HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 105-170January 7, 1975
The regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held in the
County Court House, Charlottesville, Virginia, on Tuesday, January 7, 1975, at 7:30 p.m.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -
Chairman; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
SP-435. James Fleming - Evergreen Planned Community
This was a deferred item from December 2, 1974 .
Due to the receipt of additional information since the previous meeting, Mr. Carr
asked the Commission if it wished to re -open the public hearing.
Mr. Tinsley moved that public hearing be re -opened; Mrs. Craddock seconded the
motion, which the Commission passed unanimously.
Mr. Tucker read several letters which the staff had received that were relevant
to the decision of the Commission. Those letters included a letter from Mr. J. Harvey
Bailey, Albemarle County Engineer, concerning the runoff this PUD would contribute the
Rivanna Reservoir. Other letters concerning the life of the reservoir were from Mr. M.
Kelly, Environmental Science Department of the University of Virginia; Richmond office
of the State Health Department; State Water Control Board; Regional office of the State
Health Department. Another letter was from the Virginia Historic Landmarks office con-
cerning the detriment to Shack Mountain that would result if this PUD were permitted.
Mr. Charles Baldwin represented Mr. W. P. Dinsmore White by reading a letter con-
cerning the life of the reservoir requesting that the special permit be denied.
Mr. Carter, Mr. Fleming's attorney, made brief remarks requesting the Commission
to grant the special permit.
Mr. Collins, a professor from the University of Virginia's Planning Department,
stated that aside from the possible destruction to the Rivanna Reservoir, he had studied
the PUD from a planning standpoint. He noted that the PUD does not meet the most de-
sirable use of the land.
Mr. John Longley, another faculty member of the University, suggested that the
PUD be put elsewhere.
Mrs. Thompson presented a series of petitions from city and county residents who
expressed concern over the life of the reservoir.
Mr. Francis Fife, representing City Council, asked that the Commission halt growth
in that area till further study of the reservoir could be made.
Mr. Rick Richmond, representing the Carr estate, asked that the decision of the
Commission not prejudice growth and development of adjoining acreage.
Mr. Bedford Moore, of Shack Mountain asked that the Commmission deny the request
with prejudice.
The public hearing was closed at this point.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the request be denied; Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion,
Mr. McClure established that the Planning Staff did recommend approval with
numerous conditions. He stated that he, with these conditions, did approve the PUD,
since it seemed to be a logical extension of the urban area.
With a vote of 5-1, the Commission denied the request for SP-435.
Galban Subdivision Plat
Mr. Tucker asked the Commission to defer this till 1/20/75, when the data would
be complete for the Commission's review.
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral; Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unan
mously.
Imogene Bias - 5 lot subdivision
Mr. Tucker explained that this was a request for subdivision with large lot
acreage, and that no further subdivision would be made. He stated that the staff found
no fault with this request.
Mr. Payne suggested to the Commission that approval be conditional to legal ease-
ment being in the grant.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to this condition. Mrs. Craddock se-
conded the motion, which carried unanimously.
room. Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and voting by leaving the
ZMP-315. Richard deButts, etal., had petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to rezone 15.66 acres located on the east side of State Route 631
(Old Lynchburg Road), from R-3 Residential and A-1 Agricultural to R-2 Residential
Property is further described as County Tax Map 76, Parcel 52; Scottsville Magis-
terial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Helvin represented Mr. deButts. He told the Commission that the plan was to
develop this property with duplexes.
tion.
Mr. A. G. Chapman spoke for the adjoining property owners in favor of this peti-
Mr. Rinehart stated that he was in favor of this petition but cautioned the Commis-
sion to watch future growth in this area.
Run. Mrs. Craddock acknowledged her concern over the runoff that would be to Bisr- t
Mr. Tinsley moved approval; Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried un-
animously.
SP-440. Ronald H. Thompson has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors to locate a mobile home on 1.5 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is
situated on the east side of State Route 616, about 1/4 mile south of its inter-
section with the C and 0 Railroad. Property is further described as County Tax
Map 80, Parcel 159. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Thompson explained that he was making the request for an addition in order to
use the facility as a rental unit.
Mr. Lewis Moore, an adjoining property owner, requested that the Commission deny
the request, since there had been provisions to have as few mobile homes in the County
as possible.
Mr. Donald Terrail, another adjoining property owner, explained that the residents
of that community have been trying to make improvements to the area and stated that he
felt that the Commission should deny this request, since it did not mean an improvement.
At this point the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Craddock moved denial on the basis that the owner would not be living in the
rental unit, and would therefore probably not take the pride of ownership and reminded
the members that it had been the Commission's policy to permit mobile homes anywhere
except mobile home parks.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion for denial, which the Commission passed unani-
mously.
Sp-445. Stockton Creek has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a craft shop on 11.51 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is sit-
uated on the south side of Route 250 West, at the intersection of State Route
690. Property is further described as County Tax Map 70, Parcel 15A, part there-
of. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mark Grady represented Stockton Creek.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that the number of persons permitted to work in the craft
shop be limited to 12 persons, and then moved approval of SP-445 subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1. Products be limited to custom built items i.e., no assembly line type manu-
facturing;
2. Building Official approval of barn renovations;
3. Limit of one free standing sign with maximum area of eight (8) square feet
and the location to be approved by the Planning staff;
location to be approved by the Planning
4. Provisions of adequate parking and
staff;
5. Schematic site plan to be submitted to the Planning staff for approval,
indicating the location of the sign and parking area;
6. Closing of the centermost entrance as shown on the site plan received
January 6, 1975, within one (1) year from date of final approval;
7. Staff review of conditions after one year;
8. Maximum number of persons employed by craft shop to be 12 persons; and
9. Permits issued to Stockton Creek only and non -transferable.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Westgate Phase III - Information Only
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the Board of Supervisors had approved this
at their December meeting.
Proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance - Article 17 - Site
Development Plan
Mr. Payne noted that several structural changes needed to be made, and pointed
this out to the Commission.
Mr. Tucker explained that site plans are required in the R-3, B-1, M-1 and M-2
zones. He further stated that the bulk of the ordinance states what has to be shown
on the site plan. The Commission was informed that what is now used as a guideline
or policy is not an ordinance.
Mrs.Marsha Marshaw, representing the League of Women Voters, stated that
League does support the adoption of a Site Development Plan as soon as possible,
but recommended to the Commission that several changes be made in the structure of the
proposed ordinance.
Daley Craig, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, suggested
further changes.
Mr. Bill Roudabush suggested additional changes.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing at this time, and recommended to the Commission
that further discussion on the proposed amendment be deferred to the February loth
meeting of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rinehart put this suggestion into the form of a motion, which Mr. Tinsley
seconded and the Commission passed unanimously.
Mr. Carr briefed the Commission on the procedure that would be used for the up-
coming public hearings on the Zoning Ordinance and Map that would begin on Monday, Jan-
uary 13, 1975, at Walton School.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned.
L. Humphre Secret y
Janury 13, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held the first of a series of four
%Mow public hearings to consider the adoption of a new zoning ordinance and a new map for
Albemarle County on Monday, January 13, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the Walton School Cafe-
toriv.m,in the Scottsville Magisterial District
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -
Chairman; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tins-
ley; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and introduced the members of the Planning
Commission to the public in the effort to show that the Planning Commission is a citi-
zens committee.
Mr. Carr explained to the citizens the format of the meeting, noting that those
persons who had signed up to speak would be permitted to speak for
the three
minutes,
anter. He fur -
would be called upon in the order in which their name appeared
ther explained that those persons representing citizens' groups would be given the op-
portunity to speak for a period of ten minutes.
He reviewed the notices that property owners had received in the mail from the
Planning Department, and urged individuals to write comments on the forms and submit
them to the Planning Department at 411 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia,
if they lacked understanding of the notice or the statement of intent that accompanied
the form. Mr. Carr told the public that the Planning Commission would hold work ses-
sions in February to review the comments that the Planning Department received.
hat the
ning
on has nothin
o do
The chairman sessment, anduurgedblic tspeakersPtonrefrain fromlmaking commentt reminded the sabout
with taxes or tax as
such, but take them up with the proper county office.
Mr. Carr gave a brief history of the zoning of Albemarle County, stating that in
1968 the County had adopted a Zoning Ordinance and Map under which the County is pre-
sently zoned unless changes have been approved by the proper governing agencies. He
reviewed the fact that in 1971 the Board of Supervisors had adopted a Comprehensive Mr.
Plan for the County which planned for efficient growth and land use in the County.
Carr stated that the Comprehensive Plan called for revision of the existing zoning or-
dinance and map. He requested that individuals make comments, since this is the pur-
pose of the meeting.
Mr. Carr stated that the County will continue to grow, with the estimate that
approximately 300,000 people could inhabit Albemarle County by the year 2000. He
stated that a Zoning Ordinance, Map, Comprehensive Plan, and other ordinances would en-
able the County to more effectively manage growth, since they are the tools for land
use planning and zoning, thus eliminating some problems by seeking compatability. He
noted that a plan for growth and development should be firm, yet not rigid. He stated
that it was important that residential growth not continue to circle Charlottesville,
rather it should take place in outlying communities. A plan was necessary to making m
plish this, though. Mr. Carr stated that more zones increase flexibility,
growth easier for the landowner, developer, and for the County, emphasizing that the
fair ordinance would be workable, yet deal from strength.
Mr. John L. Humphrey, County Planner, explained and compared the eleven zones
of the existing map and ordinance to the twenty-one zones of the proposed map and or-
dinance by giving descriptions of each zone.
Mr. Prescott Carter of Scottsville Farm interrupted Mr. Humphrey's explana
tion of historic zoning, stating that he had failed to receive comment from the
County concerning his correspondence relating to this particular zoning.
Mr. Carr asked the public to hold further comment until the meeting was open
to public hearing.
Mr. Humphrey continued his explanation, explaining the four floating zones that
has been proposed.
Mr. Carr then opened the meeting to public hearing.
Mr. T. E. Wood, suggested no planning for the commercial areas in the county,
especially those in the 29 North and South areas. He stated that it seemed to him
that there is very little difference in the new and old maps and some of the zones nee
clarifying by definition.
Mr. G. F. Hammill questioned down -zoning of his property.
Mr. James Gercke stated that he felt the proposed zoning was being rammed down t]
throats of the public. He asked that the public be allowed to vote if they wished to
accept these changes. He stated that the County was acting as if it owned the property
and urged the public to referendum.
Mr. William F. Marley, Jr., questioned having to obtain a special permit in ordez
to farm on less than ten acres in the RR zone.
Mr. David L. Lewis asked for the definition of "agriculture."
Mr. Humphrey referred him to Page 167 of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. O. L. Lewis stated that he was against zoning and county growth. He asked
the chairman why the county was experiencing so much growth.
Mr. Carr explained that Albemarle County is a very attractive place because of th
beautiful countryside and the opportunities that the County afforded.
Mrs. H. W. Richardson wanted to go on record as being opposed to zoning and the
proposed changes. She stated that she resented that she, as a taxpayer, could not do
with her property as she wished.
Mr. John L. Morris commended the good work of the Planning Commission and the
Planning staff. However, he noted that he felt there had been too much emphasis on
conservation use of property. He stated that he did support the idea of keeping houses
in communities.
Mr. Prescott Carter reminded the Commission that his farm has been operating for
over 200 years. He spoke for the members for Southern Albemarle and stated that he
felt all dairy farms should be in the Agricultural zone rather than the Agricultural
Limited Zone.
Mr. Fred Whiteside represented Southside Albemarle Association by stating
that their ideas were in line with those of Mr. Carter's.
�l I
Mr. Rey Barry asked that he be given the opportunity at a later date to present
an amendment.
Mrs. Francis Martin, speaking fcrthe Citizens for Albemarle, expressed support
for the basic concepts in the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map.
Mrs. Hugh Spencer stated that she felt zoning should apply to future citizens
of Albemarle, not those presently living here.
Mr. R. M. Jeffrey spoke in reference to taxes.
Mr. David Stokes, III, inquired as to the reason for
inclusion
onlofbturkey
e shoots,
etc. in the Agricultural zone. He requested that they allowed
al
permit.
Mr. John Arbaugh stated that he would present his statement in writing.
Mr. C. V. Alvin stated that he, too, will present his comments in writing.
Mrs. Margaret Reid spoke on the Errata Sheet, asking the public to ake not ingle of
the addition to certain sections of "Condominiums with site plan approval"
family rental units, two (2) or less, by right; and single family rental units, three
(3) or more with site plan approval, provided for in Article 31."
Mr. Humphrey responded to her remarks by stating that by state laws, all zones
must now include the right of condominiums.
Rosa Hudson asked if the Comprehensive Plan is available to the public. She
rs for holding public hear -
thanked the Planning Commission and the Board of Superviso
ings.
Mr. Dominik Stillfried asked what protection he would have for farming. He asked
that his own property be zoned AGR rather than AL.
Mr. Douglas McKay stated that growth can destroy, and asked the Commission to
closely watch growth, industry, and pollution. He also stated that some zones seemed
to be erroneous, especially the CVN zone which permitted mobile homes.
Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing Martin Marietta, stated that he felt it had
been an oversight not to include approximately thirty acres from TM 100, Parcel 13 into
the Natural Resource Zone. He further stated that some regulations of the County were
different from those of the state, and suggested that these be made compatible. He
stated that some second shift runs were necessary by Martin Marietta, and that the
proposed hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. would eliminate these. He ask-
ed for consideration of these points, and told the Commission that he would submit his
comments in writing.
Mr. Jim Payne recommended that Albemarle County investigate those counties and
cities which function without zoning and consider adopting such a policy for Albemarle
County.
Mr. Mat Rittburg stated that the Red Hill area is noisy due to Martin Marietta.
will
Then he spoke in reference to the new tax
Rgassessment
and PUD zonesa tHetnew urgedzthatgadoptior.
drive taxes even higher in the RT, RTM,
of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map be delayed until January of 1976.
Mr. E. L. Swartzentauber asked how prime agricultural could be considered for
AL zoning change. He urged a referendum.
Mrs. Helen Ida Moyer stated that controlled growth is good and she felt
the objectives of the Commission were good. Her concern is over the right of
condominiums to exist in all zones.
Mr. Carr explained that the density will remain the same, and restated that they
are legal in commercial, industrial, and residential zones.
pro ertMrs. Martha Cosner questioned that the proper zoning had been assigned to her
P y.
Mrs. Grady Convington reminded the Planning Commission to consider water avail
ability throughout the County if the cluster idea is adopted. She questioned if the
ordinance could be enforced.
Mr. T. H. W. Richardson asked for an explanation of the cluster alternate.
Mr. Humphrey did this, stating that it is a way to provide additional open space
Mr. Tom Sinclair, speaking for Mr. R. J. Breeden, suggested that perhaps topo-
graphy had been overlooked in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Sinclair to put his comments in writing.
Mr. Johnson, stating that southside Albemarle is full of history and open space,
and that the proposed zoning could destroy it. He asked what restrictions the Historic
zone held and who determined if something were historic.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the property y
pro ert would be reviewed b a group of architects.
Mrs. Thompson stated that she did not feel the people were satisfied with the
limited amount of time the County had taken to discuss this.
Mrs.Dwayne Carr questioned the discrepancy in the proposed map and the notice
she had received.
Mr. Carr told her to submit this in writing to the Planning Department.
Mr. Samuel Spangler stated that he is concerned about his particular zoning for
his property and asked that visual inspection be made.
Mr. Carr told him that visual inspection has been made of all county property.
Mr. F. Vie stated that he knew of present violations to the existing ordinance
and asked that the commission continue to use the existing ordinance.
Mr. Harry Smith was concerned that he would no longer be able to use his land.
