HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 11 86 PC MinutesNovember 11, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 11, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr.
Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard
Gould; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior
Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Michel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present.
Earlysville Forest Phase B Section 9, Final Plat - Proposal to create 41 lots,
with an average lot size of 1.797 acres. The lots are to be served by internal
public roads. Total area of the site is 73.68 acres. Zoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development. The property is located on the south side of Rt. 743,
adjacent to the previous phase of development (Phase A, Section 9). Tax Map
31, parcel 31. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Mr. Benish amended condition l.f. of the
proposed conditions of approval as follows:
"All roads in phases 1 through 8 intended to be public roads within
the Earlysville Forest development shall be approved by the local resident
engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and
the County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution for acceptance of
the roads, and the application for acceptance into the State Secondary
System has been made to the Richmond office of the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation."
(This condition was the major point of discussion in the review of the
application.)
Staff recommended approval of the final plat subject to conditions.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Benish explained that amended
condition l.f. "more reflects what the applicant can do to get the roads
into the system," (i.e. post performance bonds, make necessary improvements,
and make application for a resolution of acceptance from the County).
Mr. Benish confirmed that the roads which are of concern are those in phases
1 through 8.
It was determined that condition l.d. (Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval of road plans and drainage plans and computations,
including commercial entrance on Route 743 (as outlined in the letter to David
Benish, dated October 9, 1986) included the requirement for a turn and taper
lane.
November 11, 1986
Page 2
It was determined the actions referred to in condition l.f. are intended to
be sequential actions. Ms. Diehl pointed out that, in order to make the
tenses of the statement correct, the words shall be should be changed to are.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Craig, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained
that once the applicant has done everything on the VDH&T "punch list" and
posted a bond, the applicant has done all that he can do. He felt it would
be unfair to hold the development up further by paperwork
over which the applicant has no control.
Mr. Horne explained the point of disagreement as follows: "There is a final
inspection done at the actual construction of the roadway. That includes the
long punch list that he is talking about. At that point we would receive a
letter from the _local resident engineer notifying us that the road has been
constructed to our standards and is eligible for acceptance. At that point
then we start a process, first locally to get a resolution to the Board of
Supervisors that is requesting that the state take the road into the system.
And then that resolution goes off with a number of other things, some from the
developer, some from us, to Culpeper and to Richmond. Then the Highway and
Transportation Board, at some later date,... formally accept the road into the
system. It might be the disagreement is having the Board of Supervisors
resolution (included in condition lf.) because there would be some time period
after we are notified that it has, in fact, been constructed to the correct
standards, before we could get the Board resolution passed, and then the
Board resolution transmitted to the Highway Department to start going
through their system."
Mr. Craig confirmed this was correct, i.e. the paperwork that is involved
with the Board resolution and the amount of time this would take. He pointed
out that a delay of 6 weeks would push construction of the roads into the
middle of winter.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed concern about the project: Mr. Derrick DeHooge,Sr.,
Mr. Franklin DeHoog�, and Mr. Franklin DeHoo�p, Jr. Their concerns included the
following:
--They were not aware, until very recently, that an entrance was proposed
directly across Rt. 743 from their property. They felt they had not
been given adequate notification and suggested that surrounding
property owners should be re -notified.
--The extremely dangerous conditions of the road (very narrow, no shoulders,
inadequate sight distance).
--Eventual destruction of the water quality in Chris Green Lake.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Regarding the entrance on Rt. 743, it was pointed out the entrance has always
been a part of the proposal (since originally proposed in 1981).
Mr. Bowerman stated the DeHoags were correct in their description of Rt. 743
in that location. He added that the Highway Department's requirements for
the entrance will make the entrance safe since it will include a turn and taper
lane, but the Commission can do nothing about Rt. 743 at this time. He stressed,
however, that he shared their concern.
