HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 223-304May 4, 1976
04
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, May 4, 1976, at 7:30 p..m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider a series of special permits, rezoning
requests, and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore;
Colonel William Washington; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mrs.
Joan Graves. Mrs. Opal David was also present.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order. A quorum was established.
ZMP-76-03. David L. Hale. Request for B-1 Commercial zoning in existing
R-2 Residential zone. Deferred item.
Mr. Carr asked for a motion to defer the item until Mr. Hale was present
at the meeting.
Mr. Easter made a motion to defer the request .
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
ZMP-76-04. Double C Corporation has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 25.91 acres from A-1 to RPN/R-1. Property is located on the
northwest side of Route 652 between Westmoreland and Woodbrook, County Tax
Map 46, Parcel 20, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler stated that due to an error in notification, not all property
owners in Westmoreland Subdivision had been notified of the Double C
Corporation's intention, thus the matter was being deferred until June
8, 1976.
Mr. Carr informed those members of the public who were interested in
this matter that the item was being deferred with approval of the County
attorney, and that this action was being taken in all fairness to the parties
interested. By deferring the hearing until all property owners had been
properly notified, unnecessary repetition of individuals' opinions and of
information concerning the issue would be forestalled. There would be no
discussion at this meeting.
Mr. Bluc"r)er challenged the ruling of deferral and asked the attorney
whether the Planning Commission was empowered to declare that there would be
no discussion; for he felt that it was the duty of the Commission to either
approve or deny, and not simply defer without discussion.
Mr. Frederick Payne, Asst. Co. Attorney, stated that he had recommended
deferral without discussion because there was a statute requiring that all
adjacent property owners be notified of rezoning requests, and since this
had not been done, going ahead with the hearing at this meeting could be
'2Z¢
challenged and declared illegal by anyone not present at the meeting.
Mr. Blucher requested that the citizens present at least be educated
in this matter by the Commission, as they (the citizens) were not there
at the meeting in an adversary capacity.
Mr. Carr apologized for the error that had been made, but stated that
the discussion must be deferred until June 8. He asked for motion that
the action be deferred.
Mr. Easter moved that ZMP-76-04 be deferred until June 8, 1976.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Dunkel stated that he had been told in the Planning Department office
that the application had been incomplete, which was another reason for
deferring the matter to a later date. He asked whether this was correct.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Staff Report was incomplete at this time, and
that the applicant had done everything in his power to comply with regulations
in submittal of his revised site plan.
The motion made by Mr. Easter was carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr stated that the matter was deferred until June 8.
ZMP-76-05. Renata Tosti Noc has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 4.0 acres from B-1 Business to M-1 Industrial. Property is located
on the northwest side of Route 29 South just west of I-64 interchange, County
Tax Map 75, Parcels 57A and 53A, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler stated that he had received a letter from the applicant
requesting withdrawal of her application without prejudice.
Mr. Carr asked for motion that this withdrawal be approved.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the withdrawal be approved.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Keeler stated that, pursuant to the withdrawal of the application, he
would like to ask the Commission to adopt a resolution of intent to repeal
Section 8-1-25, which provides by right for veterinary or dog,or cat hospitals,
or kennels in the 14-1 zone, and that steps be taken to conduct a public hearing on
the matter.
Mr. Jones moved that the staff take the necessary steps to bring such an
amendment of the Ordinance to the Commission and before the public.for approval.
Mrs. Craves seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously carried.
SP-19-76. Mr. and Mrs. Robert M. Byrom have petitioned the Board of
to locate a two-family dwelling on 345 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural,
on the western side of Route 810 approximately 32 miles southwest of
Tax Map 6, Parcel 29, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Peatross withdrew himself from discussion of this matter.
d h Staff Report.
Supervisors
Z_Z5
property located
Boonesville, County
Mr. Keeler rea t e
Mr. Jones asked whether there had been any other petitions to build
similar dwellings in this area.
Mr. Keeler stated that he did not know of any other such permits, that
the Building Inspections Department would have to be questioned about that.
Mr. Jones stated that he felt that if this permit were granted, that
more of the same type of buildings were likely to be built.
Mr. Easter asked whether the dwelling had been constructed yet.
Mr. Byrom answered that it had been constructed, and explained his
reasons for submitting the request. He lives in a remote part of the County,
in which there is little protection from the Law Enforcement officials. In
early March he returned from a trip to find his house broken into and a
rifle taken. Sheriff Bailey, upon examination of the case, asked the
applicant who had been brought in to watch the house while the applicant
was gone. Mr. Byrom had told the sheriff that he had had a University of
Virginia law student staying in the house for that purpose, but that the
student had been away from the house at the particular time of the break-in.
'11r. Byrom stated, therefore, that he felt that he and Sheriff Bailey were
in agreement that the house needed to have someone living in it while the
Byroms were away on business, as he frequently is. He added that he would
also like a place for his children to live when they were home from school.
'1r. Easter asked whether the breezeway connecting the two parts of
the dwelling, which would in effect make it a "two-family dwelling" by
law,rather than two single-family dwellings, had been constructed.
Byrom answered that the breezeway had been constructed.
Mr. Easter explained the significance of the breezeway.
Mr. Byrom stated that considering the nature of the area in which he lived,
with approximately a 1000' setback of his home from the road, physical
presence of another family on the property was the only means of achieving
protection of his property. In addition, he has over 300 acres of land,
which would certainly provide adequate parking space for an additional
resident.
Mr. Carr stated that he sympathized with Mr. Byrom's need for protection,
but that another issue at stake was that the County had had a number of re-
quests for duplexes in the A-1 zone, and had been following a policy of
not granting them. Granting this permit might encourage others to apply
for duplexes and to ask for equal consideration because of the precedent set.
Mr. Carr also pointed to the change in the applicant's attitude from his
first letter of July 8, 1975, to his second letter,asking for a special
permit,of March 17, 1976. The first letter specifically stated that
if
the building was "not to be used as a two-family dwelling.
Mr. Byrom stated that the change had been prompted by the break-in
and robbery in his home, and that he had been encouraged by Sheriff Bailey
to find a way to protect his property in the future. He stated that he
did not intend to have two families living in the dwelling at the same time,
that he would want another family to be living there only while he and his
wife were absent.
Mr. Easter stated that this seemed to be a reasonable request,
q and
asked Mr. Payne to clarify for the Commission how much of a precedent it
would be likely to set if this permit were granted.
Mr. Gloeckner added that he agreed that Mr. Byrom needed to have this
permit granted simply for protection of his property.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should consider that the precedent
set in this case was definitely a factor.
Mr. Washington asked Mr. Byrom whether it would be possible to destroy
the breezeway, making the dwelling into two separate structures.
Mr. Byrom s-tat'ed itwould be nearly impossible to destroy the breezeway,
because of its substantial size (14' width), and the fact that it was
an integral part of both of the dwelling units.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that nearly 99% of cases of
this nature, even with such adequate acreage, had been denied.
Mr. Payne stated that if -the Commission were to grant the permit,
the condition that at least one of the structures be occupied by the
landowner should be included.
Mrs. Graves added that the condition of limiting the entire dwelling
to one electric meter would also be advisable.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Byrom how many electric meters were presently
on the property.
Mr. Byrom stated that there was only one electric meter on the property.
P-4r. Easter moved approval of the permit subject to the following
conditions:
I. Approval of the appropriate county, state, and federal agencies.
2 The landowner must occupy at least one of the structures.
3. The property would be limited to one electric meter.
4. The provision in the Staff Report requiring at least four off-street
parking spaces would not be required.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves asked whether it was necessary to add the condition that
only one two-family dwelling be permitted on this property.
Mr. Payne stated that it was not necessary, because another special
permit would have to be obtained if another two-family dwelling were to
be put on the property.
The motion made by Mr. Easter was carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission would recommend unanimously that
2z7
the Board of Supervisors approve this Special Permit at its meeting on May 19.
SP-20-76. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Board
of Supervisors to locate an interceptor line along the Rivanna River from
Route 29 North to Woolen Mills, Charlottesville and Rivanna Magisterial
Districts.
Mr. Keeler read the Staff Report.
The presence of the representatives of the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority was established by Mr. Carr.
Mr. Carr asked for questions from the Commission.
Mr. Payne suggested that if the Commission approved this permit, that
they should include the finding that the Commission deems this substantially
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Jones asked what the size of the sewage disposal system was, as provided
for by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Plan calls for a treatment plant in this location,
another treatment plan on Meadows Creek, and a third on Moore's Creek. The
AWT plant, which isscheduled for completion in mid-1979, will replace all
` of these plants,and become the sole treatment plant for this area. In answer
to Mr. Jones's question, Mr. Keeler stated that he did not believe that
the Comprehensive Plan actually sized plants to serve the population in
a specific area. The Plan dealt mainly with location, not size.
Mr. Carr asked for other questions of clarification from the Commission.
There were no further questions from the Commission at this time.
Mr. Love asked why the line should run across the river twice. He
had understood from the reading of the Staff Report that this was supposed
to be a low density area, and wanted to know why the line must run across
the river twice in a low density area.
Mr. Keeler stated that the crossing was supportive to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Potter, Director of Operations of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
stated that the construction of this particular interceptor was in accordance
with the regional water quality management plan, which had been approved by
the Planning Commission, the State Water Control Board, and other agencies.
Specifically in reference to the crossings, these crossings were placed
at their locations to expedite the cost of construction, not to serve any
particular area on one side of the river or the other. He stated that
Mr. Pollavacinni, representative of John McNair and Associates,consulting
firm for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, could better explain the
cost details.
Mr. Williamson stated that he wished to know the schedule of construction
zz 1-,
in the area, and how long he and other property owners would have to have
their land disrupted.
Mr. Pollavacinni stated that mid-1979 was the time set for completion
of the construction, the same time as the completion of the proposed
AWT plant. However, with the Fleming case concerning the reservoir
pending, he did not know if this schedule could be met. He did not know
whether all funding would be available at one time.
Mr. Williamson asked which end would be constructed first if there
was not enough funding for the entire project.
Mr. Pollavacinni stated that the lower end would be completed first,
and that they would work upstream from there.
Mrs. Graves asked �,,Tbether the spur in the middle of the area was to
pick up the treatment plant at Penn Park.
Mr. Potter stated that it would pick it up at Meadow Creek. Actually
the Meadow Creek treatment plant was adjacent to Penn Park, and the
new line would also eliminate the Woodbrook Lagoon, pending completion of
the AWT plant.
Mr. Williamson stated that the Woodbrook Interceptor presently crossed
his property, and expressed concern for the problems he anticipated in
trying to hook up to this interceptor. He felt that there was somewhat
of a bureacratic tangle in that once a property owner granted permission
for the line to run across his property, he was not to be allowed in turn
to hook up to the line for his own use.
Mr. Potter stated that a four-way agreement had been made among these
four parties: the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, the City of Charlottesville, and the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority. In effect the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority had
only two customers - the City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County
Service Authority. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was not empowered
to grant permission to hook up to their interceptors.
Mr. Carr asked what agency Mr. 1111illiamson would have to speak to for
permission to hook up to the lines.
Mr. Payne stated that the County Service Authority could run a distribution
line from one or more properties into the interceptor. The property owners
then must approach the County Service Authority for permission to tie on.
Mr. Easter asked whether the Rivanna Authority paid for the easement.
Mr. Potter answered that it did.
Mr. Carr asked whether Mr. Williamson, being an owner of approximately
50 acres of land, could obtain permission to hook up to the line to serve
his own and possibly someone else's home.
Mr. Payne stated that this permission could only
County Service Authority. The County Service Authority
eminent domain.
be obtained from the
has the power of
Mrs. Graves stated that she did not think there was any need for the
property owners to worry, that permission to hook up to the line running
through their property would certainly not be denied by the County
Service Authority.
Mrs. Opal David made a point of clarification that the situation was
simply one of the County Service Authority being a retail operation and
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority being a wholesale operation.
Mr. Potter stated that the plan could not be implemented until the
Advanced Wastewater Treatment plant could be completed, hopefully in mid-1979,
but the initial capacity of the AWT plant was expected to be 15 million
gallons / day.
Janet Johnson stated that her mother's property was in the area in
which the line was to be constructed, and asked whether the Commission
would approve or deny the plan tonight.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission was to give final approval to this
particular interceptor, as part of a plan that had basically been approved
already. He stated that in the near future a representative of one of
the agencies would contact each property owner individually and negotiate
rights to the easement.
Mr. Easter stated that he hoped Mr. Potter would do everything
possible in construction of the water and sewer lines to protect the
land from soil erosion. He stated that since the County required its
citizens to follow certain standards of protection, that the citizens
certainly had the right to expect that a county agency would follow those
same standards.
Mr. Easter moved approval of SP-20-76 with the following conditions:
1. Approval of appropriate federal, state, and local agencies;
2. Immediate reseeding of areas of earth disturbing activity;
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr asked for any further discussion from the Commission.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr stated that the petition would come before the Board of
Supervisors on May 19, 1976.
N
SP-21-76. Claire Burke, Inc., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate a wholesale and processing facility on 3.71 acres zoned B-1 Business.
Property is located on Route 29 North, behind the Orange Derby Restaurant,
County Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 03-2, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler read the Staff Report.
Mrs. Graves asked whether any landscaping was ever accomplished.
Mr. Keeler answered that the screening along the south of the property
line was considered adequate by the staff. Some additional landscaping
drawn on the plan was not yet on the site.
Mr. Carr asked whether there had been any structural change in the
property.
Mr. Anthos, owner of the property, stated that there had been no changes
and that the only anticipated change was to add a couple of windows.
Mr. Carr asked if'. Claire Burke would be moving her entire business
from its present location on Route 250 West to the proposed site.
A representative of Claire Burke stated that the entire business
located in this area would be moving its location, but that the business was
owned by Minnetonka Laboratories in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Mr. Jones asked whether the removal of condition #5 of the staff report which stated "No tractor trailer pickup or delivery from the site."
would be objectionable to the staff.
Mr. Keeler stated that it would not.
Mrs. Graves asked whether this was the proper time to address the
issue of a decel lane.
Mr. Carr stated that such a decel lane should enter the property
on its south boundary, from Route 29.
Mr. Anthos stated that there would only be one or two tractor trailers
at the property per week, so he didn't feel that traffic would be a problem.
Mr. Jones asked what the frontage of the property was.
Mr. Keeler stated that it was 195 feet.
Mr. Peatross stated that he felt that the term "cosmetics" was a pretty
broad category, and that there should be a little more definition of the
types of products to be manufactured in this business.
Mr. Carr asked whether there were any odors created by the business.
The representative from Burke stated that no odors would be created
outside the building. At the present time, the business was located next
to a restaurant on one side and had private residences in back of it.
The only comments the business had received from its present neighbors
25t
were that Claire Burke had been a pleasant neighbor.
Col.Washington asked what types of byproducts would be going into the
sewer.
The representative of Claire Burke stated that they did not use liquids
in their production here, so there would be no byproducts going into the
sewer.
Mrs. Graves asked whether they did any aerosol manufacturing.
The representative stated that they did not do any in this location,
although they did receive prepackaged aerosol products from Minnetonka
Industries.
Mr. Carr asked the representative if there was a chance of Claire
Burke enlarging its facility here, since it was already connected with
a larger industry.
The representative stated that Minnetonka Industries only produced
liquid manufactured and powdered, manufactured items for Claire Burke.
Claire Burke is more or less a customer of Minnetonka,in this respect, and
she did not anticipate Claire Burke enlarging its facilities here.
Mr. Peatross asked what kind of ingredients would be mixed in the
manufacturing process.
The representative stated that the ingredients were of course very
secret, but they were things like rose petals, lilac, and other ingredients.
Mr. Peatross asked the representative what her estimate was of how many
tractor trailers would be coming and going from the property weekly.
The representative stated that Mr. Anthos had been correct in his
estimate of one or two trailers per week.
Mr. Peatross asked what the trucks would be bringing in.
The representative stated that there would be packaged products and
finished aerosol products.
Mr. Jones stated that if condition # 5 about the tractor trailers
was to be eliminated, then the decel should be addressed.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the pavement was wide enough already without
constructing a decel lane.
Dr. Moore stated that the property was not wide enough for a decel
lane.
Mr. Charles Perry of the Highway Department stated that in order to
ut, the
develop a continuous plan
l n along
traffic2withrthcurbing wouldnhavestonbeeing required
implemented athird
of property owners along this highway.
Z,5 2-
Mr. Carr asked whether it would be recommended for the entire width. of the property.
Mr. Perry stated that the 12' lane would be hampered somewhat by the
median, that the median might need to be altered, and that resurfacing would
Possible be necessary. He stated that he needed to look again at the site
before he could be sure.
Mr. Anthos stated that there already trucks going into the property;
that there should be no additional problem now.
Dr. Moore moved plan approval,', based on addition of a standard highway
decel lane; upgrading the front of the property; and the striking of
condition #5 as stated in the staff report; approval of appropriate state
and local agencies before occupancy; approval by staff of employee parking
before occupancy; no cutting or removal of trees from the site without staff
approval; operation of this enterprise be restricted to the applicant's
description that only packaging of cosmetics and mixing of sachet shall
occur on the premises; and landscaping as indicated on the site plan as
submitted on April 3, 1972.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
" Mr. Carr asked if anyone wished to address the issue of defining
cosmetics" more precisely, or if there were any other questions from
the Commission.
Mr. Easter remarked that he felt the Ordinance put proper restriction
on the busines in reference to the control of noise, dust, etc.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr asked for proper assurances from Anthos that conditions
be met, and suggested that a bond be taken for assurance.
Mr. Anthos stated that he felt his word should be good enough for
the Commission.
Mr. Graves moved that the condition that all requirements be met
within six months of occupancy be imposed as the eighth condition of approval,
and that the permit be subject to review if the conditions were not met
within this time limit.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
SP-24-76. Russell M. Lafferty, etal., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to locate a campground on 147.6 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural, Property
located on Route 729, one (1) mile past entrance to Monticello Airport,
County Tax Map 93, Parcel 22, Rivanna Magisterial District.
2 -533
Mr. heeler stated that the applicant had requested withdrawal without
prejudice.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the withdrawal be approved.
11r. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously carried.
UP-76-01. Ritter Consumer Finance Company, Inc., has petitioned the
Board of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide
for roof signs in the B-1 Business and M-2 Industrial Zones by amending
Article 15-A.
Mr. Keeler read the Staff Report.