Mr. W. Campbell stated that probably the Commission and the Board of Supervisors
had made the decision already to pass this proposed zoning ordinance.
Mr. C. B. Alfiss asked how the boundaries for the CVN zone had been decide'
Mr. Humphrey told him that topography maps and property lines had contributed
to the decisions.
Mr. Fred Scott commended the Commission on the work it had done. He asked if
the proposed map could be divided into magisterial districts and then blown up to
the 600 scale, in order that property owners could better see the property line and
make a better evaluation of the proposals.
Mr. Carr noted that there seemed to be no further comments, thanked the public
for its attendance, and adjourned the meeting.
M
114
January 16, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held the second of a series of four
public hearings to consider the adoption of a new zoning ordinance and a new map for
Albemarle County on Thursday, January 16, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the Jack Jouett Cafe-
torium in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -
Chairman; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tins-
ley; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and introduced the members of the Planning
Commission to the public in an effort to show that the Planning Commission is a citizens
committee.
Mr. Carr explained to the citizens the format of the meeting, noting that those
persons who had signed up to speak would be permitted to speak for three minutes, and
would be called upon in the order in which their names appeared on the roster. He
further explained that those persons representing citizens' groups would be given the
opportunity to speak for a period of ten minutes.
He reviewed the notices that property owners had received in the mail from the
Planning Department, and urged individuals to write comments on the forms and submit
them to the Planning Department at 411 East High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia, if
they lacked understanding of, or had complaints about, the notice or the statement
of intent that accompanied the form. Mr. Carr told the public that the Planning Com-
mission would hold work sessions in February to review the commento that the Planning
Department received.
The chairman remind the public that the Planning Commission has nothing to do
with taxes or tax assessment, and urged speakers to refrain from making comments about
such, but take them up with the proper county office.
Mr. Carr gave a brief history of the zoning of Albemarle County, stating that in
1968 the County had adopted a Zoning Ordinance and Map under which the County is pre-
sently zoned unless changes have been approved by the proper governing agencies. He
reviewed the fact that in 1971 the Board of Supervisors had adopted a Comprehensive
Plan for the County which planned for efficient growth and land use in the County.
Mr. Carr stated that the Comprehensive Plan called for revision of the existing zoning
ordinance and map. He requested that individuals make comments, since this is the pur-
pose of the meeting.
Mr. Carr stated that the County will continue to grow, with the estimate that
approximately 300,000 people could inhabit Albemarle County by the year 2000. He
stated that a Zoning Ordinance, Map, Comprehensive Plan, and other ordinances would
enable the County to more effectively manage growth, since they are the tools for land
use planning and zoning, thus eliminating some problems by seeking compatability. He
noted that a plan for growth and development should be firm, yet not rigid. He stated
that it was important that residential growth not continue to circle Charlottesville,
rather it should take place in outlying communities. A plan was necessary to acom-
plish this, though. Mr. Carr stated that more zones increase flexibility, making
growth easier for the landowner, developer, and for the County, emphasizing that the
fair ordinance would be workable, yet deal from strength.
Mr. John L. Humphrey, County Planner, explained and compared the eleven zones
of the existing map and ordinance to the twenty-one zones of the proposed map and Ord
nance by giving descriptions of each zone and by pointing them out on the two maps, e
plaining the various color notations and soil evaluations.
Mr. Roy Patterson, speaking for the Citizens of Albemarle, made the follow comments:
"One analyst has described the task of leadership in a democratic society as 't]
task Of persuading people to sacrifice their short -run indvidual gratifications in Ord
to achieve long -run communal interests.' Such is your task in presenting the revised
zoning map and ordinance. We need not dwell on the unique character of Albemarle
County - we all know its scenic vistas, its woodlands, its rolling terrain, and its
rural character. It is the conviction of Citizens for Albemarle that those now livinc
hold the land in trust for the future generations. We violate that trust at the expen:
of our children.
Because of that conviction, we strongly endorse the proposed zoning ordinance
and map. We see zoning as protection - protection for the farmer, the homeowner, the
prospective purchaser, the businessman, and the public health. We applaud the three
new low density zones because we believe they will preserve agricultural land, protect
cherished amenities, and preserve our natural resources. These zones should keep in-
tense development out of rural areas and thus help hold taxes down by reducing the nee
for far-flung sewer and water lines and other services. We endorse the larger number
of zones because they permit greater precision in zoning as well as greater protection
for neighboring property owners.
In view of their beneficial effects, we urge expeditions action to adopt these
measures. Those who call for delay are those who have not bothered to study the
proposals during the two-year period they have been prepared in public sessions. Such persons have only themselves to blame for lack of understanding. We feel
You should avoid wasting time on minor changes as later amendment is always possible.
The rapid pace of development demands action before Albemarle County is irreparably
compromised by strip zoning, surburban doubt, the lower density should be places on
land because you can always rezone land to a higher density, but reducing density is
legally possible only as part of a comprehensive revision of the zoning map, which is
unlikely to recur for many years. We will be permanently stuck with mistakes of too
intense use or high density incorporated on this map.
Despite the need for early action, major faults on the map can and should be cor-
rected before the Commission forwards its work to the Supervisors. It is apparent
that the Agricultural Zone (10 acres) is too limited in extent. Many property owners
engaged in productive farming need, want, and deserve the greater protection of the
lowest density zone, whatever the technical classification of their soils. Secondly,
Rural Residential zoning has been excessive where placed around clusters. This
zoning often anticipates the needs of the distant future. Many areas zoned for 1.5
acres are now in large holdings, and their owners should not have to carry the addi-
tional tax burden likely to result from high density zonings for the long period until
this land is needed for residential development. Developers may be assured of favorabl,
response to rezoning requests at a later date by the location of the property in the
cluster area by the Master Plan. We also feel that the R-R zone should be enlarged
to 2 acres to form a more significant transition between the 1-acre zone and the 5-acre
zone Agriculture Limited Zone. There is presently too broad a gap in this area. More-
over, 2 acres would give a more adequate margin of safety for a well and septic tank
where there are many contiquour 2-acre lots. The third major problem is the
lack of control of noise pollution in the new zoning ordinance. Some zones
have restrictions, but most do not. Our suggestion is to consolidate all present
references to noise in a separate section written for all zones. To facilitate en-
forcement we recommend A -weighted decibel limits rather than the proposed octave
gand levels. It is our intention to follow up this recommendation with detailed tech-
nical material in your workshops.
As for minor faults, there are a few that could be quickly repaired. First,
the Industrial Limited Zone should be reviewed because it permits nuisance factors
such as those associated with warehousing, light manufacturing, and soft drink bot-
tling, too close to residential areas. We suggest either that industries with such
uses be removed from the zone or placed under the Special Use Permit. Next, the Agri-
cultural Limited Zone should contain in its statement of intent wording similar to
that in the Agricultural Zone, relating its designation to the non -availability of
public services. Thus its purpose as a holding zone for channeling high densities
to cluster areas would be more generally understood and more effectively promoted.
We also suggest a small change in the statement of intent for the Conservation Zone so
that the concluding phrase should read, - 'and those where land development should
be held to a minimum for protection of natural resources and environmental amenities.'
Such a change would make this zone more serviceable for protection of stream valleys,
open space, and scenic vistas.
In concluding our general comments on the revised ordinance and map, we would
urge you to set aside claims by property owners that they have acquired a vested inte-
rest in present zoning because of taxes they have paid. We call your attention and that
of the public and the media to the carefully researched and considered opinion of the
County Attorney on this issue, expressed in a recent letter to the Planning Commission.
He has advised you that a landowner who has paid taxes on land the assessment of which
was influenced by the existing zoning does not acquire a vested interest in that zoning,
Despite contrary statements by public officials and newspaper articles, this opinion
alone should serve as your guide in this matter. Moreover, we have investigated the
properties of those individuals who have claimed such vested interest and discovered
that the assessments on which all their taxes were based date to 1966, before zoning
even existed in the County.
In short, we urge you to recommend these measures in a form that will spare us
the hazards of strip zoning along highways, polluted drinking water, poorly serviced
surburban sprawl, and a generally degraded living environment. We count on you to
enable us to face the future with confidence rather than dread - the future in a
well -planned, harmonious community.
Thank you."
Mr. Robert Keller, Vice -President of Citizens fo Albemarle, gave the second
part of their presentation on the proposed zoning ordinance and map:
"The second part of our statement this evening deals with areas in this locality.
We suggest a review of the zoning you have proposed for three areas. First is the
property on Route 743 directly south of the main runway of the Charlottesville -Albemarle
Airport. This land is proposed for the Rural Residential Zone, one dwelling unit per
1.5 acres. Although there exist some dwellings on 2-acre lots in the area, large por-
tions remain in large holdings. Encouraging residential development adjacent to the
runway may in the long run jeopardize the great public investment in the airport. In
other communities, political pressures resulting from noise levels near airports have
forced curtailment of flights or abandonment of the facilities themselves. The public
interest would be better protected by Agriculture Limited zoning along Route 743 on
both sides to the Conservation Zone along the reservoir. Another area deserving of
your renewed attention is the east side of Route 743 just south of the entrance to the
airport, where you have placed a strip of Industrial Limited zoning along land pro-
posed for R-R. This zoning seems to be premature, as there is no existing industrial
development there, and the zoning could create undesirable conditions for the home-
owners who live along the road. If one property owner sells his land, others may
find themselves exposed to nuisances that established residents should be sparec
Should an industry wish to locate there, it could apply for a rezoning, and the
effect on the residents would be more accurately evaluated.
By this time you are well acquainted with public concern about the zoning you
have proposed for the East end of the South Fork Reservoir. We have prepared these
maps of the watershed to illustrate this problem. The first map shows the drainage
area of the reservoir in blue. Note that the ridge line or edge of the watershed fol
lows Route 631 and 659, or Rio Road and the SPCA Road. The blue area drains into
the water suuply but the yellow area drains into the Rivanna below the dam. Therefor
protection of the blue area is essential. On the overlay we have marked the zoning y
have proposed. Note the high density zoning on the west side of 631 and 659 in the
basin of the reservoir, despite the low densities now existing in that area. This
area is now relatively undeveloped. Although the upstream areas have been down -zoned
to Conservation, the high density zones on the east end of the reservoir have been
exempted from downzoning and carried over from the old zoning map.
We join with many others in requesting that you recommend a uniform belt of Con-
servation zoning around the entire reservoir. An additional safeguard would be to
place the small amount of land zoned R-R at the east end in the Agricultural Limited
Zone instead for the time being. Legal counsel has advised us that upstream resident:
zoned Conservation will be able to challenge any exemption of land at the east end of
the reservoir as arbitrary and capricious and as an illegal spot zoning. In order for
the conservation zoning of the entire reservoir to be upheld in court, the County neec
only show that such zoning is for the public health, safety and welfare. Statements
now in your hands from the State Health Department and the Water Control Board
put the County in a strong position to justify its action in establishing con-
servation zoning. We hope that you will heed public wishes and reconsier the zoning
of the reservoir area. Conservation zoning would give the County time for adequate
study of the reservoir without permanently foreclosing options for development there.
Despite these three specific criticisms of the map in this locality, we would
like to repeat our strong support for both the ordinance and map that you have pre-
pared. We commend your service to the community and hope that these worthy measures
will receive early adoption.
Thank you."
Heinz Pors of Northfield Community recommended approval of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance and Map. He stated that he had talked to Mr. Tucker of the Planning staff
and it appeared to Mr. Pors that the R-2 zone was even more restrictive than old R-1
zone. He thanked the Planning Commission and the Planning staff for all their assist-
ance.
Mr. Richard Carter,representing Dave Callaghan, Bill Bell, and Pete Hallock,
asked the Commission not to blanket zone their land with RT. He stated that the Garden
Spot was beside a high density area, but in the RTM zone. He stated that this area
was not designed for lower density.
Mr. Stoneburner of Berkmar Subdivision Printing asked to go on record as opposed
to the proposed zoning since it would destroy the value of his property.
Mr. Benton Patterson stated that he did not agree with the thinking of the
Citizens for Albemarle and that he does not endorse the proposed zoning ordinance. He
X/P
stated that his property on Route 29 North is presently zoned Business, and it was
on that zoning that the bank had loaned him money for his business. He stated that
the Commission and staff had not considered his rights as a property owner, since he
paid taxes on the basis that his property is zoned Business.
Mr. C. E. Ostrander, representing Four Seasons Homeowners Association, stated
that the Association had voted against any zoning that permits more than six (6)
dwelling units per acre.
Mrs. P. A. Rappolt of Earlysville spoke on taxes.
Mr. John E. Early, III, President of the Berkley Homeowners Association, stated
that this Association supports the proposed zoning of the land adjacent to Berkley.
Mr. Donald Hemmer, commended the Citizens for Albemarle, the Planning Commission,
and the Planning Staff, but stated that he objected to the Citizens' for Albemarle
recommendation concerning the airport zoning. He stated that he sees the future need
for a plant for solid waste in the heavy industrial zone.
Mr. R. E. Lee, an officer of R. E. Lee & Son, Inc., protests the proposed
zoning of the property known as Parcel 061-5A on the grounds that it does not allow
for growth and expansion of the general contracting organization. He explained ex-
actly how the property is used, and stated that he felt the property should be placed
in the CG zone.
Mr. Harry Garth, citing the Depression when 1-2 acres was sold in order to have
some money, stated that he wished his property to be in the AG zone. He stated that
if this were not done, and if he wished to sell any property, it would be necessary
for him to sell his entire parcel, since it was only 14 acres.
wee Mr.
Mr. J. T. Camblos, stated that he took issue with all the recommendation that
the Commission and the Planing staff had received. He stated that the proposed
ordinance is an excellent example of what is most deplored in government=-` Big Brother -
ism. He made specific references to the fact that privated recreation could not take
place in certain zones without obtaining a special use permit.
Mr. Bud Treakle stated that the net effect of a zoning ordinance should be to
provide flexibility; rather than doing this, the proposed ordinance for Albemarle
County seemed to provide blanket zoning. He stated that he could not see how the
staff would administer the ordinance, if passed, since they did not seem to be able
to handle the present ordinance. He remarked that the passage of his ordinance would
merely mean more and more county government.
Mrs. Laura Leavy, presenting the Berkley Community Association, requested that
the area around the Rivanna all be zoned CVN in order to preserve the drinking supply.
Mr. Ed Floyd questioned non -conforming land use in various zones, and was told
by Mr. Humphrey that no zoning could be retro-active and that property could continue
in its present use as a non -conforming area.
Mr. Gerald Tremblay stated that he realized that there was chaos without plan-
ning, but said he felt that down -zoning is "evil." He protested the downzoining of
his property from Business to Agricultural. He pointed out to the Commission that
many real estate sales have been blocked due to pending ordinance. He further pointed
out the problems of non -conforming lots, and stated that in case of fire or destruc-
tion, it would be practically impossible to secure title insurance loans, etc. and
noted that it would also be troublesome to secure variances.
Mrs. Carol Prosser of the Northfields community, stated that with a zoning
change from R-1 to R-2 it looked as if the neighborhood is losing status and
that in the event of sales, people from other areas would not understand the classif:
cation and would be hesitant to purchase property in that area.
Mr. Lee McCauley asked Mr. Humphrey how many additional staff members he would
need to enforce the pending ordinance.
Mr. Humphrey stated that he planned no additions to the staff.
Mr. Youel of Earlysville stated that the limitation of 10 acres is too much and
stated that he hopes the re-classification will not interfer with land use.
Mr. George Gilmer, Jr. asked what abuses will be corrected by the proposed ordi
nance. He stated that the county needed a place for the working man to live, which
it does not provide now. He stated that too many places are non -conforming and that
down -zoning is bad.