<)<u'
November 11, 1986
Page 3
Mr. Bowerman stated he had no problem with condition l.f. since he felt the design
of the road could have been approved at a very early stage.
Mr. Craig disagreed. He stated the Highway Department will not normally review
road plans until the Planning Commission approves a certain parcel.
It was determined Mr. Craig was referring to just the main road, Earlysville
Forest Drive, and not the roads that serve the rest of the development.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Benish confirmed that condition l.f.
speaks to all the roads, and the use of those roads has been known. Mr. Bowerman
stated this was not a problem which has developed in the last six seeks.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the original condition was the road be accepted
by the Highway Department, but the amended condition is "far removed" from
that condition because the road only has to be completed and the paperwork
started.
It was determined that in order to get necessary sight distance either a
sight easement will be required from the property across the road, or else
the applicant will have to swing the road in more and realign it on his side.
Mr. Cogan stated condition l.f. had three parts: (1) Roads must be approved
by the local resident engineer; (2) Board must pass a resolution for acceptance;
and (3) Applicant must submit an application for acceptance into the State
system to Richmond. He explained that the applicant has control over
parts 1 and 3 and suggested that the applicant's concern over part 2 could
be addressed by rewording part 2 to say "...the County Board of Supervisors can
pass a resolution for acceptance...."
Mr. Horne explained that while parts 2 and 3 do work sequentially, they can
work at the same time, i.e. the applicant can be doing construction activities
and anticipating the application at the same time. Mr -Horne also pointed
out this would be a Consent Agenda item with the Board, i.e. if the Board
has the letter from the Resident Engineer, their is no debate involved.
Mr. Gould asked if the letter from the Resident Engineer was the only "trigger."
Though Mr. Horne responded affirmatively, Mr. Payne disagreed. Mr. Payne
explained that the applicant must request that the Board take that action.
He confirmed that it is not a unilateral action by the Board.
Mr. Cogan felt that his suggested use of the word "can" in condition l.f.
would address the situation since if the applicant has not done what is
required of him, then the process would not be complete and could not be
acted upon by the Board.
Mr. Payne stated the Board would not put the item on the agenda until the
applicant had made the request. He confirmed that receipt of the letter from
the Resident Engineer would not automatically put the item on the agenda.
Mr. Payne added, "I think this statement of the condition is reflective of the
procedure that has been used historically."
November 11, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Horne stated it should not take more than 2 to 3 weeks for the item
to be placed on the Board's agenda once the process is complete.
Mr. Gould indicated he felt the condition should remain as amended by staff
since that is the usual procedure that the Commission has followed. He
could see no reason to deviate from that procedure.
Mr. Cogan requested that staff read the Highway Department's comments
regarding sight distance. Mr. Benish read the following:
"A minimum of 450 feet of sight distance required for the entrance
at 743. Existing sight distance to the north is adequate. Sight
distance to the south of the entrance can be obtained with trimming
of vegetation. However, there is only 360 feet of sight distance
to the south for a vehicle turning left into the subdivision. To
obtain the necessary 450 feet of sight distance in this direction
will require either right-of-way dedication or a sight easement,
if not currently existing, along with cutting of vegetation and
trees on the property across the road. The department recommends
a 200-foot long, 12-foot wide turn and taper lane on Rt. 743."
Regarding the performance bonds, Mr. Craig made an offer to post the
bonds immediately.
Mr. Horne stated that it is not staff's intention to make a major issue
out of a 2 to 3 week period. He stated, "If it is a severe problem to
the applicant for those 2 or 3 weeks, I don't think it damages the public
interest to allow the amendment that Mr. Cogan (suggested). We would
verify that all things had been done under the normal processes where
we would be able to bring that resolution to the Board. What it would
take away is the requirement that it would have been to the Board and
the Board actually adopted their consent agenda. I don't think we
consider this that major an item. If it is that severe a problem, we
may look at some type of a bonding procedure to further ensure that,
but I think we can do that internally. The intent is that the applicant
has done everything he can do to get those roads into the system. ...