Mr. Peatross asked what change was being requested from the old Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler stated that it would provide for roof signs in addition
to the already existing provision for wall signs.
Mr. Jones asked whether safety as well as aesthetic qualities were
being considered.
Mr. Keeler stated there was no provision for height limitation,
thus no way of preventing undesirable "landmarks" of unreasonable height.
The representative of Ritter Finance stated that in seeking the variance,
he had found several signs not conforming to the present Ordinance in
Shoppers World already. As they are more than 12" from the wall, they
are technically not wall signs. He had understood the procedure to be
1) to get permits, 2) to erect the signs. As they were being erected, Mr.
Clarke came by and told them that the signs were in violation, and that no
permits had been obtained. He then went to the Board of Zoning Appeals, who
sympathized with him and said that the only way to be able to put up the
sign was to go through the Planning Commission or the Courts. He has
already obtained approval from the owners of Shoppers World.
Mrs. Selden recommended that the Commission not adopt the proposed
amendment, that it was not good for the County to liberalize the Sign Ordinance.
The representative argued that he had spent thousands of dollars that
would be lost if he could not properly advertise his business with the
roof sign.
Mr. Carr stated that a'wariance had been granted to some already.
Mr. Reback stated that Dart Drug Store had been forced to reduce the
size of its sign to comply with the Ordinance. It was later brought out
✓ that Mr. Reback had erected the Dart Drug sign legally, but that the Ordinance
had since been amended to exclude such signs.
Z-_�q-
Mr. Peatross asked what the objection was to having the sign on the
building rather than on the roof.
Mr.Dougherpy,the representative of Ritter, stated that a wall sign
was not as visible .
Mrs. Graves stated that she did not think that loans were an "impulse"
item, spurred on by a more visible sign on the building.
Mr.Doughertystated that the sign would stay up until a decision was
made by Variance or by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that Ritter could go to court with its case, so
that the Planning Commission need not think that granting the permit would
be the only way in which Mr. Dorrity could keep his sign up. The Commission
should consider the other cases of roof signs which would be encouraged
by a change in the Ordinance.
Mr. Carr stated that he agreed with Mr. Payne that the real issue
at stake here was amendment of the Ordinance, and that he did not think
it advisable.
Mr. Dougherty stated that it would be discrimination if his request
was denied and the other Shoppers World signs in violation were allowed
to stay.
Mr. Keeler stated that that was the interpretation of the Zoning
Administrator, that he did not wish to speak to that issue.
Mr. Easter stated that he felt that approval of this request would
be a step in the wrong direction from the goal of reducing unsightly signs
in the County.
Mr. Dougherty objected that other stores had signs of the same size and
height as his.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the petition be denied.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves stated that the motion should be that the Planning Commission
not amend the Ordinance to permit roof signs.
Mr. Barksdale restated his motion to move that the Planning Commission
not amend the Ordinance to permit roof signs.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Jones asked what could be done with the signs in violation at the
present.
Zoning Administrator do something about it.
Mr. Payne stated that the Planning Commission could require that the
The motion was unanimously carried.
Z�5
Mr. Jones moved that the Planning Commission ask the proper authority
to review the signs mentioned in this case (the signs in Shopper's World), and
in a reasonable time, to review all signs constructed since the Ordinance
has been effect
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
Mr. Peatross asked for clarification of all signs, not just roof signs.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Keeler to write•a letter to the Zoning Administrator
requesting that he review all signs in Shoppers World and all other signs within
a reasonable amount of t�mP
UP-76-02. The Gelletley Company, Inc., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to amend Article 0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for
office space by right in the M-1 Industrial Zone.
Mr. Keeler read the Staff Report.
Mr. Gelletley stated that the property in question was just one M-1
parcel in the middle of a highly developed area, and he felt that an office
would be more desirable there than elsewhere. In fact, he had thought
that office space was permitted by the Ordinance when he began his plans.
Mr. Easter stated that he supported the amendment.
Mrs. Graves asked to speak to the height limits, which were now 60'.
In the Commercial Office District, a limit of 35' had been set.
Mr. Payne stated that it would be discriminatory to restrict the height
of one use in a zone and not to restrict all of the uses in the zone accordingly.
Mrs. Graves stated that she wanted to consider the height of all structures
in that zone.
Mr. Jones asked what restriction would be placed on parking.
Mr. Keeler stated that the same requirements as are placed on all office
buildings would be applied.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the request with height to be addressed
at a later time.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The motion was carried with one dy;ss enting vote from Mrs. Graves.
UP-76-03. The Albemarle County Bloodstock Company has petitioned the
Board of Supervisors to amend [article 2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to provide for AGRICULTURAL SERVICE OCCUPATIONS with a special
use permit.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from discussion of this matter.
2J6
Mr. Carr made the point that the Albemarle County Bloodstock Company
had also petitioned the Board to grant them a special use permit, which
was SP-25-76, the next item on the agenda, but that these two requests
would have to be considered as two separate issues. The discussion should
be restricted first to the advisability of the amendment to the Ordinance.
Mr. Joe Whitley, an adjacent owner to the proposed location of the
Bloodstock Company, asked why a variance was required for this occupation.
He felt that there should be more justification for this request.
if Mr. Reback, representative for the applicant, stated that the use
professional office" was already permitted by the Ordinance by special
permit in the A-1 zone. However, this classification was such a broad one,
that he felt his client would not be granted a permit under this category,
for if the Bloodstock Company were ever to leave the property, the Special
Permit would remain on the property, and almost any office could locate
there. By amendment of the Ordinance, the type of office which could be
located on the property in the future would be limited to agricultural
service occupations, which would be desirable in that location. He felt
that such amendment followed along with the Ordinance's statement of intent
for the Agricultural zone. Those business serving those engaged in agricultural
pursuits should be located in proximity to their clientele.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that the amendment permitting such
use was now being addressed, not specifically the Bloodstock Company.
Mr. Whitley asked whether veterinary services were allowed in the
A-1 zone.
Mr. Reback answered that they were already allowed by Special Permit
in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Whitley asked whether veterinary services would still be permitted
if the Ordinance were amended.
Mr. Carr answered that they would.
Mr. Whitley asked what other uses were permitted by right or special
permit.
Mr. Keeler read from the Ordinance the uses permitted by right and those
permitted by special permit in the A-1 zone at the present time.
Mr. Phillips, an adjacent landowner, asked what kind of traffic would
be involved with the proposed Bloodstock Company.
Mr. Carr stated that that would be discussed when the Special Permit
was discussed.
Mr. Phillips stated that he thought people had moved out to the area
in question because of restrictions that were placed on development there.
Another adjacent property owner asked between "agricultural service occupation" andr"professionalnofficeeoffice."
�>37
Mr. Keeler stated that he had received one letter of opposition from
Joseph Whitley. He read another of opposition from a Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Carr states that Mr. and Mrs. Fogleman and Mr. Howard Hamilton had
called him in opposition to this special permit.
A citizen asked why Mr. Ashcomb's plan called for 9 parking spaces
and widening of the road.
Mr. Reback stated that they wanted to improve the parking situation
in the entire area, including the store as well as Mr. Ashcomb's business
at the corner.
Mr. Whitley asked about structural changes which would be involved
in the building in which Mr. Ashcomb's business would be located.
Mr. Reback stated that there would be no structural changes, and the
proposed widening of the road was made in accordance with recommendation
from Mr. Tucker, Director of Planning.
A citizen asked what kind of computer Mr. Ashcomb would be using.
Mr. Reback stated that the computer was simply a terminal no bigger
than a typewriter.
Mrs. Ellen Craddock stated that the granting of this permit would open
this rural corner to other business -type occupations, and would establish
a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Pittman, an adjacent property owner, stated that the area in question
was not a race -horse area; that he thus saw no need for Mr. Ashcomb's service.
Mr. Jarman stated that he too felt that a dangerous precedent would be
set for a business area to develop.
Mr. Paul Sommers, a landowner living within 4 to i mile from the
proposed site, stated that he felt the proposed use was a better one for
the area than a rental property to three or four students.
Dr. Payne stated that he was opposed to the permit.
11r. Paul Russell stated that he was opposed to the permit.
Mr. Pittman stated that he did not object to Dr. Biller or Mr. Ashcomb
personally, but was worried about the results if the property was sold to
another user.
Mr. Ashcomb stated that in establishing his business at this location,
he was hoping to prevent the deterioration of the neighborhood that all
the landowners in the area were objecting to. He questioned the "one foot
in the door will collapse the whole house of cards" mentality, explaining
that he had no stocks in trade, no heavy machinery, etc.
Mr. Reback stated that he knew that this area did not want change, but
that the area was already changing, and that further growth was inevitable.
Z-3k
He stated that there are racehorses in Albemarle County, and that Mr. Ashcomb
would be helping to preserve the racehorse stock here as well as encourage 100)
bigger farms, etc. He stated that he and his client valued the same things
as the other property owners in the area, and that the Bloodstock Company
would not be creating any additional noise or traffic.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves asked for clarification on the subdivision of the property.
Mr. Reback stated that there are three separate parcels in the neighborhood
and that each would have to be considered separately.
Mr. Peatross asked if there were any thoroughbred farms near the site,
and how far away they were.
Mr. Reback named a few of the the nearby thoroughbred farms, including
Yule Farm, :Barracks Stud 1 and 2, Lewis Field Farm, The Barracks. All these
are in the breeding business, which Mr. Ashcomb's business would be serving.
Mr. Charles Perry of the Highway Department stated that the radius
on the entrance connection was not adequate; that the entrance closest to
the intersection, which was 12', would have to be 35'. In addition, if the
property was ever developed, the parking lot should be moved back for a
third lane to be built, and a decel lane should be provided for the store.
Mr. Carr stated that he thought there was no room to create a decel lane.
Mr. Perry stated that if the property was ever developed on Route 601
and the other intersection, he would recommend that the existing entrance
be shifted back from the other intersection.
Dr. Moore asked whether the Planning Commission was considering the
entire site plan.
Mr. Carr stated that they were to make the site plan a condition of
approval, if approval was granted.
Mr. Keeler stated that it was already a condition of the approval.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not want to make the proposed change in
the property, and although he agreed that the proposed use was perhaps
better than the present rental use, he felt that the property should remain
as it is.
Mr. Easter stated that he too lived close to the property. He stated
that Mr. Biller had done a fine job in reopening the store and making it
a great asset to the community, but that he could not support Mr. Ashcomb
in his request.
Mr. Peatross stated that he concurred with Mr. Vaster and Mr. Carr.
His reason was that he did not see a definite need for the type of service
that Mr. Ashcomb would be providing. At the present time it seemed to him
that Mr. Ashcomb was establishing his business only in hopes that a demand for
his services would develop.
237
Mr. Reback stated that agricultural service occupations were a subset
of professional offices.
Mr. Easter stated that "professional office" had been defined in a
previous case as the office of a professional person who was licensed by the
state by law, as a doctor, lawyer, etc. Under this definition the Bloodstock
Company would not be considered a professional office.
Mr. Bruce Sherman asked whether there had been great public demand to
change the present Ordinance.
Mr. Thurman stated that the uses permitted by the Ordinance should
not be expanded any further, as there were already so many uses permitted.
Mrs. Ellen Craddock spoke to both the Use Permit and to SP-25-76.
Even though the County Attorney had made more concise the definition of
Agricultural Service Occupation, there was still much decision -making left
to the Planning Commission. She stated that this use should be tied to an
established village center in which public services were alread located ,
and should not be permitted in just any part of the A-1 zone.
This could result in spot zoning.
Paul Sommers stated that it would not be spot zoning, because it was
not a case of rezoning, but of a use to be permitted in an existing zone.
No use could be more congenial to the A-1 zone than an agricultural service
occupation, and if placed under requirement of special permit, each individual
service occupation would have to receive Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Whitley asked if the Use Permit were granted whether other agricultural
service occupations would have to apply for a variance.
Mr. Carr stated that the others would not have to apply for a variance to
locate in an A-1 zone, but that each would require a special permit.
A citizen asked for clarification of the business of the Albemarle
County Bloodstock Company.
Mr. Reback stated that that information would be given when the Special
Permit was discussed.
Mr. Phillips stated that he felt he should hear this information first.
A citizen asked if she could apply for an agricultural service office if
the Use Permit passed.
Mr. Carr answered that she could.
Mr. Easter asked whether the revision of the Ordinance would permit a
use like a farm machinery repair shop by special permit.
Mr. Payne reminded the Commission that such a use would be subject to
approval by the Planning Commission under Special Permit, and that the needs
of different neighborhoods in the A-1 zone might be different.
Mr. Easter asked whether such a business as a fertilizer plant could
be permitted.
Mr. Payne stated that he didn't think such a firm would qualify as a
"service occupation."
1r. Moore stated that there was no definition of "service" in the
Ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that it was not necessary to have such a definition.
Mr. Reback stated that he was willing to restrict the definition of
an agricultural service occupation, which he had written, if it was desired
by the Planning Commission.
Col. Washington stated that it might by helpful to have a machine shop
in certain parts of the A-1 zone. He did not see this possibility as being
objectionable.
Mr. I:eeler stated that such a use would be helpful to a community and there-
fore could be classified as a service occupation.
Mr. Payne stated that in a past case, repair work was permitted in
Esmont on 1/3 acres, because the community had not wa>,ated to have to go to
Charlottesville for repairs.
Mrs. Graves proposed that they limit the definition of agricultural
service occupations to "clerical" occupations.
Mr. Keeler read the definition of "office" from the Ordinance.
Mrs. Graves stated that farm machinery repair shops seemed to doing
well enough in their present locations in the city, so there wasn't
really a problem with people in the A-1 zones not being willing to come
to the city for agricultural services.
Mr. Peatross stated that a distinction -should be made between sale
of services and sale of goods in defining a "service" occupation.
Col. Washington stated that he could not see a need to restrict those
in the A-1 zone from access to those facilities that would service them.
Those who actually make a living from the land need such services.
Mr. Carr stated that he agreed with Col. Washington, but that he did
4ot want to see a proliferation of agriculture -related occupations in the
A-1 zone. A. change in the Ordinance would encourage more business to move to
the A-1 zone than was already attracted there.
Mr. Jones stated that approval of the Ordinance change would be creating
more special permits, and that the Commission should be trying to decrease
the number of these requests rather than increase it.
Mr. Keeler recommended that those services other than just offices
be limited to village centers in the A-1 zone, and to allow the service
Z-01
occupations with just offices by special permit in any part of the A-1 zone.
Mr. Payne stated that it would be more appropriate to consider each
Special Permit on its own merits.
Mr. Reback stated that compatibility of the service and the area in
which it was to be located was a question in each case.
Mr. Payne suggested that the words "affairs of" be deleted from the
definition of "agricultural service occupation," and that "service of"
be substituted.
Col. Washington stated that the economics of each situation, the supply
and demand in each area, would control the businesses which would develop.
Mr. Easter stated that he was concerned with the noise, etc. that would
be created by some occupations.
Mr. Graves stated that she wanted the definition restricted to office
use by service occupations.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he supported the amendment as it stood.
Col. Washington stated that he supported the amendment as it stood.
Mrs. Graves suggested the request be considered as a proposed
zoning change, in which village clusters would be zoned B-1 to include
businesses.
Mr. Carr asked whether a special permit could legally be heard before
the part of the Zoning Ordinance upon which it was dependent was passed
by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne stated that there was precedent in the County for this action.
Mrs. Graves made the motion that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to
include "clerical" occupations in the A-1 zone.
Dr. Iloore seconded the motion.
Mr. Payne stated that the "clerical" was hazily defined, and carried
connotations that would not include the type of professional services
which would be desirable under this Ordinance.
Pair. Jones stated that he would like to keep the wording as "agricultural
service occupation," that it would be discriminatory to limit the amendment
to just "clerical" occupations.
Mrs. Graves motion was not carried. Ayes were Mrs. Graves and Dr. 3ioore.
Nayswere Mr. Barksdale, Mr. Easter, Mr. Carr, Mr. Jones, Mr. Peatross, and
Col. Washington.
Mr. Jdnes made a motion to amend the Ordinance as written.
Dr. Moore asked whether they should first define "service."
242.
Mr. Payne stated that " service' should be substituted for " affairs:"
Mr. Jones made the motion that the Ordinance be amended 'as follows:
2-1-25(39) Agricultural Service Occupation
16-5.1 A ricultural Service Occupation - An occupation in which skills and
expertise in some agriculturally related field are applied to the
service of others engaged in agriculture.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion was carried, with three di,'ssenting votes.
Ayes: Mr. Jones, Mr. Barksdale, Mr. Easter, Mr. Carr, Col. Washington.
Nos: Mrs. Graves, Mr. Peatross, Dr. Moore.
SP-25-76. The Albemarle County Bloodstock Company has petitioned the Board
of Supervisors to permit Agricultural Service Occupations on 0.351 acres
zoned A-1 Agricultural, property on north side of Route 601, near intersection
with Route 676, County Tax Map 43, Parcel 29A, Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from discussion of this matter.
Mr. Keeler read the Staff Report.
Mr. Reback introduced Robert L. Ashcomb, owner of the proposed Albemarle
County Bloodstock Company., He stated that the intent of the Bloodstock Company
was to preserve, not destroy, the rural existence of the area. The Bloodstock
business is one of matching stallions and mares in the thoroughbred industry.
Mr. Ashcomb has the most complete thoroughbred library in central Virginia.
He also uses a computer terminal, from one or both of which he can produce
pedigrees and can match horses on the basis of their bloodlines as well as
their race records, etc. Mr. Ashcomb travels considerably and buys and sells
horses for people. He needs a home base, and would employ only one secretary
at this time. He might employ a second secretary as his business grows. The
property belongs to John Biller, whom Mr. Reback is representing, and was
bought from Dr. Hurt for $112,500. Mr. Biller owns the general store there
and rents some other buildings, including the one which Mr. Ashcomb would be
converting into his business. Mr. Biller must generate some cash flow to
improve the properties and to build them up. He intended to put all income
from the properties back into their maintenance and improvement for the time
being. Although the planning staff objected to the traffic pattern at this
location, Mr. Biller would get Mr. Gloeckner, the engineer and surveyor of
the property, to work out a plan acceptable to the Commission. No additional
traffic would be produced by the business, as most of the work would be done
over the phone. At the present the house is being rented to three students.
Mr. Biller wants to upgrade the corner, and feels Mr. Ashcomb's Bloodstock
Company would be more of an asset than rental property inhabited by transient
students.
