HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-14 adjMay 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
O3O
Agenda Item No. 25. Statement of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation
of the Regional Jail for the month of April, 1980 along with summary statement of prisoner
days and salary of the jail physician and paramedics, was presented. On motion by Mr.
Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, this statement was approved as presented. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 26. Reports of the Social Services Department for February and
March, 1980 were presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 27. Report of the County Executive for April, 1980, was presented
for the Board's information.
Claims against the County, which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of April,
1980, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia - Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Debt Service Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 24,713.37
609,074.82
1,555,506.64
89,113.02
70,737.33
101,775.89
193.36
2,966.66
5,155.15
173,176.60
12,452.13
131,775.50
$2,776,640.47
Agenda Item No. 28. Cancel July 2, 1980 Meeting. Mr. Fisher noted that this is a
regular meeting, and can only be cancelled by action of the Board. Motion to cancel the
July 2, 1980 meeting was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and .Mr. Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 29. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
following items, and requested they be placed in the record:
¢)
Mr. Fisher noted the
Notice from the Potomac Edison Company to the State Corporation Commission, to revise
its tariffs. Public hearing to be held on May 29, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. in Richmond.
Notice from the Appalachian Power Company to the State Corporation Commission for
Authority to Implement Residential Insulation Financing Program. Public Hearing will
be held on July 1, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. in Richmond.
Notice from the Appalachian Power Company to the State Corporation Commission for
Quarterly Fuel Cost Review Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-249.6. Comments
regarding this request must be received in the office of Document Control on or
before May 14, 1980.
Notice from the Virginia Electric and Power Company to the State Corporation Com-'
mission to revise its tariffs. Public Hearing will be held on June 9, 1980, at 10:00
A.M. in Richmond.
Communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts relating
to annual audits that must be filed no later than December 31, 1980. Mr. Agnor said
he was aware of the audit requirement, and has notified the necessary people in order
to meet that deadline.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission
announcing that grant application forms are available for 1981 Fiscal Year grants-in-
aid program. The letter noted that grant application forms must be submitted to the
Commission before June 15, 1980.
Mr. Agnor said the Board has been invited to ride in the Crozet Firemen's Parade on
Thursday, July 3, 1980, at 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Lindstrom said he received an invitation for Board members to take a canoe ride
down the Moorman's River with members of the Scenic Rivers Committee on June 14, 1980.
Mr. St. John, Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Henley indicated interest in going along with Mr.
Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 30. At 5:26 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a recess.
May 14, 1980 (Adjourned Night)
The meeting reconvened at 7:39 P.M. in the Jack Jouett School Cafetorium with a
moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 31. Public Hearing: Revised Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map.
(Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on May i and May 8, 1980.)
Mr. Fisher said the County adopted its first Zoning Ordinance in 1968, however, it
was not until 1970 that a Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Many people were shocked to
find that the Comprehensive Plan estimated a growth of between one-quarter and one-third
million people in Albemarle County before the end of this century. It is now felt that
those population projections were too high based on the State's planning efforts and the
history of'the past ten years. If the State planners are correct, the population has
grown by 16,000 people, an increase of 43%, and will grow by another 24,000 people in this
century. It is the sole responsibility of this county government to accommodate this
expected change by providing water, roads, sewage disposal, schools, libraries, fire
protectipn, and a number of other things. In the process of dealing with this change,
zoning ordinance revisions were started in 1972. This ordinance stayed with the Planning
Commission until 1975 when a series of public hearings were held throughout the county and
that ordinance was rejected, however, some concepts in that ordinance were extracted and
adopted and are a part of the existing ordinance.
In 1976, as required by State law, the Comprehensive Plan went through the revision
process. The major part of that plan was adopted in 1977. Consultants were then hired to
draft a new zoning ordinance so that the goals and objectives se~ forth in that plan could
be implemented. The consultants draft was released in November, 1978 and a public hearing
was scheduled in January, 1979 on their recommendations. Many citizens found fault with
what had been recommended so the Board asked that the Planning Commission carefully review
that proposal. The Planning Commission worked on the draft from January to December, 1979
taking comments from citizens and citizen groups during that time. In December, 1979 the
Planning Commission forwarded their recommendations on the ordinance and the map to this
Board. The Board of Supervisors held numerous public work sessions on the ordinance so
that citizens could ask questions in an informal setting about how this new ordinance
would affect their properties. The Board has now scheduled this public hearing. The
Board is trying to deal with private rights, public rights and public responsibility in
order to plan for the expenditure of public funds to accommodate the expected population
increase. Mr.'Fisher then introduced the Director of Planning, Mr. Robert Tucker.
