has been investigated
during the preparation of these amendments.
Mr. Keeler said that they have not, however, he feels that this type of
designation might be peculiar to Albemarle County.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if service stations were advisable in an RPN. She stated
that in her opinion the residents of the RPN should be able to have input on what
commercial convenience uses would be included in the neighborhood.
Mr. Easter expldined that the plan is approved prior to any construction and
prior to any residents of the RPN living there.
Mrs. Graves said that she wished to remind the new members of the Commission
that some of the older members have had problems with institutions and commercial
convenience uses in the RPN. Mrs. Graves further stated that after checking
the definition of "commercial convenience" in the previous master plan, this proposed
amendment complies with the exception of service stations.
Col. Washington stated that in his opinion Section 19-3-1(c) as proposed is
more specific and more limited than the old wording. He further stated that he does
not find service stations unsatisfactory as long as they do serve the neighborhood.
In his opinion, the law of economics will determine if the service station will locate there
Mr. McCann said that it would take more than 50 families to make a service
station feasible, and perhaps as many as 300 families.
Mrs. Graves felt that service stations are a safety hazard because of the
product itself, because of the refueling of the tanks, etc.
Mr. Easter said that he would not be opposed to the service station use if it
were part of the RPN at the original presentation time.
Mr. Huffman pointed out that many service stations now include the sale of
staple commodities. He stated that he is specifically speaking of Sun Oil Company.
Dr. Moore stated that in Section 19-4-3 he does not feel that any sort of
limited maximum acreage should be given up. He certainly favored the acreage limitation,
and asked the staff to research whether it should be limited to 1.5% of the gross area
of the development as under the existing wording.
Mr. Keeler felt that this was a good point.
Mr. Tucker stated that as proposed the area is speaking to the actual number of
people using the commercial area.
Mr. Payne also felt that the point made by Dr. Moore should be addressed.
There was no comment from the public.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff could propose some wording to be considered
by the Commission which would state that commercial uses would have to be spelled out
at the time of adoption of the RPN plan.
3zs
Mr. Payne said that this might be a problem in the fact that uses will
periodially change, and with every change an amendment to the RPN would be
necessary.
Mr. Easter asked if there were a consensus that service stations should
be separated from the other uses mentioned in Section 18-3-1(c).
Mr. Huffman pointed out that most service stations are rented and not
operated by the owner of the property. He suggested that perhaps this should be
addressed as "stores selling motor fuel."
Mrs. Graves said that it makes no difference whether they are separated
or not, nor what they are called, they will still be permitted by right and she
opposed this.
Mr. Easter said that he wants the commercial convenience specified at the
initial presentation of the plan, and if the use changes, an amendment to the plan.
Mr. McCann noted that he has no problem with service stations in the RPN,
but since there seems to be some problem as far as other members of the Commission
are concerned, he suggested that service stations be permitted by special permit.
Mrs. Graves asked that prior to the Commission taking any action on this
they discuss the possibility that they delay making any recommendations for amendments
to the ordinance until KDA has completed its rework of the ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that this particular amendment should be addressed
at this time since the Commission had originally felt that there was some urgency
in handling this particular amendment.
Mr. Tucker asked that the Commission delay any action until the staff had
had time to consider the proper wording for the suggestions made that evening,
specifically those comments addressing acreage requirements and service stations.
Mr. Easter again asked if there were a consensus to separate service stations
from the other uses and to put a limit on the maximum acreage of commercial convenience.
There was a consensus that this was the feeling of the Commission.
At this point the Commission addressed Section 19-3-1(b). Mr. Keeler suggested
that the Commission might want to add "public libraries" in this section.
Mr. Payne stated that there is someauthority that it is unlawful to differentiate
between public schools and private schools. He suggested that perhaps this could
be handled by using the wording of the zoning ordinance ( educational institutions ).
He also asked that the Planning Commission recognize that the term "church" is an abbre-
viated form to mean any religious meeting house.
There was Commission agreement to these suggestions.
The Commission next discussed a proposed policy about densities allowed in RPN's.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, stating that the staff is reluctant to recommend
this policy for two reasons.