Mr. Keeler recommended two conditions to be added to this Special Permit:
1. The exterior of the building not to be changed.
2. Condition #3 from the Staff Report be changed to "Office use shall be
limited to a livestock brokerage operation as proposed by the Albemarle
County Bloodstock Company."
Mr. Carr stated that it was difficult to maintain residential rental
property in a desirable manner, that it was likely to run down. He
stated that Mr. Ashcomb might in fact improve the property. However, he
stated that he wanted to give Mr. Biller a chance to improve the property
in another way, rather than granting an action to further congest the area.
Mrs. Opal David stated that she was also a neighbor and was not happy
about the notion of further congestion of the area. A Mrs. Coburn had also
called her and expressed her concern about this matter.
Mr. Easter moved that SP-25-76 be denied. The following conditions
remain on the Special Permit in the event that the Board of Supervisors
should vote to approve the request:
1. Approval by all state highway and health departments
2. Compliance with submitted site plan marked "Received 4/5/76."
3. Office use shall be limited to a livestock brokerage operation as
proposed by the Albemarle County Bloodstock Company.
4. Parking area and driveway to be gravelled.
5. No change to be made in the exterior of the building.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion that the permit be denied.
The motion carried unanimously.
UP-76-04. Jon A. Erickson has peitioned the Board of Supervisors to
amend Article 5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for
"dome Office" by right in the R-2 Residential Zone.
Mr. Keeler read the Staff Report, adding thatrather than creating a subcategory
of "home occupation," this request could be dealt with by amenaing Article
5 to include Class A occupations.
Mrs. Graves asked that the R-1 zone be excluded from this request
unless the statement of intent was to be changed. She stated that the
statement of intent of the R-2 zone did not necessarily need to be
amended.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt that the home occupation was by its
nature intended to be compatible with the residential neighborhood. If the
"home office" was not offensive, then other home occupation might be
easily as inoffensive. Maintaining the special permit controls would
reserve the right of determining the feasibility of each "'_tome occupation."
Mr. Barksdale stated that he saw no objection to this request.
Mrs. Graves stated that this use was already in effect in many homes.
244-
Mr. Keeler stated that he agreed with Mrs. Graves, that this use
was unpoliceable. The only way of checking on such use was when the business
were licensed and the zoning was checked by the licensing department.
Mr. Payne recommended deferral, with a resolution of intent to consider
the amendment with the broader category "home occupation."
Mr. Erickson stated that his request came about when he tried to obtain
a license for his driving school business; that he wanted only to keep
records and to answer the telephone, to make appointments, etc. in a small
office area of his home.
Mrs. Graves asked whether he owned his home, whether it was a one -
family dwelling.
Mr. Erickson stated he did own his single-family dwelling.
Mr. Carr stated that he saw no problem in approving this amendment.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should recognize "home office"
as a home occupation and extend the amendment.
Mr. Keeler stated that he agreed with Mr. Payne, that he too wanted
to defer the request until the amendment could be redrawn.
Mr. Erickson stated that deferral would place a financial hardship on
him.
Mr. Payne stated that if the present request were to be adopted as
a use by Special Permit, it would be no help to Mr. Erickson as far as
time was concerned, for he would still have to have a Special Permit granted.
Mr. Carr stated that no one would apply for a Special Permit if they
were already operating a business illegally.
Mr. Payne stated that anyone who did not apply for a business license
and thus get caught in the same bind as Mr. Erickson had, could not be
generating much business anyway.
Mrs. Graves stated that the 25% maximum, the percent of which a
"home office" could occupy of a building, should be reduced.
Mr. Peatross stated that he could not support the amendment as it stood.
Dr. Moore stated that he could not support the amendment.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission could not help Mr. Erickson with
his time problem.
Mr. Payne recommended that the Commission pass a resolution of intent
to amend the Ordinance, which would produce the quickest results.
Mr. Barksdale moved to defer the request until the amendment could be
redrawn.
2q�
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
The motion to defer was carried unanimously.
SP-28-76. Michie Tavern Corporation has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to locate a gift, craft, and antique shop on 3.34 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural,
property located off Route 20 South on Route 53 adjoining Michie Tavern,
County Tax Map 77, Parcels 28 and 29, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler read the Staff Report, adding a ninth condition to those
conditions to be attached to approval of the petition:
9. Relocation of the sign located near the eastern entrance.
Mr. Evans stated that the revised parking lots on two levels were not
constructed for the onrush of tourists this season, and asked that the Commission
consider an interim parking lot to be presented at the meeting.
Mr. Carr proposed that condition #1 of the Staff Report, that "Fifty
percent of the inventory value in the store be made in the craft shops,"
be waived.
Mrs. Graves stated that the applicant should be bound to his agreement.
Mr. Payne stated that it was not a binding condition in this case.
Mr. Easter stated that he did not have the same reservations about this
proposal that he had previously.
Mr. Jones asked if the proposed craft shops was still being considered.
Mr. Conte stated that the craft shops would hopefully be completed
in 1978, finances permitting.
Mr. Peatross proposed that the 50% restriction (quoted above), be
kept but with the stipulation that this condition be put on the owner
when the shops were built.
Mr. Jones proposed that other crafts produced throughout the County be added
to the inventory to meet the 50% quota.
Mr. Easter stated that he did not recall the Planning Commission ever
before having told a merchant what he could sell in his store.
Mr. Peatross stated that this was a special case.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the craft shops and the store had been
originally approved only because the 50% condition had been agreed to.
Mrs. Graves stated thatthe owner had agreed that the store would
conform as closely as possible to an 18th century store.
Mr. Carr complimented Mr. Conte on what he had already done with the
store, adding that the sale of the proper merchandise there could make
Z46
or break what had been accomplished there. If conditions placed on the
plan were weak, the site could possibly be ruined when it passed to
another owner.
Mr. Conte stated that they have trained people to do the crafts that
were intended to be done in the craft shops in their homes, and that is
where the crafts presently being sold at the store are done.
Mr. Easter proposed that the 50% quota be kept with the stipulation
that the figure apply when the shops were built.
Mr. Conte stated that he was agreeable to that proposal.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion to relieve the applicant of two of the
conditions placed on the original Special Permit, #228, which had been
granted to Michie Tavern: the 50% condition and the condition that the
plan be subject to review and renewal every three years.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves stated that the Commission should still review the plan
for compliance with the conditions.
The motion made by Mr. Gloeckner was carried unanimously.
Mr. Max Evans stated that the plan which was prepared called for rolling
back of the slope for temporary visibility, that Mr. Tucker had recommended
the moving of the sign for safety and he had agreed.
Mr. Peatross moved approval of SP-28-76, subject to the conditions
in the Staff Report:
1. Llealth Department approval of proper sanitary facilities;
2. All structures are to be designed to fit into the 18th century periods;
3. No sale of any product within the individual craft shops. Sales
restricted to the building housing the country store;
4. No overhead utilities to be installed;
5. Approval by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
6. All proposed exterior lighting to be directed away from adjacent
properties;
7. Signs to be limited to one free-standing sign not to exceed twelve
(12) square feet in area nor exceed ten (10) feet in height. Only- wall
signs shall be permitted on the proposed craft shops and existing country
store and shall be limited in area to one square foot for each one foot
of linear frontage of the structure on which the sign is to be located;
8. Fifty percent of the inventory value in the store to be handcrafted
items.
9. Relocation of the sign located near the eastern entrance.
He included in the motion that condition #2 be amended to state "all structures
to be of 18th century appearance," and that condition #8 be amended to state
"Fifty percent of the inventory value in the store to be handcrafted items,
and/or to be produced in craft shops on the premises if and when such craft
shops are completed."
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
247
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Evans requested that the entire site plan completion date be moved
back one year.
Mr. Barksdale questioned the feasibility of doing this.
Mr. Evans stated thatthe temporary plan could be implemented within
two weeks.
Mr. Perry recommended the temporary plan for safety of ingress and egress.
Mr. Easter asked if the upper entrance could be closed in the temporary pplan..
Mr. Evans stated that this was not feasible.
Mr. Carr asked how much work would be involved in providing the
future eastern (lower) entrance.
Mr. Carr stated that to close the eastern entrance would have serious
negative impact, and asked whether the Highway Department could live with
the situation one more year if the Planning Commission could.
Mr. Perry stated that his major concern was with the interests of the
traveling public, and that the present bad situation had been there several
years already. Since they were all working towards developing safety features
when possible, he did not want to pass the opportunity by because he might
not get a second chance to enforce the regulations. He felt he must put
a time imposition on the developer to make sure that the provisions were
implemented as soon as possible. Although the Highway Department has the
right to close the dangerous entrance, he did not want to do this.
Mr. Jones stated that he travelled the road in question every day, and
found traffic already to be a great hazard. The problem would be compounded
by the bicentennial year, the additional tour buses, etc. The money taken
in by the people that use the tourist areas should be used to provide safety
for these tourists.
Dr. Moore asked if one of the present entrances could be made an exit and
one an entrance.
Mr. Perry stated that this was difficult to enforce and one car going
the wrong way would cause a traffic tie-up.
Mr. Baer asked what Mr. Conte proposed to plant on the lower bank, as
he saw no trees on the plan.
A representative from Monticello asked whether the money for landscaping
would be better spent screening the view from the road to the parking lot
than from the Tavern to the parking lot.
Mr. Evans stated that there was no screening intended in the planting.
Mr. Perry reserved the right to make further comments to Mr. Evans, and
requested a copy of the permanent plan.
0_5�6
Mr. Evans stated that he knew there were unsafe conditions on the
road, but that everything possible had been done.
Mr. Jones made a motion to rely on the discretion of the Highway Department
and if the highway conditions were approved, that the temporary plan be approved
to be implemented in 30 days, and the permanent plan be approved to be
implented by May 31, 1977.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mr. Easter mentioned using calcium chloride to produce
a dust -free surface for the summer, and asked whether that cost had been
compared with other products.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned whether enough shrubbery could be put in
within 30 days, particulary in the lower bay, and stated that the planting
should stop before the curve to insure adequate sighting distance.
Mr. Perry stated that he would like to review the eastern entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if speed limits would be lowered for safety.
Mr. Easter suggested warning signs on the dangerous curve.
Nr. Jones's motion was carried unanimously.
ZMP-76-03.
Mr. Barksdale moved to defer the request until May 18, 1976.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m.
Sec re aryl Robert W. Tucker
9
May 18, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commision held a work session Tuesday,
s
May 18, 1976, 5:00 p.m.,
County Executive's Conference Room, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to discuss possible methods of streamlining
Planning Commission meetings.
Those members in attendance were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; M . Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; M. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Paul
Peatross; Col. William Washington; M. Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Absent was Dr. James Moore.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Carr told the members of the Commission that the main purpose of the
work session is to review procedures of the Commission to determine if these procedures
can be streamlined . Late meetings are ridiculous as far as dealing with the public,
he pointed out. He felt it to be unfair to ask a citizen to be present at 7:30
and then not hear his request until 2-3 hours later. This time delay is also
an inconvenience to interested citizens. He pointed out that these people are
Carr ho
working people, just as are the members of the Commission- the•meetingspedHehat asked
this meeting would result in firm suggestions on abridging
shortcomings
the members to point out to himfthe
thatnrheymeetingsmeetingsmustebeushoorterywithout shortcircuit-
he has as a chairman. He emphasized
and
ing public input. He said sfullhat lnopinion
alsothe
pointednoutcthat sincermanylciaizens
yet the job could be successfully done.
have only one or two dealings with local government in a lifetime, they
dshould
understand
have
Pnot
a good impression of the County. He said that even though many p
all the technical input that
assthose
ri seiheld by the tCommission. Mr. Carr asked cases their opinions of ethe umembers
are formed at such meeting
of the Commission to make worthwhile suggestions concerning this matter.
M. Easter said that in his opinion in no way has the chairman elongated the
meetings, in fact, quite the contrary. He noted that meetings move along much
more rapidly with a professional presiding - this could be noted by some of the
recent public hearings regarding the Comprehensive Plan. He said that in the last
five years, due to much growth and development, citizens have been hit with more
paper work when dealing with County Government. He said that one of the reasons
for this is to have a record of business that citizens conduct with the County and
in order that all matters could be voiced and aired. He stated that in most cases
the length of time that has been added to the Commission meetings has come from '
rules and regulations, etc, from outside the Commission.
Mr. Jones suggested that one method of streamlining might be to have cards
at the meeting in order that people could sign up to speak and note their individual
concerns on the card, to be passed to the Commission before the meeting actually
begins.
the
M . Tucker said that he had four items
Thethat
first could possiblysbewtohestablish
Commission regarding possible streamlining.
by-laws for public hearings, which could be set forth at the beginning of each meeting.
This suggestion would mean that the staff would make its presentation,
then the applicant, the public ( with only one opportunity to address its
concerns to the Commission ), the applicant's summation or rebuttal, and
finally the Planning Commission action.
A second suggestion would be to set a time limit for each item, and
the time schedule could possibly be structured by the staff. Time limits for
each speaker from the public could be set. He noted that the Commission perhaps
does not do justice to the citizens whose requests come up toward the end of
the meeting.
A third suggestion would be to request comments ahead of time from interested
citizens regarding a request. Comments at the Planning Commission would then be
left to additional input that had not been previously submitted to the staff ( which
would in turn be forwarded to the members of the Commission prior to the actual meeting ).
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that this was a very good suggestion. Comments received
in advance can many times mean questions being answered that might not be answered
at the actual meeting, since the technical advisors would not be present.
Mr. Easter agreed with Mr. Gloeckner.
Col. Washington pointed out that one problem with this might be that one
comment sometimes leads to an interested party thinking of another question.
Mr. Payne said that one thing that the city does is have those who support
the request speak first. In most cases this gets all the evidence on the floor.
Then opposition could be presented. The end of the discussion would be used for
clearing up any inconsistencies. A waiver of the rules could be accomplished
by a 2/3 vote, or a unanimous vote of the Commission.
Mrs. Graves said that speakers signing up to speak would even be helpful.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that if individuals sign up at the beginning of the
meeting to speak then the amount of time alloted to one request could be divided up.
Mr. Keeler feared that if this is a policy that those with questions might
align themselves with the opposition. He also felt this might be misconstrued at
a later date to mean that x number spoke in favor of the request while y number
spoke against the request.
Mr. Tucker said that he would also appreciate the Commission telling the
staff what they could do to streamline the meetings.
helpful. Mr. Easter stated that noting those sites that should be viewed is very
Mr. Barksdale said that sometimes he views the site with the applicant.
Col. Washington said that he himself does not feel that he needs to view all
the sites.
Mr. Carr said that he had thought of the possibility of having three standing
committees to view various sites. He stated that the Commission needs to rely on
fellow members' judgements.
Z5(
Mrs. Graves suggested that as a convenience to the staff that a certain time
might be set aside each week for viewing the site. Then if anyone wants to have
a staff member accompany him, a time will already be set.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the topo could be super -imposed on the tax map that
is sent as part of the staff reports.
Mr. Tucker said that this would be possible in most cases.
Mr. Peatross said that anyone who submits a comment to the staff could be
limited to additional comments at meetings. Also fewer time consuming items
should be placed on the same agenda.
Mr. Tucker explained that sometimes it is impossible to judge the length
of time an item might take until the staff begins to review it. He explained that
in most cases the item has by that time been advertised for a certain date.
Me. Easter suggested that the Planning Commission meet every Tuesday evening.
Mr. Carr said that information from various authorities is needed before
the actual Planning Commission meeting or else someone representing these technical
groups should be present at meetings to answer questions that might arise.
He again pointed out that he does not wish citizens to have a bad impression of
County Government and that a good impression of the workings of the Commission could
give a good impression of the County.
Mrs. David suggested inserting a reply -form into the letters mailed to
%Woo' adjacent property owners for any comments they have to be mailed back to the
Planning Department.
Mrs. Graves expressed the desire to have the form letter mailed to adjacent
property owners re -worded.
Mr. Jones suggested notifying -various citizen groups reasons for streamlining
meetings in order that they will understand that it should be more favorable to
citizens.
Col. Washington suggested assigning a certain time to each item of the agendas.
Mr. Tucker said that in some cases this is impossible due to deferrals, withdrawals,
etc.
Mrs. David said that even so, it would be helpful to have an approximate time
schedule for each item.
Mr. Carr suggested that initially this should be decided by the staff. Then
at each Planning Commission meeting for the next 6 months or so, a flyer could be
available explaining the reasons for change in the agenda.
At this time, the chairman decided to move to another topic that might assist
in streamlining agendas,
Possible staff review of site plans:
Mr. Carr stated that if site plan approval is to be done administratively,
Z-Sz
site plan review meetings must be strengthened, including assuring that members
of the Planning Commission and all technical people involved will be present.
He also noted that. before any definite decision can be made on this, Planning 140)
Commission recommendations will have to be passed on to the Board of Supervisors
for their action on such a change of policy.
Mrs. Graves told the members of the Commission that since last September,
41 site plans and 76 subdivision requests have been considered by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Carr said that according to some tabulations that he has done, the
Commission spends approximately 30-350 of its time on site plans.
Mr. Tucker said that'.the staff feels that the Commission should spend more
time on actual planning matters rather than reviewing technical matters.
Mr. Carr said that this is true - that members of the Commission, for the most
part, are not qualified to tear apart the work of a professional employed to do these
site plans. He pointed out that the site plan ordinance is straightforward, that
applicants should meet these requirements, and that if any member of the Commission,
the applicant, or any interested citizen has questions, the administrative decision
could be appealed to the Planning Commission. He also pointed out that the Commission
is in a delicate position when it tries to make technical decisions regarding site
plans. He also felt that the site plan ordinance should fits the needs of the citizens
of Albemarle County.
Mrs. Graves said that when she reviewed the minutes of the meetings of
the site plan committee, that 15 site plans did not even meet the clerical
requirements of the ordinance. She said that in her opinion, the applicants
are not complying with the ordina:-3,7e. She said that if the applicants did comply
with the ordinance, the Commission would have little work to do in their review of
the plans.
Mr. Carr said prior to be beginning of the meeting that he had been confronted
with the idea that developers had been in contact with him regarding turning over
site plan review to the staff for administrative approval. He stated that this is
not the case at all, that for several months he has been thinking that this might
be a possible way to streamline the meetings, especially since the requirements for
a site plan are technical in nature. He said that he suggested this possibility
on his own volition. He did repeat that anyone Planning Commissioner, citizen,
or applicant should be offered the possibility of appeal to the Commission.