So we're willing to go with Mr. Cogan's amendment. I don't think it
really materially dilutes what we've said in our amendment, but it does
give (the applicant) 2 to 3 weeks' head start."
Mr. Cogan moved that the Earlysville Forest Phase B Section 9, Final Plat
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations;
b. County Engineer approval of central water system extension;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit; erosion control plan to be
reviewed by Watershed Management Official;
November 11, 1986
Page 5
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road
NW plans and drainage plans and computations, including commercial entrance
on Route 743 (as outlined in the letter to David Benish, dated October 9,
1986);
e. Albemarle County Service Authority review of the design of water line
extension;
f. All roads in phases 1 through 8 intended to be public roads within the
Earlysville Forest development are approved by the local resident
engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and
the County Board of Supervisors can pass a resolution for acceptance of
the roads, and the application for acceptance into the State Secondary
System has been made to the Richmond office of the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation;
g. Planning staff approval of revised final plat. (Setbacks; right-of-way
dedication on Route 743)
2. Building and septic sites shall
R.O. Snow, Incorporated. Copies
plumbers and septic contractors.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
be in accordance with Section 9 plat by
of septic permits shall be given to
Mr. Stark noted his understanding of the DeHoags' concerns regarding the
condition of the road. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the construction of
the entrance would make that particular section of the road somewhat safer
because it will improve sight distance and add a turn lane.
Mr. Gould indicated he could not support the motion because he could see no
reason to deviate from usual policy and did not feel that a 2 to 3 week delay
would be a burden to the applicant.
Mr. Horne explained, "We will verify that the thing is absolutely ready to
go before I will say that we can pass that resolution."
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he felt this was a significant deviation from
usual procedure.
Mr. Payne replied, "The whole concept of this condition is a significant
deviation because ordinarily you don't require the roads to be brought into
the system before you approve the next phase. It's a deviation in the
sense that you rarely have a project that is of this size and takes this
time to build out and has all the roads being dependent on each other.
If you're asking do I see the difference between Mr. Benish's language and
Mr. Cogan's language as being significant. Theoretically it is. I think
Mr. Horne's point is a good one, and that is, as long as the County controls
the meaning of the teen 'can pass' then it really doesn't make any difference.
I think if it came down to a question of putting that in court, and it would
be decided by a court, I wouldn't advise that language because, clearly, the
Board of Supervisors can adopt this resolution any time it feels like it.
So if you take that language 'can pass,' it can pass it tonight. What Mr.
Horne is saying is, 'It's ready to pass it in due course.' If you interpret
nC�q
November 11, 1986
Page 6
it that way and he's the one that is going to be signing this plat, I think
with that qualifier, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference."
The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:1) with Mr. Gould casting
the dissenting vote.
Rivanna Water Sewer Authority Observatory Mountain Water Treatment Plant Improvements -
Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan - The Rivanna Water and Sewer
authority proposes to locate a 3 MGD finished water storage facility on
Observatory Mountain approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the existing water
treatment plant. This reservoir tank would provide protected storage for
finished water, replacing the two existing open storage reservoirs.
Mr. Horne gave the staff report. The report included the following statements:
"Staff opinion is that this is a needed improvement to reduce potential
of finished water contamination. Locational and aesthetic issues have been
addressed by the University. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission find the project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission waive requirement of
a site plan, subject to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of access road entrance at U.S. Rt. 29 South."
Mr. Williams, representing the Rivanna Water Sewer Authority, was present but
offered no additional comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Rivanna Water Sewer Authority Observatory Mountain Water
Treatment Plant Improvements be found in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan and that the requirement for a site plan be waived, subject to Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access road entrance at
U.S. Rt. 29 South.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-86-67 Nettie Jones - Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special use permit to allow a
vacant 86.39 acre parcel to be subdivided into 4 lots. Lots range in size from
2 to 7 acres with a residue of 73 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 59,
parcels 7B1 (part of); 28 (part of) and 27A (part of) is located on the eastern
side of Rt. 677 near Candlewyck Subdivision.
