HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 23 1993 PC MinutesFEBRUARY 23, 1993
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, February 23, 1993, Auditorium, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Mr. Thomas Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson;,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchman; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. V. Mayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill
Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; and
Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
February 2, 1993 were approved as amended by Mr. Blue.
ZMA-92-12 and SP-92-BU Worrell Land and Cattle Somoanv -
Proposal to establish an application plan for 241 acres
zoned PD-MC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial and CO,
Commercial Office and to obtain a special use permit to
allow residential use [Section 23.2.2(9)] and supporting
commercial uses [Section 23.2.2(11)] in the portion of the
property zoned CO, Commercial Office. Included in this
proposal is a request to rezone 1.7 acres from CO,
Commercial Office to PD-MC, Planned Development -Mixed
Commercial. The application plan generally proposes 977,550
square feet of office development, 296 residential units,
and 85 acres of open space to be served by private roads
Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 20B, 20C, 20K,
20M, 31, 32, 71 and 71A is bounded by Richmond Road (Route
250E) to the north, I-64 to the south and east to State Farm
Blvd to the west. This site is recommended for
Office/Regional Service in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval of both the rezoning (with agreements) and the
special permit (with no conditions).
Mr. Johnson questioned the use of the word "demand" in
agreement No. 5 in relation to road improvements, i.e.
"...These improvements shall be constructed upon 'demand' of
the Virginia Department of Transportation in accordance with
their letter dated February 8, 1993...... He noted that the
letter from VDOT "transfers that schedule to the applicant
based on vehicle count." Mr. Tarbell explained that he had
used language which had been used in similar situations in
the past. Mr. Johnson felt they (VDOT) were shifting the
responsibility to the applicant. Mr. Tarbell responded: "I
think there could still he some disagreement in the future
.1517
2-23-93
2
as to how much (traffic) they are generating, and I still
think it is VDOT's decision to say 'we insist that it's
necessary now."' [Mr. Grimm felt the language was clear as
stated.]
Mr. Johnson, referring to agreement No. 8, asked if the Sign
Ordinance applies to private streets. Mr. Tarbell responded
that the report had been based on the Zoning Ordinance and
the Planning Staff is not actually involved in sign
questions. He could not answer Mr. Johnson's question
definitively. Mr. Johnson felt this matter should be
clarified, i.e. do the Sign Ordinance regulations apply to
private streets or not? Mr. Tarbell explained it was his
intent to address site plan issues, and the words "except
signs" is taken from the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Johnson felt that agreement No. 2 [The supporting
commercial uses shall be in accordance with those uses
permitted by -right in the C-1 zone as modified by Section
9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.] was "superfluous."
Mr. Blue asked why VDOT will not accept roads designed to
mountainous terrain standards. Mr. Tarbell confirmed that
VDOT would not accept mountainous terrain standards anywhere
in this county, regardless of the scale of the development.
Mr. Blue commented: "We're talking about a illion square
feet of office space in the ultimate development, without
the residences. That's a whole lot of traffic. If VDOT has
some real justification for saying that the mountainous
terrain standards are not sufficient to support that kind of
traffic count in this development, I think we ought to know
about it. On the other hand, if that's just a straight
across-the-board statement for every development, then I
suppose there's nothing we can do about it." Mr. Tarbell
felt it was an across-the-board statement and they will only
accept rolling terrain standards in this area. Mr. Blue
asked if staff was aware of any reason mountainous standards
would not work. Mr. Tarbell responded that neither the
planning staff nor the engineering staff "have a problem"
with mountainous standards.
Mr. Blue questioned staff's position that the requirement
that "such private road shall not be designed to serve
through traffic nor to intersect the state highway system in
more than one location" does not apply to the proposed
layout. (It was staff's interpretation that this
requirement would not apply because "no private road
directly connects two state roads and, therefore, would not
effectively serve through traffic." It was Mr. Blue's
interpretation that "it does connect two state roads." Mr.
Tarbell pointed out on the plan that there was no "direct
�� Q
2-23-93
connection," because several
between State Farm Blvd. and
was "stretching things."