Mrs. David said that she has attended several site plan committee meetings,
that Mrs. Scala points out to the applicant where the site plan is deficient. However,
many times the site plan is still incomplete by the time that it gets to the Commission.
She felt that a second meeting of the site plan review committee is needed. If at this
time no citizen complains and if the staff feels the application is complete, it could
be approved. Otherwise, the site plan should be forwarded to the Commission for its
review.
Mr. Barksdale said that the staff should have the responsibility of following
the ordinance as written. Any variations should be presented to the Commission for
its review and then the Commission could use its own discretion.
Mr. Easter stated that he wishes things done properly, and feels that the
ordinance should be complied with "to the letter." He stated that he has not been
contacted by developers regarding this matter, either. He pointed out that the method
G
for processing site plans now means that the staff has to handle them twice.
Mr. Carr asked the method for applying for approval of a site plan.
Mr. Tucker explained the process noting that Mrs. Scala receives it,
reviews it relative to the ordinance, sends copies to the membersof
the
site
ut to
plan review committee, holds the site plan review meeting, gives
the applicant or his representative, then moves it on to the Commission for action.
Mr. Carr pointed out that there is no corrective stage between the applicant's
submission and the time it is sent to the committee.
Mrs. Scala said that this has been impossible, since she receives site plans
right up to 5:00 p.m. on the date of the deadline. The next morning the site plans
are forwarded to the site plan review committee.
Mr. Barksdale said that in this case more time is needed between the deadline
for filing and site plan review committee meeting.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that all corrections should be done at the review committee
meeting in order that the applicant and his representative could both respond to
technical questions.
Mrs. David said that an approval period is needed after the site plan review
meeting.
Mr. Tucker said that the only problem might be with public input at only
one site plan review meeting.
This meeting is used to iron out any problems, and
even then it is often necessary to have conferences with the technical personnel.
He also noted that more input is needed from the technical advisers.
Mr. Carr said that whatever system works, he wants it to work properly.
Col. Washington said that he is still concerned about public input at
a technical level. He said that he feels this belongs at the Planning Commission level.
Mr. Jones said that the person preparing the plan shoufed° more of trevisionsharelegwork"
rather than relying on the staff to do it for him. That way fewer
needed later.
Mrs. David said that she does not want public input at a technical level.
in
on
If there are no objections that would requireroved. PShensaideoalso, slthatetwo `,,membersthe
site plan could be administratively app
of the Planning Commission should attend this site plan review committee meeting.
Mrs. Graves said that all Planning Commission members need a copy of each site
plan review committee agenda.
scussion on the matter at this point, and the meeting
There was no further di
adjourned for a brief dinner.
no
i
eertW. Tucker, Jr.ary
G D`t-
May 18, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting Tuesday,
May 18, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members in attendance were Mr- David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter
Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Leslie Jones;
Col. William Washington; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Absent were Mr. Paul Peatross and Dr. James Moore.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was
present.
At the request of the chairman, Mr. Easter moved that the minutes of the
April 27 and May 4 meetings of the Planning Commission be deferred until the next
meeting. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Newtown final plat:
Mr. Easter moved that action be deferred on this plat until June 15, 1976,
at the request of the applicant.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Jones, carried unanimously.
West Leigh Redivision Final plat:
ion be deferred on this plat until June 15, 1976,
Mr. Barksdale moved act
at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
zMP-76-03. David Hale - rezoning request from R-2 to B-1 for 0.5 acres:
Mr. Keeler, in the staff report, told the Commission that this had been
d of
deferred in order that the Planning oZonmme1tolon and theZoningrOrdinancerviThis hassors lbeen
act on adding the Commercial ffice
approved by the Board of Superoisors of theand is now request fromrR-2ftohCO,raatherethanhto Bole
the staff recommended approval
Mr. Easter moved approval of zMP-76-03 for CO zoning.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously with no discussion.
55
D and N Development Corporation final plat:
Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that action had been deferred in order
for Mr. Prendergast, an objecting adjacent property owner, to get with the developer
to possibly purchase a strip of land and resolve his objection to the proposed
easement. Mrs. Scala said that no new developments had taken place and that the
matter was at the place it had been at the last meeting.
If approved, the staff still recommends the following conditions:
1. Width and location of existing right-of-way to be spelled out;
2. Note on plat: No further subdivision along this 50' easement without Planning
Commission approval.
Mr. Ken Montaro, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant
did negotiate with Mr. Prendergast but that the purchasers and sellers could not
agree so no mutual agreement had been reached.
Mr. Prendergast said that he did reach an agreement, but it later fell through.
He said that on the afternoon of the meeting that he had learned that there are plans
to develop 23 acres. He asked that the line be clarified as well as the 23 acres
being developed at a later date.
Mr. Montaro said that it had been agreed that almost one-half acre would
be sold to Mr. Prendergast subject to approval of the plat by the Board of Supervisors
and the purchasers. However, this had not been agreeable to the purchasers.
Mr. George Coles said that he represents the Byroms, and is available
for any questions the Commission might have in regard to the purchasers.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the County will probably be adverse to penalizing
Mr. Prendergast if the road can be situated without dumping it into a hole.
Mr. Coles stated that the road is in the best location. He said that if Mr.
Prendergast wishes to come forth with the money needed to move the road, that his
clients might be interested.
Mr. Morris Foster asked that condition #1 as recommended by the staff be
deleted.
Mrs. Scala said that this width needs to be determined, even if it is found
to be as little as eight feet. After two houses are built the applicant will have
to have site plan approval for any additional houses.
Mr. Foster said that all that can be done is to specify the current road bed.
Mr. Keeler cautioned the Commission about approving the plat if it would give
double frontage to Lexington.
It was determined through a discussion that there was no way to solve Mr.
Prendergast's objection.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff plus the following additional conditions:
3. Waiver of road frontage;
4. site plan approval necessary if more than two houses built on back;
4 J/0
5. Note: Approval was given due to extraordinary topography.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Easter.
It carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Jones dissenting.
Buck Mountain final plat:
In the staff report, the Commission was informed that the homeowners'
agreements have been reviewed by the County Attorney and require minorchanges
which
have been agreed to by Mr. Landess. Preliminary Health Department approval
been
received. The Highway Department has made recommendations for the improvement
of Route 601 and 667 which the applicant has agreed to accomplish prior to the
development of the interior road between lots 21 and 22.
Approval was recommended subject to the following conditions:
1. Subject to all conditions of approval of SP-450;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance permits;
3. All entrances to be located as shown on preliminary site plan and as indicated
on final plats.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to these three conditions plus the following
forth condition:
4. Appl
icant must accomplish recommendations of Highway Department for the improvement
of Route 601 and 667 Prior to the development of the interior road between
between lots 21 and 22.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Burruss Land and Lumber Company request for widening of 20' easement to
serve 62.5-acre parcel and 67.7-acre residue - Route 623:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for the widening of an existing 20'
7 acre
e.
roperty
easement to 25' to serve new
5 Thestaff found noproblem
epel and .rwithuthisPrequest,is
located at the end of Route623.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat as submitted.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously.
Whittington final plat - Route 631 South:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary plat was deferred in order for the
Health Department to specifiy which lots would not be buildable so that the plat
can be reorganized into buildable lots. It was also deferred to have the spite
strip eliminated along the entrance road, lane with the Highway Department. and to work out the turnaround and decel
The final plat has been submitted and reviewed by the site technical committee.
This final shows 35 lots, with a minimum size of 2.0 acres and an average size of
2.2 acres. There are individual wells and septic systems. The Health Department
cannot give final approval to lots until houses are sited. The applicant has agreed
to condition sale of lots on their approval.
The spite strip has not been eliminated. The turnaround has been moved
back from the property line. Applicant has agreed to approval conditioned upon
a decel lane.
The staff stated that approval should be conditional upon the following:
1. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval, including a deceleration lane;
2. Grading permit;
3. Eliminate spite strip;
4. Sale of lots conditioned upon final Health Department approval.
Mr. Barksdale questioned why the spite strip had not been removed.
Mr. Jones moved the request be denied since the spite strip is still shown
on the plat.
Mr. Carr stated that before he received the motion, he would first like to
hear from the applicant.
Mr. Breeden presented a previously approved plat and stated that he is
agreeable to moving over lots 9 and 10 on this plat and putting in the entrance
at lot 8.
Mrs. Scala stated that she would like this to go through site review again.
Mr. Payne stated that Mrs. Scala was correct, since this would be a modification
of a previously approved plat. Then the revised plat of Section 1 will have to be
presented to the Commission for action.
Mrs. Graves asked why the right-of-way could not be 601.
Mr. Breeden stated that a decel lane had been requested on property not
owned by him, and that it might be impossible to acquire this land if the price
is too much.
Mrs. Graves also questioned the fire marshal's concern of no water in the
area for fire protection.
Mrs. Scala explained that fire hydrants cannot be required with individual wells -
Mr. Barksdale stated that he could support the request if the entrance were
properly shown and if the spite strip is eliminated.
Mr. Easter agreed with Mr. Barksdale.
L >C:
Mr. Barksdale moved action be deferred until May 25, in order that the
plat could be re -drawn.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the room.
Apostolic Lighthouse site plat - Route 649 - Proffit Road:
The staff reported that a church is proposed in the existing structure.
The Highway Department has recommended widening the existing entrance to 30', and
providing a decel lane, which would require dedic tion of is a.blethe
tfront
meeproperttheserecon►mendations.
which the applicant does not own. The applicant
Since this is a temporary entrance until the future roadis
developed,
the staff
feels that a decel lane is not necessary at this time, provided
ce be
eliminated when the future road is developed.
Approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Written Health Department approval of septic;
2. When future road is developed, driveway must be moved from Route 649 to location
on future road.
Mr. Hale, the applicant, stated that he has discussed with the adjacent owner
about dedicating the property for a decel lane and he has refused.
Col. Washington asked about the future road shown on the plat.
Mrs. Scala explained that this is what was intended to be an entrance to
Hollymeade.
is a road now for all practical purposes, since
Mr. Easter stated that this
it has been graveled,
Mrs. Graves observed that this parcel is approximately 2.2 acres. She pointed
out to the Commission that the Zoning Administrator has ruled that any A-1 use can
be permitted on a piece of property that has an existing residence. She cautioned
that this should be further investigated.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale; carried unanimously.
Ivy Brook final plat - Route 676:
This plat of 6 lots zoned A-1 Agricultural has an average lot size of 2.47
acres and a minimum size lot of 2.0 acres.
The
plat
shows
velyeand a seunder oseparate
Route 76.
( Parcel A was previously divided approved
glewood Drive - a privately maintained access
ownership. ) One lot - #6 fronts on Tan
easement.
The Health Department has given preliminary approval and is unable to
give final approval until the houses have been sited.
The staff recommended that due to the steep slopes on to
to the present moratorium on building in the South Rivanna watershedaon slopes
of 25% or greater, that lot #6 be combined with another lot at the present time.
Approval should be conditional upon the following:
I. Grading permit needed if over 10,000 square feet or two or more lots are developed
at the same time;
2. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval;
3. Owner's signature notarized;
4. Combining lot #6 with another lot.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that lot #6 is separated
from the other lots by a stream. He suggested a detailed site plan at the time lot #6
is developed, if developed before the other lots.
Mr. Herbert Tull questioned Mr. Foster regarding the name of the owner of
the property.
Mr. Foster said that the owner's name is Lemoine, and is presently out
of the country serving in the Marine Corps.
Dr. Larry Meem, adjacent property owner, reminded the Commission that there
is the question of 5-acre zoning in the area. He stated that residents of that
area feel that their land is 5-acre zoning, because of the Master Plan, even though
there is no 5-acre zone in the zoning ordinance. Page 11 of the Master Plan states
that this area is to be a historic and scenic zone and is to be preserved. Page 86
of the Master Plan shows a map of the Ivy area, which also designates it as a conservation
area. In addition, he passed out a clipping form a 1970 Daily Progress article,
which points out that this area is to have 5-acre minimum zoning. He cited Section 3.6 of
the Subdivision Ordinance which states that subdivision of land iG to hP in line with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Herbert Tull, adjacent owner, underlined the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
He also asked if an erosion control plan has been submitted as required by the subdivision
ordinance.
Mrs. Scala stated that an erosion control plat is not necessary if the lots
are sold separately.
Mr. Carr also pointed out that no roadway has to be constructed in order to
have a subdivision.
Mr. Tull felt that written Health Department approval is necessary. Lots
5 and 6 do not have desirable building lots, and he also felt that the floodplain
should be shown on the plat. He felt that lot #6 is not presentable for any
structure, since according to his calculations, there is only 10,000 square feet
of land that is not over 25% slope. Since the applicant is not a resident of
Albemarle County ( he explained his inability to get in touch with the applicant
in Norfolk and did not realize that he is out of the country ) he suggested that
the "mystery man" personally apply for the request.
Mr. Ronnie Critzer stated that there is a letter from the Health Department
granting preliminary approval, and final is not given until houses are sited.
Mr. George Bailey , stating that he has been a resident of the area for dition
of
years, cautioned approval of the suld mean more driveway along ubdivision on the basisfthe poor con
nwhich already
yea
the roads. He stated that this wo
has poor visibility.
resented a map showing what residents of the area feel
Mr. Buddy Thatch, p Hancock has polled
is the best sort of dareaopandtthat out offor the e28 flyerslsent sout, 26 have responded
all residents in the He asked that the subdivision
that they wish the area to be developed in 5-acre onsuggestion that it be subdivided into larger
be sent back to the applicant with the
acreage lots.
he conditions of the roads in that area, pointing
Mrs. Larry Meem stressed t
out that six more lots would make a notable difference in traffic• e attached sheets ).
Mrs. Mary Alice Lewis spoke in opposition to the request
se
Mrs. Martha Selden questioned the slopes in regard to buildable lots. The
road conditions are also a concern to her.
Mr. Foster reminded the Commission of the present zoning of the land, and
pointed out that all the present laws have been met.
Mr. Keeler pointed out to the Commissionor rivers in the counthat floodplain studies mentioned ty. The fact that
in the subdivision ordinanceare othe
his not part of the moratorium ordinance,
houses cannot be built on 25 %0 or greater
it is a permanent regulation.
use on
Mrs. Graves suggested that lot #6 could accdoesate notadintate thetlocationhe
pointed out that the slope of a piece he property
of septic fields. Another concern to herstatedlot
thatand
thethe
ordinancethat
shouldpreviously
a.mended
iven administrative approval. She erty cannot be presented
been g parcel that adjoining pro
P
so that once a lot has been cut from a P
for
subdivision for another year. She said that she cannot support a 6 lot subdivision
on this property.
larger lots had been discussed as a possibility.
Mr. Barksdale asked if
Mrs. Scala said that she has not discussed this with the applicant's representative.
Mr. Barksdale moved action be deferred until this possibility could be investigated,
Department input regarding the entrances to the lots,
until there could be yco tern for lots 1, 5, and 6 in the organization of the
and he noted he has special
subdivision.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr said that he feels that the applicant should be made aware of
He said that he could support the motion because
the wishes of his neghboesaxtmen
of the need for Highway Department input.approval
Mr. Jones asked that the Health. Department be asked to give final
on the lots.
courage the Highway Department to be more
Mr. Foster asked the staff to en
prompt in their comments.
G(" /
Lewis Hill West ( Vinton Court ) final plat - Route 678:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a plat for 7 lots zoned A-1, with a minimum
size of 2.0 acres and an average size of 2.0 acres.
She gave a history of the zoning of the property:
1. Preliminary plat approved by Planning Commission on July 15, 6 conditions listed on plat; 1974, subject to
2. Restricted roads approved by Board.on August 28, 1974;
3. SP 382 for central well approved by Board on August 28, 1974, with conditions;
4. Grading permits issued on May 13, 1975;
5. Stowe Court final approved on September 2, 1975; signed on November 13, 1975;
6. Total of 79 units approved by Board to be served by central well of SP-382 -
November 12, 1975.
The final plat for Vinton Court was not approved at the same time as Stowe
Court because road had not been graded and a moratorium was in effect.
Mrs. Scala felt the following points should be discussed:
1. Restricted roads are not longer permitted. Vinton Court will have to be
constructed to state standards;
2. Central well is approved to serve 79 units. There are presently 57 connections.
The Building Department is keeping a record of permits issued and after
79 connections, no more permits can be issued on the central well. Meriwether
Hills has 77 lots; Lewis Hill West ( Stowe Court ) has 7 lots; Lewis Hill
East Section 1 has 7 lots or a total of 91 approved lots. The Board is
going to discuss their requirement of 1 gal/min on June 9.
If approved, the plat should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Vinton Court constructed to state standards;
2. No building permits will be issued on central well beyond approved 3. County Engineer approval of waterline sizes to serve Vinton Courtt.number;
Mr. Landess, representing the applicant, stated that he feels a hardship is
being imposed since the lots on Vinton Court have been commited to a buyer. There
have been no changes from the preliminary plat, which had received Planning Commission
approval. He felt that to change the rules in midstream is a hardship to the owner.
He reminded the Commission that it is possible to extend the time for a preliminary plat.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the road could remain a restricted road, even though
the Board did away with this sort of road in December, 1975.
Mr. Payne stated that there is now no standard for restricted roads.
He also remarked that the Board would have to move to accept this dedication.
Mr. Landess quoted Section 7.7 of the subdivision ordinance about extending
the time of a preliminary.
Mr. Payne further explained that the number of lots rises from the special
permit regarding water from the central well.
There was a long discussion regarding the number of lots a
of the central well. The question was whether to a Paroled for use
well could accomodate only 79 residences, Parole additional lots when the
hem
1976
A..e Planning Commissio��
Albemarle County
State of Virginia
Commission "embers:
I appeal to you to NOT approve the Subdivision Plat "Ivy Brook"
located on State Houte 676 near Ivy for the following reasons:
1. In essence, Lot ##6 has slopes that are equal to or greater than
2 ;� ever ,:here -; �ilui n: 1 s fa "bi'w3en on such lard.
5 yl �T,
:-ref.: ALBE AHLE Co?1I'?"'_'Y SOIL E OSION Alv D C014__ CL 0�.>INANCE,
APPEN=-)IX A, Section 1
2. Route 676 has a grade of 13,,13 in front of Lot #3 and 10.4� in
front of Lot #4. Street grades are not to exceed 8`0 (by Commis-
sion discretion up to 10%). :,,ill you compound one infraction
by permitting access to a portion of the road already unsafe?