It was determined the applicant had requested deferral to November 25, 1986.
Mr. Diehl moved that the applicant's request for deferral to November 25 be
approved.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Z-a
November 11, 1986 Page 7
SP-86-70 Delma R. Robertson - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10)
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special
use permit to locate a single -wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map
20, parcel 1D(L-1). White Hall Magisterial District. The property is
located on the north side of Route 605, tl mile northwest of its intersection
with Rt. 743.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
The applicant was present but offered no additional comment.
The Chairman invited public comment. There being no public comment, the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked if a condition should be added requiring owner occupation
of the mobile home.
Mr. Robertson confirmed that it was his intention to reside in the mobile
home.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the condition has been added by the Commission
when there has been some question about the unit's occupancy.
It was determined that such a condition is usually added by the Board.
Mr. Gould moved that SP-86-67 for Nettie Jones be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maintenance of the existing landscape buffer along the southern property
line to reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan noted that he was in favor of the application because staff
indicated the mobile home would be located in the best section of the property
in relation to visibility, and this is a family situation.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on November 19, 1986.
SP-86-65 Arthur Carter - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10) of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a special use
permit to locate a single -wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map
84, parcel 66K1. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The property is located
on the east side of Route 791, t.1 mile south of its intersection with Rt. 635.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
November 11, 1986 Page 8
The staff report stated the mobile home would be occupied by the applicant.
It also stated two objections had been received. One objection 14
"contends that this use is not consistent with the surrounding area and would
negatively affect property values; the second objection is from an adjacent
owner who is concerned that the proposed location of the mobile home would
be visible from his property." The report stated that there are other
available building sites on the property on which the mobile home could
be located which might serve to better screen the mobile home from some of the
adjacent properties.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Ms. Carter addressed the Commission. She disagreed with the adjacent property
owner who was concerned about the mobile home being visible. She felt that
some effort would have to be put forth before the mobile home could be
seen, i.e. it would be necessary "to walk down his yard and peer through the
trees." She stated that she and her husband have offered to plant
additional trees along the boundary line. She also stated she would be
agreeable to a time limitation being placed on the permit since it was
her intention to build a permanent dwelling on the property in the not too
distant future. (Note: Later in the meeting it was determined that Mr.
Carter was not agreeable to such a limitation.) Ms. Carter stated that
the Zoning Administrator felt the proposed location was the "best spot for
the trailer." She explained that moving to a different location would
require a considerable amount of grading.
Ms. Carter stated she would be agreeable to a five-year limitation on the
permit.
14
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Peter Hunter, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He stated he
felt that the alternate location for the mobile home would not require
much grading. Mr. Benish agreed that there appeared to be several locations
were grading would be minimal. He added that he did not know if these
locations would be desirable to the applicant. Mr. Benish added further that
there are three property owners involved with this property (the applicant
and parents) and thus could be some conflict.
Mr. Arthur Carter, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that
his part of the property would be the steepest side and to change the location
of the trailer would mean that he would have to move onto his mother's or
father's part of the property. He also felt the mobile home would not be
highly visible to Mr. Hunter's property. Mr. Carter stated he was not
in favor of a temporary permit since he was not sure when he would be
financially able to build a permanent dwelling.
Ms. Debbie Hunter, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission and
expressed her opposition to the proposal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she could support the permit as a temporary permit in the
proposed location but not as a permanent permit since there appear to be
other suitable sites on the 14 acres. She added that she could support it
as a permanent permit if the location was changed.
WI/ »
November 11, 1986 Page 9
Mr. Cogan stated the Commission needed to decide whether to consider this as
a temporary permit with screening, or a permanent permit with a re -location
required. He felt that a permanet permit would require a relocation of
the mobile home on the site.