Mr. Easter pointed out that the densities give incentives to go with an
RPN as opposed to conventional subdivisions.
3z;:�
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff does not have a problem with "jumping zones"
with an RPN application as long as the rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
✓' Mr. Keeler felt that this sort of policy would not be in the spirit of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Payne said that he is concerned about the Commission's adopting this because
it is positively unlawful to prohibit an applicant from requesting a rezoning, and it
is unwise legally for the Planning Commission to have a policy such as this without
knowing the location of the property, since it is a form of prejudging an application.
He felt that this would signify a kind of prejudice wiithout public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner said that his concerns all along have been that the original
purpose of the RPN ( clustering, cul-de-sacs, shorter utilities, etc. ) have been
overlooked and that the developer is receiving a double credit: first the original
intent plus the additional density when zones are jumped.
Mrs. Graves stated that the County does not have to approve plans, since the
expense a developer goes through is his own choice. She did not feel that the County
can deny anyone the right to request a rezoning of any sort. However, the Commission
must remember that all it has to do is follow the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker agreed with Mrs. Graves and said that he does not want to give
developers too much incentive. He stated that the Commission must also consider the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
There was a consensus that the Commission would not recommend that this become
a policy.
Mrs. Graves asked if these uses ( commercial convenience ) comply with the
statement of intent for the RPN in regard to ancillary uses. She said that if these
are the only uses permitted by right, is the word ancillary necessary.
Mr. Tucker requested that the staff be permitted to answer this when it returned
with the revised wording to the Commission.
Mr. Easter established from Mr. Payne that the uses mentioned in Section 19-3-1(c)
are the uses described in the statement of intent as "ancillary."
Mr. Gloeckner moved that any action on this resolution of intent be deferred
until February 7, 1978, in order that the staff could draw up the appropriate language
for the Commission's intent.
Mr. McCann seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Kirtley Office Building Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the M-1 property is
located on the north side of Route 250 West just East of Hillcrest Motors. Mr. Montenegro
stated that on June 17, 1974, the Planning Commission approved the site plan for the
addition to the Distributing Company located at the rear of the lot. This property
received two (2) variances from the Scenic Hightway provisions of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, only allowing for a 76' building setback and the other allowing parking
for employees and visitors at a 50' setback from the right-of-way.
,3z 7
He stated that this proposal is to locate an office building on approximately
3.4+ acres off Route 250 West. The entrance to this office will be shared by the
Distributing Company as well as Hillcrest Motors, Inc. The building will be served
by a well and a septic system. The applicant proposed to locate six (6) parking
spaces in the front of the property and seven (7) spaces on the East side. The
format of possible future development is outlined for your benefit.
The parking area proposed in front of the building does not meet the setback outlined
by VA-77-39. To meet those requirements, neither the parking spaces not the
travel aisle behind them can be located within 50' of the right-of-way. The
parking aisle, which is a part of the 400 sq. ft. space required for parking lots, is
located within the setback. The proposed entrance to the property does not meet the
minimum requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
and should be extended to comply (200' long, 12' wide, with a 200' taper). It is
also the opinion of the staff that any development along a byway with a Scenic
Highway denomination should comply with extensive landscaping requirements. The staff
recommends approval subject to:
1. Staff approval of landscape plan;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance;
3. The parking area in the front of the building must conform with the requirements
set forth in VA-77-46( This was amended during the staff presentation. The condition
originally read as follows: "The parking in the front of the building must be
relocated in order to meet the 50' setback required in VA-77-46." )
4. Approval of this plan does not speak to any sign locations or sizes;
5. Written Health Department approval;
6. Approval of Runoff Control Officer.
Mr. Sandy Lambert, representing the applicant, stated that the plan shown
is basically the first phase. He explained the layout of the plan to the Commission
and stated that according to the Zoning Administrator the relocation of the sign is
not in conflict with the ordinance.
Mr. Easter asked if it is the Commission's problemto deal with the variance.
He said that he does not feel that it is.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there is a problem structurally about moving the building
back.
Mr. Lambert explained that there is some difference of opinion about what
was granted by the variance. Mr. Lamber explained further that structurally there is
no problem with moving the building back 21 feet.