3
turns would have to be made
Rt. 250. Mr. Blue felt this
Ms. Huckle expressed support for private roads and
mountainous standards. However, she expressed concern about
lack of County control over parking along the roads during
special events. Mr. Tarbell explained that parking would be
available in surrounding parking lots because special events
would usually be held after office hours and on weekends.
He did not feel there would be much need for street parking.
He agreed that the County would have no control over street
parking on private roads.
Regarding the timing for the installation of traffic lights
on Rt. 250, Mr. Nitchmann asked how this would be determined
and who would be responsible. Mr. Tarbell explained the
responsibility would belong to the owner. He stated that
the letter from VDDT (February 8) addresses the question of
timing. Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about four lanes
being completed before a light is installed. He wondered if
the timing could be pinned down more specifically. Mr
Tarbell explained that the letter from VDDT "sets the
parameters." He also noted that VDDT does not want a
traffic signal earlier than necessary.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Andrew Dracapoli. He
explained the history and planning process of the proposal.
Specific comments and answers to Commission questions
included the following:
--The plan is in complete conformance with the zoning
and the Comprehensive Plan.
--The project will provide commercial and business
expansion area for local and out -town -businesses within the
urban area.
--Over 1/3 of the property is dedicated to open space,
on a permanent basis."
--Regarding the issues of signs, he stated: "As far as
I'm concerned, the Sign Ordinance applies to private roads
the same as it does to the public roads."
--Regarding mountainous terrain standards, it is VDOT's
"blinkered" view that mountainous standards belong in
Southwest Virginia, not in Albemarle County. He noted that
the local VDDT office had supported an earlier request for
mountainous standards, but had been "completely reversed" by
the Culpeper office.
--An extensive traffic count study was submitted to
VDDT. VDDT has not commented specifically on the use of two
lane roads in the property. The applicant's traffic
engineers feel that two-lane roads are adequate "at full
buildout for what we have in mind.' Two lane roads require
half the amount of cuts and fills.
2-23--93 4
--Referring to Mr. Nitchmann's concern about a traffic
count of 2,500 cars/hour, he corrected that the count is
2,500 cars/ (It is at that point, when the count
reaches 2,500 cars/day, that a light will be installed.)
The applicant has requested the option of being able to
install a light at an earlier time.
---Regarding the issue of the "through" traffic, he
explained that because of the volume of internal traffic,
the applicant wants to discourage through traffic, thus one
of the reasons for the roads being "fairly circuitous."
--Regarding parking on roads, he stated that while the
park may be in use before surrounding construction is
completed, it is anticipated that there will be sufficient
parking around the existing barns. Later, it is felt that
the parking areas for the surrounding buildings will provide
sufficient parking and it may be decided later that the park
is inappropriate for some events.
--In response to Mr. Blue's question, he anticipated a
residential population of 600--700 persons (300 townhomes),
1,000,000 square feet of office space (5,000 parking
spaces), and a 15-20 year buildout.
--In response to Mr. Johnson's question about agreement
No. 5 and the term "on demand," he confirmed that the
applicant was comfortable with the wording. He explained
that the option to install the traffic light earlier than
required by VDOT had been at the request of the applicant.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue noted that this was a well thought out plan. He
explained that the Service Authority had satisfied his
concerns about possible future expense to County citizens in
the event utility lines would have to be enlarged to serve
this development. He was of the understanding that no
future taxpayer expense would be involved.
He expressed some reservations about private roads, but
stated he wanted to believe VDOT knows its business_
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZMA
92-12 for Worrell Land and Cattle Company be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to those
agreements set forth in the Staff Report dated February 23,
1993.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that SP-
92--66 for Worrell Land and Cattle Company be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval. (No conditions.)
The motion passed unanimously.