Mr. Galla, a resident of Northfields Community, asked specific questions about
a zoning change from R-1 to R-2.
Mr. A. L. Scott, representing 14 families, asked for comparable development
on both sidesof Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Bob Harris, citing the proposed re -zoning of his property along Route 29
North, stated that it looked as if property had been spot zoned, and mentioned that
down -zoning is unfair.
Mr. Francis Fife, expressed his thanks
Albemarle County remain the beautiful county thathitPis. He spoke ng sfor nthe rCitypofg Charlottesville in support of the CVN zone around the reservoir by stating that the
Rivanna is the much needed water source for now and future growth of the County and
City. He cited the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County in the preservation of
such areas as the reservoir. He stated that according to the Soil Survey of the
County it was acknowledged that this was down -zoning, but since it is in the framework
of being beneficial to all involved, the Commission should use its power under Enablin
Legislation and leave this area in the CVN zone.
Mrs. Rosenblum recommended approval of the proposed ordinance as soon as possibl,
and endorsed her support of the CVN zone around the reservoir. She urged the Commis-
sion to study the IL zone, stated that in some cases it seems too intense to be near
the residential zones to maintain the idea of open space. She stated she felt the
ordinance should be passed, then amendments for rezoning could later be heard.
Mr. Charles Smith stated that planning was needed to increase the density in
some areas. He acknowledged that growth cannot be prevented. He was distressed,
though, about the deadline for comments about the proposed zoning, since he felt it
took away the rights of private ownership.
Mr. Carr told him the deadline had been set in order that the propositin can
move forward.
Mr. Steve McClellan told the public that the Planning Commission can
merely recommend approval or denial, that it is the Board of Supervisors who will
have the final decision in the proposed ordinance. He noted that with a change from
1 dwelling unit per two acres to 1 dwelling unit per five acres, the property is de-
valued, yet it means more taxes. He stated that a zoning change would mean reap-
firr+l' praisals, and that property devaluation can often mean litigation. Says that since
zoning has been plots, it seems unfair and inconsistent.
Mr. Jim Hahn stated that the burden had been placed on the rural community.
He asked that each piece of property be closely examined since economic changes will
evolve.
Mr. Frank Patterson stated it seemed unfair that a few property owners should
sacrifice for many. He stated that high density housing will retain open space and
the historic areas. He stated that "sprawl" is the most expensive way of planning.
Mrs. Betty Scott, representing the League of Women Voters, stated that they
supported the proposed ordinance and map; she stated that it is an improvement over
the old ordinance, especially in the sense that it afford protection to the Rivanna
Reservoir.
Mr. DeHooge stated that he was against re -zoning because it favors the developer
and the real estate investors.
Mr. Bedford Moore expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission
eand
dVthe
Planning Staff. He wanted to state that he especially approved
district around the Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. William Stevenson questioned down -zoning from a legal standpoint. He
stated that this will make titles unclear, prices change, title insurance difficult
to obtain, and non -conforming situations difficult to regulate. He stated that he
felt the County will face much litigation. He wished his letter of January 16, 1975
to Mr. David Carr, Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission to be part
of the public record:
Dear Mr. Carr:
Pursuant to our letter of March 22, 1974, protesting the proposed down -zoning
of the property of the Charlottesville Land Trust, I would like to supplement those
remarks by officially protesting the down -zoning in behalf of the owners. This down -
zoning will result in a severe economic loss to the owners who only recently purchased
the land for B-1 use.
These parcels, located on Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drives, are well buffered
by vegetation and topography from adjoining land designated for zpartment uses. They
are on potentially important streets, face a commercial skating rink, and will be
needed for various businesses as the area develops. Higher uses are shown for other
properties beyond these on Greenbrier.
Section 61-W, Parcel 1-X-6 is recommended for CL zoning by notice No. 11369085,
which is not clearly shown as such on the proposed zoning map. Parcels 12, 5B, and
4B on Section 61-W are proposed for drastic down -zoning to CO. This appears com-
pletely inconsistent with the CL zoning proposed for Parcel 24, Section 61 (7.4 acres)
and parcels 29D and 29E on Section 61 beyond our property as well as all the property
from Peyton Drive and Commonwealth over to U.S. 29. I do not know whether those
owners requested this designation or not. However, I feel the Trust's property is
comparable to and perhaps even more desirable for business use. Accordingly, it is
requested that the Trust's property receive at least similar treatment and pre-
ferably that the whole area be zoned for General Business.
It is respectfully requested that this letter be made part of the record
of this hearing, together with attachment.
C. Preston Locher
J. T. Graves
Wm. W. Stevenson
C. W. McNeely III
Charles E. Echols
E. Gerald Tremblay
Enclosure: Letter of March 22, 1974
Yours very truly,
Charlottesville Land Trust by
William W. Stevenson, Co -Manager, for:
Jason I. Eckford, Jr.
Alton F. Martin
Thomas E. Worrell, Jr.
Charles W. Rivers
Leonard F. Winslow, Jr.
The letter below is the enclosed letter of March 22, 1974, to Mr. John Hum-
phrey, Albemarle County Planner, in RE: Down -zoning parcels X, A-3 and 12, 5B and
4B shown on Tax Map sheet no. 61-W:
Dear Mr. Humphrey:
I am writing this letter to you on behalf of C. Preston Locher, Jason I. Eck -
ford, Jr., Charles W. Rivers, Leonard F. Winslow, Jr., Alton F. Martin, Charles E.
Echols, J. T. Graves, William W. Stevenson, C. W. McNeely, III, Thomas E. Wor-
rell, Jr. and myself who together own the above described parcels of land whicl
are situated behind the Virginia Land Company offices on Route 29 North, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia. When we recently purchased the property, it was zoned for "commer-
cial general" purposes and it is now our understanding that the county intends to
down -zone the portion we own next to the skating rink to "commercial limited" and
the other above identified parcels to "commercial office" classification. We pur-
chased the property from Dr. Hurt relying on its classification being "commercial
general." Down -zoning the classification would be very damaging to us and we are
opposed to any such down -zoning.
Prior to our purchase of the property in question, substantial expenditures
had been made, probably equal to or exceeding the original cost of the raw land,
through the construction of streets, sidewalks, utility lines, drainage structures,
grading, filling and landscaping. We present owners naturally paid for these expen-
ditures and improvements when we purchased the land and we relied on the existing
"commercial general" zoning classification. We submit that we have acquired a
vested right in the present zoning of the property.
While most disputes concerning vested rights in zoning relate to up -zoning
non -conforming uses and special permits, this matter represents an extraordinary
situation of a prospective down -zoning with a resultant material deduction in market
value for the property and a severe economic loss to the owners.
blem:
We respectfully refer to several statements of law which relate to this pro -
"Numerous courts have given approval to the doctrine that where zones have
been established in an municipality and property has been purchased with intent to
use it in conformance with such zoning, the purchased ordinarily has a right to use
it." Law of Zoning and Planning, Rathkopf, 1972 Supplement, Page 57-35.
"The rule has been laid down in several cases that one purchasing property
which has been placed in a particular classification by a general zoning ordinance
has a right to rely upon it being continued in that classification." 138 ALR 503
a person purchasing property after a zoning ordinance is in effect has
a right to assume that the classification, as existing,will not be changed except as
required for the public good." 16 CJS &239.
a municipality has been held not to be entitled to enact amendments which
will unnecessarily cause injury to one who has purchased... property in reliance on the
original regulations." 58 Am Jur &174.
"Nothing in this article shall be construed to authorize the impairment of any
vested right." Code of Virginia &15.1-492.
We are aware that there some local precedent with respect to the denial of
down -zoning. One of those was the denial to down -zone the property of Robert Harris
on Garth Road on which Old Salem Apartments are presently located. There was also
the opinion given to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on March by the
County Attorney that Ednam Forest Corporation has a "vested interest" (aside from
safety regulations) in the development of two additional sections of their subdivi-
sion.
In view of the circumstances, the law on the subjcet of down -zoning and the
precedent in past questions on this subject, please be advised that we are opposed
to the down -zoning of the above identified parcels of land and we do hereby petition
you to discontinue your effort to down -zone the parcels in question. We respectfully
request a reply to our petition.
Very truly yours,
E. Gerald Tremblay
cc: George R. St. John, Esq.
Mr. Jason Eckford, representing the Charlottesville -Albemarle Chamber of Com-
merce, stated that this organization supports a large portion of the ordinance. He
stated that it is the feeling of this group that zoning must not be too rigid, that
housing must be provided for the working man, and that industry was needed in Al-
bemarle County to provide work for local high school graduates. He stated that
industrial growth could not be encouraged if no property was zoned for industrial
uses. He further stated that industry needed some positive remarks on industry
in the AGR and AL zones, and said that zoning property as industry came along was
not sufficient. He noted that down -zoning in the county could have a negative effect
on future development.
Mr. Wendell Wood pointed out to the Commission that there is no proof that
high density growth is a detriment to the environment. it is his feeling that the
public should purchase anything which the public needs, in this case the Rivanna Re-
servoir as a source for drinking water. He stated that with certain modifications,
he could support the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Robert Walker, stated that he felt it was ridiculous not to zone the
east side of the reservoir into the CVN zone. He asked that the proposed ordinance
action be deferred by the Commission and the proposal be submitted to the pub]4 ,,
as a referendum.
Mr. Jim Krawford questioned the definition of subdivision and learned that
anything that was already on record would be considered to be a non -conforming use.
Mr. H. R. Herring, stating that the Commission had heard from no farmers. He
stated that farmers need no one to tell them how to run their property, that they
are capable of policing their own area.
Mr. Carr adjoined the meeting at this point, since there was no further com-
ments from the public.
19
9
January 21, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held the third of a series of four
public hearings to consider the adoption of a new zoning ordinance and a new map
for Albemarle County on Tuesday, January 21, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in Stone Robinson
School Cafetorium in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -
Chairman; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tins-
ley; Mr. William Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and introduced the members of the Planning
Commission to the public in the effort to show that the Planning Commission is a
citizens committee.
The chairman reminded the public that the Planning Commission has nothing to do
with taxes or tax assessment, and urged speakers to refrain from making comments
about such, but take them up with the proper county office.
Mr. Carr gave a brief history of the zoning of Albemarle County, stating that
in 1968 the County had adopted a Zoning Ordinance and Map under which the County is
presently zoned unless changes have been approved by the proper governing agencies.
He reviewed the fact that in 1971 the Board of Supervisors had adopted a Comprehensive
Plan for the County which planned for efficient growth and land use in the County.
Mr. Carr stated that the Comprehensive Plan called for revision of the existing zoninc
ordinance and map. He also gave a brief explanation of the village and cluster con-
cepts as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carr requested that individuals
make comments, since this it the purpose of the meeting.
Mr. John L. Humphrey, County Planner, explained and compared the eleven zones
of the existing map and ordinance to the twenty-one zones of the proposed map and
ordinance by giving descriptions of each zone. Included in his explanations was the
comparison of the present two floating zones to the proposed four floating zones.
After completion of Mr. Humphrey's presentation, Mr. Carr opened the meeting
to public comments.
Mr. Ray Dupree, representing Lowes Investment Corp., stated that if the pro-
posed ordinance is passed his business will be unable to expand. He stated that he
felt that planning and zoning are necessary. However, he feels as though Lowe's
should be zoned CG rather than proposed CL which is intended to limit retail uses,
frequent access, and heavy trucking. Mr. Dupree told the Commission that he had
met with John Humphrey to discuss this matter.
Mr. Keller, representing Citizens for Albemarle, argued that there is not e-
nough planning in certain areas, that the existing zoning is the same as the proposed
zoning, with merely a change in the name of the zone. He cited some general facts
about the proposed ordinance. He stated that the group he represented felt as though
site plans should be submitted in entirety and this would help to direct development.
Mr. Keller said that planning should come before zoning, and that Citizens for Albe-
marle had several points they would like to discuss in detail with the Commission at
a later date.
Mrs. Darlene Samsell commented that zoning as proposed in ordinance was a great
improvement. However, the problem area of Route 250 East from Shadwell to Free Bridge
is dangerous, and dual lanes would provide only minor help.
Mr. James Gercke stated that residential development in the AGR area with
respect to lot sizes and cost of housing is outrageous. He said that the pro-
posed ordinance would have a tremendous effect on the middle and lower income
bracket individuals. He stated that this proposal is too specific and that lately
too many ordinances, building codes, etc. have been put into effect.
Mr. Gordon Wheeler stated that the Building Code was not passed just by the
County of Albemarle, rather it was adopted by the General Assembly and the Common-
wealth of Virginia.
Mr. Layton McCann stated that too much progress was being made too soon. The
fact that the present A-1 zone of 1 dwelling unit per two acres has been changed to
an AGR zone of 1 dwelling unit per ten acres is to restrictive for the average pers
Mr. R. W. Couch, Jr., pointed out that the proposed zoning would create a har
ship for him, since he could not raise a garden, or have pigs on his property.
Mr. R. H. Scott, a resident of the Cismont area, asked if he could continue t
present uses of his property.
Mr. Skip Edelson said that the Planning Commission does not know what they ar
doing, especially when they down -zone property, thus destroy the value of the pro-
perty.
Mr. Jack Dillard stated that if land becomes more scarce, land costs rise, th-
eliminating the purchasing power from the middle and low income people. He stated
that the proposed ordinance creates 2,000 - 3,000 new boundaries for the
County.
Mr. Carlo Colombini urged citizens to write to Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman o:
the Board of Supervisors, expressing opinions on re -zoning. He recommended that thl
number of dwelling units be tabulated on the basis of 1 dwelling unit per 400 of thi
acreage.
Mrs. Nora Haynes questioned the Commission concerning the continued use of he]
property as it is presently if the proposed ordinance is passed.
Mr. Robert Coles questioned kennels in the CVN zone.
Mrs. Francis Martin stated that she supported the adoption of the proposed ordi
nance and urged its early approval by the Commission.
Mr. Gordon Wheeler, the Board member from the Rivanna District, thanked the
Planning Commission for the work they had done in preparation of the proposed ordi-
nance. He then pointed out to the public the need for such an appointed governing
body. He stated that until the Board of Supervisors is completely satisfied with
the proposed ordinance, it will not be passed.
After a few general comments from the public and an explanation from the
Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Fred Payne, on the legality of a referendum, Mr. Carl
thanked the public for its attendance. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
o n L. Humphrey, S etary
January 22, 1975
The regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held in
the Board of Supervisors Conference Room on January 22, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Roy Barksdale; and Mrs. Joan
Graves.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Mr. Carr welcomed the newly appointed Commission member, Mrs. Graves, stating
that her public interest should be very beneficial to the work of the Commission.
It was decided that the Commission would reserve the February loth and 24th
meetings for review of information they had been receiving on the proposed zoning
ordinance. The members advised Mr. Tucker that two additional work sessions should
be scheduled --February 5, 1975, beginning at 4:00 p.m. in the Board of Supersvisors
Conference Room and February 18, 1975, Jack Jouett Cafetorium.
The first item on the agenda was a deferred item - The Evalyn Galban plat in
Farmington, a request for a 20' access easement to serve one 3.4 acre parcel.
Mr. McClure moved for approval; Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried
unanimously.
New Business:
Running Deer Subdivision
This was a preliminary plat of 57 lots zoned A-1, with an average lot size of
2.5 acres.
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this subdivision is located at the end of
State Route 808. The preliminary plat proposes a series of state roads, but there is
a proposal to make one addition to the preliminary of extending the right-of-way to
the adjacent property of Mr. Florence.
Mr. Aubrey Huffman, the engineer for the applicant, Mr. Kirby, stated that the
State Health Department has lately not been requiring percolation tests, rather they
have been using soil examinations.