Mr. Keeler stated that the variance was granted, and with the amended condition
#3, the site plan can be approved subject to whatever that variance was.
Mr. Payne stated that there were two variances and that the same sketch applied
to both. One sketch was submitted by the applicant and the other was drawn by Mr. Keeler
at Mr. Dick's request, to show what could be done with the site in accordance with
the ordinance.
Mrs. Graves asked if the variance did not have to be legally advertised
and asked what was called for in that legal advertisement.
Mr. Payne said that one varinance was for the building, the other was for
the parking. The one for the building asked for 120 feet, which would put the
building 30 feet from the right-of-way. That is what is shown on the sketch submitted
by the applicant.
requested
He said that the varianceAfor the parking was for 20 feet from the parking requirements.
He said that there was a little confusion on that since he needed more than 20 feet
because of the pecularities between the B-1 and the M-1 and how the scenic highway
regulations apply to them. What he recalled the BZA granting was a 74' variance
which would make the setback for the building 76 feet and a variance for the parking to
bring it up to bring it up to 50 feet of the line.
Mr. Easter did not feel that it is the Commisson's job to interpret the variance.
Mr. Payne said that in this case it is the Commission's job, since the ordinance
requires that the approval of the site plan constitutes prima face evidence that
the use is in accordance with the ordinance. He felt that the Commission has to make
a decision whether this is lawful or not.
Mr. Easter felt that the staff has to get the BZA to tell them what the variance
was.
Mr. Payne said that what he thinks the BZA did was to grant a variance which placed
this property for the purposes of parking, in the same circumstances that it would be
in if it were in the B-1 zone as opposed to the M-1 zone. In the B-1 zone, parking
is permitted in the front of the building, up to within 50 feet of the scenic highway.
In the M-1 zone that is only true for visitor parking. The property in question has
a B-1 use, though it is zoned M-1. He felt that the BZA merely allowed the line to
be moved up, and the questionAif this area ( he pointed to the site plan ) is part of
the parking area. He did not feel that any clarification from the BZA is necessary.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that he had understood that Mr. Payne had
advised the BZA that the travel -aisle should be considered to be part of the parking
lot. The BZA did not respond to that, the variance was approved, and the staff is unsure
what the BZA considered the parking area.
Mr. Stuart Carwile, attorney for the applicant, stated that three meetings with
the BZA were held and a variance was granted so that the setback would be 74 feet
for the building. That was arrived at by going to the sites in the area and averaging
the setbacks for Charlottesville Oil, Hillcrest Motors, Boar's Head East, the Chinese
Restaurant. The next matter the BZA took up was the variance for the parking.
The motion that the BZA made was "to permit parking in front of the building and approve
the variance as requested by the applicant" . There was a sketch at all times in
front of the BZA showing parking in front of the building. It was clear at that time
the building was only going to be setback 74 feet.
Mr. Lambert said that since it was clear all along that the building was going
to be setback only 74 feet, the parking was going to be in the front of the building;
it is not logical to assume that the parking will be back fifty feet from the line,
since that would leave only 24 feet, and parking spaces require 20', which leaves only
four feet for the travel aisle.
Mr. Carwile stated that the BZA tape recording shows that the applicant said
at one point that he was going to drive through the fifty feet to get to the parking
spaces. There was no disagreement with that from the members of the BZA.
OR
��7
Mr. Keeler said that if the Commission approves the plan and the BZA
did not include in its variance the travel -aisle, then the Commission would be
approving a plan that does not comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Easter felt that the Commission could approve the plan subject to
the conditions recommended by the staff, and that amended condition #3 would
speak to the parking and the variance. He felt that the BZA should specify what
it means. However, he was concerned that this was not what Mr. Payne favored.
Mr. Payne again stated that he does not feel that this is a condition for the
BZA. The BZA has already spoken. He noted that he and the attorney for the applicant
00
have a difference of opinion Awhat the BZA said.
Mr. Easter said in his opinion the logical thing to do is to ask the BZA what
it meant by the variance.