3ef.: SAFETY Section -4-1 of LAND STT3DIVISION AN1)
Dr;VELOPiENi O ZDT S`�REEf° GRADE - Section
4-6 of LAND ... OHDINNANCE
3. is not Lot #1 "peculairly shaped" on the side next to the un-
marked lot which was a part of this land being subdivided? It
is certainly not too late to straighten the East side lot line.
Ref. • L0,11S, S`APES - Secti on 3-19 of 01-1 D I NAN. CE
4. Width of Lot 41 is barely 100 feet as a result of its peculair
sha.}e. `,hat is the justification for this waiver of provision
of the Z0114I vG O-RDI AY'CE?
Ref.. ofONTAGE AlbemarleTCountty. Seection 2-4 also SectiolnsN16-32ORDINANCE
and
16-56.
5. The intended 5 acre zoning of this area was supported by the
16 neighboring families in a letter to the Board of Supervisors
dated 14 April 1976. A copy of letter and nair,es of signees has
been presented to the Planning Commission -
Ref. : MUT UAL RESPONSIBILITY - Section 3-6 LAND... ORDI-
NAr C Zoning 1.::..p 1nowing Agricultural_ 5 for
area (ranging or). fi-�-st floor wall of County
Planning Office as recently as 7 I,iay 1976)
6. Isn't it time that the Planning Commission inform_ the Health
Department to plan for subdivisions and not just individual
lots. "...percolation tests should be made but their result
shall not be presumptive, prima facia or conclusive evidence
as to the suitability for effluent absorption." Westmoreland
and 400dbrook are examples of saturation of the ground by
effluent after passing the simple lot percolation test.
Ref.: SOII, EVILUATION - Pg. 10 - IN"'OTON R={,1GARDING
THE HEGULATIONS 03 -'ham BOARD Or HEPLT'rt, COI%�.O11--
WBALT1 OF VI:�GINIA, Effective 1 July 1971.
In
«,3
The planning Commission
18 F,;ay 1975 2
e the
It seems reasonable for the tentnofgthe�nvario s legalmission to kdocuments
iniative in upholding, the In f PrvlSors to
Is it not an undue uu^ n }:r,r t'le-`joard o-� ; up.._
cite. r 4 Vi,e several sections of the yriT >
be asked, once again, to refer to
SU_3JI,;ISION• • •U- Iigh'-CB and turn dorm anoth
er subdivision when Vou
are charged with planning.
encl: letter to Board of Supervisors
dated 14 April 1976
Very truly yours,
IYiary 'Alice Lewi s
P.C. -Box 108
Ivy, Virginia
22945
CM
- —_ 14 April 1976
The Board of Supervisors
County of Alber,_arle
State of Virginia
M
Gentlemen:
Several of us who live along Route 676 are concerned with the
possibility of the area being changed from that AGRICULTURE 5
zoning which you proposed last year to subdevelopment type.
We request -a statement from you of the intention to maintain
the two an -&-one-half mile region along Route 676, between State
Route 250 and the Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, at the
present 5 acre minimum lot size for private dwellings.
We know of your efforts to formulate an over-all zoning ordinance
but ask your help immediately to adopt the general guidelines
of the "Master Plan" along our road to prevent subdivisions from
springing up at random without any over-all plan.
Very truly yours,
(signatures of the following
are attached)
MR. & MRS. DAV-ID W. LEWIS MR. & MRS. HERBERT G. TULL, III
MR. & MRS. J.L. MEEM
MR. & MRS. RONALD S. HANCOCK
DR. & MRS. E. DARRACOTT VAUGHAN
MR. & MRS. HAROLD F. UMSTOTT
MRS. MARGARET TRENCH
MR. & MRS. DAVID MORRIS
DR.-& MRS. R. BRENT HARRISON
CM
MR. & MRS. RAMSEY MARTIN
MR. & MRS. COLLETT M. THACH
MR. & MRS. JORDAN C. CHURCHILL
MR. & MRS. JAMES C. DUNSTAN
DR. & MRS. WILLIAM B. POLLARD
MR. ROBERT C. ASHCOM
MR. & MRS. W. E, MCCLENAHAN
G�5
Mr. Carr stated that the applicant had made no attempt to renew the
However, the length of the road n ed not her himr and he
be more attractive
preliminary plat. d, would
felt that a restricted road, as it was originally
than a road constructed to state standards.
Mr. Easter said that the road should be dead -ended.
Mr. Cushman, owner of the property, explained the roads. He said that he
is party to a moral contract to sell all14 lots to one developer. He also stated
that a state road will be very expensive.
ted road
pecial
Mr. Payne reminded the Commirestricted roadion that a stitcwould haveatonbesdedicated
status. If built as a traditional
to public use. The Planning Commission needs to decide whether this or an Basemen
would be more desirable for the subdivision.
Mr. Carr asked if Vinton Court should be approved.
Mrs. David pointed out that with an easement there is the Homeowners' Agr
eement.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Vinton Court constructed to former restricted road standards ( prior to 12/9/75 ),
like Stowe Court was constructed; roved number;
2. No building permits will be issued on central well beyond approved
3. County Engineer approval of water line sizes to serve Vinton Court;
4. Lots to be served by a central well;
5. Homeowners Agreement to cover the restricted road.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. any
Mrs. Graves questioned what will be done with/other subdivision requesting
restricted roads.
Mrs. Scala urged the Commission to clearly state the reasons for approving
the roads built to former restricted road standards.
Mr. Carr stated that be supports the motion because: Vinton Court on the
1. it shows good faith on the part of the County
in approving
preliminary;
2. at that time a restricted road was desirable for the development, and circumstances
have not changed; property will be more attractive than with
3. because of the restricted road the pro P
a road built to state standards.
He further noted that he will not be bound on this in other cases.
The vote to approve the subdivision was 6-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Lewis Hill East Section Two final plat - Route 678:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report noting
that this plat shows 3 lots zoned A-1
cres and an average size of 2.1 acres. Lot 3 was
with a minimum size of �.Q a
previously approved administratively.
Parcels A and B were approved by the Commission, and are served by temporary
easements. 140)
Approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Health Department preliminary approval;
2. Highway Department approval, including location of future roads and sufficient
dedication to allow for decel lanes;
3. Grading permit if over 10,000 square feet or two or more lots developed at the
same time;
4. Residue to be shown on the plat ( 158.28 acres );
5. No builidng permits will be issued on teh central well be and the 79 a
6. County Engineer approval of water line sizes from the central well. Pprove units;
Mr. Jones stated that a statement is needed from the Health Department.
Mrs. Scala noted that the lots are sized that they can accomodate an individual
well and septic system.
Mr. Carr said that at some appropriate time the Commission must stop approving
lots for the central well. He pointed out to the applicant that when some sort
of agreement is reached between him and the Board of Supervisors, the Planning
Commission needs to discuss the water problem.
Mr. Cushman said that he sold lot #3 and it was approved administratively.
Closing on that lot is contingent on Planning Commission approval of this plat.
He said that as far as he is concerned the county may approve more lots, but
more building permits can't be issued past the 79 approved for the central well.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the above conditions
suggested by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
"Ayes" - Barksdale; Gloeckner; Easter; Washington.
"Nos"
- Carr; Jones; Graves.
Executive Programs Center site plat - Universityof Virginia:
The chair deferred discussion and action on this site plan until May 25.
Ivy Farms Phase II - final plat:
Mrs, Scala noted that this property is located at the end of Route 657 ( Lamb's
Road ). There are 24 lots proposed, zoned A-1. The minimum size is 2.05 acres with
an average lot size of 3.69 acres. The grading permit was issued for New Shack
Mountain Road in June, 1975. No grading permit was obtained for Ipswich Place.
Staff advised the applicant to obtain a grading permit, otherwise the plat for
Ipswich Place could not be approved. The Soil ERosion Committee has stated that
they cannot approve it since it infringes on the 500' moratorium line. They would only
approve it if revised road �`�i
1 ns wer
the road to keep it out ote mora$-or
ri?&����.
a similar to Lake Hills, which shortened
Therefore, the staff only
recommended approval at this time of those lots
having frontage on Shack Mountain Road.
Approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Written Health Department preliminary approval;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval and maintenance bond;
All residences must maintain 200' setback from Ivy Creek;
3. 4. Waiver for residences
outmu is neeproperty and road;
needed - Parcel X - because of shape of eloped at the same time.
5.
Additional grading permit needed if two or more lots are dev
No building permitted on 250 or greater slopes;
6. Vicinity sketch shows wrong route number.
She noted that there are notes on the plat regarding no further subdivision
Commission approval. Also, the commission should note
without further Planning Creek.
that Mr. Locher will now have access to this side of Ivy
Mrs. Graves questioned how Ipswich Place happened to already be constructed.
Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that he had talked to the
Zoning Administrator who had suggested grading only 10,000 square feet at a time
and then stabilizing before continuing to grade. He stated that stabilization
had been achieved by
seeding and putting down stone.
enting the applicant, said that this
statement
Mr. Jim Hill, also repres
Department
was correct. He stated that he has also dosaostsed with the Highway
clearing and grubbing.
Lamb's Road and the applicant is willing
Ponds have been put in to act as sedimentation ponds.
that she needs a grading permit for Ipswich Place in
Mrs. Scala said
order to sign the plat.
eceived bad advice from the
Mr. Payne stated that the applicant has r
Zoning
Administrator regarding grading.
Mrs. Scala also told the applicant that road plans are needed in order to
get a grading permit.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the final plat subject to the g conditions
those
the staff plus the following two conditions, and noting Y
recommended by approved at this time:
lots fronting on Shack Mountain Road were being pP
7. Grading permit must be secured;
g. Parcel X to be part of lot #1 if not sold to adjacent owner.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimosuly.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m•,
there being no further business.
e0ert
W. Tucker, Jr., S reta
z4.-ly
May 25, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
May 259 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia to consider a site plan and a subdivision request.
Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy
Barksdale; Dr. James Moore; Col. William Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones;
and
ner;
Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent were Mr. David Carr, Chairman;
11r. Kurt Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Mr. Easter acted as
Chairman.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Approval of minutes:
Mr. Easter stated that the minutes of April 27, 1976, stood approved
unless there were any corrections to be made by the Commissioners.
The minutes of April 27 were approved.
that the minutes of May 4, 1976, stood approved
Mr. Easter stated
s to be made by the Commissioners.
unless there were any correction
Mr. Easter requested that the pages of the minutes be numbered in the
future.
Mr. Keeler stated that the pages would be numbered.
The minutes of May 4 were approved.
Mr. Easter stated that he wished theminto thestaPlanning hat Commission's
om is sion's
work session of May 18 on streamlining proceduresirman
rr
had asked whether any of the Commissionersfelt
thetthat PlanningaConmiissionhe as ameetings
had done or was doing anything
to unnecessarily. In answer to this Mr. Easter had stated that he did not
think Mr. Carr had conducted the meetings in an unnecessarily drawn -out
manner.
Mr. Easter *Wade an additional change in the minutes of May 18 regular
leman's name from
meeting of the planning Commission to change a gent
Mr. Full to Mr. Tull.
Mr. Barksdale stated that the minutes of the May
liregular
ed meeting
should state that the final approval of Ivy Farms plat nc
of only the one main road, not the entire plan.
The minutes of May 18 were approved.
OR
page 2
May 25
2& �
Whittington final plat:
plat including decel lane,
Mrs. Scala stated that this item pplidantrtodsubmitfrom taerevised pMay 18 eeting, and .
that the Commission had required the
elimination of the spite strip, and Whittington Drive to come out between lots 8 and
A satisfactory plat had been submitted. She auded slat and approvedhat Mr. ritad told
her that Bob Warner had looked at the latewas stilof the l conditi=al . upon the
She also stated that approval of the p �r7nit;
following:Highway Department approval; obtaining 3 grading p� and the
a -oval.
sale of the lots would be conditional upon Health Department PP:"
Mr. Jones moved approval of the revised plat with the above stated conditions.
Col.Washington seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously-
site
Executive Programs Center site plan - University of Virginia:
Mr. Easter stated that he would like the Commission to go into the unscheduled
matter of a Day Care Center at the Branchlands PUD first.
Day Care Center in Branchlands:
Mrs. Scala stated that this question had been brought up earlier in the day
Sharon Jones, had found that she could not obtain a
when the applicant, Mrs -
license for a Day Care Center in the Branchlands School because all special
uses in a PUD require special approval. The Planning
Branchlands as a PUD in the summer of 1975.
Mrs. Jones stated that she had thought there would be no problem in obtaining
obtaining
in the build
a license since there had been a Day Care Center previously
Mrs. Scala stated that the Planning Commission had approved the PUD, they
would require site plan approval on any proposed use, and that the Commission
had the right to turn down any use in such a planned community.
Before submitting a request, Mrs. Jones stated that she wanted to find
out whether the Commission would be favorable to her proposed use. She realized
that the use would be temporary, since the school would be eventually taken over
by the public school system.
Mr. Easter stated that since the conditions placed upon uses in Branchlands
were numerous, that Mr. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, first go over the
technicalities involved.
Mr. Payne stated that the main problem facing the applicant was that the
final plat that she must submit would have to be for a minimum of ten acres.
Mrs. Graves asked whether the 11 acres of the Branchlands Holy Comforter
Church were withheld from the PUD zoning even though the area was contained
2 7L>
page 3
May 25
in the PUP area.
Mrs. Scala stated that the area was to her knowledge reserved for
institutiui.dl use.
Mrs. Jones stated that part of the area in the PUD was zoned for business.
Mr. Easter stated that one of the conditions that the applicant would have
to meet for the proposed use would be to change the entrance.
Mr. frkkenbrack, who works for the Church, stated that he could not expect
Mrs. Jones, as leasee, to effect the required road change.
Mr. Easter stated that if the Commission were to make an exception in this
case, that other applicants would expect them to follow suit.
Mr. Jones stated that the Commission needed more up-to-date material than
the 1972 plan before them.
Mr. Easter suggested deferral until it could be clarified whether the land
the school sits on was or was not included in the PUD approval.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Staff Report for the PUD Special Permit stated
that the approval was granted for 109.88 acres,
property. which would have included the church
Mr. Easter , in answer to Mr. Jones's comment, stated that the staff had
a plat dated late 1974.
Mrs. Scala stated that she would like to proceed on the basis that the
church property was part of the PUD.
Mr. Easter stated that it seemed to him cut and dried, that if the church
land was part of the PUD, then the Day Care Center proposal was out of the
question, since Mrs. Jones was not in a position to submit a 10-acre site plan.
Mr. Irkenbrack asked whether the particular site was presently zoned as
a business area.
Mr. Easter stated that it was specified for "open institution" use, and
he didn't know whether a Day Care Center would qualify.
Mrs. Scala stated that the only business zoning was along Route 29.
Mr. Irkenbrack stated that it was his understanding that clusters of property
within the PUD were zoned Residential, open land, or Business, etc.
Mr. Easter stated that in Section B, where the church lies, the only land
zoned for Business was along Route 29.
Mr. Barry Plotnick, operator of a Montessori school presently
in the church building, stated that he had moved his school there in February
With the understanding that it was already a legal school building. Before
his school had been there, there had been another school which moved out in
Nowember of 1975.
page 4 G ��
May 25
The building was not in use as a school between November arxci February,
1976.
Mr. Easter stated that there was a difference between a school and a day
care center as defined in the Ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that his understanding of an "institution" encompasses
both uses.
Mr. Keeler stated that the uses for which the church had rented out its
space might be termed either non -conforming or illegal.
Mr. Easter advised that the Commission should defer the matter until Mr.
Payne and the staff could review the case and then present it again to the
Planning Commission it it was at all legally feasible.
Mr. Plotni:ck stated that his Montessori school was for children
ages 2-9,
and occupied two rooms of the church building. Mrs. Jones's Day
Care er
would be occupying at least one room, and there was also an auditorium and a
kitchen in the building.
Mrs. Jones stated that the room(s) she would
be using wouldnacc sodata
42 children, but that she would only be putting
room .
nick whether he had applied for a license for his
Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Plot
school.
ivath as
re the
Mr. Plotnick stated that
daPrcareecentschools csd
er, but that he had focourse lobtained
same type of licensing as a y
a business license.
the issue back o the
on
Mr..Easter stated that the staff should ringtaff inform the tJones of that fact.
if it could be accomplished, and if not that
he s
tizens
Mrs. Jones stated that her
County care center
let out,aandfifrnotoreadyetoloperate
of the County as soon as the Y schools
by June 11, it would not be a worthwhile venture at all.
Mr. Easter stated that the Planning Commission could not override the Ordinance.
Mrs. Scala stated that if the use was deemed non -conforming, that no site
plan approval would be required anyway, and if the use was not non -conforming,
that the day care center could not be put in operation.
Mr. Payne stated that it was the decision of the Zoning Administrator whether
the use was non -conforming or not.
Mr. Easter advised the applicant to take up the issue with the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Payne stated that if the use warindefinitely, termed nn-conforming n one,er that
developped
such a use could remain n. the building
have
according to the PUD plan. He added that approval of Branchetnds beensinitiatedy
been premature , in that no part of the development had Yalthough they realized
�"'' He added that the County must treat all applicants equally,
that the proposed use and ownership by the Church was somewhat of a special case.
z 7
page 5
May 25
Mr. Barksdale made a motion that a meeting be set up between a member of the
staff, Mr. Payne, the Zoning Administrator, and the applicant, to discuss this
issue the next day.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Executive Programs Center site plan - University of Virginia:
Mrs. Scala showed the location of the site plan to the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that the function of the Planning Commission was to review
this site plan for'compliance.with'the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Easter clarified the use of the proposed building as that of a training
building for high level civil service personnel in the federal government.
Mr. Barksdale made the motion to direct the staff to review the plan for
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and to defer the item until this review
could be made.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Dr. Moore stated that there had been some concern with the maps in the
Planning Department, and there was confusion between the proposed and the
current zoning maps.
Mr. Keeler stated that the proposed is marked clearly, "Proposed."
Mr. Easter stated that action had been taken by the Planning Commission to
adopt the proposed zoning, and when it had gone to the Board of Supervisors, it
had been deferred until the new Board could hear it, and the new Board had not
seen fit to hear it as yet. The new Board was waiting for the Comprehensive
Plan to be revised.