Mr. Tucker suggested that since there has been a history of trouble in perking
in that area, that percolation tests be run.
Mr. Carr stated that this test would protect future purchasers.
Mr. McClure moved approval, with final approval being subject to the following:
1. A grading permit must be obtained for the roads;
2. Road plans must be approved, and a bond posted to insure their construction
to State standards;
3. These lots must receive final approval and be recorded prior to any
zoning change.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried. Mr. Rinehart did not
vote.
Compton Plat:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this is a request for a waiver of frontag
requirement on one lot off State Route 6 near Esmont.
Mr. McClure stated that this area is pretty well subdivided, but there appear
to be room for another house.
Mr. Tucker stated that there is a need for pipestems in this particular area.
Mr. Tinsley moved that the waiver of frontage requirements for lot #1 be ap-
proved.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mary R. White Estate Preliminary:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a reuqest for a 13 lot subdivision zoned
R-1, near Flordon, with an average lot size of 2.1 acres. The applicant wished to
make use of the private road sustem that was established before zoning. The subdi-
vision will be served by County water. Mrs. Scala told the Commission that
Broomley Road comes up to the property and then the 30' right-of-way takes
over.
Mr. Aubrey Huffman, the engineer for the applicant, stated that the existing
access onto Flordon Drive would be used, but the dam would have to be widened some-
what. He stated that it was the feelings of some that Broomley Road should not be
used, but he does not necessarily agree.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the dam would be a critical area and that if the dam
happened to wash out, all traffic would have to be on Broomley Road.
Mr. Rinehart stated that the residents of the proposed subdivision would have
to be responsible for helping to maintain the roads.
Mr. Carr asked if the property had maintained the right to travel Flordon Driv
when it was sold.
Mr. Huffman stated that the road had a dedicated right-of-way and the property
is developable.
Mr. Gerald Tremblay, an adjoining property owner, stated that a dedication was
needed from Farmington for the roads and that the 50' right-of-way had never been
developed. He said that the roads are a private system, and that something would
have to be worked out for maintenance. He further stated that there is no formal
Homeowner's Association in Flordon. He pointed out to the Commission that con-
siderable fill might be needed, since it appears that lot #1 is approximately
one-half lake. Of course, he said, the applicant only wanted to see if the property
were developable.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the grade is marked 150, which is the County's maxi-
mum requirement.
Mr. George Haslam reminded the Commission that this area is proposed to be
zoned CVN.
Mr. Rinehart told Mr. Haslam that areas that are presently being developed must
be subject to the existing zoning ordinance.
Mr. Huffman told the Commission that most lots in Flordon are 1.5 acres and
that some of the Flordon roads are already in excess of the 15% grade.
Mr. Tremblay said that most lots are in excess of 1.5 acres.
Mr. Rinehart stated that the roads are centainly not up to state conditions
and that they are privately maintained.
Mr. McClure questioned the reason for making the main entrance to the proposed
subdivision Flordon Drive.
Mr. Huffman stated that no negotiation with Farmington concerning Broomley
Road has been made. He pointed out that the White estate can make its own dedication
and does not have to negotiate with Farmington.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he is concerned about the wear and tear on the roads,
especially with increased traffic.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the 15% grade is too steep; he suggested a cul-de-sac
instead.
Mr. McClure suggested that the Commission defer action on the preliminary plat
in order that the applicant could come back and show no access onto Flordon Drive.
Mr. Goode Love suggested that the owner of the roads be decided.
The Commission unanimously approved Mr. McClure's motion and Mr. Tinsley's se-
cond that the action on the preliminary plat be deferred.
They requested that the following be supplied when the Commission next hears
the matter:
1. A revised plat with Flordon Drive access deleted;
2. Does Broomley Road need to be upgraded to handle the additional lots?
3. A Homeowner's Association should be established to provide for the mainte-
nance of Broomley Road with Flordon homeowners (document to be approved
by the County Attorney);
4. The internal roads should be constructed equal or better than Broomley
Road - i.e. not gravel;
5. What is the status of Broomley Road from St. Route 677 to the gates?
6. The right-of-way from the end of Broomley Road along this property should
be dedicated, and should align with the Broomley Road right-of-way.
Berkmar Center Subdivision:
I1%
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this is a request for a subdivision of
10 lots zoned B-1, with an average lot size of 1.1 acres. She stated that there
will be county water and sewer, but that the staff recommends a provision for
the reservation of 30 feet from the right-of-way for a service driveway. SheIVV)
asked the Commission to require that the driveways be shared in order that there w:
be half as many curb cuts and that there be a 60' building setback.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if there is a traffic projection for the area.
Mr. Tucker told him that this is part of the Route 29 loop.
Mr. Carr asked if it were appropriate to approve lots 1, 2 and 3 since they
are not � acre.
Mr. McClure pointed out that there are some businesses that are probably on
lots smaller than the ones requested here.
Mrs. Graves stated that the road is currently full of pot holes and asked if
it will be brought up to state standards.
Mr. Love suggested to the Commission that the property in that area is extren
ly high-priced and any taken for a service road should be allowed as parking space
for off-street parking.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that the road must remain open for through-traff
Cars need to move from lot to lot without being on Berkmar.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if it would be possible to have 1 entrance per two 1
and use the property in the right-of-way for a turning lane. 140)
Mr. Carr answered that this would be impossible since the steep slopes would
make it difficult to use as a turning lane.
Mr. Rinehart questioned who would be responsible for the additional lane?
Mr. Gloeckner reminded the Commission that the area in question has a 25 mile
per hour speed limit.
Mr. Rinehart noted that lot #8 is virtually unbuildable and that he would lik
to see seven lots.
Mr. Tucker stated that the reason for the service driveways was that it was
impossible to know which lot would be developed first.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the decision on this request be deferred until either
Caleb Stowe or Bill Roudabush could be present when the following would be discusse(
1. One entrance per two lots;
2. Cross -boundary access easements to allow a service drive;
3. Consolidation of lots 7 and 8, or the re -division of lots 1-8 into seven
lots;
4. Possibility of 12' wide turn lane to extend the full length of the subdi-
vision in lieu of the service drive.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Susie Mawyer Estate:
J
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and vote and left the
room.
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request for approval of an elongated parcel
of 2.36 acres and the extension of the 50' rigth-of-way. She stated that presently
the right-of-way crosses several of the Mawyer's properties.
Mr. Barksdale stated that there is no dwelling on this property and explained
the exact location and the need for the odd shaped lot.
Mr. Mac Wade stated that this is the only building lot left with road frontage.
Mrs. Wade told the Commission that this approval is the only way that Mrs. Ruby
Wade, the claimant, will receive the property.
Mr. Barksdale stated that the surveyor is the the brother-in-law of Ruby Wade.
Noting that the plat is hardly readable, Mr. Gloeckner moved deferral until
the surveyor could be present in order that all the alternatives could be discussed.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. McClure rejoined the Commission at this time.
Alvin Brooks plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for a 50' right-of-way to serve three
1.5 acre lots on State Route 742. She reminded the Commission that this had recently
been re -zoned RS-1 and noted that the staff recommended that the access be limited
to only these 3 lots.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the easement being for lots 1, 2 and
3 only and that no further subdivision be permitted without approval of the Planning
Commission.
The motion, seconded by Mr. McClure, carried unanimously.
A. R. Kennon plat:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request for subdivision of two parcels
(2.1 acres and 3.6 acres) on an existing 20' right-of-way near Owensville. She
stated that the applicant had a self -placed restriction as to the number of dwellings
that could be placed there.
Mr. McClure moved approval; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Margaret M. Fitzgerald plat:
' Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for one 2-acre parcel on an existing
right-of-way.
Mr. Pickford, representing the applicant, stated that these are lots which
are part of the acreage she had inherited from her husband. He stated that no fuz
ther subdivision is contemplated.
Mr. Barksdale said that there is a mobile home on one of these parcels three
prior to zoning, and moved approval.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion subject to the fact that no further subdivisi
be permitted without approval.
The motion carried unanimously.
Monticello Home Builders - Oak Union plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that no final plat had been submitted or approved and that
minimum acreage according to the ordinance would be 1.5 acres.
Mr. McClure told the Commission that the request to waive sewer and water re-
quirements for the 20,000 sq. ft. lot would not bother him if the church granted
an easement on the church property should the applicant need to locate a second
septic system. He suggested that the request be deferred until the church could
be consulted and agree to give a legal right to a forever easement for the septic
field.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion to defer, which passed unanimously.
Monticello Home Builders plat of lots 6 & 7 on St. Route 795
Mrs. Scala said that this is a request to waive frontage
q g requirements on one
3-acre parcel on Rt. 795.
Mr. McClure moved approval, and Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried
unanimously.
Dammann property:
Mrs. Scala stated that parcel A has already been approved on the existing 25'
easement. She stated that the 11.59 acre parcel needed approval in order that they
could be recorded at the same time.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval, and Mr. McClure seconded the motion. It passed
unanimously.
R. W. Jones plat:
Mrs. Scala said that this is a 4-acre parcel they wish to divide into 2 lots.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the fact that both lots use the same
driveway entrance, and that there be no further use of the easement except for lots
A and B.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Old Business:
The Commission decided that it should reserve the meeting on February 5, 1975,
to make a review of the general comments that had been received on the proposed ordi-
nance and map. This meeting would be open for the public, but it would not be a pub-
lic hearing.
It was decided that comments received from the public would be considered on
February 10, 18, and 24.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned.
M
January 27, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held the fourth of a series of four
public hearings to consider the adoption of a new zoning ordinance and map for
Albemarle County on Monday, January 27, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the Henley School
Cafetorium, for the White Hall and Samuel Miller Magisterial Districts.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -
Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Jack Rine-
hart; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and introduced the members of the Planning
Commission to the public in the effort to show that the Planning Commission is a
citizens committee which serves at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Carr gave a brief history of the zoning of Albemarle County, stating that
in 1968 the County had adopted a Zoning Ordinance and Map under which the County is
presently zoned unless changes have been approved by the proper governing agencies.
He reviewed the fact that in 1971 the Board of Supervisors had adopted a Comprehen-
sive Plan for the County which planned for efficient growth and land use in the
County. Mr. Carr stated that the Comprehensive Plan called for revision of the
existing zoning ordinance and map. He requested that individuals make comments,
since this is the purpose of the meeting.
Mr. Carr explained to the citizens the format of the meeting, noting that those
persons who had signed up to speak would be permitted to speak for three minutes, and
would be called upon in the order in which their names appeared on the roster. He
further explained that those persons representing citizens' groups would be given the
opportunity to speak for a period of ten minutes.
The Chairman reminded the public that the Planning Commission has nothing to do
with taxes or tax assessment, and urged speakers to refrain from making comments
about such, but to take them up with the proper county office.
Mr. Carr reviewed the notices that the property owners had received in the mail
from the Planning Department, and urged individuals to write comments on the forms
and submit them to the Planning Department at 411 East High Street, Charlottesville,
Virginia, if they lacked understanding of, or had complaints about the notice or the
statement of intent that accompanied the form. Mr. Carr told the public that the
Planning Commission would hold work sessionsin February to review the comments that
the Planning Department received.
Mr. Carr stated that the County will continue to grow, with the estimate that
approximately 300,000 people would inhabit Albemarle County by the year 2000. He
stated that a Zoning Ordinance, Map, Comprehensive Plan, and other ordinances would
enable the County to more effectively manage growth, since they are the tools for
land use, planning and zoning, thus eliminating some problems by seeking compatibili-
ty. He noted that a plan for growth and development should be firm, yet not rigid.
He stated that it was important that residential growth not continue to circle Char-
lottesville, rather it should take place in outlying communities. A plan was neces-
sary to accomplish this, though. Mr. Carr stated that more zones increase flexibili-
ty, making growth easier for the landowner, developer, and for the County, empha-
sizing that the fair ordinance would be workable, yet deal from strength.
He told the public that it they would follow along in the Zoning Summary on
page 37 they would better understand Mr. Humphrey when he explained the proposed
zones.
Mr. John L. Humphrey, County Planner, explained and compared the eleven
zones of the existing map and ordinance to the twenty-one zones of the pro-
posed map and ordinance by giving description of each zone. Included in his ex-
planations was the comparison of the present two floating zones to the proposed
four floating zones. Mr. Humphrey told the public that any present use of the lane
may continue if the proposed ordinance is approved, though it will be considered nc
conforming.
After completion of Mr. Humphrey's presentation, Mr. Carr opened the meeting
to public comments.
Mr. Roy Patterson, President of the Citizens for Albemarle, made the follow-
ing presentation:
"The Citizens for Albemarle endorses the proposed zoning ordinance and map,
and believes that the county would benefit from their immediate adoption. Notwith-
standing our support for your proposals, we believe that some improvements can be
made before you forward the proposals to the Board of Supervisors. Our suggestion
and criticisms have been in a constructive spirit. I will offer my own personal
opinion that many other persons have offered criticism and comment in the same con-
structive spirit, and have been misunderstood by media representatives who incor-
rectly interpreted the criticism as opposition.
Also, I commend members of the Planning Commission for their decision and harc
work during the past several years. I recall a meeting in this same room about foul
(4) years ago in which Mr. Rosser Payne presented a proposed Master Plan for
the County. The final Master Plan was adopted in 1971. This Master Plan
in general is the basis for your proposed new zoning ordinance and map. You have
been working on the preparation of tonight's proposal for some two (2) years. You
have solicited and welcomed citizen input and media coverage, which sometimes were
far below your desires. All your sessions have been public, and no one can truth-
fully say that he has not had the opportunity to be fully informed of your work.
But let us consider some basic questions before us.
In the First place, why have any zoning ordinance? It is the considered opi-
nion of experts that the cost of living will be less and the quality of life will be
improved if new subdivisions and other developments are grouped together in an or-
derly plan. If this is done the cost of necessary public services such as schools,
roads, water, sewers and waste collection will be reduced. Zoning is the tool by
which this grouping together can be required. Yes, it will mean high density
housing in some areas, and the Citizens for Albemarle never have opposed properly
located high density housing. Such housing may be the best available solution for
people with moderate -to -low income. In the good old days, a small house could be to
Gated on a half acre at the top of a mountain hollow. But now there simply are too
many of us, and the good old days are gone.
Will the new zoning ordinance destroy any existing business? No, it will not.
I or you presently have a home, business, or some other operation that is not in
agreement with your new zoning, you of course can continue that operation or busi-
ness under the new ordinance. The Planning Commission has said this over and
over again.
The zoning ordinance is a tool by which the location of a new business or in-
dustry can be directed to the most suitable areas, and can be kept out of unsuitable
areas. We all know that some new industry is necessary, simply to provide jobs to
persons now living, even if everyone joined ZPG tomorrow.
The Master Plan and this zoning ordinance recognize that growth will occur in the
be
County, and growth is not opposed. We simply want to put it where the cost will
as Crozet,
the least, and this is in and around the proposed village clusters, such
Greenwood, and the others mentioned in the Master Plan.
The two major changes in the proposed zoning map which have been requested
by the Citizens for Albemarle are, first, complete protection for the Rivanna Re-
just east
servoir and, second, a revision in the proposed zoning for the urban areas
of Charlottesville. At Jack Jouett, we showed maps and overlays of the reservoir
basin.
We identified the ridge lines which form the boundary of the reservoir
area.
Consistent with our position since the reservoir was constructed, we asked that there
basin.
be no high density development near the reservoir and within the drainage
is the
The reservoir would cost millions of dollars to replace, and it principal
for Albemarle citizens who
source of water for the people of Charlottesville and
live in the urban area around Charlottesville.