Mr. Payne said that he felt that the Commission should either get a transcript
of the BZA's hearing or else the Zoning Administrator would have to make a ruling, if
the Commission acted with the conditions presented by the staff. In other words, if
the Commission does not speak to the matter, the Zoning Administrator will have to speak
to the matter. Mr. Payne did not feel it appropriate for the BZA to review this again
and further stated that he does not know of a procedure that permits that.
Mr. Montenegro said that the planning staff's intent was not to force this back
into the BZA. It was to give the Zoning Administrator an opportunity to make a decision
as to exactly what the motion was.
Mr. Carwile said that he had asked the Zoning Administrator that day to
make a ruling on this, and that he felt that the Zoning Administrator has the
power to make such a ruling.
Mr. Kirtley, the applicant, stated that this was the sixth time before some
Commission and that he has been dealing with this matter for about one year. Mr. Kirtley
stated that the when he appeared before the Planning Commission the first time Mr. Payne
had advised the Commission to go into executive session ( which the Commission did )
and vote to sue the Board of Zoning Appeals for giving him the variance. The property
to the east of his property is zoned B-1 and his property is zoned M-1. He said that
in deference to the women in the western part of the county, he was attempting to use
the property for an office building, which is not near as intense a use as might be put
there. He said that the property to the east of his has a variance to park in the
front of his property beyond what is allowed by the scenic highway regulations and he
said that he feels as though he is entitled to the same consideration. He said that the
BZA agreed with him. He said that he wanted exactly what was permitted in the B-1 for
parking, and they had agreed with him. He said that to his knowledge he was granted
on both variances exactly what was permitted in the B-1 next door to him.
Mr. Payne agreed with Mr. Kirtley,stating that he has exactly the same recollection
of what was granted. That is why in his opinion, the aisle space is part of the parking
space. Furthermore, he said that in his opinion, it is the intent of the ordinance to
include the aisle space in the parking lot. He said that this would be true for the
B-1 zone, and he said that he submits that this is the case with this property.
Dr. Moore said that he feels as though everything should be moved back
at least past the 50 foot line. He favored strict compliance with the scenic
highway regulations. *4000,
Col. Washington asked if this were B-1 property what the restrictions would
be.
Mr. Payne said that the question would be if the travel -aisle is part of the
parking area. If it is not, then it is not required to be behind the 50' setback line,
either in B-1 or M-1 property. If it is part of the parking area, then it is required
to be behind the 50' line in B-1 zone, and as he remembers it, in this case also.
Mrs. Diehl said that the problem is the definition of "parking area."
Mr. Carwile said that the problem is on which side of the 50' line the aisle
has to go.
Mr. Payne said that if any action taken by the BZA is unclear, someone has
to determine what the BZA means. This determination will be made either by the Commission
or the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Easter said that with such a small legal technicality, it seems absurd to
tie up the applicant and the Commission.
Mr. Montenegro stated that after listening to the tape, there is question
about what the motion addressed. However, he feels that with amended condition #3
the Zoning Administrator can react to what that motion of the BZA was. He reminded
the Commission that it approves site plans subject to staff approval of a landscape
and plan, therefore he does not see anything wrong with the Commission approving a
site plan subject to the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the variance.
1i
Mr. Tucker questioned,,the Commission wants to put itself in the position of
interpreting the BZA's actions. He felt it reasonable for the Zoning Administrator
to make the interpretation or get some clarification from the BZA.
Mr. Gloeckner then moved approval of the site plan subject to conditions 1,
2, 4, 5, and 6 as recommended by the staff. Mr. Gloeckner said that his motion was made
because he felt that the applicant had followed the intent of the variance and that he
agrees with the layout of the site plan. Furthermore, he felt that the applicant had
tried to comply with ordinance. Mr. McCann seconded the motion.
Col. Washington said that he supports condition #3 as amended by the staff.
Mrs. Graves offered a substitute motion for approval subject to conditions
1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 and amended condition #3 as recommended by the staff. Dr. Moore
seconded this motion, which carried by a vote of 7-2, with no discussion. Those
dissenting were Messrs. McCann and Gloeckner.