Mr. Tucker made the following brief presentation of the provisions of the new ordin-
ance.
Two rural areas have been recommended. First is a conservation district which is
baSically located on publicly owned lands and allows a density of one dwelling unit per
five acres. The second is the rural areas district which encompasses about 80% of the
County. This district provides for several different densities and allows by right the
division of 20 lots with the first five lots having a density of one dwelling unit per two
acres and the remaining lots having a density of one dwelling unit per five acres with
mandatory clustering. Division of more than 20 lots requires approval of a special use
permit based on seven criteria which are set out in the ordinance.
The growth area districts include the villages, communities and the urban area. The
Village residential district allows one dwelling unit per one acre. Ail of the villages
have a density of one dwelling unit per two acres which is an increase in density around
designated villages. Within the communities and the urban area there are many different
densities. Two residential design concepts are carried forward from the current ordinance
into this revision. One of those concepts is the ~RD, similar to an RPN, which allows for
flexibility in design, clustering on smaller lots, and open space. Also provided is the
PUD which allows for all three land uses in one development. The theory behind this
concept is to provide a self-sufficient community.
The ordinance provides four commercial districts. C-1 provides for central business
district type uses and convenience stores. Commercial Office (CO) is for office uses.
Highway Commercial (HC) is for highway-oriented uses; takes the place of most B-1 uses in
the present ordinance. The Planning Commission realizes the impact that a shopping center
has on an area and ~knows that such uses require extra review, therefore has included a
planned development-shopping center district.
There are three industrial districts; light industry (LI) replaces the M-1 for uses
which do not have a nuisance factor; heavy industry (HI)replaces the M-2 where nuisance
factors are involved; and planned development-industrial park replaces the PID in the
current ordinance.
Several overlay districts are also provided; airport impact which regulates the
height of structures and noise standards around the airport; flood hazard Provides addi-
tional requirements to prohibit development without review of areas in the flood plain;
natural resources for extraction of natural resources.
There are three new development concepts in the proposed ordinance. Bonus factors
are provided for in the growth areas. This means that if a developer owns property zoned
,R-4, he might be able to get six dwelling units per acre by meeting certain objectives in
the Comprehensive Plan. In the proposed ordinance, cluster development is provided bY
right in all residential districts, but cluster development is mandatory only in the RA
district. There was one provision which was very controversial, that of critical slopes.
The purpose of this section was to insure that every lot had a building site outside of
any 25% slope area. The purpose of this provision was to reduce the ~amount of soil
erosion during development to protect streams and watersheds. Mr. Tucker said these are
the major items in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Fisher said a number of people have written letters about the ordinance and the
Board has been furnished copies of those letters. He then opened the public hearing.
May 14, 1980 (Adjourned Night)
Mr. Gil Roy said he feels that most of the holes in the ordinance have been plugged
and people can live with this ordinance. Although many people have called the ordinance.
"no-growth" he has seen what has happened without planning and foresight; such as Route 29
North. Some people who have argued against restraints would build on the banks of the
reservoir. Unless the public drinking,water is protected, we will leave our children with
taxes out of control to cover the mistakes we have made. Mr. Roy said he is in favor of
growth if it is planned and controlled. He is in favor of this ordinance because he feels
it is as close as we can come to implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Darryl Ferguson was present to represent the Greater Charlottesville Area
Development Corporation. He said this group is dedicated to ~¢hieving a balance between
preservation of the environment and balanced economic growth. These two goals do not have
to contradict. The Board is aware of the importance and necessity of industrial development
in terms of providing employment and increasing the tax base of the county. At present,
the County has 17% fewer employees in manufacturing jobs than are called for in the
Comprehensive Plan. In order to attract and locate desirable industry, three things are
required: I) an inventory of properly zoned sites; 2) sites with acceptable site charac-
teristics; and 3) competitive prices. The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges this. At
present the County has only about 2,700 acres, less than 2/10th of one percent of the
County's total area, zoned for industry. This lack of available sites, coupled with the
added burden that many of these sites are inadequate for industrial development, leaves
the area with few worthwhile sites to show industrial prospects. The Development Corpor-
ation has found in its experience in escorting industrial prospects around the County that
between 50% and 70% of the presently zoned industrial sites are undevelopable. The
properties are too hilly, have a high degree of slope, or lay in low areas that are
subject to flooding. Although the Development Corporation agrees with the County's
objectives, they do not believe the Comprehensive Plan provides for a sufficient amount of
industrial land. Because of this, the Development Corporation recommends that the Compre~
hensive Plan be returned to the Planning Department to challenge this one point, in other
words, how many acres do you need to get you to the objective you have set. Mr. Fisher
invited Mr. Ferguson to review the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments which
now show about 590 acres of industrial zoning in the Hollymead area and 100 acres in the
Crozet and Scottsville areas. Mr. Ferguson said this still does not get the County to an
employment level of 35%. Mr. Fisher said the County does not intend to meet the 1995
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in 1980.