Based on Mr. Carter's statements, it was determined the Commission should
treat the permit as a permanent one.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-86-65 for Arthur Carter be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Location of the mobile home so as to minimize visibility from Rt. 691 and
adjacent landowners to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
The location shall be a minimum of 180 feet from northeastern boundary line.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on November 19, 1986.
The meeting recessed from 8:55 to 9:10.
(Note: Mr. Payne did not return after the recess.)
*irr✓ CPA-85-5 Southern Regional Park - A request by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to reflect a park
which would be located east of Rt. 631, approximately 1/2 mile south of its
intersection with Rt. 708. The site consists of 530 acres and is bisected by
Walnut Branch, a tributary of the South Fork of the Hardware River. A
46-acre lake is proposed to be constructed on Walnut Branch. The property is
described as Tax Map 100, parcels 35, 37, 38, 39, and 33 (part of) in the
Scottsville Magisterial District, zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report.
Mr. Pat Mulaney, representing the Department of Parks and Recreation, added
that the preliminary estimate, 1.8 million dollars, is based on the total
development of the site as shown on the schematic drawing, but the total
development would not be done in the first phase. He stated the first
phase would be approximately 1.4-1.5 million dollars. He explained the
first phase would include the long entrance road into the property,
the boat launch area with a small parking lot, the swimming beach, the
parking area and the facilities at the swimming beach (restrooms, etc.),
and picnic shelters and tables. He confirmed that the dam was included
in the first phase.
The Chairman invited comment from the Mr. Armm, the County Engineer.
Mr. Armm commented that this dam site was the most suitable of all the
sites that were considered.
November 11, 1986 Page 10
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Tom Ward, representing Lake Repovia, addressed the Commission. His
comments included the following:
--The Comp Plan calls for a swimming facility in southern Albemarle
County "outside of a 10-mile service radius of Lake Renovia."
He pointed out that the Plan calls for a "swimming facility", not
a "lake" swimming facility. He stressed that the Plan does not
call for it to be outside of 10 "roadway" miles, but rather
outside of a 10-mile service radius. The proposed location is
6 miles from Lake Renovia, or 4 miles within Lake Renovia's service
radius.
--The roads serving this site are much more objectionable than those serving
the sites which have been rejected.
--The project was originally allocated $600,000 (for a swimming pool), and
that has now changed to 1.8 million dollars (for a park).
--His business has a difficult time competing with other county parks
which do not draw from his service area; the construction of this
park will have a very detrimental effect on Lake Renovia--probably to
the point of "driving it out of business."
--Who will pay for the improvements to Rts. 708 and 631?
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Armm explained that the $300,000
cost of the dam included the possibility of the need for underground pressure
grouting. However, if such grouting was found to be unnecessary, the dam
would cost considerably less ($200,000).
Mr. Cogan expressed real concern about some of the estimates quoted by
Gloeckner, Lincoln and Osborne, e.g. $150,000 for septic and wells, $100,000
for tenant house.
Mr. Armm agreed that some of the figures were high. He felt the tenant house
should be approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also agreed that the figure
for the septic and well was possibly double what it should be.
Ms. Diehl agreed with Mr. Cogan. Both stated they were appalled. Ms. Diehl
pointed out that such inflated figures give little idea of the real cost and
thus prepare the public to accept anything.
Mr. Mulaney stressed that these were preliminary figures.
Mr. Armm explained that he felt it was preferable to begin with "conservatively
high" numbers rather than have the project approved with low estimates
and then come in with much higher costs in the end.
Mr. Armm did not feel that the estimates quoted were too far from realistic.
It was determined the option on the property would expire on December 10.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the Commission seems to be put in this position
frequently, i.e. having to make a rushed decision. He asked why the option
could not be dealt with in such a way so as to allow enough time for the
process to be carried out in an intelligent way.