07G2
2-23-93 5
ZMA-92-13 & SP-93-02 George & William Clark - Proposal to
rezone approximately 102.89 acres from Rural Areas to VR,
Village Residential and to opbtain a special use permit for
a stream crossing in the floodplain of the South Branch of
the Hardware River [30.3). Property, described as Tax Map
87, Parcels 57C and 66-76 inclusive and Tax Map 99, Parcels
109-116 inclusive, is located in the southeastern corner of
the intersection of Red Hill School Road and North Garden
Lane (rts. 760 and 712) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. This site is located in a designated growth area
(Village of North Garden) and is recommended for Village use
(1 dwelling unit per acre). Deferred from February 9
Commission Meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He distributed to the
Commission memoranda from the Water Resources Manager and
from Jack Kelsy (Engineering Department), both of which
specifically addressed proffers provided by the applicant
since the previous public hearing. He also distributed a
letter of opposition which had been received 2-18-93 (he did
not identify the letter further.) He called attention to a
Resolution of Intent from the Albemarle County Service
Authority addressing the issue of central groundwater
systems "and discourages their use and where they are
permitted it encourages those systems to be designed and
constructed in accordance with the Albemarle County Service
Authority's specifications."
Referring to this Resolution, Mr. Blue asked if the Board
had defined "sizeable population." Staff could provide no
additional information. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the
Resolution had been passed by the Service Authority (and
endorsed by the Board).
Mr. Fritz briefly reviewed the proposal. He explained
events which had taken place since the previous public
hearing, i.e. meetings between staff (Planning, Engineering
and the Water Resource Manager) and the applicant and
proffers offered. He explained that a proffer l'hs been
offered which addresses water testing but "it contains no
reference to what the testing will indicate nor who will
approve or disapprove any findings before development
occurs." Regarding water availability he stated: "Staff-
opinion continues to be that verification of adequate water
supply should occur prior to any rezoning and, in fact, the
provision of adequate utilities is a stated purpose of
zoning." Regarding access he explained that the proffer
does not limit access to a single point nor does it limit
all lots to internal access. He stated that "as of today"
no written comments had been received from the VDOT.
Regarding the stream crossing, the proffer offered
identifies an approximate location but provides no
engineering data, therefore staff has no additional comment.
He concluded that the other unfavorable factors identified
'4 $
2-23-93 6
by the staff report --no plan of development, non -tolerable
status of roads, impact to sensitive environmental
areas --were not further addressed by the applicant and,
therefore, "staff's recommendation regarding this rezoning
and special permit remains unchanged and recommendation is
for denial."
Ms. Andersen made the following statement regarding a
lavender -colored document which had been "sent out under a
mailing address": "To correct any mistaken conclusions, I
did not send this out. It was sent out by someone Ilse. My
name appears at the bottom. If you read the mailer
carefully, 'as your representative for the Samuel Miller
District,' and that is the only purpose for my name being
there."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter. His
comments included the following:
--The applicant prepared the proffers which have been
submitted after having met with staff after the last
meeting. The proffers attempted to address "concerns that
we could address at this time ---the water, the roads and the
stream crossing."
--The applicant only "this morning" received a copy of
the memorandum from the Water Resources Manager and has not
had time to consider amendments to the proffers based on the
comments in that memorandum. However, after an initial
review of the memo, "certainly, in concept, we don't have
any problems with any of the contents of this memorandum,"
but first the applicant must be certain he understands the
standards, regulations, etc. referred to in the memo.
--He could not recall having been asked to "submit a
plan" with other rezonings that he has been involved in.
--The applicants have lived in the North Garden area
for 110 years (combined); they live near this site and would
not do anything that would hurt the area.
--The applicant does not have the financial resources
that some applicants may have but are prepared to follow the
process one -step -at -a -time and has hired some of the best
experts in the area (Eichmann, Gioeckner, Gooch).
--This site is designated as VR in the Comprehensive
Plan, though the zoning is currently in place. Currently
this is a "pipestem" subdivision. 19 duplexes could be
built on the property and "everyone could pipestem down to
the non-tolderable roads." The roads will be non -tolerable
regardless of whether this application is approved or the
status of the property remains as is.