Mr. George McCallum, representing the Albemarle County Property Owners Association,
said the Association would support the ordinance except for two major concepts - spot
downzoning, primarily in the urban area and the rural areas, and the Rural Areas District.
He said the County takes money from the individual property owner when his rights to use
his land becomes less intense. The Rural Areas district caused the most problems for the
Planning Commission. It seems that they spent about 50% of their time on that provision.
What was finally forwarded to the Board passed by a vote of three in favor, two against,
one abstention, .with~three members absent. If you look at the County from the air, the
development which has occurred in the current A-1 zone is strip development. The Assoc-
iation is sensitive to this and feels that growth should occur on interior lands~ The
proposed ordinance should do something to discourage strip development, but the Associa-
tion is against the "gun to the head" argument such as when an RPN plan is presented and
the Board would like to modify that plan, the applicant says "look what I can do by right
if you don't approve this plan." Mr. McCallum said he is sensitive to the Board's desire
to consider a plan on its merits. With two exceptions, the Association feels that the
existing A-1 zone is fine. The Association realizes that energy for transportation,
utilities and the availability of land in the growth areas will determine how much land is
developed. Although the Association feels that strip development should be discouraged,
it also feels that what is proposed is far too restrictive. The Association would like to
offer a compromise, which if not satisfactory to all, they hope will be acceptable to all.
The proposal is - to discourage strip development, require a minimum road frontage of 400
feet on existing public roads, with five acre lots; allow subdivisions on newly developed
roads on two-acre lots. While it is distasteful, the Association proposes twenty, two-
acre lots by right, and all divisions above that number should be allowed only through
approval of a special use permit. The Association is unalterably opposed to mandatory
clustering because they feel mandatory clustering will create a no-man's land. It leaves
unproductive green space. Also, the Association sees no reason to have a limit on 10 acre
division and therefore suggests that the Subdivision Ordinance be amended to allow 10 acre
divisions by right. Mr. McCallum said there are people on all sides of this issue, but he
hopes the Board will strive for a compromise so life and business can go on and everybody
can stay out of the courts.
Mrs. Darlene Samsell said that every attempt by the elected officials to regulate.
growth is met by vociferous opposition of special interest groups. We no longer live mn
the horse-and-buggy age and cannot live in the age of the bulldozer and automobile using
horse-and-buggy rules. The land was here before we were born and will still be here when
we die. Ail we-really have is the right to use it. We can~use it ~isely or we can use it
unwisely. Mrs. Samsell said she does not think anyone present really believes that the
wisest use of land is to allow houses on every square inch, and the proposed zoning
ordinance is not half strong enough to prevent this from happening.
Mr. Thomas Leitch, President-Elect of tha Charlottesville/Albemarle County~Chamber of
Commerce, said in May, 1979, the Chamber asked the Board to give the best possible notice
to affected property owners concerning any rezoning proposals. While the recent meetings
at various schools were helpful, the Chamber still feels that notification to individual
property owners is necessary. Recently, the Chamb.er learned of a lady ~who did not realize
that under this zoning proposal, she would be precluded from willing her eight aores of
land to be divided among her children for ho.me sites .whe.n she was gone. The Chamber is
against downzoning of property as a way of controlling growth. To do this as proposed is
inequitable to those owners who may have acquired and planned for the use of their pro-
perty in accordance with current zoning. Although the Chamber shares the Board's concern
about proper land use, it feels that the large lot residential development proposed will
use up land in an inequitable manner and at a faster rate than under current zoning. To
adopt large lot residential development throughout the rural areas of the County would be
an injustice and may discriminate against those people who are not wealthy, but who may
have land as their only significant asset. Mr. Leitch said the Chamber is opposed to the
May 14~ 1980 (Adj. ourned Night)
two following concepts: 1) the downzoning of individual parcels of land, particularly in
the urban area; and 2) the Severe restrictions placed on development of lands within the
rural areas district. Therefore, the Chamber suggests that the Board send the zoning
proposal back to the Planning Commission with instructions to prepare proposals that will
meet these two objections; and also that the County send notices of the proposed changes
in the law to all affected citizens.