At Stone Robinson we showed maps and overlays of the urban area just east of
Charlottesville. This area is bounded on the northeast by mountains and on the
southwest by the Rivanna River. Unless new bridges are built across the Rivanna
250) into Char-
the only way in or out of the area is over the Free Bridge (Route
If this area
lottesville or out Route 250 to the east, toward I-64 or Richmond.
could not get into it in
were to develop as you propose to zone it, people simply
Traffic jams would chode the area, and
the morning or out of it in the afternoon.
faced demands that more bridges be built across the river to Char-
you would be with
lottsville, and new roads be built to connect to the bridges. The area presently
is substantially undeveloped. We ask that one way or another you wait and see what
happens there before committing yourselves.
In Western Albemarle you have an opportunity not always available to you in
other parts of the county. This is the opportunity to preserve the principles of
the Master Plan. You have made a few decisions in individuals cases which some
character
of us felt were contrary to the Master Plan, but on the hole the essential
Albemarle is the most
or the area is still intact. Personally, I think western
keep it that way. What do
desirable part of the county - I live here - and you can
becoming a 29 North. Locate new subdivisions
you need to do? Prevent 250 West from
Prevent random scattering of development along
in and around the village clusters.
the by -ways between village clusters."
Martha Seldon, representing the Scenic Road Committee of the Citizens for
Albemarle, expressed concern over roads and in the county in general to preserve
to further com-
community attractiveness. She encouraged the Commission not permit
mercial stripping of Route 29 North and Route 250 East.
Mrs. Guy Via stated that she lived in a rural community on a farm and had
limited farming.
several questions concerning rural life. She asked the meaning of
Mr. Carr explained that the AGL zone does not prohibit or restrict farming,
but because of the quality of the soil, later years might bring the need for land
to be used in other ways.
Mr. Carr told Mrs. Via, after her questions concerning the CVN and RR zones,
that the Planning staff would be happy to answer specific questions relating to her
own property, and they would review any wishes that she as a landowner, had.
Mr. Joseph Gibson, through the use of transparences, illustrated his
concern with the Ivy Area. He stated that if the density that is proposed
for the Ivy Area is permitted, that the land will have been raped by the year
2000. It is his feeling that land should be forever usable. He recommended the
creation of some zone between the RR and CVN zones with a proposed density of 1
dwelling unit per 3 acres.
Mr. C. A. Maupin, of Free Union, said that non -conforming lots will be diffi
cult to sell later. He pointed out that if 50% of a building or residence is de-
stroyed through fire or other disaster, it would be almost impossible to reconstru
He questioned the exact definition of AGL.
Mr. Farrish stated that some proposed zoning changes are good, yet others ar
bad. He stated that zoning must meet the needs and demands of prospective buyers
and urged the Commission to wait for zoning changes when a new Board of Supervisor
is elected.
Mr. C. S. Hughes suggested that for 75% of the county to be proposed to be
zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres is bureaucratic.
Mr. Bob Merrill questioned the cost of administering the present and pro-
posed ordinances. He stated that he saw no use for such things as plats for subdi.
visions and no need for site plans, etc.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Merrill that these were tools to provide flexibility for tl
owner and the user.
Mr. Merrill questioned Mr. Carr on the plan for ridding the urban area
110) of intensive growth.
Mr. Carr stated that it was hoped that with public water and sewer provided i
the cluster areas, like Crozet, growth would move forward in these areas. He fur-
ther pointed out that the proposed ordinance is not suppose to take away land righ
of the owner.
Mr. Louis Scribner, representing Ivy citizens, stated that the RR zone is an
injustice to residents of the outlying Ivy area. He stated that down -zoning from
2 to 1.5 acres will certainly not help septic or sewer systems. It is his opinion
that industry is not compatible with that area.
Mr. Wendell Jackson, representing the Greenwood Citizens Council, stated that
the zoning proposed would generally benefit most of the landowners in that area
and voiced his support of the proposed ordinance.
Mrs. Sue Schultz stated that this country was founded on the principles of
freedom. She stated that the proposed ordinance limits or takes away her freedom
to use land as she wishes, as it does to other people. Mrs. Schultz said that she
is against the ordinance as well as such things as special use permits.
Mr. Roy S. Clarke, Jr., supported the idea of open space and is in favor of
zoning. However, he does not support the proposed AGR and AGL zones. Mr. Clarke
suggested that a study of the water and land be made in these two proposed
zones.
Mr. M. S. Martin stated that it is his belief that too much agricultural land
is being taken away and for this reason is not in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. John A. Ewald, Jr. stated that he was concerned about the controlled plan
growth in Albemarle County, especially in the Ivy valley to the extent that he has
sponsored a survey done by a landscape architect from the University of Virginia.
The survey was extensive and expensive, and thus he was unable to pass individual
copies out to each Commission member. The survey made the following conclusions:
The integrated system of protected open space to preserve major ridgelines, steep
forrested slopes; flood plains and consequently the valley's visual character; the
restriction of prime croplands and agricultural uses, commercial, and other services
to an integrated community as opposed to a bedroom community;"A community core area
to be located along the corridor between the Ivy depot and the I-64 interchange.
This will further narrow from the Ivy valley to I-64 interchange. Mr. Ewald stated
that he did not know how this happened since even as recently as November of 1974,
the industrial IR zone, etc. was developed in connection with the General Electric
facility which was proposed for this area. His opinion is that two (2) specific
quadrants of the Ivy interchange can only logically be zoned IR. To have them re-
zoned agricultural is stretching the imagination. He said that there is not another
interchange in the state of Virginia zoned agricultural. In his plan there are a
great many of other things that can happen: besides GE, he envisions a campus -
type research comples, several companies possibly associated with the University.
Across the road he envisions a community golf course, an inn, cluster, water and
sewer (to be paid for by eventual users). Mr. Ewald stated that zoning and taxes
had hit him especially hard. He stated that if the Ivy interchange were zoned agri-
cultural he would need to get $1.89 per ear of corn to break even, which would ob-
viously put him out of business.
Dr. Edmund Berkeley asked if Bellair had been rezoned.
Mr. Joseph Goldsmith questioned why all the major recreational areas in the
County had been zoned CVN and why not Albemarle Lake. He stated that the County is
a major crossroads if the proposal is approved, and urged the citizens be allowed
to voice their opinion by referendum.
Mr. Fred Payne, Assistant County Attorney, at this time explained that there
is no provision in the Code of Virginia for a referendum on this matter.
Mr. Ed. Bain, representing Harry Brown of Richmond, requested the Commission
to further study the Ivy area and adopt zoning different from what is proposed.
Mr. Bill Perkins stated that it is not realistic to zone Farmington as CVN,
since most of the lots there are one-half to three -fourths of an acre. He stated
his opposition to the three zones in the agricultural area. He also felt that it
was beyond reason to zone the prime agricultural land such that there could be only
one dwelling unit per ten acres, stating that this represented condemnation without
compensation.
Mrs. Sally Thomas submitted for the Commission consideration some specific
comments on the proposed zoning ordinance and accompanied these suggestions with
the following comments:
"Downzoning along one side of the South Rivanna Reservoir might have to be
accompanied by an admission that the original zoning for dense residential use on
the reservoir was a mistake. This is an admission that needs to be made. The ori-
ginal zoning map exempted the South Rivanna Reservoir from the Comprehensive Plan's
stated goal of protecting reservoirs in the county. The original zoning was not an
oversight but rather a calculated move in the game called Annexation. But today
that reservoir is the County's water source as well as the city's. It is a mista
to zone it in a way which ignores the importance of drinking water to the develop
ment of the county. No growth in industries or in high density development
is Likely to occur without available public water with a moderate price.
For the sake of compact growth, the map should recognize the necessity of pro-
tecting the reservoir.
It may be necessary to compensate the owners of downgraded land. Annexation
strategies by the city and county have often been costly to the taxpayers on both
governments, although the costs are often hidden in acts which only seem ineffici,
or unreasonable. This will not be the first time an annexation strategy has re-
sulted in costing the taxpayers of the county money they might rather have not
spent. The court will decide if compensation is necessary. It is not disgracefi
for the county to find itself spending taxpayers' money because of an annexation
strategy. It is disgraceful, in my opinion, to fail to recognize and the importai
of the main water source of the suburban and urban community.
No one knows the precise effect of residential development on the reservoir.
In a few years we hope to have a good estimate of the effects, following a study
of the reservoir. There can be no argument with the fact that construction near
the reservoir in areas draining into the reservoir will be harmful to the reser-
voir. The only fact not known is how harmful it will be. Allowing harmful acts
for no reason other than that you cannot prove how harmful they will be is not
reasonable. Everyone agrees that the study may prove that development around the
reservoir should be allowed. But the decision to allow development should be
based on the best facts available, not on the absence of facts. If you recognize
that the reservoir is important, then you should protect it by any means now avail
able even if further study may prove that development is permissible.
The drainage area above the reservoir is largely placed in agricultural
and conservation zones on the proposed map. The immediate vicinity of the reser-
voir should be extended the same protection."
Mr. H. W. Stuart stated that it would be more like a farming community if the
agricultural land were all zoned requiring one dwelling unit per 5 acres.
Mrs. Craw, representing the Civic League, stated that since 1948, when zoning
was first proposed for Albemarle County, real estate sales have barely been af-
fected by recession and inflation. Because of this and the need for changes, she
urged no further delay in the approval of the ordinance.
Mr. Charlie Smith, Jr., questioned why growth in rings around the city could
not be permitted, since it would be more economical. He voiced his opposition to
the proposed ordinance on the grounds that it is a restriction on individual li-
berties.
Mr. Bill Gentry, representing the Charlottesville -Albemarle Board of Realtors,
especially the Board of Directors, stated that the Board felt the ordinance to be
unduly restrictive, since it would make property too costly. He stated that it
would infringe on the rights of property owners. He stated that planned growth
is good, but this proposal seems to discourage growth entirely. Mr. Gentry stated
that sometimes we have to pay the loss of property values. It is the opinion of
the Board of Realtors that property values will continue to decrease if the agri-
cultural land is zoned such that 1 dwelling unit is permitted per 5 acres
of 1 du per 10 acres, instead of the current 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres.
Since most people work in, or close to the city, the density around the city
should be increased. Moderated to low income housing will be out of the question
/-_3"�
if the proposed ordinance is passed. Finally, he stated that it would be very
costly to enforce the ordinance.
Mr. Stevens, representing several out-of-town property ojmers, asked that he
be given time to present the matter to distant property owners in order that he
could present their desires to the Commission.
Mr. W. E. Willard suggested that the AGR and AL zones be given further consid-
eration.
Mr. Gene Clements pointing out his lack of support for the ordinance said there
seems to be double standards in the ordinance, especially since limited zoning
can be beneficial. He stated, however, that this proposal imposes too many economic
hardships. He also stated that this ordinance seem to be copied, illustrating some
specific areas of concern. He asked that the proposal be brought before the people
in the form of a referendum.
M. T. L. W. Richardson said that to continue urban growth from Ivy to Crozet
seems to inconsistent due to the similar size of lots.
Mrs. Martin asked the Commission and the public what it would be like if all
people tried to move to the country. She spoke of the American freedoms, but em-
phasized the fact that freedom is infringed upon if someone else violates the plea-
sure one receives from the land on which they live. It is her opinion that the
proposed zoning ordinance protects this freedom.
Mr. Dale told the public about his recollections of zoning history in Albemarle
County. Is is her belief that since there was a referendum that illustrated the
fact that people in Albemarle County never wanted zoning in the first place, and
since the existing ordinance had been passed in violation of the law, it would serve
no purpose to have a referendum now, since the governing bodies would do as they
wished anyway.
Mr. Bill Hutton suggested that present uses of property will be phased out due
to the nature of non -conforming lot.
Dr. Sooner, voicing his approval of zoning, asked the Commission to recondider
the agricultural zones.
Mr. Huxton told the Commission that he hoped they were successful in their at-
tempt to approve the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Lawrence Baber stated that he could not understand why there could not be
a referendum on the proposed ordinance and map.
Since there were no further public comments, Mr. Carr adjourned the meeting.
L. Humphrey, '�
09
14f
February 3, 1975
The regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held on
Monday, February 3, 1975, 7:30 p.m., auditorium of Piedmont Virginia Community College.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure,
Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Ellen
Craddock; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; and Mr. Lloyd
Wood, ex -Off icio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Berkmar Center Subdivision:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that the Highway Department had stated that
de-cel lanes, for safety reasons, were better than service lanes.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that since there are
no definitive uses of the lots that easements for every other lot corner for
joint entrances could be provided, as the Commission had recommended.
Mr. Stowe stated that he is firm in requesting that the plat remain as it
is, for reasons of flexibility, thus preferring not to unite two small lots to make
one larger lot.
Mr. Roudabush stated that since no minimum lot size is required and because
there are public utilities, any of the lots on the plat could accommodate a small
business.
Mr. Carr questioned if de-cel lanes should be shown on the plat in order that
the purchaser will be on notice.
Mr. McClure answered this by saying that one can reserve an easement, but
that this need not be on the plat.
Mr. Roudabush remarked that there is no objection to this as a requirement.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Joint entrances between lots 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8, 9 and 10.
2. A note shown on the plat, and approved by the Planning Staff putting prospective
buyers of these lots on notice that deceleration lanes may be required by the
Commission.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Susie R. Mawyer Estate:
Mr. McClure disqualified from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala reported to the Commission that she had talked to Mr. Wade
about the alternatives for this lot and had learned that if the 2-acre lot were
not cut off in this particular manner, the lady would not get her lot, that this
was a family matter.
A /Y
After Mr. Rinehart had asked which lot belonged to whom, Mr. Malcolm Wade
gave him the requested data.
Mr. Wade stated taht there is 450' remaining road frontage and that the
proposed 2-acre lot is the only building lot left. He noted that the pipestem is
mountainous and that it is better to chop up the parcel than to waste the land
up the mountain.
Mr. Barksdale, noting that the heirs wished to reserve the road frontage,
and pointing out that this is the only way for Ruby Wade to have a building site,
moved approval.
After Mrs. Craddock established that this request does comply with the
ordinance, Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously; however, Mr. Carr explained that the Commission
felt this to be very poor planning, but that the action had been in the interest
of Mrs. Mawyer.
Mr. McClure returned to the room.
Monticello Home Builders:
Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that this had been deferred in order
that the church be communicated with.
Mr. Bolton stated that he had represented Monticello Home Builders and
had talked with a trustee of the church. An agreement had been drawn up, which he
read.
Mr. Carr stated that it looked as if the church were letting all its
excess land go by giving forever easements.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the lot size requirements for an individual well
and septic system be waived. This motion was made subject to a note being put
on the plat to the effect that an easement exists on the adjacent parcel for
a septic system to serve this parcel if necessary - the Planning Staff was to
approve the language used.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mary White Estate Subdivision:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this had been deferred in order that
additional information could be obtained. She stated that the exit onto Flordon
Drive had been eleminated and that a cul-de-sac had been made.
Mrs. Craddock asked if it were a practice for a lot to be measured into
the water, and was informed by Mr. Huffman that in this case it is.
Mr. McClure explained to her that all the lots in Carrsbrook, Hollymeade,
and Bellair are like this.
Mr. Gerald Tremblay, an adjoining property owner, stated that Broomley
Raod is an asphalt -shot type of road. He stated that in most cases two autos
cannot pass and that traffic would certainly be a problem. He suggested greater
lot sizes; otherwise, the road might have to be widened to the 50' maximum.
Mr. Carr asked the appropriate time to address Broomley Road.
Mr. McClure stated that the Commission cannot punish the thirteen lots
by making them build a state road to Route 250.
Mr. Tremblay stated that the matter is close to the point where it is
a judgement matter.