,.- 7 J,')
November 11, 1986 Page 11
Mr. Horne pointed out that members of both the Commission and the Board
were involved in the site selection process. Mr. Mulaney added that the
property was already on the market so the County had to "tie it up" so
the feasibility study could proceed.
Ms. Diehl stated she had no quarrel with the site, but she was concerned
about the questionable accuracy of the estimates.
It was determined that funding would come through the Capital Improvements
Program and there is a current allocation in the CIP for 1.2 million dollars.
Mr. Bowerman stated the site was a beautiful one and indicated it was
well suited for the project.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Mulaney to comment on the water quality at the site.
Mr. Mulaney stated that testing has shown the water quality to be
better than that at Chris Green Lake.
It was determined a public hearing had been held on November 3 at Walton
Middle School. The main public mnmrn was the extra traffic on the access
road.
In response to Mr. Gould's question, it was determined the 1.8 million
dollars (as opposed to 1.2 million) included the purchase price of the land.
Mr. Cogan asked if the Commission would have another chance to review the
figures. Mr. Horne responded affirmatively and explained that the issue
"4%W would come up again at the time the Capital Improvements Program is
reviewed. He explained further that if the project is within the already
allocated figure, it will come back before the Commission but it will not
be an extra expenditure at that point. Mr. Horne confirmed that the
Commission could "take apart the pieces of it" at that time.
Mr. Horne could not recall what priority this project had been given in
the most recent CIP.
Regarding the concerns raised by Mr. Ward, Ms. Diehl stated she felt both
parks could co -exist since Lake Ii�p ovia will offer some services that the
county park will not (e.g. camping). Mr. Ward disagreed.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the question before the Commission at this time
is whether or not the proposed location is in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Cogan commented that the size and scope of the project are more than is
needed at the present time, but, for the long term, it is a good investment.
He cautioned against overdoing the improvements and suggested doing only
the minimum at this time. He stressed that the project was much larger than envisioned.
Ms. Diehl moved that CPA-85-5,to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to
reflect a park which would be located east of Rt. 631, approximately 2 mile
south of its intersection with Rt. 708, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
h
November 11, 1986
Page 12
The matter was to be heard by the Board on November 19, 1986.
Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District - The Planning Commission is
considering a request for the establishment of the Moorman's River Agricultural
and Forestal District, pursuant to Section 15.1-1511 B.5 of the Code of
Virginia. The proposed district consists of 3,114.075 acres, located on the
north side of Rt. 614 (Garth -White Hall Road) between Owensville and Rt. 671.
Other parcels are located on Routes 665, 671, 675 (Albemarle Lake Road) 678
(Ridge Road), 680, and 821 (Old Blufton Road). Most of the proposed district
lies between the Moorman's and the Mechum's Rivers. The proposed district is
further described as Tax Map 28, Parcels 7A1, 17A, 17C, 18, 32B, 32D, 37C,
37D, 38; Tax Map 29, Parcels 70B, 70K, 70L, 70M, 77, 78, 79, 79A1, 79A2,
79B, 79C, 79D, 79D1; Tax Map 41, Parcels 50, 67B, 89; Tax Map 42, Parcels
5, 6, 6B, 8, 8C, 10, 10A, 37J, 40D, 40G, 40H2, 42B, 43, 43A, 44; Tax Map 43,
Parcels 1, 1B, 2, 3, 3A, 3C, 4C, 5, 5A. White Hall and Jack Jouett Magisterial
Districts.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Staff requested that the Commission accept the
Advisory Committee's report and make a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed district: Ms. Mary Scott
Birdsall; Ms. Tamera Vance, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council;
Ms. Sherry Buttrick; and Mr. Edward Bauer.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Commission accept the report of the Advisory Committee
and that the Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for aproval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
A Comprehensive Plan work session was set for Thursday, November 18, 5:00.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15.
John Horne, Secretary
DS