Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-03June 3, 1981 (Regular Night[ Meetimg A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County scheduled for 7:30 P.M. on June 3, 1981, and postponed until 8:00 P.M., was held in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Note: The meeting was postponed because the Board members were participating in ceremonies commemorating Jack Jouett's ride during the American Revolution.) BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, ~ ~. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney (arrived at 9:05 P.M.); and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning (arrived at 8:40 P.M.). Call To Order. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 8:27 P.M., by the Chairman, Gerald E. Agenda Item No. 1. Southside Health Care Center. Mr. Agnor presented a lease agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Southside Health Center, Inc. for lease of property to be used as a regional health care facility. Mr. Agnor noted that the term of the lease is from June 3, 1981, through June 2, 1982, and is written for renewal on a year-to-year basis unless written notice to terminate is given by one of the parties at least ninety days prior to termination. Mr. Agnor said it is basically a very standard lease agreement and he recommended the Board approve the lease as presented. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the lease and authorize the chairman to sign same as followS: LEASE THIS LEASE, made this 3rd day of June, 1981, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereinafter called the Landlord, and the Southside Health Center, Inc., hereinafter called the Tenant, WITNES SETH 1. Description of Leased Property. That in consideration of the rents herein reserved and the mutual promises herein made, the Landlord hereby leases unto the Tenant the following described property: Ail that certain lot or parcel of land, with improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto pertaining, consisting of a building, a parking lot, with other improvements situated on a 2.1 acre lot in the Scottsville Magisterial District fronting on the west side of State Highway 627, south of Porter, being d designated as Lot 2 on a plat of "A division of the E. M. Feggans property" made by Huffman-Foster and Associates, dated May 6, 1970, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 473, page 289, and being the same property ~onveyed to the Landlord by deed of Ronald H. Thompson and Bobbie J. Thompson, dated November 2, 1979, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Deed Book 686, page 727. 2. Term of Lease. The term of this lease shall be for a period commencing on June 3, 1981, and shall expire on June 2, 1982. Unless terminated by either party hereto at the end of the term by notice in writing to the other at least ninety (90) days prior thereto, this lease shall continue thereafter, on a year-to-year basis, upon the same terms and conditions and at the same rent, as this lease, until terminated at the end of some like term by either party by giving to the other written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to such termination. 3. Rent. The rent for the term shall be TEN DOLLARS ($10) and the public services to be undertaken by the Tenant, as set forth in this lease. 4. Use of Premises. The Tenant shall use the premises as a medically-based public facility for the purposes of providing health care, health education, health ±nformation, and other health-related activities of benefit to the Southside Albemarle community, in accordance with the United States Government Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended, PL 93-383. Nothing herein shall prohibit the Tenant from entering into contract with a provider of health care for the purpose of provision of health-related services. 5. Obligations of the Parties. (A) Obligations of the Tenant. The Tenant will maintain the premises, keeping the premises in good repair except for ordinary wear and tear, pay for all utilities and other services, provide all furnishings, see to the proper management of the ~une ~, ±~± ~egular ~lgnv ~ee~mng~ facility in such manner as to accomplish the public purposes set out above. The Tenant at all times during the term of this lease will provide Tenant's hazard insurance and liability insurance for facility employees. (B) Obligations of the Landlord. The Landlord will provide fire and casualty insurance on the premises and will undertake major repairs of exceptional nature other than ordinary wear and tear, due to mechanical failure, design failure, or act of God. The Landlord shall have no duty to make ordinary day-to-day repairs or provide custodial service or maintenance. 6. Sublease. The Tenant shall not assign this lease or sublet the whole or any part of the premises leased hereunder without the prior written consent of the Landlord. This assignment restriction is not intended to prohibit use by public or private groups, agencies, or organizations on an occasional basis under the supervision of the Tenant. Miss Nash questioned the deed description of the property as presented in the lease, stating she felt the wording "south of Porter" was outdated and meant nothing to many residents of that area today. Miss Nash suggested using the wording "south of the intersection of Route 6" Mr. Fisher suggested, since Mr. St. John was not present, that this lease be approved as presenved and that the word changes suggested by Miss Nash be added on the approval of the County Attorney. Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Iachetta accepted this change to the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. (NOTE: At the recommendation of Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, the lease was signed as originally approved, with no changes to the wording.) AYES: NAYS: Agenda Item No. 7. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor read Mr. Ray B. Jones' memorandum of May 27, 1981, as follows: "The City of Charlottesville has received and sent to us a check in the amount of $4,079 for the Litter Control Grant from the State. This money is for the Clean Community Commission. This money has been deposited into the Grant Fund of the County. I request approval of an appropriation from the Grant Fund to Code 9302-5840, Clean Community Commission in the amount of $4,079.00." Motion to approve the following resolution was offered by Dr. Iachetta: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $4,079.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund and transferred to Code 9302-5840, Clean Community Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Designate delegate for National Association of Counties Annual Conference. Mr. Agnor noted that a letter must by sent to NACo in advance of the conference indicating the name of the chosen delegate, for voting purposes. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, designating Mr. Gerald E. Fisher as the voting delegate representing Albemarle County for the National Association of Counties Annual Conference. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Lottery Permits. Mr. Agnor said lottery permit applications have been received from the Fourteenth Virginia Regiment Fife and Drum Corps and the Blue Ridge Court Number Eight, Order of Amaranth; and that the Applications have been reviewed and approved by the Commonwealth Attorney's office. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve these lottery permits in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher said the Clerk has polled the members of the Board pertaining to the possible cancelling of meetings for summer vacations. Mr. Fisher said a request was received to cancel the August 19, 1981, meeting. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to cancel the meeting of August 19, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) NOT DOCKETED. Dr. IaChetta noted that there have been procedural changes in the methods of distributing Federal Bloc Grants. Dr. Iachetta said it appears that rather than applying at the Federal level for these grants, the new procedure will be to apply through the State. Dr. Iachetta said he had spoken with Senator Warner'.s Assistant, Mr. Powell, who indicated that the State is presently searching for an effective way to decide how to distribute funds at the local government level. Dr. Iachetta said this involves as many as eighty-three grants, and felt this may need to be discussed in depth by the Board before October. Mr. Fisher said he did not know if there would be any money available in the form of grants, but felt it would be very important to know the method of applying for those funds should they become available. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-15. Woodbriar Associates. (Deferred from May 20, 1981). the absence of Mr. Tucker, Mr. Agnor presented the Planning Staff report as follows: In Requested Zoning: PRD (Open Space) Acreage: 2.6 acres Existing Zoning: C-1 Commercial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1 (part) is located on the west side of Route 29 North between Camelot and General Electric. Staff Comment: This petition is intended to satisfy a condition of approval of Briarwood PRD to reduce the commercial acreage in this area by twenty percent (20%). Under ZMA-81-5, commercial frontage was reduced by 3.81 acres. Approval of this petition would bring a total reduction of 6.41 acres or 20.6%. Under this petition, two areas are proposed to be rezoned for inclusion in open space areas of Briarwood PRD. The rectangular 0.4 acre site adjoining Austin Drive on the south and the 2.2 acre strip along the eastern boundary of Briarwood appear to be logical additions to the open space areas. Staff recommends approval. NOTE: Staff recommends that the preliminary plan for Br2arwood PRD be amended to show this area with appropriate metes and bounds prior to final action on this petition by the Board. Mr. Agnor noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 5, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of this request with the note that the preliminary plan be amended as recommended by the staff. Mr. Wendell W. Wood was present and stated that the metes and bounds have not yet been completed, but that the final figures should be available shortly. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. (Mr. Tucker arrived at 8:45 P.M.) Mr. Fisher said this may cause a problem, since the Board cannot place conditions on rezoning requests. Mr. Tucker noted that a survey has been received on this property, and that if the Board chose to approve the rezoning, the survey would be adequate. Mr. Henley stated he did not recall the Board ever requiring metes and bounds in the past. Mr. McCann said he felt safe in approving this rezoning based on the survey as presented, and offered motion to approve ZMA-8t-15 as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Dr. Iachetta said he felt this rezoning was not exactly what was intended when the original PRD for Briarwood was approved, but since the language was not specific, he felt nothing could be said. Roll was then called and'the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-16. Libet Corporation. Petition to divide two parcels totalin 55.0894 acres into five lots with a size range from 5.000 acres to 33.3341 acres, in accordanc with Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, RA Rural Areas District. Located south of Route 738 at end of Route 679, private road to Grassmere Farm. County Tax Map 58, part of Parcel 20, part of Parcel 20B. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report as follows: Request: Division of 55.1 acres into five residential lots with an average lot size of 11.02 acres (Section 10.5) Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 20 (part), is a portion of Grassmere subdivision which is located at the end of State maintenance of Route 679 near Ivy. History: A preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission on June 20, 1978, and a final plat for 20 lots was approved on August 22, 1979. The final plat was amended and approved by the Planning Commission on November 15, 1978, for 13 lots, leaving a 107+ acre residue. On December 18, 1980, Phase II (i.e., the 107 acre residue) was approved for nine lots. As a result of road realignment, the Phase II plat was amended on April 28, 1981. The current request is to divide two lots in Phase II into five lots with an average lot size of 11+ acres. A summary is as follows: June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Acreage Number of Lots Average Lot Size Phase I 61.6 14 4.40 acres Phase II 107.7 9 11.97 acres Overall 169.3 23 7.36 acres with SP-81-16 169.3 26 6.51 acres Character of the Area: This property is open and wooded rolling land. A variety of parcel sizes exist in the area. Comprehensive Plan: This property is within the South Rivanna Reservoir watershed and is therefore recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for a density of one (1) dwelling per ten acres. This property is also shown in an agricultural conservation area in the general land use plan (Map XII). The proposed average lot size in Phase II of 11+ acres is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to development of this scale, the Comprehensive Plan recommends as follows (while this application is for three additional lots, the entire development would consist of twenty-six lots): Conventional Developments: Conventional developments, generally involving construction of new roads, are recommended at a scale between 20-75 units, with larger projects recommended to be Planned Unit Developments. Developments of this type are to be discouraged in areas of the County where desired average densities are lower than one dwelling per acre. In addition to traditional design improvement standards, developments of this size would incorporate the following two features: Mini-neighborhood identity, including recognizable boundaries and focal point for resident gatherings/activities. Logical connecting features with adjoining parcels of land. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that the village scale of development would have an estimated population of 70 persons (26 dwellings). It should be noted that approval of this request would not appreciably increase impact in the area. Summary of Land Uses in the Area: Criteria four and five of special permit review in the RA District address the character of land uses within a one-mile radius (an area of 2,000+ acres) of the subject property. In this particular case, as is provided in the criteria, staff has considered a smaller area (about 1,800 acres) bounded by 1-64, Route 708, Route 250W, and Route 637, as being a more reasonable area for consideration. (While staff believes this to be a more reasonable area, it is not as cohesive as other such areas in previous applications.) Land Uses Acreage Percentage of Study Area Parcels less than five acres (developed land) 209 Parcels greater than five acres (undeveloped land) 528 Preferential tax - forestry 489 Preferential tax - agriculture 170 Ivy village 410 Total Acres 1,~ 12 29 27 23 100% Since Ivy is a growth area, it may be appropriate to consider that area as "developed" for purposes of special permit review. Note that only one lot requested under this application would be considered as "developed land" under the terms of the special permit criteria. Special Use Permit Criteria: The following is a review of Grassmere subdivision for appropriateness of development as set forth in the nine criteria of the RA district. (Note: The Libet Corporation has provided comment on criteria 1, 2, 3 and 9): The size, shape, topography, and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service. (Libet Corporation Comment): The size, shape, topography and wooded areas of the property are shown on the supplied blue line copies of the proposed subdivision plan, overlaid on the topographical map of the area. The only prime agricultural area within the proposed subdivision is about 3/4 acres of Haysville Loam on the crest of Gillum's Mountain. This Haysville Loam is limited to area with slopes of 6% and less, and the only areas this flat are along the last 100 feet or so of the proposed road, and around the proposed cul-de-sac. The steeper slopes in the area (7% and greater) are Haysvitle Clay Loam. The relatively flat area along Little Ivy Creek are Meadowvilte Loam. It would appear from walking the property that it has been clear at some time in the past. With a few notable exceptions, most trees in the majority of the wooded area are a foot or less in diameter, and generally of the same size. A few piles of rocks also indicate that the property was at one time cultivated, however it is obvious that with only a June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 2,50 e e very small piece of prime agricultural land at the top of the hill, the property is not suitable for farming. (Staff Comment): As stated in previous applications, because of the topography of Albemarle County, only a small percentage of soils would be classified as prime agricultural lands, though the soil quality~may be identical to prime soils. SCS classifications are based on suitability for cropland; therefore, steeper lands would not be classified as prime. Prime soils range in slope from 0 to 7%. Beyond 7% these same soils are classified as important agricultural~lands indicating a high suitability for grazing, pasture, and forestry uses. In this case, the Haysville Loam and Meadowville Loam soils should be considered as important soils. As the applicant has stated, these are relatively small areas not conducive to intensive usage. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. (Libet Corporation Comment) The area of the proposed subdivision, along with the remainder of the Grassmere subdivision, is fenced, and has been used for at least a portion of the time since 1950 for cattle raising. Knowledge of the previous owner's use and the poor state of repair of the barn and outbuildings would indicate that this use has not been extensive. (Staff Comment) Properties under all three previous RA special permit applications had received preferential taxation for either forestal or agricultural use and, therefore, staff recommended in those cases that the property owners had voluntarily demonstrated that those were legitimate uses. This property is not under preferential taxation and therefore the owner has not made such representation. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area if fifty percent or more of the land within one mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five years of the date of the application for special use permit. Zn making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams, and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. Staff has used preferential land use taxation as a measure of agricultural and forestal activity for an area. In the study area, 35% of the land is under preferential taxation. Therefore, staff does not consider this property to be located in an agricultural or forestal area. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purpose of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty percent or more of the land within one mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams, and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. Only 12% of the land in the st~udy area is currently developed with an additional 23% programmed for development in Ivy. About 112 acres of the developed land is in Langford subdivision (44 lots), adjacent to the south. Approval of this petition would add one lot to the "developed" land in the area. This property is not considered to be within a developed rural area. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services, and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: ao within one mile of the urban area boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan; within one-half mile of a community boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan; within one-half mile of the major crossroads of Type I or one- half mile of a Type II village as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Measured by straight line, Grassmere is within ona-half mile of the fringe of Ivy; measured by travel distance from the center of the development, Grassmere is about 0.6 mile from Ivy. Travel distance to commercial uses is about 1.6 miles. Murray and Meriwether Lewis Schools and industrial uses along Route 738 are the major employers in the area. The probable effect of the propoSed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. Staff would not expect the three additional lots to adversely affect capital improvements programming. A total of a one-student increase is expected. Schools serving the development would be Murray, Henley, and Western Albemarle. Students would be bused to all schools, though parents carrying their children to school is likely at Murray, located between Grassmere and Route 250W. Response time from the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department would be about fifteen minutes. A dry hydrant system will be provided in Grassmere. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Highwaysiand Transportation: occasion the need for road .improvement; i cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road; increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. Route 679 is currently listed as non-tolerable. Approval of this petition would increase traffic generated from Grassmere from an estimated 161 vehicle trips per day to 182 vehicle trips per day. It should be noted that improvements to Route 679 were required of the applicant during the initial phase of development'. While these improvements did not bring Route 679 up to current Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards, they were the maximum the Commission felt reasonable at the time. The following comments on criteria #9 are those of the Libet Corporation: With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be considered: ae the amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances de~ermined harmful to water quality for human consumption; The topographical map shows wooded and open areas. The wooded areas are generally trees up to one foot in diameter with heavy undergrowth in some areas. The open areas are generally covered with grass and other vegetation normal in open areas previously used for pasture land. Ail run-off is fairly well filtered by this vegetation. the extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; Vegetation along the roadway would be removed for construction of the roadway. We would anticipate that, because of the Blue Ridge Mountain views available, some trees on slopes below the building sites would be removed to improve the vistas. While individual lot owners would have control over their lots, due to topography and size of the lots, undoubtedly most would leave the major parts of their property in a nearly natural state. c. the amount of impervious cover which will exist after development; Under the private road requirements, the road does not have to be paved. However, assuming the road is paved, impervious cover will be limited to the roadway, roofs, and any driveways which are paved, and the maximum estimated total impervious area would be slightly more than one acre compared with a total land area of about 107 acres. de the proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment; The proposed roadway will cross the headwaters of Little Ivy Creek (approximately 400 feet from the Creek's inception). The driveway to proposed lot 24 will be about 100 feet away from the creek, and parallel to the creek. Both of these areas are upstream from the pond on the property, and the pond will serve as a sediment basin for any erosion from these areas. the type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; Soils are as listed above. erosion control. They are suitable for septic fields and the percentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development; The proposed road is approximately 1200 feet long with existing slopes of from 0% to 20%. June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) the estimated duration and timing of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are unpredictable; Estimated construction time for the roadway is ninety days during the summer or fall of 1981. House construction would probably be spread over several years. the degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; For surveying purposes, some trees and undergrowth have been cleared along the wooded portion of the proposed roadway. the extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: require periodic inspection and/or maintenance; are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any one hundred year or more intense storm. No artificial devices will be required for run-off control. The above comments on criteria #9 were submitted by the applicant on April 2, 1981. Since that time the Health Department has approved the soils scientist's report for Grassm~re, including the lots proposed under this petition. The private road would be adequate for the three additional lots. Staff Co~aent: As can be seen in the preceding analysis, this property is neither located in an active agricultural area nor in a developed rural area, thereby complicating review. Since the applicant has approval for twenty-three lots, scale of development, in staff opinion, is not as important a factor as a previous applications. Likewise, the eleven acre average lot size is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommended density for the watershed. Staff opinion is that Grassmere favorably reflects the type of low-density rural development which the County has attempted to encourage in the past. Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition: 1) Development of Grassmere Farm subdivision shall be limited to twenty-six lots. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 12, 1981, unanimously voted to recommend approval with the one condition noted in the Planning Staff report. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing the applicant. Mr. Rotgin said he had nothing further to add to the staff report but would be happy to answer any questions from the Board. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker why the lots were not exempt from conditions in the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the lots would be exempt under the subdivision ordinance because of the size° ~the date of adoption of the zoning ordinance. There was no further discussion. Motion for approval as recommended by the Planning Commission was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-81-16. Martha F. Brown. Petition to rezone 2.4 acres currently zoned RA Rural Areas to CO Commercial Office. Located at intersection of Route 631 and Route 659, Rio Mill Road. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 27. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 1981.) Mr. Fisher noted that the following letter dated June 3, 1981, was handed to him earlier in the meeting. This letter was addressed to Mr. Gerald E. Fisher and signed by Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., attorney representing Martha Brown: "The applicant proffers as a condition of her rezoning application to be heard by you on 3 June 1981 the following: The medical office complex to be constructed on the property shall be quasi-residential in character so that it shall blend in with the residential character of the neighborhood." Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: ¢ q~ ~z~ PuoIq PInO~' ~Zleozp~m ~q~ ps~on'~suoo 'sgs~ ~uzplznq · ~ J! XIuo ~I!nq eq pIno~ ~q~ Xjio~ds ~ou ssOp ~sSjo~d @q~ PI~s mog~spui~ · o~s cssgns~om IOg~Uoo jjoung s~ IIS~ ~ pgAoadd~ oq o~ oA~q PInO~ u~Id ~ys ~ ~M~ ~nq ~oo~aoo s~ ~q~ pyas a~ong .g~ 's~n~usA I~IOaSmmoo jo 9d~ Xu~ goj pssn 9q u~q~ PInOO I@oawd ~q~ JI 'psuoz~ @~9~ Isog~d @gy~us · s~s$~usp om~ pu~ su~iois£qd o~ goj so,ds sp!Aogd o~ @moq:sq~ o~ ~uypp~ jo s~s!xs ~IIIqIssod ~q~ g~q~ ps~ou SH 'psPIo~p ussq ~X ~ou s~q ~q~ pyas u!~ '~ 'u~op ugo~ go ~o~ds so!jjo · p~oH VO~W 9q~ uo XI~O!~s s! ssgoo~ ~q~ pu~ Cp~oH o!H uo 9~uogj ou ~gsdogd s!q~ pyas uy~ 'g~ cXI~% 'IgO~d 9q~ JO uoy~od ~uo~j 9q~ mogj jjoung ~u~ 9Ipu~q uI~ 'g~ 'p~o~ @q% mo~j noy~zIgoq~n~ q~y~ 9iq~i!~A~ ~p~m ~q PlnOO pu~ 9u!I X~gsdogd o~ ~uso~p~ £i~osgip sung gg~ oizqnd ~q~ ps~ou 9H '~9~ 9~ goj PsInp@~os s! ~usmdoIsA@p 9snoqu~o~ ~su jo I~9p ~9~ w ~q~ pu~ Cpsqsyyq~s~ u@gq ~P~9~I~ s~q ~UsmdotsAsp pg~Og uoyg~uYIouy pyas uy~ 'g~ 'ssgo~ ~'I s! psuozsg sq o~ s~sgo~ ~uogj s~m!xogdd~ ~ JO ssIdoo ~no pspu~q uI~ '~ '~u~oIIdd~ 9q~ ~uI~usss~dsg cuI~ p~ 'g~ s~ ~gds o~ '£Iq~nog Cp@qsao$~ sq$ pu~ 6~9 s~noH pu~ p~oH o!H Kq p9 pusmmoos~ o~ ps~oA XISnOmIu~un ~I~6I ~I ~ jo ~uig@~m s~y ~ uo!ssIm-~oo ~uIuu~!~ 9q~ · s~9~V ~o~o~ s,X~i~oq~nV 90!A~ 9q~ o~ p@pp~ 9q ~9g~ sIq~ ~q~ pu~ eoYjj0 I~yO~S~mo0 - 00 o~ pguozg~ 9q pgqs~9~ ~UU~AyH ~0~ Cp~ss~pp~ ~q s~nssy sAoq~ ~ PInOqS Cpusm~oo~g PIno~ jj~s ~q~ I~n~u ~ u¥ u¥~m9~ plnoo X~g~dogd 9qg jo g~pu!~msg 9~ '~uypIInq 9o!jjo 9i~os-po~imii ~ 9~poum~ooo~ og ~sssoeu s%usmoAOgd~i II~ goj ~I '~g~ sma u! sIq~uo!%os~qo sq ~ou PInO~ 'u~Issp I~I~uspys@g ~ u¥ psdoI~Asp J! Cssn ~ qons ~q~ s! uoyuydo JJ~S '~uIPlInq ~o!jjo 'P~OH o!~ uo ~s~ 9q~ o~ ~j 009 ~noq~ ~9doad I-0 psdoIsAspun pu~ (OD) x~Idmoo soyjjo ~ss~ o!H pu~ P~oH o!H ssoaow (I-0) ~odw usp~D sq~ sPnIou! ~ eq~ uI s~sn pu~ ~uIuoz I~IO~am~o0 (p ~9~ syq~ qsYuImyp gsq~gnj PInO~ uo!~odsu~ pu~ s~q~!H jo ~ug~d~G ~Yu!~YA 9q~ Xq pgpugmmoog~ sw ~-jo-~i~ jo uoI~oIpg~ '~u@mdOlSA~p o~ 9Iq~I!~A~ s~go~ II,mS XI~xIg~I~ sq~ Xq psuI~suoo sq plno~ u~Issp I~i~u@pissH (g X~ysugp-mnypam ~ o~ pgdOIOASp sq ~ou PInoo X~gsdogd s!M~ '9~!~ syq~ ~ 9Iq~II~A~ 20u e~ ge~SS pu~ ~9~ oyIqnd os ~ ~og~ogd ~Igoq~nv SOIA~SW ~uno0 @Ig~msqlV u~ u!q~y~ po~ooI ~ou s! X~sdogd syq~ (~ [I~O!~OI ~dd~ pIno~ ~uyuoz I~y~ugpys~g Naysu~p-=nyp~m ~ 'd~m ~uyuoz pu~ u~I~ eAySUgqe~dmo0 sq% jo sm~@~ u! ~s~ojs~sq~ '~-H ~o 9-H s! wsgw eq~ us ~uIuoz u~q~n ~so~ '~ sIq~ u! I~I~usptss~ ~ysu@p mnyp@m spu~u~uoo~ u~Ig sAIsusq@~dmo0 sq~ (I syqa uy py~ o% suoI~A~sqo ~uy~oIIo$ 9qg sggSjo JJ~S 'X~ggdogd syq~ goj s~Igdogdd~ sq PlnO~ (-o~e 'I~¥O~oo ¢IWI~uspIss~) ssn puli jo sdX~ ~q~ o~ sw epwm @q plnoMs uoy~uimgs~p ~ ¢~u~mdoIsAsp u~q~n o~ @~!gdogdd~ ~$g~dogd syq~ jo uoysJod ~ pgpusmmoosJ ~UYA~H :~usmmO0 JJ~S '%u@~dOI~Agp u~qgn o~ P~ygdogdd~ ~gg~ syq~ spusmmoo@a jj~S '~$OA~gS~ 9q~ mo~j X~ suy~p (6~9 9~noH o~ ~sssoIo uoI~god sql) ~9do~d sIq~ jo e~o~ u~ ~noqv '~IOAgSg~g ~q~ O~ uI~gp · s~og~ o~% 9seq~ uee~eq ~g~punoq ~q~ s~ pssn ~gg~ sp~og ¢~ggV u~qgfl SAISU~qs~dmo0 sq~ o~ s~usmpusm~ '086I 'IIgdV ~q~ uI :u~I~ @Atsu@q@gdmo0 'pspoo~ pu~ PUli psdoIsAspun pu~ ~od~ u@Pa~D ~M~ '6§9 s~noH sso~o~ ~g~ s~uIIIs~p '(P~OH o!H) I[9 o~noH q~I~ uo!~oesas~ui s~I ~ (P~OH uanqpoo~) %~9 9~noH jo 9p!s ~o!g~s!~ s~o~V I~gnH VH :~u!uoz ~uy~syx~ sogo~ p.E :~@goV ~oYJ$O I~!O~@Ua~oo OD :~uyuoz ps~sgnboH ' (~u!~o@~ ~q~!M a~ln~oH) I86I cE sunf June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 254- Miss Nash asked if a home could be built on the residue of the parcel. Mr. ~ucker said the Board would be creating a nonconforming lot if a residue were left; he added this would require interpretation by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Fisher asked how a parcel divided half RA and half CO would be used. Mr. St. John said this is still only one parcel and would therefore be allowed only one major use. Mr. McCann said he felt the parcel should not be split into two separate zones, and felt any problems could be handled at the site plan ap stage. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and that the proffer as submitted tonight by Mr. Bain become condition one of approval. The motion was seconded by Mr~. Henley. Mr. McCann said he would support the motion, but felt the entire parcel should be Commercial Office zoning. Dr. Iachetta said he felt this was a wrong move by the Board and he would not support the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any adjacent CO property. Mr. Tucker said no; there is no commercial property immediately adjoining this property and that the majority of the pro in the area are shown for medium density residential. Mr. Fisher said he agreed with Dr. Iachetta, but felt that he would be receptive to having the property rezoned medium density residential. Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following tie vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and McCann. Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any motion to reconsider this petition. No motion of reconsideration was offered, and Mr. Fisher stated that the petition is denied and that the land retains its present zoning of RA. Agenda Item No. 5. Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 1981.) (Public Hearing advert Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff recommendations, noting that words underlined are additions to the present text of the Zoning Ordinance and words crossed out are to be deleted from the text. Section 2.5 requires Health Department approval of two septic drainfield locations prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff recommends an exemption for lots of record on the adoption date of the qrdinance. In addition, staff would recommend the relocation of the provisions of 2.4 to 4.1 AREA REGULATIONS RELATED TO UTILITIES Staff recommends the following actions: a) b) c) In Section 4.7.2, change "reference 2.5" to "reference 4.1.7" Change 4.1 heading to "AREA AND HEALTH REGULATIONS RELATED TO UTILITIES" Repeal 2.5 and readopt the amended wording of 2.5 as new sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7: 4.1.6 effective date of this ordinan¢ ~e~&~e For lots created after the e, not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be is use of which involves sewage d ~&eee the local office of the of the location and area for bc septic disposal fields w~e~e-~ ~e~e~e~ee-~?~ adequate to sez In a cluster develop~ 4.1.7 ued for any building or structure, the sposal, without written approval from Virginia Department of Health ~L-ap~m~e th original and future replacement ~e-~e~e~-~.