Mr. Benton Patterson said he owns land described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 22 at the
~ntersection of Routes 631 and 743. He is opposed to the zoning ordinance where down-
zoning is advocated. It is the government's encroachment on a citizens' rights to use his
property. Any plan whereby a property.owner can be stripped of his constitutional rights
is wrong and should be rejected. The right of the individual to own land, to .cultivate or
develop that land, has been handed down from generation to generation and is a right the
local government should protect.
Mr. Ray Reiss said he has owned a farm in the Scott~ville Districtlfor 'eleven years
and has been a resident of Albemarle County for five years. He lends his support to the
zoning ordinance as an attempt to control the environment and growth while providing for
growth. He has lived in a .northeastern area of the country and has seen what uncontrolled
growth can do to the lifestyle of the citizens.~ He £eels that Albemarle County has one of
the finest environments in the country and feels that this proposal will help it to remain
Mr. D. A. Holden was present to speak for the Montvue Citizens Association. He said
the Association is concerned with reservoir protection and would like to call the Board's
attention to the western part of Neighborhood No. 7 which lies wholly within the South
Fork Rivanna watershed. The Planning Commission shows an R-1 density (one acre lots) for
this part of Neighborhood No. 7. This needs to be corrected to match the Board's actions
on April 9th when adopting the revised Comprehensive Plan. Action taken by the Board that
night designated this area as RA. The Association commends the Board for that action and
requests that the map be corrected to reflect same.
Mrs. Babs Huckle was present to represent the League of Women Voters. Mrs. Huckle
said everyone resents being told what to do and may look back to the good old days, but
reasonable people realize that the population of today cannot live as in the past. Now
that people live in close proximity to one another, it is necessary to have rules and a
plan for orderly growth or a small minority of the population will affect the lives of the
rest of the population. A lot is heard about the rights of landowners to use their land
to their own best advantage, but what about the right of a purchaser of a home in a County
subdivision to have drinking water and a safe wastewater disposal system. What happens if
the traffic from even one of these 20 lot subdivisions changes a county road from tolerable
to non-tolerable. Mrs. Huckle said that anything that endangers the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir endangers the whole structure of Albemarle Cmunty. Additional development in
the watershed will only speed up the damage to the impoundment. When the water supply
becomes insufficient, who will have the right to replace it. If new industry and business
is to locate in the County, there must be an adequate water supply. When the new zoning
ordinance is examined, it is evident that rather than depriving anyone of his rights, it
is really an instrument which allows the County to plan for future growth in a way that
will insure the rights of all its citizens. Mrs. Huckle said that while the League of
Women Voters does not think this ordinance is perfect, it feels it is an improvement over
the present ordinance. The League would support the passage of an ordinance which fully
implements the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The League urges the passage of such an
ordinance as a safeguard to the rights and investments of all the County's residents.
Mr. Paul M. Peatross, Jr. was present to speak for 116 residents of the Greenwood/Afton
area. He said that in 1978 he appeared before this Board in opposition to a development
plan for Blue Ridge Farm. He is present tonight on behalf of those same people to voice
support of a zoning ordinance in light of the same concerns raised in 1978, namely the
question of inadequate roads and water. The proposed zoning ordinance deals with pro-
tection that the residents of this area deem necessary to control growth. Mr. Peatross
said he had no particular comments on the Rural Areas district as proposed, but he would
not object to limiting divisions by right to ten lots instead of 20. He also has no
specific objection to Mr. McCallum's proposal for internal roads, but that costs money.
Mrs. Peggy Brooks spoke in support of the ordinance. She said editorials in the
Daily Progress have said that this is a no-growth ordinance and will drive low and moderate
income people out of the County. She does not agree, but feels that it will drive them
closer to Charlottesville and Crozet. She encouraged the Board to pass the ordinance
because she feels it looks to the future.
Mr. Cecil Maupin from Free Union said most of the people speaking do not have a large
amount of land that this ordinance will affect, but it will affect him. He said the
ordinance takes away a lot of the citizens wealth because it will reduce competition when
selling property. He feels the ordinance is wrong, and if a property owner builds up the
land, that owner should have some rights.
Mr. Mike VanYahres quoted from a Daily Progress article which said that individual
initiative will be undermined by increasing regulations. Mr. VanYahres said it is the
ever increasing inflexibility of economic restraints that promote standardized building
and development whereas regulations advance quality standards. It is creativity and not
more money that forward housing for the poor. He feels the proposed ordinance will foster
growth because prospective buyers will know that their investments are protected. Mr.