Dr. Moore stated that a group of property owners in Westridge would be
requiring an audience with the Planning Commission the next week in regards to
five -acre zoning in their area.
Mr. Keeler outlined a chronology of the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan
proposals for the Westridge area. He stated that both the Comprehensive Plan
and e.,isting zoning indicate a 2-acre minimum lot size at present in this area.
Mrs. Scala stated that the Westridge Plat might the next week because they had not as yet issued a revised plat. . The f vethe acre Sion1.00
zoning proposal would still be before them, however.
page 6 L 73
May 25
Mr. Easter stated that the development by Dr. Hurt off Ballard Road, called
West Woods, had been granted a temporary use of a driveway, and that the owner
now wanted to make this a permanent use. He stated that the conditions of the
approval had been spelled out clearly, and that the old entrance might, in
his op
anion, be a better entrance. He suggested to the Commissioners that they
look at the site, and asked that the staff put the issue on an agenda.
meeting, and
to be a long
in compliance
Mr. Keeler made an addition to the on the agendart for would beeJune
likely
advised the Commission that item 'g'
discussion. He stated that the request of the owners would not be
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Easter stated that at the meeting in Ivy the other night, in review
of the Comprehensive Plan, many people in that area had expressed that they were
in favor of the five -acre zoning. He stated that they had done considerable work
in preparation for their presentation before the Commission.
With no further business or discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m -
Robert W. Tucker, Jr'., Secretary
M
___ / y--
June 1, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday, June 1,
ille, Virginia,
1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesv
to consider a series a rezoning and special use permit requests.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
• Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Leslie Jones; Dr. James Moore;
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David,
Mrs. Joan Graves;Col. William Washington; Mr.
ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Mr. Jones moved that the minutes of the May 25, 1976, meeting be approved.
The motion, seconded by Col. Washington, carried unanimously.
zMP-07-76. Elizabeth L. Breeden has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 245+ acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Residential and 54.2±
acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Bus7ne2ss•CountyProperty
off Tax Map outpa20srcelout16h,
just south of intersection with Route
both parts thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the applicant is requesting deferral
until a later meeting.
of a motion by Mr. Easter. The motion, seconded
This was put in the form
by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
of
ervisors
ZMP-08-76. Edward R. Jackson haspetitioned
Be1BBusinessSupProperty
to rezone 1.83 acres from A-1 Agriculturalparcel 50P Samuel
on east side of Route 29 South. County Tax Map 75,
Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report.
Mr. Gloeckner asked the depth of the property, and the staff responded
that it is approximately 400 feet.
Mr. Jackson explained to the Commission that he had purchased the property
for sign use and that these signs road developmentwould
agnnotHbotherehimhatHehstateds
for fill, turn-off, and other
that he has quite a bit of road frontage.
Mr. Carr questioned the amount of usable land.
Mr. Jackson replied that all is usable, if the expense is gone to
upgrade it; otherwise, only approximately 2 acres.
Mr. Barksdale asked the proposed use.
The applicant stated that he is considering a seasonal use, such as a fruit
stand, country store combination.
Mrs. Graves asked if this use could take place in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Tucker stated that it can take place in the A-1 zone with a special use permit.
The applicant stated that the land is certainly not appropriate for any sort
of residential use.
Mrs. Norma Deel, a resident of the area, stated that she is opposed to the
request, since she hopes that this approach to the city will remain scenic. She
Pointed out that this is one of the few places in the county where growth can be
controlled and she felt that to rezone this property would be to spot zone.
Mrs. Deel pointed out that a previous rezoning request has been denied. A country
store with a special permit would be much more agreeable - other business zoning
in the area should be used before this land is rezoned.
Mr. Jackson stated that his land has such limited use and he feels that
a small store would be a neighborhood convenience. He also felt that the energy crisis
justifies the convenience of local schools, stores, churches, etc.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Dr. Moore questioned the plans of the Virginia Department of Highways
regarding the road in the area.
Mr. Tucker stated that he knows of no immediate plans for upgrading the road
in the area.
Mr. Barksdale further pointed out that the road was recently made a 4-lane
highway.
Mr. Morris, another adjacent property owner stated that he hopes the property
is rezoned, since he, too, hopes to rezone his own property.
Mr. Carr acknowledged that the property is not suitable for residential
or agricultural uses. However, he felt that to rezone the property would be to
strip the highway.
Mr. Jackson asked the Commission exactly what use the property could be put to.
Mr. Carr said that he fears that the applicant is caught in changing times.
Mr. Easter said that he sympathized with the applicant, but the county is not
ready to see the land in that area stripped with commercial zoning.
Mr. Peatross moved denial of the request.
The motion, seconded by Dr. Moore, carried b a -
Washington dissenting. Y vote of 8 1, with Col.
z 7/-;
ZMP-09-76. Edward R. Jackson has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
rs located
rezone 0.61 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property on the east side of Route 29 South. County Tax Map 75, Parcel 52, Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting the letter of opposition from
Robert Selden - an objection because of aesthetic reasons.
Mr. Easter asked the staff if it would object to a rezoning to CO zoning.
Mr. Tucker stated that there would be a water and sewer problem even with
a request for CO.
Mr. Barksdale questioned the reason for such a small lot.
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a lot of record.
The applicant stated that again the use has been taken away, and the land
is not fit for residential use. He stated that he could probably meet the water
and sewer requirements. He pointed out that the request for rezoning is simply
a matter of economics.
Mr. Doug Valentine,an adjacent owner, stated that he wished to present
the
the Commission with a petition from thirty area landowners in opposition
request.
from the public, Mr. Carr closed the public
Since there was no further comment
hearing.
Mr. Easter stated that there seem to the same problems with this property as
with the previous application, plus the smaller lot size. He moved denial of the
request.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Dr. Moore moved that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of intent
for the staff to study this particular area along Route 29 South, specifically
lyze
that area located between
southern
hopefullyRailway
to deaermineuwhatltypeseoftlandauses
the capabilities of that land and
can best be utilized.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, and suggested that Mr. Jackson be notified
of the action by the Planning Commission.
The motion carried unanimously.
Sp-26-76, A. J. Associates, Inc., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to locate a radar antenna test site on 178.96 acres zoned A1Agicultural.
Property is located on the south side of Route 610, approximately
1 mile
east of Route 20 North. County Tax Map 63, Parcel 28. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report and stated that approval should be
subject to the following conditions:
Z77
1. Removal of tower and associated structure if use is to be discontinued, or if
towers become inoperable or unsound;
2. Antenna test range facilities are to comply with the plan as submitted and
are not to exceed 24 feet in height.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out for the record that though he does own a small
amount of stock in this company, the amount is so small that it does not justify
a disqualification on his part.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that he has recei Be a letter from the applicant
explaining the use of the property - there will^no problems with radio and television
reception in the area. He stated that any problems resulting from this tower would
have to be reported to the Zoning Administrator who in turn would notify the FCC.
Dr. Orville Harris, representing the applicant, stated that this is a testing
site for antennae for boats. This test site will be used prior to the sale of the
antennae. The power of the tower is 12 kilowatts. FCC regulation is not even
necessary due to the small amount of power involved. He stated that the tower will
be used from one-half to three-quarters of a month's working days. Only one round
trip/day for a vehicle will be necessary. He also pointed out that the tower cannot
be seen from any house. The test site is very appropriate for the needs of A. J.
Associates and he felt that this permit will bring a lot of capital into the area.
Mr. B. Kennedy, an adjacent owner to the Bigelows, stated that he hoped that
this commercial developemnt won't be detrimental to the agricultural land. He further
stated that he does not want the cattle breeding to be affected by the radar testing.
Mr. Kennedy also pointed out to the Commission that this area is a sanctuary for
birds.
Dr. Harris pointed out that the use will be temporary - for three years,
at the end of which the site may be moved to the local community college. He stated
that the intensity of the radar won't affect the cattle - that the amount of radar
involved is less than that given off by a microwave oven. He stated that just enough power
will be used to test the antennae. He also noted that a CB radio will give off more
radar than this use.
Mr. Charles Holloway stated the following reasons for his opposition to the request:
I. emmissions may be harmful to humans and cattle;
2. may set a precedent for rezonings in the area, particularly B-1 zoning;
3. use could interfer with radio and television reception in the area.
Mr. Holloway stated that he had contacted other property owners in the area
who also objected to the use. He also felt that the building could be seen from Route 610.
Mr. James K. Barnes stated that he owns thirty acres in the area and that this
particular area isone of the remaining unspoiled residential and agricultural areas
in the county.
Mr. George Worthington stated that he does not want the character of that area
changed.
Mr. Thomas objected to the request on the basis that he can see the small
building from his property.
Mr. Berger, representing the applicant, stated that this is the only site that
meets the needs of the ap lic nt. He also Pointed o
and that it, too, will la'ter be moved to t1te communi'� �Mtle building is movable,
0 le
Since there was no further public comment, Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Easter said that he does not feel that this is a derrogatory use of the
land, and pointed that according to Dr. Harris, the radiation is not a problem.
He also stated that it appears that the building is so small that it could not be
much of an eyesore.
Mr. Jones said that he feels the county needs a small amount of industry,
and asked the Commission to look favorably on the request.
Dr. Moore questioned if there is any authority which can assure area residents
that radiation is not a problem.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he is familiar with this sort of operation, and
that there are three at the Sperry plant now, and there is no radiation problem.
Mrs. Graves stated that she wants to limit the time of the special use permit.
Mr. Carr said that he feels as though that is proper.
Mrs. Graves also stated that as long as this use exists on the property,
any subdivision of it should be subject to Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request subject to the two conditions
recommended by the staff and the following three conditions:
sion approval while this use is in effect;
3. No subdivision without Planning Commis
4. Limited to one antenna and receiving shack;
5. Three year time limit.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr stated that he supported the motion because of the time limit.
Mr. Easter stated that he has noted the opposition, and asked the applicant
to also take note of it. He suggested to the applicant that the premises be kept
very neat and that A. J. Associates, Inc., be a good neighbor.
The motion carried unanimously.
SP-31-76. Patricia Ann Tiffany has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to amend SP-261 to provide for a location sign on Route 250 West. Property
zoned A-1 Agricultural, located on the north side of Route 250 West and
south side of I-64. County Tax Map 55, Parcel 19, White Hall Magisterial
District.
suggested
Mrs. Graves / that discussion and action o this request be deferrearrived
until the end of the meeting in order to give the applicant
at the meeting, since the Commission seemed to be somewhat ahead in its time schedule.
There was some discussion from the public that the applicant had had sufficient
time to be present and they requested the Commission to hear the request at that
particular time.
Mr. Peatross formalized Mrs. Graves suggestion and moved the request be
deferred until later in the meeting.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, on the basis that this is the policy
of the Commission, and that this situation happens at most every meeting.
The motion for deferral carried unanimously.
SP-32-76. Eric Heiner has petitioned the Baord of Supervisors to locate
light warehousing facilities on 1.73 acres zoned B-1 Business. Property
on north side of Route 631 ( Rio Road ) 500 feet west of the Southern
Railroad. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 147, Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report and stated that he had received
a call from Mrs. Ellen Clark stating opposition to the request on the basis
that it will set a precedent.
Mr. Richard Shank, representing the applicant, stated that the facility
will be very small. He stated that the business wil cater to those people who
will be leaving town for a few months and wish to store their furniture. He
stated that the front of the property is planned for several small shops in order
to provide the proper screening for the property. He stated that if these
shops were not located here, it would be necessary to fence the entire property for
protection from vandalism.
Mrs. Graves questioned the access for the property. 149
Mr. Shank responded that it would be from Rio Road.
Mr. Easter questioned if the site is large enough for commercial use and
warehouses, which will no doubt be served by tractor trailer trucks.
Mr. Shank stated that he envisions no tractor trailers.
Mrs. Graves stated that when a similar application was filed for this
property, a de-cel lane was required.
Mr. Lee Jinnings stated that the Virginia Department of Highways has
plans for two more lanes here. He also questioned the traffic flow.
Mr. Shank stated that the facilities will close at 10:30 or 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Booth asked that the Commission consider this as a possible fire hazard.
Mr. Walter Fauler stated that this use will lead to more warehousing in
the area, and that he finds this an objectionable use. He stated that it is not
Possible for the owner to know what is stored, and that a fire hazard could develop.
He, too, stated that the residents of the area oppose this use. He stated that
he does not want business there, much less a warehouse operation.
Mr. Tom Rivers, resident of the area for 18 years, opposed the request.
Mr. Mac Moyer agreed with his neighbors.
Z_ C-) r- J
Mrs. Fauler stated that she had come to the meeting to defend a residential
area, one that has been residential
year
S. She the areaasked that the Commission deny
the request and not change the character
Mr. Shank stated that the facilities will be closed all evening, and that
the warehousing relates to individual homeowners11 becleanther andtwilltmaintainsaelow-profile.
told the Commission that the facility
There will be numerous doors to the facility.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tucker stated that the right-of-way will be addressed at the site plan
level, if the Commission approves the request. He stated that it will be quite
a few years before Rio Road will be upgraded. He stated that the Commission needs
to decide if this location is appropriate for the use in question.
Mr. Peatross asked if all adjacent property owners have been properly notified.
Mr. Tucker stated that they have been.
Mrs. Graves stated that the entry is very important and that the hours
of operation could certainly be limited.
Mr. Carr questioned the applicant regarding the ingress and the egress.
Mr. Shank stated that some fill will be necessary.
Mr. Peatross questioned the types of business that will be in the shops.
Mr. Shank again stated that these businesses will act as a buffer, but
he did not reveal the types of businesses planned.
Mrs. Graves stated that she had not opposed the application near the
- she also pointed out that
Berkmar area because it is a wholly business area
this special use permit has never been accomplished.
'fir✓'
Mr. Jones asked how people could be kept from working near the warehouses
if they rent space.
Mr. Shank said that he cannot say that people will not work in the area,
since in many cases this storage space will take the place
basement.
intent of the mini -warehouses is light commercial
Mr. Carr said that the
use. He felt that there will be aminimHeproblem t
e alsopointedout he umightse that the property
better than some large scale business.
is zoned commerical.
this point is well taken and many uses permitted
Mr. Easter stated thatn near a
in the business zone are quite
ses he ee
has seenarenot residential area. He
objectionable
stated that the mini-warehou
Mrs. Graves suggested a time limit on the hours of operation.
that he would be agreeable to this, though not on the special
Mr. Carr said
d have a capital investment.
permit itself, since the applicant woul
Dr. Moore agreed, though he did feel an operational time limit was necessary.
Mr. Jones felt the request should be denied due to the opposition from
adjoining property owners and because sometimes the mini -warehouses deteriorate
with use and are not maintained.
VJ
Mr. Carr pointed out that the residential area is rapidly growing and there
will be a demand for this commercial land. He felt there could be much more object-
ionable uses than this request for this commercial land.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the request sugject to the following conditions:
Site plan approval;
Highway Department approval;
Screening along the front of this property ( to be show
All storage shall be enclosed, i.e., no outside storage
Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
Operating hours limited from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.
in site plan );
shall be permitted;
Mr. Easter seconded the motion for approval, which carried by a vote of 8-1,
With Mr. Jones dissenting.
The Commission adjourned for a three minute recess after which the following
business was conducted:
UP-76-05. Peggy Hancock has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include an Agricultural -Conservation
Zone with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres for single-family dwellings
and with no multiple family dwelling units or commercial -industrial uses.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommends
strictly a conservation zone, almost identical to that conservation zone as
presented in the proposed ordinance of the previous year.
Mrs- Peggy Hancock read a statement regarding the request to amend
the ordinance to the Commission ( see attached sheets
9
The Commission agreed that certain items should be changed or omitted
from the amendment. One of the items was the district size. A lengthy discussion
regarding uses by right and by special *404
permit as a
discussion regarding the height of structures, aand exceptionslso took lace�tosthislheight
regulation.
The Commission also discussed ways for a property owner to change
his zoning to five -acre zoning. Mrs. Graves suggested
which would be similar to that of the administrative a rezoning process
unless there are objections from ad'oinin PProval of mobile homes
owners. Mr. Ea
that if the rezoning is voluntary, the mechaniccsrcould certainly bester workedated out.
Mr. Tucker suggested that since there were going to be so many applications
for five -acre zoning if this amendment were adopted, perhaps it could be advertised
and handled as one item.
Mr. Payne also pointed out that zoning can even be imposed on property
owners in a given area when the zoning is appropriate.
Mr. Carr said that any such rezoning should be in line with the
144i
Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out, though, that an area cannot be rezoned
just because the marjority wishes it to be rezoned.
7�L
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PLANNING GGMTvUSSlO;�:
This request for a change in the Albemar le County Zon in€ Ord' cc
carries my name simply because I happened to be the person; who walked
i nto th e Planning Department Office, f ile d the reque st, and paid th e
necessary for the advertising of this hearing. This request for the change
is not solely from me alone, it is from the entire
i n the Zoning Ord inance
Old Tillman Road/Turner Mountain areas of Albemarle County - an area
encon;nas sing approximately 3,000 acres. A great many of these people
are x ith us this evening and to illustrate to you the solidarity of unanii,,i.ty
of this revue st from thi s enti re neighbor hood, I ask th ose of th em \vith
us tonight now to stand.
We are reau e sting th is cha I-]g e t o the Zo ning Ord inance to in elude. a 5--acre
min im un) consery ati on zone in order that th is new zoning cla ssificatio �: can
be used and be app lied to our neighbor hood. We are asking tonight that y ou
recommend to the Board of Supervisor s that they use their powers and
i mpose t his new catego ry of zoning upon this are a by a than-e in t he Albe
-
marle County Zoning Map. �Vc realize that such action on your part will
necess ita to Pu bli c Hea x a ings by the Boar d of S upery i sors and V.e. of thi s'
neighborh ood here by off er to pay all e xpens es incurred by advertising, by
letter notification, and any other expenses incurred. We her submit
to you a total Of $ 4 80. 0 0 in $20. 00 individual checks from the fol lo«-iug
person s all of who m are from th e Cha rlotte sville area unless other"'i se
i ndicated:
z
Mr. and Mrs.
Rob ert. C. A shco2T;
Mr. and 11-7rs.
George W. Bailey a
Ms. Monica Baker
Mr.
and Mrs.
William C. Battle
Mr..
and Mrs.
Jordan C. Churchill
Mr.
and Mrs.
James C. Dunstan
Dr.
and Mrs.
R. Brent Harrison
Mr.
and Mrs.