-~e~-~e&~e~-&~&~&~e ye such use. .ent, open space may be used for septic field location only after the septic field locations on such lot are determined to be inadequate by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. Section 4.3 could be burdensome and since this would apply to all lands drainage concerns have been address( road plan, and soil erosion/grading for review prior to activity, it is in a corrective role, attempting to owners. The staff, after consultat~ deletion of section 4.3. In order to avoid confusion in the the following wording which is simi 4.6.3.1 Front yards of the depth provided e~-$Ae-~e~$Ae~-e¢-~Ae-Ae~ adjacent to the street. Depth of a measured from the right-of-way line time-consuming for the Zoning Administrator, and activities including farming. Historically, d in subdivision, site plan, run-off control, plan reviews. Since no other mechanism exists likely the Zoning Administrator would be placed settle disputes between neighboring property on with the Zoning Department, recommends ~nterpretation of yard measurement, Staff .ar to Section 4.6.4 Rear Yards: 'equired in the district shall be .cross the full width of the lot required front yard shall be of the street in such a fashion that the rear line of such yard sha].l be parallel to the street right-of-way. Areas in parking bay~ shall not be considered as part of the street or access eaSement for purposes of determining front yard depth. 255 June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Notice for special use permits and rezoning petitions is now sent by first class mail as provided in the State Code. Staff recommends amendment of provisions for mobile homes and site plans for notice by first class mail: 5.6.1.1 a. By sending of a ee~e4 first class letter to the last known address of each adjacent property owner; and Change first sentence of 32.3.2 to read: Notice of a site development plan submission shall be sent by ~e~.~e~e~-e~-~e~e~ first class mail to the last known address of all owners of property adjacent to the development. "Hospitals; nursing homes; convalescent homes" are listed by right and by special use permit in the HC district. Staff recommends these be repealed as uses by right. Staff recommends deletion of No. 19 under Section 24.2.1. Section 5.7.1: Last sentence of temporary mobile home provisions should read: In any event, any such permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of issuance; provided, however, that the zoning adminis- trator may, for good cause shown, extend the time of such expira- tion for not more than two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each. Certain public utilities should be added as uses by right in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Section 30.3.3.1 includes special requirements for location of utilities in the flood plain. Staff recommends the following addition: 30.3.5.1.1 BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOODWAY 5. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding multi-legged tower structures, and including poles, lines, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines and appurtenances, excluding pumping stations and holding ponds~ owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Churches and adjunct cemeteries were permitted by right in the A-1 district and are now by special use permit in the RA district. While Section 31.2.4.5 would permit church expansion within existing property boundaries, a special use permit Would be required for expansion into additional land or for the location of a new church. Staff recommends that churches and adjunct cemeteries be permitted by right in the RA for the following reasons: a) Churches are by right in all residential districts, but not in the RA District. Staff can determine no peculiar aspect of churches in relation to other RA uses which would warrant requirement of a special use permit; b) It has been Staff experience that church building program budgets are generally modest and church building committees are generally unfamiliar with development processes. The additional cost and time involved in the special permit process would, in staff opinion, be an additional burden. c) Except for questions of physical development, which are addressed by other ordinances, Staff would be reluctant to address other aspects as being relevent. Problems could arise in public hearings in relation to the nature of the religion, particularly in the case of an unfamiliar religion, thus placing the County in an awkward position between public opinion and questions of religious freedom. Additional flexibility in regulations for townhouses and other dwellings is desirabl. where development involves such common use/maintenance areas as parking bays, sidewalks, etc. which are usually located between the building and vehicular travelway. Staff recommends the following amendments: a) Change current definition of "setback" in Section 3.0 to the following; Setback: The distance by which any building or structure is separated from any street, road or access easement. ~&ee~$ ~e-~e-~e~-~&~e-e~-~e-~e~-~ee~-e~-~e~&e~-~e~ee~-e~ b) Amend 4.6.3.3 as follows: Street line for measurement of required yards adjacent to streets. Required yards and setbacks shall be measured from a line parallel to the street lot line(s). June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Z56 c) Add the following section: 4.6.3.4. As to any yard adjacent to a street, road or access easement, the ~yard requirements of this ordinance shall be deemed to have been complied with if the setback shall be not less than the minimum yard dimensions required thereby. 10. Amend the C-1 district to include "automobile, truck repair shop" as a use by right. "Automobile service station" is currently a use by right in the C-1 district but no provision is madelfor a purely repair-type operation. Staff recommends the following: : 22.2.1 b.22 Automobile, truck repair shop 1t. Correct the language of criteria 6 of 10.5.2.1 of the RA district as follows: c) Within one-half mile e~-~h~-m~-~,~, of a Type I village or within one-half mile of the major crossroads of a Type II village as described in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 12, 1981, recommended unanimously to approve the above amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, with the following change in number 10: The Planning Commission voted to amend the C-1 district to include "automobile, truck repair shop" by special use permit (would be 22.2.2(8) rather than as a use by right. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker about the intended meaning of change number seven concerning public utilities in the flood way, asking if the words "owned and operated by the County Service Authority" refer back to the water and sewer collection lines or do these words refer only to pumping stations and holding ponds. Mr. Tucker said these words refer to all of the listed items. Miss Nash asked why public utilities should be "by-right" use. are allowed by-right to install electric lines, regular poles, etc. mission lines still require a special use permit. Mr. Tucker said utilities He said all major trans- Mr. Lindstrom stated that with regard to proposed amendment number eight (on churches and adjunct cemeteries) he was certain that this was already discussed by the Board before the original adoption of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels strongly that churches should be allowed only by special use permit in a residential area because of the fact that churches can be a very intensive use and should be screened from residential areas. Mr. McCann said he felt the Board was delving into matters not under its authority and that 'churches should be allowed by right anywhere. Miss Nash asked about section 4.1.6 regarding replacement septic fields. Mr. Tucker explained that as the zoning ordinance is currently written, all lots are required to have two septic field.locations. Mr. Tucker said this revised section requires that only those lots created after the effective date of the zoning ordinance would be required to have two septic field locations. Mr. Fisher asked if there were not thousands of lots put to record prior to adoption of the new zoning ordinance which actually contain two septic field sites. Mr. Tucker said that was correct, and that those lots which could contain two sites would most likely be required to install two septic fields by the zoning administrator. Mr. Tucker also noted that if there is no suitable site for a septic field, there will be no Health Department approval of the lot and no building permit issued. Mr'. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mrs. Hazel Ho!lmann, Vice-President of the League of Women Voters, who read the following statement: "Regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Item 5a: The League of Women Voters is strongly opposed to the proposed amendment of Section 2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance requirement for two drainfield locations. As passed on December 10, the Zoning Ordinance recognized that an earlier ordinance requiring only one septic field was inadequalte for the protection of the health and well being of county residents. We understand that if the ordinance is left as it stands, owners of lots of record before December 10 will be required to apply for a variance and to appear beforie the Board of Zoning Appeals. Although it may not be possible for the Board ,of Zoning Appeals to deny approval of such a variance, it appears that there shlould be some mechanism ~besides the Health Department) for review of building~ plans in areas with a long history of drain- field failure. In some of these a.reas, the property owners have been waiting ten years for relief from failing drainfields. Perhaps the Board of Zoning Appeals is the proper place for s~ch a review. Item 5d: We would recommend that the notification to adjoining property owners continue to be sent by registered or certified mail. Since mail delivery is never totally reliable, some affected property owners might not receive their notices if first class mail were used. June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Item 5h: We feel that a church makes a considerable impact on a rural area. It contributes to traffic on sometimes less than adequate roads and, because public sewer and water may not be available, must make its own provisions for these matters. For these reasons we feel a church in a rural area should require a special permit. Item 5j: We would also like to state our opposition to a proposal to permit automobile repair shops as a use by right to a C-1 zone, since C-1 zones are adjacent to many residential zones." Next to speak was Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairperson of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. Mrs. Cromwell said she was concerned for the rights of the purchaser of a nonconforming lot. She said it was her feeling that the original owner has access to legal appeal, but any future owner would be subject to the regulations stated in the new zoning ordinance. Next to speak was Mrs. Kate Hamlet who said she helped get signatures for a petition to bring the sewer interceptor line to Crozet. She described several instances which she has witnessed of raw sewage on lawns or in ditches near residential areas because the septic systems in the area won't work properly. She said she has lived in Brookwood Subdivision for eight years and the septic field on her lot has already failed. Mrs. Hamlet said the Board must do everything in its power to help relieve Crozet of the problems of failing septic fields and sewage. Mrs. E. R. Remley of Crozet said there have been sewage disposal problems on her lot for years. She stated that she paid several hundred dollars to have professionals correct the septic system problems, but even those professionals would not make any guarantees of effectiw ness. Mrs. Remley said she has spoken to Congressman J. Kenneth Robinson in hopes of obtainin funding for the interceptor line, and that she was a signer of the petition referred to by Mrs. Hamlet. Mr. Roy Patterson said he hoped the Board would maintain some control over building on small lots, because he said many homeowners could overbuild on their land and take up septic system space by such things as a garage. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against these proposed zoning ordinance amendments and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John for his opinion on the consequences if the Board require that all existing lots be required to have two drainfield locations. Mr. St. John said such a law would be unenforceable because the Health Department will approve a lot with only one drainfield and the Zoning Administrator is presently declaring lots with only one drainfield as nonconforming and then granting a building permit. Mr. McCann said it is all right to attempt to solve potential problems for future lots, but he feels it is impossible to attempt to cure everything done incorrectly in the past. Mr. McCann said the problem is based in the Health Department, and that the Health Department should enact more stringent regulations regarding septic systems. Mr. Lindstrom said it is apparent that the proposed change will not get at those problem lots which only have space for one septic system, and offered motion to not amend this section of the zoning ordinance and to leave it as it presently reads. Mr. Tucker requested that the motion be revised to indicate that section 2.5 would be repealed and readopted as sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7. Mr. Lindstrom agreed to Mr. Tucker's suggestion, and amended his motion stating that section 2.5 be repealed; that the heading be changed to read AREA AND HEALTH REGULATIONS RELATED TO UTILITIES; that section 4.7.2 have the reference changed to read ~Vreference 4.1.7'~ and that sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 be adopted to read as follows: 4.1.6 For lots not served by a central sewer system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic disposal f~e~ds adequate to serve~'~such use. AYES: NAYS: 4.1.7 in a cluster development, open space may be used for septic field location only after the septic field locations on such lot are determined to be inadequate by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Zachetta, Lindstr0m and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. The next section for consideration was section 4.3 regarding drainage. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to leave this section as it presently reads in the zoning ordinance. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Debate ensued as to how this would affect farmers. It was the concensus that the proposed amendment would have the Zoning Administrator acting in a judicial role to solve disputes between neighbors over drainage problems. Roll was then called and the motion to leave section 4.3 as it presently reads, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. June 3~, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Regarding amendment number three to Section 4.6.3.1 with reference to front yard setback, Mr. Fisher questioned the use of the word parallel and asked how a parallel line would be used in the situation of a cul-de-sac. Dr. Iachetta suggested the replacement of the word parallel with the word perpendicular. Mr. Fisher stated he was not ready to act on this proposed amendment, and suggested this go back to the Planning Staff for rewriting of the language. .Motion to that effect was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. The fourth suggested zoning ordinance amendment was in regard to section 5.6.1.1(a) and section 32.3.2 regarding notification of adjacent property owners via first class mail rather than certified or registered mail. Mr. Tucker noted that this would save the County a substantial amount of money noting that the present postal rate for certified mail is $1.92 for a normal size letter. Mr. Fisher asked if the State is requiring this change to first class mail or only allowing this change. Mr. St. John said the State is simply allowing the use of first class mail; registered or certified mail can still be used if the Board so desires. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, that section 5.6.1.1(a) and section 32.3.2 be changed to read as follows: 5.6.1.1(a) By sending of a first class letter to the last known address of each adjacent property owner; and AYES: NAYS: 32.3.2 First sentence be changed to read: Notice of site development plan submission shall be sent by first class mail to the last known address of all owners of property adjacent to the development. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Suggested amendment number five regarding hospitals, nursing homes and convalescent homes was the next item under discussion. Dr. Iachetta offered motion that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be accepted and that #19 of Section 24.2.1 be deleted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. McCann said he felt these facilities should have a district where they could be constructed by right. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. On amendment number six to Section 5.7.1, regarding temporary mobile home provisions, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and amend Section 5.7.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to read as follows in the last sentence: 5.7.1 In any event, any such permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of issuance; provided, however, that the zoning admini- strator may, for good cause shown, extend the time of such expiration for not more than two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Amendment number seven to Section 30.3.5.1.1 regarding public utilities in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve this amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission. Miss Nash said she felt the language was very confusing and did not know why utilities would be allowed to do everything by right. Mr. Fisher suggested rearranging the sentence stating that possibly it would read more clearly. Mr. McCann said he would accept Mr. Fisher's suggestion and change his motion. Dr. Iachetta also agreed to accept that change. Miss Nash felt even with Mr. Fisher's suggested change that this section of the ordinance was still not clear. Mr. McCann then withdrew his motion stating that he would offer a new motion that this amendment be deferred until clearer language could be presented. Dr. Iachetta seconded the new motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None.