VanYahres said the County has excellent forest land and it seems a shame to parcel the
land off and lose it forever. He feels that people are the best asset in Albemarle and
the soil is the next.
Mr. Bob Merrill from western Albemarle County said he is against farm land being
covered up with houses, but he does not think this ordinance will work because it is being
forced down the throats of the citizens. He recommended that instead of adopting this
ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance be revised so that the developer would have to find
water and build roads before building houses. He said if people want to live in a small
house in the country, let them do it, and not crowed them into an urbanized area.
May ±~, 19~0 (Adjourned Night)
Dr. Wellons said he has been a citizen of Albemarle County for eleven years. He owns
a farm so he has a distinct interest in the RA district which he believes is bad for the
following reasons: 1) it discriminates against large landowners; 2) it encourages main-
tenance of large land holdings and will make it difficult for all but the wealthy to have
a farm; 3) the five-acre subdivision provision is bad land use; 4) farm boundaries shift
over the years as farmers buy and sell and this ordinance will shift the rights of owners
to do this in the future. Dr. Wellons said he is not against the control of development,
but is against this particular ordinance. What happens if a person wants to divide his
land among his heirs? This is too important of a decision for vote by a small political
body and this question should be subject to a public referendum.
Mr. Bill White from Crozet said he does not believe that Albemarle County has the
best farm land; this is not really an agricultural area. Therefore, he does not know why
the Board is trying to preserve farm land. He does not feel that the farmers have asked
for this~preservation. He said if a person wants to raise hogs, he will have to obtain a
special use permit and this is wrong. There are too many government regulations all
together.
Mr. James Murray said he voted for the legislation that requires comprehensive planning
in every locality because he believes this planning makes the most economical and efficient
use of public funds. He expressed the best wishes from Richmond for the work the Board
has done in coping with the Secondary Highway budget.
Mrs. Gay Blair said she lives on Georgetown Road adjoining the Lee family property.
Except for the two residences, these two properties are undeveloped. However, on 01d
Forge Road there is currently an R-1 designation, Georgetown Green is developed as R-3,
and to the north on Georgetown Road there is R-3. In this obvious urban area, RA zoning
would take away present rights and constitute extensive downzoning in an already urban
neighborhood. This is unrealistic.
Mr. Preston Stallings said he is opposed to the zoning ordinance, the 25% slope
provisions, the 20-lot subdivisions, the downzoning of land and the five-acre lot restric-
tions. The County already has sufficient regulations to strangle the average person.
More rules just tend to drive up the cosy of homes. He asked that the Board use restraint
to control the ordinance or do away with it altogether.
Mr. Roy Patterson was present to speak for Citizens for Albemarle. He said that the
ground water supply is finite and sooner or later it will run out and it will cost a
fortune to provide water to scattered rural developments. Roads wiZ1 cost more. Sewers
will eventually be needed. Schools and all public services will cost more. Th'e most
economical way to accommodate the expected population and business growth is to-direct it
toward growth centers. That is what the proposed zoning ordinance is trying to achieve.
He urged the Board to support the proposed ordinance with the various improvements recom-
mended by Citizens for Albemarle and noted in previous correspondence.
Mr. Bill Stevens said his biggest concern about the ordinance is the~ limitation of
20-lot subdivisions regardless of the size of the original parcel. There are few citizens
in the County who have 500 or more acres, but he feels it is an injustice to apply the
same stipulation to larger parcels. He recommended further study and adjustments to the
ordinance.
Mr. William C. Gentry was present to represent the Charlott'esville-Albemarle Board of
Realtors. He said there has been talk of downzoning for six or more years and that issue
is still foremost in the minds of most people. There is little that can be said to change
the views of anyone presenv tonight, since most people have already made up their minds.
Since there are only about 300 people present tonight, he is concerned that a great number
of people who will be affected by this ordinance are not present. He was concerned that
this ordinance will increase the tax base. He found fault with the RA zone because it
proposes to downzone land without compensation. Mr. Gentry said he thinkS that people who
will suffer loss through any down zoning should be compensated and notice should be given
to all citizens of these proposed changes. He asked that the Board consider that they are
taking from people who do not want to have something taken from them.
Mr. David Cart said it seems to be a fact that the people who always support an
ordinance of this type live on developed land, but those small lots had to come from a
large parcel at one time. Mr. Carr said he had pointed out to the Planning Commission
that most of the farms that the County is trying to save are not productive as farms, but
many are only showplaces. Also, after reading the ordinance, it appears that he could not
leave his land to his children unless a special permit were obtained to divide the land
among them. Mr. Cart said it is not right, or good, or practical, to put all land uSe
decisions in the political arena. Land use decisions should be made by planners. The
special permit provisions and the revoking of land uses by right in this ordinance exceed
all reason. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not a law.