Mr. Rinehart noted that the lots in this proposed subdivision are larger
than those in Flordon.
Mrs. Craddock stated that this subdivision would mean at least twenty-six
additional cars.
Mr. Easter stated that it is legally impossible to say that the cars
cannot travel Broomley Road, since the lots are at least two acres each.
Mr. McClure noted that it will not do any good to require state roads
since the state won't take them over.
At this point, Mr. Tremblay pointed out that Broomley Road was never
intended to be the main road for Flordon.
Mr. John Taylor, representing the applicant, stated that to reduce the
lots would defeat the purpose of the use of the land.
Subject to the following conditions, Mr. Rinehart moved approval:
1. Homeowner's ASsociation established to provide for maintenance of internal roads
and joint maintenance of Broomley Road with Flordon homeowners. Document to be
approved by the County Attorney.
2. Internal roads to be constructed to County standards for restricted roads.
3. Right-of-way for the extension of Broomley Road across the frontage of this
property to be dedicated to provide for 50' width. This extension of Broomley
Road to be constructed to State standards.
4. Restricted road must be approved by Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
5. Utilities will receive final approval when final plat is submitted.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion. It carried unanimously.
ZMP-317. Michael W. Worley has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to rezone 9.76 acres from RS-1 Residential to R-1 Residential.
Property is situated on the north side of State Route 649, Proffit Road,
in Springfield Subdivision. Property is further described as County Tax
Map 32B, Parcel B. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Worley stated that he has a subdivision plat of the property drawn in the
1960's - some lots have been sold and recorded. He stated that it is not possible to
IZ13
develop the land at RS-1.
Mr. Carr acknowledged that regardless of zoning, the developer would still
be limited to at least 40,000 sq. ft. per lot.
Mr. Worley stated that the lots that have already been sold are in excess
of � acre, and his proposal would be in line with what is already there.
Mr. Carr stated that there is an ordinance which prohibits this, and
asked the applicant if he would like to withdraw his request without prejudice.
Mr. Worley asked the Commission if they would be willing to accept his
withdrawal.
Mr. Barksdale moved that it be accepted and Mr. Easter seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
SP-443. Innesfree, Inc., has petitioned th e Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 255 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is situated off State Route 668, between State Routes 668 and
765. Property is further described as County Tax Map 14, Parcel 10.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Barksdale questioned the reason for the two year limit, since it is
usually a five year permit.
Mr. Tucker explained that the mobile home would be temporary housing till
a permanent structure is constructed.
Mr. Stuart, representing the applicant, stated that the conditions
suggested by the staff were quite acceptable.
Mr. Terrence Sieg, an adjoining property owner, stated that the area is
very rural, and a mobile home would not be in character with the area, in addition
to the fact that mobile homes devalue property.
Mr. Rinehart asked if he had any objection, since it would be on a temporary
basis.
Mr. Arthur Isenberg, also representing Innesfree, stated that the house is
already under construction, and that plans were for additional homes to be built.
Mr. Carr asked how many people were involved in the project and the number
of buildings that are on the grounds.
Mr. Isenberg stated that there are approximately twenty-eight people,
and six actual structures. He stated that it is the desire to work the people
on a one-to-one basis.
It was established that the mobile home is used, but plans are to set
it up correctly.
Mr. Joe Antrim, representing his mother, an adjacent property onwer, asked
the plans for the mobile home if the funds for the construction of the house were
not raised.
staff .
Mr. Isenberg stated that the home would be removed.
Mr. Sieg questioned the gravel roads.
Mr. Isenberg stated that there are 4-5 vehicles which are driven only by the
Mr. Carr questioned the phase Innesfree is in under the original site plan.
No one was able to establish this exactly.
Mr. Calton, also representing Innesfree, stated that all the adjacent
landowners had previously agreed and that present objections seemed to be unreason-
able.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Dept. and County Building Orricial approval.
2. Individual septic and well systems.
3. Time limit of two (2) years.
4. The mobile home must be removed from property at completion of permanent living
living quarters of after two (2) years, whichever comes first.
5. This permit is issued to Innesfree, Inc., and is non -transferable.
err+ 6. No other mobile homes are to be allowed until this special permit expires.
7. Site plan compliance.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimosuly.
SP-444. Roger I. and Rebecca F. Fisher have petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 2.01 acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of State Route
640, near its intersection with State Route 784. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 34, Parcel 39H. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Fisher stated that he and his wife live approximately 35 miles from the
place on which they are building their house, and for economic reasons wished to
temporarily locate a mobile home here in order to work on the house which they
themselves are building.
Mr. Bob Aldred, an adjoining property owner who had originally voiced
opposition stated that he had not realized that the use was to be temporary. Under
these conditions, he withdrew his opposition.
Mr. Rinehart suggested to the applicant that the mobile home be placed
behind the house which is under construction.
Mr. McClure moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Dept. and County Building Official approval;
2. Individual well and septic system;
I-A"i
3. Time limit of two (2) years;
4. The mobile home must be removed from this property at the completion of the
conventional dwelling unit or after two (2) years, whichever comes first;
5. This permit is issued to the applicant and is non -transferable.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
Monticello Home Builders - discussion of proposed subdivision near Lindsay:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that Mr. Whitlock would like their ideas
on how property should be developed. She told the Commission that the Staff
suggested the standard requirements.
Mr. Whitlock, the applicant, explained that there is very little market
for the property as it was originally subdivided.
Mr. Carr told MR. Whitlock and the Commission that their recommendations did
not mean that a subdivision had been created.
After a discussion, the Commission made the follwoing comments:
1. A better arrangement with less area in the roads could possibly be designed,
using state standard roads;
2. Another design possibility would be the use of several restricted roads;
3. The Commission questioned whether the Board would approve a subdivision with
many restricted roads;
4. The Commission discourages a lot of entrances off Route 615..
5. The Commission questioned whether the soil could support so many septic systems
in this area.
Brookwood Subdivision:
Mrs. Scala explained that this was a request for a reapproval of a prelim-
inary plan that expired in June, 1971. She stated that the water and sewer requirements
are probably no longer met and that under the present subdivision ordinance, lots
needed at least 40,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Herb Pickford, citing section 3-9 of the subdivision ordinance, stated
that tections 1 and 2 of the subdivision had been approved.
Mrs. Scala pointed out that there is a need for the small lot in Crczet.
Mr. Morris, the applicant, explianed that he was trying to keep the houses
in the mid-30's and that one acre of land with a house doubles the price. He stated
that there has been no problem with perc tests.
Mr. Pickford pointed out that the Board of Supervisors can require, by the
Code of Virginia, that a property owner with a septic tank hook onto public sewer.
Mr. Carr stated that a precedent must be set.
Mr. Morris stated that the issue is not the lot size, rather the uniformity
of the subdivision and what has been done in the past. With a one -acre lot, the
subdivision will not meet the clientele it was designed to serve.
Mr. Carr noted tat compatibility should continue.
Mr. Rinehart asked if certain lots could be reserved.
Mr. Carr stated that he would like to think about it, even from a legal
standpoint, questioning if the County has an obligation to re -approve.
approval.
Mr. Pickford pointed out that preliminary approval does not dictate final
Mr. McClure also noted that there seems to be some obligation.
Mr. Carr asked how many preliminary plats were outstanding, and the
staff was unable to provide an answer.
Mr. McClure moved the request be deferred until further information could
be obtained.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Youel plat:
Mr. Rinehart disqualified himself from the vote and the discussion by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala told the commission that this is a request for a 25' private
access easement to serve Parcel A, a subdivision of one 7-acre parcel.
Mr. McClure moved approval; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
Soil Erosion Ordinance:
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a separate ordinance and does not
require a public hearing by the Planning Commission, just by the Board of Supervisors.
He stated that it was prepared by the Planning, Zoning, and County Attorney's offices
along with the assistance of the State Soil and Water Conservation District. He
noted that the ordinance spells out items that should be put on a soil erosion plan
and pointed out that any grievance of an applicant would come before the Planning
Commission.
Amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow:
a. Fire extinguisher and safety and security products, sales and service.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report and explained that this request is to
allow the above use in the B-1 Business Zone and M-1 Industrial Zone.
Mr. Easter moved approval; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
b. Go-cart and trail bike track:
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a request to allow the above use in the
B-1 Business Zone and M-1 Industrial Zone.
Mr. Craddock moved that this be in the M-1 and M-2 zones with a special
use permit rather;:than in the B-1 zone due to the noise factor.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
PYA., W`F. ��/��
19
February 5, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a special work session beginning at
4:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room on Wednesday, February 5, 1975, con-
cerning the proposed zoning ordinance and map.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chair-
man; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr.
Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mrs. Joan Graves.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, passed out to the Commission three packets - 1.)
contained the staff and Commission notes and comments from the public hearings concerning
the proposed ordinance; 2.) general comments on the proposed ordinance in written form
from the public; 3.) specific comments on the text.
Mr. Carr read the memo from Mr. Humphrey to the Commission which stated that there ar(
several overriding philosophies that should be taken up first, the main two being down -
zoning and the agricultural areas and the CVN zone. The first point that he felt should
be discussed was "Are the CVN, AGR, and AL philosophies sound?"
Mr. Rinehart stated that there are good valid reasons for the CVN zones, mainly be-
cause of the flood plains and geological reasons. However, he stated that he had reserva-
tions concerning the validity of the map based on the soil study.
Mr. Humphrey stated that in the AL there are pockets of good soil, especially in the
extreme valley lines. He noted that it is hard to delineate small pockets. He stated
that the soil analysis was made on a general county wide basis.
In view of some confusions, Mr. Humphrey asked the Commmission to take note of the
following table:
AGR-10 Ac.
CVN-lOAc.
AGR-10 Ac.
AGR
AGL-5 Ac.
AGR-5 Ac.
AGR-5 Ac.
(CVN)-5 Ac.
CVN-5 Ac.
AGR-3 Ac.
A.R.
R-1-1 Ac.
RR-1.5 Ac.
RR-1.5 Ac.
(AGL)- 3Ac.
AGR-R-3 Ac.(cluste
RR-1.5 Ac.
1
2
3
4A
AGR-2 Ac.
CVN-10 Ac.
CVN-10 Ac.
AGR
R-1-lAc.
AGR-5 Ac.
AGR-5 Ac.
(CVN)-5 Ac.
Status Quo
A-R- 3 Ac.
A-R-3 Ac.
AR-3 Ac.
RR-1.5 Ac.
R-1-1 Ac.
RR-1.5 Ac.
5
6
7
4
Mr. Humphrey stated that it is impossible to define the contour lines. He stated
that it would be easy if CVN and AGR were combined and the intent were broadened. The
difference now is the steep slope. He further noted that CVN had always been confusing
term, since one tends to think of it as a larger area than an agricultural area.
Mrs. Craddock said that it is her opinion that CVN should include the scenic vistas.
Mr. Carr pointed out that CVN is to be designated by geodetic lines but is to be
outlined by property lines.
Mr. Rinehart asked if it made sense administratively to make CVN, AGR and AL
all the same lots size acreage of 5 acres.
Mr. Humphrey stated that this would be difficult, noting Route 22 as an example,
where, using the geodetic topo, it would necessitate a written description in terms of
each property line.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he did not feel that AL should be a 5-acre minimum.
Mrs. Craddock remarked that soon the whole county would be divided into 2-acre lots.
Mr. Humphrey stated that some property owners liked the 5 and 10-acre lots and he
would hate to loose the concept set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the
staff had thought of 5, 3 and 1.5-acre lots.
Mr. Rinehart mentioned the possibility of a floating zone.
Mr. McClure stated that since some owners would agree to 10-acre zoning voluntarily,
perhaps it could be written into the ordinance in this manner.
Mrs. Graves asked if the land -use tax could be used to determine the 10-acre lots.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the Planning Commission has encouraged the idea of cluster.
There is more control over small acre parcel. He stated that the Commission has heard
from small acreage owners whose land has been put in the 10-acre AGR and would then be
unable to give a small amount of property to his children. He said that it is his
feeling that there is a need to get the most acreage with the smaller density.
Mr. Rinehart suggested the possibility of re -zoning larger acreage with proof of
lineal relationship. He further stated that there is a need to force water and sewer
into places like Crozet and Earlysville.
Mr. Barksdale reminded the Commission that whatever they pass on to the Board should
be workable.
Mr. Humphrey stated the possibility of the Master Plan changing if they don't present
something to support it.
Mr. McClure stated that at least half of the public should support the work of the
Commission, in that the Commission does represent the public.
Mr. Easter said the Commission should be idealistic, that they need to have good
planning goals. He recommended a plan that is somewaht idealistic and suggested that the
elected officials should "bat it back and forth" if they feel it is too rigid.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the Commission's decisions should not be political and
acknowledged that good planning evenually means an increase in property values.
Mr. Easter said that it is the unfortunate that the tax assessment went out at the
same time that the proposed re -zoning notices were mailed. He remarked that much of the
hostility that the Commission felt was directed at the tax question.
Mr. Humphrey stated that in order to bring the matter back to the point at hand
that from the above chart, the staff feels that suggestion #4 is the best and that sugges-
tion #6 is the second choice.
Mr. McClure stated that in the R-R zone clustering is not possible since there has
to be a 1�-acre lot.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that it is not possible to force "cluster" but it is possible
to force services.
Mr. McClure stated that the overall proposal is geared to the wealthy.
Mr. Carr asked what the alternative is - he stated that the Commission is not trying
to legislate against the poor man.
Mr. Humphrey stated that areas are provided for the poor in the cluster program.
Mr. Rinehart remarked that land cost for low housing represents 10-20% of the cost.
Mr. Humphrey stated that to provide for low-cost housing it must be subsidized local-
ly, by the states, and nationally.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the Commission would approve #4 as set forth in the chart and
then ask if some wanted the floating zone of one dwelling unit per 10 acres.
Mr. Easter noted that the value of a farm with one du/10 acres is different from a
farm with one du/5 acres.
Mr. McClure pointed out to the Commission that the Ivy and Ivy Valley areas oppose
everything. He suggested restricted covenants for these areas, and noted that if the pro-
perty owners are honestly concerned about those areas, they will not object to the re-
strictions.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that Ivy Citizens Group was invited to discuss with
the Planning Commission that possibility, but that the citizens group had never followed
through.
tary.
Mr. McClure stated that he could not support the 10-acre tract unless it is volun-
Mr. Carr stated that the people will not apply for it.
Mr. McClure said that people owning property with density of 1 du/10 acres would have
to have a lower rate of tax assessment.
Mr. Humphrey acknowledged that the tax structure must change in order for the ordi-
nance to pass.
Mr. Carr pointed out that there is very little produce that goes out of the county.
He said that the objective of the larger lot size was to preserve the land and make clus-
ters more attractive.
Mr. McClure suggested reserving the CVN and using it where possible, citing such
examples as the reservoir and the land used by the forestry companies. He said that at
least 8,000 acres could be CVN.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the mountain tops and the steep slopes could be added.
Mr. Tucker questioned if the density would be 1 du/5 acres.
Mr. Carr asked if the land is not already dedicated to CVN.
Mr. McClure stated that the answer to this question was "yes" mentioning such
places as the Morgan Farm.
Mr. Humphrey stated that it would be hard to administer the zoning unless it is done
by property lines.
Mr. Gloeckner said that usually the edge of the timber lines are the property lines,
and perhaps they could follow the vegetation.
Mr. Carr asked what else could fit into that zone?
Mr. Tinsley said that all public lands could, and Mr. Carr noted that they are already
in that zone.
Mr. McClure stated that 250' off the banks of each stream could be CVN, even on the
James River.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission of the Esmont and Keswick areas.