- Amendment number eight regarding churches and adjunct cemeteries. Mr. Lindstorm offered motion to leave approval of churches and adjunct cemeteries by special use permit in the RA district. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. McCann said churches should be allowed in the RA district by right; in fact it is a mistake to require a special use permit for Churches anywhere in the County. Mr. Henley said he had no problem with allowing churches and adjunct cemeteries in the RA district by right, but said he would go along with the motion and hoped that when a request for such a special permit comes before the Board that the Board will be constructive in its comments and not just against all such applications. Dr. Iachetta June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) asked if the Board could be accused of religious discrimination because of requiring a special use permit. Mr. St. John said no, that most localities require some sort of special permit on churches because of the impact a church creates on a locality. Mr. St. John said the County could only be accused of religious discrimination if they denied a special permit on the grounds that the particular denomination was not desired in a certain location. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. AYES: NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in the appropriate sections in order that all residential areas where churches and adjunct cemeteries are presently permitted by right, be changed by special use permit only. FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is hereby directed to draft appropriate amendments to this ordinance, hold public hearings on said amendments, and return their recommendations to this Board at the earliest possible date. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Amendment number nine regarding the definition of "setback" and other pertinent~sections. Mr. Henley said the proposed amendment of section 4.6.3.3 has the same point of confusion as discussed earlier in section 4.6.3.1 in that the word "parallel" is very confusing. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer vote on this proposed amendment until the language is rewritten. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Next to be discussed was proposed amendment number 10 regarding automobile, truck repair shops as a use by right in the C-1 district. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. iachetta, to adopt the language as recommended by the Planning Commission as new section 22.2.1.b.22, Automobile, truck repair shop. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. The last section to be discussed was with regard to criteria six (amendment number eleven) of section 10.5.2.1 of the RA district. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopt the following amended wording: 10.5.2.1(6)(c) Within one-half mile of a Type I village or within one-half mile of the major crossroads of a Type II village as described in the comprehensive plan. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Amend Section 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Subdivision of Land) as follows: a) Placing various restrictions on the use of private roads; b) Section 18--301 in regard to frontage requirements; c) Section 18-19(d), Section 18-53(b) and Section 18-55(k) to make them consistent with the Code of Virginia. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 20 and May 27, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report on amendments to Section 18-36, Private roads: Under Section 18-36 (b)(3), make the following additions: (3) The fee of such road is to be owned by the owners of lots abutting the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to an easement for the benefit of all lots served by such roadl; and (4) Such subdivision shall not be located in the urban area or in any community or type I village as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; and (5) The average and minimum lot sizes in such subdivision shall comply With the recommendations of the Compreh'ensive Plan. June 3, 198t (Regular Night Meeting) Under Section 18-36, insert new section (bl) as follows: (bl) In addition to the foregoing, the Commission may approve a subdivision served by one or more private roads in which it shall determine that the same is in compliance with paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Subsection (b), but not in compliance with paragraphs (4) and/or (5) of Subsection (b), in any case in which the Commission shall determine that (1) the approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the construction of public roads;'(2) the approval of such roads would significantly contribute to the physical security of the residents of such subdivision; or (3) for a specific~ identifiable reason, the general public interest, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better served by the construction of such roads than,by the construction of public roads. In the case of any such approval, the Commission may require such assurances from the subdivider in a form acceptable to the county attorney as it may determine to be necessary to protect the public interest with respect to such roads. Under Section 18-36, make the following changes to TABLE I: Number of Lots 1-5 would remain the same as presently stated. Number of Lots 6-10 changes the "Depth of Base" from four to six inches and would now require ~rime and double seal or equivalent for surface treatment. Number of Lots 11-20 changes the "Depth of Base" from four to six inches and would require prime and double seal or equivalent for surface treatment. Number of Lots 21-35 would be eliminated. Number of Lots 36 or more would be changed to 21 or more~wit~ the wording under this category to remain the same. As a note following the chart, the following has been recommended: Private roads serving subdivisions of land which may be used for nonresidential and nonagricultural uses shall comply with the provisions of TABLE I except that a minimum CBR of subgrade of 10 shall be required and the depth of base and surface treatment shall be in accordance with the standards of the Virginia Depart- merit of Highways and Transportation for the most traffic-intensive uses to which such land may lawfully be devoted. Mr. Tucker noted that at ~its meeting of May 12, 1981, the P!annin~Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the above amendments. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one being present at the meeting, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said basically he is in agreement with the amendments as presented, but felt that state maintained roads can literally destroy a neighborhood because of the pavement width required. Mr. Lindstrom said he also disagreed with Section 18-36(b)(3). Mr. Fisher suggested that each item regarding private roads be discussed in the order as presented by Mr. Tucker, and asked if there were any Board comments on the addition of Section 18-36(b)(4). Dr. Iachetta commented that the definition of urban area, community and type I village as described in the Comprehensive Plan, did not all belong under this same category. Mr. Fisher agreed and asked for a consensus of 'the Board as to the wording preferred. Mr. Henley said he felt that the Type I Village category should be removed from Section 18-36(b)(4). Board members were in agreement with Mr. Henley and Mr. Fisher said the wording in this section would be changed to read "Such subdivision shall not be located in the urban area or in any community as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; and". Board members were all willing to accept the wording presented by Mr. Tucker regarding Section 18-36(b)(5) but suggested changing the words "and minimum lot size" to "density". The Board next discussed section 18-36(bl). Mr. Fisher stated that line four indicates that private roads can be built anywhere in the County under the three specific circumstances stated. Mr. Lindstrom asked about circumstance three. Mr. Tucker said the example the Planning Commission used was "an area bounded by state roads on either end, but the road ends at a property line, so the assumption is that sometime in the future you would have a through road between the two state roads. It is later determined that a private road will be construc in order to control traffic." Mr. Fisher said he knew of an instance where that was done in an industrial area, but he felt it was a mistake. Dr. Iachetta said that situation presently exists in Carrsbrook and Woodbrook. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the "exclusions" were needed. Mr. Lindstrom said he has a different view of a private road, adding that there are some areas where a private road will better preserve the atmosphere of a community than a state road. Mr. Lindstrom added that he felt there would be a real benefit to the addition of section 18-36(bl). Dr. Iachetta said the day is soon to come where it will be impossible for the private citizen to afford to maintain a private road. (At 11:30 P.M., Mr. McCann left the meeting) Dr. Iachetta said he felt there should be no exceptions and that roads should be required to be state maintained. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not want to tie the hands of future Boards, and felt there should be flexibility; he said he would support the section as proposed. Mr. Fisher said if the exceptions are not allowed in the urban area or communities, than none of this language is required. Mr. Lindstrom said people choose to live on private roads and that if it is an inconvenience to the public they can take another route. Mr. Lindstrom added that a developer will have to present a good deal of evidence to support his case for a private road, which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and he could not dune ~ ~o± ~egu±ar ~mgnv ~ee~lng~ see the Board requiring a total mandate for state roads. Dr. Iachetta said he would agree with Mr. Lindstrom if the Board will agree to a change in Table I under this section, for twenty-one or more lots served that these lots would be required to be state standard roads. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the followin ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 18-36(b) AND 18-36(c)(1) AND TO ADD A SECTION 18-36(b-1) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE, SAID SECTION BEING A PART OF CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sections 18-36(b) and 18-36(c)(1) of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted and a Section 18-36(b-1) be added to read as follows: Section 18-36. Private roads. (b) same. (1) same. (2) same. (3) The fee of such road is to be owned by the owners of lots abutting the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to an easement for the benefit of all lots served by such roads; and (4) Such subdivision shall not be located in the urban area or in any community as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; and (5) The average density in such subdivision shall comply with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. (b-l) In addition to the foregoing, the commission may approve a subdivision served by one or more private roads in which it shall determine that the same is in compliance with paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Section (b), but not in compliance with paragraphs (4) and/or (5) of Section (b), in any case in which the commission shall determine that (1) the approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the construction of public roads; (2) the approval of such roads would significantly contribute to the physical security of the residents of such subdivision; or (3) for a specific, identifiable reason, the general public interest, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better served by the construction of such roads than by the construction of public roads. In the case of any such approval, the commission may require such assurances from the subdivider in a form acceptable to the county attorney as it may determine to be necessary to protect the public interest with respect to such roads. (c) same. (1) same. TABLE I Residential/Agricultural Uses Only) Number Of Lots Served (Measured at inter- section nearest public street) Width Of Travelway Depth Of Base (Compacted crushed stone) Surface Treatment (except as otherwise expressly provided) 1 - 5 (Subject to County (Subject to Not required Engineer) County Engineer) 6 - 10 14 feet 6 inches 11 - 20 16 feet 6 inches Prime and double seal or equivalent Prime and double seal or equivalent NOTE: Private roads serving subdivisions of land which may be used for nonresidential and nonagricultural uses shall comply with the provisions of TABLE I except that a minimum CBR of subgrade of 10 shall be required and the depth of base and surface treatment shall be in accordance with the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for the most traffic-intensive uses to which such land may lawfully be devoted. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the ordinance as written above carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. McCann. June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 262 Regarding Section 18-30 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Mr. Tucker read the change as advertised: Section 18-30. Location. Every subdivision lot shall front on an existing public street, or a street dedicated by the subdivision plat and maintained or designed and built to be maintained by the state department of highways and transportation, except that private roads shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. The frontage on such street shall not be less than ~e~-w~A-~e~e~-a~-~e-~~-~e~ae~-~e that required by the zoning ordinance. This regulation may be reduced for frontage on cul-de-sacs. When a new subdivision abuts one side of an existing or platted street, the sub- divider shall dedicate at least half the right-of-way necessary to make such street comply with the minimum width fixed for the same by this chapter. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission had recommended against any change from the present wording. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against the advertised change, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and retain the present wording. (Note: Mr. McCann returned to the meeting at 11:40 P.M.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. Regarding Sections 18-19, 18-53 and 18-55(k), Mr. Tucker read the proposed wording and stated these changes would be strictly "housekeeping" measures. Add a new section under: Section 18-19. BOnding Requirements. (d) The provisions of this section shall be construed in accordance with Section 15.1-466(j) and (1) of the Code. Amend Section 18-53(b) to read: A decision on the final plat shall be rendered by the commission within ~$F-&$~e sixty days after the filing of the final plat. Amend Section 18-55(k) to read: Signature panels shall be provided ae-~ews+ (A~--~e~-Aa~-Ay&~-AR-~he-ee~-~-w&~A&~-e~e-m&Ae-e¢-~Ae ee~e~a~e-~&m&~e-e~-~Ae-~&~-e¢-~a~Ae~ee~&~e~ for the chairman of the county planning commission and the designated agent of the Board of Supervisors~-~A-ge~-~Ae-eAa&~m&~-&~ eee~e~-e~-~Ae-~A~e~e~e-~a~-ee~,~'...&ee~e~. ~--$e~-A&~&-A~&~-&~-~Ae-ee~-~$-me~e-$Aa~-e~e-~&Ae Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that these changes be adopted as presented. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present to speak either for or against these proposed amendments, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, ~to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopt the following ordinance: June 3, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) vote: AYES: NAYS: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND~REENACT SECTIONS 18-53(b) AND 18-55(k-1) AND TO ADD A SECTION !8-19(d) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE, SAID SECTIONS BEING A PART OF CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sections 18-53(b) and 18-55(k-1) of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted and a Section 18-19(d) be added to read as follows: Section 18-19. Bonding Requirements. (d) The provisions of this section shall be construed in accordance with Section 15.1-466(j) and (1) of the Code. Section 18-53. Generally. (b) A decision on the final plat shall be rendered by the commission within sixty days after the filing of the final plat. Section 18-55. Contents. (k) Signature panels shall be provided for the chairman of the county planning commission and the designated agent of the Board of Supervisors. Roll was called, and motion to adopt the above ordinance carried by the following recorde~ Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 11:42 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.