Ken nett �� . Hi ks
Nis.
Elizabeth
Coles Langhorne
Mr.
and Mrs.
Dav id Cr a. ig Land in
Mr.
and Mrs.
David 'W. Lewi s
Mr.
and 1\11rs.
Charles Maechling, Jr. , Washington, D. C. —
Mr.
and Mrs.
Ramsey Martin
Dr.
and Mrs.
J. Lawrence Meem, Jr.
Mr.
and Mrs.
David Morris
Dr.
and Mys.
William B. Pollard
Mr.
and Mrs.
Richar d T. Selden
Mr.
and Mr s.
Ralph W. Simonds
Mr.
W illiam,
�1. SpeideI fo r. G. E. Speide1, Ta ipai, Ta iv.ar:
Mr.
and Mrs.
Arthur Strickland, R oanoke, Virginia
Dr.
and Mrs. Cary G. Suter, Richrnond, Virginia
Mr.
and Mrs. Collett M. Tha ch
Dr.
and Mrs.
Herbert G. Tull, Ill
Dr.
and Mrs.
E. Darracott Vaughn, Jr.
N
09
As nearly as we could tell from the tax maps supplied to us and using our
knowle dge of th e area, it a ppear s that t,ri ere are 77 separate prope rty
owners in the area we are requesting be zoned by imno sit ion of th e Boa rd
of S upery isors. 66 of thes e person s received lett ers from us, 5 were con-
tacted by telephone, 6 had no known addresses, and all we were able to
contact were in vit ed to a neighborh ood meeting held thi s past Sunday eve n-
i ng at the home of Dr. and M rs. J. L . Meem for th e purpos e of d iscussing
this matter. I have a list of these persons, with their addresses, which I
will at so submit to you, along w ith a copy of the letter which was sent.
In our appeal for help to our neighbors, we discriminated in no way- - - the
number of acres curr ently ow ned meant no difference to us, and I b eli eve
t he ow ners of t he small est parcel held only . 21 of an acre. We cared not
about presen t a creag e holdings becaus e we are tr ying t o pre ser ve the
neighborh ood as it is , alto wing only for orderly growth, and we felt th ose
with th e smalle r parcels had just as much ri ght to to 11 us what k ind of a
neighborh ood they wa nted t o 1 ive in as th ose w ith la rger par eels.
In the letter which
was sent, we in eluded
a form and a
stamped, setf-
addres sed enve lope
.for the person to sign,
giving them
4 alte rriatives. I
have the r.espon ees
to those lette rs with me
tonight and
will turn them over
The respons e has been ove rw helmi ngly f or the change in zoning. Of t he 66
1 ett ers w hich I sent, I per sonal.ly knew only 17 of the proper ty ow Hers in-
volved, yet f avora ble respons es and $20. 00 check s started conii ng back to
V9
M
on
CM
me at an almost alarming rate. We received contribution checks to help
defray the expense s of a Public Flea ring f roin 3310 of the property Owners,
one coming f rom as f ar aw ay as Ta iwan. We have signatures from 51% of
the prope rt)T owners, and --- The property owners that are in accord with
t his 5-acre minimum, single-family-d welling zoning are grap hicall. y i i lu s-
t rated by the red-colore d portions of this map.
I would like now to turn the floor over to Dr. J. Lawrence M eei-n, who has
additional "information concerning those property owners whom we were
unable to contact, to Mr. Dav id Le wis, and to M r. Co lle tt M. Th acn wv ho
present thi s large colore d map to you.
Thank you.
Z�5
Mr. Payne also pointed out that the county has the power to consider any
request at any time. If an applicant requests a change, then it must
re
citizens q
be considered on its merits.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the county rezones the property in the Tilman
Road area, if adjoining property owners will be notified.
Mr. Payne stated that the policy on this is that people will be notified
if 25 or less parcels are involved.
Dr. Moore stated that he had been under the impression that this was a
request to rezone the entire area as well as amend the ordinance.
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a two-step process - that first the
amendment must be passed by the Board of Supervisors since the zone must appear
on the records before an application for it can be made.
Dr. Larry Meem stated that the residents in the Tilmareatadealeof opposition
are requesting something new. He said that
there
thatsit might be necessary for
to rezoning the entire area, though it appears
individual owners to come in with a request for their own property.
Mr. David Lewis geographically described the area for the public and Commission,
stated that it is in the aaeaYefrBig
eand
forLittle
areaTurner's
since thisMountain.
part fethefelt
county
that five -acre zoning was appropriate to be
is different from a city area. He also stated that there is not likely
a problem for the county in the areas of water and sewer. He said that the County
has a lot at stake with this request. The land is ruggedand occasionally,
and it also lies in the area of water impoundments. This is astarting
me, as was
re
one ti
zoning ordinance since it appeared to be difficult to rezone the entire county at
in addition to
proved with the proposed nbeeampasked taeendedas well to show the five -acre zoning
amending the zoning text that the map
in this area.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel spoke to the CVN zone as part ofttedzoning
he ordinance,
pointing out that the citizens for Albemarle has always suppo
as a separate zone from the agricultural zone.
Mr. Herbert Tull said that this area has flooded four times since 1969,
again emphasizing the mountainous terrain.
Mr. F. L. W. Richardson stated that this request had been of interest to
property owners in the area in which he lives, and that there is already a move
to request a similar rezoning there on owensville Road.
Mrs. Karen Lilleheldt questioned even putting in the smaller lots, since
she was concerned that they might be non -conforming, and if there were destroying
fires, that a property owner might not be able to re -construct his house.
Mr. Tucker agreed that the smaller lot sizes than five -acres would be non-
conforming, but it would always be possible to build a house if fire destroyed the
original one.
o zone ple
use of
Mr. Carr said that he would tever
thatwant
he had been conct
ernedatfe theprevious
their property, and that was the reason
meeting about the request to rezone the entire area. However, he pointed out that
this is a desirable way to get a 5-acre zone on the records.
�I
Mr. Tucker explained that in the rezoning process each application
would have to be considered on its merits.
Mr. Carr said that he really viewed the matter as a density question.
Mrs. David asked if this proposal isn't really like a CVN-Residential Zone.
Mr. Carr said that houses should not be built on productive land - he
cited the California situation, where residents there had learned to build their
houses on the mountainous land and use the productive land.
Mr. Easter asked the residents of the Turner Mountain area if they had
had any direct opposition to their proposal for rezoning the entire area.
Dr. Meem responded that perhaps only one property owner would be in direct
Opposition, but that he has the philosophy that there should not be any zoning.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the amendment with its statement of intent
and the amendment to read as follows ( see attached sheets ) and moved approval
of 16-18.1 to be included in the definitions.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr said that now the Commission needed to address the request of
the Tilman Road residents to rezone the entire area to 5-acre zoning.
He stated that he hesitated to move forward to amend the zoning map until the
Board of Supervisors has made a decision regarding UP-76-05.
Mr. Peatross agreed.
Mr. Payne said that any such action would not be illegal, though the
Commission could adopt a resolution of intent to amend the map or take no
action at all.
Mr. Carr said that he feels the county has the duty to notify adjoining
property owners.
Mr. Payne said that since more than 25 parcels are involved, the notification
could be done in the newspaper. He said that in this case it is not necessary
to notify by mail.
Mr. Carr returned to the property owners the checks and monies they had
presented to the Commission for advertising purposes.
Mr. Easter said that he is concerned about recommending that all the property
in that area be rezoned. He stated that he would be much more confortable with
requests for rezoning from individual property owners.
Mr. Barksdale said that if the Commission adopted a resolution of intent
to amend the zoning map for the whole area that he would want certified letters
mailed from the Planning Office to all owners and to all adjacent owners.
owners. Dr. Moore suggesteda rezoning
that such would not affect adjoining property
Mr. Carr :said that this has not yet been addressed from all sides and
WINE
ARTICLE 1.1
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
CVN
✓ STATEMENT OF INTENT
This district is designed to perserve those areas of rugged terrain, those prone
to flooding, those having poor draining soils, and those where land development
should be held to a minimum to promote and preserve those aesthetic values, natural
resource's, and environmental amenities associated with such areas.
USE REGULATIONS
.1-1-1 USES PER_"`_ITTED BY RIGHT
(1) Accessory buildings and uses
(2) Agriculture - excluding poultry and hog farms
(3) Conservation and preservation areas
(4) Graveyards, family
(5) Off-street parking as required by this ordinance
(6) Parks and recreation areas - publicly owned
(7) Single family detached dwelling units - conventional and cluster subdivision
(8) Churches, parishes, and adjunct cemeteries
(9) Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and related and
similar facilities; water and sewer distribution lines
(10) Home Occupation: Class A
(11) Single family rental units - two or fewer at a density of not more than one
unit per five acres
(12) Signs as permitted in Article 15A
(13) Forestry
1.1-1-2 USES PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(1) Educational institutions: public and private
(2) Construction facilities, temporary, in accordance with Section 16-21
(3) Public utilities: Public water and sewer transmission mains or trunk lines
and treatment facilities, pumping station; electrical power transmission
and distribution substations and transmission lines and towers, oil. and gas
transmission pipelines and pumping stations; unmanned telephone exchange
centers, micro -wave and radio wave transmission and relay towers and substations
1.1-2-1 AREA REQUIREMENTS,
(a) Minimum lot size:
(1) Five acres for single-family residential ( conventional )
(2) Three acres for single-family residential ( cluster )
(3) Five acres for churches, educational institutions
(4) Other uses: no minimum; provided that building coverage, lot coverage,
setback and yard requirements shall apply
1.1-2-2 MAXIMUM PERCENT BUILDING COVERAGE
(1) Single-family units on lot - N. R. other than yard and setback requirements
(2) Other permitted uses 70%
1.1 2�-R3 MAXIMUM PERCENT LOT COVERAGE ( CLUSTER ALTERNATE )
(1) No more than 70% of the gross site area may be devoted to individual lots,
streets and parking bays
.1-3 SETBACK REGULATIONS
.1-4
All structures except signs advertising sale or rental of the property, shall be
located one hundred (100) feet or more from any street, road or access right-of-way.
Cluster alternate - 60 feet
FRONTAGE REGULATIONS
For residential lot, the minimum required frontage shall be:
.1-4-1 250 feet for single-family residential ( conventional )
.1-4-2 150 feet for single family residential ( cluster alternate )
.1-5 YARD REGULATIONS
.1-5-1 Side - The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be
(1) Sixty (60) feet - conventional
(2) Forty (40) feet - cluster_ alternate
.1-5-2 Rear - Each main structure shall have a rear yard of:
(1) One Hundred (100) feet - conventional
(2) Sixty (60) feet - cluster alternate
..1-6 HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Buildings may be erected up to thirty-five (35) feet in height except that:
.1%-1 A public or semi-public building such as a school, church or library may be erected
to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade
.1-6-2 Silos, barns, church spires, belfries, cupolas, municipal water towers, chimneys,
flues, flagpoles, television antennaes and radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be
up to four (4) feet above the height of the building on which the walls rest.
L.1-6-3 No accessory building which is within fifty (50) feet of any property line shall be
more than one story high
1.1--7
SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CORNER LOTS
The side yard on the side facing the side street shall be fifty (50) feet or more
for both main and accessory buildings
1-8 SPECIAL PROVIVIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
1.1-9
Accessory buildings and structures shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any
property line
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING
Reference Section 11-7
1.1-1r) SIGNS
�i.r Reference Article 15A
2yl
DEFINITIONS
16-18.1 CLUSTER ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT_ - Development premised on unit density which
allows unit credit based on gross acreage but permits deve7_oprient including
lots and streets on a given percentage of the overall gross site
M
Z 7l
the matter of rezoning the entire area or parts of it would be addressed after
action by the Board of Supervisors on UP-76-05.
SP-31-76. Patricia Ann Tiffany:
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report stating that according to the
Zoning Department only condition #5 of the original approval has not been met.
He also stated that the application is requesting relief from the condition
#2 of approval of SP-261 granted by the Board of Supervisors on July 12, 1973,
which reads as follows:
2. No sign other than one identification sign of four (4) square feet be permitted.
this condition should be subject to the following:
He stated that relief from
1. Signing to be accomplished under provisionsof
Designation of the fArticle 18 Scenic Highways
Albemarle County Zoning
3b, and 3c
15
2. Conditions 1, 4, 5, and 6 of SP-261 and substitute conditions a,
( approved by the Board of Supervisors on November A1973 hall be complied
) shall
and Highway
with and completed to the satisfaction
is issuedhe Zoning and before any sign is erected;
Department before any sign permit
3. No signs ( other than provided for
rin substitute conditions 3a, 3b, 3c ) are o
be visible from Interstate Route4
Mrs. Graves asked the setback of the sign.
Mr. Tucker told her that it would be 50 feet on a scenic highway, as provided
by condition #l, if approved.
applicant, stated that the applicant has
Mr. Hank Tiffany representing the app approximately one
tried the signing as suggested by the Board of Supervisors for
year and that it has proved to be satisfactory from the standpoint of the business
not
or from the standpoint of safety. He explained that travelers coming from RoontoI-6
find it difficult to see the sign until they are almost past it when turning
the o down the road a short distance and do a U-turn or else just back
up in the
Route and g possible customers never even find the store,
middle of the road. Some
he said. He said that the proposed sign will cover the side of the wagon.
Mr. Peyton asked that the Commission defer action until
ointeddecision
the
is
lso
scenic highway status of Route 250 west btedasigning, de. He aothers will also request a
an agricultural area and if one is pl
change in signing. He stated that if the Commission acts that particular night,
that the request be denied,
rticle 18 Scenic Highways Designation be
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel asked that A
considered in the signing.
this would be covered in condition #1.
Mr. Tucker stated that
�r✓ Mrs. Graves asked if there will be two signs.
Mr. Tucker said that if there are two, it will be limited to 12 square feet.
z/z
Mrs. Selden asked if the signs will be visible from I-64.
Mr. Tucker. said "no."
Mr. Washington said that he walks that road every day and that he
is not aware of the de-cel lane.
Mr. Tiffany stated that it has been measured off by the Highway Department
and that it V's into the entrance.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale asked if a 12 square foot sign would be visible.
Mr. Tucker said that with the wagon it will be.
Mrs. Graves asked the location of the wagon - up the bank or on top of it.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it will robabl be
P y ��n top of the bank.
Mr. Jones asked if the request could be deferred until after the scenic
highway public hearing.
Mr. Easter said that he saw no reason for deferring the request, since
the scenic highway signing is covered by condition #1. He then moved approval
of the request subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Dr. Moore, carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m., since there was no further discussion
or business.
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr., Sec tar r
19
G73
June 8, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commision held a meeting on Tuesday,
s
ty Office Building, Charlottesville,
June 8, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Coun
Virginia, to consider a series of public hearings.
Those members present were Mr. David WGloecknerhaMrsanJoan.Graves�Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale, Mr. Kurt
Mr. Leslie Jones; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington;
and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
as present and called the meeting
Mr. Carr established that a quorum w
to order.
Westridge final plat - three 2-acre lots:
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, reminding
tthe
he plammissionn that
(6)
in April, 1976, The Planning Commission had approved
lots subject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
On May 12, 1976, the Board
request of adjacent owners. At
pipestem lots and also would no
four lots using a shared access.
Grading permit if needed;
Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances;
Source of title; the Commission
Pipestems to lots #2 and #3 granted a waiver of frontage by
due to topography and shape of lots. ( This waiver was sunal given
iv entrance
approval by Mr. Tucker as agent for the Baord, since it provided
arrangement. );
No building on slopes of 25% or greater;
Lots one through four must share an entrance.
of Supervisors considered Westridge plat at the
that meeting the Board denied the waiver ,
of
t approve the restricted road concept,
June 1, 1976, a revised plat was submitted which shows three two -acre lots.
Parcels A and B are shown as separate parcels. ( Parcels of five
(5) dividedwithor more
with frontage on a public road or existing right-of-way Y
b
) Lots one and two show a shared entrance, also lot three
subdivision approval. ces total on Route 676. No waivers are
and Parcel B. Therefore, three entran
required.
The staff recommended approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit if needed;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrancefor in Soil Erosion Ordinance.
3. No grading on slopes of 250 or greater, as provided
Mike Boggs stated that the surveyor stands behind the topo map and stated
that there is sufficient room for a house and septic field on each lot without
infringing on the 25% slope.
Mrs. Peggy Hancock read a statement regarding the inspection of the
property by the County Zoning Department pointed out that any development
of the property would call for strict soil erosion control measures. She
again emphasized the feelings of the residents of the Community regarding
this sort of lot size development. She told the Commission that she and
two other families who jointly own a pond have employed the services of
a consultant to examine the present condition, and also noted that any
Pollution that results due to this subdivision will in turn lead to suit
against the County as well as the owners. Mrs. Hancock said that the
neighbors in the area have tried to negotiate with the applicant and he has
not been receptive to their requests.
Mr. Cory Trench, representing his parents, who live in the area,
addressed soil conditions in the area with a map demonstration. He described
what he considered the feasibility of septic fields or lagoons for this area. It is
his feeling that the metamorphic rock is not conducive to septic fields.
He asked that the Commission deny the request since many environmental factors
have not been considered.
Mr. Meem, one of the owners of the pond, stated that they feel that
there will be a siltation problem if this subdivision is approved. He also
Pointed out that the pond has been tested and that it is currently clean.
He stated that prospective purchasers are to be warned through the realtors
that they will be subject to legal proceedings if the lake becomes polluted.
He also asked that a moratorium be placed on Route 676 until the request to
rezone the entire area is considered by the Board of Supervisors. He further
asked the Commission not to approve Westridge subdivision until a plat has been
presented showing the location of residences, wells, septic tanks, and drainfields,
He in turn asked that each location be approved by the appropriate officials
Of local government,
David W. Lewis appealed to the applicant to be a good neighbor on the
basis of right and wrong. He also asked the Commission to secure an unbiased
report of the soils from experts, and to secure a report of the percolation
tests.
Mr. Herbert made a brief statement of opposition to the plat.
Mrs. Mary Alice Lewis stated that she has been informed that there is an
old burial ground on what is probably lots 1 and 2. She stated that there is
an ordinance against building on a burial ground.