Mr. Carr said he believes the Planning Commission attempted to listen to the citizens in~
their work on the ordinance, but he believes that some members were in no mood to listen
to public comments since the vote was 3/2/1/3. He said the issue before the Board is
greater than zoning. This ordinance, if passed today, would take absolute control of his
one possession other than his family, and that is his property' He said it is unnecessary.
The ordinance goes too far ....
Ms. Helen Owen said she is the proto-type that Mr. Carr was speaking about, but~what~
he did not mention is what has happened to other beautiful parts of the country where
there was not proper zoning in place. She felt that anyone who loves Albemarle County
would rush to get proper zoning. Without proper zoinng, the people are vulnerable to
anyone who wants to buy land for speculation. Ms. Welch said she is all f0r the ordinance.
Mrs. Jane Hayward said she lives on a 300 acre farm close to Bellair and she is in
favor of the ordinance. She asked why a lot of the suggestions being~made tonight have
not gotten to the Board before this time.
Mr. David J. Wood was present to speak about two properties. First was the property
of Meredith Bickers at the southeast intersection of 1-64 and Route 250 East. Mr. Bickers
has owned the property for 20 years and the property is currently zoned B-1. The other
quadrants of this interchange retain their commercial zoning under the proposed ordinance,
May 14,1980 (Adjourned Night)
but Mr. Bickers' property would be changed to RA. He has been negotiating with people for
a number of years to develop this property and the RA zone would be a depreciation of
value. Second is the property of Stone Farm to the south of Ash Lawn. Acreage is about
3000. Under the proposed ordinance, the owner of this farm would have the right to develop
19 lots in five acre lots and the twentieth lot would be the residue. This is not right
and this property is not the only large tract of land in Albemarle County. Mr. Wood said
the greatest injustice in the ordinance is the downzoning of commercial properties and the
20 lot provision in the RA district.
Mr. Clifton McClure said his pet peeve is that at. every meeting there are people
present who just arrived in Albemarle County from Maryland or New Jersey. He said his
objections to the ordinance are the same as others heard tonight; downzoning in the urban
areas and the special permit aspects in the RA district. He said he does not feel the
Board will find a compelling reason in most cases to change the zoning on a piece of
property. This puts a hardship on an individual. The law of Virginia says that in
adopting a zoning ordinance, the Board should strike a deliberate balance between private
property rights and the public interest. Also, carefuI consideration should be given to
conservation of land and its value. He asked that the Board members assure themselves
that these tests have been met, because if they have not been, the Board will be tested.
Mr. Bob Youngden said in the final analysis the Board has to consider that it is
modifying what are thought to be constitutional rights, while at the same time seeking a
balance for the overall good of the people. Some people speaking tonight have expressed
frustration because they will not be able to get the maximum value from land they have
bought or inherited, but they will not be deprived of the ownership of the land, so the
value still remains. The greatest good can be served through an ordinance similar to the
one proposed and he lends his support to the ordinance.
Ms. Michele Mattiolo spoke in favor of an ordinance which is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. People who respect the rural lands will be protected by this zoning
ordinance. People who need income, or want to give land to a family member, still have
the right to cut off a parcel. People who make a living developing the land still are
allowed to do that. Miss Mattiolo said everyone needs to look to the future because there
are limited resources and increasing pressures all the time. Everyone needs to make a
conscious decision about the way the remaining resources are used and she feels that this
is what an ordinance of this type will do.
Col. William Washington, Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, said
that twice tonight the vote of the Planning Commission was stated incorrectly. The vote
of the C~mmission was not 3/2/3. The split was a fundamental split, and on the rural
areas was more like 6/3 or 7/2. The compromise finally adopted by the Commission would
probably have been different if two members had not been absent that night; those members
would have wanted a more restrictive ordinance.
Mr. F. Bradley Peyton, IV was present to speak for himself and his family's interests.
He felt it is Hmportant to implement the Comprehensive Plan. HiS family has some concern
about limiting private property rights and about passing land through the years to family
members, but he feels that the Commission and Board are trying to obtain a balance between
economic and environmental concerns. Mr. Peyton said he has some problems with the zoning
ordinance as proposed, but in general does support the ordinance.
Mr. Bob Johnson recommended approval of the ordinance as written. It is a compromise
and there are certain things about it that he does not like, but he feels it is necessary
to settle on some ordinance. Mr. Johnson said he has been a resident of Albemarle County
for eleven years; moving here from Long Island which at that time was also farm land. The
people there thought they were too far from New York City to need zoning, but a recent
visit showed him that they were not that far away. The developers came in and now the
people have nothing but headaches.