--Once the VR zoning is in place, "we want to come in
with the flexibility of coming up with a design that is
going to be a better use of this property."
--The property is within the area designated for VR and
the roads are in the Six -Year Road Plan for upgrading.
--The envisioned plan for the property "takes a
non -tolerable existing subdivision and gives it the zoning
2-23-93
with the flexibility to make something that's going to have
open space, that is going to be clustered, and is going to
be the type of housing that is needed in this county."
--The applicant has proffered not to build anything
"past 39 units" until all issues related to water have been
resolved.
In response to Mr. Blue's question about preliminary reports
from the Soil Scientist (Gooch), Mr. Yancey explained that
he had located 114 well sites that he is very comfortable
with." He noted also that a representative from both the
local Health Department and the State Health Department had
located 4 or 5 sites which were "real close" to those chosen
by Mr. Gooch. Mr. Gooch also gave a favorable report in
terms of the soil's perking capability.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the request:
Ms. Rae Ely (attorney representing many of the North Garden
homeowners); Mr. John Waring; and Mr. Dave Krevitz.
Their comments included the following:
--Ms. Ely felt there was a possible "problem with
asking for additional public comment, generally, because
(she believed) the meeting, last time, was officially closed
to public comment." [The Chairman and Mr. Bowling advised
Ms. Ely that the public meeting has been "re -opened this
evening." Mr. Bowling explained that no further notice was
required because the item had been deferred to a specific
date at the last public hearing. Ms. Ely commented: "I
have reviewed the transcript and the tapes of the last
meeting and I think, probably it would not be appropriate
for general re -opening of the public hearing, but, of
course, that would be your call to make." NOTE: The
minutes of this meeting were not transcribed by the
Recording Secretary until March 5, 1993; therefore, any
transcript referred to by Ms. Ely was one done by someone
other than County staff after listening to the tapes of the
meeting.]
--The application is premature because the work has not
been performed to satisfy the County's regulations, the
Comprehensive Plan, and the questions raised by staff and
the Commission.
--Impact on dangerous roads, the schools and
groundwater.
--The development will change the character of the
area.
--Additional burden on the fire department.
Ms. Kathy Woodson, a North Garden resident, expressed
support for the proposal. (She pointed out that Ms. Ely did
not represent all the landowners in North Garden.) She
stressed that the applicants had lived in the area all their
2-23-93 g
lives and she felt they could be trusted "not to do anything
until these concerns are satisfied."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson felt that the 6 items identified in the staff
report must be effectively addressed before a thorough
evaluation of the proposal can take place. He reminded the
Commission that the applicant had not been required to
"prove" the existence of water at the last hearing,tbut he
had been asked to react to those 6 items identified in the
staff report. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan
recognizes a significant water problem in this area and
therefore there is a specific requirement for verification
of adequate water prior to any rezoning. He felt that the
applicant failed, for the second time, to present adequate
information regarding any of the 6 issues identified. He
concluded that he could not support the request.
MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved that ZMA-92-13 be recommended for
denial to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Huckle seconded the
motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue stated he would support the motion based on those
reasons enumerated by Mr. Johnson. However, he noted that
it was his feeling that the Comprehensive Plan had been in
error in recommending this area be zoned for Village
Residential, "at the same time holding out the requirement
that you had to prove that the groundwater was available
because we all know that there is no public water
available." He noted that while it is possible to get a lot
of technical opinion about groundwater, "most of us realize
that, at best, it's a guess." He concluded: "My point is
that maybe this whole area shouldn't have been Village
Residential in the first place and that is matter I'd like
staff to take under consideration when the Comprehensive
Plan comes up for review." Mr. Blue also felt that the
statement made in the Resolution from the Service
Authority ---that "the Albemarle County Service Authority does
not consider central groundwater systems to be a reliable,
permanent source of water for sizeable populations" --was a
"terrible statement." He felt it was necessary to define
"sizeable" because what is sizeable to one developer may not
be sizeable to the next.