Mr. Easter reminded the Commission of its original purpose as put forth two years
ago: to eliminate strip zoning and to enhance the beauty of the county. At this point
he asked if this could be done other than by lot size.
Mr. Humphrey stated that there were ways but they were too sophisticated for Albe-
marle County at this particular time.
Mr. McClure stated the fact that due to the fact that the city has no room witr
which to expand, the county now gets all the growth.
Mr. Carr said it is practically impossible to do anything about growth along the
road.
Mr. Tinsley suggested the possibility of letting the county or the developer provide
the utilities within a 5-8 mile radius of the city.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that setback could help eliminate the visionary idea of strip -
zoning.
Mr. Rinehart suggested a 5-acre minimum lot size where man sprawls and where he doesn't
everything could but put into one zone.
Mr. McClure stated that AL won't stand up in court, since Virginia courts have not
allowed a zone that is specifically designed to prohibit growth.
Mr. Carr stated that all land that is a political issue can be rezoned. He noted
that clusters can't be pushed due to the economics and the facilities. Therefore, it
might be necessary to "back off" the cluster idea, inviting rezoning and spot zoning.
Mr. McClure again stated that land can't be justified as agricultural or conservation
won't stand up in court.
Mr. Carr suggested the possibility of zoning the entire county in 4 or 6 acre
tracts. Then he asked what would happen.
Mr. McClure stated that there could be control by stopping the cause of growth - i.e.
the University of Virginia. Also the wealthy man could be prohibited from stripping the
highways, especially when the poor man was not allowed to do it.
Mr. Humphrey stated that this is part of the experience of property rights.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the 2-acre zone should have a setback, almost a site plan
for a house. He said he feels the text needs work in the areas of special use permits
and uses by right.
Mr. Tinsley mentioned the fact that the most common complaint he had heard from
property owners was their fear that they would be unable to do with their land as they
wished.
Mr. McClure stated that these are usually the people who object to zoning in the
first place.
Mr. Easter suggested the possibility of screening, which he recognized would add cost
to the lot.
Mr. Rinehart said that he wished to discuss the snob appeal at this particular time,
noting that Albemarle County is a nice place to live, that the quality of life is here.
He stated the need for more educated people in the area, and said in his opinion the
quality of life should be maintained in Albemarle County.
Mrs. Craddock noted that since only approximately three hundred people had voiced
opposition, then evidentally the other 30,000 some people did not oppose the proposed
zoning ordinance and map.
Mr. McClure said that he felt that ten out of eleven people were opposed to the pro-
posal.
Mr. Easter stated that all people living in the county made use of clean air and water.
The meeting adjourned for dinner at 6:30 p.m.
February 5, 1975
The continuation of the afternoon work session of February 5, 1975, was held at
7:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chair-
man; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr.
Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mrs. Joan Graves.
Mr. Carr noted that all members were present and the meeting was called to order.
Mr. Barksdale stated that with the proper setback of 100-150 feet he could support
retaining the CVN zone for mountain tops, forests, public lands, water impoundments, etc.
He noted that if the AGR zone were retained on the books, he hoped that there would be
some sort of tax relief. He suggested that a 5-acre CVN zone be incorporated into the
map and a 2-acre agricultural residential zone be incorporated into the map. He also
stated that perhaps the CVN zone could be relaxed as it emerged into the AGR. He suggested
that each zone have a separate vote.
Mr. Easter stated that the Commission did not promise tax relief for the voluntary
10-acre zone and stated that the Real Estate Department probably would not give it.
Mrs. Craddock stated that property owners could presently take advantage of land use,
if they qualified.
Mr. Easter asked if all written comments had been taken into account.
Mr. Clifford Dobson of the Planning Staff stated that the comments had been broken
down into particular areas, and that they would be dealt with in three different areas.
Mr. McClure proposed that the Commission vote on the 10 acre zone as it is currently
proposed in the proposed zoning ordinance, since it has a bearing on what is being done.
Mrs. Graves asked how final the vote would be.
Mr. Barksdale moved for the elimination of the 10-acre zone as it was set forth in
the proposed ordinance and map.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion.
The vote was 6-2 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Easter stated that the 10 acre zoning would probably be for the good of the
county and that the property owners, as well as the county, would eventually benefit eco-
nomica.11y.
Mr. Carr said that his sentiments lie with Mr. Easter's statement and he did not vote
At this point Mr. McClure suggested putting the previous 10-acre zoning into the 5-
acre zoning and broadening the CVN to include the prime agricultural land.
Mr. Rinehart suggested putting AL, AGR, and CVN into the CVN zone, except for the
RR zone.
Mrs. Craddock suggested to the Commission that Mr. Rinehart was thinking of it as
conserving the farmland.
/_W/_
Then Mr. Rinehart suggested the cluster alternate.
Mr. McClure stated that this limited the landowner since all own the open space.
Also, since there will be many 2-acre lots that will be non -conforming if the ordi-
nance passes, he said that he liked the idea of a proposed 1 du/2 acres. 44)
Mr. Carr noted that the 5-acre lot was originally called a holding zone, since it
would eventually be used for residencies.
Mr. Rinehart stated that in order to comply with the Master Plan the zoning ordinance
will have to be amended when it is passed.
Mr. Carr stated that the objective of the Commission was to up -grade all property,
however, now only some property would be up -graded since the soil evaluation tests would
not be used as the guideline.
Mr. McClure pointed out that the AL zone had the purpose of discouraging use of land
by subdivision.
Mrs. Graves said that uses permitted by right would have to be re -addressed.
Mr. Rinehart stated that it was his opinion that there is a weakness in not having
fine lines between the good and the prime agricultural land. If there is growth, it must
be organized.
Mr. McClure suggested that the Board of Supervisors works with the tax assessor
and recommended that the Planning Commission send a resolution to the Board to this effect
Mr. Rinehart noted that this resolution should include the need for utilities
in the clusters.
At this point, Mr. Carr called for a motion which would be subject to Planning staff
and legal review concerning the acreage that had been under discussion.
Mr. McClure made a motion, subject to legal and staff review, that the agricultural
land in the County be zoned in the following manner:
1. A zone in which there could be one dwelling unit per 10 acres, by request from
the property owner, which would appear on the books but would not be incorporated
onto the map.
2. A zone in which there could be one dwelling unit per 5 acres, which would encom-
pass the original AGR, AL, and CVN zones, which would be incorporated into the
proposed ordinance and proposed map.
3. A residential zone where there could be one dwelling unit per 2 acres.
He suggested that these zones be named at a later time, noting that it was the philosophy
on which the Commission was voting.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he could not support the motion due to the fact that it did
not support the Master Plan.
Mrs. Craddock did not vote. ,
The motion carried by a vite of 7-1. `+
Mr. Carr stated that there is a justification for the 5-acre zone which would incor-
porated agricultural and conservation land, but noted that uses by right and by special
permit would have to be re -addressed.
Mr. McClure said that he did not feel this was any great reversal in the plan - that
the Commission was not weakening in its effort to pass a strong ordinance.
Mr. Carr pointed out to the representative from the press that his coverage of the
evening's meeting should accurately reflect the philosophy that had been the topic of
discussion. It was his feeling that the public should gain new confidence because of this
work session.
Mr. Rinehart also urged that the public not be confused.
Mr. Carr then brought forth the issue of down -zoning.
Mrs. Graves felt that a better term was proper -zoning.
Mr. Humphrey stated that most of the property that would be discussed under this
topic was in the urban area and that in some cases it could be placed in a comparible
zone. Some cases that would be discussed would involve zoning that meant a less intensive
use. He noted that the reservoir zoning should set the precedent concerning other down -
zoning.
Mrs. Craddock stated that perhaps all property relating to the reservoir should be
down -zoned.
Mr. McClure pointed out to the Commission that the Board of Supervisors had taken
a firm stand against down -zoning.
Mr. Easter suggested that the Board had meant that it did not want wide change.
Mr. Humphrey stated that it is the vacant or undeveloped land that is the issue here,
not the already developed areas.
Mr. Carr alluded to the "mood of the County." He stated that he felt the Commission
should confer with each property owner in order to understand how he planned to develop
his property, citing as an example the property in the Pantops area belonging.
There followed an extensive discussion on the manner which to handle individual par-
cels and it was the decision of the Commission that each parcel would be handled individ-
ually.
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
M
February 10, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session concerning the proposed
zoning ordinance and map on February 10, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the County Executive's
Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chair-
man; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Wil-
bur Tinsley; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Mr. Carr told the Commission members that he had been in contact with the Office of
the County Attorney to establish if there were any personal liability involved in the pro-
posed ordinance. Mr. Carr stated that he had been informed by Mr. St. John that there
could be no personal liability and that any member could have a letter to this effect if he
wished.
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission members that he had brought two folders which con-
tained letters from specific property owners requesting that their property not be down -
zoned and in some cases that a comparable zone be given to their property.
TM 21, Parcels 15E, 15A, 15D, 15C, 12A
Mr. Humphrey stated that there is a request that all be given a comparable zone. He
stated that the Piney Mountain Store had been rezoned approximately 4 years ago. He
pointed out the letters from Gerald Tremblay, R. F. Loving, Jr., and C. G. Porritt.
Mr. Rinehart questioned the Commission if they are going to honor existing zoning?
He stated that he himself had used his best judgement when drawing up the proposed ordinancE
and map. He asked the Commission not to "water -down" the concept of zoning into clusters.
He further stated that if a change was to be made, then the wisest thing to do seemed to
be to go with the existing zoning.
Mr. Humphrey stated that Camelot is proposed to be a cluster.
Mr. McClure remarked that there is not any overwhelming reason for down -zoning this
property.
Mr. Carr urged practicality and concurred with Mr. McClure.
Mrs. Graves stated her concern as to whether existing zoning will encourage industrial
growth here or where cheaper land can be acquired.
Mr. Easter reminded the Commission that the Charlottesville -Albemarle Chamber of Com-
merce had requested that some land in the county be zoned industrial in order that in-
dustrial growth in the area be encouraged.
Mr. Goode Love pointed that a limited amount�of industrial land merely means that
prices will be higher.
Mrs. Craddock said that it is her feelings that not to much land should be zoned in-
dustrial.
Mr. Love suggested land zoned for specific uses.
' /
Mr. Rinehart noted that areas like Avon Street can be exaggerated, but to strip
zone Route 29N does not make that much sense.
Mr. Carr stated that an industrial park is needed in the county, but that the
Commission is not aimed to necessarily do that in the airport area. He said that
other areas did not come to mind just then, but that one was needed somewhere.
Mr. Lloyd questioned Mr. Humphrey as to the progress of the committee that had been
appointed to study the North 29 Corridor.
Mr. Humphrey replied that the traffic situations in the Stromberry and Sperry areas
are studied periodically. Thus far the studies revealed that this 29 North section is just
like any other major highway, and that eventually by-passes may have to be built. He noted
that "we never seem to learn from the past" since 29 north is following the trend of some
of them major highways in the Washington area.
Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Payne how the office of the County Attorney felt about defending
down -zoning.
Mr. Carr told Mrs. Graves that he had discussed this matter with the office of the
County Attorney and had been informed that the Planning Commission is to move forward in th
interest of good planning.
Mr. Rinehart asked if taxes provided a vested interest in land.
Mr. Payne told him that taxes did not provide a vested interest in land.
Mr. Humphrey stated that in order to bring the discussion back to the point at hand
that Mr. Porritt wished at least a CG zoning on his property.
Mr. Easter suggested that perhaps this is the time to again meet with the Board o
Supervisors in order to re -appraise everything and find out their exact feelings on down -
zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Commission were afraid of losing the whole ordinance.
Mr. Easter stated that the Board will probably take a firmer stand on down -zoning than
they originally had. He stated that such a meeting would help the Commission to avoid down
zoning of some and not of others.
Mr. Lloyd Wood stated that the people of the County had spoken during the public
hearings held by the Planning Commission and that the Board of Supervisors will probably
abide by the wishes of the people.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the Board is familiar with what the Planning Commission wishes
to do with the certain areas.
Mr. Wood responded that it is aware, especially in the rural districts.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he does not feel comfortable about down -zoning and would
like a re -statement from the Board about its position. He stated that the ordinance which
has been proposed supports the Master Plan, which the Board did adopt.
Mr. Wood emphasized that he did not want to discourage a good plan, but reminded
the Commission that they have heard, just as the Board will hear, the wishes of the
people. He further remarked that some down -zoning is all right, that some people ev
wish it.
Mrs. Graves said that if all the people get their own way, then there won't be a
zoning ordinance.
Mr. McClure stated that he would like for the Office of the County Attorney to again
state the pre -requisites to down -zoning.
Mr. Payne stated that the two pre -requisites are 1.) sunstantial change in circumstance
and 2.) mistaken zoning in the first place.
At this point Mr. McClure reminded the Commission that in the initial stages of dis-
cussion concerning the proposed ordinance, the members had put too much emphasis on vested
interests. He noted that in order to justify down -zoning it would be necessary to prove
that the zoning which had been originally assigned would have to be proved to be wrong.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Master Plan is the guide to zoning.
Mr. Wood reminded the Commission that the reason for the adoption of this Master Plan
which revolved around the idea of cluster developments was to avoid the threat of annexa-
tion. He stated that clustering is the County's biggest defense against annexation.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the Board of Supervisors wished the Planning Commission to
proceed with the proposed ordinance without consultation with them.
Mr. Carr stated that the location people want to be will change as the cluster idea
develops. He said he was not frightened that property zoned for industrial use will im-
mediately have an indsutry on it. He pointed out that many factors enter into the pur-
chasing of an industrial site. He stated that the forces in play will help to control this.
Mrs. Graves asked if there is any reason to change the airport area.
Mr. Carr told her that the Airport Commission wished an industrial area in the airport
vicinity. He further stated that it was the desire of the Planning Commission, too, to
make the airport more self-sustaining.
Mr. Wood pointed out that that area, close to Greene County, could support a small
IL zone, due to the work force available.
Mr. Humphrey noted that basically, concerning land use, nothing has changed in that
area since original zoning.
Mr. Rinehart brought things back to the point at hand by moving that TM 21, Parcels
15E, 15A, 15D, and 15C be tentatively zoned IL and that TM 21, Parcel 12A be zoned CL.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 32, Parcel 20, 22D
Mr. Humphrey stated that this is presently zoned B-1 and is proposed to be zoned
R-1 and AGL. He stated that the owners had requested comparable zones, in this case CG.
Mr. Rinehart moved that it be zoned CL in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion.
Mr. Payne stated that decisions should be based on planning principles rather than just
wishes of the property owner.
Mrs. Fran Martin questioned the rights of adjacent property owners, noting
that by the time they learn of the new proposed zoning it will be too late for them
to do anything about it.
Mr. Easter noted that this is a valid point.
Mrs. Martha Seldon stated that there had been limited representation from the public
regarding low density areas.
Mr. Humphrey stated that action was to be taken on what was heard at the public
hearings, not the silence.
Mr. Rinehart stated that the Route 29N area is already developed, so why should it
not be permitted to develop somewhat more - there is no change in circumstances to warrant
down -zoning. In regard to the Routes 29S and 250W areas he questioned Mr. Payne if the
Commission could not apply down -zoning where strip -zoning has not yet occurred. He stated
that this appeared to be a case of change of circumstances.
Mr. Payne stated that if one is allowed, the people will ask the reason for discrimi-
nation. However, he noted that if there is a basis for down -zoning in one area, and not
basis for it in another area, then down -zoning is proper.
Mr. Rinehart again moved that TM 32, Parcels 20 and 22D zoned CL.
The vote was 7-2 in favor of the motion.
TM 32 Parcel 22K
Mr. Humphrey stated that this property is currently zoned B-1 and is proposed to be
zoned CVN - that it does have steep slopes.