Work Session on Townhouse amendments:
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission this would be discussed at the Commission's
public hearing in February, but he did want to advise them at this point what was
being considered by the staff for its presentation. With the repeal of the Townhouse
Ordinance would come such matters as redefining "setback" and "townhouse.''Phe townhouses
will be included in +he R-2 ad R-3 zones, as opposed to the appendix to the ordinance.
It will be provided that townhouses can be rented in these zones. The amendments speak
to no change in the facades of the building. Also the density will be changed.
He asked that any members of the Commission having questions contact him.
33/
Discussion of policy concerning the 40,000-60,000 rule for lots within the
watershed:
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that Mr. Cheavacci and Mr. Collins of
the Health Department, along with Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, Mr. Frederick Payne, Mr.
Geroge R. St. John, and himself had a meeting on this matter on January 26, 1978.
He passed out to the Commission the letter from Mr. St. John ( attached ) which
setforth what had been discussed at the meeting on the 26th. Mr. Tucker advised
the Commission that the Health Department will recommend, in writing to the Planning
Commission, that prior to all new subdivision approvals, each lot shall "contain
sufficient area for two septic fields outside the 200 foot line ( from a public
reservoir or its tributaries ) as established by the Runoff Control Ordinance."
He said that it is the intent of the Health Department to require a soil scientist's
verification of two septic fields outside the 200 foot area in subdivisions which
contain 10 lots or more. For those subdivisions with less than 10 lots, the local
health department will insure this recommendation is followed. Mr. Tucker said that
he has an understanding with the Health Department that its recommendations will
come prior to Planning Commission action on a subdivision, in order that the applicant
will know prior to County review whether or not his plan will need to be revised to
include additional lot area for drainfields.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the area outside the 200 foot area be a minimum
of two drainfield areas, since the soil or the number of lots involved could be such that
the life expectancy of the drainfields would be reduced.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that in his opinion there is some discrepancy about
the Health Department's recommendation of a septic field 200 feet from the water's
edge and their policy that a well can be 100 feet from a septic field.
The Commission endorsed the suggestion made by Mrs. Graves. Mr. Easter
asked that Mr. Tucker correspond with the Health Department and advise them of the
Commission's comments.
New Business:
Col. Washington asked that the Commission members be furnished with copies
of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on matters that had also been considered
by the Commission. Mr. Tucker said that in the future he will mail action letters
to all Commission members.
Since there was no further business, t meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec etar
1
P9
�N-T•! OF ALB,Ejyq�
pF A
���RCIN�N
Office of County Attorney
FREDERICK W. PAYNE 416 PARK. STREET
JAMES M. BOWLING, IV CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEYS TELEPHONE 296-7138
January 27, 1978
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Director of Planning
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey
County Engineer
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Mr. Homer Cheavacci
Environmental Health
,/o Thomas Jefferson Health Department
"`harlottesville, Virginia 22901
3,�z
GEORGE R. ST.JOHN
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Mr. Jack Collins
Environmental Health
c/o Thomas Jefferson Health
Department
1138 Rose Hill Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
RE: Subdivision approval - Runoff Control Ordinance
(Our File #ACPZ 77-210D)
Gentlemen:
This is a memorandum of the conference on January 26, 1978, in
the County Planning Office, at which Mr. Cheavacci, Mr. Collins,
Mr. Tucker, Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, Frederick W. Payne, and George
R. St. John were present.
My understanding is that the Health Department is recommending
that in the area covered by the Runoff Control Ordinance, the
Planning Commission should require lots in new subdivisions to
contain sufficient area for two septic fields outside the 200
foot line (from a public reservoir or its tributaries) as established
by the Runoff Control Ordinance.
It is my understanding further that the Health Department will
not give its written approval under § 18-23 of the Albemarle County
Code, to any subdivision in the area covered by the Runoff Control
Ordinance unless it is found to meet the above requirement.
In my opinion the Planning Commission has the power to disapprove
any subdivision which does not have the written approval of the
PI
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Page 2
January 27, 1978
Health Department according to the above standards, even though
such subdivision may comply with other provisions of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances.
If there is any inaccuracy in this memorandum, please contact
us promptly.
Sincerely yours,
George R. S John
County Attorney
GRSt.J:kch
R