Ms. Huckle asked if there should be a Resolution of Intent
to amend the Comprehensive Plan in respect to this VR
designation or should it wait until the full review of the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg explained that either
approach was possible, but because of other studies which
are already underway, it would be some time before this item
EGG
2-23-93 9
could be addressed and the Comp Plan review is scheduled to
begin in the Fall. It was his recommendation that the issue
be addressed with the full review of the Plan. Mr.
Cilimberg stated he would place the letters which have been
received in the files for the Comp Plan review.
Mr. Jenkins recalled that during the last Comp Plan review
there had been a lot of pressure not to develop in the
watershed and as a result areas such as this (along with a
couple of others) were designated VR because there are
already significant populations in these areas.
VOTE: The motion to recommend denial of ZMA-92-13 passed
(5:2) with Commissioners Jenkins and Nitchmann casting the
dissenting votes.
The Chairman called for discussion of SP-93-02 (request to
cross the floodplain). He noted that the Board could
reverse the Commission's position and approve the request for
the ZMA.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that
SP-93-02 for George and William Clark be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins was in favor of approaching this situation in a
different manner, i.e. instead of viewing the VR designation
as a mistake try to arrive at "some mechanism to move it
forward." He questioned whether the proposed intensity was
acceptable, but he noted that it is already zoned "fairly
intensly."
Mr. Blue agreed. He noted that he had at first felt most
anything would be an improvement over the existing plan,
until he had become more familiar with the water situation,
after which he had been uncertain.
Mr. Blue asked if approval of the special permit would apply
only if the zoning amendment is approved or if it could be
used with the existing zoning. Mr. Fritz explained that the
special permit "could stand on its own merits," but staff's
recommendation remains the same based on the lack of data
which has been provided.
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the location of the crossing has
not been determined and no engineering data has been
supplied.
Mr. Blue understood Ms. Huckle's concern, but noted that
there are probably sufficient regulations on the books to
address any concerns at the time the plans are presented.
a2 6 -i
2-23-93
10
He questioned whether it was the Commission's role to
address technical questions, rather the Commission's role is
to approve the concept.
Ms. Huckle felt that requests for floodplain crossings have
historically provided technical and locational information.
Mr. Blue asked: "What difference does it make? How can we
make the decision as to how the engineering data is going tD
be applied? We can't do that anyway. It's just the concept
of whether or not we want the floodplain crossed. As I see
it, that's our responsibility."
Ms. Huckle recalled that the applicant had "threatened" at
the previous hearing that he could build 19 floodplain
crossings. She asked: "Are you just going to give a
blanket approval without a specific site in mind, are you
going to be approving 19 or one, or what?"
In the event the Board agrees with the Commission's
recommendation and denies the rezoning, Mr. Blue suggested
the possibility that approval of the floodplain crossing
might allow the applicant to come up with some method where
they will have one crossing, possibly two, and do a better
job than they have now with the 19." He remembered,
however, that a permit would be needed for each stream
crossing.
VOTE: The motion to recommend denial of SP-93-02 passed
(4:3) with Commissioners Andersen, Grimm, Huckle and Johnson
voting in favor and Commissioners Blue, Jenkins and Nitchman
voting against.
Mr. Keeler briefly explained the Rural Preservation
Development which he felt might be an option to the
applicant in the event the Board denies the rezoning
request.
Though the Chairman advised her that the public hearing had
been closed, Ms. Ely ignored this direction and proceeded to
address the Commission, though she was out of order. She
recommended that the Commission pursue Ms. Huckle's
suggestion and address the issue of whether or not this area
should be designated VR.
Ms. Yancey requested permission to respond to Ms. Ely's
statement. The Chair advised that the meeting was closed.
Mr. Yancey asked: "But it's open to her and it's not open
to me?"
Mr. Blue expressed the opinion that Mr. Yancey should be
allowed to comment.
ni A
2-23-93
11
Ms. Andersen felt that the meeting should be conducted in a
"more formal setting and a less out -of -hand setting and that
when public hearings are closed, they are closed." She
noted that this had been "dishonored, accidentally," and
thus, meetings have become progressively less formal. She
stated: "In the interests of not seeing that things get out
of hand, I would like to honor the statement that the
'public hearing has been closed."'