Mr. Leigh Middleditch was present to represent Mrs. Jane Ewald and her Tandem pro-
perty. He said this 220 acres is currently zoned RTM and under the proposed ordinance
will be downzoned to RA. The proposed downzoning has a marked effect on the value of the
property in light of Mr. Ewald's death in December, 1979. The property was owned jointly
with his wife and Mrs. Ewald is the sole record owner of the property. Under Federal
es~a~e laws, the property must be valued with respect to its use under the existing zoning
as of the date of Mr. Ewald's death or six months thereafter. Mr. Middleditch said he
finds the downzoning unfair in light of Mr. Ewald's efforts to do what was right for
development of the property. Mr. Ewald had studies made by professionals as to topography,
geography, a water supply on the site with extension to the public water supply at some
time in the future, wastewater disposal, storm drainage, power sources, roads and traffic,
labor and transportation, and he had maps and overlays prepared. Mr. Ewald had an idea of
having a research and development facility that would be compatible with the University's
research efforts, but conducted by private enterprise. Mr. Middleditch said Mrs. Ewald
desires to work with the County's staff on an acceptable site plan for the RTM designation
and he asked that the Board preserve the opportunity for the property to be developed in
accordance with current zoning laws.
Mr. Bedford Moore said he supports the ordinance to the extent that it reflect~s the
Comprehensive Plan and to the extent that it does not, it should be fixed so it does. He
feels the RA zone can be improved and the conservation zone extended to protect the reservoir
and watershed in some way.
Mr. Tim Michel, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, said they have
followed the processes and deliberations on this ordinance and would like to congratulate
the Board for a long hard job. The ordinance is a compromise and may not be the best
ordinance for any single group, but it is time to act on an ordinance.
Mr. J. T. Camblos said he is an attorney but is not present to represent anybody, and
he personally has no land that will be affected by the RA zone, but he has strong feelings
about same. He said that many years ago when it was planned that 1-64 would come through
the County, a large group formed and fought that plan. A member of that group spoke
tonight. That same member spoke when it was requested that the General Electric site (now
owned by Mrs. Ewald) be rezoned to RTM. In speaking against the rezoning of that tract,
this person argued that the view crossing Ragged Mountain on 1-64 was so beautiful that no
May 14, 1980 (Adjourned Night)
industry should be in sight. Mr. Camblos said He has a small piece of land in the County
and his neighbor owns a large parcel. His neighbor has spoken to him about developing the
land along the boundaries between these two parcels. Mr. Camblos said if his neighbor
wants to develop, he feels that is his neighbor's business It is his land and he can do
with it what he wants to under the law. Mr. Camblos said there is a group of people being
totally ignored here tonight. Nobody can argue against the well-established principal of
economics that if you cut down on supplies, prices will go up. Nobody has mentioned~ the
person living in an apartment who will not be able to build in Albemarle County because
prices will be too high. People who bought land under previous zoning bought certain
rights with that land and Mr. Camblos felt that those rights should be preserved. Mr.
Camblos said the ordinance really does not affect him and he is not concerned for himself,
but he thinks there are too many regulations, too much government, and this downzoning
should be turned down.
Mr. John Rogan said he is smarting under the government regulations in Albemarle
County. Mr. Rogan said he has a financial interest and assumes that because of his
interest in the Boar's Head Inn and other things, he is considered one of the top taxpayers
in the County. He does not want more voice in County affairs, but would like for somebody
to listen to him. When his land is downzoned, it will mean a tremendous financial loss.
Of particular concern is his right to develop a piece of property. He said that in
developing Ednam Forest, he was allowed to bring the water line out from the City at his
own expense and now when he wants to tap on a second meter, he is told that he can't get a
certificate of occupancy unless he pays another $6000. He is told to be careful about
sewage disposal. The sewer line does not come into this area but the moment the service
is available he has agreed to tap on. The growth of the County over the last 40 years has
been considerable. The people who love it today probably would not have loved it if they
had seen the galls, gulleys, broom sage, stones and cedars in the fields 40 years ago.