Mrs. Craddock stated that this property is in the watershed area.
Mr. McClure moved that this decision be deferred until the Commission could confer witl
the property owner.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
TM 46 Parcel 18
Mr. Easter moved that this be deferred in order to talk to the property owner.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that on this particular piece of property the site views coming
along the river are extremely bad and that a buffer strip along the river is needed.
The Commission voted unanimously to defer action on this piece of property.
19
Airport Properties:
Mr. Humphrey stated that this involves some 1200 acres, and be advised that the Com-
mission hear the specifics from the owners before acting on it, stating that AL and the
Camelot area are the key issue to the owners.
Mr. Easter moved for deferral and Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried un-
animously.
tion.
TM 32 Parcel 22C
Mr. Carr stated that this is a usable piece of property.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the M-2 zoning usually requires sewer, water and transporta-
Mr. Rinehart stated that CL would be comparable zoning.
Mr. Carr noted that he favored IL zoning, since the property rises from the road on
a gradual basis.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that this is not a heavy industrial area.
Mr. McClure moved that they propose the property be zoned IL.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcels 11, 22, 23A, 24
Mr. Humphrey stated that because of the work session dated 7/22/74 Parcels 11 and 24
would be zoned RM. He noted that Parcels 22 and 23A are presently non -conforming uses and
that CL zoning would make all areas except the trailer park comparable.
Mr. Tinsley moved that Parcels 22 and 23A be zoned CL.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcels 18, 16A
Mr. McClure moved that action on this property be deferred since the Board has not
acted on the request for a special use permit.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcel 21
Mr. Tinsley moved that action on this property be deferred until the Board could
make a decision on Evergreen Planned Community.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcel 23
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that this property is currently zoned M-1.
Mr. Barksdale moved that action be deferred until the matter could be discussed
with the owner.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
TM 45 Parcel 104
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that this property is presently zoned B-1.
Mr. Rinehart moved deferral in order to talk with the owner.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Tinsley stated that when and if a need for rezoning occurs the Commission should
seriously consider the requests.
At this point Mr. Rinehart stated that he felt he needed the work maps in order to
see property in relation to its surroundings. He moved that the meeting be adjourned until
the Commission could work more effectively.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
19
February 17, 1975
The regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held
on Monday, February 17, 1975, 7:30 p.m. in the Piedmont Virginia Community College
Auditorium, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman ; Mrs. Ellen Craddock;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tinsely; Mrs.
Joan Graves; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-officio.
order.
It was established that a quorum was present and the meeting was called to
Site Development Plan -Ordinance:
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that this is a re -draft and that the office
of the County Attorney and the Planning Staff had added comments that had been
received from the public. This copy of the ordinance shows the areas deleted as
well as the changes that were made. He noted that the staff and the Planning Depart-
ment are satisfied with the draft, except for one change to be made in Section
17-5-12, which the Engineering Department requested. It is 15' for the distance that
is presently 101.
Mr. Carr asked if 15' is standard.
Mr. Payne replied that an easement less than 15' usually means that
moved dirt could be an act of trespass.
Mrs. M. Marshaw stated that this particular ordinance is an excellent
example of the way public comments are received by the Planning Commission and
the Planning Department.
Mrs. Craddock stated that she was not prepared to vote on the ordinance
due to the fact that it had been marked from her agenda.
Mr. Easter moved that the vote be deferred until March 3, 1975, when
Mrs. Craddock would have properly reivewed the proposal.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr noted that the public hearing was closed.
ZMP-316. Holy Comforter Catholic Church has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to rezone 109.88 acres from B-1 Business,
R-3 Residential, and R-2 Residential to A-1 Agricultural. Property is
situated on the east side of Route 29 North, opposite Berkeley Subdivision.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcels 135B, 135C, and
part of Parcels 136 and 136A. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
AND
SP-446. Holy Comforter Catholic Church has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate a Planned Community on 109.88
acres presently zoned B-1 Business, R-2 Residential and R-3 Residential;
and proposed to be zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the
East side of Route 29 North, opposite Berkeley Subdivision. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 61; Parcels 135B, 135C, and part
of Parcels 136 and 136A. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker suggested to the Planning Commission that the request for a
rezoning and the request for a special use permit be considered jointly, though
two separate actions should be taken.
Mr. Carr replied that this would be permissible.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report in which he pointed out that the density
proposed by the applicant would be less than that density impact if allowed under
existing zoning.
Mr. Max Evans, landscape architect and representative of the applicant,
pointed out the existing entrance, the site owned by Montague -Miller, generally
locating the property for the Commission. He noted that the land is gently rolling
and appropriately named for the branches flowing through the property. Mr. Evans
also explained the road changes and the entrances off Route 29 North.
Mr. Jay Early asked for an estimated vehicle usage of the commercial
areas, especially the area north of the Orange Derby Restaurant.
Mrs. Graves acknowledged that the high median strip will cut off sight -
view and asked if perhaps the median strip could be re -graded.
Mr. Tucker told her that a plan to this effect had already been submitted
to the Virginia Department of Highways.
Mrs. Craddock stated that this is an excellent PUD except for the traffic
situation onto Route 29 North.
Mrs. Marshaw asked if all sectional development will have to adhere to the
PUD's Master Plan.
Mr. Carr explained that this will be done by site plans; he noted that the
density will remain the same, but that the layout may be somewhat different from the
drawings that Mr. Evans was using for illustration purposes.
Mrs. Marshaw then asked the Commission how recreational areas and open
space areas would be preserved.
Mr. Tucker stated that this would be done by site plan.
Mrs. Marshaw then asked Mr. Evans who would be responsible for the upkeep
of the common open spaces.
Mr. Evans explained that this would be done through the Homeowner's
Association.
Mr. Ron Fisher, a resident of Greenbrier Heights, stated his support for
the Planned Community but requested that the bike paths be developed and asked that
Greenbrier Drive be deleted in order to maintain a neighborhood environment.
Mr. Carr asked if the parking area next to Montague -Miller would be compatible.
Mr. Evans stated that it would be.
Mrs. Graves inquired about the sewer facilities.
Mr. Tucker stated that this would be on a first-come/first-served basis
and that reservations must be made with the service authority.
Mr. Carr reminded the public and the Commission that approval of the special
permit is an approval or guarantee of water and sewer.
Mrs. Graves insisted that it should be a condition to approval. Then
she questioned site plan reviewal by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Carr told Mrs. Graves that site plan would not be reviewed by the
Board of Supervisors unless they requested to examine a site plan. He stated that
the Planning Commission and a Site Plan Review Committee had been appointed to do this.
Mr. Barksdale questioned the entrances to the project.
Mr. Tucker noted that the staff feels that one entrance is sufficient as
long as there isn't thru-traffic.
Mr. Easter pointed out that they had requested 5 entrances, total.
Mr. Tucker stated that one of these entrances would eventually be terminated.
Mr. Carr asked the possibility of acquiring the property at the north end
for a main entrance.
Mr. Evans stated that this was a possibility in 2-3 years.
Mr. Gloeckner said that there is no guarantee of this happening.
Mr. Carr noted that if the major entrance has to be moved, the plan must reflect
this change.
Mr. Easter asked if the plan could not be approved subject to the northern
entrance being the major entrance. He stated that the public needs some protection.
Mr. Evans stated that proper allignment with Route 29 could be a condition.
Mrs. Craddock learned by questioning Mr. Evans that all people who buy
property there, as well as the apartment owners, will have to pay into the Homeowner's
Association.
Mr. Carr noted that two major entrances were taken from the commerical area
and yet they are not available to the dwellers of the PUD.
Mr. Evans told him that there will be some convenience shopping via bike paths,
etc.
Mr. Tucker suggested to the Commission that they defer action until there could
be further consultation with the Highway Department.
Mr. Tinsley put Mr. Tucker's suggestion into the form of a motion. Mr. Easter
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
UP-75-03. Amend Article 3, Residential Suburban District, RS-1, by
adding Section 3-1-14, Home Occupations - Class A.
Amend Article 16, Definitions, Section 16-44 to read:
Home Occupation - Class A: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit for
profit provided that:
a. No person other than members of the family residing on the premises shall
be engaged in such occupation.
b. The use of the dwelling unit for the home occupation shall be clearly
incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its occupants,
and not more than 25 per cent of the floor area of the dwelling unit shall be used
in the conduct of the home occupation.
c. There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the building or
premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other
than one sign, not exceeding one square foot in area, non -illuminated.
d. There shall be no sales, other than items handcrafted on the premises,
in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty shops or one
chair barber shops.
e. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes
than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for park-
ing generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street
and other than in a required front yard.
f. No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which
noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to
the normal senses off the lot, if the occupation is conducted in single family
residence. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be
used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers
off the premises, or causes fluctuations in line voltage off the premises. Boarding
and rooming houses, tourist homes and private educational institutions shall not be
deemed home occupations.
Home Occupation Class B: Any other home occupation requiring employment
other than members of the household and requiring the use of accessory structures
on site of the dwelling.
Amend Article 2, Agricultural District, A-1, Section 2-1-14 to read:
Home Occupation - Class A
Amend Article 6, Residential General District, R-3, Section 6-1-8 to read:
Home Occupation - Class A
The Commission unanimously voted to defer this item until the end of the
meeting.
T. E. Wood plat:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a subdivision plat of nine lots ranging
from 3 to 4.4 acres that has been requested to be approved.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval for the request; Mr. easter seconded the motion
which carried unanimously.
M. F. T. Land Trust Carpet Sales:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request for an approval of a site plan to
locate a carpet slaes in an existing two-story structure which was last used as the
Flea Market.
Mr. Easter asked if two entrances were necessary.
Mr. Brown, the applicant, explained that two entrances ease the parking
situation.
Mrs. Craddock suggested that planting be completed by the time of completion
of renovation of the building.
Mrs. Seldon requested that planting be done in the event of stripping.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A variance must be obtained for the front porch;
2. Approval is conditional upon final Virginia Department of Highways approval;
3. A grading permit must be obtained prior to grading.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion whihc carried unanimously.
Stonehenge - Section 9:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is the final section to be approved. The staff,
she said, recommended a tot lot.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Change the road name "Lancaster Lane." There is a "Lancaster Court" in the County.
2. Final approval from the Fire Marshal. (Mr. Reynolds has approved the two hydrants
in Section 9. The plat of Section 8 shows a hydrant which is not necessary.)
3. Convey the unbuildable lot in Section 5 to the Homeowner's Association.
4. Approval does not guarantee availability of the sewer connections.
5. Sections 8 and 9 should be approved at the same time.
6. Submittal of a site plan showing two tot lots in Section 9 containing a total of
10,000 sq. ft.
7. Submittal of a copy of the house numbers for Stonehenge.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, whihc carried unanimously.
Auburn Hills - Section 2:
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary for this plan was approved. She
told the Commission that those lots in question are lots 3-7 of Block C, lots 19-23
of Block B, and lots 25-32 of Block A.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval of the final plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The roads in this section and the previous sections should be constructed to
State standards, or a bond posted for their construction.
2. The requirement of preliminary approval regarding percolation tests has been
waived. The preliminary Health Department approval is sufficient.
3. A grading permit should be obtained prior to grading the roads.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. The Commission unanimously approved.
Georgetown Woods - Section II Townhouses, formerly known as Four Seasons West:
Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that Cluster A has already been approved.
She stated that the preliminary for the whole tract was brought in, and that now
approval of Cluster B is being requested. She stated that he planned to develop this
under the townhouse ordinance.
Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. Humphrey be consulted regarding the preliminary plan.
Mr. Tinsely moved that action be deferred until this could be done.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
W
Skyline Crest - Subdivision plat:
Mrs. Scala explained to the Commission that this is a request for a subdivision
plat of 26 lots ranging in area from 2 to 3.6 acres. She stated that the staff was of
the opinion that action should be deferred until a soil survey could be obtained.
Mr. Evan Jordan, an adjoining property owner, asked if the property
could accommodate so many houses since it is so steep. He also questioned the septic
lines and the water situation, since wells are sometimes uncertain in that area. He
noted that the state road is an important aspect to consider since it is very narrow
and the bridge can tolerate only limited weight. He said that he did not object to
development there, but he felt that the number of lots should be limited in view of
the circumstances.
Dr. Level, a property owner on Route 787, stated his concern over the same
issues.
Mrs. Jordan questioned the quality of design for houses and acknowledged her
desire to see the property developed properly.
Mrs. SEldon suggested a cluster alternative.
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral until a soil survey could be obtained.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Chestnut Grove - Section 2, lots 5-16:
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary had already been approved.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit for Chestnut Lane.
2. Health Department preliminary approval.
3. Virginia Department of Highways final approval.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Marshall Manor - Final plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary plan had been approved. Some lots
don't conform to the subdivision ordinance, but they are very marginal.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following:
1. The Reva Ridge Road must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a restricted
road;
2. The condition of preliminary approval regarding percolation tests is waived.
Preliminary Health Department approval is sufficient.
3. The following lots should be combined:
lots 8, 9, 10
lots 4 and 5
The following lots should be increased in size:
lots 35 and 36 - from lot 34
lot 24 - from lot 23
4. The remaining lots containing less than 60,000 sq. ft. are to be waived by the
Commission although they do not meet the present subdivision requirements for
sewer and water due to the previous preliminary approval of the subdivision, and
the fact that the roads have been constructed.
5. Lot 15 frontage requirement of 80' will be waived.
6. Manor Court should be changed since there are a Manor Drive and a Manor Road already
in the County.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
IBM Office Building:
Mrs. Scala located the property for the Commission members. She stated that
IBM had submitted an erosion plan and a landscape plan, but that a variance will be
needed for the retaining wall.
Mr. Carr pointed out the problem with the eastern entrance.
Mr. Fisher, speaking for the applicant, stated that IBM was trying to give
the building a residential character.
Mr. Easter stated his concern for the entrances.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the setback requirement be waived since the
two entrances 100' apart is dangerous, especially in view of the proximity to the
underpass.
Mr. Roudabush said that to combine the parking lots will make the lot look
much larger than it is.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the following:
1. Retaining wall and sign must obtain a variance for the front setback requirement;
2. Approval is conditional upon final Virginia Department of Highways' approval;
3. Grading permit must be obtained. Grading plan has been submitted to Soil Conservation
Service.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Woodard Subdivision plat - Division of parcels 19B, 19C, and 20:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request to waive the water and sewer require-
ments, thus approving the plat. The plat had originally been approved.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval; Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. It passed
unanimously.
19
Robert Woodward Plan:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request to waive frontage requirements for
two lots owned by Mr. Woodard on Route 663 near Nortonsville.
Mr. Carr stated that they should share a common driveway.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval subject to the common driveway.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mary Carter plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request to waive water and sewer
requirements.
Mr. Tucker stated that previously a request for rezoning to RS had been given.
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral until Mary Carter could be contacted to see if
she were agreeable to a 1.5 acre lot instead of a 1.0 acre lot, in order to satisfy the
subdivision water and sewer requirements.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1464
Worrell Newspapers Inc. Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala stated that no major site improvements have been made.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Final Virginia Department of Highways approval of existing entrance.
2. Approval does not include the 60 ft. right-of-way. No entrances should be made
onto this right-of-way until it has received proper approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Benton Patterson:
Mr. Roudabush stated that this is a request for a fifty foot easement for some
M-2 land on Route 29 North. He said that Thacker Construction Company will purchase the
land.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if it violated the subdivision ordinance, and Mr. Tucker
stated that there is not lot size requirement for M-2.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the next entrance being at least
600 ft. from the existing entrance.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Article 16: Home Occupations:
The Commission deferred this item until a later meeting, due to the time of
the evening.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.