Mr. Johnson advised the public that there would be a
schedule for the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan.
He felt opening the issue at this time would be
inappropriate and non -productive. He felt substantial
engineering data would be appropriate regarding the water
question at the time the issue is discussed.
Mr. Blue felt there would be no harm in hearing the opinion
of those present regarding the question of the
appropriateness of VR designation for North Garden
Mr. Grimm felt there would be ample opportunity to address
this issue at the appropriate time.
Ms. Huckle asked if the Chairman would call for a show -of -
hands of those persons who feel that the VR designation is
inappropriate for the North Garden area. (Approximately 18
persons raised their hands.)
Mr. Johnson suggested that the community appoint a
spokesperson who would keep in touch with the county staff
and thus be better prepared to present their position.
Mr. Blue noted that he would request that the Chairman
invite public comment on the issue of the appropriateness of
VR designation for North Garden at the end of the agenda,
under New Business.
OLD BUSINESS
March a Work Session - Mr. Nitchmann reported that his
proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan regarding the
economic vitality of the County would be discussed at the
March 9th work session.
March 16 Work Session - Staff anticipates a work session on
March 16 for discussion of amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan related to the Schuyler area.
2-23-93 12
There was a brief discussion of the way Commission meetings
are conducted. The idea of an "open forum" was once again
discussed (as it had been previously). Mr. Johnson again
expressed his support for the idea. In the interests of
gathering as much information as possible when it is
available, Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that all persons
who are present to speak to a specific issue (that is
presently before the Commission) should have the opportunity
to speak. Ms. Andersen explained that she felt that public
hearings should be conducted in an orderly fashion. She
stated that she had not meant to imply that a meeting could
not be re -opened for further comment. Her main concern was
that in the past, because of some informality in the conduct
of the meeting, equal time had not been given to both sides
of an issue.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that staff has always
made the Commission aware of issues which have been brought
up by the public and those issues are usually discussed at
the end of the agenda (under Old Business), provided they
are issues which have already been reviewed by the
Commission. or are issues which have no connection to an
upcoming review.
NEW BUSINESS
(The County Attorney advised that hearing public comment on
a general topic, which did not involve a specific
application, was acceptable.)
Public Comment on t he VR Designation for North rzarden - The
Chairman invited public comment.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission
and expressed opposition to the VR designation, all
primarily because of water inadequacy:
Beth Reynolds - She recalled that the village concept
had been developed to accommodate forecasted population
increases, but those forecasts have proven to be inaccurate.
She explained that the provisions about adequate water had
been added to the Comprehensive Plan because of citizen
concerns. (200 persons had attended a public hearing to
voice concerns about water adequacy.) She quoted from a
2--23-93 13
1988 memo from the ACSA (W L. Rossi, Chief Engineer): "The
increased population with corresponding water needs does not
look optimistic for well development due to expected low
groundwater yields and reliability. One could expect
problems similar to those encountered in the Lovingston area
where wells decreased in flow with use. To encourage
development under such conditions does not appear to be in
the best interests of the County." She felt North Garden
should remain rural.
Ms. Anne Smith - She did not want North Garden to
become like Crozet. She was opposed to VR designation.
Ms. Ruth Rawlins - She described problems which she,
and several neighbors have had with inadequate wells,
including financing problems, and insurance problems.
Ms. Anne Messina - She described problems with wells at
Red Hill School. She expressed support for the Rural
Preservation Development concept.
Ms. Pat Simpson - She expressed concern that no
proposal has been made to study the effect of new wells on
existing wells.
Ms. Becky Woodson (a former resident of North Garden) -a
She was opposed to any growth in the area.
Mr. John Messinger - He noted that North Garden is an
integrated neighborhood and expressed the fear that many of
the Black citizens of North Garden have not attended public
hearings to express their opposition to the proposal because
of fear or economic considerations.