Mr. Collett Thatch stated that profit with general quality of performance
is sometimes different from work done by an amateur. He called for added responsibility
from the applicant. and asked that all reasonable doubts regarding roads, pollution, stream pollution and well pollution from septic fields be erased
lake
before approval is granted. He urged the Commission public health and public safety. to act in interest of
Mr. David Wood, attorney for the applicant, stated that the plat meets
the statutes and asked the Commission to approve the subdivision.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. He asked the County Attorney to
advise the Commission in regard to threatened legal proceedings raised by
Mrs. Hancock and Mr.. Meem. He also stated that he feels the county has a
duty to notify prospective purchasers of this problem.
Mr. Fred Payne stated that the county and its officers are immune from
a damage suit.
pollution is lengthy and complicated and
He stated that the law regarding g suit, it will be their responsibility
that if these three property owners bring
to prove that pollution has occur we fromdeny this the lrequest ifvision of titsisatold
contrary
the Commission that it has the power to Yhere are
to health, safety, and welfare. He also stated that t Health Departmentvresponsiblenfor�
especially the zoning ordinance, w ollution of lakes and
ol Board responsible for p
sewage and the State Water Contr
streams.
Mr. Peatross stated that the Commission needs to view this matter from
two angles:
1. There is speculation that pollution will occur; OR
2. There is evidence that pollution will occur.
ble if
ey
Mr. Peatross stated that he feelsthe CommIss
hatpollutionnwilllocbur1iaHoweverthif they
approve the plat when there is evidence
they
act in good faith and there is only speculation that pollution will occur,
e mentioned advertising to realtors. He stated
won't be liable. He also stated that some of the adjacent owners have mentioned
an injunction against pollution and could be the defendants..
that these remarks must be based on facts, else they
Mr. Carr stated that it is the duty of others to approve the location of
d, and house.
the well, septic fiel
the duty of the Commission to pursue
Mr. Peatross agreed that it is not
Mr. Payne stated that it isthduty
D fthe
Commission, to make themselves
aware of information supplied by the
Health
nt, though
esponded in the normal fashion.
Mr. Carr stated that the Health Department r
Mrs. Graves stated that it is the duty of the applicant to show that there
She asked the applicant if he has submitted an erosion
won't be pollution.
control plan.
Mr. Payne stated that there has been an amendment to the soil erosion ordinance,
which does not require this submission at this time.
Mr. Barksdale asked for information regarding the burial ground.
operty back to fe
50, Mr. Wood said that he has researched the pr
two families who owned and lived on this property did not have cemeteries on the
and that the
land in question.
Mr. Peatross asked about the restricted road issue.
Mr. Tucker stated that in denying 1 driveway to serve four lots, the
e joint maintenance would have no definitive
Board felt this one driveway to hav
lines in regard to the homeowners agreement. pond,
Col. Washington asked Mr. Meem if there is continuous flow into the p
and if it is spring fed.
Zit
Mr. Meem responded,"more or less."
Mrs. Graves asked if 5-acre lots are subject to the soil erosion ordinance.
Mr. Tucker stated that two or more dwellings built at one time require soil
erosion permit.
Mrs. Graves feared that the only way the streams will be protected is if
the applicant constructs the houses, rather than selling the lots.
Dr. Moore asked if there is sufficient land on lot #3 for a house and yet
not infringe on the 25% slope.
Mr. Tucker responded that this is a clear case where the Zoning Administrator
will have to carefully view the site and study the matter.
Col. Washington stated that there has always been a reason for keeping
north faces in timber and that has been because of pollution. He stated that such
property will wash out when the timber is removed.
Mr. Easter stated his concern over the subdivision. He stated that he
hates to approve the subdivision, when there has been so much
Public outcry
By the same token some of the requests for restrictions are so unreasonable.
that many of those present could not have built there residences had they been
forced to abide by these restrictions. He said that the Commission should protect
Department to, or not to, permit se
the health, safety, and welfare of the people, but that it is up to the Health
he would ptic systems in the count
support thHe e request for the subdivision on the basis. stated
he seesthat nothing
that is detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare.
Mr. Carr noted that lot #3 is probably a bad lot. He stated that it is
not the duty of the Planning Commission to "trade" with the applicant, but he
asked him if he would be willing to combine lots #2 and 3. He also stated that
he finds nothing that tells him the subdivision should not be approved.
Mr. David Wood agreed that lot #3 is a difficult lot. He cited the
original request, which was subsequently denied by the Board of Supervisors,
which he felt to be much better. He said that this action had forced the applicant
into this alternative, in order to follow the law to the letter. He stated that
the applicant would really like to combine lots 2 and 3, and
back lot, which is flat, into two lots. then divide the
Mr. Carr asked if there would be any merit in having a committee formed
from members of the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, representatives
from the adjoining property owners, the staff, and the applicant/discuss alternatives
at a special meeting.
to
Mr. Wood stated that this would be agreeable.
Mr. Easter moved action on the request for Westridge Subdivision be deferred
until the next meeting, which would allow time for the committee to meet.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, without
any further discussion.
z--1J
Mr. Jones left the meeting.
adjourned in order that the meeting place
The meeting temporary capacity in
could be changed to the County Courthouse, because of lack of seating
the Board Room.
ZMP-76-04. Double C Corporation - Westmoreland Manor RPN/R-1:
from
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission
that
havethis
timeitem
tohad
submit allbeen ethe necessary
a previous meeting in order that theapplicant
data for the Planning Commission's review.
Mr'. Tucker presented the staff report.
Col. Washington asked if the trunk sewer is mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker explained that existing sewer facilities are an interim measure
until Powell Creek can/tied into and later into the AWT plant.
b
he staffs recommendation
Mr. Peatross asked the impact on schools if t
is accepted.
in overcrowdedness.
Mr. Tucker said that there will still be some increase
ned if the applicant has responded to the Virginia
M Peatross also questio
Department of Highways input.
Nor. Tucker said that it is his understanding that the applicant prefers
to permanently cul-de-sac the road rather than tie in at a later date to Route 652,
if it is 'ever up -graded.
endations still stand if the
Dr. Moore asked if the Fire Marshal's recomm
density is 1 dwelling unit/acre.
Mr. Tucker stated that the requirements remain the same.
Dr. Moore also questioned the recreational area abutting adjoining property owners.
Mr. Tucker said that the staff had brought this to his attention.
Mr. Tucker also stated that the staff's recommendations with respect to the
Westmoreland Manor proposal are as follows
: hich d be
That the applicant pursue an RPN/RS-1 designation rehensivelPlan ancompliance
pa
dwouldprovide
1. T indicated in the Comp
with the residential density units- for a maximum of 26 dwelling unislopes, particularly at the head of the main swale.
2. Removal of units from the steep
Realignment with the recommendations of the Highway
nment of the road in compliance
3. g
Department.
This would yield impact statistics as follows:
Vehicles - 39
School -aged children - 18 vehicle trips/day - 273
Dwelling units - 26
Population - 84
Mr. Ron Carter, applicant, read the intent of the RPN Zone. He
agreed that the density is higher than that of the adjoining Woodbrook and
Westmoreland Subdivisions. However, it is at least one-half the density of
other townhouse developments in the county. He stated that he does not want
to destroy the residential character of the neighborhood by tying in with Route 652.
He pointed out that the raods are satisfactory and the water is sufficient.
He said that he is willing to put money into escrow for the fire hydrants, but
feels that it is unreasonable for him to be required to put an 8" line all
the way to Rio Road. He said that according to the ordinance, that fire protection
shall be provided where water is available, and he feels that in this case it
is not available. The project is to be a five-year project. He offered a 100 foot
buffer to the Westmoreland side and a. 300 foot buffer on the Woodbrook side.
He stated that he feels his "track record" should play a part in this, since he
has always done what he said he was going to do when develo
pin. He
that with simple R-1 zoning 5.3 dwelling units could conceivablylbedbuilt onated the
property. He felt it to be an extremely nice plan, noting that most units back up
to the woods. Mr. Carter understood that it could set a precedent or _ but he feels this development will set a precedent for areas likefWoodbrookning,
He also pointed out that 750 of the property will be left as it is or have recreational
facilities.
Mr. Kelly Reynolds, Fire Marshal, noted that in reviewing the project in
regard to fire protection, the structure is frame. He said that with a minimum number
gallons of water, only acceptable way for fire protection is an 8" main off an
18" line.
Mr. Peatross questioned the possibility of the pump storage tank.
Mr. Reynolds said that there will be a problem in who tests it, who
maintains it, and the possibility that it may be low in case of fire.
Mr. Carr asked for information on the policy regarding availability of
water in distance from a project.
Mr. Reynolds stated that he knows of no policy regarding availability in
terms of distance.
Mrs. Graves asked if there is any preferred route for fire trucks to the
property, and Mr. Reynolds responded that there is none at this time.
Mr. David Boyle, citizen, asked what is a reasonable time to expect a fire
truck after it has been called.
Mr. Reynolds said that this would be at least 15 minutes, since the first
truck to come would be from Ridge Street in the City.
Mrs. H. Winkler asked if there is a national requirement.
Mr. Reynolds said that the standard is three minutes, but he knew of no
place in the country where this occurs.
Mrs. Carol Prosser asked the size of the water lines in Woodbrook,Westmoreland
and Carrsbrook.
Mr. Reynolds said that they are 6" mains.
'-_1I
Mrs. Mattie Dunkl questioned the county's responsibility for providing
fire protection to citizens.
where water is available fire protection
Mr. Carr said that the policy is that
is provided.
Mr. Keeler asked that if an 8" line is run to property in Westmoreland and to
this site if it will provide enough water pressure.
Mr. Reynolds said that it would help.
Dr. Moore asked the fire marshal if his recommendation is based on density.
Mr. Reynolds said that it is based on house type.
Mr, W. T. Wallace,, president of the Westmoreland Community Association
said that the citizens of Westmoreland ask that the property be developed in line
with the Comprehensive Plan, and that they oppose this particular request.
He presented t area
to the Commission
the Executive Boardrom rofeWestmorelandrty owners nhasastudied
in opposition. He said that
the staff report and would support the development if it were zoned as RPN/RS- .
Mr. H. I. Taylor of the Northfields community also presented a petition
oty be
f opposition and asked that the development
to takewnhouseadevel pmentce on this ptype rwould
like that in surrounding areas. residences be built here.
devalue property in the area and even urged single-family
Mr. Preston Coiner, representing the Carrsbrook subdivision, presented
a petition of opposition to the request.
Mrs. Kathy Tompkins, representing the Woodbrook Homeowners Association,
read a statement of opposition to the request and stated that wooresidences,
citizens
are concerned about run-off, compatabresentedilitY ta petitionaoflthose in opposition.
and school overcrowding. She, too, p
Mr. Avery Wood opposed the development on the basis of the sewage system.
Mr. Lewis Leake of Westmoreland said that there are many septic systems in
the area that do not work. He suggested that these be corrected before Westmoreland
Manor is approved.
Mr. Charles Dunkl said that his property joins that part of Westmoreland
Manor which is proposed for the pool. He was very opposed to the development.
Mr. Herb Winkler asked if the location of the pool was addressed by the
staff in its review of the project.
Mr. Tucker said that it was and the staff had recommended to the applicant
that it be moved away from the Westmoreland subdivision.
Mr. Wallace questioned the pool facilities.
250
Mr. Carter explained that it was to be a club residenttialrareas. Helsaid mthatrif
whom he hoped would come from the adjoining move the pool.
the Swim Club is not agreeable to these citizens, he could
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
t
Mr. Tucker explained that Route 652 could/be as an access unless
it is upgraded.
Mr. Barksdale suggested limiting membership to the pool to residents
Of the proposed Westmoreland and moving it to the interior of the location.
Mrs. Graves asked if a swim club is permitted in the RPN zone.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Zoning Administrator felt that this swim
club would not be a commercial operation and would fit in here.
Dr. Moore said that he wants to see the recreational area moved.
Mr. Peatross said that he has a problem with the density because it is
not in line with the Comprehensive Plan and because of the impact that it will
have on schools.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the development should be more in line with
development in Westmoreland, in other words, two dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Easter agreed that two dwelling units would be appropriate. He
felt that this would also help the sewer problem.
Mr. Barksdale agreed, but he said that he has reservations about running
an 8" main from Rio Road to the property, because of the expense.
Mr. Easter noted that the county has no policy as far as what is a
reasonable distance, and he would be agreeable to Mr. Carter's suggestion that
1104)
money be put into escrow and that there be an 8" line within the development itself.
Mr. Peatross said that he would not be agreeable to a 6" line, it would put a burden on other citizens in the area, and he does not wsince
ant a bad
situation to become worse.
Mrs. Graves suggested that perhaps the development is premature, and that
the applicant should wait until the land closer to Rio Road is developed.
Mr. Carr said that he did not agree, that it cannot be judged premature
just because he cannot economically reach an 18" line.
Mrs. Graves said that she feels it is also premature when the roads
are considered.
Mr. Carr said that a long time ago this road was built to serve this piece
of property.
Mr. Barksdale asked the applicant if has investigated that possibility of
the county helping him run the 8" water line from Rio.
Mr. Carter said that he had pursued this and that the county would not
agree to share in the expense.
Mr. Carr said that the real question is
if this use is compatible with
what exists in the area.
JC//
Mrs. Graves said that she could support RPN/RS-1.
Mr. Gloeckner said that 2 dwelling units/acre is fair, since it is what
exists in the area.
Mr. Easter said that 3.7 dwelling units/acre is certainly unacceptable.
Mr. Carr suggested that the landowners in the area unite and run the
8" water line from Rio Road.
request be deferred until. the following
Mr. Easter moved that action on the
matters can be discussed:
1. location of the recreational facilities;
units/acre );
2. density ( with a maximum density g unit );
3• water line ( lack information to deal withyd it;
ts
4. road - cannot use Route 652 unlesshe upg
rades 5, information regarding
run-off supplied
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Article 16-44-1(d) Home Occupation Class "A":
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Col. Washington questioned the meaning of Home Occupation Class Mr. Tucker Tucker explained that this is part of the section of the zoning ordinance
which has the definitions. remises.
Mr. Keeler explained that this deals with the exchange of goods on the p
Mr. Carr asked the Commission if it agreed with the language proposed by
the staff.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of Home Occupation Class '"A" to read as
follows:
or transfer of goods from the premises, other than items
There shall be no salesr
this does not
handcrafted on the premises, in connection with such home occupation;
hair barber shops.
exclude beauty shops and one c
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend the R-2 Residential Limited zone to include Article 5-1-15(6) Home
occupation, Class "A" as a use by special permit-
Keeler said that in view of the action just taken by the Commission that
�.. right rather than
the staff wished to change its recommendation,,that this be by
by special permit.
JL41
Mr. Easter moved that Article 5-1-15(6) Home Occupation, Class "A:
be included in the R-2 Residential Limited zone as a use by right.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
( When approved as a use by right in the R-2 Reslidential Limited zone the
section ha nrr 7 +
5-1-18 ),
Up-76-04. Jon A. Erickson - provide "Home Office" by right in R-2 zone:
The staff recommended that this request to amend the ordinance be deferred
until the Board of Supervisors acts on the proposals to amend Article 16-44-1(d)
and Article 5-1-15(6).
Mr. Gloeckner moved that action be deferred until that time.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously.
SP-38-76. Jon A. Erickson has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors for a Home Occupation - Class "A" under Article 5-1-15(6)
of the Zoning Ordinance. County Tax Map 56A(2), Parcel 73(1), White
Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler recommended that the Planning Commission defer action on this
request until the Board of Supervisors action on proposals to amend the ordinance
to include Article 5-1-15(6) and to amend Article 16-44-1(d).
Mr. Gloeckner moved action be deferred until that time.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent
to designate U. S. Route 250 West from the corporate limits of the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia, to the Nelson Count
an
Scenic Highway as provided by Article 18-1-1(B) ofnthesAlbemarrlearle Countyunty
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report. He also gave a map demonstration
showing limitations of particular properties if this is approved. The problem
would be with the 150 right-of-way along the scenic highway. The parcels involved
are small, in many cases already non -conforming. He said that the only alternative
is a variance if the setback from the right-of-way is observed. He stated that
in some cases the right-of-way may be as much as 75 feet from the pavement edge.
Mr. Payne stated that in his opinion this is the classic case of where
a variance is necessary, since a variance would grant a realistic use of the property.
Mr. Easter asked if the county is confiscating land in this case.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it would not be confiscation, since the variance
could be obtained if there is a reasonable use proposed.
smid
Mrs. Selden stated that she supports this proposal of the Board since
it is an effective way to keep this route an attractive entrance to the city.
3a�
Mrs. Beth Ogilvie presented a petition of support for this designation,
as did Mrs. Jan Gordon.
Mr. Easter moved approval of this resolution of intent to desingate
U. S. Route 250 West an Albemarle County Scenic Highway, and also recommended the designation
be in line with the staff comment:
1. This scenic highway desingation be considered in the revision of the Comprehensive
Plan and particularly that potential detractive uses currently proposed in the
Ivy and Crozet Community Clusters be evaluated in terms of their impact on the
highway;
2. Future rezoning requests along Route 250 West be evaluated in the context o
scenic highway protection.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemlare County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to repeal Article 8-1-25 which provides for veterinary or dog or cat
hospitals, kennels as a use by right in the M-1 Industrial Limited Zone.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report in which he pointed out that in
staff opinion this section is not in keeping with the statement of intent of the
M-1 zone, which permits certain industries, which do not in any wav detract from
residential desirability to locate in any area adjacent to the residential uses.
Mr. MacDonald said that he oppo
sed the resolution since it would make
his business non -conforming and it would make it impossible for his business
to expand. He noted that the business has grown at a rapid rate, and he does
not want to have his property devalued because of this section being repealed.
Mrs. Graves said that the purpose of the resolution is to protect adjacent
residential areas.
Mr. Easter suggested that this use be permitted by special use permit.
Mr. Tucker said that this resolution does not come about as a result
of Mr. MacDonald's business, that the staff feels this zone is not appropriate
for this use. He stated that the B-1 and A-1 zones provide for this use already.
Mr. Easter suggested that this matter be deferred until the questions
regarding Pampered Pet's site plan are resolved.
Mr. MacDonald said that he currently has three businesses on this property
and he does not want them to be made non -conforming.
Mr, Barksdale moved that this use be permitted in the M-1 zone with
a special permit.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that this use should be permitted only in the A-1 zone
and said that he could not support the motion.
Mr. Carr said that he agreed.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-3, with Messrs. Carr and Gloeckner
and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
141
Since there was no further business or discussion, the meeting adjourned
at 12:10 a.m.
Abert Tucker, Jr., Xlcret y
19