There would not be an airport in the County if there had not been progress and commercial
development. There were a lot of commercial and industrial prospects who were not allowed
to come into this county in the past, and now the Board is trying to stop them all. The
County will be hurt if the Board allows more regulation. It is not right and it is not
fair. Mr. Rogan said the Comprehensive Plan may not be a law but it is referred to as the
Holy Bible by which we live. He asked that the Board members think about some of the
concerned citizens who have spoken.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin was present to represent the Blue'Ridge Home Builders Association
which has about 160 members. The Association does not feel that the proposed ordinance,
in its present form, will accommodate the goals as expected. The Assoc±ation supports an
ordinance that~prov±des for the individual rights of landowners, although not at the
expense of their neighbors, and an ordinance that provides an adequate amount of parcels
zoned properly to meet housing needs. If the Board severely restricts the amount of land
that will be available for housing, it will drive up the cost of the land. The AsSociation
could support an ordinance that lessens the bureaucratic approval procedures by setting
forth what can be done by right and by not having to come to the Board with "hat in hand".
The cost of this enlongated approval process is passed on to the homeowner and it should
not be. The Association also endorses the recommendations of the Albemarle Property
Owners Association on the rural areas and the Greater Charlottesville Area DeVelopment
CorPoration suggestion that the amount of usable industrial land be increased. Mr. Rotgin
said the Association would like to see the Board come up with a committment to a utility
policy that will allow for extension of water and sewer lines into areas'designated as
growth areas. Mr. Rotgin asked that the Board study the 25% slope portion of the ordinance.
He said that present day building techniques and the protection provided under the Runoff
Control Ordinance provide adequate protection if a slope exceeds 25%. Mr. Rotgin said the
Association has an interest in this ordinance, and it feels this is a challenge to the
Board to arrive at a happy medium with compromises on both sides. Maybe in that way,
although everybody may not be happy, the ordinance will be accepted.
Mr. Edward Foss said although people may be the most important natural resource, only
the land will remain. He would like to think that someone living in Albemarle County 200
years from now will have the same possibilities for existence that he does at this time.
Ms. Susanne Grove-said she is concerned about the "big brother" aspect of the ordinance
and what is perceived to be a lack of concern for the market. She feels it is unproductive,
unfair, and undemocratic from an economic standpoint to tell people where they must live.
The villages and communitities have good attributes, but not everyone wants, to be herded
into these areas. Clustering does not satisfy the needs for space. She asked that the
Board consider the marketplace and th~ desires of the homeowners who are relocating, and
reminded the Board of the dangers of the 1984 syndrome.
Mr. William Woodworth said he is a rural landowner. He believes in the democratic
principles of individual initiative, freedom of choice, freedom from government regulation,
and the rights of the property owner to do with his property what is in his best interest.
However, we must be careful about our resources and plan carefully for the future. This
proposed zoning ordinance is a good example of local government exercising its authority
in the public interest. Some of the comments made appear to be short-sighted, narrow-
minded, selfish and greedy as though the land were a commodity to buy and sell. Land is
not a commodity but a fundamental natural resource upon which all forms of life on earth
depend. What is done with a piece of land concerns not only the present occupant, but the
community as a whole, and the future residents of an area. This Board has no obligation
to a landowner to guarantee the money value of his land when he wants to sell it. The
Board does have an obligation to serve the public interest and protect the well-being of
the community both now and in the future. Also, it is necessary to keep the good agri-
cultural land available for future production. It is not just a question of farming, but
one of the survival of the residents of this county from the year 2000 onward. Mr. Woodward
recommended that the Board reestablish the best agricultural soils overlay. He also
suggested as ways of keeping farmers on their'land: transferrable development rights, tax
relief in various forms, low interest loans for all phases of farming, and perhaps even a
prohibition on using good agricultural land for any Purpose other than agricultural. He
urged that the Board be bold and courageous in pursuing this problem and the Board be
willing to test the limits of its authority, in the courts if necessary.
O37
Ma 14 1 8_ ' 0 .Ad'o_urned Ni.ht: ~
Mr. Frank Kessler said this is a new ball game and the ball park is not ready. There
are a lot of things in the ordinance that he supports, but he does not support the Rural
Areas district as proposed. He said the key to implementation of this ordinance are the
utilities. If utilities are not provided, a developer will take 100 acres, divide it into
20 lots of five acres each, cluster the houses, leave the balance of the land open, and
move on. He feels this will create many 20 lot subdivisions scattered around the county
instead of the 100 lot subdivisions of today, and this is objectionable.
With no other person rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher
announced that the Board has scheduled two or three work sessions and these sessions are
open for the public to listen, but comments will not be taken.
Agenda Item No. 32~ At 11:03 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by
Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn this meeting until May 21, 1980, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room
of the County Office building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Lindstrom, and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudaubsh.
Messrs.
Fisher,
Henley,
Iachetta,
None.
chairman