Mr. John Garofalo - He expressed his opposition to the
VR designation. He noted that the only North Garden resident
who had supported the Clark proposal had been the
applicant's sister.
Mr. Thomas Carter - There is no reason to abide by a
Comprehensive Plan which relied on growth projections that
have not happened and are not likely to happen in the near
future. He felt growth could better be accommodated through
the Rural Preservation Development approach.
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, a local engineer and former Planning
Commissioner, addressed the Commission. He recalled some of
the history of the VR designation for North Garden. His
comments included the following:
--The County is still faced with the dilemma of the
majority of building taking place in rural areas. The
Village concept was an attempt to put residential
neighborhoods into a more confined, well -organized
community, as opposed to continued sprawl all over Albemarle
County. Staff had searched for already developing areas,
with crossroads.
2-23-93 14
--The Stone -Robinson School area and the Keswick area
were also to be villages.
--Little-by-little, because of opposition (to the
village designations), the rural sprawl is continuing.
--He did not know the answer to the question of "how to
stop growth in the rural areas and at the same time have
development occur where the infrastructure is or will exist
at some time."
--There must be a starting point for the development of
a village area, and the North Garden area would be one of
the first attempts. "If the County wants that kind of thing
they are going to have to supply the infrastructure. There
are places where there are water supplies that can be
developed. The County is going to have to pay for those
things to develop, otherwise we are going to continue to
grow in the rural spaces."
--He recalled there had been citizen opposition to the
VR designation for North Garden at the time it had been
done, but the designation was applied to 5 or B
neighborhoods and ... they keep being deleted as the
paticular neighborhoods grow out of their own rural
development and then there is enough opposition to oppose
any beginnings of a village.
--Water supply for Albemarle County should be surface
water supplies as the terrain is suited for dams. Drilling
holes is an extremely expensive matter and to ask ordinary
landowners to prove groundwater adequacy is not within most
people's means.
--"When you deliberate over village neighborhoods, it
is either that or develop a concentric ring continuously
around Charlottesville and let that be the high -density
sprawl and the urban sprawl."
--"You can't start backing away from these things
because the original concept was to stop the rural, parcel -
by -parcel development."
--The burden of supplying water to developments was
placed on developers and as a result the Service Authority
has had to rescue many private water systems which were
either substandard or failing.
--"You are not going to depend on wells to support a
village residential community. That notion has to stop. It
has to be surface water with a dam on a small
scale... villages can survive off surface water with 44
inches of rain per year and the terrain and the clay that we
have."
Mr. Blue stated he was not backing away from the village
concept, "except when the infrastructure is not there,
,.2 7,7
2-23-93
15
particularly the infrastructure for water." He did not
think North Garden was a good candidate for a village
because there is no public water supply available and none
actually "economically possible."
Ms. Huckle stated that a village designation has to be
determined by whether or not water exists on the property
She stated that regardless of the amount of money that might
be spent, "if the water is not there in the ground, you're
not going to create it. So if an area has a history of
inadequate water, that seems to be an inappropriate place to
designate concentrated growth."
Ms. Huckle brought up the issue of the Clean Water Act which
requires testing for 87 different factors. She felt this
would cause a lot of the community water systems to "give
up" because they can't afford the testing. Mr. Gloeckner
responded: "Those are the negative approaches to
development. if you take the positive approaches and
require those items, you will direct the development. What
we're doing now is we're defensively planning instead of
offensively planning. The idea is to create the space and
then follow through with it."
In answer to Mr. Johnson's question as to a possible
solution to the situation, Mr. Gloeckner commented: "I
think one of the biggest helps would be for staff to put
together a history of the deliberations of the past and how
some of these things got started and how they become
implemented is the hard part. It takes rezonings to get the
villages started and to present a rezoning is an extremely
expensive operation."
There being no further busi
9:45 p.m.
RS
ss, the meeting adjourned at
it i1 ) . /d /) - l
Wayn)o Cilimber'g, 19ecretary
a 73